Saturday 30 April 2011
lou_reuters lou charbonneau
REUTERS - Makeshift morgues in #Syria city Deraa hold 83 corpses, including women and children, killed in army attack -- rights campaigner
This England, 29.04.2011
Royal Wedding,austerity, unemployment, inner city riots. It's the 1980s again. The first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.
Music Fan Porn: Band Memorabilia That We Wish We Owned
Record label EMI published the results today of a charity auction it held earlier this month to raise money for tsunami relief funds in Japan. There was plenty of interesting material to be had, although it was, of course, all well out of our price range – but if you happened to have a spare $10k sitting around, you could have snapped up signed copies of David Bowie’s full back catalog, while $6,744 would have gotten you Billy Corgan’s handmade “Zero” t-shirt. The news got us thinking about other band paraphernalia we’d love to get our hands on – read on to see our selection, and let us know what you’d like on your mantelpiece.
Super Furry Animals’ blue rave tank
It was clear from the moment they first emerged from Wales in the mid-’90s that Super Furry Animals were a bit… different. Even so, they raised plenty of eyebrows with their chosen method of traveling to festivals around the time their first album was released: a bright blue tank. Apparently they convinced their record company to buy the tank instead of giving them an advance but hadn’t counted on how expensive it would be to run, and eventually had to trade it in for more practical transportation options. Amusingly, they sold it to Don Henley, who’s still driving it around his ranch in California.
It was clear from the moment they first emerged from Wales in the mid-’90s that Super Furry Animals were a bit… different. Even so, they raised plenty of eyebrows with their chosen method of traveling to festivals around the time their first album was released: a bright blue tank. Apparently they convinced their record company to buy the tank instead of giving them an advance but hadn’t counted on how expensive it would be to run, and eventually had to trade it in for more practical transportation options. Amusingly, they sold it to Don Henley, who’s still driving it around his ranch in California.
MORE @'Flavorwire'
Christopher Hitchens: When the King Saved God
After she was elected the first female governor of Texas, in 1924, and got herself promptly embroiled in an argument about whether Spanish should be used in Lone Star schools, it is possible that Miriam A. “Ma” Ferguson did not say, “If the King’s English was good enough for Jesus Christ, it’s good enough for the children of Texas.” I still rather hope that she did. But then, verification of quotations and sources is a tricky and sensitive thing. Abraham Lincoln lay dying in a room full of educated and literate men, in the age of the wireless telegraph, and not far from the offices of several newspapers, and we still do not know for sure, at the moment when his great pulse ceased to beat, whether his secretary of war, Edwin Stanton, said, “Now he belongs to the ages” or “Now he belongs to the angels.”
Such questions of authenticity become even more fraught when they involve the word itself becoming flesh; the fulfillment of prophecy; the witnessing of miracles; the detection of the finger of God. Guesswork and approximation will not do: the resurrection cannot be half true or questionably attested. For the first 1,500 years of the Christian epoch, this problem of “authority,” in both senses of that term, was solved by having the divine mandate wrapped up in languages that the majority of the congregation could not understand, and by having it presented to them by a special caste or class who alone possessed the mystery of celestial decoding.
Four hundred years ago, just as William Shakespeare was reaching the height of his powers and showing the new scope and variety of the English language, and just as “England” itself was becoming more of a nation-state and less an offshore dependency of Europe, an extraordinary committee of clergymen and scholars completed the task of rendering the Old and New Testaments into English, and claimed that the result was the “Authorized” or “King James” version. This was a fairly conservative attempt to stabilize the Crown and the kingdom, heal the breach between competing English and Scottish Christian sects, and bind the majesty of the King to his devout people. “The powers that be,” it had Saint Paul saying in his Epistle to the Romans, “are ordained of God.” This and other phrasings, not all of them so authoritarian and conformist, continue to echo in our language: “When I was a child, I spake as a child”; “Eat, drink, and be merry”; “From strength to strength”; “Grind the faces of the poor”; “salt of the earth”; “Our Father, which art in heaven.” It’s near impossible to imagine our idiom and vernacular, let alone our liturgy, without them. Not many committees in history have come up with such crystalline prose...
