24.12.10
nucular games in a nuclear world
It seems some of the background in this case has been left out - namely, that the CIA had previously (and unwittingly) provided other states with detailed blueprints for nuclear weapons - specifically, information key to constructing the high-explosive lens and positioning them around the plutonium sphere that sits at the center of nuclear weapons.
There are allegations that some designs were previously provided as part of a CIA sting operation, and that certain key components were mis-drawn on the blueprints - but this latter fact was apparently known to the recipients - see NYT Reporter James Risen in "State of War." Excerpted here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk...
However, Iran has no capacity to construct plutonium cores - that tends to require a dedicated reactor - technically:
"Weapon-grade plutonium (WGPu)-plutonium that typically contains 6 percent or less of the isotopes Pu-240 and Pu-242, isotopes that makes design of nuclear weapons increasingly more difficult. WGPU is created when U-238 is irradiated in a nuclear reactor for only a short period of time."
In order to make a powerful nuclear weapon that can fit on a missile, it is generally thought necessary to use tritium as a booster - technically:
"To fission more of a given amount of fissile material, a small amount of material that can undergo fusion, deuterium and tritium (D-T) gas, can be placed inside the core of a fission device. Here, just as the fission chain reaction gets underway, the D-T gas undergoes fusion, releasing an intense burst of high-energy neutrons (along with a small amount of fusion energy as well) that fissions the surrounding material more completely. This approach, called boosting, is used in most modem nuclear weapons to maintain their yields while greatly decreasing their overall size and weight."
(Technologies Underlying Weapons of Mass Destruction, December 1993, OTA-BP-ISC-115)
The key point here is that Iran has neither Pu-239 nor tritium generating capabilities (unlike perhaps the other nuclear powers - Israel, Pakistan, and India) - and hence is no more of a "nuclear threat" than Iraq was, despite the hype.
Why does this matter? It means that the U.S. claims about the need to protect Europe from assault with ballistic missiles from Iran "tipped with chemical, biological or nuclear weapons" is just as implausible as similar claims about Iraqi WMD potential. The only reasons such claims are being floated is to justify the grotesque expense of a useless "missile defense shield" - something neocons have been pushing ever since the 1980s, but now with Obama's support. Insane.
This also raises another question regarding the current Swiss case: who ultimately provided these designs? Consider the following Risen excerpt:
"Operation Merlin has been one of the most closely guarded secrets in the Clinton and Bush administrations. It's not clear who originally came up with the idea, but the plan was first approved by Clinton. After the Russian scientist's fateful trip to Vienna, however, the Merlin operation was endorsed by the Bush administration, possibly with an eye toward repeating it against North Korea or other dangerous states."
Did they perhaps try this scheme a second time, with the same results?
More to the point, Switzerland is in a rather strange position with regards to nuclear energy, being something of a large investor in nuclear power concerns. See this from the Swiss ambassador (Aug 2008)
"On India’s nuclear deal with the US, Mr Dreyer said that his government recognised the importance of nuclear energy for India’s economic growth, but his country had not decided whether it would support the deal in the nuclear suppliers group (NSG) meeting later this month. “Government of Switzerland is very much in favour of India developing nuclear energy but it is also concerned about problem of non-proliferation,” he said talking to the media on Friday."
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com...
The actual nature of the deal with India is that it violates the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The U.S. Congress tried to sidestep this issue by saying the deal only applies to India's "civilian reactors", not to its military reactors (the ones engaged in irradiating U238 to create P239 for use in weapons production). Note also that India and Pakistan refuse to sign the NPT, and the U.S. won't pressure them to.
The terms of this deal are strange indeed:
"In a major success for India’s nuclear ambitions, the 46-member Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) on September 6, 2008 granted it a crucial waiver enabling India to carry out nuclear commerce and ending 34 years of isolation which started after the 1974 Pokharan nuclear tests. The decision to grant India a waiver is unprecedented in the history of the NSG since India has neither signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) nor the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT)."
Now, Iran - which has signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty - is again being portrayed as a nuclear weapons threat. This is a ridiculous assertion, not backed by any reliable evidence - much like the false claims about Iraqi WMDs. They have no means of producing plutonium - something the U.S. won't discuss. Also, under the NPT terms, Iran has a right to join the Nuclear Suppliers Group and sell enriched uranium to countries with nuclear power stations.
As far as Assange and Wikileaks, that looks more and more like some kind of covert propaganda campaign - for example, the 'leaked' diplomatic cables from Arab states urging military action against Iran?
"The fact of the leaks is not necessarily a bad thing," said Laipson. "It is part of the way Iran gets the message that within the region that they will look to the United States and outside to protect them. Iran does not want us to have such a robust presence in the region."
That would be Ellen Laipson, Member, President’s Intelligence Advisory Board - supporting the Wikileaks agenda? Strange days indeed.
The real goals, as usual, probably have more to do with the U.S. desire to control fossil fuel production and sales in the Middle East and Central Asia, and keep Iran from delivering natural gas to India via a trans-Pakistan pipeline - much as the real goals in Iraq were all about the control of Iraqi oil output.
Given this state of affairs, it's no wonder the U.S. State Department or the CIA doesn't want to see the Swiss bring up Operation Merlin or anything related to it.
