It’s War, or it should be

Wikileaks has been the victim of several attempts by those who don’t like it to kill it.  First, there was Bank Julius Baer who tried to suppress it, but lost.  Then there was the raid by the German Police.  Then there were the allegations of rape by Julian Assange, soon proven to be false. We have the high point of the war against wikileaks: Marc Thiessen’s suggestion in the Op-Ed page of the Washington Post that Julian should be killed.  Then there was the smear campaign to imply that wikileaks was funded by the Chinese government.  Now, the U.S. Government has put wikileaks on a list that makes it difficult to make donations to them. There funding may be blocked, but not for long.  And when it is unblocked, there will be even more funding than there was before the blocking.

It is clear that the Golden Rule is operative: he who has the gold makes the rules.  Democracy doesn’t exist, the Free Market does not exist.   If you think wikileaks is doing a good job and want to support them: too bad, because they will destroy your freedom to vote with your dollars and give them money.  Never mind that you have no choice at the polls because because any candidate that stands for real change is shut out of any public forum and arrested.

Well, guess what.  We’re not gonna take take.  I will and have given money to wikileaks again and again and again. If I have to fly to Sweden with my donation in my carry-on luggage, that will be how wikileaks will get their donation from me.  The U.S. government cannot and will not stop me.

The cowards who are hiding behind these repressive and anti-democratic actions need to be exposed as the hypocrites that they are.

Insurance has a purpose, and a time.  I hope that time is soon. But, when wikileaks publishes its next round of leaks, we should remember all those who suffer everyday because of an unjust war, and hope that this release will bring end of the war closer, and the chances of the start of another war that much more remote. The mandatory focus in the mainstream media just after the last leak–the possible use of the data to orchestrate retaliations–is very odd when one considers there was nothing hypothetical about the war crimes documented in the first leak. Thousands of people were killed who shouldn’t have been. Maybe there should be more questions on the perpetrators, rather than those who have exposed the wrong-doing.

Continue reading “It’s War, or it should be”

Advertisements
It’s War, or it should be

The First Amendment was kind of nice; now for something completely different…

It appears  the conviction of the SHAC 7 has been upheld.  Not a good day if you advocate any kind of civil disobedience, as it now appears that advocating civil disobedience=terrorism. Yes, you can be branded a terrorist.  As covered at Green is the New Red:

http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/shac-7-conviction-upheld-on-appeal/2307/

The First Amendment was kind of nice; now for something completely different…

And so it begins…

The war on wikileaks begins with an action in Germany. The powers that be realize just how threatening wikileaks is, and we are about to see all kinds of action, some of it extra-judicial, to suppress wikileaks:

wikileaks-de-raid-20092

From the wikileaks web site:

Shortly after 9pm on Monday the 24th of March 2009, seven police officers in Dresden and four in Jena searched the homes of Theodor Reppe, who holds the domain registration for “wikileaks.de”, the German name for wikileaks.org. According police documentation, the reason for the search was “distribution of pornographic material” and “discovery of evidence”. Police claim the raid was initiated due to Mr. Reppe’s position as the Wikileaks.de domain owner.

Police did not want to give any further information to Mr. Reppe and no contact was made with Wikileaks before or after the search. It is therefore not totally clear why the search was made, however Wikileaks, in its role as a defender of press freedoms, has published censorship lists for Australia, Thailand, Denmark and other countries. Included on the lists are references to sites containing pornography and no other material has been released by Wikileaks relating to the subject.

Some details of the search raise questions:

Wikileaks was not contacted before the search, despite Wikileaks having at least two journalists which are recognized members of the German Press Association (Deutscher Presse Verband).

The time of at least 11 police detectives was wasted conducting a futile raid on the private home of volunteer assistant to a media organization.

Mr Reppe was not informed of his rights; police documentation clearly shows that box to be left unchecked.

Contrary to what is stated in the police protocol, Mr. Reppe did not agree to “not having a witness” present.
Ultimately, Mr Reppe refused to sign the police documentation due to its inaccuracies.

And so it begins…

Everywhere, people are demanding a look at ACTA

The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (probably) contains provisions outlawing certain technologies, and requiring DRM.  But we don’t really know this, because all the negotiations are happening in secret.  This veil of secrecy is being maintained despite the fact that over 100 organizations have called for the ACTA process to be made transparent.

But that veil of secrecy has been partly lifted by documents published at wikileaks.

But why do we have to fight for provisions of a proposed treaty to be made public, after all is this Europe and America we are talking about, or some banana republic, run for the benefit of just a few?

Of course, everyone is paying attention to the bailout/stimulus packages, so what if a few freedoms evaporate while no one’s looking?  It’s not like anybody every sacrificed anything to get those freedoms, they were just handed to us, we don’t have any responsibility to protect them, and preserve them for future generations, do we?

