The Wikileaks Question

[slimmouse]

After the Swedish statement was put to the CPS, it confirmed that all decisions concerning the opposing of bail being granted to Assange had been taken by its lawyers. It said: "In all extradition cases, decisions on bail issues are always taken by the domestic prosecuting authority. It would not be practical for prosecutors in a foreign jurisdiction … to make such decisions."

Leaving aside the obvious question of how the hell Assanges lawyers didnt know this, on hearing the news that Assange had originally been granted bail, I shouldnt wonder that a diplomatic cable leaked from Washington to London today might well contain a "regret to inform you" that the US have today decided to proceed with a multibillion dollar lawsuit against British Petroleum, followed by some not so subtly encoded metaphor about the mutual benefit of scratching each others backs ?

[The Hacktivist]

Responses to various...

vanlose kid: Thanks for all the commentary and material you’ve been putting in, notably the New Yorker piece, Tyler Durden’s run-down and “sgt doom” detailing the Swedish political connections. Also, the latest Telegraph piece on cables showing Swedish executive branch attempts to conceal intel cooperation with the US from the country’s legislature.

Several people: Please don’t present a false dichotomy between the different sufferings so far endured by Manning and Assange, as though we should sneeze at one because the other is so much more severe, or (like in that ridiculous Palast piece) between Manning’s heroism and Assange’s “sell-out.” There is no evidence, zero, that Wikileaks in any way is responsible for the exposure and arrest of Manning as the alleged leaker. Or that Wikileaks has ever in anyway suggested that Manning is the leaker.

Doctor, it sounds as if you're arguing against publishing secrets beacuse someone might get mad about it.

Karen Silkwood leaked something that made some people mad, and she paid for it. But it made a big difference in the end. So far, Wikileaks has leaked stuff that gives some people an excuse to be mad, but what difference will the leaks themselves make in the end, other than make us all pay for them?

If nothing positive is done and no changes for the better arise from the leaks, it won't be a failure on the part of Wikileaks' or Assange. It will be a failure of our society - of us. Their only job is to expose secrets. It's up to others to use that new information - to launch FOIA requests now that they have a better idea of what documents to ask for, to alter their vote or their allegiances, to hold their elected representatives to account for the lies they have told, and hopefully to mount prosecutions of any revealed criminals, where possible, somewhere down the line.

Will those things (especially prosecutions) ever happen? I dunno. But if they don't happen, it won't be Wikileaks' fault.

The Collateral Murder video, as an example, was like a stress-test being run on our civil society, our press, and our systems of military justice, to see if they're still functional, if they still work like they're supposed to. They don't. The total non-reaction, on all levels, to that widely disseminated primary evidence of blatant mass-murder is all that anyone needs to see to know that our society, in it's current form, is fucked. The results are in, and they're conclusive.

Ahabs, yes. Although I’m not sure what the “job” of Wikileaks is. They did choose their “job,” something however that falls under the category of press and speech freedom. (That would be true even if there was a psyop element.)

DrVolin, it’s complicated, I’m sure you’ll agree. But are you really saying if the state goes into a rage over the exercise of freedom of speech, with bad consequences for all, then we should (also) blame those who exercised?

Cablegate comics, you know someone had to do it! OK, here is the link:
http://hilobrow.com/tag/cablegate/

anothershamus, that’s great!

The Hacktivist: I think even joking suggestions about your power to track IPs and send pizzas to anyone here (or shut down their ability to post) are really counter-productive. Someone may say very wrong things, but there would be no justice or ethics in vigilante hacktervism for speech on a debate board, and I hope you will agree and make that clear. This is not to question that you can do it, since obviously a lot of people can do that. (If you discover anyone here is working for Master Card or other bad orgs, this still wouldn’t be the place for anything other than a journalistic exposure thereof.)

I think it is wise for you to assure that you won’t try such stunts. Also, if you have found vulnerabilities in the site, like others are saying, to let the management know without making a further deal about it. What’s wrong with creating trust? You have your piece to say, so please just say it.

Above written before I saw this:

then let's have a good old fashioned barn-raising here and work together to bolster our ability to persist through a DDoS attack or phpBB exploit, including a loose plan for ongoing audits and maintenance. How is this done elsewhere within the domain of Anonymous?

I plan to do exactly that if everyone everyone continues to be nice to me and call me baby.

Youre right, this is a good place and not deserving of any shenanigans that I can see so far.

That’s a good start. I’m all for it, if this and everything else you say turns out to be so. And otherwise reserve judgement.

Plutonia, can we just skip this part? There's no firmament here. We don't need to accept new members at their word, nor do we benefit from interrogating them. Just let 'em post.

Wombaticus: True, true, wrt Plutonia aiming the posted piece (back on p. 41) at Hacktivist. But Hacktivist is a big boy, right?

However, Plutonia, your finds from the history and geography of the hacker culture are valuable to me. (As a guy who never got into it very far beyond once knowing a phone phreak and learning BASIC as a teenager.) And, I believe potentially illuminating as to where this Assange, Wikileaks, Anonymous and others are coming from, as well as the strengths and weaknesses of their approaches.

.

I assure you I am here in good intention and nothing bad will come to this board on my account. I am here because I like this thread, havent ready any other of them but this one and currently on page 30, good stuff. After this I will likely go on my way.

[vanlose kid]

The inhumane conditions of Bradley Manning's detention
BY GLENN GREENWALD

Reuters/Jonathon Burch/AP/Salon
(updated below)

Bradley Manning, the 22-year-old U.S. Army Private accused of leaking classified documents to WikiLeaks, has never been convicted of that crime, nor of any other crime. Despite that, he has been detained at the U.S. Marine brig in Quantico, Virginia for five months -- and for two months before that in a military jail in Kuwait -- under conditions that constitute cruel and inhumane treatment and, by the standards of many nations, even torture. Interviews with several people directly familiar with the conditions of Manning's detention, ultimately including a Quantico brig official (Lt. Brian Villiard) who confirmed much of what they conveyed, establishes that the accused leaker is subjected to detention conditions likely to create long-term psychological injuries.

