Hi Pentagon. (An article in stylish “letter outfit”, under construction.) – Topic WikiLeaks, Nr. 4 – UPDATE. reactions to smear campaign started Aug 21st 2010 – UPDATE: CIA paper release announced for wednesday, aug 25th 2010 – incl. first media reactions to RED CELL paper release

(wn030. since letters seem to be quite up to date nowadays, as we  have to assume, reminding of the last lines in the linked complement – we’re happy to join the funky trend and add ours in a  stylish letter-like outfit too, now. ) – UPDATE – first web reactions to smear campaign started by Pentagon-  Aug 21st 2010 – THE ARREST  WARRANT WITHDRAWAL INFORMATION WAS AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC SINCE 5:45 pm GMT+1 central european time (update linking to: CNN/AP/Reuters/BBC and quite-a-some other). – UPDATE: CIA paper release announced for wednesday, 25th 2010 – UPDATE: first reactions to CIA red cell memo release

.

General Council of the Department of Defense

1600 Defense Pentagon

Washington D.C. 20301-1600

.

.

Re: WikiLeaks, your letter stamped with the date aug 16th.

.

Hi Pentagon.

nice to read your funny last letter after a full set of quite good jokes – respect for this, seriously – jokes we will definitely not be able to stop laughing about that soon, to be honest. You seem to have missed some pages online in the last weeks at least, and some tons of article replies  to your official statements – we understand, you’re busy, but reading newspapers from time to time could be maby a good idea, even for pentagonpips, if you allow us to mention. So let us please repeat some of the main points  – points you might have missed – in this few lines.

.

Re your first line. We understand that you represent yourself as the lawyer-background voice of the pip who’s packing his box in this moment and who we wish a soon and relaxing retirement time, we stress the word soon in this sentence. Indeed, you seem to have been contacted regarding the “some 15.000” docs, still missing parts of the Afghan War Diary. In this your sentence opening the letter, you call these documents classified. Listen, we have some questions about this. If you take a look at e.g. the “Collateral Murder” video (the video your military structure had so many problems to find for quite a long time, isn’t it?) and take a look at some seconds of this video. Let’s take, for example, the shooting at an obviously seriously injured person at the ground, trying to rescue himself from your killers – or let’s take the second with the “bastards” sentence… would you call the documents (and yes, we are in fact talking about digital ones, docs) as classified as this video?

.

For a time longer now than two presidental periods in office, your country got used to the thought it’s not bound to any other legal bounds than your own private definitions. You call a doc revealing a war crime a “classified” doc and expect the rest of the globe will see a yellow color when looking at the sky, just because you defined it as yellow, out of your  fun of it? Ever developped the idea in your mind that aside of you at your pentagon desk there, the secretary, and of course those  interesting congress con clowns, aside of those few  – there might be quite some pips on this globe, on more than one continent only, seeing still a blue color when looking up and seeing still a war crime, how ‘classified’ ever you wished to cover it?

.

Let’s take a look at some next parts of this convincing piece of paper of yours. (article under construction. to be continued soon. next paragraphs: about “demanding back” a digital doc. a short training in digital era basics and clarification of ridiculousness of “demanding a doc back”. to be followed by a paragraph about calling a pure and simple publication announcement a “threat” – incl. short clarification to remind pentagon how to differentiate between those both.)

.

You end your impressive opening sentence with claiming, WikiLeaks is “holding” documents and “threatening” to make them public. May we please remind you that “threatening” in this context is an expression launched to the media by you. What WL in fact did was an announcement of the publication at a press conference. Threatening, dear Pentagonpip, is something else. You threat someone when you order or let people publicly call for crime actions on foreign ground, as one of your fellows for example recently did. You threat people, when you order or allow people to publicly call for a “legal” murder, so obviously “in line with” one of the main books your civilized country claims to build its grounds on. You do more than just a threat when you push your ‘ok’-buttons to let things happen like this or these ones.

.

