WikiLeaks

[Evan Burton]

I agree Dave. There are some things which have the potential to cause harm, but the overall good of Wikileaks is more important. I am placing trust in the people running it to know the difference.

[Greg Parker]

LOL - I guess Terry is so dim she fails to understand there is no contradiction between saying something could happen but has not happened.

Len, there is no contradiction in saying the thing you say here. But anyone with English as a first language would take your previous statement exactly as Greg, Dawn and I did.

You imply on the one hand that Wikileaks has put lives at risk, and then immeditiately question that vey notion by stating there is no evidence for it.

Sorry, but after attacking wikileaks as a potential threat, it makes absolutely zero sense to immediately question the basis for that very point of attack.

[John Dolva]

Wikileaks cables expose secrets and lies

Saturday, December 4, 2010 By Jay Fletcher More than 250,000 confidential files from United States embassies and consulates around the world sit in the database of whistleblower website Wikileaks.

The first 300 secret cables were made public over November 28-30 in what will become the “largest set of confidential documents ever to be released”, the website said.

“The documents [dating from 1966 to February this year] will give people around the world an unprecedented insight into US government foreign activities.”

The “activities” are wide ranging and cover almost every continent and global issue. Wikileaks founder Julian Assange described the cables from 274 embassies, consulates and diplomatic missions as a “diplomatic history of the United States”.

Wikileaks has released only a fraction of the documents it holds, but already evidence of backroom deals, spies and espionage, protection of war criminals and unbridled assault on countries that oppose US domination has been exposed for the world to see.

As journalists steadily tear through the notes, reports, communications and directives from his departments and officials, US president Barack Obama has tried to keep his distance from the exposé.

But US secretary of state Hillary Clinton — who wrote or authorised more than 8000 cables — pledged to take “aggressive steps to hold responsible” the people who had revealed US secrets.

Most governments and media organisations have attacked Wikileaks’ action as criminal and dangerous, while downplaying the evidence it has revealed.

But the British Guardian has defended Wikileaks. “By making available Washington's own account of its international dealings, Wikileaks has opened some of the institutions of global power to scrutiny and performed a democratic service in the process”, it said on December 1.

From an undisclosed location after the first cables were published, Assange told journalists on November 28: “The general trend for US accountability of the US military is worrying”. But he said Wikileaks relied on people inside the military who wanted to see things change.

Putting lives at risk?

After Wikileaks’ release of the Afghan war diary and the Iraq war logs, US officials furiously condemned it for putting “American lives at risk”. No evidence has surfaced to show any content of the war logs has resulted in harm to any individuals.

The real damage was to reveal the US government’s lies about the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Wikileaks exposed the blood on the US government’s hands.

Yet the same allegations were flung against Wikileaks for its newest release. Australia’s attorney-general Robert McClelland was among those who said the documents could “prejudice the safety of people referred to in the documentation”.

In the US, Republican and incoming chair of the House Homeland Security Committee Peter King called for Wikileaks to be designated a “foreign terrorist organisation”.

Think Progress’s Matthew Yglesias said on November 29: “King’s suggestion that we designate Wikileaks as a foreign terrorist organisation is in part grandstanding and in part an effort to devise a way to begin restricting freedom of the press.”

Meanwhile, right-wing former US vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin said she wanted Wikileaks to be “hunted down” and “neutralised”. She said Assange was “an anti-American operative with blood on his hands”. Right-wing US websites have echoed Palin’s call.

The December 3 Sydney Morning Herald reported that Assange now feared for his life.

“When you have people calling, for example, for his assassination, it is best to keep a low profile”, said Wikileaks spokesperson Kristinn Hrafnsson.

Government officials said the US would move to take “criminal action” against those who staged the leak.

“This is a serious violation of the law”, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said on November 29. “This is a serious threat to individuals that both carry out and assist our foreign policy.”

But journalist Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked US secrets on the Vietnam War in 1971, told the BBC World Service: “The best justification they can find for secrecy is that lives are at stake.

“Actually, lives are at stake as a result of silence and lies, which a lot of these leaks reveal.”

“Certainly the same charges were made about the Pentagon Papers and turned out to be quite invalid over the years, the same things that Hillary Clinton is saying now about Wikileaks, as a matter of fact.”

Before the release, all quarter of a million cables were made available to US analysis. Wikileaks itself crosschecked all the content and many names in the cables are blanked out.

Assange has released emails showing that repeated requests to review the cables were rejected by US officials.

He sent correspondence to the US ambassador in London on November 26, which said Wikileaks “would be grateful for the United States Government to privately nominate any specific instances … where it considers the publication of information would put individual persons at significant risk of harm”.

Assange said Wikileaks would “respect the confidentiality of advice provided by the United States government”.

A legal advisor to the US department of state responded that US departments would “not engage in a negotiation” with Wikileaks about the classified documents.

It said Wikileaks should instead shut down its site, return the information to the US government and destroy all its sources and correspondence.

Assange responded: “I understand that the United States government would prefer not to have the information that will be published in the public domain and is not in favour of openness.

“That said, either there is a risk or there is not. You have chosen to respond in a manner which leads me to conclude that the supposed risks are entirely fanciful and you are instead concerned to suppress evidence of human rights abuse and other criminal behaviour.”

War crimes in the Middle East

The leaked cables reveal how much US “diplomacy” in the Middle East has involved attempts to extend its “war on terror” to Iran.

Several Middle East countries including Israel, Saudi Arabia and Jordan were revealed to have urged the US to attack Iran to eliminate its nuclear program. Saudi ruler King Adbullah said the US should “cut off the head of the snake” and take military action against Iran.

The cables also revealed Saudi nationals remain among the biggest donors to Al-Qaeda and that the US considers Qatar an unreliable ally in the “war on terror”.

Afghanistan’s then vice-president Ahmed Zia Massoud was discovered carrying US$52 million in cash through Dubai airport in October 2009. A key US ally in Afghanistan, he was able to keep the money.

Most of the cables between Israel and US officials detailed “defence” cooperation and plots against Iran.

In April 2009, Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told US diplomats: “If Iran goes nuclear, peace will fail.” In another cable, the United Arab Emirates military said it believed Israel would attack Iran “with little or no notice”.

