Skip to main content

Reposted from Richard Lyon by Lisa Lockwood

Glenn Greenwald has just published extensive documentation laying out the coordinated efforts of NSA and the British GCHQ to capture Julian Assange and shut down Wikileaks.

Snowden Documents Reveal Covert Surveillance and Pressure Tactics Aimed at WikiLeaks and Its Supporters

Top-secret documents from the National Security Agency and its British counterpart reveal for the first time how the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom targeted WikiLeaks and other activist groups with tactics ranging from covert surveillance to prosecution.

The efforts – detailed in documents provided previously by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden – included a broad campaign of international pressure aimed not only at WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, but at what the U.S. government calls “the human network that supports WikiLeaks.” The documents also contain internal discussions about targeting the file-sharing site Pirate Bay and hacktivist collectives such as Anonymous.

There is a document dated August 2010 in which the Obama administration urged allied governments to file criminal charges against Assange and Wikileaks in retaliation for their publication of the Afghanistan war logs. The documentation points to the tactics that NSA has used to sweep up US citizens into its dragnet in violation of US law.

There is a document detailing the efforts to get other governments to find means of prosecuting Assange that has the charming title of "Manhunting Timeline" J. Edgar would just love it.

The article contains images of all the documents.  


Mon Dec 16, 2013 at 05:22 AM PST

The Internet Is Dead

by Mozzochi

Reposted from Giovanathan by Lisa Lockwood Editor's Note: Republished to Wikileaks Informationthread because of it's inherent historical perspective on the value of collaborative and open source information, and the role Wikileaks continues to play in the battle to level the playing field for all. -- Lisa Lockwood

The Internet Is Dead


I’ve always wanted to write something really counterintuitive; something so ‘whacked‘ it probably shouldn’t even be set to print. Then I remember that nothing I write is set to print--writing is now just streams of light sent out using TCP/IP network protocols and reassembled elsewhere. Any apprehension I may have had about being ‘published‘ evaporates. There, I feel better. So here goes.

There is little doubt smart phones have made us more productive and efficient creatures. As entertainment and work aides our wonderfully pixelated digital devices are gently making us over into cyborgs, with few complaints and fewer protests. The burgeoning ‘social connectedness’ offered us through Facebook and Twitter, however, come at the expense of ‘social caregiving’: that all-so-important human warmth we all need to thrive cannot be provided by a cell phone, no matter how often you Skype your estranged loved one. It can only be facilitated, or impeded, by the device. Strange, how as screens proliferate and we become more ‘connected’ we are also more socially detached from one another. But that is the flexible ethical dimension inherent to all technology, none more so than ‘dual-use’ technology. Nothing is so emblematic of that dimension than the internet, originally a project of the Pentagon, or so the story goes.

A signature genius of the internet is its ability to reproduce the entirety of its network within any given node, sort of like a fractal in geometry or a rhizome in biology. A fractal is a ‘self-same’ pattern repeated at different scales, while a rhizome functions such that if any piece of a root system is cut from the whole, each piece may give rise to a new plant which will reproduce the organism from whence it came. Contrast this network model (can you imagine the hand wringing that must have gone on within the Pentagon over early versions of the internet?) with that of broadcast television, print media or radio--you can take out a station or tower and the whole network goes down. The internet is horizontal and reflexive; old media unidirectional and vertical. Any unit of the internet is self-sufficient and can exist independently, although full expression is only achieved through connection--being a part of the network. That’s the original genius of the internet preserved in such projects as Wikipedia, WikiLeaks and Open Source Software. It does not reside in Facebook, Google, Microsoft or Apple.

The freedom of the internet has been under constant attack since its inception; in my opinion we have lost too many battles--the war appears to be largely over. Metastasizing corporations have won. The hierarchy so anathema to the genius of the internet has triumphed through pricing people out of the market, political censorship, and monopoly of content. There is a certain poetic injustice in the iconic image of a slum dweller with nothing to eat, clutching a cell phone. The very spread of an inegalitarian internet and its offspring (cell phones) requires the immiseration of human beings.

