johannhari101 I'm more inclined to grieve for victims of Indonesian genocide in East Timor than Richard Holbrooke, who armed & supported that genocide
Tuesday, 14 December 2010
Press Council complaint against Der Spiegel re: WikiLeaks
Christiane Schulzki-Haddouti has formulated a complaint to the Press Council, because the level has exclusive access to the Wikileaks dispatches.
In its Blogppost to them justifies this step:
Am 12.12. were first published in 1344 dispatches. The editors are therefore - if the current pace of publication - for months have exclusive access to the main part of the material[...]
According to Directive 1.1 of the Press Code 'may the "inform the public of events or events that are essential to expression and decision-making", "not limited by exclusive agreements with informants or by the shield or be prevented." For close to one who, "the rest of the press from obtaining news from this meaning and therefore limited the freedom of information." "A monopoly on information seeking"
Both the piecemeal publication, as well as closer cooperation with the media were steps that Wikileaks had not originally planned, but only in subsequent leaks introduced to improve the media impact.
My layman understanding illuminates the argument against exclusive contracts one - and the exclusive contracts seem to me to not really be in the interests of Wikileaks' idea. On the other hand, there are of course good tactical reasons that speak for exactly this way. An interesting question.
Wikileaks should publish so little by little, yet for all media? Spontaneously I can think of little that would prevent it.
Also at the piecemeal publication and editorial revision of the dispatches, there is criticism of the way: If Cryptome for example, they argued, in "The Full Monty". The screening and review is a cowardly buckling before the United States.
translated with google
(Thanx HerrB!)
Operation Payback’s next DDoS target: Fax machines
Operation Payback has begun a new fax-based campaign against some of the companies who decided to distance themselves from WikiLeaks. As part of its new Leakflood mission, the Anonymous group of 'hacktivists' is encouraging its members to send a large number of faxes to Amazon, MasterCard, Moneybookers, PayPal, Visa and Tableau Software.
This latest campaign by the Anonymous group is analogous to the distributed denial of service attacks it has been carrying out against websites over the past week. In essence, this has turned into a DDoS attack against fax machines. The group started the fax-attacks today at 13:00 GMT and published a list of target fax numbers in their call to arms.
The Anonymous collective are being encouraged to send faxes of random WikiLeaks cables, letters from Anonymous, Guy Fawkes, and the WikiLeaks logo to the target fax numbers all day long. It is not clear how many people are taking part in the attacks, but an IRC channel set up to provide information about the campaign contained 73 users just a few hours after the fax-attacks started.
As well as dishing out attacks, the group has also found itself under attack for supporting WikiLeaks. Many users were knocked off its IRC network after its servers came under attack this morning. It is also understood that the anonops.eu domain (which used to announce the locations of IRC servers and the current attack target) has also come under attack and is currently unavailable.
We have already witnessed website attacks against each of the fax targets, apart from Tableau Software. Two weeks ago, this company removed graphs published by WikiLeaks to its free Tableau Public data visualisation tool. A statement on the Tableau Software website admits this decision was taken as a result of political pressure:
"Our decision to remove the data from our servers came in response to a public request by Senator Joe Lieberman, who chairs the Senate Homeland Security Committee, when he called for organizations hosting WikiLeaks to terminate their relationship with the website"
The poster instructs participants in the attack to use the MyFax free fax service at http://myfax.com/free/, and recommends using a proxy to keep Anonymous, well, anonymous.
Real-time performance graphs for websites that have been involved (or may become involved) in the WikiLeaks attacks can be monitored at http://uptime.netcraft.com/perf/reports/performance/wikileaks; however, Netcraft is not monitoring any of the fax machines.
Paul Mutton @'Netcraft'
The US Government's pursuit of WikiLeaks could be its undoing
This is about as good as it gets for the United States of America. Backed by the righteous anger of lawmakers and commentators, hundreds -- perhaps thousands -- of the nation's brightest brains are working toward the goal of making Julian Assange answer for his alleged crimes in a US court.
Those engaged in this effort should enjoy the thrill of the chase. If Assange is successfully extradited to the US, a sobering experience will follow. Prosecuting the founder of WikiLeaks could very easily turn into a nightmare. In formal terms, Julian Assange will be the man standing trial. But the participant with the most to lose will be the US government. Victory, if it arrives in any formal sense, will feel pyrrhic.