Continue reading
vaughanbell Vaughan
11 hours by road, an hour by boat in the Amazon and found someone who wasn't aware of the Royal Wedding. Thankfully rectified the situation.
Friday 29 April 2011
Canada: Search 2173 US cables about Canadian government http://www.cablegatesearch.net/search.php?q=canada&sort=1 #wlcan
Vote yes to AV if you want to see Tories feel the fear again
Of course it is a snub. Of course it is deliberate. Not inviting Tony Blair and Gordon Brown to the royal wedding, while inviting Lady Thatcher and Sir John Major, is a cold, calculated act of high establishment spite against Labour. The failure to correct it – especially when the invitation to the official representative of the Syrian tyranny was so speedily withdrawn – only confirms the miserable, petty, ill-advised disdainful nastiness of the original deed. And I blame Prince Charles. His reactionary fingerprints are all over the wedding's programme of events. This wasn't William's wish, they say.
What's more, it all matters. But not because a royal wedding invitation is itself important. It matters because the snub is a symptom of renewed establishment confidence. British royalty's enduring historic hostility to Labour – a hostility that has very rarely been reciprocated, it should be pointed out – is unsurprising, even today. But the snub might not have been so confidently and publicly delivered without the more general sense, which stretches far beyond the snobbish ghastliness of Clarence House, that it is now absolutely fine and dandy for a public person to parade outright contempt for the Blair and Brown Labour governments.
Prince Charles is not the first or indeed the most important person to allow his judgment to be carried away by the mood of anti-Labour dismissal. David Cameron himself gave way to it only a week ago, when he foolishly permitted himself to use a radio interview to wave aside Brown's passionate desire to become the next head of the International Monetary Fund.
As for Blair – well, where do you start, save to say that in a culture in which Ian Hislop's weekly sneer on Have I Got News For You probably shapes more political attitudes than any of us will ever manage in a lifetime, the man we elected three times no longer even stands a chance of a hearing, never mind an invitation. Left and right have colluded in the process. But the political benefit from it is all on the right. As a result, the right no longer fears Labour. These snubs reflect that absence of fear.
God knows, I've had my criticisms of Brown. And I am not saying he is the ideal person for the IMF job; and I'm certainly not pretending his behaviour has made it easy for Cameron to support his case. Brown has not played this campaign well. But he is without doubt a plausible and serious candidate for such a post. As a former prime minister and long-serving chancellor, he is due a certain amount of courtesy and respect for his achievements, which were as real as his failures. He does not deserve to be snubbed like this by either prince or prime minister. But he can be, because Labour generates no fear among the Tories.
Last week's radio interview was a reminder that Cameron can sometimes be too cocky. He gives in to this over-confidence more than he used to. He did it again this week, to Angela Eagle. He needs to curb this unattractive occasional trait. It is politically dangerous, partly because moderate voters do not like it – Brown suffered from it, too – and partly because it is at odds with his greatest political strength, the clear-eyed strategic recognition that the Conservatives had to knock Labour off the political centre ground, and then keep them off it in the future.
But you can see why the prime minister is feeling so full of the joys of spring – in spite of economic flatlining, the unpopularity of his NHS reorganisation, a stalemate in Libya and the prospect of big Tory losses in the elections next week. All these ought to be pressing down on him, and some of them are, the NHS in particular. But Cameron nevertheless feels confident, because he is pretty sure that he has got Labour where he wants it, still off the centre ground on economic credibility and increasingly at daggers drawn with the Liberal Democrats, not least over the pivotal electoral event of this parliament, the AV referendum. Again, he is free from fear.
The AV referendum campaign ought to be an argument on the merits. It ought to be about fairness and, come Thursday, I suspect that for many voters it still will be. But it has been weighed down by party political calculation. In the process though it has restoked the Tory fear that is so conspicuously absent elsewhere.