Since his arrest in May, Manning has been a model detainee, without any episodes of violence or disciplinary problems. He nonetheless was declared from the start to be a "Maximum Custody Detainee," the highest and most repressive level of military detention, which then became the basis for the series of inhumane measures imposed on him.

From the beginning of his detention, Manning has been held in intensive solitary confinement. For 23 out of 24 hours every day -- for seven straight months and counting -- he sits completely alone in his cell. Even inside his cell, his activities are heavily restricted; he's barred even from exercising and is under constant surveillance to enforce those restrictions. For reasons that appear completely punitive, he's being denied many of the most basic attributes of civilized imprisonment, including even a pillow or sheets for his bed (he is not and never has been on suicide watch). For the one hour per day when he is freed from this isolation, he is barred from accessing any news or current events programs. Lt. Villiard protested that the conditions are not "like jail movies where someone gets thrown into the hole," but confirmed that he is in solitary confinement, entirely alone in his cell except for the one hour per day he is taken out.

In sum, Manning has been subjected for many months without pause to inhumane, personality-erasing, soul-destroying, insanity-inducing conditions of isolation similar to those perfected at America's Supermax prison in Florence, Colorado: all without so much as having been convicted of anything. And as is true of many prisoners subjected to warped treatment of this sort, the brig's medical personnel now administer regular doses of anti-depressants to Manning to prevent his brain from snapping from the effects of this isolation.

Just by itself, the type of prolonged solitary confinement to which Manning has been subjected for many months is widely viewed around the world as highly injurious, inhumane, punitive, and arguably even a form of torture. In his widely praised March, 2009 New Yorker article -- entitled "Is Long-Term Solitary Confinement Torture?" -- the surgeon and journalist Atul Gawande assembled expert opinion and personal anecdotes to demonstrate that, as he put it, "all human beings experience isolation as torture." By itself, prolonged solitary confinement routinely destroys a person’s mind and drives them into insanity. A March, 2010 article in The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law explains that "solitary confinement is recognized as difficult to withstand; indeed, psychological stressors such as isolation can be as clinically distressing as physical torture."

For that reason, many Western nations -- and even some non-Western nations notorious for human rights abuses -- refuse to employ prolonged solitary confinement except in the most extreme cases of prisoner violence. "It’s an awful thing, solitary," John McCain wrote of his experience in isolated confinement in Vietnam. “It crushes your spirit." As Gawande documented: "A U.S. military study of almost a hundred and fifty naval aviators returned from imprisonment in Vietnam . . . reported that they found social isolation to be as torturous and agonizing as any physical abuse they suffered." Gawande explained that America’s application of this form of torture to its own citizens is what spawned the torture regime which President Obama vowed to end:

This past year, both the Republican and the Democratic Presidential candidates came out firmly for banning torture and closing the facility in Guantánamo Bay, where hundreds of prisoners have been held in years-long isolation. Neither Barack Obama nor John McCain, however, addressed the question of whether prolonged solitary confinement is torture. . . .

This is the dark side of American exceptionalism. . . . Our willingness to discard these standards for American prisoners made it easy to discard the Geneva Conventions prohibiting similar treatment of foreign prisoners of war, to the detriment of America’s moral stature in the world. In much the same way that a previous generation of Americans countenanced legalized segregation, ours has countenanced legalized torture. And there is no clearer manifestation of this than our routine use of solitary confinement . . . .

It's one thing to impose such punitive, barbaric measures on convicts who have proven to be violent when around other prisoners; at the Supermax in Florence, inmates convicted of the most heinous crimes and who pose a threat to prison order and the safety of others are subjected to worse treatment than what Manning experiences. But it's another thing entirely to impose such conditions on individuals, like Manning, who have been convicted of nothing and have never demonstrated an iota of physical threat or disorder.

In 2006, a bipartisan National Commission on America's Prisons was created and it called for the elimination of prolonged solitary confinement. Its Report documented that conditions whereby "prisoners end up locked in their cells 23 hours a day, every day. . . is so severe that people end up completely isolated, living in what can only be described as torturous conditions." The Report documented numerous psychiatric studies of individuals held in prolonged isolation which demonstrate "a constellation of symptoms that includes overwhelming anxiety, confusion and hallucination, and sudden violent and self-destructive outbursts." The above-referenced article from the Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law states: "Psychological effects can include anxiety, depression, anger, cognitive disturbances, perceptual distortions, obsessive thoughts, paranoia, and psychosis."

When one exacerbates the harms of prolonged isolation with the other deprivations to which Manning is being subjected, long-term psychiatric and even physical impairment is likely. Gawande documents that "EEG studies going back to the nineteen-sixties have shown diffuse slowing of brain waves in prisoners after a week or more of solitary confinement." Medical tests conducted in 1992 on Yugoslavian prisoners subjected to an average of six months of isolation -- roughly the amount to which Manning has now been subjected -- "revealed brain abnormalities months afterward; the most severe were found in prisoners who had endured either head trauma sufficient to render them unconscious or, yes, solitary confinement. Without sustained social interaction, the human brain may become as impaired as one that has incurred a traumatic injury." Gawande's article is filled with horrifying stories of individuals subjected to isolation similar to or even less enduring than Manning's who have succumbed to extreme long-term psychological breakdown.

