Today's WikiLeaks News

In today's episode of As WikiLeaks Turns we learn that WikiLeaks's main web site is back up less than 10 days after EveryDNS terminated the domain name over stability concerns. A 16-year-old Dutch boy suspected of being involved in the pro-WikiLeaks attacks on MasterCard and Visa has been arrested. But Dutch teenagers aren't the only Assange fans in the news. Many top journalists in Australia have sent a letter(PDF) to Prime Minister Julia Gillard today to express their support of WikiLeaks. The Sydney Police have written their own letter however to organizers of a pro-WikiLeaks rally saying that the police oppose a planned demonstration. Finally, special correspondent for The Times, Alexi Mostrous and freelance reporter Heather Brooke were given permission by the judge in the Julian Assange trial to post Twitter updates about the proceedings.

Comments

One down

[tmosley]

One "hacker" down, 4,999,999 to go!

Bradley Manning

[gambino21]

Related to this, Bradley Manning has been in solitary confinement for 5 months. And there doesn't seem to be an end, or even a trial, in sight.

Re:Bradley Manning

[radtea]

And meanwhile, Roman Polanski is still free, and it took almost thirty years for the United States to get around to having an international warrant for his arrest issued despite his having actually admitted to sex crimes involving a thirteen year old girl. I guess that doesn't count very much compared to embarrassing powerful people.

And why exactly is Assange being harrassed for doing something that is far less serious than what this English woman has admitted doing in a major newspaper: having sex with men using condoms deliberately tampered with so she can get pregnant?

Is the government of England really concerned with the sexual integrity of Swedish womanhood? Or are they just using the legal system to harrass someone who has made them look like the bunch of wankers they are?

Re:Bradley Manning

[gerddie]

Security systems are built on trusting the people doing the work. What he did broke that trust, and it broke a law he was reminded of every time he entered a secured area. He was trained in how to deal with improperly classified information, and instead of doing that he tossed it over the wall to someone he didn't even know, and along with it tossed a pile of properly classified information.

From the linked article:

But ultimately, what one thinks of Manning's alleged acts is irrelevant to the issue here. The U.S. ought at least to abide by minimal standards of humane treatment in how it detains him. That's true for every prisoner, at all times. But departures from such standards are particularly egregious where, as here, the detainee has merely been accused, but never convicted, of wrongdoing. These inhumane conditions make a mockery of Barack Obama's repeated pledge to end detainee abuse and torture, as prolonged isolation -- exacerbated by these other deprivations -- is at least as damaging, as violative of international legal standards, and almost as reviled around the world, as the waterboard, hypothermia and other Bush-era tactics that caused so much controversy.

Re:Bradley Manning

[IamTheRealMike]

Does anyone in the USA actually believe the constitution has power anymore? I mean, I regularly see Americans argue from the position of "You can't do that, it's unconstitutional" yet the right to not be imprisoned without charges and a trial is the only right that is included in the original text, sans amendments.

If Manning ends up in a Guantanamo type limbo nobody will be surprised. Very sad. Especially given how unreliable a witness Lamo is. If Lamo is the only thing they have on Manning then a good defence lawyer could make great progress with his case.

Re:Bradley Manning

[BitZtream]

Guess he should have thought of that before committing a military crime while he was an active member of the military service. He is governed by a different set of laws that aren't nearly as nice as civilian laws.

Or at least, he might have thought of that BEFORE HE STARTED FUCKING BRAGGING ABOUT IT.

Re:Bradley Manning

[copponex]

He's not being tortured. Nobody is any more.

You do realize that's what the USG claimed last time around, right? And then this organization named WikiLeaks documented that they were lying:

The WikiLeaks documents reveal numerous cases of torture and abuse of Iraqi prisoners by Iraqi police and soldiers, according to the Qatar-based news agency Al Jazeera, which was given early access to the cache. "It was one of the stated aims of the war to end the torture chambers. But the secret files reveal a very different story. In graphic detail they record extensive abuse at Iraqi police stations, Army bases, and prisons."

