Tuesday, 8 February 2011

Wael Ghonim is Free: First Words أول تصريحات وائل غنيم

وائل غنيم - العاشرة مساء - الجزء الثانى

Julian Assange Hearing Material

Skeleton Argument

Judicial Authority Material

Skeleton Reply of the Swedish DPP
Marianne Ny's Statement 4.2.11
Certified Arrest Warrant

@'FSI'

Israel supports democracy – except in the case of Egypt

Palin on Egypt: Obama's 3 a.m. call 'went right to the answering machine'

Hillary Clinton: We Can't Legalize Drugs Because 'There Is Just Too Much Money in It'

Maerker: In Mexico, there are those who propose not keeping going with this battle and legalize drug trafficking and consumption. What is your opinion?
Clinton: I don't think that will work. I mean, I hear the same debate. I hear it in my country. It is not likely to work. There is just too much money in it, and I don't think that—you can legalize small amounts for possession, but those who are making so much money selling, they have to be stopped.

@'reason'

Julian Assange says rape allegations 'empty'

Ms A's 7 Steps to Legal Revenge

January 19, 2010
I’ve been thinking about some revenge over the last few days and came across a very good side who inspired me to this seven-point revenge instruction in Swedish.
Steg 1 / Step 1
Tänk igenom väldigt noga om du verkligen ska hämnas. Consider very carefully if you really must take revenge. Det är nästan alltid bättre att förlåta än att hämnas
It is almost always better to forgive than to avenge
Steg 2 / Step 2
Tänk igenom varför du ska hämnas. Think about why you want revenge. Du behöver alltså inte bara vara på det klara med vem du ska hämnas på utan också varför. Hämnd ska aldrig riktas mot bara en person, utan även möta en viss handling.
You need to be clear about who to take revenge on, as well as why. Revenge is never directed against only one person, but also the actions of the person.
Steg 3 / Step 3
Proportionalitetsprincipen.
The principle of proportionality.
Kom ihåg att hämnden inte bara ska matcha dådet i storlek utan även i art.
Remember that revenge will not only match the deed in size but also in nature.
En bra hämnd är kopplad till det som gjorts mot dig.
A good revenge is linked to what has been done against you.
Om du till exempel vill hämnas på någon som varit otrogen eller som dumpat dig, så bör straffet ha något med dejting/sex/trohet att göra.
For example if you want revenge on someone who cheated or who dumped you, you should use a punishment with dating/sex/fidelity involved.
Steg 4 / Step 4
Gör en brainstorm kring lämpliga åtgärder för kategorin av hämnd du är ute efter. För att fortsätta exemplet ovan så kan du paja ditt offers nuvarande relation, fixa så att dennes nye partner är otrogen eller se till att han får en galning efter sig.
Do a brainstorm of appropriate measures for the category of revenge you’re after. To continue the example above, you can sabotage your victim’s current relationship, such as getting his new partner to be unfaithful or ensure that he gets a madman after him.
Använd din fantasi!
Use your imagination!
Steg 5 / Step 5
Tänk ut hur du kan hämnas systematiskt.
Figure out how you can systematically take revenge.
Kanske kan en serie brev och foton som får den nya att tro att ni ännu ses bättre än bara en stor lögn vid ett enstaka tillfälle?
Send your victim a series of letters and photographs that make your victim’s new partner believe that you are still together which is better than to tell just one big lie on one single occasion
Steg 6 / Step 6
Ranka dina systematiska hämndscheman från låg till hög i termer av troligt lyckat genomförande, krävd insats från dig samt grad av tillfredsställelse om du lyckas.
Rank your systematic revenge schemes from low to high in terms of likely success, required input from you, and degree of satisfaction when you succeed.
Den ideala hämnden ligger givetvis så högt som möjligt i dessa staplar, men ofta kan en ökad insats av arbete och kapital ge säkrare output för de andra två, egentligen viktigare parametrarna.
The ideal, of course, is a revenge as strong as possible but this requires a lot of hard work and effort for it to turn out exactly as you want it to.
Step 7 / Step 7
Skrid till verket. Get to work. Och kom ihåg vilket ditt mål är medan du opererar, se till att ditt offer får lida på samma sätt som han fick dig att lida.
And remember what your goals are while you are operating, ensure that your victim will suffer the same way as he made you suffer.
Via

