Julian Assange "targets" Joe Biden and Sarah Palin

Julian Assange recently spoke to 60 minutes about the ongoing WikiLeaks-saga. In the interview, he spoke about the ongoing attempt to extradite him to the United States, and comments made about him by prominent American political figures.

Assange called the effort to extradite him to the United States “completely outrageous” and attacked both the US Vice President Joseph Biden and his contender in the last presidential election, Sarah Palin, for making what he referred to as "threats".

Biden recently called Assange a “high-tech terrorist” while Sarah Palin called for Assange to be "pursued with the same urgency we pursue al Qaeda and Taliban leaders."

“There’s calls either for my assassination or the assassination of my staff or for us to be kidnapped and renditioned back to the United States to be executed,” Assange said in the interview.

Assange said he “would like to believe” that Biden, Palin and others have simply exercised their First Amendment rights by strongly condemning WikiLeaks, he does feel endangered by what’s been said about him in the public arena. “The incitements to murder are a serious issue,” he said. “And unfortunately, there is a portion of the population that will believe in them and may carry them out.”

Assange clearly has a point here. That prominent politicians are repeatedly comparing Assange with terrorists is absurd and it can only lead towards inappropriate responses. The word "terrorism" is usually associated with people who agitate violence in some form, something Assange has never done. What Assange openly does is to promote transparency. Promoting transparency through publishing leaked documents is completely legal. The right to do it is guaranteed by the American constitution and it cannot be retracted by any political decision.

It could be that Assange's strategy used to promote transparency may be poor. If so, people has the right to respectfully disagree with it. It is difficult not to recognize that Assange has a point, however. Among the documents revealed by WikiLeaks, one made the striking revelation that the US and Canada are close allies. The mere knowledge that such a cable is kept confidential should underline to people that much that should never be confidential, is in fact kept confidential.

What politicians should be concerned with is what the over-willingness to stamp documents means for people's ability to make a decision on election day. Some of the information WikiLeaks has made available is information that clearly could have affected people's willingness to vote for a given candidate. It is not difficult to imagine, for example, that had the different information that has been revealed about the Bush administration's practices not been unknown to voters during Buh's re-election campaign, he might simply have been re-elected at all. Ensuring that people have access to this information is therefore completely necessary if voters are to be able to make a judgment on who to vote for.

Poll: 38 percent of Americans are tired of press freedom

In a recent poll, Fox News found the following:

"Americans are far less harsh in their judgment of news organizations -- like the New York Times -- that published the leaked information, as only 38 percent would push for punishment of those media outlets."

It is quite amazing that "only" 38 percent would push for punishment. The number is really low, considering the potential negative effects it could have on press freedom and democracy. If New York Times were to be found guilty, it could become illegal to publish anything the US government finds to be "secret", for whatever reason. That would mean the press would essentially have to print just what the government wants it to print.

So yeah, 38 percent of Americans must want to make the country look more and more like China. But then again, China may be right.

Fox News journalist Bill McGowan: Paranoia club boss?

Fox News journalist Bill McGowan responded yesterday to recent arguments made by the New York Times reporter David E. Sanger. Sanger defended the newspaper's decision to publish WikiLeaks stories by concluding that "what we did was responsible, it was legal and it was important for a democratic society"

McGowan does not quite agree. Sure,he agrees that it was probably legal to publish the stories, but not so much on the other two issues:

"On Sanger's other two points, that The Times acted responsibly in publishing some of the leaked cables' contents and that doing so was good for democracy, the picture is much more ambiguous.

(...)

But for all the good these revelations about our allies and adversaries do, they come at high cost, largely by stripping away the veils that American diplomats need to conduct their business around the world, particularly against Islamic terrorism."

This argument would be all well and good if it actually made sense. Yet no one are willing to even touch the following question: What effect does McGowan and his censorship-pals think it would have if American newspapers did not write about the story? Would WikiLeaks realize they're beaten, apologize and stop publishing?

No, it seems as if McGowan misses the point that there are other countries, other newspapers that do a good job publishing these things. There's also Wikileaks.ch, Wikileaks.de and a lot of other versions of that site. So even if American newspapers would not publish the information, it would still be out there.

The only actual effect of it would be that Americans won't have as easy access to it as they've used to. This situation mirrors the one people in China would face in case leaks that could be troublesome for that country, would happen. Chinese people really will have to struggle to get the information.