The US government's position is weak because it possesses relatively few reliable legal tools. Prosecuting Assange under The Espionage Act of 1917, America's version of Britain's Official Secrets Act, still looks like the best option.
Ranging far more widely than its title suggests, the Espionage Act criminalises the communication of "information relating to the national defense", which "the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States." The act theoretically makes criminals of Julian Assange, the newspaper editors working with WikiLeaks and anyone who reads, or even Tweets, about the contents of a classified cable.
The law's sweeping nature has troubled judges for the best part of a century. As a result, administrations have become reluctant to deploy it.
A civilian *recipient* of classified data has never been convicted under this law. Nor has someone like Assange, who will claim to be protected by the First Amendment to the US Constitution, which protects freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
When the White House went after Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the Pentagon Papers to The New York Times in 1971, it used The Espionage Act. But Assange's position isn't analogous to that of Ellsberg. Instead, it's closer to that of The New York Times, which published Ellsberg's documents. Even the Nixon administration held back from prosecuting The Times, preferring instead to injunct the newspaper while it pursued Ellsberg through the criminal courts.
The Nixon administration was trying to circumvent the First Amendment. Yet in order to prosecute Assange, the Obama administration may have to confront the First Amendment head on. It may be forced to argue that WikiLeaks isn't a media organisation, but merely a web site, devoid of editorial functions, that publishes raw data.
The argument that only "established" media outlets can count on First Amendment protection is profoundly at odds with the reality of media production and consumption in the 21st century. Any prosecution on these grounds will provoke storms of criticism and ridicule...
Continue reading
Peter Kirwan @'Wired'
Julian Assange The US embassy cables Julian Assange to appear in court to appeal for release
But even if the judge at Westminster magistrates court in London grants Assange bail, he could still be held.
The Crown Prosecution Service, which will represent the Swedish authorities in the UK court, has the right to appeal against any bail decision. Usually the suspect would still be held in custody anyway until an appeal hearing.
Raj Joshi, a former head of the European and international division at the CPS, and an expert on extradition, said: "If they feel they have grounds for opposing bail, they would be duty bound to appeal that. He'll be held pending the appeal, and until it is decided. That hearing is usually held within 48 hours."
The chances of Assange going underground, given that his face was "plastered all around the world", were low, he added. "With a number of conditions, such as, maybe, a tag, it would be difficult to see why bail would not be granted."
The decision to oppose bail will be made by the Swedish authorities, with Britain's CPS merely representing their interests in at tomorrow's hearing. Speculation that the US could lodge an extradition request continued over the weekend, but it is regarded as highly unlikely any such request would be lodged tomorrow.
Baroness Kennedy, who has extensive experience in human rights, has joined Assange's defence team.
His case has stirred fresh controversy about European arrest warrants, which the Swedish authorities would use for his extradition. Baroness Ludford MEP, the Liberal Democrat European justice and human rights spokeswoman, claimed the arrest warrant system, which she said she supported, was being used by Sweden to carry out a fishing expedition. Sweden had yet to formally charge Assange with any offence.
In a letter to the Guardian, Ludford wrote that past cases showed that it was "not a legitimate purpose for an EAW to be used to conduct an investigation to see whether that person should be prosecuted".
Ludford added: "Normal cross-border cooperation on collection of evidence or interrogation of suspects called 'mutual legal assistance', using for example video-conferencing or a summons for temporary transfer of a suspect, should be used when more appropriate. I urge the UK courts to refuse to allow the Assange EAW to be a fishing expedition without a pending actual prosecution. EU rules should be properly respected so that the integrity of the European arrest warrant process is protected."
Ahead of the case, lawyers today visited Assange in Wandsworth prison, south London, where the 39-year-old is being held in the segregation unit.
The decision by the district judge Howard Riddle to remand Assange into custody was made despite the film director Ken Loach, the veteran journalist John Pilger, and the socialite Jemima Khan, offering sureties for him totalling £180,000. The judge had concluded that because of the "serious" nature of the allegations against Assange, his "comparatively weak community ties" in the UK, and the fact it was believed he had the financial means and the ability to abscond, there was a substantial risk he would fail to surrender to the courts.
The allegations about Assange were made by two women. The first complainant, known as Miss A, said she was the victim of "unlawful coercion" on the night of 14 August in 2009 in Stockholm. The court heard Assange was alleged to have "forcefully" held her arms and used his body weight to hold her down. The second charge alleged he had "sexually molested" her by having sex without using a condom. A third charge claimed Assange "deliberately molested" Miss A on 18 August.