Best letterhead design ever

Bob Kane, date unknown
Via

Guardian live blog of Assange hearing

HERE

US envoy's business link to Egypt

Frank Wisner, President Barack Obama's envoy to Cairo who infuriated the White House this weekend by urging Hosni Mubarak to remain President of Egypt, works for a New York and Washington law firm which works for the dictator's own Egyptian government.

Mr Wisner's astonishing remarks – "President Mubarak's continued leadership is critical: it's his opportunity to write his own legacy" – shocked the democratic opposition in Egypt and called into question Mr Obama's judgement, as well as that of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

The US State Department and Mr Wisner himself have now both claimed that his remarks were made in a "personal capacity". But there is nothing "personal" about Mr Wisner's connections with the litigation firm Patton Boggs, which openly boasts that it advises "the Egyptian military, the Egyptian Economic Development Agency, and has handled arbitrations and litigation on the [Mubarak] government's behalf in Europe and the US". Oddly, not a single journalist raised this extraordinary connection with US government officials – nor the blatant conflict of interest it appears to represent.

Mr Wisner is a retired State Department 36-year career diplomat – he served as US ambassador to Egypt, Zambia, the Philippines and India under eight American presidents. In other words, he was not a political appointee. But it is inconceivable Hillary Clinton did not know of his employment by a company that works for the very dictator which Mr Wisner now defends in the face of a massive democratic opposition in Egypt.

So why on earth was he sent to talk to Mubarak, who is in effect a client of Mr Wisner's current employers...?

Continue reading

Robert Fisk @'The Independent'

Iggy and The Stooges - Big Day Out Melbourne 30/1/11

OK. So for the last 5 years I've kind of been regretting missing all but the last 2 songs of these guys last time they played BDO. Instead I saw The Mars Volta which to this day is still one of my favorite sets by them but you know, how often can you see The Stooges. When they got announced again I lost my shit and there was no chance I'd miss them this time.
The set was everything I expected it to be. Iggy is one energetic dude and a fantastic frontman and for a 63 year old he still brings it. They sounded fantastic and the sun went away for the first time in the day so it was a lot more bearable standing up than a lot of other sets I saw that day due to that.
Iggy and The Stooges

Setlist:
1. Raw Power
2. Search and Destroy
3. Gimme Danger
4. Shake Appeal
5. Johanna
6. Kill City
7. Fun House
8. 1970
9. Night Theme
10. Beyond The Law
11. No Fun
12. I Wanna Be Your Dog
13. Your Pretty Face Is Going To Hell

Length: 54:12
Sound Quality: A-
Download
@'Fan Made Recordings'

A nice reminder of a good day. Not as good as the last time The Stooges played at the BDO in my opinion but that was partly due to having had my appendix taken out only a few days before I was not to be found deep in the heart of the mosh-pit.
Sensible of me eh?

U.S. Has Secret Tools to Force Internet on Dictators

Egyptian protester uses a tank to get some rest. Photo Credit : AFP
Via

U.S. warships moored off the coast of Egypt

Former Swedish judge Sundberg-Weitman speaks out on the handling of the Julian Assange case

The following summarizes the unfolding of events surrounding the arrest of Julian Assange, as recounted in an article entitled "The European Arrest Order Against Julian Assange," originally published here by Brita Sundberg-Weitman, retired Swedish judge and author in the areas of legal and civil rights. Sundberg-Weitman also expresses concerns about media coverage of the event and about the possible extradition of Julian Assange in this article, which I received via email by a source who also reports that Sundberg-Weitman translated the piece herself. Quotations refer directly to this English translation received.
The article has 3 parts: Background, justification of extradition fears and clarification of related political considerations under Swedish law. Each is summarized here.
Background
On Friday, August 20, 2010, the decision was made by Maria Häljebo Kjellstrand to arrest Julian Assange, in absentia, on grounds of “suspected rape. This decision was made upon a telephone report by a police officer.” As we know, the police had interviewed the two women concerned. However, Sundberg-Weitman points out that the arrest decision was made “before the police interviews of the two women concerned were finished.”
It was also previously known that “[s]omebody leaked the decision to the Swedish tabloid Expressen, and it was made public all over the world,” and that the decision “was overruled within 24 hours by chief prosecutor Eva Finné. She stated that Assange was no longer suspected of rape.”

