If there were ever a doubt about whether the editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, is a journalist, recent events erase all those doubts and put him at the forefront of a movement to democratize journalism and empower people.
The U.S. Department of Justice is still trying to find a way to prosecute Assange and others associated with WikiLeaks. A key to their prosecution is claiming he is not a journalist, but that weak premise has been made laughable by recent events.
The list of WikiLeaks revelations has become astounding. During the North African and Middle East revolts WikiLeaks published documents that provided people with critical information. The traditional media has relied on WikiLeaks publications and is now also emulating WikiLeaks.
WikiLeaks has been credited by many with helping to spark the Tunisian Revolution because they provided information about the widespread corruption of the 23 year rule of the Ben Ali regime. PBS pointed to ten cables dating from 2006 to 2009 published by WikiLeaks in November that were translated and shared widely in Tunisia detailing the corruption and authoritarian rule of Ben Ali who lived in opulent luxury while Tunisians struggled. Foreign Policy reported that “the candor of the cables released by WikiLeaks did more for Arab democracy than decades of backstage U.S. diplomacy.”
In Egypt, WikiLeaks publications provided democracy activists with the information needed to spark protests, provided background that explained the Egyptian uprising, described the suppression of opinions critical of the regime by arrest and harassment of journalists, bloggers and a poet; showed the common use of police brutality and torture; the abuse of the 1967 emergency law to arrest and indefinitely detain journalists, activists, labor leaders and members of the Muslim Brotherhood; as well as how rivals were removed to ensure Gamal Mubarak succeeded his father. Traditional media publications like the New York Times relied on WikiLeaks to analyze the causes of the uprising.
Another set of documents described how Israel and the U.S. wanted Omar Suleiman to replace Mubarak. Suleiman, a military intelligence officer for three decades, was described by Secretary of State Clinton, as the preferred successor. WikiLeaks wrote an article describing Suleiman’s close relationship with the United States. Suleimen described Egypt as “a partner” with the U.S. and the U.S. described him as “the most successful element of the relationship” with Egypt. The long history of Suleiman working with Israel to suppress democracy in Gaza, keeping the people of Gaza hungry and being in constant contact with Israel through a hotline was revealed. WikiLeaks also showed that Suleiman shared U.S. and Israeli concern over Iran, and was disdainful of Muslims in politics as well as the Muslim Brotherhood. All of this made Suleiman very popular with Israel and the U.S., but unacceptable to democracy advocates.
The United States used some WikiLeaks publications to show that it had been critical of Egypt and exerted private pressure, as well as support for democracy activists like Mohammad ElBaradei. Despite what has been portrayed in the traditional media, WikiLeaks published materials with an agenda for transparency and an informed public, not an intent to harm the U.S.
WikiLeaks informed the Bahrain public about their government’s cozy relationship with the U.S. It described a $5 billion joint-venture with Occidental Petroleum, and $300 million in U.S. military sales. ABC reported on WikiLeaks documents that described the close relationship between U.S. and Bahrain intelligence agencies and how the U.S. Navy is the foundation of Bahrain’s national security. This was emphasized to General Patraeus along with their common opposition to Iran, Al Qaeda in Iraq and their desire for U.S. troops to stay in Iraq.
WikiLeaks has been criticized by U.S. enemies. Iranian President, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, described WikiLeaks as U.S. “intelligence warfare” saying: “These documents are prepared and released by the U.S. government in a planned manner and in pursuance of a goal.” WikiLeaks was criticized by Libya’s Ghaddafi who shut down Facebook in Tripoli and sporadically shut off the Internet to prevent Libyan’s from knowing the truth. No doubt WikiLeaks publications embarrassed Ghaddafi adding fuel to internal opposition to his regime.
WikiLeaks is filling a void with traditional media as the level of distrust of the mass media is now at record highs. A recent Gallup Poll found 57% of Americans do not trust the media and a Pew Poll found a record low 29% trust the media. There is good reason for distrust. The New York Times helped start the Iraq War by publishing the false weapons of mass destruction story. It recently misled the public about a Blackwater employee arrested in Pakistan by hiding the fact that he worked for the CIA, while reporting that Obama said he was a diplomat. Even the way the Times and Washington Post reported on WikiLeaks documents showed reason for distrust. WikiLeaks described Iranian long-range missiles that could hit European cities but also reported that Russian intelligence refuted the claim. The Times and Post evidently made a decision to exaggerate Iranian capability and mislead readers by excluding the Russian intelligence report. The Times admits it provides WikiLeaks documents to the government in advance and excludes material at the request of the government.
There has been a steady decline in readers and viewers of newspapers and television news since 1980. The decline began before the existence of the Internet. The decline in younger readers has been particularly noticeable – 30 years ago 60% of people under 36 read a newspaper daily, now it is 30%. The Internet has seen a steady rise in viewers and news outlets.
Even though some in the traditional media are threatened by WikiLeaks, more and more outlets are acknowledging their journalism. Reporters Without Borders hosts a mirror site of WikiLeaks as “a gesture of support for WikiLeaks’ right to publish information without being obstructed.” Similarly, a mainstream French newspaper Liberation announced a "mirror-WikiLeaks" site on its website
Jeff Jarviz of the City University of New York’s Graduate School of Journalism writes: “We in journalism must recognize that WikiLeaks is an element of a new ecosystem of news. It is a new form of the press. So we must defend its rights as media. If we do not, we could find our own rights curtailed. Asking whether WikiLeaks should be stopped is exactly like asking whether this newspaper should be stopped when it reveals what government does not want the public to know. We have been there before; let us never return.”
The Guardian, a WikiLeaks partner wrote in an editorial: “There is a need as never before for an internet that remains a free and universal form of communication. WikiLeaks' chief crime has been to speak truth to power. What is at stake is nothing less than the freedom of the internet.”