Manning is barred from communicating with any reporters, even indirectly, so nothing he has said can be quoted here. But David House, a 23-year-old MIT researcher who befriended Manning after his detention (and then had his laptops, camera and cellphone seized by Homeland Security when entering the U.S.) is one of the few people to have visited Manning several times at Quantico. He describes palpable changes in Manning's physical appearance and behavior just over the course of the several months that he's been visiting him. Like most individuals held in severe isolation, Manning sleeps much of the day, is particularly frustrated by the petty, vindictive denial of a pillow or sheets, and suffers from less and less outdoor time as part of his one-hour daily removal from his cage.

This is why the conditions under which Manning is being detained were once recognized in the U.S. -- and are still recognized in many Western nations -- as not only cruel and inhumane, but torture. More than a century ago, U.S. courts understood that solitary confinement was a barbaric punishment that severely harmed the mental and physical health of those subjected to it. The Supreme Court's 1890 decision in In re Medley noted that as a result of solitary confinement as practiced in the early days of the United States, many "prisoners fell, after even a short confinement, into a semi-fatuous condition . . . and others became violently insane; others still, committed suicide; while those who stood the ordeal better . . . [often] did not recover sufficient mental activity to be of any subsequent service to the community." And in its 1940 decision in Chambers v. Florida, the Court characterized prolonged solitary confinement as "torture" and compared it to "[t]he rack, the thumbscrew, [and] the wheel."

The inhumane treatment of Manning may have international implications as well. There are multiple proceedings now pending in the European Union Human Rights Court, brought by "War on Terror" detainees contesting their extradition to the U.S. on the ground that the conditions under which they likely will be held -- particularly prolonged solitary confinement -- violate the European Convention on Human Rights, which (along with the Convention Against Torture) bars EU states from extraditing anyone to any nation where there is a real risk of inhumane and degrading treatment. The European Court of Human Rights has in the past found detention conditions violative of those rights (in Bulgaria) where "the [detainee] spent 23 hours a day alone in his cell; had limited interaction with other prisoners; and was only allowed two visits per month." From the Journal article referenced above:

International treaty bodies and human rights experts, including the Human Rights Committee, the Committee against Torture, and the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture, have concluded that solitary confinement may amount to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment in violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading Treatment or Punishment. They have specifically criticized supermax confinement in the United States because of the mental suffering it inflicts.

Subjecting a detainee like Manning to this level of prolonged cruel and inhumane detention can thus jeopardize the ability of the U.S. to secure extradition for other prisoners, as these conditions are viewed in much of the civilized world as barbaric. Moreover, because Manning holds dual American and U.K. citizenship (his mother is British), it is possible for British agencies and human rights organizations to assert his consular rights against these oppressive conditions. At least some preliminary efforts are underway in Britain to explore that mechanism as a means of securing more humane treatment for Manning. Whatever else is true, all of this illustrates what a profound departure from international norms is the treatment to which the U.S. Government is subjecting him.

* * * * *

The plight of Manning has largely been overshadowed by the intense media fixation on WikiLeaks, so it's worth underscoring what it is that he's accused of doing and what he said in his own reputed words about these acts. If one believes the authenticity of the highly edited chat logs of Manning's online conversations with Adrian Lamo that have been released by Wired (that magazine inexcusably continues to conceal large portions of those logs), Manning clearly believed that he was a whistle-blower acting with the noblest of motives, and probably was exactly that. If, for instance, he really is the leaker of the Apache helicopter attack video -- a video which sparked very rare and much-needed realization about the visceral truth of what American wars actually entail -- as well as the war and diplomatic cables revealing substantial government deceit, brutality, illegality and corruption, then he's quite similar to Daniel Ellsberg. Indeed, Ellsberg himself said the very same thing about Manning in June on Democracy Now in explaining why he considers the Army Private to be a "hero":

The fact is that what Lamo reports Manning is saying has a very familiar and persuasive ring to me. He reports Manning as having said that what he had read and what he was passing on were horrible -- evidence of horrible machinations by the US backdoor dealings throughout the Middle East and, in many cases, as he put it, almost crimes. And let me guess that -- he’s not a lawyer, but I'll guess that what looked to him like crimes are crimes, that he was putting out. We know that he put out, or at least it's very plausible that he put out, the videos that he claimed to Lamo. And that's enough to go on to get them interested in pursuing both him and the other.

And so, what it comes down, to me, is -- and I say throwing caution to the winds here -- is that what I've heard so far of Assange and Manning -- and I haven't met either of them -- is that they are two new heroes of mine.

To see why that's so, just recall some of what Manning purportedly said about why he chose to leak, at least as reflected in the edited chat logs published by Wired:

Lamo: what's your endgame plan, then?. . .

Manning: well, it was forwarded to [WikiLeaks] - and god knows what happens now - hopefully worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms - if not, than [sic] we're doomed - as a species - i will officially give up on the society we have if nothing happens - the reaction to the video gave me immense hope; CNN's iReport was overwhelmed; Twitter exploded - people who saw, knew there was something wrong . . . Washington Post sat on the video… David Finkel acquired a copy while embedded out here. . . . - i want people to see the truth… regardless of who they are… because without information, you cannot make informed decisions as a public.

if i knew then, what i knew now - kind of thing, or maybe im just young, naive, and stupid . . . im hoping for the former - it cant be the latter - because if it is… were fucking screwed (as a society) - and i dont want to believe that we’re screwed.

Manning described the incident which first made him seriously question the U.S. Government: when he was instructed to work on the case of Iraqi "insurgents" who had been detained for distributing so-called "insurgent" literature which, when Manning had it translated, turned out to be nothing more than "a scholarly critique against PM Maliki":

i had an interpreter read it for me… and when i found out that it was a benign political critique titled "Where did the money go?" and following the corruption trail within the PM’s cabinet… i immediately took that information and *ran* to the officer to explain what was going on… he didn’t want to hear any of it… he told me to shut up and explain how we could assist the FPs in finding *MORE* detainees…

i had always questioned the things worked, and investigated to find the truth… but that was a point where i was a *part* of something… i was actively involved in something that i was completely against…

And Manning explained why he never considered the thought of selling this classified information to a foreign nation for substantial profit or even just secretly transmitting it to foreign powers, as he easily could have done:

Manning: i mean what if i were someone more malicious- i could've sold to russia or china, and made bank?

