More USA documents get released by Wikileaks

[Giordano]

I'll make an hypothesis now, consider this. I spread a couple of pictures of you making children pornography, it shows both you, a camera, and whatever deeds you are filming. I send them to all kinds of people.

The news brings out the adress of this person. What does the general populace do? Some of them go to that place of residence and start throwing in windows, waving torches and shouting deaththreats. Most of them just get angry but don't vent their frustration on you.

In your hypothetical situation, say the news service found my identical twin, who is not at fault. Or some guy 10 miles away that looks like me. Then they'd be responsible for what happened to the innocent individual. They'd be held responsible, sure. That doesn't and can't happen with Anon, which is another reason to dislike "them".

 

Hmmm, so your thought behind it is that when wrongdoings are non-proscecutable, the potential wrondoers should be disliked. Fair enough. I respect your well explained opinion.

Though I find it odd that the news would be held responsible for what individuals are doing based on the information they provide. But I find this matter to be less important and more of a straw arguement myself to start an arguement about. Moving on.

 

I find this fitting to the subject at hand. Considering that the government is getting away with crimes and wrong actions without being able to be proscecuted or sanctioned. Anon does it through the veil of anonymousity, the government does it through their built up veil of secrecy.

If Anon gets damage to their internet anonymousity through censorship or through forced ID's on the internet, they do whatever is in their might to try to combat that. Now the government is getting damage to their secrecy because documents are leaked out, they do whatever is in their might to combat that.

 

Funny that two completely different entities operate so simular in terms of reacting to damaging their 'veil'.

Yes, which is why people have to stop thinking organizations, businesses, and governments as different things. They're factions, some stronger than others. Fear and intimidation is their preferred weapon. Governments are usually strongest, but other factions fight for power against them, such as Anon in this case, or the drug cartels.

[Bloodstain]

From zybez:

 

http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2010/12/14/leaked-cable-bubble-gmo-eu/

 

So the US gov. approved of the 2008 Wall-Street-induced global pseudo-famine (you know the one were 250 million people went hungry and like a million died and food riots nearly toppled a few governments?), because they thought higher food prices would make the EU accept US genetically modified crops. Yay for regulatory capture wholesale corporate takeover.

 

 

 

 

 

An update, apparently Manning is being kept in isolation (considered by many to be torture), despite not being convicted of anything

http://www.salon.com/news/wikileaks/index.html?story=/opinion/greenwald/2010/12/14/manning

 

This is why the conditions under which Manning is being detained were once recognized in the U.S. -- and are still recognized in many Western nations -- as not only cruel and inhumane, but torture. More than a century ago, U.S. courts understood that solitary confinement was a barbaric punishment that severely harmed the mental and physical health of those subjected to it. The Supreme Court's 1890 decision in In re Medley noted that as a result of solitary confinement as practiced in the early days of the United States, many "prisoners fell, after even a short confinement, into a semi-fatuous condition . . . and others became violently insane; others still, committed suicide; while those who stood the ordeal better . . . [often] did not recover sufficient mental activity to be of any subsequent service to the community." And in its 1940 decision in Chambers v. Florida, the Court characterized prolonged solitary confinement as "torture" and compared it to "[t]he rack, the thumbscrew, [and] the wheel."

[magekillr]

Since his arrest in May, Manning has been a model detainee, without any episodes of violence or disciplinary problems. He nonetheless was declared from the start to be a "Maximum Custody Detainee," the highest and most repressive level of military detention, which then became the basis for the series of inhumane measures imposed on him.

 

From the beginning of his detention, Manning has been held in intensive solitary confinement. For 23 out of 24 hours every day -- for seven straight months and counting -- he sits completely alone in his cell. Even inside his cell, his activities are heavily restricted; he's barred even from exercising and is under constant surveillance to enforce those restrictions. For reasons that appear completely punitive, he's being denied many of the most basic attributes of civilized imprisonment, including even a pillow or sheets for his bed (he is not and never has been on suicide watch). For the one hour per day when he is freed from this isolation, he is barred from accessing any news or current events programs. Lt. Villiard protested that the conditions are not "like jail movies where someone gets thrown into the hole," but confirmed that he is in solitary confinement, entirely alone in his cell except for the one hour per day he is taken out.