The original genius of the internet is dead, sacrificed on the alter of the profit motive. You can argue that the profit motive (or the Cold War) produced the internet, but you can just as easily argue it will be its undoing.

Recently I picked up my 10-year-old from middle school. As we were making our way home with hundreds of other guardians and their charges, slowly snaking our way through mid-day traffic, I had Max note how many people were ‘dumb driving’ with their ‘smart phones’. The anecdotal evidence suggests that, at least in Marin County, California, we have reached the tipping point. The majority of drivers appeared to be ‘texting while driving’. The use of this technology is now impinging upon our ability to safely conduct our children to and from school.

There they were, heads down squinting into their screens, one hand up on the steering wheel, the other hunting and pecking, all the while operating a ‘loaded weapon’. Something has to give here--and it won’t be our screen time. Perhaps you sit up, excited and ask, does this behavior prefigure coming driverless cars? The Cult of Innovation says we will have such futuristic and cool stuff soon enough and that the rough edges of inequality will be smoothed over. I say we should be mindful not to drive right into such logical cul-de-sacs where we end up forgetting that all technological inventions and innovations are not just defined by their usefulness, but by an ethical dimension that is constantly in flux. When we uncritically celebrate an invention or innovation, an inventor or innovator, we become incapable of evaluating the role such technology plays in our lives. And that suits those among us who thrive on hierarchy, inequality, monopoly and violence.

There is no more instructive example of an uncritically passed-down history of a technological invention than the shorthand story of Thomas Edison vs. Nicolai Tesla and how they each were innovators of electricity. Edison, whose name is synonymous with American ingenuity, was also a ruthless businessman. He developed Direct Current (DC) electricity and the massive industrial outlay needed to deliver it to homes and businesses. Because of the nature of DC power a labor and capital intensive system of sub-stations had to be built every few hundred yards in order to deliver the electricity to paying customers. Moreover, DC, on it’s own, was more dangerous than AC. Edison deliberately thwarted the development of Alternating Current (AC) so as to undermine his main business rival, Westinghouse and AC’s inventor, Nicolai Tesla. Tesla, as the story goes, tried to bring to market AC current instead of Edison’s DC. In most respects Tesla’s version was superior to that of Edison. Edison’s fixation on the business aspects of his endeavor extended to an early negative publicity campaign where he arranged for the public electrocution of animals--a carnival show bait and switch melodrama--which he blamed on AC power. Aside from being an early example of public relations, Edison’s obsession with profit would extend the life of his ‘steampunk’ industrial substation network far beyond its usefulness, an effort to preserve profit that actually thwarted technological progress and extended and deepened inequality. A more contemporary example is the well-documented FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) campaigns waged against Open Source Software, Wikipedia and Wikileaks--collaborative, not-for-profit ventures that contain within them a more egalitarian, and dare I say so, efficient means of organizing information.

When most people think of Apple, Microsoft and Google, they think of 21st Century paragons of innovation. I think of what damage--social and ecological--has come with that progress, and how much of that was unnecessary, and how much of that we have yet to uncover.


Reposted from Jesselyn Radack by Lisa Lockwood

Wikileaks journalist Sarah Harrison heroically rescued National Security Agency (NSA) whistleblower Edward Snowden from Hong Kong, helped him obtain asylum in Russia and remained by his side at great personal risk to herself. She is the unsung hero in the harrowing saga of history’s most significant whistleblower who fearlessly and consistently put protecting a whistleblower above protecting herself.

Wikileaks released a powerful, eloquent statement from Harrison revealing that she was able to travel safely to Germany:

As a journalist I have spent the last four months with NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden and arrived in Germany over the weekend . . .

