Around 8pmest every night
Once again I have to give a huge hat tip to Dylan Ratigan( Video WITH transcript here(until they change it to another Brian Williams thing) )A must watch!
Can someone tell me why everytime I copy the embed for Ratigan after a while the video changes to Brian Williams?!
The Scandal Everybody Seems to Have Missed
I don't know how this particular WikiLeaks revelation has not been much, much bigger news, involving as it does cluster bombs, the Special Relationship, a plot to keep important information from the UK Parliament and the country, and a secret legal loophole that let Britain get around its treaty obligations.
Cluster bombs, for those who are not familiar with them, are a type of bomb that open up in mid-air, dropping hundreds of 'bomblets' that explode individually across a wide area, making reasonable targeting impossible. They are, in other words, a type of bomb designed so that the bomber can't really restrict the damage to what he is trying to hit, but will certainly take in buildings or people he is not. If the bomblets do not explode, they pose a similar problem to landmines: They can suddenly explode later -- sometimes long after the battle or war has ended -- injuring or killing whoever is nearby.
In 2008, Prime Minister Gordon Brown signed a treaty with 108 other countries, committing Britain not to use them. The US maintains that they are still useful; it did not sign the treaty.
The awkward part is that the US keeps some of its cluster bombs on its bases on offshore British bases, deemed British soil.
So this presented a neat little problem for then UK Foreign Secretary, David Miliband. Should he insist that the US remove them from British territory, in accordance with the treaty his government had just signed? Or should he allow them to keep them there, so as not to ruffle feathers across the Atlantic? It was clear that either decision would have consequences.
The WikiLeaks cables reveal that the UK government decided that the best thing to do would be to cook up a legal loophole to let the Americans keep their cluster bombs on the British bases, and to keep it a secret from Parliament and the nation.
Quite simply, this is a scandal.
60 Minutes: Putting the BS in CBS (also a highly read and rec'd diary here)
The reason people in Tunisia, Egypt, and other parts of the world have been influenced to some extent by the work of Wikileaks is that they have read or heard about the material that Wikileaks has helped to make public. The CBS program "60 Minutes" has just published video of an interview with Wikileaks' Julian Assange -- with the video focused, of course, on Assange himself, with almost no substantive content related to the massive crimes and abuses that have made news around the globe.
The value of the "60 Minutes" video is not in its potential to inform anyone about Wikileaks. We can't, after all, judge the utility of informing Americans about their nation's illegal spying, bombing, war making, or coup facilitating until Americans are actually informed of it, which will require that we finally drop the BS "reporting" on Assange's childhood and haircuts.
Greg Mitchell links to(I won't) and mocks an "article" by Joe Klein at Time:
3:45 Joe Klein at Time with hysterical attack on WIkiLeaks, or "WikiLoss" as he puts it. Makes claims about damage done by cable that go way beyond what nearly anyone else is saying. Says with no evidence at all that China has hacked into the entire cable cache. Hails the prissy Bill Keller NYT piece from Sunday. Suggests Qaddafi could help al-Qaeda stage operaton from his country because he's ticked about buxom nurse cable. And so on.
And Greg Mitchell again(you should buy his Wikileaks book btw) Stephen Colbert vs. Julian Assange: The Great Debate :
Last night, Steve Kroft on 60 Minutes challenged Julian Assange on a variety of issues surrounding WikiLeaks, and failed miserably. But what happened last spring when Assange met a real master of the debate -- Stephen Colbert?
...
Maintaining a light manner, Colbert said, "If we don't know what the government is doing, we can't be sad about it. Why are you trying to make me sad?" This produced a boyish grin from Assange. "You are trying to bum us out about the world. All of these terrible things are going on behind closed doors and you decided I needed to hear about it."
"That's just an interim state, Stephen, you'll be happier about it later on," Assange said, smiling again.
...
Then there was this exchange:
Colbert: "War is war. I haven't fought in a war therefore I don't judge it. How can you judge it?"
"You can make the justification that, well, a lot of bad things happen in war, but what is war?" Assange replied. "Well, this is what it is."