A report from the US embassy in Tel Aviv said: “Netanyahu praised President Obama’s commitment to missile defense, and commented that US-Israeli cooperation on missile defense sends a strong signal to Israel’s enemies.”

Yet another cable said Netanyahu described Israel’s main threats as “Iran’s nuclear program, the build-up of rockets and missiles in Lebanon, Syria and Gaza and the Goldstone report”, which details Israeli war crimes — including the use of toxic white phosphorous on civilians — during its 2008-09 war on Gaza.

Diplomats or spooks?

A leaked secret directive from the US state department sent to more than 30 embassies ordered diplomats to collect detailed intelligence about United Nations officials.

In July 2009, a “national human intelligence collection directive” (NHCD) was issued under Hillary Clinton to US diplomats to gather “personalities, biographic and biometric information” about key UN officials, council representatives and heads of state.

It showed US state department officials were ordered to spy on ranking North Korean diplomats, UN secretary-general Ban Ki-Moon, and the four other permanent representatives of the security council — China, Russia, France and Britain.

The secretary of state also wanted personal details about heads of peacekeeping operations, arms control bodies and other UN agencies, as well as the World Health Organization and the UNAIDS council.

The NHCD, which appeared to involve the CIA, the FBI and the US department of homeland security, said the directive was issued to know the “plans and intentions” of key UN officials on a range of global issues, including the situations in Darfur/Sudan, Afghanistan and Pakistan, Somalia, Iran and North Korea.

It also included detailed requests for personal financial details, credit card information, computer passwords, communications, frequent-flier membership and work schedules.

The UN has said diplomats spying on its representatives “breached international law”, the Guardian said on November 30.

Assange told Time magazine on December 1 that Clinton “should resign”.

“If it can be shown that she was responsible for ordering US diplomatic figures to engage in espionage in the United Nations, in violation of the international covenants to which the US has signed up. Yes, she should resign over that.”

The leaked cables show similar US directives for “reporting and collection needs” were made for several African, Latin American and Middle Eastern countries, including Palestine.

Nukes in the Netherlands

Many cables stressed the US’s global influence over “indentified” nuclear development.

A large part of international media coverage has focused on Iran’s nuclear program, the information that Iran and North Korea were trading in missile technology, and that Iran had allegedly acquired nuclear missiles that could “hit Western Europe”.

But a top-secret cable from US embassy in Islamabad, sent to Washington and several US embassies, discussed a long-term bid to get “highly-enriched uranium spent fuel” out of Pakistan. It also showed effort to cover up the plans.

In July 2009, an official (whose name was blanked out) told the ambassador’s office that a “recent [Pakistani government] interagency review of the program concluded that the ‘sensational’ international and local media coverage of the security of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons made it impossible to proceed at this time.

“If the local media got word of the fuel removal, ‘they certainly would portray it as the United States taking Pakistan’s nuclear weapons,’ he argued.

“The visit will have to be delayed for 3-4 months or until the political climate makes it more conducive to hosting a US visit, he stated.”

Other memos from European countries detail the proliferation of US-owned nuclear weapons hosted in several locations, including Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands and Turkey.

A confidential memo from the embassy in Berlin inadvertently referred to a proposal to “seek the removal of all remaining nuclear weapons from Germany”.

It read: “[German diplomat Cristoph] Heusgen said that from his perspective, it made no sense to unilaterally withdraw ‘the 20’ tactical nuclear weapons still in Germany which Russia maintains ‘thousands’ of them. It would only be worth it if both sides drew down.

“A withdrawal from Germany and perhaps from Belgium and the Netherlands could make it very difficult politically for Turkey to maintain its own stockpile, even though it is still convinced of the need to do so.

Sri Lanka’s war crimes

A report from the US ambassador in Colombo, Sri Lanka, showed that the Sri Lankan government and its army were resisting accountability for war crimes committed against the Tamil population.

The report “updated the Secretary of State on war crimes accountability following the end of the country’s long and bloody conflict”, Wikileaks said on December 1.

It read: “There are no examples we know of a regime undertaking wholesale investigations of its own troops or senior officials for war crimes while that regime or government remained in power.

“In Sri Lanka this is further complicated by the fact that responsibility for many of the alleged crimes rests with the country’s senior civilian and military leadership, including President [Mahinda] Rajapaksa and his brothers and opposition candidate General [sarath] Fonseka.”

It continued: “Most of the LTTE [Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam] leadership was killed at the end of the war, leaving few to be held responsible for those crimes.”

The Sri Lankan government is “holding thousands of mid- and lower-level ex-LTTE combatants for future rehabilitation and/or criminal prosecution.

“It is unclear whether any such prosecutions will meet international standards.”

Rajapaksa believed there was an “international conspiracy against Sri Lanka and its ‘war heroes’”, the embassy report from January said.

Latin America

The Guardian showed 16,495 cables came from embassies in Central and Latin America, including 2340 from Venezuela; 1958 from Honduras, where the US government supported an unelected coup-installed government; and 2461 from the embassy in Colombia.

Among the documents released over November 28-30 was extensive evidence of US moves to destroy popular governments across the continent, particularly plots to isolate Venezuela and marginalise its president Hugo Chavez.

Venezuela and Cuba were singled out; Paraguay’s left-wing president Fernando Lugo and Argentine president Christina Fernandez were targeted for information collection; and stability concerns were used as a pretext to establish aerial surveillance over Colombia’s borders.

Chavez praised the efforts of Wikileaks on national television and said Assange was “brave and courageous” for pursuing the openness of world governments.

“The empire stood naked”, he said on November 29. “I do not know what the United States is going to do … how many things have been disclosed.”

He said Clinton “should resign, it is the least she can do”.

“They should give an answer to the world rather than attacking and saying that it was a theft.”

From Brazil, cables detailed meetings between US officials and Brazilian minister of defence Nelson Jobim, which showed US efforts to alienate the progressive government of Venezuela.

In a cable dated February 12, 2008, Jobim and the US ambassador discussed the “possibility of Venezuela exporting instability” and advanced strategies to “bring Chavez into the mainstream of the continent”.