Are people like Bill McGowan really suggesting that the Chinese way is the better way? Bye, bye freedom, welcome paranoia?

Why the U.S. Has a Weak Legal Case Against WikiLeaks' Assange

I've previously written about how the US stands a poor chance to get Julian Assange and WikiLeaks sentenced for anything in an American court. This conclusion is drawn from the fact that the first amendment to the American constitution offers the press freedom to publish. Time's Michael A. Lindenberger supports this view in a blog post he wrote today:

Putting someone like Assange in jail for publishing documents he did not himself steal, on the other hand, is exactly the kind of thing that First Amendment makes difficult. "From everything we've seen, [Manning] was merely responding to the notion that Assange might publish the cables," former CIA inspector general Frederick P. Hitz told TIME. "There's nothing to show that Assange played an active role in obtaining the information." He conceded that the leaks had been tremendously damaging, but added "I don't see any easy effort there" in pursuing charges.

Holder has said the government will explore whether Assange could be charged with a form of theft since the records had been stolen, though such a course is fraught will obstacles, given that the files are digital copies of government records. Holder said too the government will consider whether Assange might be guilty of conspiring somehow with Manning, or went beyond the traditional role of publisher by acting as a kind of broker in dissemenating the files to newspapers around the world. What worries famed First Amendment attorney Floyd Abrams is that if the government stretches to get around the Constitution to charge Assange, it may end up damaging the press freedoms enjoyed by every publisher.

This mirrors several posts I've previously made on this blog.

The "hacktivists" strike back!

Osama Bedier, VP of Platform at PayPal, today took the stage at Le Web’10, and declared that the company cut off WikiLeaks because of political pressure.

Bedier was quoted as saying: "State Dept told us these were illegal activities. It was straightforward. We first comply with regulations around the world making sure that we protect our brand."

The State Department later denied these allegations. "It is not true," the department spokesman P.J. Crowley told The Cable. "We have not been in touch with PayPal."

Hacktivism
Regardless of who's responsible, hacktivists are currently working hard to hit websites that "censor" WikiLeaks. By launching hacking attacks at the websites of PayPal, Mastercard, Visa and the Swiss bank that banned Julian Assange as their customer, the group attempts to state their opinion in opposition to censorship.

The success of the attempts to attack these websites can be seen here. It is quite evident that Mastercard is struggling hard, but the hardest hit is unquestionably the Swiss bank. If they operate a net bank service, they better solve their issues soon or customers will flee.

I've previously written about how the hacker group Anonymous has been attacking PayPal here.

Media figures come to defence of Assange after arrest on sex charges

I wrote yesterday that I would not follow the trial against Julian Assange, but it seems increasingly clear that the US wants him handed over to have him tried there. In that case, the story becomes much more interesting. It is very unlikely that Assange could actually be found guilty in an American court, but in todays society, the chance is better. Any court trying Assange, will face enormous pressure to deliver the desired verdict, and there is a chance that they might just cave in and deliver.

Some media figures have stepped up and decided to defend Assange recently. The website journalism.co.uk runs the following story today, on the Frontline Club's support of Assange:

The founder of investigative journalism club the Frontline Club has spoken out in defence of the WikiLeaks' founder and editor Julian Assange, following his arrest yesterday.

(...)

In a statement released last night, Vaughan Smith said that Assange has spent "much of the last several months" working from the Frontline Club and had been offered the address for bail. Smith also attended court yesterday to show his support for Assange "on a point of principle", he says.

"In the face of a concerted attempt to shut him down and after a decade since 9/11 that has been characterised by manipulation of the media by the authorities, the information released by Wikileaks is a refreshing glimpse into an increasingly opaque world.

"The Frontline Club was founded seven years ago to stand for independence and transparency. Recent informal canvassing of many of our more than 1,500 members at the Frontline Club suggests almost all are supportive of our position.

"I am suspicious of the personal charges that have been made against Mr Assange and hope that this will be properly resolved by the courts. Certainly no credible charges have been brought regarding the leaking of the information itself."

Sporadic attempts like this will likely have no major effect. It seems that what is needed is truly some actual, constant source of opposition. In the United States today, there is a tendency that the two biggest parties work together in most big cases (the war on terrorism, any actual war, the WikiLeaks war). This is unfortunate because it reduces the chances that people will stumble upon arguments that counter the core arguments that figure in the United States today.