US troops reported the abuse to their superiors on more than 100 occasions, according to the documents, but the military – at the highest levels – ordered troops not to intervene.

The Monitor has detailed the alleged torture and abuses that have continued in Iraqi prisons since the fall of Saddam Hussein.

Hopefully, if Manning is being tortured, someone on the staff there has at least a little human dignity and will let the world know. If it were you, I'm guessing you'd convince yourself that he deserved it every time you went to cash your paycheck. Because that's the type of human being you are.

Re:Bradley Manning

[copponex]

Most soldiers don't take very kindly to treason.

Actually, they can end up with their own TV shows. It just depends on who they commit treason for. If it's the American public, or even worse, the world's public, you are correct. If they are good little soldiers and stomp on throats at the request of the powerful, well... how else do you think they get promoted?

Re:Bradley Manning

[bug1]

"Speaking of idiots, Assange thinks everything should be open but information that he deems private should be kept out of the public record." - Anonymous Coward

If Assange thinks everything should be open, why isnt he (or wikileaks) releasing all the information, why are they redacting there information to protect individuals.

Its ironic that you post as AC while criticizing him, you are an obvious propaganda victim.

Re:Bradley Manning

[__aamnbm3774]

You mean like the Geneva Convention?

Source :

Solitary confinement is banned under Common Article Three of the Geneva Conventions as it amounts to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Re:Bradley Manning

[BobMcD]

This claim is false. Remember the 'collateral murder' video? Proper channels were followed, and the request was illegally denied. Imagine that Manning had leveed a successful argument that these things should be released. The request could simply be denied and the entire nature of the proceedings made a state secret. Without leaks, we'd never even know the question was posed, let alone the response, who made it, and why. There is zero expectation that the government will obey its own laws in regards to their secrets, and thus your entire argument that the law offers recourse is invalid.

Re:Bradley Manning

[grcumb]

Guess he should have thought of that before committing a military crime while he was an active member of the military service. He is governed by a different set of laws that aren't nearly as nice as civilian laws.

Or at least, he might have thought of that BEFORE HE STARTED FUCKING BRAGGING ABOUT IT.

If he valued his own safety more than anything, perhaps he would have. But let's look at his motivation for leaking the materials:

To see why that's so, just recall some of what Manning purportedly said about why he chose to leak, at least as reflected in the edited chat logs published by Wired:

Lamo: what's your endgame plan, then?. . .

Manning: well, it was forwarded to [WikiLeaks] - and god knows what happens now - hopefully worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms - if not, than [sic] we're doomed - as a species - i will officially give up on the society we have if nothing happens - the reaction to the video gave me immense hope; CNN's iReport was overwhelmed; Twitter exploded - people who saw, knew there was something wrong . . . Washington Post sat on the video David Finkel acquired a copy while embedded out here. . . . - i want people to see the truth regardless of who they are because without information, you cannot make informed decisions as a public.

if i knew then, what i knew now - kind of thing, or maybe im just young, naive, and stupid . . . im hoping for the former - it cant be the latter - because if it is were fucking screwed (as a society) - and i dont want to believe that were screwed.

Manning described the incident which first made him seriously question the U.S.Government: when he was instructed to work on the case of Iraqi "insurgents" who had been detained for distributing so-called "insurgent" literature which, when Manning had it translated, turned out to be nothing more than "a scholarly critique against PM Maliki":

i had an interpreter read it for me and when i found out that it was a benign political critique titled "Where did the money go?" and following the corruption trail within the PMs cabinet i immediately took that information and *ran* to the officer to explain what was going on he didnt want to hear any of it he told me to shut up and explain how we could assist the FPs in finding *MORE* detainees

i had always questioned the things worked, and investigated to find the truth but that was a point where i was a *part* of something i was actively involved in something that i was completely against

And Manning explained why he never considered the thought of selling this classified information to a foreign nation for substantial profit or even just secretly transmitting it to foreign powers, as he easily could have done:

Manning: i mean what if i were someone more malicious- i could've sold to russia or china, and made bank?