Wikileaks released several cables that revealed US efforts to use Brazil’s influence in Latin America, viewed by the US as the “anchor of South America”.

A confidential document from March 2008, after defence minister Jobim’s visit to Washington, outlined joint US-Brazil research and production projects, the exchange of military personnel and training, and the establishment of a “South American Defense Council”, which the US would oversee.

A particularly damaging document outlines a request from Clinton for information on Argentine president Christina Fernandez’s “mental state and health”.

Addressed to the embassy of Buenos Aires, the December 2009 secret cable said: “Washington analysts are interested in Argentine leadership dynamics, particularly with regards to Christina Fernandez de Kirchner and Nestor Kirchner [former president and Fernandez’s husband] … We are currently preparing a written product examining the interpersonal dynamics between [them].

“We would like to develop a more well-rounded view of Christina Fernandez de Kirchner’s personality.”

The note continued: “How is Christina Fernandez de Kirchner managing her nerves and anxiety? How does stress affect her behaviour toward advisors and/or her decisionmaking?”

Clinton also wanted to know about Fernandez’s political views and “on the job” details, and also asked if she was on medication. Some 2233 of the obtained cables were from the US consulate in Buenos Aires, the Guardian said.

Another document, from March 2008, classified as secret and “noforn” (for no foreign national), outlined the US’s “reporting and collection needs in Paraguay”.

In the lead-up to the April 2008 election, the US officials sought to acquire from leading candidates their views on foreign governments, especially the US, Venezuela and Cuba.

It specified the need for: “Biographic and financial information on all leading contenders, and especially … Fernando Lugo; and biometric data, to include fingerprints, facial images, iris scans, and DNA, on these individuals.”

It focused particularly on what financial or material support for Paraguay was coming from Venezuela and Cuba, even for student exchange programs or donations.

Bid to silence Assange

The US announced it would investigate the Australian-born Assange for violating espionage laws, and Australian officials said it was likely he would be arrested if he returned to Australia.

Wikileaks said 1008 of the leaked cables yet to be released came from the US embassy in Australia. Of these, 79 are labelled “secret”. A further 75 cables are from the Melbourne US consulate.

Australia’s attorney-general Robert McClelland said a “whole-of-government” taskforce would investigate the cables and the Australian Federal Police had been instructed to investigate Assange.

“From Australia's point of view, we think there are potentially a number of criminal laws that could have been breached”, McClelland said. “The Australian Federal Police are looking at that.”

The taskforce would include officials from the PM’s cabinet, spies from ASIS and ASIO and officials from the defence department.

On December 1, Interpol issued an international arrest warrant for Assange, alleging he was wanted for “sex crimes”. Similar accusations were raised against Assange after the Iraq war logs were released.

Assange told Forbes on November 29 that once Wikileaks has leaked the entire trove of diplomatic cables, the next target would be big business. Specifically, he said, a major US bank would find its books involuntarily opened to the world.

• 

From GLW issue 864

[John Dolva]

Truth is a crime in an empire of lies: defend Wikileaks

Sunday, December 5, 2010

Open letter to Prime Minister Julia Gillard,

cc Julian Assange, Wikileaks

Anti-war activists salute Wikileaks’ courage and determination in exposing the lies about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the ruthlessness with which the biggest imperial power — the US — seeks to maintain its global dominance.

We believe that Julian Assange and his colleagues’ unremitting efforts in shedding light on the truth about these wars provides vital and valid documents for anti-war and human rights activists in Australia and across the globe in the struggle against unjust wars and occupations.

We strongly condemn your threats against Wikileaks.

The fact that you and your US counterparts are so infuriated by Wikileaks that you want it shut down and are trying to criminalise Julian Assange shows just how powerful the truth is.

Julian Assange has reminded the world about the power of the corporate media, the lack of government accountability and the injustice of the wars you and others are waging.

Wikileaks should be congratulated for its service to humanity and for reminding us who the real criminals are.

Troops out of Afghanistan! Justice for Palestine! Hands off Yemen and Iran!

[Please circulate this sign-on letter initiated by Sydney Stop the War Coalition.

To sign on, email Stop_the_War@yahoogroups.com ]

• 

From GLW issue 864

[John Dolva]

Editorial: We have a right to know

Sunday, December 5, 2010

Julian Assange.

Wikileaks and its founder Julian Assange have made some powerful enemies. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has accused Wikileaks of putting the world in danger and Australian PM Julia Gillard has said its activities are illegal.

In the US, Wikileaks has been denounced as a terrorist organisation and there have been calls for Assange to be either prosecuted, kidnapped or simply assassinated.

This has not just been in the ravings of far-right Fox News shock jocks, but from media and prominent politicians across the mainstream political spectrum. A former adviser to Canadian PM Stephen Harper suggested killing him (and presumably anyone close by) with a drone strike.

US officials are preparing a prosecution under the Espionage Act and the US Congress is preparing legislation designed specifically to stop Wikileaks.

The liberal media have held forth that Wikileaks’ “irresponsible” revelations have harmed diplomacy and endangered lives. They accuse Wikileaks of going beyond the acceptable limits of investigative journalism.

Yet Wikileaks is doing precisely what investigative journalists are supposed to do, but generally don’t. It has exposed abuses of power that hide behind the veil of government secrecy.

It is the US government’s spying on UN officials and diplomats that is illegal, not Wikileaks’ exposure of it.

Likewise, the catalogue of illegal abductions and torture, war crimes, corruption and subversions of democracy revealed by Wikileaks shows criminality on the part of the US and other governments.

This is why they are now baying for Assange’s blood.

The notion — promoted by “responsible” journalists — that secrecy is a necessary part of diplomacy is profoundly undemocratic.

Far from endangering lives, Wikileaks’ revelations put a spotlight on the appalling loss and destruction of life that is routinely hidden by western governments.

One revelation — that the US knew, while pretending not to know, the extent of the Sri Lankan state’s violence against Tamils during and after the 2009 military offensive — is enough to show that official secrecy, not its exposure, really endangers lives.

Wikileaks has undoubtedly damaged US political interests, as well as those of several other regimes.