There are allegations that some designs were previously provided as part of a CIA sting operation, and that certain key components were mis-drawn on the blueprints - but this latter fact was apparently known to the recipients - see NYT Reporter James Risen in "State of War." Excerpted here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk...
However, Iran has no capacity to construct plutonium cores - that tends to require a dedicated reactor - technically:
"Weapon-grade plutonium (WGPu)-plutonium that typically contains 6 percent or less of the isotopes Pu-240 and Pu-242, isotopes that makes design of nuclear weapons increasingly more difficult. WGPU is created when U-238 is irradiated in a nuclear reactor for only a short period of time."
In order to make a powerful nuclear weapon that can fit on a missile, it is generally thought necessary to use tritium as a booster - technically:
"To fission more of a given amount of fissile material, a small amount of material that can undergo fusion, deuterium and tritium (D-T) gas, can be placed inside the core of a fission device. Here, just as the fission chain reaction gets underway, the D-T gas undergoes fusion, releasing an intense burst of high-energy neutrons (along with a small amount of fusion energy as well) that fissions the surrounding material more completely. This approach, called boosting, is used in most modem nuclear weapons to maintain their yields while greatly decreasing their overall size and weight."
(Technologies Underlying Weapons of Mass Destruction, December 1993, OTA-BP-ISC-115)
The key point here is that Iran has neither Pu-239 nor tritium generating capabilities (unlike perhaps the other nuclear powers - Israel, Pakistan, and India) - and hence is no more of a "nuclear threat" than Iraq was, despite the hype.
Why does this matter? It means that the U.S. claims about the need to protect Europe from assault with ballistic missiles from Iran "tipped with chemical, biological or nuclear weapons" is just as implausible as similar claims about Iraqi WMD potential. The only reasons such claims are being floated is to justify the grotesque expense of a useless "missile defense shield" - something neocons have been pushing ever since the 1980s, but now with Obama's support. Insane.
This also raises another question regarding the current Swiss case: who ultimately provided these designs? Consider the following Risen excerpt:
"Operation Merlin has been one of the most closely guarded secrets in the Clinton and Bush administrations. It's not clear who originally came up with the idea, but the plan was first approved by Clinton. After the Russian scientist's fateful trip to Vienna, however, the Merlin operation was endorsed by the Bush administration, possibly with an eye toward repeating it against North Korea or other dangerous states."
Did they perhaps try this scheme a second time, with the same results?
More to the point, Switzerland is in a rather strange position with regards to nuclear energy, being something of a large investor in nuclear power concerns. See this from the Swiss ambassador (Aug 2008)
"On India’s nuclear deal with the US, Mr Dreyer said that his government recognised the importance of nuclear energy for India’s economic growth, but his country had not decided whether it would support the deal in the nuclear suppliers group (NSG) meeting later this month. “Government of Switzerland is very much in favour of India developing nuclear energy but it is also concerned about problem of non-proliferation,” he said talking to the media on Friday."
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com...
The actual nature of the deal with India is that it violates the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The U.S. Congress tried to sidestep this issue by saying the deal only applies to India's "civilian reactors", not to its military reactors (the ones engaged in irradiating U238 to create P239 for use in weapons production). Note also that India and Pakistan refuse to sign the NPT, and the U.S. won't pressure them to.
The terms of this deal are strange indeed:
"In a major success for India’s nuclear ambitions, the 46-member Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) on September 6, 2008 granted it a crucial waiver enabling India to carry out nuclear commerce and ending 34 years of isolation which started after the 1974 Pokharan nuclear tests. The decision to grant India a waiver is unprecedented in the history of the NSG since India has neither signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) nor the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT)."
Now, Iran - which has signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty - is again being portrayed as a nuclear weapons threat. This is a ridiculous assertion, not backed by any reliable evidence - much like the false claims about Iraqi WMDs. They have no means of producing plutonium - something the U.S. won't discuss. Also, under the NPT terms, Iran has a right to join the Nuclear Suppliers Group and sell enriched uranium to countries with nuclear power stations.
As far as Assange and Wikileaks, that looks more and more like some kind of covert propaganda campaign - for example, the 'leaked' diplomatic cables from Arab states urging military action against Iran?
"The fact of the leaks is not necessarily a bad thing," said Laipson. "It is part of the way Iran gets the message that within the region that they will look to the United States and outside to protect them. Iran does not want us to have such a robust presence in the region."
That would be Ellen Laipson, Member, President’s Intelligence Advisory Board - supporting the Wikileaks agenda? Strange days indeed.
The real goals, as usual, probably have more to do with the U.S. desire to control fossil fuel production and sales in the Middle East and Central Asia, and keep Iran from delivering natural gas to India via a trans-Pakistan pipeline - much as the real goals in Iraq were all about the control of Iraqi oil output.
Given this state of affairs, it's no wonder the U.S. State Department or the CIA doesn't want to see the Swiss bring up Operation Merlin or anything related to it.
17.12.10
more lessons, still
Paul Krugman writes about:
Wall Street Whitewash
The financial crisis has provided a teachable moment, all right, but not the one first expected.
His last 2 sentences are:
Never mind relearning the case for bank regulation; what we learned, instead, is what happens when an ideology backed by vast wealth and immense power confronts inconvenient facts. And the answer is, the facts lose.