Now let’s come to the expression “holding”. Listen. We understand you’re used to conversations with pips who hardly see anything else around them but stuff they are “holding”. We will explain later why “holding” a piece of paper in front of your nose is something else than sev. thousands copies of docs on clouds, in networks, on harddrives  CD’s,  USB-Sticks and and and. First let us please clarify something else. We understand that due to your usage to stick to people with a “holding” tick – connections you knew how to activate in order to let the treason of a young person with the ability to think and with the ability to critisize happen. To let this treason happen for money, as far as we’re informed, isn’t it.

.

Still may we please remind you that using this terminology – typical for you and the place you’re sitting at – is a bit dislocated in this context? Holding? WL is not a paper bank interest securities cell,  mister, we have no idea how you developped this strange complex other than simply sticking to the structure of your brain while talking and forgettign that there are more than one, two, three hundred, four thousand or five millions pips listening. They might combine to more horizons than the one of a safe. So do next time choose your words a bit more carefully, please. There’s no need to turn to bank securities terms  in letters just because you see yourself confronted with something like this 1,4 GB there.

.

Now let’s turn to the shorter, 2nd paragraph of your letter. Nice to read that you believe your position re. given digital docs and the publication announcement to be “clear”. We understand this as a next sympathic pointe of a running gag, let’s shorten it up with a back-joke which for sure you will also find an extremely good one. The joke goes: “How many Winblows admins do you need in order to change a light bulb? – No one, winblows declares obscurity as a standard.” For sure you noticed the usage of philosophical terms in this joke. We understand therefore the usage of the term “clear” (and the not yet used nominization “clarity”) as your clear wish to create a new form of this joke, turning its beginning to “How many Pentagon pips do you need in order to change a light bulb…” – we’ll take care to get a perfect cartoon fitting to your wish. We know to value good jokes, and this one was definitely another one hitting the black center of a dart board.

.

Alright, now let’s come to your next paragraph. This contains some statements which are able to deeply confuse the  readers of your statements for quite a while now, maybe this way we’ll be able to shed some light on the complex. You will understand we ignore the repetition of the “holding” term in the first line of paragraph three, after our explanation given above. But what’s striking in this line is the claiming, WL has access to something which is a “property” of the United States. Listen, we coincidentally found something like this online a couple of days ago, while watching the news. And we – coincidentally – have seen some replies to this. If you take a look at them, you’ll see the curiousity about you demanding ‘docs’ back as if they were pieces of paper and claiming it’s yours although usually – if it’s yours and since they are in fact docs – then what for haven’s sake is going on in your office? Why can’t you find your own stuff on your own? Was the cartoon author (cartoon visible here after click’n’scrolling down) right? You ask WL to help you to get your office cleaned up a bit? To find stuff you can’t find on your own?

.

Seriously, it could be a bit not-that-easy to communicate this your wonderful first sentence in the third paragraph to the pips online worldwide, for a simple reason: – they – look at the stuff using a monitor.

.

But let’s come back to the next connotation of your “ownership”/”property” claim. Listen. If a Pentagon person tomorrow sais: “We have invented a new law. From today on everybody who wears blue T-Shirts can be shot legally.” Or: “From tomorrow 5 o’clock in the morning everybody who drinks black coffe deserves death penalty.” Or: “The new law saying whoever clicks on wikileaks.org from tomorrow on is free to be shot down if seen on the street, legally.” Or: “If you sit in a heli and see pips with a cam, you can shoot them down, legally. Don’t worry, we will afterwards say it’s “just war”” – Do you think the pips on all those nice continents around you will simply nod and shut up? Tell us – have you, finally, ever heard about Den Haag? Does the idea that there might be laws stronger than a Pentagon new brilliant “legal” idea existing on earth finally reach you there in this idyllic Pentagon digitalfree, pre-Atari, newspaperfree island of yours? We understand that you try not to read one, two, three, fifteen, thirty newspapers. But there might be a moment when things are getting ridiculous. Pips might start to ask: ok, if Pentagon seems neither no know what a computer is nor to be able to read a.n.y. newspaper – d.o. they read, at all? Sure, all of them are alphabetized? R.e.a.l.l.y. sure? It simply is slowly making a quite surprising impression.

.

 

.

 

 

.

 

 

 

(to be continued soon…) (http://wp.me/psdI6-O3)

.

 

 

 

.Let