Over time now, I will begin to try to present some of the research that shows just how much this actually matters. While people think they shape their opinions on their own, it is hardly the case. People form opinions based on cues and when the cues given to them are of a similar character ("WikiLeaks" = "terrorists", "illegal" etc.), people are likely to start believing in it, simply because no other sources counter such information. Humans are simply naive by nature.

With the two major American parties sharing the same view, the chances that questions that could be raised are not, increases sharply. Such questions would include what a verdict against Assange will mean in the future and whether it actually does any good. Some American politicians have been quite open about their view that the American system was better in the past when people were not as informed as they are today. This is a reality they may achieve if Assange is sentenced. Locking up Assange will set a precedence and other media organizations doing what he did, stands a high risk of ending up in Assange's position. This means that the United States will basically restrict the freedom of the press.

The other question is about as important. There are many signs that the way the US has fought terrorism, has in fact been a great source of recruitment to these terrorism organizations. The big question is what a verdict of Assange would do. Would others risk continuing if Assange is arrested? It remains to be seen, but there are many people who believes strongly in this. The freedom of the press isn't a right that can be taken away without reactions. This too must be taken into account when the response among allies is considered.

I definitely do hope I will not have to write more about this in the future. There is a good chance that Assange will not be found guilty and even a chance that he may not be handed over to the US. If he is, the results could be very bleak. There will be more on this story though.

Senator Lieberman: New York Times could be investigated

US senator Joseph Lieberman suggested in an interview with Fox News today that the New York Times and other media organizations could be investigated for publishing the US embassy cables that have been released by WikiLeaks. According to Lieberman, these organizations could be breaking American espionage laws when they publish these stories.

Lieberman is quoted in The Guardian as saying: "To me the New York Times has committed at least an act of, at best, bad citizenship, but whether they have committed a crime is a matter of discussion for the justice department."

According to The Guardian, Lieberman also suggested that Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, should be indicted under the 1917 Espionage Act.

The whole idea that New York Times and other news organizations should be prosecuted is, of course, quite absurd. It does, however, follow quite logically from what law specialists has previously stated. Jonathan Turley, for example, has said that if WikiLeaks is to be prosecuted, "we could be entering a very dangerous period for press freedom in our country". This is where most people would probably realize that it's a bad idea to go after WikiLeaks, but Lieberman is definitely not like most people.

I put a picture of Lieberman in the top of this blog. If you see him and have read this blog, it seems like a good idea to run!

I'll try to follow this story too.

Visa and Mastercard block WikiLeaks

Both Visa Europe and Mastercard have suspended payments to WikiLeaks after determining that an investigation into whether WikiLeaks' operation is in conflict with their rules, is necessary.

This move will make it even more difficult for WikiLeaks to receive donations. It is, furthermore, yet another indication that the company is being censored.

It should be mentioned that this happened after the WikiLeaks' founder, Julian Assange, was jailed for one week for sexual crimes. This case against Assange, as it appears, may be about a legitimate crime and until there are more indications that it isn't, I will abstain from writing about it.

Read more the story on BBC

Associate professor Joseph Palermo on the US media censorship of the WikiLeaks stories

Associate professor Joseph A. Palermo (California State University) is among the first I have seen who puts focus on the recent effort of journalists to stand behind the United States political establishment in their coverage of the WikiLeaks stories. Palermo writes in a column today in Huffington Post that "American journalists tend to either frame the story as being about the "over-classification" of documents or the personal motivations and private life of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange."

Palermo also writes on the self-censorship imposed by these newspapers to hide details I have not yet managed to pick up:

"Lost in the media static are many tidbits of information such as the squandering of U.S. tax dollars to enrich Afghan officials like the former vice president, Ahmed Zia Massoud, who was ushered through customs in Dubai carrying $52 million; or the spectacle of corrupt Sunni Arab sheikdoms (including Saudi Arabia) joining forces with Israel in demanding the United States attack Iran; or Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili nearly snookering the U.S. into a shooting war with Russia; or the double-dealing with terrorist organizations by Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). Even when the New York Times reports on the substance of the documents its editors couldn't resist pumping up the volume on the alleged sale of nineteen North Korean missiles to Iran, only to walk back the story a couple of days later."