Lamo: why didn’t you?

Manning: because it's public data

Lamo: i mean, the cables

Manning: it belongs in the public domain -information should be free - it belongs in the public domain - because another state would just take advantage of the information… try and get some edge - if its out in the open… it should be a public good.

That's a whistleblower in the purest and most noble form: discovering government secrets of criminal and corrupt acts and then publicizing them to the world not for profit, not to give other nations an edge, but to trigger "worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms." Given how much Manning has been demonized -- at the same time that he's been rendered silent by the ban on his communication with any media -- it's worthwhile to keep all of that in mind.

But ultimately, what one thinks of Manning's alleged acts is irrelevant to the issue here. The U.S. ought at least to abide by minimal standards of humane treatment in how it detains him. That's true for every prisoner, at all times. But departures from such standards are particularly egregious where, as here, the detainee has merely been accused, but never convicted, of wrongdoing. These inhumane conditions make a mockery of Barack Obama's repeated pledge to end detainee abuse and torture, as prolonged isolation -- exacerbated by these other deprivations -- is at least as damaging, as violative of international legal standards, and almost as reviled around the world, as the waterboard, hypothermia and other Bush-era tactics that caused so much controversy.

What all of this achieves is clear. Having it known that the U.S. could and would disappear people at will to "black sites," assassinate them with unseen drones, imprison them for years without a shred of due process even while knowing they were innocent, torture them mercilessly, and in general acts as a lawless and rogue imperial power created a climate of severe intimidation and fear. Who would want to challenge the U.S. Government in any way -- even in legitimate ways -- knowing that it could and would engage in such lawless, violent conduct without any restraints or repercussions?

That is plainly what is going on here. Anyone remotely affiliated with WikiLeaks, including American citizens (and plenty of other government critics), has their property seized and communications stored at the border without so much as a warrant. Julian Assange -- despite never having been charged with, let alone convicted of, any crime -- has now spent more than a week in solitary confinement with severe restrictions under what his lawyer calls "Dickensian conditions." But Bradley Manning has suffered much worse, and not for a week, but for seven months, with no end in sight. If you became aware of secret information revealing serious wrongdoing, deceit and/or criminality on the part of the U.S. Government, would you -- knowing that you could and likely would be imprisoned under these kinds of repressive, torturous conditions for months on end without so much as a trial: just locked away by yourself 23 hours a day without recourse -- be willing to expose it? That's the climate of fear and intimidation which these inhumane detention conditions are intended to create.

* * * * *

Those wishing to contribute to Bradley Manning's defense fund can do so here. All of those means are reputable, but everyone should carefully read the various options presented in order to decide which one seems best.



UPDATE: I was contacted by Lt. Villiard, who claims there is one factual inaccuracy in what I wrote: specifically, he claims that Manning is not restricted from accessing news or current events during the prescribed time he is permitted to watch television. That is squarely inconsistent with reports from those with first-hand knowledge of Manning's detention, but it's a fairly minor dispute in the scheme of things.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn ... 4/manning/

*

[JackRiddler]

I assure you I am here in good intention and nothing bad will come to this board on my account. I am here because I like this thread, havent ready any other of them but this one and currently on page 30, good stuff. After this I will likely go on my way.

I think the initial misunderstandings are out of the way and you bring a new voice, so that's not what I'd want.

[The Hacktivist]

I assure you I am here in good intention and nothing bad will come to this board on my account. I am here because I like this thread, havent ready any other of them but this one and currently on page 30, good stuff. After this I will likely go on my way.

I think the initial misunderstandings are out of the way and you bring a new voice, so that's not what I'd want.

Well we have a long way to go with this topic so I dont expect ill be leaving any time soon, honestly this hasnt even started yet. But thanks I appreciate that.


Whats the next best thread on here to read about Wilileaks that this thread doesnt cover?

[JackRiddler]

.

Maybe it's overkill but I thought nathan28 summed up the same case well on the "Amazing Cryptome Questioning Blonde Founder Rush to Smear" thread:

So far, this is my understanding of the anti-WikiLeaks crowd.

Some of the people who are "questioning WikiLeaks" have every reason to engage in that questioning. What I see happening, however, is quite confusing.

One assertion is that WikiLeaks can't possibly have legit documents, or the documents it has are a limited hangout. This is a curious assertion, considering that so far less than 1/100 have seen print. The more immediate question would be: under what conditions would you know that WikiLeaks was releasing legit docs? Sadly, short of some glaring botch, like documents naming the wrong US State dep't staff, this seems unlikely to be forthcoming. The only indication close to this I have seen has been Alice's find that one cable conflates two meetings. The same cable also quotes someone quoting someone as though it were the original party saying as much, suggesting the author was sloppy.

The next assertion seems to be that Assange can't be legit, that he must be an agent. He already "gave up" Manning--which is not true. Lamo busted Manning six months ago if I'm not mistaken, before any of us plebs knew that WikiLeaks had cables to release. Lamo himself was apparently only a few days out of some variety of detention. Another suggestion is that Assange attending an embassy party indicates complicity, never mind that he was on the guest list on account of being the date to a far left (as in, anarchist, not "Barack Obama's Kenyan Socialism"). The claim was made that Assange was travelling freely when he was not. The claim was made that he was "in the open" when he was staying somewhere in secret. The point was, essentially, that because he wasn't dead, he was one of "Them". Assange was then hit with some very questionably charges--not using a condom--and then the charges were elevated to rape, the second he faced potential charges for the same acts--one prosecutor IIRC having dismissed the first effort as bogus. The claim was made that this was nothing more than theater. I have no way of knowing whether it is, but you have no way of knowing whether it is not. Then Assange was arrested. Again, I am not particularly sure what the contention is here, save to say, it seems to be that the idea is that he was arrested, not assassinated by a drone with one of those fancy laser-guided 25mm RPGs in broad daylight, therefore, he must be one of them, or it is theater. Then Assange was put in solitary confinement with an elevated level of isolation. Again, the suggestion seems to be that it is all for show. Now Assange has had bail set, so that must prove it was all a show--never mind that he's still in the hole, that his bail has been challenged and that bail still entails a set of conditions designed to track all of his movements.