W in the Middle
New York State
Paul, the lesson was - and still is - there for the learning. But you've got to lose the ideological lens.
Your last couple of sentences could've been a conservative's observation instead of a liberal's - except about ObamaCare or global warming, instead of banking.
The non-ideological lesson should be:
> That things go down in a market faster than they go up (except toward the peak of a bubble), is because the dynamic is different. Investing begets greed begets fear begets panic. And this has been the case, for a long time.
> What's different now are two things:
1. We can make things go up and down faster, using computers.
2. We can make things go up and down more often, using computers.
The first is simply running things on Internet time. The second is more insidious - it's like beating the surface of a still lake with a big paddle to create white water where there shouldn't be any. And then charging $50/day for whitewater raft rentals, instead of $10/day for canoe rentals.
With the second, financial folks no longer need big bubbles to grab the cash. They can simply keep skimming the false frothiness they create - even in a sideways market - to separate the small fish from their money.
False frothiness can take many forms.
> An overdraft fee that is several times the size of the average transaction - and engineered to trigger as many times as possible - for the same set of transactions.
> Put/call options that are several-times overpriced, because of the elegant self-consistency of Black-Scholes (i.e. if I falsely jiggle the market up and down, the price basis for options increases - which a broker can then use as evidence that options are a great investment, increasing the demand and the broker premium).
> Derivatives markets engineered - like option ARM mortgages - with exorbitant overcommissions, that become self-sustaining. Because of the army of willing brokers they enlist, who are willing to be the bad apple at the bottom of the transaction chain - while the banks point at their lawyers, rating agencies, and regulators, with the deniability borne of complexity, and say: "wewuzjustdoinwhattheysezwecoulddo".
But here's how badly we're not learning.
We'd had payday loans and company stores, for a long time.
Except now our banks are trying to attain the margin structure of payday lenders. And we continue to let them do so (there is hope - I saw the proposed fee structure for debit cards...a glimmer of daylight).
On the other hand, Walmart is the antithesis of the company store. Yet, we won't them obtain a bank charter, or sell to our poorest inner-city folks.
Go figure.
Wall Street Whitewash
The financial crisis has provided a teachable moment, all right, but not the one first expected.
His last 2 sentences are:
Never mind relearning the case for bank regulation; what we learned, instead, is what happens when an ideology backed by vast wealth and immense power confronts inconvenient facts. And the answer is, the facts lose.
W in the Middle
New York State
Paul, the lesson was - and still is - there for the learning. But you've got to lose the ideological lens.
Your last couple of sentences could've been a conservative's observation instead of a liberal's - except about ObamaCare or global warming, instead of banking.
The non-ideological lesson should be:
> That things go down in a market faster than they go up (except toward the peak of a bubble), is because the dynamic is different. Investing begets greed begets fear begets panic. And this has been the case, for a long time.
> What's different now are two things:
1. We can make things go up and down faster, using computers.
2. We can make things go up and down more often, using computers.
The first is simply running things on Internet time. The second is more insidious - it's like beating the surface of a still lake with a big paddle to create white water where there shouldn't be any. And then charging $50/day for whitewater raft rentals, instead of $10/day for canoe rentals.
With the second, financial folks no longer need big bubbles to grab the cash. They can simply keep skimming the false frothiness they create - even in a sideways market - to separate the small fish from their money.
False frothiness can take many forms.
> An overdraft fee that is several times the size of the average transaction - and engineered to trigger as many times as possible - for the same set of transactions.
> Put/call options that are several-times overpriced, because of the elegant self-consistency of Black-Scholes (i.e. if I falsely jiggle the market up and down, the price basis for options increases - which a broker can then use as evidence that options are a great investment, increasing the demand and the broker premium).
> Derivatives markets engineered - like option ARM mortgages - with exorbitant overcommissions, that become self-sustaining. Because of the army of willing brokers they enlist, who are willing to be the bad apple at the bottom of the transaction chain - while the banks point at their lawyers, rating agencies, and regulators, with the deniability borne of complexity, and say: "wewuzjustdoinwhattheysezwecoulddo".
But here's how badly we're not learning.
We'd had payday loans and company stores, for a long time.
Except now our banks are trying to attain the margin structure of payday lenders. And we continue to let them do so (there is hope - I saw the proposed fee structure for debit cards...a glimmer of daylight).
On the other hand, Walmart is the antithesis of the company store. Yet, we won't them obtain a bank charter, or sell to our poorest inner-city folks.
Go figure.
the left is a step short to even count
Neiman03
McKeesport, Pa
Democrats, liberals, and progressives -- whatever that ilk wants to call themselves -- cannot blame conservatives and true believers in government-is-always-the-problem for having lost the framing battle. The financial industry is getting away with all of this because the left seems too busy whining about the media or lamenting the lack of sophistication in the public. The left simply hasn't used its base in universities, among public servants, and among communities of color to match the militancy of the right -- at least not in recent years. At a time when public institutions are weaker than they've been in decades, we have a conservative movement that has convinced Americans are oppressed by public institutions. While individuals have never been more vulnerable to the whims and wild conduct of profit-seeking firms, conservatives, with the able assistance of an activist, conservative Supreme Court majority, have mobilized a movement which holds that it is their governments that are the main threat to their well being. Ever since GOP rent-a-mobs showed up at Florida election registrar offices to disrupt that state's recount, progressives have failed to match the vigor and ruthlessness of their opponents. Liberals keep bringing ping pong paddles to a street fight. I dearly respect Krugman, but I'm frustrated that his formidable abilities are not directed at inspiring the direct action we need, focused on the appropriate targets. Please someone help us to waken enough Americans to the fact that they're being played for suckers, again and again and again.