Lamo: why didnt you?

Manning: because it's public data

Lamo: i mean, the cables

Manning: it belongs in the public domain -information should be free - it belongs in the public domain - because another state would just take advantage of the information try and get some edge - if its out in the open it should be a public good.

That's a whistleblower in the purest and most noble form: discovering government secrets of criminal and corrupt acts and then publicizing them to the world not for profit, not to give other nations an edge, but to trigger "worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms." Given how much Manning has been demonized -- at the same time that he's been rendered silent by the ban on his communication with an

Re:Bradley Manning

[BobMcD]

Proper channels were not followed. Reuters was trying to get the video from the military, and Assange released it. Reminds me of how W went into Iraq before Hans Blix could finish his investigation and eliminate WMD as an excuse.

Don't change the subject.

The proper order is:

1) Reuters tried, repeatedly to get the video from the military and was denied, repeatedly

2) Manning leaked it

3) Wikileaks (Assange) published it

You're asserting that there was not adequate effort during step '1' above, but this simply not true. Reuters conducted their own investigation into the deaths of their employees, including a properly filed and processed FOIA request, in 2007. It was 'blocked by the Pentagon' that same year. The leak didn't occur until 2009.

The government lied and would never have revealed the truth.

This is but a single example, as well. I don't wish to derail this topic, but what of the Pat Tillman/Jessica Lynch situations? Again, I say there is zero expectation that proper channels would be effective. Leaks are not necessarily the only answer, but they are acceptable in light of the alternatives.

Re:Whoo, typos

[gerddie]

... but it's our preciouss.

The proof is in the Opposition

[redelm]

Step back and look a bit. Assange may be more ape than angel, but he still has rights various powers are working hard to deny him -- why? It appears they've caved on bail, and eventually the British system grinding slowly and ever-so-carefully will get around to reviewing some substance of the matter. I'm a bit surprised extradition for "material witness" warrents is included, or to a place without traditional protections (right of silence). Even more unusual would be extradition for an offense which is not a crime in the holding country. But hey, it is their treaty, and the Brits did goofy things when they were after the IRA.

At a higher level, this just indicates the extraordinary influence (coersion? CIA blackmail?) the US wields. Just why would Sweden (of all places) dance to Hillary's tune? Their politics runs more the opposite. Some feminists might like the broadening and exposure of sexual misconduct laws, but the more thoughtful might consider this stretch happens on the backs of women who are indisputably abused. Dubious claims and outright false allegations justify unfortunately piercing scrutiny of victims and further humiliation.

Britian is similar. First we had the unbelieveable spectacle of a Labour government supporting the American invasion of Iraq, and maintaining support after WMD unfound and Tony Blair putting down three quite representative backbencher revolts. They will grind it all through very carefully, trying to stay reasonable lest they suffer the voter backlash that Sweden is almost certain to see.

Astonishing how the US gets people to jump in front of a bus. Proof more Wikileaks are needed.

Re:Can we get a category?

[Jugalator]

This reminds me of one thing: Why are posts tagged? Can we include posts based on tags? Exclude posts based on tags?
I never actually realized why we have them, but posts keep getting tagged. *shrug*

If we can exclude posts on tags, I'm pretty sure filtering out everything "wikileaks" would work here.

Hasty Assembly Permit

[eldavojohn]

This time with more than just the pirate parties involved.

but still-- "Police oppose a planned demonstration?" I will have to read the linked article, because that is some fishy sounding shit.

Let me help you:

The assistant commissioner added that without a court notice authorising the rally, protesters and organisers would not have the support of the NSW Police Service.

I don't know about Australia but in America you need a permit after your party gets to be a certain size on public property. The assistant commissioner stated:

"Under Section 26 of the Summary Offences Act, I am advising you that I oppose the holding of your public assembly,"

Doesn't that just sound like some fishy shit? Not supported by the NSW Police Service because you don't have a permit? Or massive government conspiracy?