 

In sum, Manning has been subjected for many months without pause to inhumane, personality-erasing, soul-destroying, insanity-inducing conditions of isolation similar to those perfected at America's Supermax prison in Florence, Colorado: all without so much as having been convicted of anything. And as is true of many prisoners subjected to warped treatment of this sort, the brig's medical personnel now administer regular doses of anti-depressants to Manning to prevent his brain from snapping from the effects of this isolation.

The inhumane conditions of Bradley Manning's detention

 

Generally people fail to understand that extended solitary confinement is sanity-destroying torture. It causes people to go insane.

[Bloodstain]

Striking resemblances between BP's Gulf of Mexico disaster and a little-reported giant gas leak in Azerbaijan experienced by the UK firm 18 months beforehand have emerged from leaked US embassy cables.

 

The cables reveal that some of BP's partners in the gas field were upset that the company was so secretive about the incident that it even allegedly withheld information from them. They also say that BP was lucky that it was able to evacuate its 212 workers safely after the incident, which resulted in two fields being shut and output being cut by at least 500,000 barrels a day with production disrupted for months.

 

Other cables leaked tonight claim that the president of Azerbaijan accused BP of stealing $10bn of oil from his country and using "mild blackmail" to secure the rights to develop vast gas reserves in the Caspian Sea region.

 

...

 

According to another cable, in January 2009 BP thought that a "bad cement job" was to blame for the gas leak in Azerbaijan. More recently, BP's former chief executive Tony Hayward also partly blamed a "bad cement job" by contractor Halliburton for the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. The blowout in the Gulf led to the deaths of 11 workers and the biggest accidental offshore oil spill in history.

 

...

 

 

According to one cable, BP's outgoing Azerbaijan president, David Woodward, said in November 2006 that BP thought it unlikely that Turkey would be able to complete its work before spring 2007. "However, he added that 'it was not inconceivable' that Botas [Turkey's state pipeline company] could 'rush finish' the job so that it would be ready to receive gas shortly, although the pipeline would not meet international standards," the cable said. In the end, BP said Turkey began receiving gas from Shah Deniz in July 2007.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/15/wikileaks-bp-azerbaijan-gulf-spill

 

More in the link

 

Also, [bleep] the media blackout on the after/continuing effects of the spill

[krimi]

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2036683_2037183_2037185,00.html

Clearly, zuckerberg is much more influential to our development as a society. Assange? who da [bleep] iz dat guy?

[Bloodstain]

WikiLeaks cables lay bare US hostility to international criminal court

 

The international criminal court has proved one of the most controversial international institutions since its creation in 2002, drawing fire from some for its exclusive focus on Africa, and accused by others of pursuing the policy objectives of America and Europe.

But America has also been hostile to the court, refusing to join it for fear its own citizens could be put on trial for war crimes. The cables reveal American preoccupation with the personalities in the court and an attempt to discern their views on Iraq from the outset.

 

One cable, sent in July 2003, three months after Luis Moreno-Ocampo was elected as chief prosecutor, offered an "early glimpse" into his stance and reveals American unease about the possibility that he could pursue cases over British actions in Iraq.

 

"Less clear are [Ocampo's] views on Iraq," the cable states. "Ocampo has said that he was looking at the actions of British forces in Iraq -- which … led a British ICTY prosecutor nearly to fall off his chair."

 

"Privately, Ocampo has said that he wishes to dispose of Iraq issues (ie. Not to investigate them.)"

 

The cables also attempt to cast off early remarks about Iraq by Ocampo – who is from Argentina – as a language issue.

 

"Some Embassy contacts also suggest that Ocampo's mediocre English skills may have given his public remarks a less nuanced … tenor than intended," the cable states.

 

In another cable, the Americans described Ocampo's estimates of loss of life in Darfur, part of the basis on which he has indicted Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir for war crimes, as "imaginary numbers".

 

Although America's hostility to the court has weakened considerably under President Obama, with the country now adopting a policy of "principled engagement" and occupying observer status, the cables still show American resistance to any expansion of the court's role.

America was strongly against "crimes of aggression" being added to the list of those within the court's jurisdiction. The crime, defined as one "committed by a political or military leader which, by its character, gravity and scale, constituted a manifest violation of the [uN] Charter", was adopted by members of the court in June.

 

I hope we get to see war crime trials for Iraq in our life time

 

 

e: from Spiegel

US Pressured Italy to Influence Judiciary

 

The CIA rendition of cleric Abu Omar in 2003 turned into a headache for Washington when a Milan court indicted the agents involved. Secret dispatches now show how the US threatened the Italian government in an attempt to influence the case. Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi was apparently happy to help.