Palermo's conclusion is about as interesting:

"The old Soviet news outlet, TASS, couldn't have asked for more obedience to the State from its "journalists" as American commentators (...) have shown in their attacks on WikiLeaks."

Palermo also refers to the tendency of politicians and media figures either subtly pointing to, or being open about, the "need" to assassinate Julian Assange.

"Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, (FAIR), the journalism watchdog group, printed in its December issue of its monthly magazine Extra! a summary of an exchange that took place on October 22, 2010 between ABC News's Daine Sawyer and Martha Raddatz when the first trove of WikiLeaks documents came out. After Raddatz summarized some of the revelations, which included "deadly U.S. helicopter assaults on insurgents trying to surrender . . . the Iraqi civilian death toll far higher than the U.S. has acknowledged . . . graphic details about torture of detainees by the Iraqi military." Sawyer's next question was: "I know there's a lot of outrage about this again tonight, Martha. But tell me, anything more about prosecuting the WikiLeaks group?" FAIR also quoted the former Bush State Department official and contributor to FoxNews.com, Christian Whiton, who called for the U.S. government to label Assange an "enemy combatant" and take "non-judicial actions" against him. FAIR's conclusion: "It's hard to think of another country where the opposition news media complains that the government doesn't assassinate enough journalists.""

It surely is.

And it is highly recommended to read the full story too.

Newt Gingrich: Elect him and get Assange killed?

Newt Gingrich, one of the favorites to win the Republican primary election in 2012, spoke on "Fox News Sunday" today where he attacked President Obama's handling of the WikiLeaks issue, as well as WikiLeaks and Julian Assange.

“This administration is so shallow and so amateurish about national security that it is painful and dangerous,” Gingrich said.

Gingrich was harder on Assange.

“Information warfare is warfare, and Julian Assange is engaged in warfare,” Gingrich said. “Information terrorism, which leads to people getting killed, is terrorism. And Julian Assange is engaged in terrorism. He should be treated as an enemy combatant. WikiLeaks should be closed down permanently and decisively.”

Like George W. Bush, Gingrich is well on the way in his effort to change the meaning of words. Like Bush, Gingrich will probably also succeed to some degree. That WikiLeaks does something that most certainly is protected by the first amendment, that what Assange does probably doesn't mirror warfare (hacking etc. could be) and that terrorism doesn't involve the release of documents on the Internet, doesn't seem to matter in this regard. The next Republican president will offer some interesting challenges for the media too. Maybe it's better to just get used to reading the Guardian?

WikiLeaks blocked in France?

France has a long history of not being very positive to different freedoms and in the WikiLeaks case, they've once more established themselves as among the worse. The French attacked the site early and declared that they did not want to see the site hosted in France. They got their wish and now they may have accordingly also blocked the website wikileaks.ch.

The United States has previously also closed down the wikileaks.org website because it was hacked. That reason is of course quite novel and interesting. More likely than not, the US government is involved. This suspicion is strengthened by the fact that they now also block wikileaks.ch. I wrote about this in a post yesterday.

Some people may think it's just fine that governments protect themselves by closing down websites, but once they begin closing down one website, there is a great chance that they are not done.

Another WikiLeaks story censored by the American Media?

It seems the story of how the CIA abducted Khalid El-Masri, tortured him and released him somewhere in Albania when it was realized he was innocent, has not been given extensive coverage by the American press. The story is a serious one, however, and it is absurd that the press fails to cover it. Not only was El-Masri tortured, but he suffered from malnutrition when he was held by the US and he was left in an uncertain state with no money and no real way to get back home.

The real shocking part, however, is how the US government thereafter proceeded to prevent charges from being brought against those responsible. El-Masri is a German citizen and a process was well underway when the American embassy in Berlin stepped in to ensure that nothing would happen that would worsen the relationship between the two countries. Basically what the US did was to tell an ally that their legal system should function a little bit worse, or at least a little bit more like its American counterpart.

Here is the key part of the cable:

In a February 6 discussion with German Deputy National Security Adviser Rolf Nikel, the DCM [Koenig] reiterated our strong concerns about the possible issuance of international arrest warrants in the al-Masri case. The DCM noted that the reports in the German media of the discussion on the issue between the Secretary and FM Steinmeier in Washington were not accurate, in that the media reports suggest the USG [U.S. government] was not troubled by developments in the al-Masri case. The DCM emphasized that this was not the case and that issuance of international arrest warrants would have a negative impact on our bilateral relationship. He reminded Nikel of the repercussions to U.S.-Italian bilateral relations in the wake of a similar move by Italian authorities last year.