It's opposed because they didn't properly prepare for it and the police are not obligated to support it so if things get ugly for whatever reason, people may get out of control and hurt. And if you march on streets that are normally occupied by vehicles without police support, you're going to get hit with obstruction offenses. The police don't oppose it, the assistant commissioner said that they oppose it because they didn't follow the law to get authorization to assembly. All this is going down immediately (this evening). The complaint from the commissioner is that the paperwork wasn't submitted in a timely manner.

When I was in Boyscout Troop 238, we would apply for the right to assembly when we had larger functions in the town's parks weeks or months ahead of time. And it's not because Big Oil wanted us stopped ...

Re:Hasty Assembly Permit

[kiwimate]

It's logistical support. In fairness, the original zdnet article is not particularly well written either; but if you read it carefully, it's clear enough what's going on. Here are the most important three paragraphs from the article.

The NSW Police said in a statement that the reason the assistant commissioner opposed the march in his correspondence was due to the organisers of the event failing to submit complete paperwork in a timely manner.

"The group gave one day's notice before the march saying that they intended to march on George Street to Martin Place in peak hour, but this was not acceptable to the police," the service said in a statement.

The police offered alternatives including holding a static protest, marching an alternate route or holding the march at another time.

Get that? The protestors gave one day notice that they were going to march down crowded city streets during peak hour. That is clearly not something you can just set up on a whim. The police responded that, with insufficient notice provided, they were concerned about being able to ensure the safety. Try doing a search on map george street sydney to get an idea of where they want to march.

The Australian police is not for or against the protest politically. They don't care if these people protest, but they do care that it's done in a safe manner (both for the sake of the protestors and for the sake of the general public).

Which is a long way of saying - total non-story except that the protest organizers are not especially organized, and so instead of doing things properly decided to start whining.

Re:Hasty Assembly Permit

[spun]

Because the lack of a permit is not the actual problem. The permit is just one solution to the real problem, the police offered several other solutions. Now, I bet if you stopped to think about it, you would realize what the real problem is. The real problem is, how do we fairly allocate the use of resources we share? Why should the protesters get precedence over the daily users of streets and sidewalks? It is a tricky issue, to be sure, and one I have been on both sides of. In my mind it boils down to this: either you play by the rules and try not to piss off the people you are attempting to reach with your message, or you specifically DO try to piss them off, to show how serious you are. But if you do that, you must accept the possibility that you will be inconvenienced at least as much as the people you are trying to piss off, if you get thrown in a holding cell for a few hours and have to pay a $100 fine.

Do you see how it works? Either we agree to play by the rules and hold a protest that is respectful of its audience and all the other users of public property, or we participate in civil disobedience to show how serious we are. What we do NOT do, unless we are assholes, is claim a right to disrupt other people's lives without consequence.

Re:Hasty Assembly Permit

[dachshund]

When I was in Boyscout Troop 238, we would apply for the right to assembly when we had larger functions in the town's parks weeks or months ahead of time. And it's not because Big Oil wanted us stopped ...

Multi-week delays are perfectly reasonable for a Boy scout troop --- they can plan their functions weeks ahead of time. However, it's absolutely not reasonable to delay peaceful political protest on issues that have an inherent component of timeliness, e.g., court cases, legislation, etc. In many cases, enforcing a delay is tantamount to preventing the assembly itself, simply by delaying it until the protest no longer has relevance.

I can't speak to UK law, but most democracies have explicitly guaranteed a freedom of assembly precisely because that right is so important, and because it's so easy to deny. Protecting the right means supporting its spirit, not just paying lip service to it.

Re:The Good Wikileaks Does

[pyalot]

is not justification for the bad Wikileaks does.

Well, you can't have the good without the bad...

There are better ways to do it.

Like what? Wear buttons with sloagans about love, put bumper stickers on your car?

Re:Can we get a category?