Wikileaks has said its next project will involve exposing the secrets of banks and other corporations.

Making enemies of the world’s most powerful entities comes at a price. Assange is still free at the time of writing, but he may soon face arrest.

Meanwhile, Bradley Manning, a US army private disillusioned by human rights abuses in Iraq and accused of leaking military secrets to Wikileaks, has been held in solitary confinement since May.

Regardless of whether he did what he is accused of, Manning is an innocent person held by criminals.

Supporters of democracy and opponents of violence and corruption must call for Manning to be released, for the threats against Assange to stop. But most importantly, we need an end to the military, government and corporate secrecy behind which the rulers of the world hide their crimes.

* ShareThis

From GLW issue 864

Washington, Dec 6: Amid heavy hacking attacks, the whistle-blowing website WikiLeaks has released more than 355 mirror websites of the original site.

WikiLeaks released the mirror websites, which are the exact copy of original site, to continue the release of the United States diplomatic cables. In case of hacking of the original website, these mirror websites will allow the users to access the site.

"Wikileaks is currently under heavy attack. In order to make it impossible to ever fully remove Wikileaks from the Internet, you will find below a list of mirrors of Wikileaks website and CableGate pages," said WikiLeaks in its website.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has tweeted in his Twitter account that, "now WikiLeaks has more than 355 websites".

WikiLeaks also asked users to create mirror sites using their hosting resources.

"In order to make it impossible to ever fully remove Wikileaks from the Internet, we need your help. If you have a unix-based server which is hosting a website on the Internet and you want to give wikileaks some of your hosting resources, you can help," said WikiLeaks.

WikiLeaks has given the form for creating the mirror site, where users have to submit their IP Address, Login Password, HTML path and Login Name.

OneIndia News

http://news.oneindia.in/2010/12/06/wikileaks-releases-mirror-sites-check-hacking.html

Washington, Dec 5: The whistle-blower WikiLeaks' website has gone offline again after facing some unknown technical errors.

The Swedish company, which provides domain for WikiLeaks, has said on Sunday, Dec 5 that it is trying to fix the technical error to make the site online. The company said that it is redirecting the domain wikileaks.ch to another server

based in Sweden.

Australia works with US to kill me: Julian Assange

The WikiLeaks main server in France has stopped working. But the site can be accessed through the numerical address http://213.251.145.96/.

Earlier on the Thursday, Dec 2, United States domain host provider EveryDNS.net had terminated WikiLeaks account citing malicious attack on it. Later WikiLeaks shifted to Swiss domain and continued the release of US diplomatic cables.

OneIndia News

[John Dolva]

http://uk.news.yahoo...om-p152046.html

Fifa and Wikileaks reveal the limits of press freedom

Sun Dec 05 12:58PM

From Switzerland to Washington, the leaders of the world are lashing out as technology threatens their rule

.Ian Dunt

If you're of my generation, you were told a happy story about history. The fall of the Berlin wall promoted a narrative about the perpetual improvement of Western societies. We would be more secure, but also richer and freer.

That all turned out to be false. Instead of one international threat, there were now thousands. Our economies exhibited the same boom and bust tendency they always did. Since September 11th - but even before then - Britain, America and Australia imposed draconian curtailments of civil liberties under the guise of national security and counter-terrorism.

But the internet represented something different, something profoundly anarchic and impossible to regulate, something too complex and versatile to be smothered. It seemed like a categorical proof of the assumptions of the era. This week, we saw a massive spasm against its power, with the reaction against Wikileaks' publication of confidential US documents and Fifa's attempt to humiliate England after the press exposed its corruption.

The attack on Wikileaks was extraordinary, perhaps even unprecedented. Secretary of state Hillary Clinton said its decision to publish was "an attack on the world". Sarah Palin, famously a bastion of wisdom, branded Wikileaks founder Julian Assange an "anti-American operative with blood on his hands". The condemnation was international, and not just from politicians. Media commentators got in on the act too.

Then the rape charges, often talked about, suddenly appeared in newspapers again. Sweden's Supreme Court refused to consider his appeal against the arrest warrant. Interpol put him on its 'red notice' wanted list. The UK's Serious Organised Crime Agency flagged it and police moved to arrest him. I have no idea what the veracity of the claims is. I know just the bare minimum about the details. But the timing, it hardly needs saying, is extraordinary.

All the while, in the background, came the cyber threats- a significant new front in the US's battle with the Australian maverick. On Friday morning, it finally appeared to pay off, after Wikileaks went offline and then moved to a Swedish domain name, after its domain name provider finally pulled the plug. It would have been able to rely on Amazon's servers, but it was pulled from there on Wednesday, days after Senate chairman Joe Lieberman called for any organisation helping Wikileaks to "immediately terminate" the relationship.

That demand prompted data visualisation company Tableau Software to pull an image featuring a Wikileaks diplomatic cable. "Our decision to remove the data from our servers came in response to a public request by senator Joe Lieberman," the company said on its blog. Amazon insisted its decision had nothing to do with Lieberman, and was instead because of breaches to its terms of service concerning content ownership. Again, it's funny timing. Amazon made no complaints when previous leaks were published.

Meanwhile, some other powerful men were taking their own stand against press freedom in Zürich, Switzerland, where the headquarters of the world football authority Fifa is based. The world watched to see where the 2018 and 2022 World Cups would be held. England's bid, considered the most technically and economically sound, and which would use pre-existing stadiums, had one fatal flaw: the country also has a free press.

A Sunday Times and BBC expose on Fifa corruption had scuppered the England bid. Media reports suggested Fifa president Sepp Blatter raised the issue of the media allegations at an executive committee meeting on Wednesday, just as Amazon was shutting out Wikileaks. He allegedly handed out cuttings of the negative coverage. Jack Warner, the subject of many of the reports, went against his professed desire to vote for England and backed another bid, taking his voting block with him. The two winning bids - from Russia and Qatar - suffered the greatest allegations of corruption, won the lowest scores in Fifa's technical assessment and enjoyed the largest budgets.