Claes Borgström, a lawyer known for feminist activism, lodged an appeal on behalf of the two women. The appeal was examined by Marianne Ny, chief of a prosecution “development center” specialized in, among other things, sexual offences.

[Ny] decided to overrule Finné’s decision and reopen the case of suspected rape. Like Borgström Ny is a feminist. She is known to have said that when a woman alleges she has been a victim of assault by a man, it is a good idea to have the man detained, because it is not until he is arrested that the woman has time to think of her life in peace and realize how she has been treated. According to Ny the detention has a good effect as protection for the woman ”even in cases where the perpetrator is prosecuted but not found guilty”.

Sundberg-Weitman then notes that despite the belief that an accused man should be detained irrespective of innocence, Ny did not arrest Julian Assange, who was in Sweden at the time. “[Nor] did [Ny] interview him about the allegations under investigation.”

When Assange had left Sweden (his application for a residence permit was rejected) Ny decided to arrest him in absentia and applied to the Stockholm District Court to confirm her decision. The District Court granted her application and, after appeal, its decision was confirmed by the Svea Court of Appeal. However, even before the Court of Appeal had had time to examine the appeal, Ny issued a European Arrest Warrant against Assange.

It is also noted that “[t]he Court of Appeal was chaired by its President, who was until recently National Prosecutor General.”
The question Sundberg-Weitman raises is that of why Ny did not take the opportunity “to interview Assange whilst he was still in Sweden” and “why she did not accept Assange’s proposal to be interrogated in England,” which is a legitimate request, in accordance with “rules valid in both Sweden and Britain on Mutual Legal Assistance.” She goes on to explain that The Handbook on International Legal Assistance, published by the Swedish National Prosecutor General, provides various means by which to proceed with interrogations in such cases. This detail is highlighted because Ny had claimed that “it would not be compatible with Swedish law to interrogate Assange in England.” Sundberg-Weitman notes that this “obviously is not true.”

In later interviews Ny answered that in the case of where it turned out after an interrogation of Assange that he should be immediately arrested, that would not be possible unless he was in Sweden. Possibly we see here a reflection of her view that it is a good thing to have a ”perpetrator” (!) locked up even in cases where he is subsequently acquitted in a court of law.

Assange’s fear of being extradited from Sweden to US
Sundberg-Weitman points out that Assange was opposed to the idea of being surrendered to Sweden because his fear was “that Sweden would in its turn extradite him to US, where he would be likely to be put away in jail or even murdered as a result of the anger Wikileaks has caused in US.” She reminds us that “there are prominent persons who have expressed the view that he should be treated as a terrorist and sentenced to death,” due to the perception that Assange “violated US law on espionage.” She adds that arguments have been raised to the effect that “it would be legally easier for US to have him extradited from UK than from Sweden.”
However, Sundberg-Weitman notes that this argument overlooks some important points. She states that Assange “has much more popular support in UK than in Sweden” and concludes that an extradition from the UK to the US would be less probable, on a political level, than an extradition from Sweden to the US.

[H]aving him extradited from Sweden would probably not cause much protest amongst Swedes. All the mass media in Sweden have a rather biased view on the case to the detriment of Assange, and they express great confidence in Sweden’s judiciary in the present case.

Sundberg-Weitman points out 2 facts that justify, in her own view, Assange’s “fear of being extradited from Sweden to US.”

[T]here are extremely strong interests in US who want him delivered because of Wikileaks.
[R]eports from the US embassy in Stockholm published by Wikileaks have revealed that the Swedish Government has gone out of its way to be helpful to US in various controversial matters.