In other words, at every step along the way, the claim has been that the latest in the efforts to prosecute Assange simply do not matter.

Then there is the suggestion that WikiLeaks will be used to destroy internet freedom.

To start, in the United States, the biggest concern about "internet freedom" isn't free speech. I can still go to Cryptogon and to Prison Planet and listen to Pacifica streaming. Where I can't go is to the torrent sites DHS used forfeiture against. IOW: the US DOJ cares far, far more about interdicting and prosecuting copyright infringement rather than political speech hostile to "TPTB". I know personally of an instance where it took longer for police to bust a kiddie porn server than for someone I know to get busted for egregious copyright violations. Think about that for a while.

But that's beside the point. The idea seems to be that either WikiLeaks is and intentionally and witting partner part of a program to end internet freedom or that WikiLeaks's actions will result in the end of internet freedom as an unintended consequence. If the former, see the Assange-as-Agent theory; if the latter, then "everyone knows" that would be the result. I can't address the Assange-as-Agent theory because it is, barring much more evidence, impenetrable, based on a bunch of specious justifications that have had to clear higher and higher hurdles. I imagine that Assange could be drawn and quartered and someone would say that he was just an MC'd stooge acting on orders. I swear to god if it plays out that way and I'm around when someone says that I'm going to make that Buzz Aldrin Bart Sibel encounter look like love at first sight.



But what I can point to is how absurd the theory that WikiLeaks is for the worst is. Of course efforts have been and will be made to control speech on the internet. Real interests are at stake. If those interests feel threatened they will react as though they have been. Because *every* individual who has offered up that speculation has, in other venues, suggested that there is information being kept from us, that we just need to learn, that etc., etc., IOW: they are decrying ignorance and the lack of evidence.

Suddenly, handed evidence, they claim that nothing good can result from it.

That sort of sentiment borders on pathology. I consider the "everyone knows" theory exactly the same type of theory: it says that because "everyone knows" that, e.g., Shell Oil had penetrated every level of Nigeria's gov't, we don't need to get documentary evidence of that, so because WikiLeaks has created a furor and firestorm, it's worse to "know" without proof, than to know with proof, because now real interests are at stake.

There is arrogance in that attitude. It means that when you 'knew' something was the case, it was important; now that you and the rest of the world have proof, it's no longer special and no longer privileging to 'know' it. The moment it slipped the surly bonds of your imagination and entered into reality it lost its fun. Either that, or it was a stance of total pessimism, which like the agent theory is beyond being disputed. If you argued that things were bad and getting worse before, and you argue that things will be worse now after, it makes no sense to treat Assange as some demon on account of there suddenly being a really-existing material objective cause for whatever made things "worse", which previously you were content to attribute to some fantasy, some imaginary, 'spiritual' and illusory process at work in your mind.

That last suggestion, which is implicit in these arguments, is nothing more than an abrogation of responsibility. You claim to care about some issue, and you claim the issue is important, and you even claim that it threatens established authorities. But the moment those authorities themselves see that the issue is a threat, you shirk, you run. You are literally hoping to take something away from authority and entrenched interests and liars in high places.

IF WHAT YOU CARE ABOUT IS REAL AND YOU ADVANCE YOUR CAUSE YOU MUST EXPECT AND ANTICIPATE REAL REPERCUSSIONS.

Currently, as you read this, Bradley Manning is in solitary confinement. Julian Assange is in solitary confinement. No doubt SIRPNet admins have lost their jobs. You claim to care about freedom, you claim to 'know' that "They" seek to curtail it, but the moment something shifts there agenda, the moment something new burst forth and there is an opportunity to fight--you decry the circumstances, you blame those who did act and who did face repercussions.

Then there's the naive positions. These are:

The Cables Don't Mention 9/11
Cables from the US State Dep't are written by people who believe US propaganda
Julian Assange is better dressed than me so he's a queer and definitely an agent
I Don't Have To Read the Cables



The last one is killing me. I thought you all gave a damn about this, but simply put you do not treat it seriously, which really helps to qualify the whining and doomsaying. Cables on Israeli organized crime go unnoticed. A cable on a Saudi drug trafficking jet goes unnoticed. The implicit admission to human rights violations in South America goes unnoticed. Cables showing corruption and infiltration by energy companies go unnoticed. Simply put, the people who keep decrying the contents of the cables have next to no actual familiarity with them.

Hacktivist, seeing your question... um, I'd best pass.

But there's was a partial index of Wikileaks threads back on page 27:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30362&start=390#p370734

.

[compared2what?]

Responses to various...
are you really saying if the state goes into a rage over the exercise of freedom of speech, with bad consequences for all, then we should (also) blame those who exercised?.

Certainly not. I am, however, saying that it should lead us to at least wonder about their motivations and/or the extent to which they are being manipulated. One can be upright, praiseworthy, and dangerous all at the same time, just as one can be corrupt, duplicitous, and insignificant.

Yes.

But there's nothing of value at stake here that really turns on such a finely nuanced point. This:

The CPS's formal grounds of appeal for the hearing tomorrow morning, seen by the Guardian, will say that Assange must be kept in prison until a decision is made whether to extradite him, which could take months.