"These countries blame people of corruption, they blame people without any grounds or evidence, it can be seen as putting pressure on Fifa members, and then they put it in their mass media all over the world," Russian president Vladimir Putin said. He should know. This week Russian journalist Oleg Kashin, who was beaten senseless last month by unknown assailants, finally spoke out about his ordeal. It is widely believed that the attack was a result of his investigative work on pro-Kremlin youth groups and plans to run a highway through the Khimki oak forest. The International Press Institute, Reporters without Borders, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have all criticised Russian press regulations, which push news outlets into self-censorship. According to the Wikileaks cables, Russia is a Mafia state - a fairly colourful way of putting what anyone who knows Russia will corroborate: its corruption runs all the way through it - and all the way up to the top.

Qatar, despite being home to the occasionally excellent Al-Jazeera, is not a hotbed of press freedom either. According to the annual World Press Freedom Review, compiled by the International Press Institute, there are few outright threats to journalists. "This is, however, less of a reflection of an open press freedom environment and more the result of widespread self-censorship practiced by journalists who rarely dare to publish criticism of the ruling family or domestic affairs in the mainstream media," it reads. The five leading newspapers are privately owned, but their boards include royal family members and "other notables" who exert considerable influence over content.

These are the kinds of threats, the kind of rooted interests, that strive to disprove that story I grew up with, the one about improvement and the power of technology to liberate. The White House, Fifa and Moscow all feel the icy fear of loss of control - and they're lashing out. This week has seen that battle at its most dramatic.

The way you respond to it defines you as a political animal. The majority of the coverage about Wikileaks and the Fifa result has been profoundly depressing. I've documented the media's response to Wikileaks already, and the response to the World Cup decision is just as abject and pitiful. "My only issue, as you know, with the Sunday Times and the BBC, and more the BBC, was the timing of it," England bid chief executive Andy Anson said, pitifully. "In the last week... Fifa executive committee members were saying to us that our media is killing us." During the bid he had branded the coverage "unpatriotic" - the traditional attack used by those trying to stifle free speech. Former England captain Gary Lineker, who actually works for the BBC, said he was "unsettled" by the timing of the programme as well. Depressingly, this view isn't just one held by professionals. The public seem to have some sympathy as well. The BBC received 5,000 emails in the first hour after the news of the failed bid.

That's one way of reacting. To say, 'if you can't beat them, join them'. To lambast the people who try and bring truth, and accept the rules of the game. But there is another response to the stifling efforts of those who hate a free press, and that is to redouble your efforts.

If this week showed us the variety of enemies fighting press freedom, it also showed us that there is variety among those fighting for press freedom. Whatever happens to Assange now, he has demonstrated the methods required to hold power to account. Similar sites already exist in Asia and Africa. The use of secret back-up servers will be copied to defend against distributed denial of service attacks. The domain problem will have a solution, even if it's just a company which will not back down in the face of scary threats from powerful men. International hosting, combined with mirror sites, will deal with most other legal troubles.

That technical ability, combined with a professional journalistic integrity, will win the day. Back in the UK, it was that old, unfussy desire to cause trouble that prompted the Times and the BBC to again look into Fifa. The British press, despite its many flaws and its despairingly conservative mindset, still has the dignity to expose corruption even when it knows it will be castigated, not least by its own weak-willed political leaders.

There is a disconnect in the West between what we've been told about our society and the reality. When a company pulls an image because a senate chairman told them to, when a media commentator attacks a whistle-blowing website because he has become part of the establishment, when an official condemns a media report because it irritated his hosts - that's when we see the gap between the childhood story and the reality. But the spasm of control leaders tried to exert this week is not proof of their strength, it's proof of their fear.

The World Cup and Wikileaks rows are two sides of the same coin. As authorities note how the internet saps their power, the backlash will become more severe. We're entering a pivotal moment in the history of information freedom and transparency. Its resolution will affect the stories we tell the next generation about their society.

[John Dolva]

New WikiLeaks website not available in most of UAE

US State department warns staff and students not to discuss Wikileaks as it could 'endanger' job prospects

By

• Joseph George

Published Monday, December 06, 2010 The Wikileaks website, hosted in Switzerland, is not available in most parts of the UAE.

Subscribers of etisalat were unable to log on to wikileaks.ch the new domain of the whistleblowers site.

Subscribers of du however, were able to log on as of Monday morning.

Several other governments have also blocked access to the website accusing it of jeopardizing countries' security and foreign policy.

China on Sunday blocked access to the website. France says it would block Wikileaks from using French servers. According to reports French Industry Minister Eric Besson wrote a letter to business and technology leaders calling for ways to ban WikiLeaks from using servers in France. Amazon, an online retailer, stopped hosting for Wikileaks and Paypal has cancelled all donations to the website using its services.

"I have been trying to unsuccessfully access the new website since Saturday. Thanks to the dozens of mirror sites, the access has become easier," said Sudarshan a UAE resident.

Abdul Rahman who works in the publishing industry said he has also started to download the files uploaded on torrents.

WikiLeaks has posted a 1.4GB file encrypted with a 256-digit key said to be unbreakable. The file is titled "insurance.aes256", and contains all the US cables said to be in WikiLeaks' possession. The file can be decrypted only after the key is supplied.

Switzerland meanwhile has rejected growing international calls to force the site off the internet. The site's new Swiss registrar, Switch, today said there was "no reason" why it should be forced offline

In Pakistan, Lahore High Court has dismissed a petition seeking a ban on the Wikileaks website.The judge dismissed the petition and called it 'non-maintainable'. The judge added, "We must bear the truth, no matter how harmful it is."

WikiLeaks moved its website address to the Swiss http://wikileaks.ch on Friday after two US Internet providers withdrew their services.

Meanwhile, mirror websites, which replicate WikiLeaks's data, have emerged across the globe. A message on its Twitter says, "WikiLeaks strikes back. Cut us down and the stronger we become," along with links to more than two dozen mirrors.

The US State department was the latest to urge its staff and Columbia University students not to discuss Wikileaks. "Talking about WikiLeaks on Facebook or Twitter could endanger your job prospects," a State Department official warned students at Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs this week, reports said.