She goes on to ask, in closing: “So why would the US not make use of its influence to put pressure on Sweden in order to have Assange extradited to the US?"
Political considerations under Swedish law
This final section deals with the question of whether it would be illegal, under Swedish law, for “political considerations” to influence the manner in which Assange is treated “by Swedish authorities as to the suspected sexual offences”. Questions pertaining to the events involving the arrest and its media coverage are also discussed.
Sundberg-Weitman considers the possibility that perhaps “Marianne Ny should not be blamed for wanting to press the definition of rape in cases of consensual sex,” noting that Ny “is, after all, she “heading a ‘development center’ specialized in sexual offences.” She argues:

To be sure, there can be no doubt that [Ny] has acted contrary to European law as established by the Court of Justice of the European Union. The issuing of a European Arrest Warrant against Assange runs counter to the European principle of proportionality: in interfering with a person’s freedom a State authority must limit itself to what is necessary in order to achieve its objective. In the present case Ny has clearly stated that her objective by issuing the European Arrest Warrant is to question Assange, because only after having heard his statements will she able to decide whether or not to prosecute him. Obviously Ny could have had Assange interrogated in England.

Sundberg-Weitman explains that “the Swedish version of the principle of proportionality is more blurred than that developed by the Court of Justice of the European Union.”

Thus, the Swedish statutory instrument regulating the issuance of European Arrest Warrants provides (under the headline ”Proportionalitet”) that a warrant may be issued only in cases where, considering the harm inflicted upon the person concerned, the delay and the costs that may be expected, an Arrest Warrant should be justified with respect to the nature and gravity of the offence “and other circumstances”.

Sundberg-Weitman points out that the words and other circumstances “seem to put no limit to what considerations are legal under the Swedish principle of proportionality enshrined in the statutory instrument.” This entails, in her opinion, that under Swedish law, it is therefore legal “to let considerations of foreign relations policy influence a prosecutor’s decision whether or not to issue a European Arrest Warrant”.
The previous point emphasizes not only the broadness of the Swedish principle of proportionality, but also various peculiarities that ensued in events involving both Ny’s subsequent actions and media coverage of the situation.

In point of fact the Swedish fundamental law, the Instrument of Government, provides that where an issue of importance for Sweden’s relation to another State appears in a public authority, the authority has to inform the Minister of Foreign Affairs (Chapter 10 § 8). The official comment to this provision states that the Minister must have an opportunity to explain to the authority what aspects of foreign policy may be involved. As a corollary of this provision the Handbook on European Arrest Warrant published by the National Prosecutor General provides that in case of doubt the National Prosecutor General’s office is to be consulted.

It follows from these provisions, says Sundberg-Weitman, that Ny was required to consult the National Prosecutor General prior to issuing the European Arrest Warrant against Assange, and that the National Prosecutor General, in turn, “must have presented the matter before the Minister of Foreign Affairs.” Yet an Expressen interview with National Prosecutor General Anders Perklev indicates otherwise. In the interview, says Sundberg-Weitman, he

gives the impression that Marianne Ny has been acting totally independently in the Assange case: ”Every prosecutor dealing with the case makes an independent evaluation. It is not the Prosecution Authority as such that makes a decision, it is the individual prosecutor who decides in his or her own name.

This, according to Sundberg-Weitman , “seems odd”.

Another rather peculiar thing is a communication made by Ny when the Westminster City Magistrates’ Court in London released Assange on condition of bail and rather severe restrictions. Sweden was given two hours’ time to decide whether or not to appeal. When the two hours were almost gone it was reported on the radio that Sweden had not appealed. But then, in the very last moment, it was dramatically noted that Sweden had indeed decided to appeal.

Events following the announcement do not appear consistent with the facts, however, since

[t]he following day Ny communicated on the Prosecutors’ home page that it was ”the British prosecutor” who had made the decision to appeal. Likewise, a representative of the National Prosecutor General, Nils Rekke, confirmed on TV that the appeal was a ”purely internal British” decision. Later on, however, Ny stated that she was ”content” with the decision – one may guess that the British Prosecutor had protested against being indirectly accused of high-handedness.