McKeesport, Pa
Democrats, liberals, and progressives -- whatever that ilk wants to call themselves -- cannot blame conservatives and true believers in government-is-always-the-problem for having lost the framing battle. The financial industry is getting away with all of this because the left seems too busy whining about the media or lamenting the lack of sophistication in the public. The left simply hasn't used its base in universities, among public servants, and among communities of color to match the militancy of the right -- at least not in recent years. At a time when public institutions are weaker than they've been in decades, we have a conservative movement that has convinced Americans are oppressed by public institutions. While individuals have never been more vulnerable to the whims and wild conduct of profit-seeking firms, conservatives, with the able assistance of an activist, conservative Supreme Court majority, have mobilized a movement which holds that it is their governments that are the main threat to their well being. Ever since GOP rent-a-mobs showed up at Florida election registrar offices to disrupt that state's recount, progressives have failed to match the vigor and ruthlessness of their opponents. Liberals keep bringing ping pong paddles to a street fight. I dearly respect Krugman, but I'm frustrated that his formidable abilities are not directed at inspiring the direct action we need, focused on the appropriate targets. Please someone help us to waken enough Americans to the fact that they're being played for suckers, again and again and again.
15.12.10
propaganda and a way to influence your emotions and behavior
U.S. Rethinks Strategy for the Unthinkable
By WILLIAM J. BROAD
The Obama administration wants to convey how to react to a nuclear attack but is worried about seeming alarmist.
Reactions:
Laughingdragon
California
Funny story...I was working at Sandia National Labs in Livermore, CA 1993-1996 as a technical information specialist/librarian and then acting librarian. And this is no secret...
One day, one of the secretaries came in to talk to me. And she said that she had boarded a plane, traveling as a private individual. And that, as the aircraft was ready to take off, someone came onto the plane and made a production of finding her and ordered her to deplane, while holding the plane and all the passengers. And that no one explained or said anything to her about it but they took her into the terminal and held onto her for awhile. Eventually they let her board the plane again and they let the plane and all it's passenger's take off. No one said anything to her and no one gave her an explanation. She was still slightly shook-up when she told me this and she asked me what I thought of it. Now I'd been a low level analyst in the military and I had known people on spoofing teams, the kind that test security on military bases so I told her then..."I don't know why but they were testing something. They chose you because you work here, at the lab, and if you wanted to make a fuss they could influence you not to. But I have no idea why." And that's where it lay. Until I saw what happened post 9/11.
My opinion, now, is that there were "civil defense" research projects going then to see just how docile people were. And what kind of reactions could be expected if the government wanted to order them around. And I don't like this nonsense about nuclear shelters and such, as protection from nuclear attack.
Because, you can bet your bottom dollar that if nuclear attack ever comes...you will be out there, unprotected and without refuge. Just as the people in New Orleans were under Hurricane Katrina.
Everything else is just propaganda and a way to influence your emotions and behavior.
pm
brooklyn
The Bush 9/11 tactics, TSA, and now this... I'm more angry than I could ever be afraid.
Community Gardens
Plum Tree
This sounds bad... Is this how he plans to stay in power? Perhaps the creation of a situation like this?
Maria
NY
I was a young elementary school girl and lived through those days. Marched out into the hall to stand in perfect silence, away from doors and windows. It created a backdrop of anxiety that it was possible we could be blown away at any time.
matt
long island
How interesting that this story coincides with Israel's announcement that its missile defenses will not protect civilian targets, only military ones. we are indeed cannon fodder.
Here is UPI story (copyright, I'm sure)
Israel general drops missile defense bombshell
by Staff Writers
Tel Aviv, Israel (UPI) Dec 14, 2010
Maj. Gen. Gadi Eisenkot, commander of Israel's northern front, has dropped a bombshell by disclosing that the anti-missile systems the defense industry has developed are intended to protect the country's military installations, not its cities and civilian population.
"The residents of Israel shouldn't be under the illusion that someone will open an umbrella over the heads" in the event of a massive missile and rocket
attack by Israel's enemies, he declared in a speech Sunday at the University of Haifa.
"The systems are designed to protect military bases, even if this means that citizens suffer discomfort during the days of battle."
ShowMe
Missouri
The last straw!!! The lies that have been promulgated by many in government and the media make me believe that a little nuclear attack may be the strategy for the unthinkable, when free citizens of the USA are finally sheep-herded into complete control by the plutocracy.
chris leide
upstate NY
Other explosion results: Lots of good comments about the cold war, bomb shelters, and the need to recognize shelter should you see a blast in the distance. No one seems to be talking about other results nuclear explosions.
Many think that the next war involving nuclear weapons will not be ground attacks that devastate cities and parts of countries, but will be a few strategic atmospheric blasts sending electro-magnetic pulses (EMP's) that will disable computers and electronic systems, either in a smaller scale as explosions over the US or the Russia or China, or that may disable systems globally.
