Certain Doubt

Nothing is certain in life except doubt

  • Home
  • About Me
  • Book Reviews
  • Personal Plea
  • Statement of Purpose

Posts Tagged ‘Assange’

What’s so dangerous about Wikileaks, anyway?

Friday, December 24th, 2010


The furor over the material in the diplomatic cables released by the whistle-blowing site Wikileaks has been shrill and all pervasive. Virtually everyone in the U.S. government from the president to the Secretary of State and even the Attorney General has pilloried and condemned Wikileaks. In particular the government has focused its ire on Wikileak’s founder, Julian Assange, labeling him as everything from an unprincipled hacker to an out and out terrorist.

But in all this scorn two questions have been suspiciously absent from the US government comments, at least in the American press:

Is the material in the cables true? And if so, how does exposing the truth constitute a threat to the United States?

With any revelation of acts that border on – and in some cases actually step across the line with both feet – illegality, usually there are self-righteous denials of innocence from the accused. In the case of the diplomatic cables, from the government we get nada, zero, bupkus.

It is always much easier to attack the messenger than to deal with the message he brings. But by its vicious attacks on Wikileaks – attacks which have included calls from some for Assange to be assassinated – the United States Government seems intent on ignoring the content of the cables entirely. The Obama administration is happy to scream about the “illegality” of Wikileaks release of sensitive government information. But as for the possible illegality of the acts the documents reveal? Not a peep. In the movie script they are writing about the saga, the Obama administration is treating the cables as a kind of Mcguffin, an artifact that is referred to throughout a film but that is ultimately not really important to the story. (Google Alfred Hitchcock for a further definition of McGuffin)

Whether the US is guilty of illegal acts is an interesting question. However, as the information from the cables continues to seep out, one central truth about American foreign policy becomes harder and harder to ignore:

The United States has been shitting on the rest of the world.

To be sure, most countries, including our allies in Europe, have known for some time that the United States plays diplomatic hardball as well as military hardball. All the cables really do is make it practically impossible for the rest of the world not to see the extent of United States meddling in other countries affairs. Much like the oil from the recent spill in the Gulf of Mexico with its constant stream of soiled beaches and oil-soaked birds, the constant drip of Wikileaks documents gives lie to the myth that the United States in any way has the rest of the world’s interests at heart. It’s hard to pretend you’re a white knight when you’ve got crude oil dripping from your visor.

The latest revelation about Monsanto in Europe is one more goo encrusted albatross that the government will have to wear around its neck. In the words of Juan Gonzales of Democracy Now:

U.S. diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks reveal the Bush administration drew up ways to retaliate against Europe for refusing to use genetically modified seeds. In 2007, then-US ambassador to France Craig Stapleton was concerned about France’s decision to ban cultivation of genetically modified corn produced by biotech giant Monsanto. He also warned that a new French environmental review standard could spread anti-biotech policy across Europe.

In the leaked cable, Stapleton writes, quote, “Europe is moving backwards not forwards on this issue with France playing a leading role, along with Austria, Italy and even the [European] Commission…Moving to retaliation will make clear that the current path has real costs to EU interests and could help strengthen European pro-biotech voice.”

It is hard to overstate the implications of this revelation. That the United States and companies like Monsanto are “joined at the hip” is not news. But the fact that a US ambassador should propose threatening retaliation against a sovereign nation on behalf of a large multinational corporation is chilling. It means that the United States government is so set on defending the profits of Monsanto that they would actually retaliate against a European ally for having the temerity to stake out a position that would affect the corporation’s bottom line.

The point here is that the only way the United States government can claim that it is harmed by the release of the Wikileaks documents is if the information they contain is false. If everything our diplomatic corps has been doing is open and above board, if we have been dealing fairly and openly with our friends and foes alike, then we have nothing to fear from the details of our diplomacy being revealed. It is only if the ugly and shameful secrets revealed by Wikileaks are falsehoods then our country has a case against Assange and company. If they are true then our country can’t be harmed unless one decides that the truth is damaging to our country in some way. The reality is that our country hasn’t been harmed by the Wikileaks documents. Shamed, perhaps, Embarassed certainly. But it is only our pride that has received a black eye, not our security.

For columnists like Jeffery Kuhner to claim that: “Julian Assange poses a clear and present danger to American national security. The WikiLeaks founder is more than a reckless provocateur. He is aiding and abetting terrorists in their war against America… “ is ludicrous. How on earth can the revelation of plans by the US diplomatic corps to make heavy handed duplicitous threats against France be considered in any way a “clear and present danger to American national security?”