The Tories may have hesitated initially over the referendum because they did not want to exacerbate their own relations with the Lib Dems, which were already becoming more brittle over issues like health and banking. But goodness, when they acted, they went for it with overwhelming force and resources, in effect taking over the no campaign as a wholly-owned subsidiary. Intelligent Conservatives like Cameron have always understood that the Tory interest is always likely to lie in defending the first-past-the-post system rather than a fairer voting system, and in preventing Labour and the Lib Dems from making common cause. That's why, a year ago, Cameron was so quick to seize his opportunity by offering coalition to Nick Clegg.
Labour, by contrast, has little understanding of what creates Tory fear. Labour still thinks short-term and tactically, not long-term and strategically. It is obsessed with the wrong target, with battering the Lib Dems, with punishing Clegg for the coalition and the cuts, and using those votes to propel itself back into an overall majority. The first part of that may well happen, starting with the local and devolved elections. The second part, though, is much less certain. It depends on breaking the coalition quickly and winning an early election. But that isn't going to happen, even if AV goes down.
If everyone in Labour thought straight they would see there is a powerful argument for saying that the coalition will be more weakened by a yes vote than a no. If you want to weaken the coalition you want the Lib Dems to be bolder in standing up for themselves against the Conservatives on a range of policy issues. That is more likely with the security of AV, which favours the Lib Dems because it is fairer, under their belt.
You also, however, want to weaken Cameron's standing in his own party and strengthen the influence of the more rightwing Tories to create mayhem. A yes vote would be a lightning rod for these angry Tories. That's why, if you want to harm the coalition, vote yes to AV. If you want to make the British establishment fear Labour again, vote yes. If you are happy to see Labour snubbed by princes and taunted by prime ministers, by all means vote for the status quo, and see where it gets you.
Martin Kettle @'The Guardian'
What's more, it all matters. But not because a royal wedding invitation is itself important. It matters because the snub is a symptom of renewed establishment confidence. British royalty's enduring historic hostility to Labour – a hostility that has very rarely been reciprocated, it should be pointed out – is unsurprising, even today. But the snub might not have been so confidently and publicly delivered without the more general sense, which stretches far beyond the snobbish ghastliness of Clarence House, that it is now absolutely fine and dandy for a public person to parade outright contempt for the Blair and Brown Labour governments.
Prince Charles is not the first or indeed the most important person to allow his judgment to be carried away by the mood of anti-Labour dismissal. David Cameron himself gave way to it only a week ago, when he foolishly permitted himself to use a radio interview to wave aside Brown's passionate desire to become the next head of the International Monetary Fund.
As for Blair – well, where do you start, save to say that in a culture in which Ian Hislop's weekly sneer on Have I Got News For You probably shapes more political attitudes than any of us will ever manage in a lifetime, the man we elected three times no longer even stands a chance of a hearing, never mind an invitation. Left and right have colluded in the process. But the political benefit from it is all on the right. As a result, the right no longer fears Labour. These snubs reflect that absence of fear.
God knows, I've had my criticisms of Brown. And I am not saying he is the ideal person for the IMF job; and I'm certainly not pretending his behaviour has made it easy for Cameron to support his case. Brown has not played this campaign well. But he is without doubt a plausible and serious candidate for such a post. As a former prime minister and long-serving chancellor, he is due a certain amount of courtesy and respect for his achievements, which were as real as his failures. He does not deserve to be snubbed like this by either prince or prime minister. But he can be, because Labour generates no fear among the Tories.
Last week's radio interview was a reminder that Cameron can sometimes be too cocky. He gives in to this over-confidence more than he used to. He did it again this week, to Angela Eagle. He needs to curb this unattractive occasional trait. It is politically dangerous, partly because moderate voters do not like it – Brown suffered from it, too – and partly because it is at odds with his greatest political strength, the clear-eyed strategic recognition that the Conservatives had to knock Labour off the political centre ground, and then keep them off it in the future.