Jay Rosen of the New York University journalism school describes WikiLeaks as the first “stateless news agency.” The actions of WikiLeaks, he noted, show our news organizations how “statist they really are” and leakers going to WikiLeaks rather than the traditional media, shows how distrustful people are of the corporate media. This all shows that the “watchdog press has died” and WikiLeaks is filling the void.
The void will exist – and be filled – whether or not the Department of Justice prosecutes Julian Assange. The Economist writes: “With or without WikiLeaks, the technology exists to allow whistleblowers to leak data and documents while maintaining anonymity. With or without WikiLeaks, the personnel, technical know-how, and ideological will exists to enable anonymous leaking and to make this information available to the public. Jailing Thomas Edison in 1890 would not have darkened the night.”
The traditional media is emulating WikiLeaks. Al Jazeera has created a “transparency unit” that launched in January 2011 and has published the Palestine Papers, which describe the Palestinian-Israeli peace process, based on leaked documents. The New York Times is now talking about creating its own version of WikiLeaks. Students at CUNY’s Graduate School of Journalism designed LocaLeaks, allowing anonymous encrypted leaks to over 1,400 U.S. newspapers. Government employees and business insiders can now report illegal or unethical practices without being identified.
The journalism democracy door has been opened, power to report is being redistributed, government employees and corporate whistleblowers are being empowered and greater transparency is becoming a reality. The United States would be better off accepting these realities than prosecuting the news organization that showed the way. Prosecution will highlight the utter hypocrisy of the U.S. government, showing the world it does not mean what it says when it claims that freedom of the speech and press are cornerstones of democratic government.
reprinted from warisacrime.org
Julian Assange
Monday, February 28, 2011
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Assange must be extradited says Judge
A British judge has ruled that Julian Assange must be extradited to Sweden to face sex crime allegations and Julian Assanges lawyers have announced that they will appeal the decision. His mother, Christine Assange,stated her son is in a 'David and Goliath situation'.
She also stated that Prime Minister Julia Gillard is 'complicit in defamation' of Julian Assange. Christine Assange talks to Jon Faine on 774 ABC Melbourne Mornings.
A Radio interview with Christine Assange on Australian ABC local radio. Chrisine Assange.
She also stated that Prime Minister Julia Gillard is 'complicit in defamation' of Julian Assange. Christine Assange talks to Jon Faine on 774 ABC Melbourne Mornings.
A Radio interview with Christine Assange on Australian ABC local radio. Chrisine Assange.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Amazon's kicks Wikileaks off its Cloud Computing Service
Amazon, after a bit of a chattypoos with Senator Joe Lieberman decided to arbvitrarily cut Wikileaks off its cloud computer services.
"Because the company apparently acted on its own, without direct order from the government, this decision is unreviewable by a court. Given what we know of the materials as they have come out to this point, there is little likelihood that an official order to remove the materials would have succeeded in surmounting the high barriers erected by first amendment doctrine in cases of prior restraint. The fact that the same effect was sought to be achieved through a public statement by an official, executed by voluntary action of a private company, suggests a deep vulnerability of the checks imposed by the first amendment in the context of a public sphere built entirely of privately-owned infrastructure."
According to an upcoming paper to be published in the Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review by Harvard Law Professor Yochai Benkler.
Further information can be read in the paper
Benkler, who is a faculty member at Harvard Law’s Berkman Center for Internet and Society, states the same method was used to cut off WikiLeaks’ payments from Visa, MasterCard, and PayPal: "The implicit alliance, a public-private partnership between the firms that operate the infrastructure and the government that encourages them to help in its war on terror, embodied by this particularly irritating organization, was able to achieve extra-legally much more than law would have allowed the state to do by itself."
However, WikiLeaks' exile from Amazon's servers is an alertthat even private companies can be bentto governmental pressure.
Benkler doesn't argue that Lieberman's pressure on Amazon and others to jettison WikiLeaks is illegal. but allarmingly that is probvably the very reason why it calls into question the future of free speech online.
"Because the company apparently acted on its own, without direct order from the government, this decision is unreviewable by a court. Given what we know of the materials as they have come out to this point, there is little likelihood that an official order to remove the materials would have succeeded in surmounting the high barriers erected by first amendment doctrine in cases of prior restraint. The fact that the same effect was sought to be achieved through a public statement by an official, executed by voluntary action of a private company, suggests a deep vulnerability of the checks imposed by the first amendment in the context of a public sphere built entirely of privately-owned infrastructure."
According to an upcoming paper to be published in the Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review by Harvard Law Professor Yochai Benkler.
Further information can be read in the paper
Benkler, who is a faculty member at Harvard Law’s Berkman Center for Internet and Society, states the same method was used to cut off WikiLeaks’ payments from Visa, MasterCard, and PayPal: "The implicit alliance, a public-private partnership between the firms that operate the infrastructure and the government that encourages them to help in its war on terror, embodied by this particularly irritating organization, was able to achieve extra-legally much more than law would have allowed the state to do by itself."
However, WikiLeaks' exile from Amazon's servers is an alertthat even private companies can be bentto governmental pressure.
Benkler doesn't argue that Lieberman's pressure on Amazon and others to jettison WikiLeaks is illegal. but allarmingly that is probvably the very reason why it calls into question the future of free speech online.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Clinton does not care what people think perhaps?
It is interesting that such a double standard should be so openly used and defended by hillary Clinton and the State Dept. Defending the 'rights' of Egyptions, and other protestes now in the muslim Communities yet working hard to suppress the rights of individuasls such as Assange.
Is it a case of the US State Dept under Hillary Clinton does not really care what others think of her? Is it a case of, "I have the power and you don't so get stuffed," type of thinking. If that is the case I feel sorry for the US State Dept. But not that sorry.
Even if they were to successfully Kangeroo Court a trial on Assange and execute him for exposing their own crimes, a million others would take his place. One gets what one resists. Look throughout history. There are many examples of nations getting the very policy, thohgt, ideology or whatever they originally so strenuously resisted.
This will be no different.