Certainly, revelations that the United States used their diplomatic corps to collect personal and biometric data on members of the UN is embarrassing, and possibly illegal. But it in no way rises to the level of danger that justifies Mr. Kuhner’s veiled threats: “The administration must take care of the problem – effectively and permanently…. We should treat Mr. Assange the same way as other high-value terrorist targets.”

Once again, like the government and a vast majority of the press corps, Kuhner ignores the content of the cables entirely. He says Assange is dangerous, so dangerous that he should be targeted the way we target high value terrorists, but nowhere does he make any mention of what information Assange has revealed that is so dangerous to America that it justifies assassination.

The only part of Kuhner’s editorial that bears any resemblance to the truth is the passage which reads:

The world is witnessing the absurd, almost surreal spectacle of the American superpower standing helpless in the face of a lone hacker. Her diplomatic secrets are no longer safe; her allies and friends are being betrayed; and her cyber-enemies are free to roam with impunity. America is no longer feared or respected.

At the risk of sounding snarky, my reply to Mr.Kuhn would be that if the release of a few diplomatic cables results in America no longer being feared or respected by other countries, then our status as the world’s lone super power in the world can’t have been all that solid to begin with.

To all those who agree with Mr. Kuhn that Julian Assange is a dangerous terrorist who should be rubbed out, my final question is as follows:

If it doesn’t even stop the release of the secrets you consider so dangerous, what possible good will result from imprisoning, torturing and killing the man responsible for making them public?

Or even more to the point:

How does the assassination of one man restore our status as a world super power that must be “feared and respected?”

Tags: Assange, Assassination, dangerous, Democracy Now, diplomacy, diplomatic, Ethics, government, illegal, information, Kuhner, leaks, mcguffin, Politics, revelations, secrets, Thomas Vincent, truth, Vincent, wikileaks
Posted in Daily Rant, Ethics, Politics, government, law, media | No Comments »

He had me at “Yes We Can”

Wednesday, December 8th, 2010

Barrack Obama had me. He had me at “yes we can.” he had me at “Change is coming to America.”

He had me. But he has me no more.

Over the past two years as president, Obama’s confident message of “change we can believe in,” has morphed into a mumbled: “…uh, let’s have change everyone agrees on, okay?… please?” Gone is the dynamic speaker who inspired hope in so many of us. In its place is a weak, indecisive man whose policies seem little differen tfrom those of his predecessor. We wanted an FDR. What we got was Mr. Rogers.

Go down the list. On the domestic front we have had hundreds of billions in continued bailouts of banks and insurance giants. Bailouts of large corporations like General Motors. All this largess has come with no strings attached. There has been virtually no oversight over who gets the government handouts and what it is used for. The cave in to health insurance corporations and big Phrma in the health-care bill is a blatant example of an administration that surrenders before the battle has even started. Add in continued record unemployment, massive home foreclosures and individual bankruptcies coupled with incredible multi-billion dollar bonuses for corporate executives and you have a growing divide between rich and poor that Obama seems unwilling to do anything to change. The President says he is trying to promote compromise. However, the astonishing alacrity with which he continues to give in to republicans and their corporate paymasters makes him seem like a weak, cowardly, unprincipled man who is unwilling to stand up and fight for anything.

Americans love a good scrap. We’ll even support a hopeless underdog if that underdog is willing to stand up to the bully and poke him in the eye. By giving in to republicans like Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, Obama is coming off looking like a weakling who is so afraid of the bully on the beach that he will lie down and kick sand in his own face. Compromise is not a bad thing. However, the President’s seeming unwillingness to fight against conservatives on any issue is revolting in the extreme.

As bad as the domestic front is, the international situation is worse. We have a continuous war in Afghanistan with no end in sight. We have undeclared wars in Pakistan and Yemen, and the ramping up of rhetoric for war in Iran and possibly North Korea. We continue to print money to fuel our out of control military spending, and we continue to exhibit an unsustainable imperialistic foreign policy that is, in many ways, even more pronounced than it was under George W. Bush. Even Guantanamo which Obama promised to close within a year of becoming president is not only still open with lots of prisoners still being held without even the hope of a trial.

