New Leaks Shatter OPCW’s Attacks On Douma Whistleblowers


13-02-20 07:55:00,

Authored by Aaron Maté via,

Facing accusations that it issued a doctored report alleging a chemical attack in Syria, the OPCW has released an inquiry attacking two whistleblowers as rogue actors. Leaked documents obtained by The Grayzone reveal serious distortions in the OPCW inquiry as well as a campaign of intimidation against internal dissenters.

For the past year, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) has been roiled by allegations that it manipulated an investigation to falsely accuse the Syrian government of a chemical weapons attack. An OPCW report released in March 2019 lent credence to claims by Islamist militants and Western governments that the Syrian military killed around 40 civilians with toxic gas in the city of Douma in April 2018. The accusation against Damascus led to US-led military strikes on Syrian government sites that same month.

But leaked internal documents published by Wikileaks show that OPCW inspectors who deployed to Douma rejected the official story, and complained that higher-level officials excluded them from the post-mission process, distorted key evidence, and ignored their findings.

After months of virtual silence, the OPCW has responded with an internal inquiry that lambasts two veteran officials who raised internal objections, attacking their credibility and qualifications. The OPCW’s self-described “independent investigation” describes the pair as rogue, low-level actors who played minor roles in the Douma mission and lacked access to crucial evidence. In a briefing to member states, OPCW Director General Fernando Arias dismissed them as disgruntled ex-employees.

The two “are not whistle-blowers,” Arias said.

“They are individuals who could not accept that their views were not backed by evidence.”

But a leaked document calls Arias’ assertions into serious question. Ian Henderson, one of the two inspectors, recently addressed a special session of the United Nations Security Council with his concerns about the Douma mission. Henderson submitted a supplemental written account that was distributed among participating UN member states and obtained by The Grayzone. It offers the most extensive and detailed account of the internal dispute over the OPCW’s Douma investigation to date. 

The full leaked testimony can be read here (PDF)

 » Lees verder

New leaks provide further evidence that OPCW suppressed & altered findings on Douma ‘chemical attack’


15-12-19 10:05:00,

A new cache of internal documents reveal that members of the OPCW team tasked with probing the Douma “chemical attack” protested the organization’s final report on the incident, which they said misrepresented their conclusions.

In a memo addressed to OPCW Director General Fernando Arias, one scientist who participated in the OPCW’s fact finding mission (FFM) wrote that there are “about 20 inspectors who have expressed concern” over how the OPCW presented its findings on the alleged Syrian chemical attack. According to the memorandum, the organization’s final report does not reflect the FFM’s findings, presented in their interim report, which is also part of the new document dump.

The new documents, released by WikiLeaks, are the latest evidence undermining the OPCW’s final report on the Syrian attack.

If you compare the original redacted report to the unredacted one that WikiLeaks released it’s really stunning the difference. Like for example the team decided not to exhume buried bodies because they couldn’t find evidence of chemical weapons this was kept from released report.

— Currie Dobson (@Ventuckyspaz) December 15, 2019

The April 2018 incident reportedly killed dozens of Syrian civilians, and was used by the United States and several NATO allies to justify airstrikes against Syrian military targets. The OPCW was later sent to the site to investigate, and the organization’s final report gave credibility to the accusation that Damascus had used chemical weapons.

The memo goes on to state that the final report “does not reflect the views of all the team members that deployed to Douma.” In fact, the team on the ground in Douma was apparently excluded from drafting the final report – only one member of the fact finding mission, a paramedic, directly contributed. The final document was instead authored by a separate group that had operated from “Country X,” believed to be Turkey.

The consensus within the FFM team was that there were indications of serious inconsistencies in findings… the conclusions appear to have been turned completely in the opposite direction

The team’s findings, outlined in their preliminary report, illustrate some of these inconsistencies. For example, the team expressed uncertainty about the origin of the cylinders which were allegedly used to release chlorine.

 » Lees verder

Leaks, Fake News, and Hidden Agendas


10-09-19 02:50:00,

By Jon Rappoport

Thousands of articles have been written about the so-called Russian hack of the US election. The term “Russian hack” suggests the Russkies actually found a way to subvert the results of voting machines.

But of course, no convincing evidence has been presented to support such a charge. In fact, when you drill down a few inches below the surface, you find this charge instead: Russia hacked into email accounts and scooped up Hillary, DNC, and Podesta emails, and passed them to WikiLeaks, who then published them.