EMP's disable electronic devices. With computers and all things controlled by microprocessors, our known world may end. No micro waves ovens, no cars controlled by computers. No TV's, no sewer processing plants, no DVD players. No iPods, no government action. NO CELL PHONES!!!! The end might not come from radiation poisoning, or direct destruction from the actual explosions, but from our reliance on computers and micro processor that will be disabled by the EMP's.
Cities will go black, ships will founder at sea, and planes will fall from the sky.
It will be cold and dark in the hell that we created. Death will come slowly to many of us accustomed to modern conveniences.
Sorry for the gloomy future cast. Just analyzing well-known options that few seem to want to discuss.
By WILLIAM J. BROAD
The Obama administration wants to convey how to react to a nuclear attack but is worried about seeming alarmist.
Reactions:
Laughingdragon
California
Funny story...I was working at Sandia National Labs in Livermore, CA 1993-1996 as a technical information specialist/librarian and then acting librarian. And this is no secret...
One day, one of the secretaries came in to talk to me. And she said that she had boarded a plane, traveling as a private individual. And that, as the aircraft was ready to take off, someone came onto the plane and made a production of finding her and ordered her to deplane, while holding the plane and all the passengers. And that no one explained or said anything to her about it but they took her into the terminal and held onto her for awhile. Eventually they let her board the plane again and they let the plane and all it's passenger's take off. No one said anything to her and no one gave her an explanation. She was still slightly shook-up when she told me this and she asked me what I thought of it. Now I'd been a low level analyst in the military and I had known people on spoofing teams, the kind that test security on military bases so I told her then..."I don't know why but they were testing something. They chose you because you work here, at the lab, and if you wanted to make a fuss they could influence you not to. But I have no idea why." And that's where it lay. Until I saw what happened post 9/11.
My opinion, now, is that there were "civil defense" research projects going then to see just how docile people were. And what kind of reactions could be expected if the government wanted to order them around. And I don't like this nonsense about nuclear shelters and such, as protection from nuclear attack.
Because, you can bet your bottom dollar that if nuclear attack ever comes...you will be out there, unprotected and without refuge. Just as the people in New Orleans were under Hurricane Katrina.
Everything else is just propaganda and a way to influence your emotions and behavior.
pm
brooklyn
The Bush 9/11 tactics, TSA, and now this... I'm more angry than I could ever be afraid.
Community Gardens
Plum Tree
This sounds bad... Is this how he plans to stay in power? Perhaps the creation of a situation like this?
Maria
NY
I was a young elementary school girl and lived through those days. Marched out into the hall to stand in perfect silence, away from doors and windows. It created a backdrop of anxiety that it was possible we could be blown away at any time.
matt
long island
How interesting that this story coincides with Israel's announcement that its missile defenses will not protect civilian targets, only military ones. we are indeed cannon fodder.
Here is UPI story (copyright, I'm sure)
Israel general drops missile defense bombshell
by Staff Writers
Tel Aviv, Israel (UPI) Dec 14, 2010
Maj. Gen. Gadi Eisenkot, commander of Israel's northern front, has dropped a bombshell by disclosing that the anti-missile systems the defense industry has developed are intended to protect the country's military installations, not its cities and civilian population.
"The residents of Israel shouldn't be under the illusion that someone will open an umbrella over the heads" in the event of a massive missile and rocket
attack by Israel's enemies, he declared in a speech Sunday at the University of Haifa.
"The systems are designed to protect military bases, even if this means that citizens suffer discomfort during the days of battle."
ShowMe
Missouri
The last straw!!! The lies that have been promulgated by many in government and the media make me believe that a little nuclear attack may be the strategy for the unthinkable, when free citizens of the USA are finally sheep-herded into complete control by the plutocracy.
chris leide
upstate NY
Other explosion results: Lots of good comments about the cold war, bomb shelters, and the need to recognize shelter should you see a blast in the distance. No one seems to be talking about other results nuclear explosions.
Many think that the next war involving nuclear weapons will not be ground attacks that devastate cities and parts of countries, but will be a few strategic atmospheric blasts sending electro-magnetic pulses (EMP's) that will disable computers and electronic systems, either in a smaller scale as explosions over the US or the Russia or China, or that may disable systems globally.
EMP's disable electronic devices. With computers and all things controlled by microprocessors, our known world may end. No micro waves ovens, no cars controlled by computers. No TV's, no sewer processing plants, no DVD players. No iPods, no government action. NO CELL PHONES!!!! The end might not come from radiation poisoning, or direct destruction from the actual explosions, but from our reliance on computers and micro processor that will be disabled by the EMP's.
Cities will go black, ships will founder at sea, and planes will fall from the sky.
It will be cold and dark in the hell that we created. Death will come slowly to many of us accustomed to modern conveniences.
Sorry for the gloomy future cast. Just analyzing well-known options that few seem to want to discuss.
6.12.10
Assange, Wikileaks & US
I don't think Assange has that many chances to survive into 2011. This is most unfortunate because whatever trace is left in people's minds about the image of the US is going to be blown into pieces. The world will turn cynical, I fear for much worse.