It's as simple as Bush v. Gore. If they get away with that, they'll think they can get away with anything. And they'll probably be right.

If you recognize that and you don't object, you're complicit. (And btw, that's "you" in the "any person" sense of the word, not "you, DrVolin," in case that's not clear. )

Also, there's no penalty for not recognizing it, imo. So no harsh judgments of anyone, express or implied attach to it. I'd still be objecting on principle for everybody, no matter what, while I can, however I can. Which is feebly and pathetically, IRL and on my own, to be perfectly candid about it. Anyway. My point was more that you're either for freedom of speech and assembly without severe extra-legal reprisals for all. Or it's pretty much a non-issue. By definition.

So it's not, like, a personal cause. It's just a cause. And that's that.

[vanlose kid]

Responses to various...
are you really saying if the state goes into a rage over the exercise of freedom of speech, with bad consequences for all, then we should (also) blame those who exercised?.

Certainly not. I am, however, saying that it should lead us to at least wonder about their motivations and/or the extent to which they are being manipulated. One can be upright, praiseworthy, and dangerous all at the same time, just as one can be corrupt, duplicitous, and insignificant.

Yes.

But there's nothing of value at stake here that really turns on such a finely nuanced point. This:

The CPS's formal grounds of appeal for the hearing tomorrow morning, seen by the Guardian, will say that Assange must be kept in prison until a decision is made whether to extradite him, which could take months.

It's as simple as Bush v. Gore. If they get away with that, they'll think they can get away with anything. And they'll probably be right.

If you recognize that and you don't object, you're complicit. (And btw, that's "you" in the "any person" sense of the word, not "you, DrVolin," in case that's not clear. )

Also, there's no penalty for not recognizing it, imo. So no harsh judgments of anyone, express or implied attach to it. I'd still be objecting on principle for everybody, no matter what, while I can, however I can. Which is feebly and pathetically, IRL and on my own, to be perfectly candid about it. Anyway. My point was more that you're either for freedom of speech and assembly without severe extra-legal reprisals for all. Or it's pretty much a non-issue. By definition.

So it's not, like, a personal cause. It's just a cause. And that's that.

this is the 51st state

of the USA

*

[DrVolin]

.

I imagine that Assange could be drawn and quartered and someone would say that he was just an MC'd stooge acting on orders.

.

You mean like the fact that Ruby shot Oswald proves that the latter wasn't consciously part of a conspiracy to kill JFK? What sort of person, if any, do you think makes a good sacrificial lamb? Someone with greater sensitivity to fame than to safety?

[DrVolin]

It's as simple as Bush v. Gore. If they get away with that, they'll think they can get away with anything. And they'll probably be right.

No disagreement from me. How's Padilla doing these days, anyway?

[Hammer of Los]

I'd like to thank everyone, especially JackRiddler, for their contributions, for which I am very grateful. And Vanlose kid, thanks for all the stuff too, some excellent articles together with the usual guff from the Guardian. Of course, all sorts of written material can be illuminating, whether honest and insightful, or artful and self serving.

The issues and materials presented by Plutonia are also quite fascinating to me, so thanks very much Plutonia!

But Jack and maybe one or two others decrying the imagined thoughts, feelings, reading habits, beliefs, politics, conclusions and so on of other posters, I would urge you to stick more closely to the topic at hand, because you might be letting your imaginations run away with you. In other words, I am certain of nothing, other than the fact that it is clear the BBC and Sky News are vetting their coverage of the cables in order to support, rather than undermine, the military actions of the empire abroad. In that sense, it is working to the advantage of the empire's military planners. I am drawing no conclusions from that, it is simply an observation that I cringe and groan at just about all of the "leaked information" that is getting major play in the mainstream press.

Furthermore, when I said I didn't like the way this was panning out, part of my apprehension was based on a fear for Julian Assange's life, nevermind his liberty. It's a crime the way the UK authorities are holding him, barely anyone denies the prosecution is politically motivated, clearly the extradition request should be denied. Even worse is his treatment by the Swedes. I guess they are all taking orders from Washington. Or somewhere. I wonder why he came to the UK? A faith in British justice might be a little misplaced.

So you might like to stop pillorying me now. If indeed I am your target (and it's not just my paranoid feeling that I am being picked on), it's more than a little unfair. I'm sorry, I do know how much you enjoy writing your little polemical screeds. In fact, I rather enjoy reading them.

Love to you all!

[JackRiddler]

.

Now, Assange released on bail.

I like seemslikeadream's extras on the Guardian coverage (in a new thread at viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30556). Added some emphases to highlight that the detention was a UK decision, not due to any demand from Sweden.

Julian Assange granted bail at high court
WikiLeaks founder is wanted in Sweden for questioning over allegations of rape

Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder, is led into the high court in London this morning. Photograph: Leon Neal/AFP/Getty Images
Britain's high court today decided to grant bail to Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder who is wanted in Sweden for questioning over allegations of rape.

Justice Duncan Ouseley agreed with a decision by the City of Westminister earlier in the week to release Assange on strict conditions: £200,000 cash deposit, with a further £40,000 guaranteed in two sureties of £20,000 and strict conditions on his movement.

Assange stood in a dark grey suit in the courtroom dock as Ouseley began hearing an appeal by British prosecutors acting on behalf of Sweden.

There was an early sign that the day would go in Assange's favour when Ouseley said: "The history of the way it [the case] has been dealt with by the Swedish prosecutors would give Mr Assange some basis that he might be acquitted following a trial."

The 39-year-old Australian arrived at the high court in a white prison van. Photographers swarmed around the vehicle in an attempt to get a picture. Amid intense media interest, a queue of journalists had formed as early as 6am.

Mark Stephens, one of Assange's lawyers, said before the proceedings that the bail money had been raised from Assange's supporters and "appears to be in the banking system". Stephens again complained about the conditions in which Assange had been held, describing them as Victorian.