 

In 2007, a court in Milan started trying several CIA agents in absentia for their roles in the 2003 kidnapping of Abu Omar, an Egyptian cleric who had been living in the northern Italian city. When the indictments first came down, the US government tried to intervene -- first in Milan and then in Rome -- so as to influence the investigations of the public prosecutor's office.

 

At first, the efforts were conducted via diplomatic channels. But, later, they also took place during top-level talks with Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi. American diplomats and even the US secretary of defense were assured that the Italian government "was working hard to resolve the situation." And they also got to hear Berlusconi vent his rage at his own country's judicial system.

These anecdotes come from secret dispatches from the US Embassy in Rome, and they are particularly embarrassing for Berlusconi, who recently survived a confidence vote in parliament. The documents provide detailed descriptions of how both the American ambassador and US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates exerted direct pressure on the Italian government in Rome. In particular, they wanted to make sure that Rome would use its influence to make sure that no international arrest warrants were issued for the CIA agents accused of being involved in Abu Omar's abduction.

 

...

 

An Embarrassing Trial for the CIA

 

In the case involving Omar, the United States quickly ran into the same problem that it had faced in Germany. Italian journalists and Armando Spataro, the unflinching prosecutor in Milan, uncovered in meticulous detail the CIA agents' at-times-sloppy efforts to camouflage their actions. And the story quickly became a media sensation -- particularly after it emerged that a number of agents had rewarded themselves for the successful kidnapping operation by spending a weekend in a luxury hotel in Venice, complete with generous expense accounts. After months of investigations, the prosecutor produced an overwhelmingly detailed indictment that even included the real names of the kidnappers.

When the trial got underway in Milan in 2007, it was a major disaster for the CIA. Though none of its agents were in the courtroom, just the negative attention it brought the organization was damaging enough. Indeed, the mere fact that a trial was being held might have been what prompted American officials to go much further in their efforts to put pressure on the Italian government than it had on the German government in the case of el-Masri.

Indeed, already in May 2006, the American ambassador in Rome relayed a threatening message: If arrest warrants were in fact issued, it could lead to a drastic deterioration in bilateral relations. For example, in notes following a conversation with high-ranking Undersecretary Gianni Letta on May 24, 2006, the American ambassador wrote that he had explained to Letta that "nothing would damage relations faster or more seriously than a decision by the government of Italy to forward warrants for arrests" of the CIA agents named in connection with the Abu Omar case.

 

It didn't take long before the Italians reacted to the threat. At a hastily called meeting, Letta suggested that the best way to get the case wrapped up as quickly as possible would be for the then-US attorney general to speak directly to Clemente Mastella, Italy's justice minister at the time.

 

...

 

The notes provide deep insights into relations between Italy and the United States. Even before the Americans started exerting pressure, the Italian government had already been doing all it could to cover up the Abu Omar affair. All the evidence and knowledge that Italian officials had about the kidnapping were declared state secrets, making them worthless to prosecutor Spataro in terms of arguing his case. The Americans were very happy about this move. In fact, one American diplomatic cable regarding the classification of evidence says that the Italian government "is fully committed to maintaining our strong anti-terrorism cooperation."

 

...

 

In the end, a solution was found that was very similar to the one reached in Germany in the case of Khaled el-Masri. Although there were verdicts, arrest warrants and extradition requests in the case, the Italian government refused to formally forward the requests to the US, just as Berlin had done. As a result, Abu Omar's kidnappers are still at large.

 

The only consequence is that Robert Seldon Lady, the former CIA station chief in Milan, had to change his plans for his retirement. He can no longer travel to the wonderful property that he bought for himself in Tuscany.

[magekillr]

One of the Wikileaks cables said that Michael Moore's movie "Sicko" was banned in Cuba --- and it wasn't:

 

Michael Moore was as surprised as anyone when WikiLeaks revealed a US cable asserting that Cuban officials banned his Sicko documentary because it depicted a "mythical" view of health care there. He was even more surprised when the media picked up on the cable and reported it as gospel truth. (See the Guardian, whose report in turn got widely disseminated.) The problem is that the documentary—a damning assessment of the American health care system—was not banned in Cuba, he writes at the Huffington Post.

