Wikileaks News

[noises]

So todays big wikileaks related news outside the bubble is, the US DOJ has subpoenaed the twitter account details for "wikileaks activists," including the tweets of one Birgitta Jonsdottir, who the spin doctors may call an "ex wikileaks volunteer," but who is in fact a serving member of Iceland's Parliament, an MP, a democratically elected member of a sovereign nation's government.

Is the US just trying to make itself look worse and worse to the rest of the world? Are they hell bent on becoming even more blatant in their belligerent attempts to dictate their will to the entire planet? Are there really people deluded enough in the DOJ to think they act with such total impunity? Or are they just too ignorant to ever conceive that people who volunteer for wikileaks may actually be held in very high public esteem elsewhere in the civilized world? What ever's going on, it's just plain disconcerting.

Ms Jonsdottir said it best when she described it as "I feel like someone's 'sending me a message,' like someone breathing down a phone." What the US is doing is creepy, intimidating and distressing, and I hope both Twitter the DOJ get sued into bankruptcy before this is all over.

DOJ sends order to Twitter for Wikileaks-related account info | Privacy Inc. - CNET News

[Mad Scientist]

Are there really people deluded enough in the DOJ to think they act with such total impunity?

In a word I would have to say Yes! Or at the very least they are get their marching orders from those who are convinced that they do.
It appears the Wikileaks is starting to irritate a few very important people (well at least they think they are very important) and we cannot allow that. Can we?

[noises]

The real headscratcher is, what on earth do the DOJ think they're going to unearth by subpoenaing information which is already on the public record? Twitter account detail includes a first and last name, country and a brief description, all of which are quite publicly available, (and there's no checks, I used false information when I set up my twitter account like I do with all my internet service accounts.) And the tweets themselves, well, they're right there on twitter. So what's the point of ordering Twitter to give up this information which is already in the public domain? Straight up intimidation if you ask me. Bullying.

<sarcasm> Someone let Obama know, he said he doesn't like bullying, maybe he'll call the wrathful hounds at the DOJ off. </sarcasm>

Just out of curiosity, have any of the people the DOJ are gunning for actually broken any laws? Or is this another one of those you-beaut, good old fashioned kangaroo court lynhchmobs devoid of due process at work again?

Well it seems twitter has told the DOJ to go fish. Good for them.

[Aaron]

Wikileaks news

Look at the last several tweets:
http://twitter.com/#!/wikileaks

[noises]

When the US intel spooks implemented Eschelon (the software based keyword scanner that checks all phone calls, emails, text messages and other forms of electronic communications for "subversive" content and flags the article for checking by a human,) it took the civil libertarians already online a grand total of around two weeks to come up with a way to make the information gleaned useless.

It was, simply, a request to all civil libertarians to simply start using those keywords in conversation! Saturation became an effective countermeasure. If they want to unlawfully listen in on private conversations, lets really give them something to listen to. You know the phrase "it's the bomb!" used to say something's really great? Eschelon spam. The word "bomb" is flagged, so it was pushed into common usage with slang. I can even still find the old pessemisim page where it first showed up. (oldschool version of the urban dictionary, which is where you'd start such a trend now.)

The bomb

If the idea of someone looking over your shoulder to see what you're looking at online creeps you out, what can you do about it? Well, one simple thing is to do, and encourage others to do, whatever it is that's being watched. So in this case, you'd put the word out for people to sign up to follow wikileaks on twitter. Hundreds of thousands of people. too many to check up on. So many that the idea of using "does person X follow wikileaks on twitter?" becomes a questions with a positive answer pool so large that it doesn't actually narrow anything down, forensically speaking.