Is it a case of the US State Dept under Hillary Clinton does not really care what others think of her? Is it a case of, "I have the power and you don't so get stuffed," type of thinking. If that is the case I feel sorry for the US State Dept. But not that sorry.
Even if they were to successfully Kangeroo Court a trial on Assange and execute him for exposing their own crimes, a million others would take his place. One gets what one resists. Look throughout history. There are many examples of nations getting the very policy, thohgt, ideology or whatever they originally so strenuously resisted.
This will be no different.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
US politicians introduce law to prosecute Wikileaks
New legislation in the US Congress targets WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for espionage prosecution.
Representative Peter King, a New York Republican, introduced the Securing Human Intelligence and Enforcing Lawful Dissemination, or SHIELD, Act on Tuesday. The bill would clarify US law by saying that it is an act of espionage to publish the protected names of American intelligence sources who collaborate with the military or intelligence agencies.
King introduced similar legislation in 2010. Senators John Ensign, Joe Lieberman and Scott Brown, introduced similar legislation in the Senate last week.
more at US politicians introduce law to prosecute Wikileaks.
Representative Peter King, a New York Republican, introduced the Securing Human Intelligence and Enforcing Lawful Dissemination, or SHIELD, Act on Tuesday. The bill would clarify US law by saying that it is an act of espionage to publish the protected names of American intelligence sources who collaborate with the military or intelligence agencies.
King introduced similar legislation in 2010. Senators John Ensign, Joe Lieberman and Scott Brown, introduced similar legislation in the Senate last week.
more at US politicians introduce law to prosecute Wikileaks.
New information emerges on anti-WikiLeaks plot
Here's an update on the unfolding story of the trio of technology firms that hatched a plan to attack WikiLeaks and their supporters in the press -- including Salon's Glenn Greenwald. The plan was apparently prepared at the behest of Hunton and Williams, a large law firm working for Bank of America, which is worried because it thinks it is reportedly the subject of a future WikiLeaks document release.
The plan (.pdf) was outlined in a slideshow prepared by the three security firms; it was obtained and released online by the group of pro-WikiLeaks hackers known as Anonymous. One of the three firms, Palantir Technologies, just announced that it has put an engineer who was involved in the project on leave "pending a thorough review of his actions."
When this story broke last week, Palantir was quick to deny any involvement in the anti-WikiLeaks plan and to sever ties with one of the partner firms, HBGary, that had masterminded the plan. One of several provocative items in the plan said that Greenwald's public support for WikiLeaks needed "to be disrupted."
Here's where a new wrinkle in the story comes into play. Anonymous has now published a new batch of thousands emails hacked from executives at HBGary. And the emails appear to contradict Palantir's claim that it had nothing to do with developing the anti-WikiLeaks plan.
Here's what Palantir, which also apologized personally to Greenwald, said in a statement sent to reporters over the weekend:
Palantir did not participate in the development of the recommendations that Palantir and others find offensive.
Palantir was NOT retained by any party to develop such recommendations and indeed it would be contrary to Palantir ethics, culture and policies to do so.
That's a pretty airtight denial. But now let's look at an email exchange between HBGary executive Aaron Barr and Matthew Steckman, an engineer at Palantir (who has now been put on leave). On the morning of Dec. 3, Barr wrote Steckman:
From: Aaron Barr
Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 8:32 AM
To: Matthew Steckman
Cc: Eli Bingham; BERICO-Sam.Kremin
Subject: Re: first cut
One other thing. I think we need to highlight people like Glenn Greenwald. Glenn was critical in the Amazon to OVH transition and helped wikileaks provide access to information during the transition. It is this level of support we need to attack. These are established proffessionals that have a liberal bent, but ultimately most of them if pushed will choose professional preservation over cause, such is the mentality of most business professionals. Without the support of people like Glenn wikileaks would fold.
Aaron
At 8:39, Steckman replies:
I like the strengths/weaknesses highlights. Going to add those in, I'll add a "spotlight" on Glenn too.
Matthew Steckman
Palantir Technologies | Forward Deployed Engineer
And then at 8:52 Steckman wrote:
Updated with Strengths/Weaknesses and a spotlight on Glenn Greenwald...thanks Aaron!
Matthew Steckman
Palantir Technologies | Forward Deployed Engineer
The text of Barr's email was turned into bullet points and put on the slide about Greenwald in the anti-WikiLeaks planning document, which Steckman was apparently in charge of putting together. "It is this level of support we need to attack" from Barr's email became "it is this level of support that needs to be disrupted" on the slide.
In any case, even if he was merely assembling Barr's ideas, Steckman's role in creating the slideshow -- which, it should be noted, also carries Palantir's logo -- would seem to contradict the company's statement that "Palantir did not participate in the development of the recommendations that Palantir and others find offensive."
Asked about all this, a Palantir spokesman sent over a statement:
Palantir is a data integration software company based in Silicon Valley. We make data integration software that is as useful for fighting food borne illness as it is to fighting fraud and terrorism. Palantir does not make software that has the capability to carry out the offensive tactics proposed by HBGARY. Palantir never has and never will condone the sort of activities recommended by HBGARY. As we have previously stated, Palantir has severed all ties with HBGARY going forward. To ensure that we are in complete compliance with our company’s ethics and standards we have decided to place Matthew Steckman, 26 year old engineer, on leave pending a thorough review of his actions. Palantir was not retained by any party to develop such recommendations and indeed it would be contrary to Palantir’s ethics, culture and policies to do so.
Salon.com - Palantir Wikileaks Threat
Further reference links:
Threats against glenn greenwald wikileaks
Apology
Palantir Tech
Hunton Williams Law Firm
The plan (.pdf) was outlined in a slideshow prepared by the three security firms; it was obtained and released online by the group of pro-WikiLeaks hackers known as Anonymous. One of the three firms, Palantir Technologies, just announced that it has put an engineer who was involved in the project on leave "pending a thorough review of his actions."
When this story broke last week, Palantir was quick to deny any involvement in the anti-WikiLeaks plan and to sever ties with one of the partner firms, HBGary, that had masterminded the plan. One of several provocative items in the plan said that Greenwald's public support for WikiLeaks needed "to be disrupted."
