Jump to content
The Observer

More USA documents get released by Wikileaks

Recommended Posts

Julian was granted bail, prosecution decided not to fight it, and he will be released when the money is delivered.

 

Also, Iceland is considering banning Visa and Mastercard because of Wikileaks.

Credit card companies that prevented card-holders from donating money to the secrets outlet WikiLeaks could have their operating licenses taken away in Iceland, according to members of the Icelandic Parliamentary General Committee.

 

Representatives from Mastercard and Visa were called before the committee Sunday to discuss their refusal to process donations to the website, reports Reykjavik Grapevine.

 

"People wanted to know on what legal grounds the ban was taken, but no one could answer it," Robert Marshall, the chairman of the committee, said. "They said this decision was taken by foreign sources."

 

The committee is seeking additional information from the credit card companies for proof that there was legal grounds for blocking the donations.

 

Marshall said the committee would seriously review the operating licenses of Visa and Mastercard in Iceland.

 

WikiLeaks' payment processor, the Icelandic company DataCell ehf, said it would take immediate legal action against the companies to make donations possible again.

 

"DataCell who facilitates those payments towards Wikileaks has decided to take up immediate legal actions to make donations possible again," DataCell CEO Andreas Fink said last week. "We can not believe WikiLeaks would even create scratch at the brand name of Visa."

 

"It will probably hurt their brand much much more to block payments towards WikiLeaks than to have them occur," Fink added.

 

After news that the companies had stopped processing donations to the secrets outlet, those participating in an online campaign known as "Operation Payback" temporarily knocked the websites of Visa and Mastercard offline.

 

"This does clearly create massive financial losses to WikiLeaks which seems to be the only purpose of this suspension," Fink continued. "This is not about the brand of Visa, this is about politics and Visa should not be involved in this."

 

Neither company has offered a detailed explanation of why they stopped processing payments to WikiLeaks. MasterCard said only that WikiLeaks had acted in an "illegal" manner, in violation of the company's terms.

 

The companies still process payments to The Guardian and the New York Times, which have published leaked US diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks.

 

"I can use Visa and Mastercard to pay for porn and support anti-abortion fanatics, Prop 8 homophobic bigots, and the Ku Klux Klan," Jeff Javis noted at The Huffington Post. "But I can't use them or PayPal to support Wikileaks, transparency, the First Amendment, and true government reform. Just saying."

 

Last week, the Swiss bank Postfinance closed the account of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange because he gave "false information regarding his place of residence during the account opening process." Swiss authorities are investigating if the bank violated secrecy rules by publicly announcing that it had closed his account.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/mastercard-visa-licenses-revoked-iceland-wikileaks/

 

 

 

 

Also, ROFL at Obama

quote is on Change.gov, Obama's campaign site.

 

"Protect Whistleblowers: Often the best source of information about waste, fraud, and abuse in government is an existing government employee committed to public integrity and willing to speak out. Such acts of courage and patriotism, which can sometimes save lives and often save taxpayer dollars, should be encouraged rather than stifled. We need to empower federal employees as watchdogs of wrongdoing and partners in performance. Barack Obama will strengthen whistleblower laws to protect federal workers who expose waste, fraud and abuse of power in government,"

http://change.gov/agenda/ethics_agenda/


yes.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Misleading tags"*.

You see, it's funny because you were the one that used a misleading quote.

Not intentionally, which is different than what they're doing. I fixed it, btw.

 

And considering the documents are already out, I really can't see how encouraging people to get informed or raising awareness is nonsense by pale-skinned teenagers that deserve to get kicked by their parents. Care to explain that?

I just plain don't like anon. If I don't log in again in 3 weeks, it'll be because anon DDOS'd me.

Which aspect are you most displeased about?

 

They support freedom of speech, and then take down Caribou Barbies when she says something that they don't like - she has as much right to freedom of speech as any other idiot.


"Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security."

Support transparency... and by extension, freedom and democracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Misleading tags"*.

You see, it's funny because you were the one that used a misleading quote.

Not intentionally, which is different than what they're doing. I fixed it, btw.

 

And considering the documents are already out, I really can't see how encouraging people to get informed or raising awareness is nonsense by pale-skinned teenagers that deserve to get kicked by their parents. Care to explain that?

I just plain don't like anon. If I don't log in again in 3 weeks, it'll be because anon DDOS'd me.

Which aspect are you most displeased about?

I'll give you a hypothetical.

 

 

Furah, I just don't plain like you. I'm going to figure out your address, your place of work, find your IP address, and post it for anon. Good luck over the next couple hours, you'll likely to be terrorized by random people that only know of you because I told them you're "bad". I can feed them bull crap information too, like you abuse baby seals, and your torment will last that much longer.

 

No, I'm not going to do that, but I hope you get the idea I'm trying to convey. As apolitical, anarchist or freedom-oriented anon thinks they are, they don't realize that they're just being used by someone else for precisely those reasons they hate the most.


99 dungeoneering achieved, thanks to everyone that celebrated with me!