But support has been pouring in from Facebook and Twitter users. On Facebook alone it has more than 781,000 followers and another 380,000 plus followers on Twitter. Last night the numbers were increasing by the hour.

In one Twitter entry, a user said he/she would stop using paypal henceforth.

Some of the interesting tweets:

"All the censoring of WikiLeaks is more alarming than the actual content of the leaks. It only further justifies WL's actions."

"It's not wrong to lie, cheat, steal, corrupt, and torture. It's wrong to let people know about it."

"We elect Governments, not to dictate our freedoms, but to support our liberty. They serve us, we do not serve them."

"My Swedish girlfriend cannot do LIKE Wikileaks on Facebook. It's been removed shortly after added. Social censorship is coming!

http://www.emirates2...-12-06-1.325478

boycott amazon

Edited December 6, 2010 by John Dolva

[John Dolva]

lisf of mirrors

http://wikileaks.se/mirrors.html

archive 3.1 meg : http://wikileaks.se/file/wikileaks_archive.7z

[John Dolva]

to open file 7z : http://shell.windows.com/fileassoc/0409/xml/redir.asp?Ext=7z

[John Dolva]

Interesting. That's led to firewall probes from all over the planet.

I'm suspecting that the financial files to be released is the main reason for this massive coverup attempt by corrupt regimes.

Corruption is legal. Exposing it is not.

At least we can see the 'free' world for what it is (for a while).

Soon, no doubt, it will be back to business as usual.

Thank you Julian. You have opened many eyes to the real world we live in, however, for many, no doubt, ignorance is bliss and censorhip a must..

[Guest Tom Scully]

Entrenched wealth and power are aligned only in their common interests to hold on to what they have and to build on it, and not to any flag or state. We only have to watch how they behave in lockstep in reaction to their common enemy, the freeflow of information and those who work to expose the secrets of the powerful.

The professional news gatherers were long ago bought out or put out of business by the powerful. The powerful taught the journalism "profession" that there is no money or career advancement resulting from exposing their secrets. From time to time, those who are not motivated by personal gain to expose secrets , must be made examples of, as Daniel Ellsberg was, nearly 40 years ago.

From the son of Gen. Joseph Carroll, first director of the DIA:

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/07/30/the_peril_of_valuing_celebrity_over_history/

The peril of valuing celebrity over history

By James Carroll | July 30, 2007

......It was my host's house that "had history," but not my host. The shallowness of contemporary public discourse, devoid of history, is everywhere visible -- from the "eternal now" of celebrity journalism to the absurdity of an "antiwar" rhetoric that assumes, in fact, a permanent US war machine in Iraq. In the emerging Democratic consensus, forged by Congressional leaders and presidential front-runners, supposedly in opposition to Bush's war, "out now" is becoming "out when conditions permit" -- which is, of course, Bush's exact position. Such conditions will never come; therefore -- Garrison Forever.

Yet, speaking of history, this conjuring of the appearance of opposition where none actually exists has been mandated by the American political system since the onset of the Cold War. The quadrennial political puppet show, highlighting not opposition but its appearance, is essential to keeping the captive-taking war machine running and to inoculating the American people from the viral knowledge that they themselves were first to be captured.

A minimal acquaintance with history, including dissections of American culture already performed by both Sinclairs, would undermine our national complacency. Upton Sinclair, for example, showed the rapaciousness of capitalism, the vampire-like appetite with which it feeds on the blood of human beings. Even with "reforms" ("The Jungle" led to the establishment of the Food and Drug Administration), the profit-worshipping economy to this day eludes controls that would protect majorities of citizens in this country and across the world.

Sinclair Lewis, for his part, showed how the simultaneously banalizing methods of capitalist enterprise (false advertising, consumerism, pieties of affluence, amoral bureaucracy) are exactly what that enterprise created to keep from being criticized. Then inhale the crack cocaine of celebrity.

The US conflagration in the oil well of the globe was ignited without attention to history, which is why it flares out of control. But that war, fought by GIs, mercenaries, and proxies, will continue indefinitely, because, under the martial law that implicitly governs the United States, history can never be invoked except for its celebrity value -- not even history in the making. Therefore, it is certain that the staggering failures of Washington's current policy, so evident today, will be forgotten tomorrow, even as that policy is reaffirmed. Or, as they say, what's the dif?

Blocking firewalls will be replaced by government issued licenses required to access the internet. The licenses will be a privilege, not a right. We are nearing the end of the internet honeymoon period. Look for much greater restrictions. Sites like this one are probably a short lived phenomena. We may live to rue the day we were critical of Cass Sunstein's proposal to insert government monitors and provocateurs into internet forums. Maybe Cass correctly forecasted that it was either government monitoring and manipulation, or... no forums in the future, challenging and exposing the powerful, at all.

Edited December 6, 2010 by Tom Scully

[John Dolva]

http://wikileaks.se/

Wikileaks Mirrors

Wikileaks is currently under heavy attack.

In order to make it impossible to ever fully remove Wikileaks from the Internet, you will find below a list of mirrors of Wikileaks website and CableGate pages.

If you want to add your mirror to the list, see our Mass Mirroring Wikileaks page

Mirror List

Wikileaks is currently mirrored on 729 sites (updated 2010-12-06 22:32 GMT)

[John Dolva]

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/41914.html#comments

07 December 2010

Open letter: To Julia Gillard, re Julian Assange

'We wrote the letter below because we believe that Julian Assange is entitled to all the protections enshrined in the rule of law – and that the Australian Government has an obligation to ensure he receives them.

The signatures here have been collected in the course of a day-and-a-half, primarily from people in publishing, law and politics. The signatories hold divergent views about WikiLeaks and its operations. But they are united in a determination to see Mr Assange treated fairly.

We know that many others would have liked to sign. But given the urgency of the situation, we though it expedient to publish now rather than collect more names.

If, however, you agree with the sentiments expressed, we encourage you to leave your name in the comments section.

Dear Prime Minister,

We note with concern the increasingly violent rhetoric directed towards Julian Assange of WikiLeaks.“We should treat Mr Assange the same way as other high-value terrorist targets: Kill him,” writes conservative columnist Jeffrey T Kuhner in the Washington Times.