But you can see why the prime minister is feeling so full of the joys of spring – in spite of economic flatlining, the unpopularity of his NHS reorganisation, a stalemate in Libya and the prospect of big Tory losses in the elections next week. All these ought to be pressing down on him, and some of them are, the NHS in particular. But Cameron nevertheless feels confident, because he is pretty sure that he has got Labour where he wants it, still off the centre ground on economic credibility and increasingly at daggers drawn with the Liberal Democrats, not least over the pivotal electoral event of this parliament, the AV referendum. Again, he is free from fear.
The AV referendum campaign ought to be an argument on the merits. It ought to be about fairness and, come Thursday, I suspect that for many voters it still will be. But it has been weighed down by party political calculation. In the process though it has restoked the Tory fear that is so conspicuously absent elsewhere.
The Tories may have hesitated initially over the referendum because they did not want to exacerbate their own relations with the Lib Dems, which were already becoming more brittle over issues like health and banking. But goodness, when they acted, they went for it with overwhelming force and resources, in effect taking over the no campaign as a wholly-owned subsidiary. Intelligent Conservatives like Cameron have always understood that the Tory interest is always likely to lie in defending the first-past-the-post system rather than a fairer voting system, and in preventing Labour and the Lib Dems from making common cause. That's why, a year ago, Cameron was so quick to seize his opportunity by offering coalition to Nick Clegg.
Labour, by contrast, has little understanding of what creates Tory fear. Labour still thinks short-term and tactically, not long-term and strategically. It is obsessed with the wrong target, with battering the Lib Dems, with punishing Clegg for the coalition and the cuts, and using those votes to propel itself back into an overall majority. The first part of that may well happen, starting with the local and devolved elections. The second part, though, is much less certain. It depends on breaking the coalition quickly and winning an early election. But that isn't going to happen, even if AV goes down.
If everyone in Labour thought straight they would see there is a powerful argument for saying that the coalition will be more weakened by a yes vote than a no. If you want to weaken the coalition you want the Lib Dems to be bolder in standing up for themselves against the Conservatives on a range of policy issues. That is more likely with the security of AV, which favours the Lib Dems because it is fairer, under their belt.
You also, however, want to weaken Cameron's standing in his own party and strengthen the influence of the more rightwing Tories to create mayhem. A yes vote would be a lightning rod for these angry Tories. That's why, if you want to harm the coalition, vote yes to AV. If you want to make the British establishment fear Labour again, vote yes. If you are happy to see Labour snubbed by princes and taunted by prime ministers, by all means vote for the status quo, and see where it gets you.
Martin Kettle @'The Guardian'
Latest Wikileaks Release Shows How US Completely Drove Canadian Copyright Reform Efforts
With Wikileaks State Department cables showing how much the US influenced copyright policy in Sweden and in Spain, it shouldn't really be much of a surprise that the US unduly influenced copyright policy elsewhere as well. The latest Wikileaks report confirms what pretty much everyone knew already: copyright reform in Canada was driven mainly by US interests. Michael Geist points out some of the highlights, including the US Government demanding anti-circumvention provisions (things that the creators of those provisions in the US have even admitted were a failure). Yet, the US demands this, while maintaining that it would prefer there be few, if any, exceptions on circumvention:
Even more telling, the US ambassadors only seem to speak with either the government or copyright holder organizations in all of this. In one cable, it discusses concerns from the recording industry and the movie studios that Canada's proposed legal changes don't go far enough. Nowhere do they seem to speak to actual consumers or to anyone who represents consumers. Because, you see, it's not about them. In fact, it appears that the "Canadian" Recording Industry Association has a very cozy relationship with the US government, with the two meeting to get feedback on proposals and strategize about policy issues. Again, no mention of any similar consultation with the people actually impacted by such changes in the law: everyone else. In fact, it seems like the only time the public is mentioned at all, it's to note how pesky it is that they don't seem to like these changes, and to explain why Canada has slow rolled the changes (because politicians were afraid negative publicity would hurt their re-election campaigns).