Sundberg-Weitman concludes by asking, “Why these half-truths allocating all responsibility to Ny for the procedure in Sweden and to the British for Sweden´s appeal in Britain?” Her answer: “Well, I don’t know the answer to that, but it does appear as if something is being hidden under the carpet.”
knowledgeempire @'WL Central'

Dana Tanamachi's chalk typography

HERE
Via

The gun that killed Kurt Cobain

Bought by Earth's Dylan Carlson
Via

Guardian Music Weekly podcast: Earth's Dylan Carlson

In this week's podcast Louis Pattison talks to drone metal group Earth's original band member - Dylan Carlson. Their new album Angels of Darkness, Demons of Light: I is out on the 21st February, and so Louis asked about the title, finding out folk tales and music by Pentangle and Fairport Convention were big influences. Alexis and Rosie follow up the interview, remembering Carlson's appearance in Nick Broomfield's Kurt and Courtney documentary, as well as how he was Cobain's best friend, and was the man who bought the gun that Kurt killed himself with.

@'The Guardian'

Monday, 7 February 2011

Twenty reasons why it's kicking off everywhere

Thought for the day

Many get antidepressants for no psychiatric reason

Kuwaiti interior minister resigns over custody death

HA!

(Thanx Leisa!)

♪♫ Chris & Cosey - Driving Blind (ICA 4/2/11)

Uncontacted Tribe in Brazilian Jungle

@'Wired'

Anonymous Takes Revenge On Security Firm For Trying To Sell Supporters’ Details To FBI

Julian Assange in court for extradition hearing

Assange arrives at Belmarsh for extradition hearing

Via
The Preliminary Note of the Skeleton Argument in Sweden v Julian Assange is available for download here

Hitler reacts to the Black Eyed Peas at the Super Bowl

Watch the aural abortion after the jump...