Here's where a new wrinkle in the story comes into play. Anonymous has now published a new batch of thousands emails hacked from executives at HBGary. And the emails appear to contradict Palantir's claim that it had nothing to do with developing the anti-WikiLeaks plan.
Here's what Palantir, which also apologized personally to Greenwald, said in a statement sent to reporters over the weekend:
Palantir did not participate in the development of the recommendations that Palantir and others find offensive.
Palantir was NOT retained by any party to develop such recommendations and indeed it would be contrary to Palantir ethics, culture and policies to do so.
That's a pretty airtight denial. But now let's look at an email exchange between HBGary executive Aaron Barr and Matthew Steckman, an engineer at Palantir (who has now been put on leave). On the morning of Dec. 3, Barr wrote Steckman:
From: Aaron Barr
Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 8:32 AM
To: Matthew Steckman
Cc: Eli Bingham; BERICO-Sam.Kremin
Subject: Re: first cut
One other thing. I think we need to highlight people like Glenn Greenwald. Glenn was critical in the Amazon to OVH transition and helped wikileaks provide access to information during the transition. It is this level of support we need to attack. These are established proffessionals that have a liberal bent, but ultimately most of them if pushed will choose professional preservation over cause, such is the mentality of most business professionals. Without the support of people like Glenn wikileaks would fold.
Aaron
At 8:39, Steckman replies:
I like the strengths/weaknesses highlights. Going to add those in, I'll add a "spotlight" on Glenn too.
Matthew Steckman
Palantir Technologies | Forward Deployed Engineer
And then at 8:52 Steckman wrote:
Updated with Strengths/Weaknesses and a spotlight on Glenn Greenwald...thanks Aaron!
Matthew Steckman
Palantir Technologies | Forward Deployed Engineer
The text of Barr's email was turned into bullet points and put on the slide about Greenwald in the anti-WikiLeaks planning document, which Steckman was apparently in charge of putting together. "It is this level of support we need to attack" from Barr's email became "it is this level of support that needs to be disrupted" on the slide.
In any case, even if he was merely assembling Barr's ideas, Steckman's role in creating the slideshow -- which, it should be noted, also carries Palantir's logo -- would seem to contradict the company's statement that "Palantir did not participate in the development of the recommendations that Palantir and others find offensive."
Asked about all this, a Palantir spokesman sent over a statement:
Palantir is a data integration software company based in Silicon Valley. We make data integration software that is as useful for fighting food borne illness as it is to fighting fraud and terrorism. Palantir does not make software that has the capability to carry out the offensive tactics proposed by HBGARY. Palantir never has and never will condone the sort of activities recommended by HBGARY. As we have previously stated, Palantir has severed all ties with HBGARY going forward. To ensure that we are in complete compliance with our company’s ethics and standards we have decided to place Matthew Steckman, 26 year old engineer, on leave pending a thorough review of his actions. Palantir was not retained by any party to develop such recommendations and indeed it would be contrary to Palantir’s ethics, culture and policies to do so.
Salon.com - Palantir Wikileaks Threat
Further reference links:
Threats against glenn greenwald wikileaks
Apology
Palantir Tech
Hunton Williams Law Firm
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Ten Results from Wikileaks
So what have we learned from the documents? Here's an incomplete list – incomplete because there are tens of thousands of cables still out there.
1. Silvio Berlusconi 'profited from secret deals' with Vladimir Putin
Yes, we may have known that these two men were close – but this is the first time allegations of financial ties have surfaced, with Putin allegedly giving Berlusconi a cut of energy contracts.
2. The US pressured Spain over CIA rendition and Guantánamo
The extraordinary tale of how the Bush administration threatened Spain to leave off its prosecutions over the US's use of torture – and how senior Spanish legal officials connived with the US to help them.
3. US diplomats spied in the UN's leadership
The shocking news that the US state department, acting on a wishlist drawn up by the CIA, asked its diplomats to obtain credit card accounts, email addresses, mobile phone numbers and even the DNA of UN officials, a possible breach of international law.
4. The scale of Afghan corruption is overwhelming
Even knowing that there was widespread corruption is no preparation for the magnitude of it, suggesting the US has a hopeless task in Afghanistan.
5. Hillary Clinton queried Cristina Kirchner's mental health
A hugely damaging revelation in Argentina, straining relations with the US after the cables revealed an official request to find out if the country's president was on "medication" and how she dealt with stress.
6. The Bank of England governor played backroom politics
Mervyn King faced calls for his resignation and a very uncomfortable position after he was revealed to be advising the Conservatives on fiscal policy while denigrating them in secret to US diplomats.
7. The British government remains in thrall to the US
Over Diego Garcia, over an international cluster munitions ban, over using British bases for rendition and spying flights, the British authorities were either ignored, manipulated or co-opted.
8. the Australian Government would rather support the big bully in the playground that one of its own citizens.
The Prime minister prefers the US Government and its secret crimes to the protection of its own citizens.
9. The Australian Government is not immune to stupidity.
Kevin Rudd, Prime Minister Julia Gillard, That fellow who has the rock band, Midnight oil.
and 10. the Australian government would rather sopend millions defending the interests iof the US in afganistan despire considering the 'hopelessness' of the effort and regardless of the Australian Lives lost and while millions are needed in Australia to cover the devastation from floods, fires and cyclones. Evidently US interests are more important.
And that's not even a particularly complete list of what we know, because there has been so much it's very difficult to decide what has had the most impact. But this is all far from over. For all we know there is a ticking time bomb sitting among the unpublished cables – unnoticed by the teams of journalists working through them and waiting to go off.
Some information sourced from the Huffington Post.
1. Silvio Berlusconi 'profited from secret deals' with Vladimir Putin
Yes, we may have known that these two men were close – but this is the first time allegations of financial ties have surfaced, with Putin allegedly giving Berlusconi a cut of energy contracts.