In one of the earlier documents linked above, the State Department (based on feedback from industry) criticize the idea of "notice and notice" rather than "notice and takedown" with a snarky complaint about how it's "if I told you once, I've.... told you once." Apparently, the officials don't recognize how notice and takedown invariably leads to false takedown and stifling of free speech (something we thought US diplomats were supposed to be protecting).
Once again, none of this is even remotely surprising. The US government, at the urging of the US entertainment industry, has been pushing its own brand of overly aggressive, speech stifling, copyright laws around the globe. It's just too bad that Canadian politicians apparently don't have the guts to stand up to bullying US diplomats.
Mike Masnick @'tech dirt'
If there are any exceptions to TPM or rights management information (RMI) liability, the exceptions should be clearly enumerated and narrow in scopeSeparately, the US demanded third party liability on ISPs to pressure them into acting as Hollywood's private copyright police force:
A system of protections and obligations for ISPs that shelters them from certain liability, reduces and prevents copyright infringement on the Internet and provides incentives for ISPs to work cooperatively with copyright owners.In response, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harpher seemed happy to promise such things, which explains why the Canadian government kept pushing so hard for anti-circumvention "digital lock" rules, despite widespread opposition to that key part of the proposed Canadian copyright reform. And yet, the US keeps complaining that Canada isn't ratcheting up its copyright laws fast enough, not recognizing the widespread public opposition that such laws are facing.
Embassy Ottawa remains frustrated by the Government of Canada,s continuing failure to introduce - let alone pass - major copyright reform legislation that would, inter alia, implement and ratify the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Internet treaties. Several recent factors compound this frustration, including the fact that:Note that there is no discussion as to why Canada hasn't moved forward. No discussion of the rather effective opposition to overly draconian copyright laws. Just demands that Canada "do something," and plans for the US to keep applying more and more diplomatic pressure.
-- the Prime Minister told the President last August that Canada would pass copyright legislation;
-- the November Speech from the Throne laying out the government,s Parliamentary agenda stated that it would "improve the protection of cultural and intellectual property rights in Canada, including copyright reform;" and
-- senior GOC officials, especially Industry Minister Prentice, repeatedly assured the Ambassador and senior Mission Canada officers that the copyright bill would be introduced "soon." Specifically, assurances were given that the legislation had been finalized and would be introduced prior to the Christmas recess, and then again immediately upon Parliament's return in January. Neither of which occurred.
Even more telling, the US ambassadors only seem to speak with either the government or copyright holder organizations in all of this. In one cable, it discusses concerns from the recording industry and the movie studios that Canada's proposed legal changes don't go far enough. Nowhere do they seem to speak to actual consumers or to anyone who represents consumers. Because, you see, it's not about them. In fact, it appears that the "Canadian" Recording Industry Association has a very cozy relationship with the US government, with the two meeting to get feedback on proposals and strategize about policy issues. Again, no mention of any similar consultation with the people actually impacted by such changes in the law: everyone else. In fact, it seems like the only time the public is mentioned at all, it's to note how pesky it is that they don't seem to like these changes, and to explain why Canada has slow rolled the changes (because politicians were afraid negative publicity would hurt their re-election campaigns).
In one of the earlier documents linked above, the State Department (based on feedback from industry) criticize the idea of "notice and notice" rather than "notice and takedown" with a snarky complaint about how it's "if I told you once, I've.... told you once." Apparently, the officials don't recognize how notice and takedown invariably leads to false takedown and stifling of free speech (something we thought US diplomats were supposed to be protecting).
Once again, none of this is even remotely surprising. The US government, at the urging of the US entertainment industry, has been pushing its own brand of overly aggressive, speech stifling, copyright laws around the globe. It's just too bad that Canadian politicians apparently don't have the guts to stand up to bullying US diplomats.