William Kristol, former chief of staff to vice president Dan Quayle, asks, “Why can’t we use our various assets to harass, snatch or neutralize Julian Assange and his collaborators, wherever they are?”

“Why isn’t Julian Assange dead?” writes the prominent US pundit Jonah Goldberg.

“The CIA should have already killed Julian Assange,” says John Hawkins on the Right Wing News site.

Sarah Palin, a likely presidential candidate, compares Assange to an Al Qaeda leader; Rick Santorum, former Pennsylvania senator and potential presidential contender, accuses Assange of “terrorism”.

And so on and so forth.

Such calls cannot be dismissed as bluster. Over the last decade, we have seen the normalisation of extrajudicial measures once unthinkable, from ‘extraordinary rendition’ (kidnapping) to ‘enhanced interrogation’ (torture).

In that context, we now have grave concerns for Mr Assange’s wellbeing.

Irrespective of the political controversies surrounding WikiLeaks, Mr Assange remains entitled to conduct his affairs in safety, and to receive procedural fairness in any legal proceedings against him.

As is well known, Mr Assange is an Australian citizen.

We therefore call upon you to condemn, on behalf of the Australian Government, calls for physical harm to be inflicted upon Mr Assange, and to state publicly that you will ensure Mr Assange receives the rights and protections to which he is entitled, irrespective of whether the unlawful threats against him come from individuals or states.

We urge you to confirm publicly Australia’s commitment to freedom of political communication; to refrain from cancelling Mr Assange's passport, in the absence of clear proof that such a step is warranted; to provide assistance and advocacy to Mr Assange; and do everything in your power to ensure that any legal proceedings taken against him comply fully with the principles of law and procedural fairness.

A statement by you to this effect should not be controversial – it is a simple commitment to democratic principles and the rule of law.

We believe this case represents something of a watershed, with implications that extend beyond Mr Assange and WikiLeaks. In many parts of the globe, death threats routinely silence those who would publish or disseminate controversial material. If these incitements to violence against Mr Assange, a recipient of Amnesty International’s Media Award, are allowed to stand, a disturbing new precedent will have been established in the English-speaking world.

In this crucial time, a strong statement by you and your Government can make an important difference.

We look forward to your response.

Dr Jeff Sparrow, author and editor

Lizzie O’Shea, Social Justice Lawyer, Maurice Blackburn

Professor Noam Chomsky, writer and academic

Antony Loewenstein, journalist and author

Mungo MacCallum, journalist and writer

Professor Peter Singer, author and academic

Adam Bandt, MP

Senator Bob Brown

Senator Scott Ludlam

Julian Burnside QC, barrister

Jeff Lawrence, Secretary, Australian Council of Trade Unions

Professor Raimond Gaita, author and academic

Rob Stary, lawyer

Lieutenant Colonel (ret) Lance Collins, Australian Intelligence Corps, writer

The Hon Alastair Nicholson AO RFD QC

Brian Walters SC, barrister

Professor Larissa Behrendt, academic

Emeritus Professor Stuart Rees, academic, Sydney Peace Foundation

Mary Kostakidis, Chair, Sydney Peace Foundation

Professor Wendy Bacon, journalist

Christos Tsiolkas, author

James Bradley, author and journalist

Julian Morrow, comedian and television producer

Louise Swinn, publisher

Helen Garner, novelist

Professor Dennis Altman, writer and academic

Dr Leslie Cannold, author, ethicist, commentator

John Birmingham, writer

Guy Rundle, writer

Alex Miller, writer

Sophie Cunningham, editor and author

Castan Centre for Human Rights Law

Professor Judith Brett, author and academic

Stephen Keim SC, President of Australian Lawyers for Human Rights

Phil Lynch, Executive Director, Human Rights Law Resource Centre

Sylvia Hale, MLC

Sophie Black, editor

David Ritter, lawyer and historian

Dr Scott Burchill, writer and academic

Dr Mark Davis, author and academic

Henry Rosenbloom, publisher

Ben Naparstek, editor

Chris Feik, editor

Louise Swinn, publisher

Stephen Warne, barrister

Dr John Dwyer QC

Hilary McPhee, writer, publisher

Joan Dwyer OAM

Greg Barns, barrister

James Button, journalist

Owen Richardson, critic

Michelle Griffin, editor

John Timlin, literary Agent & producer

Ann Cunningham, lawyer and publisher

Alison Croggon, author, critic

Daniel Keene, playwright

Dr Nick Shimmin, editor/writer

Bill O'Shea, lawyer, former President, Law Institute of Victoria

Dianne Otto, Professor of Law, Melbourne Law School

Professor Frank Hutchinson,Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies (CPACS), University of Sydney

Anthony Georgeff, editor

Max Gillies, actor

Shane Maloney, writer

Louis Armand, author and publisher

Jenna Price, academic and journalist

Tanja Kovac, National Cooordinator EMILY's List Australia

Dr Russell Grigg, academic

Dr Justin Clemens, writer and academic

Susan Morairty, Lawyer

David Hirsch, Barrister

Cr Anne O’Shea

Kathryn Crosby, Candidates Online

Dr Robert Sparrow, academic

Jennifer Mills, author

Foong Ling Kong, editor

Tim Norton, Online Campaigns Co-ordinator, Oxfam Australia

Elisabeth Wynhausen, writer

Ben Slade, Lawyer

Nikki Anderson, publisher

Dan Cass

Professor Diane Bell, author and academic

Dr Philipa Rothfield, academic

Gary Cazalet, academic

Dr David Coady, academic

Dr Matthew Sharpe, writer and academic

Dr Tamas Pataki, writer and academic

Miska Mandic

Associate Professor Jake Lynch, academic

Professor Simon During, academic

Michael Brull, writer

Dr Geoff Boucher, academic

Jacinda Woodhead, writer and editor

Dr Rjurik Davidson, writer and editor

Mic Looby, writer

Jane Gleeson-White, writer and editor

Alex Skutenko, editor

Associate Professor John Collins, academic

Professor Philip Pettit, academic

Dr Christopher Scanlon, writer and academic

Dr Lawrie Zion, journalist

Johannes Jakob, editor

Sunili Govinnage, lawyer

Michael Bates, lawyer

Bridget Maidment, editor

Bryce Ives, theatre director

Sarah Darmody, writer

Jill Sparrow, writer

Lyn Bender, psychologist

Meredith Rose, editor

Dr Ellie Rennie, President, Engage Media

Ryan Paine, editor

Simon Cooper, editor

Chris Haan, lawyer

Carmela Baranowska, journalist.