[poetmatt]

most people don't try to close their eyes to the world, especially when the results of things like this do affect the IT/technology world.

youre on /., a geek or a nerd, and you dont care

[unity100]

wikileaks is the manifestation of the power of internet. internet's uncontrollability, freedom, communication, collaboration. all of these combine to make wikileaks and what it tells us possible.

had this been any newspaper, none of these news would make the headline. had they made, rest would be suppressed.

we are seeing internet show its power, through people, even if the establisment tries to suppress it.

see :

http://46.59.1.2/mirrors.html

2100+ mirrors. that many people put up private server space to help wikileaks. that is, not even counting the people who are spreading messages, links, articles.

it interests all of us. its internet in its purest form, as how it should be. if it doesnt interest you, or you are unable to understand, maybe you should try other sites like digg, or facebook.

How close are the US and Sweden?

[Somewhat Delirious]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8202745/WikiLeaks-Swedish-government-hid-anti-terror-operations-with-America-from-Parliament.html

I think this sheds some interesting light on the Assange case in Sweden and its political connotations...

Re:How close are the US and Sweden?

[Blue Stone]

Good find. Gives the lie to the Swedish state being 'all above board' and very anti-corruption.

Secret deals with the US government - plenty of people suspected that this was the case with the Pirate Bay crackdown - and now it's made clear that deals are being done and hidden from parliamentary scrutiny.

Re:How close are the US and Sweden?

[SwedishPenguin]

The sad thing is how they always get off the hook so easily. SVT (public service tv) did a great documentary on this. The politicians involved of course claimed not to know anything about it. It made the news for a few days and then it went away with any demands for the justice minister's head evaporating. (that woman seriously has too many lives, I can't count how many controversies she's been involved in, not to mention that she is not actually qualified for the job, she doesn't have a law degree and pretty much had nothing to do with law prior to being appointed justice minister)

Only two parties wanted any actual investigation of the matter.
The left party demanded a parliamentary investigation, the greens filed a report against the government with the constitutional committee (a parliamentary committee which is pretty much the closest thing we have to a constitutional court).
The largest opposition party (the social democrats) made some statements regarding the matter but it was mostly just platitudes from a party that has been in government many times, and who's senior officials most likely knew full well this was going on..

Re:Can we get a category?

[Somewhat Delirious]

Another viable option would be not to click on links you're not interested in. I know...it sounds crazy.

Re:youre on /., a geek or a nerd, and you dont car

[ducomputergeek]

Enjoy it while it lasts. We're marching towards Internet 2 where Net Neutrality will be a thing of the past. It's happening in the EU and it's started in the US. 15 years ago the internet caught a lot of people by surprise and they weren't sure what to make of it. I think they have a better idea now and are slowly working towards swinging the pendelum from the wild wild west of information back to something closer to how the "on-line" experience was in the late 80's and early 90's with Compuserve/AOL/Prodigy, etc..

Re:youre on /., a geek or a nerd, and you dont car

[pclminion]

I'm all for transparency in government and holding people in power responsible, but there's an entire world of governments out there that should have their actions (or lack thereof, depending on the issue) scrutinized by the public, not just America. Where's the WikiLeaks coverage of China's human rights issues? How about the Cambodian government's failure to address the problem of child sex workers?

It's WikiLEAKS. If it hasn't been leaked to Wikileaks, how can Wikileaks publish it? Wikileaks is not an espionage organization and it's not about on-the-move journalism. If you have some information on these topics, which you seem to be so concerned about, why don't you put your own ass on the line and send it to Wikileaks?

Re:youre on /., a geek or a nerd, and you dont car

[SwedishPenguin]

So you're saying we should self-censor in order to not give the government an excuse to implement official censorship? If we don't even use our rights to free speech, why should we care in the first place?
Our governments already have many, many bogus reasons to censor the Internet..

Re:youre on /., a geek or a nerd, and you dont car

[definate]

I agree. We should voluntarily give them a big red button (by NOT doing what they don't want us to do).

So, your worry about giving them an "excuse to stick a big red button on the internet" (like they haven't already tried, and don't have enough reasons already), is that we voluntarily do it for them, by stopping everything they don't like, regardless of whether its just to do so?

You Sir, are a fucking genius.