If we wanted a better course of action, we should have thought as if the Cold War were still going on. Then we should have thanked Mr. Assange in whatever terms, retired Mrs. Clinton for her request for spying on the UN officials, and returned to work by filling in whatever gaps wikileaks has been exposing in our whole system.
As for the justice coming from the Swedes, or our own private and self-appointed law enforcers (Amazon, PayPal, etc.), what more can I say? ...true to form.
Marianne Ny: Making an arse of Swedish law.
Written By: lprent - Date published: 4:28 pm, December 4th, 2010 - 66 comments
Categories: International, activism, us politics - Tags: julian assange, sweden, wikileaks
Categories: International, activism, us politics - Tags: julian assange, sweden, wikileaks
With all of the drama surrounding the Wikileaks release of US government diplomatic wires which I and others do not find surprising. What has been intriguing me more is the behavior of the Sweden’s director of public prosecutions, Marianne Ny. The available information on her charges and actions against Julian Assange, the founder and head of Wikileaks, indicates that she is driven more by the politics than any respect for the law. Assange’s current lawyer compares her to role of the infamous Beria in Stalins 1930′s show trials – and from what I can see I’d have to agree. Similarly I fail to see why Interpol is involved for such a minor charge
Apparently the charge is question is something pretty weird called “sex by surprise”
The facts of the case do not appear to be in any dispute by either side.
Why did Interpol accept it? There isn’t even an arrest warrant against Assange in Sweden. Apparently because Sweden’s director of public prosecutions, Marianne Ny claimed that Julian Assange had ‘fled’ to avoid answering questions. However the facts that have not been disputed by the Swedish prosecutor or her staff is that Julian Assange has made statements to both the police and the prosecutors after staying in Sweden to do so, was given permission to leave the country by the prosecutors, and has offered to answer questions in Britian including at the Swedish embassy.
Of even more concern is the conditions attached to the red notice. When it was issued on November 18th it requested that Assange would be
But it is pretty clear that Marianne Ny is not acting for the law in Sweden – she is using the law and the Interpol process on the flimsiest pretext. It is clear that you can’t call this rape despite what the prosecutors in Sweden say and has been blasted all over the US media.
Sure, Assange should probably answer more questions – if only to get this on again, off again, on again accusation settled. But there is no reason that cannot be done in the relative safety of the embassy in London. Since the charges do not carry a custodial sentence then there should be no reason to put Assange in prison to answer questions. That just makes him an easy to get at target for the various groups that are proposing to kill or imprison him on trumped up charges from countries like the US to which he owes no duty.
Bearing in mind the US policies of grabbing suspects from friendly states with poor legal systems and throwing them into concentration camps like Guantanamo Bay for interrogation, I can see why Assange would not want to put in the control of a show trial prosecutor like Ny.
Marianne Ny is just making an arse of Swedish law and holding it up as a laughing stock to the rest of the world.
BTW: If anyone is having problems accessing Wikileaks, then try this link
Apparently the charge is question is something pretty weird called “sex by surprise”
Assange’s London attorney, Mark Stephens, told AOL News today that Swedish prosecutors told him that Assange is wanted not for allegations of rape, as previously reported, but for something called “sex by surprise,” which he said involves a fine of 5,000 kronor or about $715.This would not be regarded as being rape here or apparently anywhere else apart from Sweden. Specifically in this case it appears to revolve around the use of condoms. I’d have to point out here (probably with too much information) that I was conceived because of a condom failure. Over the years I have had a few failures of condoms and failed to use condoms when I should have. It happens in the passion to the best of us. Fortunately I haven’t had the consequence of either issue or STD’s.
The facts of the case do not appear to be in any dispute by either side.
Assange arrived in Sweden on Aug. 11 to speak at a weekend seminar sponsored by the Social Democratic Party and arranged to stay at a Stockholm apartment belonging to the event organizer, a member of the branch of the party who would become one of Assange’s two accusers.While in Sweden Assange had sex with another woman a few days after meeting her at a function hosted by the first woman.
According to a police report obtained by the Daily Mail in August, she and Assange had sex, and at some point the condom broke. While she was apparently not happy about the condom breaking, the two were seen the next day at the seminar, and nothing appeared amiss.
The woman and Assange also reportedly had sex. According to the Daily Mail account, Assange did not use a condom at least one time during their sexual activity. The New York Times today quoted accounts given by the women to police and friends as saying Assange “did not comply with her appeals to stop when (the condom) was no longer in use.”The woman discovered that Assange had sex with both of them, and a few days later went to the police. This is where the legal system in Sweden gets somewhat strange and muddled.
Based on what was said to police, the on-call prosecutor, Marie Kjellstrand, decided to issue an arrest warrant on charges of rape and molestation, and the next day the story hit the Swedish paper Expressen and newspapers all over the world.The best information about what was going on comes from Melbourne barrister James D. Catlin, who acted for Julian Assange in London in October. Of course this is one-sided. However there appears to be nothing to contradict this in the media storm raging in Sweden with statements from the prosecutors or the woman or their lawyer.
Kjellstrand’s decision was overruled the following day by a higher-level prosecutor, Eva Finne, who withdrew the arrest warrant and said she did not see any evidence for rape allegations.
Then, on Sept. 1, a third prosecutor, Ny, re-opened the rape investigation, implying that she had new information in the case.