But no chain of evidence supporting THAT claim has been presented to the public, either. Even assuming the assertion is true, an important factor is intentionally being ignored: THE CONTENT OF THOSE LEAKED EMAILS.

In other words, if making all this content publicly available cost Hillary the election, and if no one is seriously questioning the authenticity of the emails, then THE TRUTH undermined Hillary. However, no major media outlet is reporting the story from that angle.


Those headlines would attract millions of clicks. Why weren’t they printed? Big news outlets didn’t want readers to think about the story from that perspective.

Why not? Why was the heavy emphasis put on the hacking of the emails? To obscure the importance of their content: for example, DNC collusion to obstruct and undermine the campaign of Bernie Sanders.

“Let’s make the story all about WHO we claim stole the emails, rather than WHAT THE EMAILS CONTAINED.”

When a tape surfaced in which Trump spoke about women who were eager to have sex with famous men, did major media make the story all about who had the tape and who released it to the press? No.

Perhaps you remember this 2009 email-hack controversy. Wikipedia sums it up: “The Climatic Research Unit email controversy (also known as “Climategate”) began in November 2009 with the hacking of a server at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) by an external attacker,

 » Lees verder

Leaks einer US-Gruppe zur “Dark Side of the Kremlin”


28-01-19 09:31:00,

Bild: Tobias_ET/Pixabay/Pixabay-Lizenz

Der Eindruck entsteht, dass es sich um eine Kampagne nicht nur gegen Russland, sondern auch gegen WikiLeaks handelt

Offenbar ist es an der Zeit zurückzuschlagen, nachdem Leaks bislang vor allem westliche Politiker, Regierungen oder Organisationen wie zuletzt die dubiose antirussische Integrity Initiative der britischen Regierung getroffen haben. Gerne wurden russische Hacker oder auch der russische Geheimdienst GRU als verantwortlich ausgemacht, auch WikiLeaks geriet in den Verdacht, der russischen Regierung zu helfen, Hillary Clinton zu desavouieren und Donald Trump an die Macht zu bringen, der selbst als russisches V-Mann verdächtigt wird.

Jetzt hat ein so genanntes “Transparenzkollektiv” massenhaft gehackte Emails und Dokumente ins Netz gestellt, die von “russischen Politikern, Journalisten, Oligarchen, religiösen und gesellschaftlichen Personen” stammen sollen auch von “Nationalisten/Separatisten/Terroristen, die in der Ukraine operieren”.

Das Material wurde am 25. Januar von einer Gruppe ins Netz gestellt, die sich den originellen Namen “Distributed Denial of Secrets” (DDOS) gegeben hat und scheinbar eine WikiLeaks-ähnliche Ideologie vertritt, nämlich die Ermöglichung einer “freien Übertragung von Daten im politischen Interesse”. Man arbeitet mit Daily Beast, dem Ableger der transatlantisch, antirussisch, anti-Trump ausgerichteten Washington Post zusammen, die schon des längeren einen guten Draht zu den Geheimdiensten unterhält. Mitbegründerin und Sprecherin von DDOS ist die (Transgender)Journalistin Emma Best, die Daily Beast bereits vor der Veröffentlichung der Daten zur “Dark Side of the Kremlin” informiert oder mit ihr kooperiert hat, um dem Coup mehr Aufmerksamkeit zu geben.

Ihr Mitgründer, genannt “Der Architekt”, will anonym bleiben, die Rede ist von einer kleinen Gruppe, die aber auch – trotz aller Transparenz – lieber im Dunklen bleiben will. Daily Beast dramatisiert die Geschichte und erzählt, dass Best schon mal das Gefühl hatte, dass jemand in die Veröffentlichung der Daten eingreifen wollte. Man habe dann Kopien auf anderen Servern angelegt. Man lebt also gefährlich, wollen Daily Beast und Best sagen.

“Kein Anliegen, keine Idee, keine Botschaft”

Best erzählt, sie wäre letztes Jahr in die “Welt des russischen Hacktivism” geraten, als sie einem Kollegen bei der Suche nach einem Leak von der antirussischen Hackergruppe Shaltai Boltai helfen wollte. Nach der Gründung von DDOS hätten Hacker weitere Archive vermittelt. Als sich herumgesprochen habe, dass sie russische Hacks suche,

 » Lees verder