Now we have the flap over the release of “confidential” diplomatic cables by the whistle blowing site “Wikileaks.” The Obama administration’s response to the release of these documents has been appalling. That Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the entire diplomatic core received a huge black eye over the release of the documents is undeniable. The Wikileaks cables demonstrate convincingly that the United States government under Obama is continuing down the same path of imperial hubris that was the hallmark of his predecessor. The U.S. continues to meddle in the affairs of other countries even to the point of engaging in unethical and immoral illegal acts like spying on members of the United Nations and engaging in sabotage of climate control talks in Denmark.

The government’s response to the revelations is equally revealing. Just as under George W. Bush the Obama administration’s reaction is not to apologize or admit error. It is not to change its behavior. Instead, the government’s only action is to circle the wagons and attack, destroy or at least silence the founder of Wikileaks, Julian Assange, by any means possible. On an individual level, viewing the revelation of one’s unethical and even illegal behavior as a personal attack is not the reaction of one who possesses strong moral character. On an international level, any country that reacts to its secrets being revealed by launching attacks on the whistle blower who revealed them is not exhibiting courage. Is the Obama administration so desperate to appear strong and tough that they can’t own up when a few of their secrets get revealed?

Reacting to someone who exposes you as a fool by clobbering them over the head does not make you any less of a fool. It just makes you a bully.

Subsequent posts will deal with why I believe further support for Obama is futile. For now let me just say that hope as a commodity is not infinite. I’m afraid my supply for Obama has been exhausted. Somewhere between now and the next election President Obama may grow a spine and start fighting for the things in which he believes. He may. But given his actions to date, I very much doubt it.

Tags: Assange, certain, change, corporations, courage, doubt, hope, influence, money, Obama, Politics, republican, Thomas Vincent, Vincent, wikileaks
Posted in Daily Rant, Ethics, Politics, law, warfare | No Comments »

Sweden: Wikileaks Safe Haven?

Tuesday, September 7th, 2010

When Wikileaks made the decision to base their servers in Sweden, the media all dutifully reported that the site was choosing the country “to take advantage of laws protecting whistleblowers and a culture supportive of online mavericks.” The inference was that Sweden would be some kind of neutral safe haven from which Assange and his fellow compilers could ply their trade, free from the slings and arrows (both literal and figurative) that the C.I.A. and the Pentagon would surely unleash.

Assange and Wikileaks’ reasoning seemed sound enough. To quote an AP article of August 18,

“The Pirate Party, a small Swedish political group that holds a seat in the European Parliament, on Tuesday offered Wikileaks to use its servers. Their reasoning was that it would be even more difficult for authorities to seize servers owned by a political group.
Assange has said WikiLeaks routes its material through Sweden and Belgium because of the whistleblower protection offered by laws in those countries. He was in Sweden this week in part to prepare an application for a publishing certificate that would make sure the site is fully protected by the Swedish laws…

However, the AP article goes on to note that while: “…Swedish laws allow prosecutors to intervene against publication of material deemed harmful to national security. It’s unclear whether that could also include the security of a friendly nation. The U.S. argues the secret documents risks the lives of coalition forces and Afghans helping them.”

The article stresses that: “Foreign Minister Carl Bildt said the U.S. has not contacted Sweden about WikiLeaks.” And, “Any complaint against the site would be a matter for Swedish judicial authorities — not the government, Bildt said…”

Given Assange’s inability to get those same judicial authorities to dismiss rape charges against him, one wonders just how sympathetic they will be when it comes time to stand up against the tsunami of lawyers, lobbyists, and diplomats the White House will flood the country with to stop Wikileaks from continuing to release embarrassing documents.Of course the AP article notes that, “Swedish ministers typically refrain from getting involved when foreign governments complain about material published by the country’s media. Last year, Bildt dismissed demands by Israel for the government to condemn a Swedish newspaper article that claimed Israeli soldiers harvested organs from dead Palestinians.”

Nevertheless, with all the Justice ministry officials’ independent sounding statements, it must give Wikileaks pause when they read the following headline in “The Local:”

Swedish police Raid Filesharing ‘Scene’

“The Local: Swedish police raided locations across the country on Tuesday, including WikiLeaks’ ISP PRQ, acting on information from Belgian police in an international operation targeting the filesharing network known as “The Scene”.

While the raid was not aimed specifically at Wikileaks, the fact that PRQ, Wikileaks’ server was raided at all means when push comes to shove, the Swedish Justice Department may not be as independant as Wikileaks might hope.

“The purpose of the raids in the Stockholm area and in Umeå were to gather information about specific IP addresses,” said Fredrik Ingblad. He added that police also seized computers and servers in the raids.

As the AP article demonstrates, the existing laws in Sweden do provide some protections for sites like Wikileaks.