Mike Masnick @'tech dirt'
#royalmehdding
DianaInHeaven Princess Diana
Look at them. He's thinking about helicopters, she's thinking about whether it's still acceptable to buy scratchcards.
Australia defence sex scandal cadets charged
Two men have been charged over a sex scandal at an Australian defence academy, in a row which led to a review of the military's treatment of women.
The cadets from the Australian Defence Force Academy are accused of secretly filming a female cadet having sex and broadcasting it on the internet. They have been charged with misusing an electronic communications service. One has been charged with an indecent act.
The government has set up a number of inquiries in response to the scandal.
The 18-year old female cadet said that she had consensual sex with a fellow first-year cadet, which was then transmitted via webcam to six other cadets watching on a computer in another room.
Photographs of the encounter were also said to have been circulated around the academy.
The two men, aged 18 and 19, face possible jail terms if convicted.
The commander of the academy was ordered to take leave in the wake of the incident and at least two inquiries were initiated.
Sex Discrimination Commissioner Elizabeth Broderick was asked to conduct a review into the treatment of women both at the academy and in the wider military.
Reviews were also ordered into the use of alcohol and social media in the military.
The scandal followed another relating to the navy.
In February, the defence department released a report chronicling what it called a culture of predatory sexual behaviour on board the naval supply ship, HMAS Success.
It revealed a fiercely tribal culture in which women sailors were treated with disdain, alcohol was badly misused and discipline had broken down.
@'BBC'
JimBoardman Jim Boardman
Good morning. Shanks wouldn't approve of a wedding taking place during the season.
Telegraph names alleged rape victim in full Guantánamo release
The Daily Telegraph has published 759 of the leaked Guantánamo files it obtained from WikiLeaks, despite the files not having been redacted to remove sensitive information.
One of the documents published by the Telegraph today includes the full name of a boy detained at Guantánamo who, according to the file, was raped at the age of 15, just prior to being transferred to the camp.
The publication of his name appears to breach the Press Complaints Commission Editors' Code of Conduct, which states that "the press must not, even if legally free to do so, identify children under 16 who are victims or witnesses in cases involving sex offences".
The PCC said today that it could not comment on individual cases before a complaint was made, but it "would of course consider any complaint".
No charges were brought against the detainee, who was captured by US forces in Afghanistan and transferred to Guantánamo Bay "because of his possible knowledge of Taliban resistance efforts and local leaders". He was released a little more than a year after being transferred to the camp.
The file has also been published by WikiLeaks and the Guardian but the Guardian has blacked out the text relating to the alleged assault.
In a statement sent to Journalism.co.uk this afternoon, the Telegraph defended the move, saying it had undertaken "minimal redactions" and that its position was "supported by WikiLeaks".
"The Daily Telegraph takes its responsibilities when releasing confidential documents very seriously, but we believe this information is crucial for full public understanding of Guantánamo Bay. The newspaper has a long track record of redacting documents when necessary, including the release of hundreds of files relating to MPs expenses and the US diplomatic cables.
"However, in this instance, after taking detailed expert advice on the information already in the public domain and the importance of the documents to the general public and the detainees, we have decided to make only minimal redactions. This position has been supported by WikiLeaks.
"We have detailed security protocols in place for the handling of sensitive data by Telegraph employees. We have been alarmed at the reports of the apparent cavalier handling of data by former partners of WikiLeaks, which led to their relationships with the organisation breaking down."
Concerns have also been raised today that a number of the files published by the Telegraph contain unverified accusations against current and former detainees. Speaking to Journalism.co.uk earlier today, Guardian investigations editor David Leigh said that the Telegraph's publication was "totally scandalous ... the most irresponsible thing that I can imagine".
"We took out the names of people who because of the British libel law we couldn't just publish unverified accusations against. We did a lot of redacting and the New York Times did a lot of redacting, but unfortunately WikiLeaks hasn't, and the Daily Telegraph has just published the lot."