 

♪♪ Don't interrupt me as I struggle to complete this thought
Have some respect for someone more forgetful than yourself ♪♪

♪♪ And I'm not done
And I won't be till my head falls off ♪♪

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Misleading tags"*.

You see, it's funny because you were the one that used a misleading quote.

Not intentionally, which is different than what they're doing. I fixed it, btw.

 

And considering the documents are already out, I really can't see how encouraging people to get informed or raising awareness is nonsense by pale-skinned teenagers that deserve to get kicked by their parents. Care to explain that?

I just plain don't like anon. If I don't log in again in 3 weeks, it'll be because anon DDOS'd me.

Which aspect are you most displeased about?

I'll give you a hypothetical.

 

 

Furah, I just don't plain like you. I'm going to figure out your address, your place of work, find your IP address, and post it for anon. Good luck over the next couple hours, you'll likely to be terrorized by random people that only know of you because I told them you're "bad". I can feed them bull crap information too, like you abuse baby seals, and your torment will last that much longer.

 

No, I'm not going to do that, but I hope you get the idea I'm trying to convey. As apolitical, anarchist or freedom-oriented anon thinks they are, they don't realize that they're just being used by someone else for precisely those reasons they hate the most.

 

If you would base your knowledge on actual experience rather than unrational fear, then I would let you slip. However as you show signs of the latter, I will explain why you would not get randomly attacked.

 

If I were to, say, make a thread on the gutter of the internet stating you killed cats, without any source. It would quickly get bumped away or flamed using 'Not your personal army' or 'No pic no proof'.

The situation I will give as an example are the one which one kid brutally murders and maims a cat caught on tape, and a random girl acting like the queen ***** of the world. Both are on tape. Both are proof of them doing such things. In no way will anon attack someone randomly because some other anon says so.

 

I could understand that you dislike anon because they are a stupid, mindless mass. But there is no reason to fear them if you don't act stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anon is both an extremely immature wreck and a beautiful product of uninhibited communication. You can't base your opinion of the whole off the actions of a few of them, but at the same time I don't think you should entirely trust or support Anon, as those few are always around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you would base your knowledge on actual experience rather than unrational fear, then I would let you slip. However as you show signs of the latter, I will explain why you would not get randomly attacked.

 

If I were to, say, make a thread on the gutter of the internet stating you killed cats, without any source. It would quickly get bumped away or flamed using 'Not your personal army' or 'No pic no proof'.

The situation I will give as an example are the one which one kid brutally murders and maims a cat caught on tape, and a random girl acting like the queen ***** of the world. Both are on tape. Both are proof of them doing such things. In no way will anon attack someone randomly because some other anon says so.

 

I could understand that you dislike anon because they are a stupid, mindless mass. But there is no reason to fear them if you don't act stupid.

Are you saying that those with proof were targets of anon?

 

 

EDIT:

There's a story I read on the internet, an example given for what an actual DDOS is, instead of a DOS. A student at a university did not like a professor he had, and received a failing grade in his class. The student then went on several different websites, created various profiles for that professor (filling in everything), and then trolled with those profiles (posting offensive things on serious websites, mostly stuff about making and distributing kiddy porn).

 

The professor's email started filling up. The professor began receiving hate mail, threatening phone calls. The professor had no idea why this went on, but could no longer live their current life or keep their job for fear of their safety (eventually had to change name and address). Everyone that participated in the "internet justice" didn't realize they were duped.

 

 

Proof can be faked, easily enough. Anon, collectively speaking, has a mob mentality, and is because of this is unstable.


99 dungeoneering achieved, thanks to everyone that celebrated with me!

 

♪♪ Don't interrupt me as I struggle to complete this thought
Have some respect for someone more forgetful than yourself ♪♪

♪♪ And I'm not done
And I won't be till my head falls off ♪♪

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you would base your knowledge on actual experience rather than unrational fear, then I would let you slip. However as you show signs of the latter, I will explain why you would not get randomly attacked.

 

If I were to, say, make a thread on the gutter of the internet stating you killed cats, without any source. It would quickly get bumped away or flamed using 'Not your personal army' or 'No pic no proof'.

The situation I will give as an example are the one which one kid brutally murders and maims a cat caught on tape, and a random girl acting like the queen ***** of the world. Both are on tape. Both are proof of them doing such things. In no way will anon attack someone randomly because some other anon says so.

 

I could understand that you dislike anon because they are a stupid, mindless mass. But there is no reason to fear them if you don't act stupid.

Are you saying that those with proof were targets of anon?

 

EDIT:

There's a story I read on the internet, an example given for what an actual DDOS is, instead of a DOS. A student at a university did not like a professor he had, and received a failing grade in his class. The student then went on several different websites, created various profiles for that professor (filling in everything), and then trolled with those profiles (posting offensive things on serious websites, mostly stuff about making and distributing kiddy porn).

 

The professor's email started filling up. The professor began receiving hate mail, threatening phone calls. The professor had no idea why this went on, but could no longer live their current life or keep their job for fear of their safety (eventually had to change name and address). Everyone that participated in the "internet justice" didn't realize they were duped.