Assange has been held in solitary confinement, released from his cell for only one hour a day, and his mail has been heavily censored, according to his supporters.

Today's hearing followed a decision by senior district judge Howard Riddle to grant Assange bail, but he remained in Wandsworth prison, where he has been held for a week, as prosecutors gave notice they would appeal.

Assange is fighting attempts to extradite him to Sweden for questioning over allegations of sexual misconduct including rape made by two female WikiLeaks volunteers, which he denies.

"It's an ongoing investigation in Sweden and the prosecutor needs to interrogate him to make a decision on the matter," said Karin Rosander, a spokeswoman for the Swedish prosecution agency.

Bail conditions set by Riddle stipulate that Assange must stay at a country house in Suffolk owned by Vaughan Smith, the founder of the Frontline club in west London, report to police daily and wear an electronic tag.

Meanwhile, it emerged that the decision to have Assange sent to a London jail and kept there was taken by the British authorities and not by prosecutors in Sweden.

It had been widely supposed that Sweden had taken the decision to oppose bail, with the Crown Prosecution Service acting merely as its representative. But the Swedish prosecutor's office told the Guardian it had "not got a view at all on bail" and that Britain had made the decision to oppose bail.

Karin Rosander, director of communications for Sweden's prosecutor's office, said: "The decision was made by the British prosecutor. I got it confirmed by the CPS this morning that the decision to appeal the granting of bail was entirely a matter for the CPS. The Swedish prosecutors are not entitled to make decisions within Britain. It is entirely up to the British authorities to handle it."

As a result, she said, Sweden would not submit any new evidence or arguments to the high court hearing. "The Swedish authorities are not involved in these proceedings. We have not got a view at all on bail."

After the Swedish statement was put to the CPS, it confirmed that all decisions concerning the opposing of bail being granted to Assange had been taken by its lawyers. "In all extradition cases, decisions on bail issues are always taken by the domestic prosecuting authority," it said. "It would not be practical for prosecutors in a foreign jurisdiction … to make such decisions."

Assange and his lawyers have expressed fears of a looming legal battle in the US, where prosecutors may be preparing to indict him for espionage over WikiLeaks' publication of the documents.

The New York Times reported that federal prosecutors were looking for evidence that Assange had conspired with a former US army intelligence analyst suspected of leaking classified documents.

Among the material prosecutors are studying is an online chat log in which Private Bradley Manning is said to claim that while he was downloading government files he was directly communicating with Assange using an encrypted internet conferencing service, according to the Times. Manning is also said to have claimed that Assange gave him access to a dedicated server for uploading some of them to WikiLeaks.

[JackRiddler]

.

Now they're looking to make a case that Assange conspired with Manning in the original release, and is thus a spy. So far it appears to be based entirely on the supposed transcripts of the Lamo-Manning chats. See NY Times story, below.

At the cablegate site today: "Currently released so far... 1606 / 251,287"

Speed it up, please. One effect of the actions and propaganda against Wikileaks so far may have been to slow it down so that counter accusations of indiscriminate dumping, play for the appearance of responsibility by continuing to let the press gatekeepers decide the sequence of publication.

I think we should test out the Guardian's claim that they will search and publish documents based on our requests. Demand they publish anything available about the WMD lies and the David Kelly case is one idea.

WikiLeaks cables: You ask, we search

We asked last week what we should look for among the leaked US embassy cables. Following last night's story on the Madeleine McCann investigation, here is a further instalment of user-suggested research – on the 2012 Olympics, Roman Polanski and the Dutch far right

That's from http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/20 ... NTCMP=SRCH

Here's the how-to:

• To make further suggestions, tweet @GdnCables with as many specifics as possible (names, dates, embassies). Twitter refuseniks can email newseditor@guardian.co.uk but please keep it short.

All suggestions are logged and prioritised for investigation. We will publish more tomorrow and over the next few days

.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/16/world ... nted=print

December 15, 2010
U.S. Tries to Build Case for Conspiracy by WikiLeaks
By CHARLIE SAVAGE

WASHINGTON — Federal prosecutors, seeking to build a case against the WikiLeaks leader Julian Assange for his role in a huge dissemination of classified government documents, are looking for evidence of any collusion in his early contacts with an Army intelligence analyst suspected of leaking the information.

Justice Department officials are trying to find out whether Mr. Assange encouraged or even helped the analyst, Pfc. Bradley Manning, to extract classified military and State Department files from a government computer system. If he did so, they believe they could charge him as a conspirator in the leak, not just as a passive recipient of the documents who then published them.

Spongy writing. There's no law or case precedent under which they could credibly claim a crime for the latter.

Among materials prosecutors are studying is an online chat log in which Private Manning is said to claim that he had been directly communicating with Mr. Assange using an encrypted Internet conferencing service as the soldier was downloading government files. Private Manning is also said to have claimed that Mr. Assange gave him access to a dedicated server for uploading some of them to WikiLeaks.

Adrian Lamo, an ex-hacker in whom Private Manning confided and who eventually turned him in, said Private Manning detailed those interactions in instant-message conversations with him.

He said the special server’s purpose was to allow Private Manning’s submissions to “be bumped to the top of the queue for review.” By Mr. Lamo’s account, Private Manning bragged about this “as evidence of his status as the high-profile source for WikiLeaks.”

Wired magazine has published excerpts from logs of online chats between Mr. Lamo and Private Manning. But the sections in which Private Manning is said to detail contacts with Mr. Assange are not among them. Mr. Lamo described them from memory in an interview with The Times, but he said he could not provide the full chat transcript because the F.B.I. had taken his hard drive, on which it was saved.

Since WikiLeaks began making public large caches of classified United States government documents this year, Justice Department officials have been struggling to come up with a way to charge Mr. Assange with a crime. Among other things, they have studied several statutes that criminalize the dissemination of restricted information under certain circumstances, including the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986.