Swedish law enforcement cannot issue an injunction to close a website before a court has convicted the publishers of a crime, but can seize a server as part of a criminal investigation, said Johan Lundmark, deputy director at the Justice Ministry. He questioned whether it could be considered a crime in Sweden to leak classified U.S. documents…
That indicates U.S. officials may only be able to target WikiLeaks’ servers by demanding legal assistance from Swedish police for their own criminal investigation.

“At the end of the day, it will all boil down to some kind of interpretation by some authority, which will consider … if there is a possibility to assist the American police with the support of existing rules,” Lundmark said. “This is a complicated issue and there are loads of questions that could pop up.”

Still, the existing rules proved no obstacle in the case of file sharing website The Pirate Bay after: “…extensive communication took place between lobby groups for the U.S. entertainment industry and the Swedish government before the prosecutor pressed charges against the operators.” As the article notes: “The four men behind The Pirate Bay last year were sentenced to one year in prison each and ordered to pay combined damages of 30 million kronor ($4.1 million). They have appealed and the website is still running while they await a retrial.”

If the U.S. entertainment industry can achieve such success at convincing the Swedish Justice ministry to crack down on a bunch of guys swapping movies, imagine the full court press that the Pentagon and C.I.A. will be able to muster, arguing that Wikileak’s release of classified material constitutes a “War Crimes.”

Assange’s personal problems in getting the Justice department to drop rape charges would pale in comparison to the legal challenges he and Wikileaks face should the Swedish Justice department bow to pressure from the White House. Assange’s bold prediction in August that “The will of the Swedish people is with us,” not withstanding, it is ultimately the Swedish Government – specifically the Justice Ministry – that will decide whether Sweden proves to be the safe Haven that Wikileaks needs.

Julian Assange may feel comfortable leaving his fate up to “the will of the people,” but if Wikileaks is staking all their hopes for the future on a bunch of Swedish bureaucrats standing up to the will of the United States….

Let’s just say, I hope for Wikileaks sake, they have a back up plan in place.

Tags: AP, Assange, government, justice, law, rape, ssfe haven, Sweden, The Local, Thomas Vincent, Vincent, White House, wikileaks
Posted in Daily Doubt, Ethics, Politics, law, media, warfare | 1 Comment »

Julian and Goliath

Monday, August 30th, 2010

I find the efforts of Julian Assange and his anonymous band of merry “Wikimen” to be admirable. Trying to combat a growing world trend towards opacity in government is a noble cause. However, I’m very much afraid they are too little, too late.


The sheer size of the juggernaut that is the modern American security state, the huge number of people, and the vast sums of money spent to keep classified information secret render any efforts by Wikileaks moot. The recent cache of 75,000 documents released to the Guardian, the New York Times and Der Speigel may seem like a staggering number. But the cache is a teardrop in the ocean compared to the number of classified documents produced every year by the United States government. As diligent as Wikileaks is, they can’t possibly keep up with the tsunami of pages of information that the American public has a right to know but will never see. They are no match for the legions of Homeland Security bureaucrats dedicated to keeping Julian Assange and others like him from getting access to that information. They are also no match for the legions of propagandists dedicated to spinning and marginalizing any leaks that do occur so that the effect of their release on public opinion is nullified. In short, obtaining and publishing a few classified documents is simply not going to stem the tide of secrecy in the United States.

Several commentators have attempted to draw parallels between Assange and Daniel Ellsberg. Because the Pentagon papers had an effect on ending the Vietnam war, many believe that Wikileaks can do the same for Obama’s war in Afghanistan. I believe, however, these comparisons to be specious. Ellsberg was a leaker who went directly to the newspapers with information he had helped create. Wikileaks by contrast, doesn’t do any of it’s own hacking or spying. It merely acts as a facilitator, a middleman, a warehouse of information to which leakers can come to disseminate secrets. Totally different animal. Totally different effect.

Also the times are totally different. During the 60’s and 70’s, media outlets like The Washington Post and CBS news not only had the ability to change public opinion, they reveled in their role as independent commentators. Nowadays, the fourth estate is totally toothless. Virtually all media outlets are owned by multinational corporations. Faux news outlets such as Rupert Murdoch’s FOX, Disney’s ABC, and General Electric’s NBC dominate what people hear and see. In contrast to previous generations, modern news broadcasting seems to see its role as being a cheerleader for different political party lines. As both major parties agree on promoting war this virtually assures that public opinion towards military actions such as those in the Middle East will not change.