2. The US pressured Spain over CIA rendition and Guantánamo
The extraordinary tale of how the Bush administration threatened Spain to leave off its prosecutions over the US's use of torture – and how senior Spanish legal officials connived with the US to help them.
3. US diplomats spied in the UN's leadership
The shocking news that the US state department, acting on a wishlist drawn up by the CIA, asked its diplomats to obtain credit card accounts, email addresses, mobile phone numbers and even the DNA of UN officials, a possible breach of international law.
4. The scale of Afghan corruption is overwhelming
Even knowing that there was widespread corruption is no preparation for the magnitude of it, suggesting the US has a hopeless task in Afghanistan.
5. Hillary Clinton queried Cristina Kirchner's mental health
A hugely damaging revelation in Argentina, straining relations with the US after the cables revealed an official request to find out if the country's president was on "medication" and how she dealt with stress.
6. The Bank of England governor played backroom politics
Mervyn King faced calls for his resignation and a very uncomfortable position after he was revealed to be advising the Conservatives on fiscal policy while denigrating them in secret to US diplomats.
7. The British government remains in thrall to the US
Over Diego Garcia, over an international cluster munitions ban, over using British bases for rendition and spying flights, the British authorities were either ignored, manipulated or co-opted.
8. the Australian Government would rather support the big bully in the playground that one of its own citizens.
The Prime minister prefers the US Government and its secret crimes to the protection of its own citizens.
9. The Australian Government is not immune to stupidity.
Kevin Rudd, Prime Minister Julia Gillard, That fellow who has the rock band, Midnight oil.
and 10. the Australian government would rather sopend millions defending the interests iof the US in afganistan despire considering the 'hopelessness' of the effort and regardless of the Australian Lives lost and while millions are needed in Australia to cover the devastation from floods, fires and cyclones. Evidently US interests are more important.
And that's not even a particularly complete list of what we know, because there has been so much it's very difficult to decide what has had the most impact. But this is all far from over. For all we know there is a ticking time bomb sitting among the unpublished cables – unnoticed by the teams of journalists working through them and waiting to go off.
Some information sourced from the Huffington Post.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Bank of America using Private Intel Firms to Attack Wikileaks
From Wikileaks:
Bank of America using Private Intel Firms to Attack Wikileaks
In a document titled "The WikiLeaks Threat" three data intelligence companies, Plantir Technologies, HBGary Federal and Berico Technologies, outline a plan to attack Wikileaks. They are acting upon request from Hunton and Williams, a law firm working for Bank of America. The Department of Justice recommended the law firm to Bank of America according to an article in The Tech Herald. The prosed attacks on WikiLeaks according to the slides include these actions:
* Feed the fuel between the feuding groups. Disinformation. Create messages around actions of sabotage or discredit the opposing organizations. Submit fake documents and then call out the error.
* Create concern over the security of the infrastructure. Create exposure stories. If the process is believed not to be secure they are done.
* Cyber attacks against the infrastructure to get data on document submitters. This would kill the project. Since the servers are now in Sweden and France putting a team together to get access is more straightforward.
* Media campaign to push the radial and reckless nature of WikiLeaks activities. Sustain pressure. Does nothing for the fanatics, but creates concern and doubt among moderates.
* Search for leaks. Use social media to profile and identify risky behavior of employees.
interestingly the Bank of America has not even been named. We do not, as yet, know which bank Assange is talking about.
Hence the overboard reaction by the BOA smacks of hidden guilty secrets being frantically compensated for by the BOA. Interesting, hmmm ..........
Bank of America using Private Intel Firms to Attack Wikileaks
In a document titled "The WikiLeaks Threat" three data intelligence companies, Plantir Technologies, HBGary Federal and Berico Technologies, outline a plan to attack Wikileaks. They are acting upon request from Hunton and Williams, a law firm working for Bank of America. The Department of Justice recommended the law firm to Bank of America according to an article in The Tech Herald. The prosed attacks on WikiLeaks according to the slides include these actions:
* Feed the fuel between the feuding groups. Disinformation. Create messages around actions of sabotage or discredit the opposing organizations. Submit fake documents and then call out the error.
* Create concern over the security of the infrastructure. Create exposure stories. If the process is believed not to be secure they are done.
* Cyber attacks against the infrastructure to get data on document submitters. This would kill the project. Since the servers are now in Sweden and France putting a team together to get access is more straightforward.
* Media campaign to push the radial and reckless nature of WikiLeaks activities. Sustain pressure. Does nothing for the fanatics, but creates concern and doubt among moderates.
* Search for leaks. Use social media to profile and identify risky behavior of employees.
interestingly the Bank of America has not even been named. We do not, as yet, know which bank Assange is talking about.
Hence the overboard reaction by the BOA smacks of hidden guilty secrets being frantically compensated for by the BOA. Interesting, hmmm ..........
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Second day in Court
Julian Assange is facing a second day in a British court as he continues to fight attempts to extradite him to Sweden where he could face charges of rape and molestation.
Geoffrey Robertson Australian QC*, the 39-year-old Australian’s lawyer, is expected to emphasis the point that Assange could face the death penalty if he is extradited on from Sweden to the United States on separate charges relating to the whistleblowing website.
The lawyer concentrated his energies over the first day of the two-day hearing Monday arguing that Assange would face a denial of justice if extradited over allegations of rape and molestation.
Mr Assange maintains that the claims of sexual molestation and rape are politically motivated and vehemently denies all charges. He remains confident that he will not be forced to return to Sweden.
A the end of the first day's evidence, Assange likened the accusations to a black box with the label of rape on the outside and said he was confident the court case would reveal that the black box was in fact empty and has nothing to do with the words printed on the outside.
The ruling is expected to be deferred until later this month by the judge and Assange has the right to appeal his case all the way to England's supreme court. His lawyer said a rape trial in Sweden would violate his rights and said he would be tried behind closed doors in what he called a "flagrant denial of justice".