 

Not only had the film been playing in Cuban theaters before the State Department cable of Jan. 31, 2008, it was shown on national television there in April of that year, writes Moore, who references news articles of the time to prove his point. So why would a US official write such a bogus cable? Mainly, the Bushies in power at the time didn't like him and wanted to discredit his movie, which had just been nominated for an Oscar, writes Moore. "It is a stunning look at the Orwellian nature of how bureaucrats for the State spin their lies and try to recreate reality Michael Moore was as surprised as anyone when WikiLeaks revealed a US cable asserting that Cuban officials banned his Sicko documentary because it depicted a "mythical" view of health care there. He was even more surprised when the media picked up on the cable and reported it as gospel truth. (See the Guardian, whose report in turn got widely disseminated.) The problem is that the documentary—a damning assessment of the American health care system—was not banned in Cuba, he writes at the Huffington Post.

 

Not only had the film been playing in Cuban theaters before the State Department cable of Jan. 31, 2008, it was shown on national television there in April of that year, writes Moore, who references news articles of the time to prove his point. So why would a US official write such a bogus cable? Mainly, the Bushies in power at the time didn't like him and wanted to discredit his movie, which had just been nominated for an Oscar, writes Moore. "It is a stunning look at the Orwellian nature of how bureaucrats for the State spin their lies and try to recreate reality (I assume to placate their bosses and tell them what they want to hear)."

Sicko Was Not Banned in Cuba

 

This raises an interesting question, doesn't it? How many of these cables, rather than being the unvarnished facts which reveal the public lies are actually another layer of lies from bureaucrats trying to appease their bosses?

[Danqazmlp]

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2036683_2037183_2037185,00.html

Clearly, zuckerberg is much more influential to our development as a society. Assange? who da [bleep] iz dat guy?

 

Yes, yes he was and will be.

[das1330]

http://www.time.com/...2037185,00.html

Clearly, zuckerberg is much more influential to our development as a society. Assange? who da [bleep] iz dat guy?

 

Mark Zuckerberg developed online social networking, while Jullian Assange leaked a number of small scandals before publishing several hundred thousand state department communiques of no value whatsoever.

 

Zuckerberg has been far more influential.

[Bloodstain]

http://www.time.com/...2037185,00.html

Clearly, zuckerberg is much more influential to our development as a society. Assange? who da [bleep] iz dat guy?

 

Mark Zuckerberg developed online social networking, while Jullian Assange leaked a number of small scandals before publishing several hundred thousand state department communiques of no value whatsoever.

 

Zuckerberg has been far more influential.

 

I'm not into the whole online social networking thing, but uh, myspace came before facebook, didn't it?

[fakeitormakeit2]

http://www.time.com/...2037185,00.html

Clearly, zuckerberg is much more influential to our development as a society. Assange? who da [bleep] iz dat guy?

 

Mark Zuckerberg developed online social networking, while Jullian Assange leaked a number of small scandals before publishing several hundred thousand state department communiques of no value whatsoever.

 

Zuckerberg has been far more influential.

 

I'm not into the whole online social networking thing, but uh, myspace came before facebook, didn't it?

Yes but people would rather see pictures of their friends at the convenience of a click rather than know their government is being dishonest and its officials spying on and [cabbage] talking every other country.

[Giordano]

Facebook is more open to advertising businesses than MySpace. Thus the more importance of it than MySpace.

[Danqazmlp]

Facebook is also much more appealing to a wider demographic of user than myspace ever was. It is a much more rounded and perfected social networking site and has had a large impact on how people connect with others. Wikileaks has done well, nothing for society as far as I can tell?

[Sam]

Well, not yet.

[Dupin]

There is nothing original or creative about Facebook. Zuckerberg is favored because he made a bunch of money. He does not contribute to society.

[Giordano]

There is nothing original or creative about Facebook. Zuckerberg is favored because he made my social life look awesome by having like 500 friends. And I'm a bandwagoner.

Fix'ed.

[Danqazmlp]

However much you dislike facebook, millions do like it. Be as non-conformist as you want, but it has revolutionised social interaction for a majority of society. It may not have done many things first, but what it did was bring everything from multiple social networking sites together in one place. It has become the place for anybody to connect with others. Be separate from it all you want, but just because you dislike it, doesn't mean it is universally disliked. Quite the contrary. It has had the same sort of impact mobile phones had on society. Wikileaks has, for the general public done sod all. Hell, apart from here, for me, Wikileaks is non existent.

[Will H]

There is nothing original or creative about Facebook. Zuckerberg is favored because he made a bunch of money. He does not contribute to society.