Evgeny Morozov: The age of the WikiLeaks-style vigilante geek is over

Supporters of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange wear masks featuring the US flag during a protest in front of the of Swedish embassy in Kiev. Photograph: Efrem Lukatsky/AP
Now that the dust over the US embassy cables is beginning to settle, WikiLeaks finds itself at a crossroads. To effectively continue its war on government secrecy, it will need to make fundamental adjustments to how it operates – with no guarantees that the new, more mainstream WikiLeaks will be in much demand.Its other option is to sidestep its transparency work, delegate it to more nimble and decentralised WikiLeaks-clones, and focus on solving a problem that is likely to be a determining factor in the success of this nascent global transparency movement. It's only by making the publishing of leaked materials insusceptible to the whims of corporate intermediaries such as Amazon or PayPal as well as by increasing its resilience against cyber attacks and other forms of political and legal pressure that this movement can succeed. In other words, Julian Assange's other option is to dedicate himself to campaigning on freedom of expression issues, with the explicit goal of creating technical infrastructure that would allow the next generation of WikiLeaks-clones to remain uncensorable.
Why can't WikiLeaks just continue as it is? If anything, the US embassy cables have made it clear that the success of a WikiLeaks campaign greatly depends on who gets to analyse the leaks and who gets to publicise them.
None of these two activities can currently be done in-house and WikiLeaks has to partner media outlets such as the Guardian and Der Spiegel, borrowing their journalists and essentially making them serve as both "data analysts" (who go through the leaked material to separate the important from the trivial) and "advocacy co-ordinators" (who write articles on issues that WikiLeaks finds important – even though in reality it has little editorial control over what gets written in the end).
As it grows, WikiLeaks will become even more dependent on its partners. Thanks to its easily recognisable global brand, it does have the capacity to attract more leaks – but it doesn't have the matching capacity to make sense of them, let alone identify leaks that might be fake – and this latter type is poised to become more ubiquitous, given WikiLeaks's growing list of enemies. Geeks don't always make suave data analysts.
Similarly, one of the main challenges facing WikiLeaks is learning how to discriminate between different documents: data storage may be getting cheaper and leaks may be becoming more ubiquitous but the events of the past few months have shown that WikiLeaks is a more formidable actor with less data, not more. So while everyone can upload files to its site, these files won't make a difference until someone knowledgeable (and salaried) takes a look at them – and, even better, spends a week or two chasing the characters involved.
In this respect, WikiLeaks (at least in its current incarnation) embodies an ideology that can only be called anti-web 2.0: they value professionals over amateurs and explicitly reject the "anyone can edit" ethos of Wikipedia, believing that waiting for this mystical "anyone" is like waiting for Godot. All of this is for a good reason: unlike Wikipedia, WikiLeaks cannot just crowdsource this process, put all the leaked documents online and solicit help from total strangers – the strangers, after all, might have political agendas of their own (something that WikiLeaks is slowly discovering thanks to its association with Israel Shamir, who has successfully leveraged his status as a "WikiLeaks freelancer" to solicit meetings with the big shots in Moscow and Minsk).
But while WikiLeaks badly needs its media partners, it's not clear that the media partners actually need WikiLeaks. It didn't take al-Jazeera all that long to build a dedicated "transparency unit" on its site, allowing anyone to upload leaked materials directly (and, most importantly, securely) to al-Jazeera's site. This can be done on the cheap and, as the release of the Palestine papers shows, it can generate as much heat as the documents released by WikiLeaks. What future is there for WikiLeaks after other major news organisations create similar "transparency units" on their own websites?
Of course, WikiLeaks can also go its own way: hire a fleet of in-house data analysts, pair them up with in-house reporters, and turn itself into a non-profit news entity competing with the likes of the Guardian or al-Jazeera. In theory, this could be a smart strategic move but it is likely to "domesticate" Julian Assange; running such an NGO would require too many boring meetings with potential funders (many of whom have already been alienated by the organisation) and a nine-to-five office routine – the exact opposite of the glamorous nomadic lifestyle that the founder of WikiLeaks has become famous for.
By becoming a regular NGO, WikiLeaks may still be able to score some scoops but it seems that its real talents lie elsewhere. It has now garnered the unprecedented support of thousands of geeks all around the world – and it would be silly not to capitalise on it. But it's in the realm of free expression – rather than transparency – where the geeks can make the greatest contribution.
While the best way forward may, indeed, be to let a thousand Wiki-clones bloom – with local equivalents of WikiLeaks popping up in Russia, Bulgaria or Azerbaijan and not just on sites of global media outlets – it's important to remember that these clones will only be effective if they manage to resist the immense pressure that is likely to come from organisations and individuals unhappy with the leaked materials that they post.
WikiLeaks itself knows this problem first-hand, having been a target of both cyber attacks and political pressure. Thus, the only way to ensure that these new clone sites deliver is to offer them a platform that would sustain the wrath of politicians, corporations, and fringe hackers. WikiLeaks was relatively successful in fielding off such attacks – but only because it already had a global brand which guaranteed it some protection; its clones, however, do not have the same option.
Finding a way to make online information resistant to censorship has always been an objective for WikiLeaks, even though only a secondary one. Given the high profile it has obtained with the geek community – with plenty of coders willing to work for free to help it stay online – what Assange should do is to make it his primary objective.
This task looks particularly formidable and worthy after last week's internet shutdown in Egypt. This is an area where the WikiLeaks community can achieve progress relatively quickly, as many of the initiatives underway are technology projects that simply need an injection of new coders – and many of them will jump at the opportunity once Assange blesses it.
Would such a shift of focus be disastrous for WikiLeaks's original mission? As the publication of the Palestine papers suggests, leaks will continue, with or without WikiLeaks. So far the playing field is open to big-name players who can afford lawyers or backing by nation states. But who will be the platform to host leaked documents about local corruption in Azerbaijan or Mongolia?
The stakes may be too small for big players – and the small regional players, who are in a much better position to vet and process such documents, may not survive the publication of such leaks, getting bogged down in cyber attacks and other instances of legal and technological harassment. Finding a way to ensure that such local voices get heard may be the single biggest contribution that the WikiLeaks geeks could make to the global fight for transparency.

@'The Guardian'