It should be fanciful to suggest that national security journalism which has the purpose of producing honest government or enforcing basic privacy rights should be called "terrorism", but that is how the UK is choosing to interpret this law. Almost every story published on the GCHQ and NSA bulk spying programs falls under the UK government's interpretation of the word "terrorism". In response, our lawyers have advised me that it is not safe to return home.

The U.S. should be a safe haven for free speech advocates like Harrison, but, to the contrary, the U.S. has launched a war on national security whistleblowers and systematically attacked journalists through harassment, threats of criminal prosecution and surveillance.
Continue Reading
Reposted from LieparDestin by Lisa Lockwood

A couple years back due to the HBGary emails not many were surprised to learn of security contractors creating sockpuppet accounts to infiltrate social media and political blogs. Aaron Barr himself talked of posting at Dailykos. This kind of public opinion manipulation (propaganda) was passed off as a 'rogue operation' and after some time was quickly forgotten by most. At least one of the members of the NSA Review Panel set up to review the surveillance programs is on the record believing this kind of thing should be policy, and more.

Continue Reading
Reposted from Frank Whitaker by Lisa Lockwood

Image Hosting by
    Thanks to Occupy Venice CA for sharing this photo far and wide.


Should President Obama pardon Bradley Manning?

57%175 votes
42%132 votes

| 307 votes | Vote | Results

Continue Reading
Reposted from kpete by Lisa Lockwood

Bradley Manning's court-martial reached an end today, with Army Colonel Denise Lind sentencing him to 35 years in prison. The WikiLeaks source, arrested in Iraq in 2010 for releasing nearly 700,000 government documents to WikiLeaks, was found not guilty of the most serious charge of "aiding the enemy," which could have resulted in life imprisonment. Manning was found guilty on virtually all other charges under the Espionage Act, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and the code of military justice. The verdict left him facing a maximum 136 years; Lind later found the government had overcharged Manning and reduced that number to 90 years. Within the military justice system, Colonel Lind does not have to explain the reasoning behind Manning's sentence. She did not.


During the sentencing phase of the trial, prosecution and defense jousted over the question of consequences. The prosecution sought to demonstrate that Manning's leaks had damaged relationships between American diplomats and their foreign counterparts, for example, but could present only speculative evidence in open court. Colonel Lind rejected testimony about alleged "ongoing" damage from the leaks. Much of the prosecution's case took place behind closed doors in order to present classified information.

Manning's sentencing defense focused on his mental and emotional state at the time of the leaks, portraying him as an isolated soldier suffering from "gender dysphoria," a condition in which a person's subjective understanding of gender conflicts with his or her outward experience of gender. Such long-term experience causes "clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning," according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5). The defense argued Manning should have received mental health care from the Army and been removed from duty before the time of his leaks.

Defense witnesses also described Manning as an idealist who overestimated his authority and ability to provoke a discussion about the documents he released. In a brief statement, he apologized for his actions, saying, "At the time of my decisions, as you know, I was dealing with a lot of issues. Although they have caused me considerable difficulty in my life, these issues do not excuse my actions." He expressed a desire to return to society and rebuild a relationship with his family, including the aunt and sister who'd testified about Manning's childhood as the son of alcoholic, dysfunctional parents. "Before I can do that, though," he said, "I understand that I must pay a price for my decisions and actions."

Continue Reading
Reposted from David Harris-Gershon (The Troubadour) by Lisa Lockwood

There are times when the veil slips, revealing some establishment journalists to be what they truly are: government lackeys who stand outside the 'Fourth Estate.'

Such a moment just happened, for TIME Magazine's senior national correspondent, Mike Grunwald, just advocated for the extrajudicial murder of an international journalist via U.S. drone strike:

Screen grab via Adam Hernandez
Of course, Grunwald deleted his Tweet when its folly became clear. However, it wasn't until this senior journalist at a national magazine revealed a salivating desire for his next column to be a defense of an extrajudicial drone strike on WikiLeaks maven Julian Assange.

Nothing short of his resignation, or firing, is acceptable. Unless, that is, TIME Magazine shares his views.