Clinton Ellicott, publisher

Dr Charles Richardson, writer and academic

Phillip Frazer, publisher

Geoff Lemon, journalist

Jaya Savige, poet and editor

Johannes Jakob, editor

Kate Bree Geyer; journalist

Chay-Ya Clancy, performer

Lisa Greenaway, editor, writer

Chris Kennett - screenwriter, journalist

Kasey Edwards, author

Dr. Janine Little, academic

Dr Andrew Milner, writer and academic

Patricia Cornelius, writer

Elisa Berg, publisher

Lily Keil, editor

Jenny Sinclair

Roselina Rose

Stephen Luntz

PM Newton

Bryan Cooke

Kristen Obaid

Ryan Haldane-Underwood

Patrick Gardner

Robert Sinnerbrink

Kathryn Millist

Anne Coombs

Karen Pickering

Sarah Mizrahi

Suzanne Ingleton

Jessica Crouch

Michael Ingleton

Matt Griffin

Jane Allen

Tom Curtis

John Connell

David Garland

Stuart Hall

Meredith Tucker-Evans

Phil Perkins

Alexandra Adsett

Tom Doig, editor

Beth Jackson

Peter Mattessi

Robert Sinnerbrink

Greg Black

Paul Ashton

Sigi Jottkandt

Kym Connell, lawyer

Silma Ihram

Nicole Papaleo, lawyer

Melissa Forbes

Matthew Ryan

Ben Gook

Daniel East

Bridget Ikin

Lisa O'Connell

Melissa Cranenburgh

John Bryson

Michael Farrell

Melissa Reeves

Dr Emma Cox

Michael Green

Margherita Tracanelli

David Carlin, writer

Bridget McDonnell

Geoff Page, writer

Rebecca Interdonato

Roxane Ludbrook-Ingleton

Stefan Caramia

Ash Plummer''

[Guest Tom Scully]

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/07/wikileaks/index.html

...Gitlin -- in the course of denouncing Julian Assange -- bolsters this falsehood: "Wikileaks’s huge data dump, including the names of agents and recent diplomatic cables, is indiscriminate" and Assange is "fighting for a world of total transparency."

The reality is the exact opposite -- literally -- of what Gitlin told TNR readers. WikiLeaks has posted to its website only 960 of the 251,297 diplomatic cables it has. Almost every one of these cables was first published by one of its newspaper partners which are disclosing them (The Guardian, the NYT, El Pais, Le Monde, Der Speigel, etc.). Moreover, the cables posted by WikiLeaks were not only first published by these newspapers, but contain the redactions applied by those papers to protect innocent people and otherwise minimize harm. Here is an AP article from yesterday detailing this process:

[T]he group is releasing only a trickle of documents at a time from a trove of a quarter-million, and only after considering advice from five news organizations with which it chose to share all of the material.

"They are releasing the documents we selected," Le Monde's managing editor, Sylvie Kauffmann, said in an interview at the newspaper's Paris headquarters. . . .

...To recap "Obama justice": if you create an illegal worldwide torture regime, illegally spy on Americans without warrants, abduct people with no legal authority, or invade and destroy another country based on false claims, then you are fully protected. But if you expose any of the evils secretly perpetrated as part of those lawless actions -- by publishing the truth about what was done -- then you are an Evil Criminal who deserves the harshest possible prosecution....

....Journalists cheering for the prosecution of Assange are laying the foundation for the criminalization of their own profession, or at least of the few who actually do investigative journalism. There is simply no coherent way to argue that what WikiLeaks did with these cables is criminal, but what the NYT, the Guardian and other papers did is not.

Finally, in light of all of this, I challenge anyone to get through this State Department Press Release without repeatedly cackling aloud. I don't believe it can be done.

More: Glenn Greenwald

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2010/12/152465.htm

Press Statement

Philip J. Crowley

Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Public Affairs

Washington, DC

December 7, 2010

The United States is pleased to announce that it will host UNESCO’s World Press Freedom Day event in 2011, from May 1 - May 3 in Washington, D.C. UNESCO is the only UN agency with the mandate to promote freedom of expression and its corollary, freedom of the press.

The theme for next year’s commemoration will be 21st Century Media: New Frontiers, New Barriers. The United States places technology and innovation at the forefront of its diplomatic and development efforts. New media has empowered citizens around the world to report on their circumstances, express opinions on world events, and exchange information in environments sometimes hostile to such exercises of individuals’ right to freedom of expression. At the same time, we are concerned about the determination of some governments to censor and silence individuals, and to restrict the free flow of information. We mark events such as World Press Freedom Day in the context of our enduring commitment to support and expand press freedom and the free flow of information in this digital age.

Highlighting the many events surrounding the celebration will be the awarding of the UNESCO Guillermo Cano World Press Freedom Prize at the National Press Club on May 3rd. This prize, determined by an independent jury of international journalists, honors a person, organization or institution that has notably contributed to the defense and/or promotion of press freedom, especially where risks have been undertaken.

The Newseum will host the first two days of events, which will engage a broad array of media professionals, students, and citizen reporters on themes that address the status of new media and internet freedom, and challenges and opportunities faced by media in our rapidly changing world.

The State Department looks forward to working with UNESCO and the U.S. executive committee spearheaded by the Center for International Media Assistance at the National Endowment for Democracy, IREX, and the United Nations Foundation and the many civil society organizations they have brought together in support of the organization of events unfolding in Washington.

For further information regarding World Press Freedom Day Events for program content, please visit the World Press Freedom Facebook page http://www.connect.connect.facebook.com/WPFD2011

[John Dolva]

Wikileaks is currently mirrored on 1005 sites (updated 2010-12-07 21:55 GMT)

http://wikileaks.se/mirrors.html