I will post each Wikileaks Livethread at 8pmest for now on. I know, read and participate during commercials for Countdown. BTW, Michael Moore Will be on Countdown tonight to discuss what his diary was about. Here is his diary from today.
Because this is a community effort and I update the diary a bunch, I will not embed the Wikirebels doc b/c you would start to watch, I would update, and your kos would refresh ending your viewing. So:
Wikirebels:
@ Youtube:
>Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
@ Swedish TV:
The full movie in one shot
The most important links to cables and information:
Wikileaks cables - Yes, the evil cables....BOO! Scared yet?
Wikileaks unofficial information source - Again, click on this for time saving and knowledge gaining.
The Nation Wikileaks blog by Greg Mitchell - Again, amazing clearinghouse of great information.
Wikileaks Twitter page - Feel free to follow them.
NYTimes Wikileaks blog has gone silent
Guardian cables blog -Guardian cut back from two shifts to one for the cables. It also includes info from the other papers Der Speigel, El País and Le Monde
Search tool for the cables. - Aw yes indeed it's funtime!!
Glenn Greenwald -Again, he is all over this story.
What is new:
Dec 14 cables - God they hates America....snort....
Julian Assange trial makes history - Judge orders Tweeting ok as long as it's quiet and does not disturb anything.
The Spectator UK sees a State Dept double standard
You don't need to share Julian Assange's politics or his objectives to think that he's the victim of at least one double standard. If he's guilty of betraying secrets and endangering lives and making diplomacy more difficult and everything else then so are the publishers of the New York Times, the Guardian, Le Monde and every other media outlet worldwide that publishes, or republishes, anythnig to do with the leaked American diplomatic cables.
A few weeks ago I suggested that Assange really is a newsman. Even if you dispute that, however, it's hard to see how anyone can deny that he's a news publisher. So the State Department's PJ Crowley made a fool of himself last week by claiming:
"Mr. Assange obviously has a particular political objective behind his activities and I think that, among other things, disqualifies him from the possibility of being considered a journalist...
"He’s not an objective observer of anything. He’s an active player. He has an agenda, he’s trying to pursue that agenda and I don’t think he can qualify either as a journalist on the one hand or a whistle-blower on the other."
Oh really? Well, by this standard half the journalists and publications worth even half a damn can't be considered journalistic enterprises."
And of course........
Wikileaks founder Assange bailed, but release delayed
I think we all are up to date on this one. If someone has more info on the ruling, please put in comments.
Salon reports that Assange grand jury report "purely speculation":
One of Julian Assange's attorneys tells Salon that the possibility that a secret grand jury is meeting in Virginia to consider charges against the WikiLeaks founder is "purely speculation" that has not been substantiated by his legal team.
"We haven't heard anything specific. It's only rumors," said Attorney Jennifer Robinson of the London firm Finers Stephens Innocent. "We do not have any concrete information about that."
NYTimes reports that Swedish prosecutor raises possible extradition of Assange to U.S.:
Updated | 6:11 p.m. A Swedish prosecutor raised the possibility that Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, could eventually be extradited to the United States in a statement posted online on Tuesday.
Marianne Ny, the Swedish prosecutor who asked British authorities to detain Mr. Assange and send him to Sweden for questioning about possible sex crimes, discussed the possibility of sending him to the United States in a statement posted on the Swedish Prosecution Authority’s Web site on Tuesday.
Videos
Interview from Al Jazeera English :
It's about 22mins long and well worth it. Again, here is the exchange that I think is VERY important at about the 10min mark:
When the host asks Baruch Weiss, a former U.S. Government lawyer,
if leaking classified information is a crime in the United States, he says:
"I'm going to say it twice because noone will believe me the first time, but the answer is usually no. No.
There is no statute on the books in the United States that says 'Thou shalt not leak classified information.' There is no statute of that sort. Congress tried to pass one during the Clinton administration and Clinton Vetoed it and for a very good reason. And the good reason is, that in the United States there is a huge over-classification problem. There is a huge amount of material that should not be classified that is."
Sam Seder interviews Glenn Greenwald -in this Youtube clip. At the start, they discuss this:
US Constitution Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
Berkeley Graduate Shcool of Journalism Logan Sypmposium - The goals of Wikileaks and how Wikileaks chooses what to release
Part 1(7:07 long) of a march 2010 interview about the Icelandic Modern Media Initiative. Here is part 2 and here is an article about how the vote was unanimous!
The WikiLeaks advised parliamentary resolution proposal to build an international "new media haven" in Iceland, with the world’s strongest press and whistleblower protection laws, and a "Nobel" prize for Freedom of Expression cf. has passed through a vote at Alþingi and was accepted today at 8:54am with a unanimous vote.
Please see Previous Wikileaks Livethreads for quotes, audio, political support, journalist support and interviews:
Livethread 5
Livethread 4
Livethread 33 1/3
Livethread 2 1/2
Livethread
Assange, Wikileaks and some facts so far pt. 2
Assange, Wikileaks and some facts so far
Please, my internet is in and out. I will be adding more in a moment.
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]
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.
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.