The women here are near to and over 30 and have international experience, some of it working in Swedish government embassies. There is no suggestion of drugs nor identity concealment. Far from it. Both women boasted of their celebrity connection to Assange after the events that they would now see him destroyed for.So why exactly is there a red notice lodged with Interpol over this? In the 188 countries that are part of Interpol, there are a bit over five thousand notices given each year for murderers, fraudsters, actual rapists, and other serious crimes. A crime that has a maximum penalty of USD715 and no potential jail time is a minor offense, and appears to be more a case of social ineptitude on both sides than anything else.
That further evidence hasn’t been confected to make the charges less absurd does Sweden no credit because it has no choice in the matter. The phenomena of social networking through the internet and mobile phones constrains Swedish authorities from augmenting the evidence against Assange because it would look even less credible in the face of tweets by Anna Ardin and SMS texts by Sofia Wilén boasting of their respective conquests after the “crimes”.
In the case of Ardin it is clear that she has thrown a party in Assange’s honour at her flat after the “crime” and tweeted to her followers that she is with the “the world’s coolest smartest people, it’s amazing!”. Go on the internet and see for yourself. That Ardin has sought unsuccessfully to delete these exculpatory tweets from the public record should be a matter of grave concern. That she has published on the internet a guide on how to get revenge on cheating boyfriends ever graver. The exact content of Wilén’s mobile phone texts is not yet known but their bragging and exculpatory character has been confirmed by Swedish prosecutors. Niether Wilén’s nor Ardin’s texts complain of rape.
But then neither Arden nor Wilén complained to the police but rather “sought advice”, a technique in Sweden enabling citizens to avoid just punishment for making false complaints. They sought advice together, having collaborated and irrevocably tainted each other’s evidence beforehand. Their SMS texts to each other show a plan to contact the Swedish newspaper Expressen beforehand in order to maximise the damage to Assange. They belong to the same political group and attended a public lecture given by Assange and organised by them. You can see Wilén on the YouTube video of the event even now.
Of course, their celebrity lawyer Claes Borgström was questioned as to how the women themselves could be essentially contradicting the legal characterisation of Swedish prosecutors; a crime of non-consent by consent. Borgström’s answer is emblematic of how divorced from reality this matter is. “They (the women) are not jurists”. You need a law degree to know whether you have been r-ped or not in Sweden. In the context of such double think, the question of how the Swedish authorities propose to deal with victims who neither saw themselves as such nor acted as such is easily answered: You’re not a Swedish lawyer so you wouldn’t understand anyway. The consent of both women to sex with Assange has been confirmed by prosecutors.
Why did Interpol accept it? There isn’t even an arrest warrant against Assange in Sweden. Apparently because Sweden’s director of public prosecutions, Marianne Ny claimed that Julian Assange had ‘fled’ to avoid answering questions. However the facts that have not been disputed by the Swedish prosecutor or her staff is that Julian Assange has made statements to both the police and the prosecutors after staying in Sweden to do so, was given permission to leave the country by the prosecutors, and has offered to answer questions in Britian including at the Swedish embassy.
Of even more concern is the conditions attached to the red notice. When it was issued on November 18th it requested that Assange would be
…held incommunicado without access to lawyers, visitors or other prisoners..Quite simply this looks like a politically motivated legal move to grab Julian Assange on a legal pretext, to shut him up, and to get moved to a country with a sympathetic prosecutor for extradition. I’d be extremely interested in finding out what communication has been going on between the conservative government in Sweden before and after the election on September 19th with the government in the US.
But it is pretty clear that Marianne Ny is not acting for the law in Sweden – she is using the law and the Interpol process on the flimsiest pretext. It is clear that you can’t call this rape despite what the prosecutors in Sweden say and has been blasted all over the US media.
Sure, Assange should probably answer more questions – if only to get this on again, off again, on again accusation settled. But there is no reason that cannot be done in the relative safety of the embassy in London. Since the charges do not carry a custodial sentence then there should be no reason to put Assange in prison to answer questions. That just makes him an easy to get at target for the various groups that are proposing to kill or imprison him on trumped up charges from countries like the US to which he owes no duty.Bearing in mind the US policies of grabbing suspects from friendly states with poor legal systems and throwing them into concentration camps like Guantanamo Bay for interrogation, I can see why Assange would not want to put in the control of a show trial prosecutor like Ny.
Marianne Ny is just making an arse of Swedish law and holding it up as a laughing stock to the rest of the world.
BTW: If anyone is having problems accessing Wikileaks, then try this link
3.12.10
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2010/dec/03/julian-assange-wikileaks
Fwoggie
I'll start the ball rolling with a question. You're an Australian passport holder - would you want return to your own country or is this now out of the question due to potentially being arrested on arrival for releasing cables relating to Australian diplomats and polices?
Julian Assange:
I am an Australian citizen and I miss my country a great deal. However, during the last weeks the Australian prime minister, Julia Gillard, and the attorney general, Robert McClelland, have made it clear that not only is my return is impossible but that they are actively working to assist the United States government in its attacks on myself and our people. This brings into question what does it mean to be an Australian citizen - does that mean anything at all? Or are we all to be treated like David Hicks at the first possible opportunity merely so that Australian politicians and diplomats can be invited to the best US embassy cocktail parties.
girish89
How do you think you have changed world affairs?