The DCM pointed out that our intention was not to threaten Germany, but rather to urge that the German Government weigh carefully at every step of the way the implications for relations with the U.S.

None of the major news organizations in the US appear to have covered this case. This is despite the fact that most of the details of the case have been covered in the past. The only new details seem to be that the US tried to pressure an allied country into acting a little more like the US.

It's very difficult to see just how this information would put anyone in danger or harm the national security of the United States to the degree that the White House should ask media organizations not to publish the stories. It's even more difficult to understand why - if this is correct - these organizations have gone along. I won't even try to offer an answer to that question.

Read more on this story at Salon.

The White House: It's unfortunate that news organizations determine what WikiLeak stories they should run

I've previously written about the recent trend that newspapers in the United States are asking the White House for advice on what stories they should avoid from the recent WikiLeaks cables. It appears that politicians move newspapers towards this position by maintaining the claim that the leaks are damaging to the United States and that it could put lives in danger.

Both the media and the White House have been relatively open about this tendency, probably because it could become an issue in itself if people starting asking why The Guardian is running stories New York Times isn't running. On a recent press conference, however, Philip J. Crowley (Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs), may have said a little more than he was supposed to when answering a question about the recent leaks. Crowley said:

"Unfortunately, it’s the news organizations that determine the redactions. We have made a range of requests." (Full transcript)

So the official position of the government is that it is "unfortunate" that the press is allowed to edit itself? That's quite remarkable considering the fact that the first amendment is very old! It is even more remarkable, however, that no one seem to raise any questions about it. The reason, it seems, is simply that the media has already given up their job of asking questions and instead embrace the government's position halfway, while performing their media duties halfway. And when the media isn't raising questions, people are not either.

A number of questions should be asked now:

If the information leaked by WikiLeaks can put people in danger, what good does it do that Americans don't know about that information? Is the American government afraid that Americans could be the ones that would put people in danger or why else is it so dangerous that Americans don't get to hear whatever it is that is being "redacted"? Does the American government think that foreigners read NY Times and watch CNN and have no other news sources? Why does this self-imposed form of censorship really help so much when the Guardian covers these leaks much better than any Americans news organizations? Wouldn't foreigners who might have an interest in hurting someone perhaps avoid New York Times as a primary source of their news?

I have a feeling that the answer is already out there. I've previously written about the American intervention in the Spanish law system to protect Bush officials. That involvement seems to have not been covered much in the US. MSNBC did a small segment on it and Fox Latino covered it briefly too. Other than that it has not been mentioned. The Guardian, meanwhile, has written at least five full stories on this case.

This story could only harm a few people: Alberto Gonzales and Barack Obama are two. It would be dangerous to the last one of them too, since it could affect his chances in the next election. Other than that, it simply isn't very dangerous.

But it was fortunate that the newspapers didn't run it.

NY Times let the White House partake in editing... A democratic problem?

With the latest round of the Wikileaks cables, the New York Times followed suit with prior practices, and has let the White House in on what it was going to publish. According to the newspaper, the White House suggested redactions and the Times "agreed to some, but not all" of the government's suggestions. The newspaper agreed, furthermore, to forward "the administration’s concerns to other news organizations and, at the suggestion of the State Department, to WikiLeaks itself".

The Times' willingness to open up to the White House follows a worrying prior tendency that the newspaper is willing to sacrifice its editorial rights and support the governmental position. The Times' coverage of the early stage of the Iraq war was, for example, also found to be biased in favor of the government. Worse yet is the fact that the newspaper in 2008 ran a story on how government officials met with media reporters to try to influence their coverage on that war. If the Times found this story newsworthy in 2008, it's strange that they are willing to get into something quite similar now.

Update: It has become increasingly clear that these NY Times redactions are in fact posted on the WikiLeaks website too. This must mean that WikiLeaks must actually tolerate the practice. It could also be added that the NY Times may have had legitimate reasons to do what they did. Involving governmental officials could be legitimate, as long as the protection of individuals is a central issue.