Moreover, propaganda and message management has been honed to a fine craft. The introduction of “embedded reporting” spelled the end of independent war reporting. Can anyone imagine Walter Cronkite being allowed the freedom to report on the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan the way he did in Viet Nam? Or take the Pentagon papers. Assuming Daniel Ellsberg managed to find someone who would print them today they would be marginalized in the media and largely ignored by a public anesthetized and dumbed down by a steady stream of beer ads, football, and “reality TV.”

But the main reason why it is too late for Assange and company to change history is that the only constituency that really matters, the Obama administration, is deaf to their message. The same coalition of ideologues and corporate cronies who brought forth the invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush Administration are still calling the shots… and they are not about to change course because of a few leaked documents. If you doubt this, consider the following:

1 The Downing Street Memos: The closest thing to a smoking gun you will ever find that proves President George W. Bush took America to war based upon a lie. The Downing Street memos created a small stir when the first came out and then were quietly and successfully buried in the press. The Obama administration shows absolutely no interest in opening an investigation.
2 The Bybee Memo: The infamous Bybee memo which in effect legalized torture: By itself, this document should have been enough to charge principals in the White House with war crimes. But again, after an initial furor the memos were buried.
3 Warrantless Wiretapping: The spying on American citizens without a warrant, a program in which, by his own admission, George W. Bush knowingly broke the law – and then lied to the American people about it. A policy such as this surely should have been considered grounds for impeachment. However, not only has the Obama administration failed to investigate, they have reinforced and institutionalized these surveillance policies. And the press has resonded without so much as a whisper of doubt.

Now we have the Wikileaks cache – what the Guardian and the New York Times refer to as “The Afghan logs.” It is perhaps not surprising that the governments response has been to excoriate Wikileaks in the press, claiming that Assange and his friends have “blood on their hands,” for releasing the documents. There have been calls for everything from indicting Wikileaks to tarring and feathering Assange. (Something that is currently happening with the recent molestation allegations against the Wikileaks founder.) But once again, the only thing that truly matters to the government is marginalizing the information contained in the Afghan logs and nullifying the effect they have on public opinion.In many ways, the Obama administration seems less worried about what the documents contain and more worried about making sure they do not negatively affect the public’s perception of the conflict.

Nowhere is there any interest in the press or the Government to respond to the documents honestly with an eye to questioning the wisdom and efficacy of the policies that produced them. In this regard, Wikileaks efforts have to be judged as a failure.

Julian Assange and Wikileaks may be fighting the good fight against government secrecy. But they are out manned, out gunned, and facing an ideological, bureaucratic and corporate enemy that is too large and well entrenched to be dislodged by printing a comparative handful of secret documents. I applaud the members of Wikileaks for their courage and determination but I’m afraid the outcome of this struggle is a forgone conclusion. In the Bible, David may have brought down mighty Goliath with a simple slingshot. In this case, however, Goliath is backed up by legions of cyber-secrecy warriors, a propaganda machine that never sleeps and a trillion dollar security and surveillance leviathan that gobbles up secrets like chum in a can. David (Assange) on the other hand stands armed only with a straw and a spitball.

From where I’m standing, the odds of victory in this struggle are not good.

Don’t get me wrong. I am rooting for Wikileaks. I hope they prevail. I really do. But if I were gambling man, in this fight, my money would definitely have to be on Goliath.

Tags: Assange, Ellsberg, Goliath, government, Julian, propaganda, secrecy, secrets, Thomas Vincent, Vincent, wikileaks
Posted in Daily Rant, Politics, economics, media, warfare | 1 Comment »

The Irony of Hubris

Tuesday, August 24th, 2010

The blogosphere has been lit up recently by accusations of rape/molestation against Wikileaks founder Julian Assange. (A Google search of “Wikileaks Rape” turned up 11 million hits.)

Several writers, including Assange himself, have derided the whole thing as a clumsy “dirty tricks” smear campaign orchestrated by the C.I.A. and the Pentagon.

I disagree… at least about the clumsy part.

If the C.I.A./Pentagon did have anything to do with the accusations leveled against Assange the plot shows a remarkable degree of elegance and subtlety. Either that or they got real lucky.

Consider, for example, the ironies of the situation:

1) Assange, a secretive man, finds himself embroiled in a tawdry and very public sex scandal that if even partly true completely dismantles his carefully cultivated a image as a man of mystery.