When his guest said he'd sent people to Baghdad to notify victims' families about the video, Colbert asked about the soldiers in the helicopters. Does Assange think only civilians are harmed by war?
Assange replied rather eloquently: "Soldiers are debased in war, and this is one thing this video shows, that the character of these young soldiers in the air has been corrupted by the process of war. We should have some sympathy for these soldiers who go to war, but understand that it is an inevitable outcome in sending them, and stop sending them."
here is the video If someone could give me the embed that is ok here I will give you a typed kiss......
Cable: Egyptian April 6 activist's democracy goals "highly unrealistic"
from December, 2008 details the experiences of an April 6 activist who attended the December 3-5 "Alliance of Youth Movements Summit, and met with US government officials, on Capitol Hill, and with think tanks. "He alleged that several opposition parties and movements have accepted an unwritten plan for democratic transition by 2011; we are doubtful of this claim. ... April 6's stated goal of replacing the current regime with a parliamentary democracy prior to the 2011 presidential elections is highly unrealistic, and is not supported by the mainstream opposition."
XXXXXXXXXXXX expressed satisfaction with the December 3-5 "Alliance of Youth Movements Summit" in New York, noting that he was able to meet activists from other countries and outline his movement's goals for democratic change in Egypt. He told us that the other activists at the summit were very supportive, and that some even offered to hold public demonstrations in support of Egyptian democracy in their countries, with XXXXXXXXXXXX as an invited guest. XXXXXXXXXXXX said he discussed with the other activists how April 6 members could more effectively evade harassment and surveillance from SSIS with technical upgrades, such as consistently alternating computer "simcards." However, XXXXXXXXXXXX lamented to us that because most April 6 members do not own computers, this tactic would be impossible to implement. XXXXXXXXXXXX was appreciative of the successful efforts by the Department and the summit organizers to protect his identity at the summit, and told us that his name was never mentioned publicly.
vXXXXXXXXXXXX told us that SSIS detained and searched him at the Cairo Airport on December 18 upon his return from the U.S. According to XXXXXXXXXXXX, SSIS found and confiscated two documents in his luggage: notes for his presentation at the summit that described April 6's demands for democratic transition in Egypt, and a schedule of his Capitol Hill meetings. XXXXXXXXXXXX described how the SSIS officer told him that State Security is compiling a file on him, and that the officer's superiors instructed him to file a report on XXXXXXXXXXXX's most recent activities.
XXXXXXXXXXXX described his Washington appointments as positive, saying that on the Hill he met with Rep. Edward Royce, a variety of House staff members, including from the offices of Rep. Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) and Rep. Wolf (R-VA), and with two Senate staffers. XXXXXXXXXXXX also noted that he met with several think tank members. XXXXXXXXXXXX said that Rep. Wolf's office invited him to speak at a late January Congressional hearing on House Resolution 1303 regarding religious and political freedom in Egypt. XXXXXXXXXXXX told us he is interested in attending, but conceded he is unsure whether he will have the funds to make the trip. He indicated to us that he has not been focusing on his work as a "fixer" for journalists, due to his preoccupation with his U.S. trip.
XXXXXXXXXXXX described how he tried to convince his Washington interlocutors that the USG should pressure the GOE to implement significant reforms by threatening to reveal information about GOE officials' alleged "illegal" off-shore bank accounts. He hoped that the U.S. and the international community would freeze these bank accounts, like the accounts of Zimbabwean President Mugabe's confidantes. XXXXXXXXXXXX said he wants to convince the USG that Mubarak is worse than Mugabe and that the GOE will never accept democratic reform. XXXXXXXXXXXX asserted that Mubarak derives his legitimacy from U.S. support, and therefore charged the U.S. with "being responsible" for Mubarak's "crimes." He accused NGOs working on political and economic reform of living in a "fantasy world," and not recognizing that Mubarak -- "the head of the snake" -- must step aside to enable democracy to take root.