*Geoffrey Robertson QC has been counsel in many landmark cases in constitutional, criminal and media law in the courts of Britain and the commonwealth and he makes frequent appearances in the Privy Council and the European Court of Human Rights. His recent cases include: appearing for the Wall Street Journal in Jameel v WSJ, the landmark House of Lords decision which extended a public interest defence for the media in libel actions; representing Tasmanian aborigines in the novel action which stopped the Natural History Museum from experimenting on the remains of their ancestors; defending the Chief Justice of Trinidad at impeachment proceedings; arguing the Court of Appeal case (R v F) which first defined “terrorism” for the purpose of British law; arguing for the right of the public to see royal wills and representing a trust for the education of poor children in litigation in Anguilla over a billion dollar bequest. He has maintained a wide advisory practice and has served part-time as a UN appeal judge at its war crimes court in Sierra Leone. In 2008 the UN Secretary General appointed him as one of the three distinguished jurist members of the UN’s Internal Justice Council.
Mr Robertson is the author of Crimes against Humanity – The Struggle for Global Justice, published by Penguin and the New Press (USA), now in its third edition; of a memoir, The Justice Game (Vintage), which has sold over 100,000 copies, and of Robertson and Nicol on Media Law (Sweet & Maxwell). He writes and broadcasts regularly on international legal issues and creates Geoffrey Robertson’s Hypotheticals for television and for ethics education. His most recent publication is The Tyrannicide Brief, the story of how Cromwell’s lawyers produced the first trial of a Head of State – that of Charles I. It traces the memorable career of John Cooke, the radical barrister and visionary social reformer who had the courage and intellect to devise a way to end the impunity of sovereigns. The book is published by Chatto & Windus in the UK, after Australia (where it rose to second in the non-fiction bestseller list) and is pubished by Anchor Books in the U.S., where it won a “Silver Gavel” Award from the American Bar Association. Mr Robertson has written an extensive introduction to Geoffrey Robertson presents The Levellers – The Putney Debates (Verso, 2007); the foreword to Torture (Human Rights Watch/ Macmillan) and A Question of Zion (Professor Jacqueline Rose/ Melbourne University Press) and is a contributor to Human Rights in the War on Terror (Cambridge University Press). His paper Ending Impunity: How International Criminal Law Can Put Tyrants on Trial has been published in the 2005 Cornell Law Journal (issue 3, Volume 38). In 2006 he chaired a Commission of Inquiry into the United Nation’s internal justice system. A copy is available on this website: see “Recent Articles”.
Geoffrey Robertson is founder and head of Doughty Street Chambers, the UK’s leading human rights practice, which comprises some 80 barristers and 30 staff. He is a Bencher of the Middle Temple; and a Recorder (part-time judge) in London; an executive Member of Justice, and a trustee of the Capital Cases Trust. He is visiting Professor in Human Rights at Queen Mary College, University of London. He lives in London with his wife, author Kathy Lette, and their two children.
Reference: http://www.geoffreyrobertson.com
Geoffrey Robertson Australian QC*, the 39-year-old Australian’s lawyer, is expected to emphasis the point that Assange could face the death penalty if he is extradited on from Sweden to the United States on separate charges relating to the whistleblowing website.
The lawyer concentrated his energies over the first day of the two-day hearing Monday arguing that Assange would face a denial of justice if extradited over allegations of rape and molestation.
Mr Assange maintains that the claims of sexual molestation and rape are politically motivated and vehemently denies all charges. He remains confident that he will not be forced to return to Sweden.
A the end of the first day's evidence, Assange likened the accusations to a black box with the label of rape on the outside and said he was confident the court case would reveal that the black box was in fact empty and has nothing to do with the words printed on the outside.
The ruling is expected to be deferred until later this month by the judge and Assange has the right to appeal his case all the way to England's supreme court. His lawyer said a rape trial in Sweden would violate his rights and said he would be tried behind closed doors in what he called a "flagrant denial of justice".
*Geoffrey Robertson QC has been counsel in many landmark cases in constitutional, criminal and media law in the courts of Britain and the commonwealth and he makes frequent appearances in the Privy Council and the European Court of Human Rights. His recent cases include: appearing for the Wall Street Journal in Jameel v WSJ, the landmark House of Lords decision which extended a public interest defence for the media in libel actions; representing Tasmanian aborigines in the novel action which stopped the Natural History Museum from experimenting on the remains of their ancestors; defending the Chief Justice of Trinidad at impeachment proceedings; arguing the Court of Appeal case (R v F) which first defined “terrorism” for the purpose of British law; arguing for the right of the public to see royal wills and representing a trust for the education of poor children in litigation in Anguilla over a billion dollar bequest. He has maintained a wide advisory practice and has served part-time as a UN appeal judge at its war crimes court in Sierra Leone. In 2008 the UN Secretary General appointed him as one of the three distinguished jurist members of the UN’s Internal Justice Council.
Mr Robertson is the author of Crimes against Humanity – The Struggle for Global Justice, published by Penguin and the New Press (USA), now in its third edition; of a memoir, The Justice Game (Vintage), which has sold over 100,000 copies, and of Robertson and Nicol on Media Law (Sweet & Maxwell). He writes and broadcasts regularly on international legal issues and creates Geoffrey Robertson’s Hypotheticals for television and for ethics education. His most recent publication is The Tyrannicide Brief, the story of how Cromwell’s lawyers produced the first trial of a Head of State – that of Charles I. It traces the memorable career of John Cooke, the radical barrister and visionary social reformer who had the courage and intellect to devise a way to end the impunity of sovereigns. The book is published by Chatto & Windus in the UK, after Australia (where it rose to second in the non-fiction bestseller list) and is pubished by Anchor Books in the U.S., where it won a “Silver Gavel” Award from the American Bar Association. Mr Robertson has written an extensive introduction to Geoffrey Robertson presents The Levellers – The Putney Debates (Verso, 2007); the foreword to Torture (Human Rights Watch/ Macmillan) and A Question of Zion (Professor Jacqueline Rose/ Melbourne University Press) and is a contributor to Human Rights in the War on Terror (Cambridge University Press). His paper Ending Impunity: How International Criminal Law Can Put Tyrants on Trial has been published in the 2005 Cornell Law Journal (issue 3, Volume 38). In 2006 he chaired a Commission of Inquiry into the United Nation’s internal justice system. A copy is available on this website: see “Recent Articles”.