In Europe, the Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure:

EU Council deliberately obstructs access to ACTA documents Brussels, 13 January 2009 —

The Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure (FFII) has filed a complaint with the Ombudsman against the EU Council for deliberately obstructing access to Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) documents. As stated by an other participant in the negotiations, the EU has agreed to keep ACTA drafts secret. This way the EU hinders the proper application of Regulation 1049/2001 regarding public access to documents. The FFII asks for immediate publication of the documents. Public interest organisations are concerned ACTA may limit access to medicines, limit access to the internet, give patent trolls free reign and harm the most innovative sectors of the economy. According to a New Zealand government website, participants in the ACTA negotiations “have agreed that the draft final text will be made public at the end of negotiations before governments consider signing.” FFII analyst Ante Wessels comments: “This implies that the EU has agreed to keep earlier draft texts secret. Regulation 1049/2001 for public access to documents does list some exceptions to transparency, but those exceptions must be interpreted and applied strictly. Making agreements to keep texts secret goes much further than allowed. The Council deliberately obstructs access to ACTA documents.” As a solution the FFII proposes that the documents have to be made accessible. The EU may also withdraw from the ACTA negotiations.

And in America, the Free Software Foundation:

Speak out against ACTA

ACTA, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, is a proposed enforcement treaty between United States, the European Community, Switzerland, Japan, Australia, the Republic of Korea, New Zealand and Mexico, with Canada set to join any day now. Although the proposed treaty’s title might suggest that the agreement deals only with counterfeit physical goods (such as medicines), what little information has been made available publicly by negotiating governments about the content of the treaty makes it clear that it will have a far broader scope, and in particular, will deal with new tools targeting “Internet distribution and information technology”.

Everywhere, people are demanding a look at ACTA

Is anyone really surprised about this?

Interesting story at MSNBC covered at the blog Big Bear Observation post.  Apparently the NSA had been keeping a very long list of Americans considered to be dangerous.  About 60% of Americans must be on the list, as opposition to the War in Iraq seems to be a criteria. Gotta love the new label for those on the list: “socially dangerous”  I’d be very disappointed if I am not on that list.  

The really interesting story though will be if the Obama administration cancells this program (almost certainly they will) and if they release the list of those socially dangerous people.  The cover for not releasing the information will be that ‘they don’t want to violate the privacy’ of those wrongly accussed.  Next, will be for the list to find it’s way to wikileaks anyway.  That’s when the story will get interesting.  There could even be a fake list as part of a disinformation campaign. Next step: crowdsourcing the analysis of the different lists…all speculation for now, of course…

Continue reading “Is anyone really surprised about this?”

Is anyone really surprised about this?

The new terrorists–Bike lane advocates

Thank heavens our tax dollars are being spent safeguarding us from the evils of—bike lanes.   You can’t make this stuff up.  From Truthout…:

New documents reveal Maryland program’s reach.

Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, January 4, 2009; Page A01 The Maryland State Police surveillance of advocacy groups was far more extensive than previously acknowledged, with records showing that troopers monitored – and labeled as terrorists – activists devoted to such wide-ranging causes as promoting human rights and establishing bike lanes.

Intelligence officers created a voluminous file on Norfolk-based People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, calling the group a “security threat” because of concerns that members would disrupt the circus. Angry consumers fighting a 72 percent electricity rate increase in 2006 were targeted. The DC Anti-War Network, which opposes the Iraq war, was designated a white supremacist group, without explanation.

One of the possible “crimes” in the file police opened on Amnesty International, a world-renowned human rights group: “civil rights.”

But some observers say Sept. 11 opened the door. “No one was thinking this was al-Qaeda,” said Stephen H. Sachs, a former U.S. attorney and state attorney general appointed by Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) to review the case. “But 9/11 created an atmosphere where cutting corners was easier.”

Maryland has not been alone. The FBI and police departments in several cities, including Denver in 2002 and New York before the 2004 Republican National Convention, also responded to the threat of terrorism by spying on activists.

Sachs’s review, released in October, condemned the Maryland spying as a severe lapse in judgment. No one has been reprimanded or fired, and the undercover trooper has been promoted twice.

The new terrorists–Bike lane advocates

Iraq, as El Salvador, rather than Vietnam

An interesting post over at wikileaks, which is the United States Counter Insurgency Manual, officially the US Special Forces doctrine for Foreign Internal Defense. There are perhaps some other titles for this book, which is basically a HOW-TO for the institution of a fascist police state. Some excerpts suggest that the present template for success in Iraq is based on the experience in El Salvador. Of course, although the U.S. did not lose El Salvador in a straight-forward military sense, in the civil war there from 1980 to about 1992 about 70,000 civilians were killed, including Archbishop Romero and several Jesuit Priests, which e_f has covered here. So, in a moral sense, the dirty war in El Salvador did great damage to the U.S.A., but here is the proof that those in power consider a War where many innocent civilans are needlessly slaughtered as a victory. The manual advocates accusing those who oppose the regime in any way with terrorism, and immediately charging them and any of their supporters with terrorism. Unbelievable, but brought to you courtesy of Web 2.0. It also tells the U.S. military how to do those all-important things like: concealing human rights abuses from journalists. Which just leaves me asking: Who are the real terrorists?

Of course, the other question is: If this manual has been leaked, and available since at least Monday, why hasn’t it been covered by the mainstream US media yet? What’s going on here?

More and links to the manual below…

Continue reading “Iraq, as El Salvador, rather than Vietnam”

Iraq, as El Salvador, rather than Vietnam