But while prosecutors have used such laws to go after leakers and hackers, they have never successfully prosecuted recipients of leaked information for passing it on to others — an activity that can fall under the First Amendment’s strong protections of speech and press freedoms.

Last week, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said he had just authorized investigators to take “significant” steps, declining to specify them. This week, one of Mr. Assange’s lawyers in Britain said they had “heard from Swedish authorities there has been a secretly impaneled grand jury” in northern Virginia.

Justice Department officials have declined to discuss any grand jury activity. But in interviews, people familiar with the case said the department appeared to be attracted to the possibility of prosecuting Mr. Assange as a co-conspirator to the leaking because it is under intense pressure to make an example of him as a deterrent to further mass leaking of electronic documents over the Internet.

By bringing a case against Mr. Assange as a conspirator to Private Manning’s leak, the government would not have to confront awkward questions about why it is not also prosecuting traditional news organizations or investigative journalists who also disclose information the government says should be kept secret — including The New York Times, which also published some documents originally obtained by WikiLeaks.

“I suspect there is a real desire on the part of the government to avoid pursuing the publication aspect if it can pursue the leak aspect,” said Daniel C. Richman, a Columbia law professor and former federal prosecutor. “It would be so much neater and raise fewer constitutional issues.”

It has been known that investigators were looking for evidence that one or more people in Boston served as an intermediary between Private Manning and WikiLeaks, taking a disc of files he had copied from a computer while deployed in Iraq and somehow delivering it to the Web site.

But Mr. Lamo said Private Manning also sometimes uploaded information directly to Mr. Assange, whom he had initially sought out online. The soldier sent a “test leak” of a single State Department cable from Iceland to see if Mr. Assange and WikiLeaks were who they claimed to be, Mr. Lamo said.

“At some point, he became satisfied that he was actually talking to Assange and not some unknown third party posing as Assange, and based on that he began sending in smaller amounts of data from his computer,” Mr. Lamo said. “Because of the nature of his Internet connection, he wasn’t able to send large data files easily. He was using a satellite connection, so he was limited until he did an actual physical drop-off when he was back in the United States in January of this year.”

Still, prosecutors would most likely need more than a chat transcript laying out such claims to implicate Mr. Assange, Professor Richman said. Even if prosecutors could prove that it was Private Manning writing the messages to Mr. Lamo, a court might deem the whole discussion as inadmissible hearsay evidence.

Prosecutors could overcome that hurdle if they obtain other evidence about any early contacts — especially if they could persuade Private Manning to testify against Mr. Assange. But two members of a support network set up to raise money for his legal defense, Jeff Paterson and David House, said Private Manning had declined to cooperate with investigators since his arrest in May.

Meanwhile, WikiLeaks is taking steps to distance itself from the suggestion that it actively encourages people to send in classified material. It has changed how it describes itself on its submissions page. “WikiLeaks accepts a range of material, but we do not solicit it,” its Web site now says.

It also deleted the word “classified” from a description of the kinds of material it accepts. And it dropped an assertion that “Submitting confidential material to WikiLeaks is safe, easy and protected by law,” now saying instead: “Submitting documents to our journalists is protected by law in better democracies.”

WikiLeaks is also taking steps to position itself more squarely as a news organization, which would it easier to invoke the First Amendment as a shield. Where its old submissions page made few references to journalism, it now uses “journalist” and forms of the word “news” 23 times.

Another new sentence portrays its primary work as filtering and analyzing documents, not just posting them raw. It says its “journalists write news stories based on the material, and then provide a link to the supporting documentation to prove our stories are true.”

.

[JackRiddler]

.

I imagine that Assange could be drawn and quartered and someone would say that he was just an MC'd stooge acting on orders.

.

You mean like the fact that Ruby shot Oswald proves that the latter wasn't consciously part of a conspiracy to kill JFK?

Doctor, that's a hell of a stretched analogy, and could be applied to cast doubt on the victim of any repressive act.

.

[JackRiddler]

I'd like to thank everyone, especially JackRiddler, for their contributions, for which I am very grateful.

Thank you.

But Jack and maybe one or two others decrying the imagined thoughts, feelings, reading habits, beliefs, politics, conclusions and so on of other posters, I would urge you to stick more closely to the topic at hand, because you might be letting your imaginations run away with you.

Imagination is a funny thing. My "decrying" of RI posts has been directed mainly at those who in my view use imagination to substitute altogether for evidence, and who twist facts and logic on behalf of set prior conclusions. I don't wonder and cannot know much about personal motivations, although it's hard not not see them at all when confronted with a consistent pattern of twisting. However, explicitly politics, conclusions and beliefs are entirely another matter, and fair game. I have noted that many of the statements on this board (and not the ones from you) harmonize with the anti-Wikileaks propaganda and attacks from politicians and corporate media.

In other words, I am certain of nothing, other than the fact that it is clear the BBC and Sky News are vetting their coverage of the cables in order to support, rather than undermine, the military actions of the empire abroad. In that sense, it is working to the advantage of the empire's military planners. I am drawing no conclusions from that, it is simply an observation that I cringe and groan at just about all of the "leaked information" that is getting major play in the mainstream press.

Agreed. Remember that even "Payback" now wants to do "Leakspin" to bring the focus back on the cables and counteract pro-war and pro-empire spins.

So you might like to stop pillorying me now. If indeed I am your target (and it's not just my paranoid feeling that I am being picked on), it's more than a little unfair. I'm sorry, I do know how much you enjoy writing your little polemical screeds. In fact, I rather enjoy reading them.

Love to you all!

Did I pillory you? Hope I didn't. You are not my "target." (I do not have a target list, but respond as I read things.) Whether or not we agree on everything, I find your posts reasonable.

Best,

JR