Geoffrey Robertson is founder and head of Doughty Street Chambers, the UK’s leading human rights practice, which comprises some 80 barristers and 30 staff. He is a Bencher of the Middle Temple; and a Recorder (part-time judge) in London; an executive Member of Justice, and a trustee of the Capital Cases Trust. He is visiting Professor in Human Rights at Queen Mary College, University of London. He lives in London with his wife, author Kathy Lette, and their two children.
Reference: http://www.geoffreyrobertson.com
Monday, February 7, 2011
The extradition battle begins ... meanwhile in what used to be the USA
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange will appear in a British court today to fight his extradition to Sweden, with leaked details shedding new light on the rape and molestation accusations he faces and doubtless coloring and possibly influencing the decision on weather to extradite him or not.
With the amount of media attention and discussion of the Rape charges it must be a difficult time for the judge to make an impartial assessment of the situation. The two-day hearing at a high security London court will examine a Swedish arrest warrant for Assange.
And what of manning, still lanquishing in a military prison? According to the 'Independent' lawyers acting for Bradley Manning, the US intelligence analyst accused of stealing classified diplomatic cables later made public by WikiLeaks, may file for the charges against him to be dismissed on the grounds that the nine months he has been held in solitary confinement in his tiny, bare prison cell under conditions which have been described as inhumane and tantamount to psychological torture have breach his constitutional rights.
While Britain at least makes an effort to invoke justice, it seems the 'land of the free' is not so free after all. Especially when it comes to justice. A case of 'don't do what we do, do what we say'. The catch cry of a dictatorship disguised as a 'democracy'.
the Independent goes on: "Pfc Manning's attorney, David Coombs, stressed that his client was the only detainee at the Quantico Marine Base in Virginia to be held in "maximum" custody, while others were being held in less draconian "medium" detention. The authorities initially said that Manning was being kept in solitary confinement for his own safety, but friends now believe it is being done for punishment."
Punishment, prior to a trial. It used to be in the US, one was innocent until one was proven guilty. Now it is the french syste, one is presumed guilty and has to prove ones innocence. Apparently by barter. this is not the US anymore.
"Legal analysts pointed out the ironic factor that Pfc Manning's deteriorating psychiatric state, allegedly the result of what he has experienced in detention, may undermine a possible US government line of prosecution of Mr Assange. The US Attorney General, Eric Holder, is said to be considering what form of plea bargain may be offered to the soldier if he were to incriminate the WikiLeaks chief as a fellow conspirator in disseminating classified information."
This is injustice by barter. "Tell us what we want to hear or we will continue to impose unconstitional activities on you.' Hmmmm
"Robert Feldman, a US lawyer specialising in security issues, said: "The view was that Manning was in such a fragile state that he may offer something on Assange. But one can turn this around in a courtroom by pointing out that he may say things to placate the authorities in order to get better treatment out of desperation."
"One can also say that if he has indeed been psychologically damaged then just how credible is his evidence."
But Mr Feldman added: "Would Eric Holder let the matter go easily? No. If he does, people like Sarah Palin will tear him to shreds."
"An online petition on behalf of Pfc Manning gathered more than 30,000 signatures in two days with his supporters claiming that attempts to find any evidence that he directly supplied material to WikiLeaks have failed. They claim that he remains incarcerated because the US Justice Department fears the wrath of the Republican Right if he is freed."
So the US Justice Dept is not independent it seems, but subject to outside influences. Well, there goes justice.
With the amount of media attention and discussion of the Rape charges it must be a difficult time for the judge to make an impartial assessment of the situation. The two-day hearing at a high security London court will examine a Swedish arrest warrant for Assange.
And what of manning, still lanquishing in a military prison? According to the 'Independent' lawyers acting for Bradley Manning, the US intelligence analyst accused of stealing classified diplomatic cables later made public by WikiLeaks, may file for the charges against him to be dismissed on the grounds that the nine months he has been held in solitary confinement in his tiny, bare prison cell under conditions which have been described as inhumane and tantamount to psychological torture have breach his constitutional rights.
While Britain at least makes an effort to invoke justice, it seems the 'land of the free' is not so free after all. Especially when it comes to justice. A case of 'don't do what we do, do what we say'. The catch cry of a dictatorship disguised as a 'democracy'.
the Independent goes on: "Pfc Manning's attorney, David Coombs, stressed that his client was the only detainee at the Quantico Marine Base in Virginia to be held in "maximum" custody, while others were being held in less draconian "medium" detention. The authorities initially said that Manning was being kept in solitary confinement for his own safety, but friends now believe it is being done for punishment."
Punishment, prior to a trial. It used to be in the US, one was innocent until one was proven guilty. Now it is the french syste, one is presumed guilty and has to prove ones innocence. Apparently by barter. this is not the US anymore.
"Legal analysts pointed out the ironic factor that Pfc Manning's deteriorating psychiatric state, allegedly the result of what he has experienced in detention, may undermine a possible US government line of prosecution of Mr Assange. The US Attorney General, Eric Holder, is said to be considering what form of plea bargain may be offered to the soldier if he were to incriminate the WikiLeaks chief as a fellow conspirator in disseminating classified information."
This is injustice by barter. "Tell us what we want to hear or we will continue to impose unconstitional activities on you.' Hmmmm
"Robert Feldman, a US lawyer specialising in security issues, said: "The view was that Manning was in such a fragile state that he may offer something on Assange. But one can turn this around in a courtroom by pointing out that he may say things to placate the authorities in order to get better treatment out of desperation."
"One can also say that if he has indeed been psychologically damaged then just how credible is his evidence."