 

 

Proof can be faked, easily enough. Anon, collectively speaking, has a mob mentality, and is because of this is unstable.

 

Yes, indeed I do. Though I do not remember the name of the catmurderer, I do know the name of the girl. Jessica Slaughter ( although this case is debatable, however stupid she acted ). Which I'm sure you've seen.

 

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.

 

This is what anon basically is. A general population, a couple of them thinking, a couple of them mindless drones. Just like your everyday population. The only difference is that they are completely anonymous and all come together on one messageboard.

 

Infact, I believe that if I go to some random court and say a priest from a church bla bla molested me and I told more people about it without any source whatsoever. Than I would get more 'immature and extreme' responses from those people rather than some bored people who just F5 as a way of protest.

 

Edit: I've been so kind to edit this post with your edit in it. It was originally posted without it.

 

Though the point you bring up is interresting indeed, you can just as easily say that any large body of people has a mob mentality. Proof can be faked on the internet and you might recieve a couple of hatecalls, an email account completely spammed. However considering that proof can also be faked in the real world and can get you imprisoned wrongly for 25 years, I find that Anon is the least of my worries.

 

The problem is that "Proof can be forged". The consequence is that mobs follow proof that has been fed them via whatever medium. Be it news, radio or a messageboard. These mobs are both regular everyday people, or anon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

 

This is what anon basically is. A general population, a couple of them thinking, a couple of them mindless drones. Just like your everyday population. The only difference is that they are completely anonymous and all come together on one messageboard.

 

 

Pretty sure a rational person would, you know, take those pictures to the POLICE


yes.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mob mentality

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

 

This is what anon basically is. A general population, a couple of them thinking, a couple of them mindless drones. Just like your everyday population. The only difference is that they are completely anonymous and all come together on one messageboard.

 

 

Pretty sure a rational person would, you know, take those pictures to the POLICE

 

I do not see what value this reply has other than to make my example look 'invalid'?

I would gladly discuss your views on the matter. But please don't make straw arguements like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

 

This is what anon basically is. A general population, a couple of them thinking, a couple of them mindless drones. Just like your everyday population. The only difference is that they are completely anonymous and all come together on one messageboard.

 

 

Pretty sure a rational person would, you know, take those pictures to the POLICE

 

I do not see what value this reply has other than to make my example look 'invalid'?

I would gladly discuss your views on the matter. But please don't make straw arguements like this.

 

Your hypothetical situation sucks


yes.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

 

This is what anon basically is. A general population, a couple of them thinking, a couple of them mindless drones. Just like your everyday population. The only difference is that they are completely anonymous and all come together on one messageboard.

 

 

Pretty sure a rational person would, you know, take those pictures to the POLICE

 

I do not see what value this reply has other than to make my example look 'invalid'?

I would gladly discuss your views on the matter. But please don't make straw arguements like this.

 

Your hypothetical situation sucks

We at tip.it are proud to have an intelligent, welcoming community. We hope you enjoy your time here.

 

Your hypothetical situation sucks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

We at tip.it are proud to have an intelligent, welcoming community. We hope you enjoy your time here.

 

 

False

 

5.44pm: Just to recap: Assange will remain in prison, at least until the appeal is heard. That seems to be the end of the excitement and confusion – for today at least. I'm off home. Thanks for all your comments.


yes.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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".


99 dungeoneering achieved, thanks to everyone that celebrated with me!

 

♪♪ Don't interrupt me as I struggle to complete this thought
Have some respect for someone more forgetful than yourself ♪♪

♪♪ And I'm not done
And I won't be till my head falls off ♪♪

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.neowin.net/images/uploaded/ANONOPS_The_Press_Release.pdf

 

I'll give you a hypothetical.

 

 

Furah, I just don't plain like you. I'm going to figure out your address, your place of work, find your IP address, and post it for anon. Good luck over the next couple hours, you'll likely to be terrorized by random people that only know of you because I told them you're "bad". I can feed them bull crap information too, like you abuse baby seals, and your torment will last that much longer.

 

No, I'm not going to do that, but I hope you get the idea I'm trying to convey. As apolitical, anarchist or freedom-oriented anon thinks they are, they don't realize that they're just being used by someone else for precisely those reasons they hate the most.

As others have stated, no pics no proof and not your personal army. However, if I was to do something against free-speech or something that Anonymous views as harmful to a cause they're for, then action would be taken against me in a heatbeat.


Steam | PM me for BBM PIN

 

Nine naked men is a technological achievement. Quote of 2013.

 

PCGamingWiki - Let's fix PC gaming!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.


"The cry of the poor is not always just, but if you never hear it you'll never know what justice is."

siggy3s.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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'.

 

The_noob_firestrider.jpg

 

This comic was made in regards to blizzard wanting to enforce real ID on the forums. Just change the people from Gaming company employees to government, and MMO player to Anonymous member and you would likely get something like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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."


yes.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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


yes.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.


yes.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.