2) Wikileaks, a crusading whistle blower organization famous for leaking some 95,000 secret and embarrassing documents finds itself embarrassed when its founder finds details of his private sex life “leaked” to the press by an as yet unnamed whistle blower.

3) Assange, who came to Sweden seeking a safe haven for Wikileaks under their liberal whistle blower protection laws, find himself a victim of those same laws that protect the anonymity of his accusers.

I am in no way supporting or condemning Assange in all of this. I find the question of whether Julian Assange is guilty or innocent of the charges leveled at him largely irrelevant. Nether do I find the narrative that the C.I.A./ Pentagon was involved in a honey trap plot particularly compelling by itself.

I do find it fascinating that people in the news – mostly men it must be noted – persist in looking like deer in the headlights when they find details of their personal lives splashed across the tabloids. Elliot Spitzer, Mark Sanford, Larry Craig, and yes, even Bill Clinton. What sort of hubris runs through the veins of public officials who think that they alone will be exempt from sex scandals. Assange himself has intimated that he received warnings from Australian security agents that he could find himself the target of some form of dirty tricks smear campaign. And yet apparently he had “consensual” sex with at least one of the women named in the suit. What was he thinking? That he was some kind of super spook, that no aspect of his private life (like any his sexual activity) would ever wind up being made public? Did he think he was invincible?

The lessons of Spitzer, Sanford, Craig, and Clinton seem obvious to me. If you are a public personality, especially one who delights in “crushing bastards,” and you’ve been warned that those same bastards are out to entrap and smear you, don’t act so surprised and “disturbed” when your private sex life winds up on the front page.

For me, the ultimate irony of the Assange imbroglio is that the Wikileaks founder has made headlines by raising institutional information transparency to almost Holy Grail status, while at the same time insisting on maintaining a cult of personal privacy.

I hate to be the one to break it to him but life just doesn’t work that way.

Anyone who generates as much media buzz over their cause as Assange can’t expect to maintain a total “cone of silence” around their personal life. Anyone who acts as a front man for a crusade against government secrecy has to assume that anything he does in private won’t remain private for long. Whether he was the victim of dirty tricks or whether he simply got his comeuppance for acting like a dick in bed matters not one whit. By clinging to a fantasy image of an international man of mystery, one who is above the slings and arrows of tabloid journalism, Assange is guilty at the very least of extreme naivité. If he is the victim of a smear campaign, by his own hubris he made it awfully easy for his enemies.

Ultimately, the only thing the Assange scandal proves is that while he may be a successful blogger and hacker and exposer of secrets, as a super spy, I’m afraid he’s looking more and more like a total amateur.

Tags: Assange, C.I.A., dirty tricks, government, honey trap, hubris, irony, Pentagon, rape, scandal, sex, spy, Thomas Vincent, Vincent, wikileaks
Posted in Daily Doubt, Ethics, Politics, media, warfare | No Comments »

<< Previous

  • Categories

    • Daily Doubt (48)
    • Daily Rant (47)
    • economics (39)
    • Ethics (53)
    • government (24)
    • humor (13)
    • law (20)
    • media (33)
    • Politics (91)
    • satire (5)
    • technology (3)
    • Uncategorized (31)
    • warfare (35)
  • Other Writings

    • Book Reviews
  • Blogroll

    • Antiwar.com
    • Aphelion Webzine
    • Daily Kos
    • Freaking News
    • imgur
    • Impermanent Media
    • Olympia Newswire
    • Photobucket
    • Real Change Newspaper
    • The Ethical Spectacle
    • The Real News
  • Networking Sites

    • Digg.com
    • Reddit
  • News Sites

    • Antiwar.com
    • Common Dreams
    • Freaking News
    • Olympia Newswire
    • Raw Story
    • Wikileaks
  • Archives

    • December 2011
    • November 2011
    • October 2011
    • September 2011
    • August 2011
    • July 2011
    • June 2011
    • May 2011
    • April 2011
    • March 2011
    • February 2011
    • January 2011
    • December 2010
    • November 2010
    • October 2010
    • September 2010
    • August 2010
    • July 2010
    • June 2010
    • May 2010
    • April 2010
    • March 2010
    • February 2010
    • January 2010
    • December 2009
    • November 2009
    • October 2009
    • September 2009
    • August 2009
    • July 2009
    • June 2009
    • May 2009
    • March 2009
    • February 2009
    • January 2009
  • Admin

    • Log in
    • Entries RSS
    • Comments RSS
    • WordPress.org

Copyright © 2012 - Certain Doubt | Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS)

WordPress theme designed by web design