XXXXXXXXXXXX claimed that several opposition forces -- including the Wafd, Nasserite, Karama and Tagammu parties, and the Muslim Brotherhood, Kifaya, and Revolutionary Socialist movements -- have agreed to support an unwritten plan for a transition to a parliamentary democracy, involving a weakened presidency and an empowered prime minister and parliament, before the scheduled 2011 presidential elections (ref C). According to XXXXXXXXXXXX, the opposition is interested in receiving support from the army and the police for a transitional government prior to the 2011 elections. XXXXXXXXXXXX asserted that this plan is so sensitive it cannot be written down. (Comment: We have no information to corroborate that these parties and movements have agreed to the unrealistic plan XXXXXXXXXXXX has outlined. Per ref C, XXXXXXXXXXXX previously told us that this plan was publicly available on the internet. End comment.)
XXXXXXXXXXXX said that the GOE has recently been cracking down on the April 6 movement by arresting its members. XXXXXXXXXXXX noted that although SSIS had released XXXXXXXXXXXX and XXXXXXXXXXXX "in the past few days," it had arrested three other members. (Note: On December 14, we pressed the MFA for the release of XXXXXXXXXXXX and XXXXXXXXXXXX, and on December 28 we asked the MFA for the GOE to release the additional three activists. End note.) XXXXXXXXXXXX conceded that April 6 has no feasible plans for future activities. The group would like to call for another strike on April 6, 2009, but realizes this would be "impossible" due to SSIS interference, XXXXXXXXXXXX said. He lamented that the GOE has driven the group's leadership underground, and that one of its leaders, Ahmed Maher, has been in hiding for the past week.
Comment: XXXXXXXXXXXX offered no roadmap of concrete steps toward April 6's highly unrealistic goal of replacing the current regime with a parliamentary democracy prior to the 2011 presidential elections. Most opposition parties and independent NGOs work toward achieving tangible, incremental reform within the current political context, even if they may be pessimistic about their chances of success. XXXXXXXXXXXX's wholesale rejection of such an approach places him outside this mainstream of opposition politicians and activists.
US state cables on Syria
UK firm's partner 'wanted Peru to curb priests in mine conflict areas'
A mining company in Peru part-owned by a British FTSE 100 company agitated for the removal of teachers and Catholic bishops to new posts away from "conflictive mining communities", according to a leaked US cable obtained via WikiLeaks.
An executive of the company, in which BHP Billiton has a one-third stake, urged diplomats to persuade the Peruvian government and church to "rotate" such professionals out of sensitive areas, the secret document said.
The US and Canadian ambassadors, who hosted a summit of foreign mining executives in Peru in August 2005, requested specific examples of "anti-mining" teachers and bishops "who engage in inappropriate activities" to take to government and church leaders, the cable claimed.
The US embassy reported in another cable that the role of the church in the protests – mostly involving local indigenous communities – was "controversial and still open to question".
The cable also claims mining companies were said to feed information to the US embassy about the activities of drug traffickers in northern Peru.
The Majaz open cast mine, owned by British company Monterrico Metals and site of one of the bloodiest protests shortly before the summit, was said by company representatives to lie "along a foot track used by couriers who convey opium latex to Ecuador," reported the same cable.
"We are working with both the police and company representatives to further develop the information they have," the cable said. But it added that in the past there had been instances where unnamed non-US companies falsely claimed that drugs traffickers were co-ordinating protests to "enlist our [US government] assistance".
Police shot three protesters at the Majaz mine protest, one of whom died. Protesters have issued proceedings in the high court in London against Monterrico Metals relating to the alleged "torture, inhuman and degrading treatment and false imprisonment" of demonstrators by police.
WikiLeaks releases 480 secret cables on Libya
Greg Mitchell:
7:15 Do I need to say this again to the lazy cynics? WikiLeaks cables continue to prove valuable in so many ways. Just check out this piece by the estimable James Mann at Foreign Policy on what they show about U.S. - China relations, how tense they are "in real time," and how one state dinner won't do much really.
and this is the piece he referenced :
Now, with the release of the WikiLeaks documents, there is no such time delay. Readers can gain direct access to some of the private conversations in recent years between U.S. and Chinese officials. And what the documents reveal, almost in real time, is a relationship marked by mistrust, gamesmanship, and occasional, highly provisional cooperation. We of course can't know what the United States and China will look like a few decades from now. But future historians will probably see in these WikiLeaks cables the concrete evidence of a period of profound change in the relationship between the two countries. In the cables, one finds China often testing the implications of its growing economic strength, and the United States struggling to cope with an increasingly assertive China.