Continue Reading
Reposted from Lisa Lockwood by Lisa Lockwood

More below the squiggle

Continue Reading
Reposted from Lisa Lockwood by gulfgal98

Birgitta Jonsdottir is a member of Iceland's parliament, representing the Pirate Party. She's also a well known and longtime activist and supporter of information freedom, Wikileaks and human rights, particularly for the Tibetan people. She, along with Julian Assange and others at Wikileaks, helped to produce the "Collateral Murder" video that shook the world.

This morning she tweeted the following:

~The extended text continues below the squiggle~

Continue Reading
Reposted from medeabenjamin by gulfgal98

By Medea Benjamin

I had an opportunity to interview WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, where he has been granted political asylum since June 2012. Assange is wanted for questioning in Sweden over sex allegations, although he has never been charged. Assange believes that if sent to Sweden, he would be put into prison and then sent to the United States, where he is already being investigated for espionage for publishing hundreds of thousands of classified diplomatic and military memos on the WikiLeaks website.

George W. Bush’s new presidential library at Southern Methodist University in Texas has opened with great fanfare, including the attendance of Presidents Obama and former Presidents Carter, Bush Sr. and Clinton. George Bush has said that the library is “a place to lay out facts.” What facts would you like to see displayed at his library?

A good place to start would be laying out the number of deaths caused by the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. At Wikileaks, we documented that from 2004-2009, the US had records of over 100,000 individual deaths of Iraqis due to violence unleashed by that invasion, roughly 80% of them civilians. These are the recorded deaths, but many more died. And in Afghanistan, the US recorded about 20,000 deaths from 2004-2010. These would be good facts to include in the presidential library.

And perhaps the library could document how people around the world protested against the invasion of Iraq, including the historic February 15, 2003 mobilization of millions of people around the globe.

Many people worked hard during the Bush years to protest the wars, but the Bush administration refused to listen. It was very demoralizing for people to think that their efforts were for naught.

They should not be demoralized. I believe that the opposition to the Iraq war was very important, and that it actually altered the behavior of US forces during the initial invasion of Iraq. Compare it to the 1991 Gulf War, when massive numbers of Iraqis, both soldiers and civilians, were killed. In the 2003 invasion there was a lot more concern about casualties. The protests rattled their cage.

We released a memo that showed that if the prospective military operation might kill over 30 people, it had to be approved all the way up the chain of command. So while the protests did not stop the war, they did have an impact on the way the war was initially conducted, and that’s important.

While George Bush is feted in Dallas, Bradley Manning languishes in jail. His trial will begin on June 2. Bradley already pleaded guilty in February to ten charges, including possessing classified information and transferring it to an unauthorized person. Those pleas alone could subject him to 20 years in prison. On top of that, the government has added espionage charges that could put him in prison for life.

What do you think the trial will be like?

It will be a show trial where the government tries to prove that by leaking the documents, Bradley “aided and abetted the enemy” or “communicated with the enemy.” The government will bring in a member of the Navy Seal team that killed bin Laden to say that he found some of the leaked information in bin Laden’s house.

But it’s ridiculous to use that as evidence that Bradley Manning “aided the enemy”. Bin Laden could have gotten the material from The New York Times! Bin Laden also had a Bob Woodword book, and no doubt had copies of articles from The New York Times.

The government doesn’t even claim that Bradley passed information directly to “the enemy” or that he had any intent to do so. But they are nonetheless making the absurd claim that merely informing the public about classified government activities makes someone a traitor because it “indirectly informs the enemy”.

With that reasoning, since bin Laden recommended that Americans read Bob Woodward book Obama’s War, should Woodward be charged with communicating with the enemy? Should The New York Times be accused of aiding the enemy if bin Laden possessed a copy of the newspaper that included the WikiLeaks material?

What are some things that Bradley Manning supporters can do to help?