And because just following someone on twitter isn't a crime, it's a no risk proposition. You have every right to follow whoever you want on that thing, and read or not read whatever you like, and say or not say whatever you think, because it is, after all, a free country. There are people who need to be reminded of that fact. So remind them. Practice online civil disobedience and nonviolent resistance. Engage your government directly in conversation. Write and ask questions. Reply, with more questions. If you just write to a congressman or MP saying "i think such and such is nice/not nice" you get no reaction, and it takes no time to simply throw your letter in the out tray and forget it. If you write and ask a question, assuming they want your vote, they've a kind of social obligation to give you an answer. If the answer is offensive to the ideas of liberty and justice, make those answers public. There are news orgaisations coming out now saying "you know what, I like what wikileaks is doing. I like the idea of knowing what my government is really getting up to at home and abroad." Engage them too.

All that is required for censorship and government facilitated corporate fascism to come about is for average people to do nothing. So do something.

[noises]

Pfc. Bradley Manning: Soldier's inhumane imprisonment in WikiLeaks case - latimes.com

The editor of the LA Times just won a humanity point and a gold star for doing what the media should do, report the news and encourage public accountability by creating public discourse.

I hope more news organisations follow suit, it would be nice to think the idea, "you can't keep a guy locked up forever without charging him for something," is still alive and well in minds of the people of the USA. The alternatives to that being the case are a bit frightening.

[noises]

Today, some news from the "saying wikileaks hasn't told us anything we didn't already know is a lie," files.

WikiLeaks cables: Pfizer 'used dirty tricks to avoid clinical trial payout' | Business | The Guardian
(nb dirty tricks = blackmailing govt officials. Payout was lawsuit over dead children in said clinical trials.)

How Wikileaks killed Spain's anti-P2P law

US Defense contractor DynCorp in Afghan child prostitution scandal

[noises]

Bradley Manning: One Soldier Who Really Did Defend Our Freedom

If there’s a soldier anywhere in the world who’s fought and suffered for my freedom, it’s Pfc. Bradley Manning.

One blogger's poke in the eye at anyone who thinks PFC Manning is getting what he deserves.

[Aaron]

On the Media: WikiLeaks - Holding up a mirror to journalism?

Frontline Club - Events: On the Media: WikiLeaks - Holding up a mirror to journalism?

Throughout 2010 whistleblower website WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange were making headlines with the release of classified documents. Both the leaks and the controversy surrounding Assange have been covered extensively by the media.


For the first On the Media discussion of the year we are going to be putting the spotlight on the media and asking what the WikiLeaks operation and the media coverage of it tells us about the press.


How have journalists responded to this new kid on the block? The future will no doubt see the emergence of similar organisations, but what impact will this have on the culture of journalism? How will the media adapt and how will this currently uncomfortable relationship develop?


Chaired by Richard Gizbert, presenter of The Listening Post on Al Jazeera English.

David Aaronovitch, writer, broadcaster, commentator and regular columnist for The Times;

Mark Stephens, media lawyer with Finers Stephens Innocent and Julian Assange's solicitor;

Ian Katz, deputy editor of the Guardian;

Gavin MacFayden, director of the Centre for Investigative Journalism.
In association with the BBC College of Journalism.

[Aaron]

Wikileaks Protests

Wikileaks protests in your own area:
Events and protests | WL Central

[noises]

Frontline Club - Events: On the Media: WikiLeaks - Holding up a mirror to journalism?

Throughout 2010 whistleblower website WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange were making headlines with the release of classified documents. Both the leaks and the controversy surrounding Assange have been covered extensively by the media.


For the first On the Media discussion of the year we are going to be putting the spotlight on the media and asking what the WikiLeaks operation and the media coverage of it tells us about the press.


How have journalists responded to this new kid on the block? The future will no doubt see the emergence of similar organisations, but what impact will this have on the culture of journalism? How will the media adapt and how will this currently uncomfortable relationship develop?


Chaired by Richard Gizbert, presenter of The Listening Post on Al Jazeera English.

David Aaronovitch, writer, broadcaster, commentator and regular columnist for The Times;

Mark Stephens, media lawyer with Finers Stephens Innocent and Julian Assange's solicitor;

Ian Katz, deputy editor of the Guardian;

Gavin MacFayden, director of the Centre for Investigative Journalism.
In association with the BBC College of Journalism.

