No rape talk in this diary.
Oops! "US criticises court that may decide on Julian Assange extradition, WikiLeaks cables show" Ow. Foot meet bullet.
NYTimes Mag article coming out tomorrow about Tor and how Wikileaks uses it and, well, just what Tor is.
As Appelbaum put it: "Even though the government has a monopoly on violence, violence cannot solve math problems."
Today is Bradley Manning's birthday. Donate here.
I'm sure we have all seen these:
Today Show interview from this morning
On GMA
Some of the information in the Swedish case "leaked." Of course, not all of it or that might make the case look strange at best. I will not comment further on the case.
And again from yesterday a must watch!!
Wikileaks, the Espionage Act, and the Constitution - great hearing. A real must see if you have not. I have watched it twice. Yes, I know.
Thomas Blanton yesterday at the hearing:
You are not safer in the dark. You don't hide your vulnerabilities, you expose them. Then you fix them.
Starting points:
Wikileaks cables - No listing for Dec 17th cables for some reason......
unofficial Wikileaks information thread
Wikileaks twitter
Guardian's cable page
4:55 "WikiLeaks cables detail Fidel Castro's doomed love for Obama" -- from hope to "betrayal." All kinds of great stuff in The Guardian today and this week while NYT had nothing -- until just now when it has virtually same story as The Guardian on another Cuba issue.
site where you can search the cables
Greg Mitchell at The Nation has his awesome Wikileaks thread
5:05 Guardian gets first look at much of evidence against Assange from Sweden. Many explicit details on the outline that has been reported in past couple of weeks. Guardian says it has asked Assange for response and has not yet gotten one. The texts exchanged by the two women, and key Twitter messages, still not seen. Mark Stephen, Assange attorney is quoted: "The allegations of the complainants are not credible and were dismissed by the senior Stockholm prosecutor as not worthy of further investigation."
Glenn Greenwald
Videos:
Wikirebels
@Youtube:
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
@Swedish TV
Doc in full
AlJazeera English interview
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."
And just for good measure, I will include this video of Coleen Rowley on Cowntdown Link also has transcript.
A letter by some Columbia Journalism School professors:
Dear Mr. President and General Holder:
As faculty members and officers of the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, we are concerned by recent reports that the Department of Justice is considering criminal charges against Julian Assange or others associated with Wikileaks.
Journalists have a responsibility to exercise careful news judgment when classified documents are involved, including assessing whether a document is legitimately confidential and whether there may be harm from its publication.
But while we hold varying opinions of Wikileaks’ methods and decisions, we all believe that in publishing diplomatic cables Wikileaks is engaging in journalistic activity protected by the First Amendment. Any prosecution of Wikileaks’ staff for receiving, possessing or publishing classified materials will set a dangerous precedent for reporters in any publication or medium, potentially chilling investigative journalism and other First Amendment-protected activity.
As a historical matter, government overreaction to publication of leaked material in the press has always been more damaging to American democracy than the leaks themselves.
The U.S. and the First Amendment continue to set a world standard for freedom of the press, encouraging journalists in many nations to take significant risks on behalf of transparency. Prosecution in the Wikileaks case would greatly damage American standing in free-press debates worldwide and would dishearten those journalists looking to this nation for inspiration.
We urge you to pursue a course of prudent restraint in the Wikileaks matter.
Please note that this letter reflects our individual views, not a position of the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism.
Respectfully,
Emily Bell, Professor of Professional Practice; Director, Tow Center for Digital Journalism
Helen Benedict, Professor
Sheila Coronel, Toni Stabile Professor of Professional Practice inInvestigative Journalism; Director, Toni Stabile Center for Investigative Journalism
June Cross, Associate Professor
John Dinges, Godfrey Lowell Cabot Professor of Journalism
Joshua Friedman, Director, Maria Moors Cabot Prize for Journalism in the Americas
Todd Gitlin, Professor; Chair, PhD Program
Ari Goldman, Professor
LynNell Hancock, Professor; Director, Spencer Education Journalism Fellowship
Marguerite Holloway, Assistant Professor; Director, Science and Environmental Journalism
David Klatell, Professor of Professional Practice; Chair, International Studies
Nicholas Lemann, Dean; Henry R. Luce Professor
Dale Maharidge, Associate Professor
Arlene Notoro Morgan, Associate Dean, Prizes and Programs
Victor S. Navasky, George T. Delacorte Professor in Magazine Journalism; Director, Delacorte Center for Magazine Journalism; Chair, Columbia Journalism Review
Michael Schudson, Professor
Bruce Shapiro, Executive Director, Dart Center for Journalism and Trauma
Alisa Solomon, Associate Professor; Director, Arts Concentration, M.A. Program
Paula Span, Adjunct Professor
Duy Linh Tu, Assistant Professor of Professional Practice; Coordinator, Digital Media Program
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."
Some good cables came out today, so feel free to discuss in the comments. And again, thanks to you all for making this worth the time. Although today was pretty skimpy.
BBC Radio interview with assange - thanks to the comments