They should pressure the media to speak out against the espionage charges. The Los Angeles Times put out a good editorial but other newspapers have been poor. A Wall Street Journal column by Gordon Crovitz said that Bradley should be tried for espionage, and that I should be charged with that as well because I’m a “self-proclaimed enemy of the state.”

If Manning is charged with espionage, this criminalizes national security reporting. Any leak of classified information to any media organization could be interpreted as an act of treason. People need to convince the media that it is clearly in their self-interest to take a principled stand.

What are other ways people can help Bradley Manning’s case?

People could put pressure on Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. These groups briefly protested the horrible conditions under which Bradley was detained when he was held in Quantico, but not the fact that he’s being charged with crimes that could put him in prison for life.

It’s embarrassing that Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch—Amnesty International headquartered in London and Human Rights Watch headquartered in New York—have refused to refer to Bradley Manning as a political prisoner or a prisoner of conscience.

To name someone a political prisoner means that the case is political in nature. It can be that the prisoner committed a political act or was politically motivated or there was a politization of the legal investigation or the trial.

Any one of these is sufficient, according to Amnesty's own definition, to name someone a political prisoner. But Bradley Manning’s case fulfills all of these criteria. Despite this, Amnesty International has said that it’s not going to make a decision until after the sentence. But what good is that?

What is Amnesty’s rationale for waiting?

Their excuse is that they don’t know what might come out in the trial and they want to be sure that Bradley released the information in a “responsible manner.”

I find their position grotesque. Bradley Manning is the most famous political prisoner the United States has. He has been detained without trial for over 1,000 days. Not even the US government denies his alleged acts were political.

Human Rights Watch doesn’t refer to Bradley Manning as a political prisoner either. These groups should be pushed by the public to change their stand. And they should be boycotted if they continue to shirk acting in their own backyard.

Another way for people to support Bradley Manning is to attend his trial in Ft. Meade, Maryland, which begins on June 2, and the rally on June 1. They can learn more by contacting the Bradley Manning Support Network.

Thank you for your time, Julian.

Medea Benjamin is cofounder of and, and author of Drone Warfare: Killing by Remote Control. She interviewed Assange on April 18, 2013. For more information about Assange's case, see

Reposted from jmbranum by bronte17

Oklahoma Center for Conscience and Peace Research

Accused whistleblower deserves the prize for casting light on war crimes committed in Iraq, nomination states

The Oklahoma Center for Conscience and Peace Research (OCCPR) announced on Tuesday that it has nominated US Army Private First Class Bradley Manning for the Nobel Peace Prize.

In its nomination, OCCPR stated that it chose Bradley Manning because of his alleged role in leaking documents and other evidence of war crimes, corruption and lies related to the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, including the notorious “collateral murder” video (downloadable online at which US forces firing on unarmed Iraqi civilians, members of the press and children.


Should Bradley Manning be given the Nobel Peace Prize

63%29 votes
26%12 votes
10%5 votes

| 46 votes | Vote | Results

Continue Reading

Wed Jan 25, 2012 at 09:40 PM PST

Julian Assange To Host TV Show

by ukit

Reposted from ukit by bronte17

Despite dominating media coverage for a few months, and arguably helping trigger the rise of the Arab Spring, Wikileaks kept a pretty low profile in the second half of 2011. Last month, founder Julian Assange broke his silence with an interview for Rolling Stone magazine. Now comes word that Assange, currently under house arrest in the UK, will be hosting a talk show series:

Julian Assange, the founder of the controversial WikiLeaks website, announced on Sunday that he was moving even further into the spotlight as host of a TV talk show. "The World Tomorrow" will feature conversations with "key political players, thinkers and revolutionaries from around the world," he said.

With Assange aspiring to be a mix of Oprah Winfrey and Harvey Levin (with lots more state secrets), the only question seemed to be, what channel would air such a talk show?

The answer: Russian TV. The English-language channel RT, founded by the Kremlin in 2005, will be carrying the new show starting in March.

Continue Reading
You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.


Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site