The director of Reprieve, a human rights group set up to help the detainees of the Guantanamo Bay camp, wrote to the Telegraph following their initial coverage of the files, accusing it of "extraordinarily inaccurate journalism".
Clive Stafford-Smith's letter, which was not published by the newspaper but was sent to Journalism.co.uk by Reprieve, says:
"The Daily Telegraph line about the Guantánamo WikiLeaks is extraordinarily inaccurate journalism: 'At least 35 Guantánamo Bay inmates fought against the West after being indoctrinated in Britain, leaked files disclose'. "You write that nine of these are British nationals and eight are British residents. I have helped to represent most of these men, and there is no credible evidence – zero – that any fought against the West." Stafford-Smith has also criticised the Guardian for its coverage, claiming in an article published by the newspaper that it took "a very credulous approach to the WikiLeaks exposé".
Joel Gunter @'Journalism.co.uk'
One of the documents published by the Telegraph today includes the full name of a boy detained at Guantánamo who, according to the file, was raped at the age of 15, just prior to being transferred to the camp.
The publication of his name appears to breach the Press Complaints Commission Editors' Code of Conduct, which states that "the press must not, even if legally free to do so, identify children under 16 who are victims or witnesses in cases involving sex offences".
The PCC said today that it could not comment on individual cases before a complaint was made, but it "would of course consider any complaint".
No charges were brought against the detainee, who was captured by US forces in Afghanistan and transferred to Guantánamo Bay "because of his possible knowledge of Taliban resistance efforts and local leaders". He was released a little more than a year after being transferred to the camp.
The file has also been published by WikiLeaks and the Guardian but the Guardian has blacked out the text relating to the alleged assault.
In a statement sent to Journalism.co.uk this afternoon, the Telegraph defended the move, saying it had undertaken "minimal redactions" and that its position was "supported by WikiLeaks".
"The Daily Telegraph takes its responsibilities when releasing confidential documents very seriously, but we believe this information is crucial for full public understanding of Guantánamo Bay. The newspaper has a long track record of redacting documents when necessary, including the release of hundreds of files relating to MPs expenses and the US diplomatic cables.
"However, in this instance, after taking detailed expert advice on the information already in the public domain and the importance of the documents to the general public and the detainees, we have decided to make only minimal redactions. This position has been supported by WikiLeaks.
"We have detailed security protocols in place for the handling of sensitive data by Telegraph employees. We have been alarmed at the reports of the apparent cavalier handling of data by former partners of WikiLeaks, which led to their relationships with the organisation breaking down."
Concerns have also been raised today that a number of the files published by the Telegraph contain unverified accusations against current and former detainees. Speaking to Journalism.co.uk earlier today, Guardian investigations editor David Leigh said that the Telegraph's publication was "totally scandalous ... the most irresponsible thing that I can imagine".
"We took out the names of people who because of the British libel law we couldn't just publish unverified accusations against. We did a lot of redacting and the New York Times did a lot of redacting, but unfortunately WikiLeaks hasn't, and the Daily Telegraph has just published the lot."
The director of Reprieve, a human rights group set up to help the detainees of the Guantanamo Bay camp, wrote to the Telegraph following their initial coverage of the files, accusing it of "extraordinarily inaccurate journalism".
Clive Stafford-Smith's letter, which was not published by the newspaper but was sent to Journalism.co.uk by Reprieve, says:
"The Daily Telegraph line about the Guantánamo WikiLeaks is extraordinarily inaccurate journalism: 'At least 35 Guantánamo Bay inmates fought against the West after being indoctrinated in Britain, leaked files disclose'. "You write that nine of these are British nationals and eight are British residents. I have helped to represent most of these men, and there is no credible evidence – zero – that any fought against the West." Stafford-Smith has also criticised the Guardian for its coverage, claiming in an article published by the newspaper that it took "a very credulous approach to the WikiLeaks exposé".
Joel Gunter @'Journalism.co.uk'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