 

He's changed society into something different than what it was before, with respect with more people than anyone else has managed. Whether that, or anything, equates to 'contribution to society' is meaningless. Also, I don't think Facebook has any interest in winning any originality or creativity contests, and it shouldn't. Being something different would only limit how many people would access it, and that would defeat its purpose. People never seem to think these things through before jumping on the 'I hate Facebook' bandwagon, do they?

[Racheya]

Lets not make this a Wikileaks vs Facebook argument.

 

If you ask me, both Zuckerberg and Assange have made an impact on society. Zuckerberg has created the biggest social networking site and helped to create communication all over the world. Assange has helped to expose the truth about the US and Governments all over the world. It all just depends on if you see the advancement of social communication or the advancement of transparent corporations to be the more worthy accomplishment.

 

I personally find Wikileaks to be a more important website than Facebook. Everyone forgets that Wikileaks published the 'classified' documents of Scientology, proving Zenu and all that insanity, insanity that is fairly common knowledge these days. It's hard to say that Wikileaks hasn't had a noticeable impact on society.

[Bloodstain]

However much you dislike facebook, millions do like it. Be as non-conformist as you want, but it has revolutionised social interaction for a majority of society. It may not have done many things first, but what it did was bring everything from multiple social networking sites together in one place. It has become the place for anybody to connect with others. Be separate from it all you want, but just because you dislike it, doesn't mean it is universally disliked. Quite the contrary. It has had the same sort of impact mobile phones had on society. Wikileaks has, for the general public done sod all. Hell, apart from here, for me, Wikileaks is non existent.

 

How has facebook revolutionized anything? There is nothing facebook has done that can't be done other ways. Wikileaks on the other hand, people don't think it's had an impact because they choose not to pay attention to it. The government reaction to the leaks alone should have opened people's eyes, but they're more concerned about what Miley Cyrus is smoking. If it doesn't directly affect them, they don't give a [bleep]

[Danqazmlp]

Everything mobile phones have done could have been done in other ways. That not an argument you can make to say why something hasn't had an impact. I think you are confusing political impact with social impact. Facebook brought social networking to the masses, it is no longer something done solely by the young, which was the case before. This new lot of wikileaks however has done diddly squat to mass society. Most people may choose to ignore it as it has no impact on them. Hell, I've seen more people mention the new facebook profile than wikileaks.

 

Wikileaks does have impact on politics, but those impacts are yet to be seen. However, these impacts definitely do not have the mass that others do.

[Dupin]

Everything mobile phones have done could have been done in other ways. That not an argument you can make to say why something hasn't had an impact. I think you are confusing political impact with social impact. Facebook brought social networking to the masses, it is no longer something done solely by the young, which was the case before. This new lot of wikileaks however has done diddly squat to mass society. Most people may choose to ignore it as it has no impact on them. Hell, I've seen more people mention the new facebook profile than wikileaks.

 

Wikileaks does have impact on politics, but those impacts are yet to be seen. However, these impacts definitely do not have the mass that others do.

Oh, I forgot. The new Facebook profile has revolutionized life as we know it.

 

Seriously, the fact that you hear more about the new Facebook profile from your friends than you do about Wikileaks just proves that your peers are not a reliable source when determining the historical value of modern events and people.

[Zierro]

How has facebook revolutionized anything?

 

Well, it has. I would say that giving people the illusion that they actually have lives by attaining a large number of random internet associates (AKA "friends") on their profile page constitutes as revolutionizing social interaction. After all, the site single-handedly dropped society's standards on what social interaction is. But since I'm such an introverted rebel, my points all of a sudden lose their merit.

 

Facebook isn't just a detriment. It's a cancer decaying social etiquette and everything our great grandfathers have worked for - and I'm sure they would agree.

[Will H]

How has facebook revolutionized anything?

 

Well, it has. I would say that giving people the illusion that they actually have lives by attaining a large number of random internet associates (AKA "friends") on their profile page constitutes as revolutionizing social interaction. After all, the site single-handedly dropped society's standards on what social interaction is. But since I'm such an introverted rebel, my points all of a sudden lose their merit.

 

Facebook isn't just a detriment. It's a cancer decaying social etiquette and everything our great grandfathers have worked for - and I'm sure they would agree.

 

Please tell me what measure you're using to place certain social interactions above others. Without that, this is meaningless.

[Racheya]

Ahem.

 

This topic is NOT about Facebook, please don't make it that way.

 

If you really think Facebook is not as important as Wikileaks then talk about Wikileaks! Not Facebook.