A fourth charge, relating to a woman called Miss W, alleges that on 17 August, Assange "improperly exploited" a situation where she was asleep, to have sex with her without using a condom.
A poll by Comres for CNN revealed today that 44% of Britons believe the charges against Assange are an excuse to place him in custody so the US can prosecute him over the US embassy cable leaks. But the same number say he should be sent to Sweden for questioning.
Meanwhile a dating site profile from 2007, supposedly created by Assange, had prompted by some lively online debate. The profile on the OKCupid site featured pictures of Assange, though gave the name Harry Harrison – who described himself as a "passionate and often pig- headed activist intellectual" who sought to change the world. He concluded: "Write to me if you are brave."
Vikram Dodd @'The Guardian'
The psychology of media statists
To say that the WikiLeaks imbroglio has not been journalism's finest hour fails to capture the extent to which the fourth estate has failed its basic responsibility to inform the public about the activities of government.
Putting aside the sour grapes that comes from being scooped by a rival, it is difficult to recall another occasion when so many journalists and opinionistas have expressed such unremitting hostility to the public's right to know what is being discussed and decided in their name.
There have been honourable exceptions, but most remarkable is that they remain exceptions to an embarrassing and dishonourable rule. Journalists and commentators who have displayed a consistent opposition to WikiLeaks since the first tranche of Iraq war logs was released have been documented and dissected by Antony Loewenstein, in Australia, John Pilger in the UK and Glenn Greenwald in the US.
Rather than duplicate that work here, it is worth examining the psychology behind those in the media who have been exposed by this saga as enthusiastic servants of state power.
Proximity to the powerful has always had a disabling effect on the critical faculties of impressionable journalists. Some, who are easily flattered, like to get their photograph taken with the subjects they interview (Greg Sheridan with Condoleezza Rice, Leigh Sales with Hillary Clinton). Others see no conflict between their role as an independent journalist and accepting an award from a grateful government lobby group (Greg Sheridan and the Israel lobby).
There is the attraction of sharing confidential discussions with shakers and movers from the US (journalists who have attended the Australia-America Leadership Dialogue) or a fully-paid guided tour of the Holy Land (being duchessed around Israel and the occupied territories by Israeli PR functionaries). Occasionally being so close to the great and powerful can be too much for "giddy minds" and leads to a total dereliction of duty (Leigh Sales "interviewing" Hilary Clinton)...
Continue reading
Scott Burchill @'ABC'
Remmy Ongala: Tanzania music fans mourn 'the Doctor'
One of Tanzania's most popular musicians, Remmy Ongala, has died at his home in Dar es Salaam.
Born in neighbouring Democratic Republic of Congo in 1947, he was known as "the Doctor" because he was seen as a defender of the people.
His songs often criticised Tanzania's elite and at the height of his popularity the government tried to expel him on immigration grounds.
But as his international fame grew, he was granted Tanzanian nationality.
His mix of Congolese "soukous" music and Swahili rhythms made him popular across East Africa.
He was also a regular performer at the Womad music festival in the UK until he fell ill 10 years ago and was paralysed.
Despite his ill-health he had toured in Tanzania until recently, mainly performing gospel music.
The BBC's Hassan Mhelela in Dar es Salaam says all radio stations in the country are playing his music and fans are phoning in with tributes.
By the time of his death, even President Jakaya Kikwete was a fan, recently visiting him in hospital.
Ongala often wrote about death - one of his most well-known tracks is Kifo, about the mercilessness of death, saying no matter how rich a person, bribery cannot postpone it.
The singer and guitarist moved to Tanzania in 1977 and joined the Orchestra Super Makassy, until he formed his own group Super Matimila.
He said his music was intended not only to make people dance but also to think.
"I am successful in Tanzania because I write songs about serious topics," his music label, Real World Records, quoted him as saying.
In 1990, he faced opposition to his song Mambo Kwa Socks (Things With Socks) - a reference to condoms - in which he made a plea to young men to practise safe sex.
Radio Tanzania has refused to play it, but live shows and black market tapes have ensured that his message has spread.
Our reporter says there is even a suburb of Dar es Salaam called Sinza Kwa Remmy, named after the musician when he moved to the area in the 1980s.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