There are some instances of hidden cooperation that come to light in the cables. In the aftermath of the 2008 financial crash, at a working lunch with Dan Piccuta, then the charge d'affaires of the U.S. Embassy in Beijing, a senior Chinese official referred to collaboration on international economic issues by what he called the "troika" of China, the United States, and Britain.
The Chinese official "felt that the U.S.-U.K.-China 'troika' had been effective," reported Piccuta. "Beijing could persuade the developing countries, Washington could influence Japan and South Korea, and London could bring along the Europeans."
But Americans were sometimes privately warned to be skeptical about the Chinese regime's public versions of reality. One embassy cable describes how one of China's future leaders told the American ambassador not to trust some of the country's most important economic statistics.
"GDP figures are 'man-made' and therefore unreliable," Li Keqiang, then a provincial Communist Party secretary, now in line to become China's next premier, told then-U.S. Ambassador Clark Randt over dinner four years ago. Li said he relied on a few economic indicators that are less easy to manipulate, such as electricity consumption and the volume of rail cargo. "All other figures, especially GDP statistics, are 'for reference only,' [Li] said smiling," according to Randt's cable.
Show some love to Glenn Greenwald who has been in hospital since Wednesday of last week
What you missed in Wikileaks Informationthread 49: Omar Suleiman And Etc.
Who Is Omar Suleiman?
Viewing cable 09CAIRO1349, GENERAL PETRAEUS' MEETING WITH EGIS CHIEF SOLIMAN
Viewing cable 09CAIRO746, ADMIRAL MULLEN'S MEETING WITH EGIS CHIEF SOLIMAN
Viewing cable 07CAIRO1417, PRESIDENTIAL SUCCESSION IN EGYPT
WaPo: WikiLeaks' Julian Assange: 'Anarchist,' 'agitator,' 'arrogant' and a journalist
The WikiLeaks Revolt
A claim that WikiLeaks cables on Egypt released not this week but in early December, and published by indie paper there, had something to do with current revolt.
In Informationthread 48 we read these:
Cable: Egypt action against poet, bloggers, novelist and journalists
Cable: Egypt's Emergency Law
Cable: Police torture in Egypt
Cable: Police brutality and poor prison conditions in Egypt
Mubarak skeptical of U.S. reform push: leaked cables
Amid Digital Blackout, Anonymous Mass-Faxes WikiLeaks Cables To Egypt
Guardian Liveblog on Egypt
Vodafone confirms role in Egypt’s cellular, Internet blackout
US Constitution Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
Near v. Minnesota
Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931), was a United States Supreme Court decision that recognized the freedom of the press by roundly rejecting prior restraints on publication, a principle that was applied to free speech generally in subsequent jurisprudence. The Court ruled that a Minnesota law that targeted publishers of "malicious" or "scandalous" newspapers violated the First Amendment to the United States Constitution (as applied through the Fourteenth Amendment). Legal scholar and columnist Anthony Lewis called Near the Court's "first great press case."[1]
It was later a key precedent in New York Times Co. v. United States (1971), in which the Court ruled against the Nixon administration's attempt to enjoin publication of the Pentagon Papers.
New York Times Co. v. United States
New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971), was a United States Supreme Court per curiam decision. The ruling made it possible for the New York Times and Washington Post newspapers to publish the then-classified Pentagon Papers without risk of government censure.
President Richard Nixon had claimed executive authority to force the Times to suspend publication of classified information in its possession. The question before the court was whether the constitutional freedom of the press under the First Amendment was subordinate to a claimed Executive need to maintain the secrecy of information. The Supreme Court ruled that First Amendment did protect the New York Times' right to print said materials.
As Assange told Time: "It is not our goal to achieve a more transparent society; it's our goal to achieve a more just society."