But Mr Feldman added: "Would Eric Holder let the matter go easily? No. If he does, people like Sarah Palin will tear him to shreds."
"An online petition on behalf of Pfc Manning gathered more than 30,000 signatures in two days with his supporters claiming that attempts to find any evidence that he directly supplied material to WikiLeaks have failed. They claim that he remains incarcerated because the US Justice Department fears the wrath of the Republican Right if he is freed."
So the US Justice Dept is not independent it seems, but subject to outside influences. Well, there goes justice.
Sunday, February 6, 2011
Assange to go before the British Court today
In a few short hours a British court will begin a two day hearing on a Swedish request to extradite Julian Assange, WikiLeaks founder, to face accusations of sex crimes.
The two-day extradition hearing will begin Monday at the high-security Belmarsh Magistrates' Court in southeast London.
If Judge Howard Riddle is satisfied Assange is wanted for the alleged crimes in question, that extradition would not breach his human rights and there are no other legal bars, then the court will order his extradition. Assange would then have seven days to appeal., the appeal process at London's High Court will need to commence within 40 days, although the court can extend this period in the "interests of justice." If it so wishes.
If the High Court upholds the extradition decision, a further appeal can still be made to Britain's Supreme Court, the highest judicial body in the land, but it only be done on a point of law considered to be of general public interest. Something which Assange’s legal team will doubtless have ready up their sleeve should it be needed. However, the Supreme Court ruling would be the end of the process.
If at any stage in the process the extradition is confirmed and there is no outstanding appeal, somewhat unlikely I would say, then Assange must be extradited within 10 days.
The two-day extradition hearing will begin Monday at the high-security Belmarsh Magistrates' Court in southeast London.
If Judge Howard Riddle is satisfied Assange is wanted for the alleged crimes in question, that extradition would not breach his human rights and there are no other legal bars, then the court will order his extradition. Assange would then have seven days to appeal., the appeal process at London's High Court will need to commence within 40 days, although the court can extend this period in the "interests of justice." If it so wishes.
If the High Court upholds the extradition decision, a further appeal can still be made to Britain's Supreme Court, the highest judicial body in the land, but it only be done on a point of law considered to be of general public interest. Something which Assange’s legal team will doubtless have ready up their sleeve should it be needed. However, the Supreme Court ruling would be the end of the process.
If at any stage in the process the extradition is confirmed and there is no outstanding appeal, somewhat unlikely I would say, then Assange must be extradited within 10 days.
Friday, February 4, 2011
'Our time has come' Assange tells Melbourne Rally
The city that Wikileaks was born in held a rally of over 1000 people last night at 6pm. The venue, the BMW Edge auditorium in Federation Square was so full that masses of people had to stand out i the rain and were content to do so in order to watch the speakers, including Julian Assange, on the giant screen.WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange said the era of the internet generation has arrived and that he will continue to expose "abusive organisations".
Speaking in a recorded message to a public meeting in Melbourne of over 1000 people, on Friday, Mr Assange said he can't wait to be back in his home town and called on Australians concerned about his plight to take action.
He compared WikiLeaks' push for more transparent governance to the civil rights movement of the 1950s, the peace movement of the 1960s, feminism movements and the environmental movement.
"For the internet generation this is our challenge and this is our time," Mr Assange said.
"We support a cause that is no more radical a proposition than that the citizenry has a right to scrutinise the state.
"The state has asserted its authority by surveilling, monitoring and regimenting all of us, all the while hiding behind cloaks of security and opaqueness," Mr Assange told the free speech rally.
"Surely it was only a matter of time before citizens pushed back and we asserted our rights," he said.
Mr Assange has been living in a mansion in England owned by a WikiLeaks supporter while he awaits an extradition hearing to decide if he will be sent to Sweden to face rape charges.
The full hearing is due to begin on Monday, and in his video address Mr Assange appeared calm next to a window overlooking a meadow as he read a prepared statement.
He continued. "With your help and support we will make our way through this storm and continue to publish and hold powerful and abusive organisations to account."
There have been numerous calls for him to be assassinated, including one from Tom Flanagan, a former adviser to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, and from rightwing commentators on America's Fox News.
Assange called on Australians to insist that attacks against his staff and organisation stop, that the federal government "come clean" on its interactions with foreign powers in relation to WikiLeaks, and that he be allowed to return home.
"We have been deeply moved by the concern that Australians have shown for us, but I ask that you turn your concern into action," he said.
He said that through its silence, the Australian government has condoned calls to have him and his staff killed.
Video of Julian Assange giving his message Julian Assange.
other speakers included:
Speakers include:
Jennifer Robinson - Assange's UK lawyer live by London videolink
Adam Bandt - Federal MP for Melbourne
Peter Gordon - Principal of Gordon Legal
Lizzie O'Shea - Melbourne public interest solicitor
Christopher Warren - Federal Secretary of Media, Entertainment & Arts
Alliance
The event was sponsored by the:
Law Institute Victoria, Liberty Victoria, Australian Lawyers for Human Rights, GetUp, Victorian Trades Hall Council, Media, Entertainment & Arts Alliance and Future Leaders
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Melbourne Uni Post office to Stay Open
The Melbourne University Post Office, where the WikiLeaks Post office Box is, has had a last minute reprieve. It had been earmarked for closure in December last year (2010) but the Melbourne University agreed to extend Australia Post's lease on the current post office site after some opressure was applied by various bodies including the Post office Union.The Post Office Union, Staff union and students and the local Federal Member, Adam Bandt as well as the Vice Chancellor all assisted with the union campaign to keep the post office open.
The Post office union will be lobbying for the university to provide an alternative site after the current building (The Archetecture Building) is pulled down.
The address for Wikileaks Post Box Number to which you can post donations using good old fashion postal mail is:
WikiLeaks (or any suitable name likely to avoid interception in your country)
BOX 4080
Australia Post Office - University of Melbourne Branch
Victoria 3052
Australia
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)