Interesting, considering all wikileaks is doing is what the press have stopped doing, exposing govt corruption and corporate greed.

Maybe it would be useful to divide the media into two groups, one called "government sponsored, pro big business, anti freedom of everything corporate and military cheer squad" and the other called "terrorists, hackers and alleged sex offenders truth and liberty movement." to avoid any confusion between the two. I know which one I'd trust.

Just wondering, was it ever reported in the US that the US ambassador to Iceland was summoned to parliament to explain why the DOJ was harassing a sitting member of their parliament? Or was that major diplomatic incident simply swept under the media rug?

Edit: while it leaves a sour taste in the mouth to politicise a human tragedy such as the attempted assassination of a political figure and the murder of several civilians and most sadly, a child, in the US a few days back, I have to say, I hope this tragic events drive home the message that this practice of public figures calling for others to be "taken out" or "targeted" or in any other way incite murderous violence in the pursuit of political agendas is barbaric and reeks of culpability. Yes, I'm pointing a finger here. That Palin woman (and others) publicly called for Assange's head just weeks before that shooting happened. Don't forget, only months before that, she was calling for the head of the target of the assassination, and others. People like that don't deserve leadership roles in our communities, they deserve rehabilitation.

I can only hope that as a nation, rational dissenting voices will speak out and call for an end to the acceptance of people calling for others to be killed in your media, in the clear understanding that we should be very careful what we wish for. Every word is a prayer. Every thought a catalyst to an action. Every headline an incitement. I feel those who incite others to act should be treated as if they themselves had performed the action they have advocated. In Palin's case, she deserves 25 to life, not the presidency.

Namaste.

[noises]

re: PFC Manning.

did you know it was Bradley Manning who gave the collateral murder (helicopter in iraq) video to wikileaks?

Here's why I ask. Article 12 of the Geneva Convention states,

"...Members of the armed forces and other persons (...) who are wounded or sick, shall be respected and protected in all circumstances. They shall be treated humanely and cared for by the Party to the conflict...Any attempts upon their lives, or violence to their persons, shall be strictly prohibited; in particular, they shall not be murdered or exterminated...".

This is one of the oldest rules of engagement, and it is included in the Geneva Convention because of the life's work of the founder of the Red Cross, who personally witnessed the deaths of 40,000 wounded men on one battlefield in his youth.

When PFC manning saw the video, he's quoted in now publicly available chat logs as saying he wasn't to concerned about the initial attacks on the men at the start of the video. He says in the log "At first glance it was just a bunch of guys getting shot up by a helicopter...No big deal ... about two dozen more where that came from, right? But something struck me as odd with the van thing, and also the fact it was being stored in a JAG officer’s directory. So I looked into it."

The Van thing struck him as odd, probably because he, as a soldier, would be conversant with the universal ROE which prevent killing wounded people on the battlefield. To do otherwise is a crime. A war crime.

Therefore, when PFC Manning uncovered the video, hidden in a Judge Advocate General's files, and took it and leaked it, he wasn't committing a crime. he was REPORTING one. Well, two. One war crime under article 12 of the Geneva Convention, and one of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice by tampering with or withholding evidence. In the military legal world, you can't go much higher than the JAG office. If the video hade made it that far and no further, it was being covered up at the top. Those crimes had to be reported and evidenced to the public, via the media, or they would never see the light of day.

How can someone who's reporting a criminal action be guilty of treason? What does that say about a country? I can understand why people who're misinformed by a half baked media whitewash could call him a traitor, but I trust if people were better informed, they'd stand up for the guy.

[Aaron]

Rich &amp; Famous Bank Records to be Disclosed?

m.guardian.co.uk

[jck]

Just Another Level of the Matrix

It's obvious to everyone by now, that Wiki Leaks is another global warming type of scam, right??

Just think about it for a sec. Nothing really interesting is being released, actually a lot of pro israel cables....whatever...

just do some critical thinking...

[noises]

oh you.