And if you call all the attention you've been given-credit ... shouldn't the mole or source receive a word of praise from you?
Julian Assange:
For the past four years one of our goals has been to lionise the source who take the real risks in nearly every journalistic disclosure and without whose efforts, journalists would be nothing. If indeed it is the case, as alleged by the Pentagon, that the young soldier - Bradley Manning - is behind some of our recent disclosures, then he is without doubt an unparalleled hero.
Daithi
Have you released, or will you release, cables (either in the last few days or with the Afghan and Iraq war logs) with the names of Afghan informants or anything else like so?
Are you willing to censor (sorry for using the term) any names that you feel might land people in danger from reprisals??
By the way, I think history will absolve you. Well done!!!
Julian Assange:
WikiLeaks has a four-year publishing history. During that time there has been no credible allegation, even by organisations like the Pentagon that even a single person has come to harm as a result of our activities. This is despite much-attempted manipulation and spin trying to lead people to a counter-factual conclusion. We do not expect any change in this regard.
distrot
The State Dept is mulling over the issue of whether you are a journalist or not. Are you a journalist? As far as delivering information that someone [anyone] does not want seen is concerned, does it matter if you are a 'journalist' or not?
Julian Assange:
I coauthored my first nonfiction book by the time I was 25. I have been involved in nonfiction documentaries, newspapers, TV and internet since that time. However, it is not necessary to debate whether I am a journalist, or how our people mysteriously are alleged to cease to be journalists when they start writing for our organisaiton. Although I still write, research and investigate my role is primarily that of a publisher and editor-in-chief who organises and directs other journalists.
achanth
Mr Assange,
have there ever been documents forwarded to you which deal with the topic of UFOs or extraterrestrials?
Julian Assange:
Many weirdos email us about UFOs or how they discovered that they were the anti-christ whilst talking with their ex-wife at a garden party over a pot-plant. However, as yet they have not satisfied two of our publishing rules.
1) that the documents not be self-authored;
2) that they be original.
However, it is worth noting that in yet-to-be-published parts of the cablegate archive there are indeed references to UFOs.
gnosticheresy
What happened to all the other documents that were on Wikileaks prior to these series of "megaleaks"? Will you put them back online at some stage ("technical difficulties" permitting)?
Julian Assange:
Many of these are still available at mirror.wikileaks.info and the rest will be returning as soon as we can find a moment to do address the engineering complexities. Since April of this year our timetable has not been our own, rather it has been one that has centred on the moves of abusive elements of the United States government against us. But rest assured I am deeply unhappy that the three-and-a-half years of my work and others is not easily available or searchable by the general public.
CrisShutlar
Have you expected this level of impact all over the world? Do you fear for your security?
Julian Assange:
I always believed that WikiLeaks as a concept would perform a global role and to some degree it was clear that is was doing that as far back as 2007 when it changed the result of the Kenyan general election. I thought it would take two years instead of four to be recognised by others as having this important role, so we are still a little behind schedule and have much more work to do. The threats against our lives are a matter of public record, however, we are taking the appropriate precautions to the degree that we are able when dealing with a super power.
JAnthony
Julian.
I am a former British diplomat. In the course of my former duties I helped to coordinate multilateral action against a brutal regime in the Balkans, impose sanctions on a renegade state threatening ethnic cleansing, and negotiate a debt relief programme for an impoverished nation. None of this would have been possible without the security and secrecy of diplomatic correspondence, and the protection of that correspondence from publication under the laws of the UK and many other liberal and democratic states. An embassy which cannot securely offer advice or pass messages back to London is an embassy which cannot operate. Diplomacy cannot operate without discretion and the
protection of sources. This applies to the UK and the UN as much as the US.
In publishing this massive volume of correspondence, Wikileaks is not highlighting specific cases of wrongdoing but undermining the entire process of diplomacy. If you can publish US cables then you can publish UK telegrams and UN emails.
My question to you is: why should we not hold you personally responsible when next an international crisis goes unresolved because diplomats cannot function.
Julian Assange:
If you trim the vast editorial letter to the singular question actually asked, I would be happy to give it my attention.
cargun
Mr Assange,
Can you explain the censorship of identities as XXXXX's in the revealed cables? Some critical identities are left as is, whereas some are XXXXX'd. Some cables are partially revealed. Who can make such critical decisons, but the US gov't? As far as we know your request for such help was rejected by the State department. Also is there an order in the release of cable or are they randomly selected?
Thank you.
Julian Assange:
The cables we have release correspond to stories released by our main stream media partners and ourselves. They have been redacted by the journalists working on the stories, as these people must know the material well in order to write about it. The redactions are then reviewed by at least one other journalist or editor, and we review samples supplied by the other organisations to make sure the process is working.
rszopa
Annoying as it may be, the DDoS seems to be good publicity (if anything, it adds to your credibility). So is getting kicked out of AWS. Do you agree with this statement? Were you planning for it?
Thank you for doing what you are doing.
Julian Assange:
Since 2007 we have been deliberately placing some of our servers in jurisdictions that we suspected suffered a free speech deficit inorder to separate rhetoric from reality. Amazon was one of these cases.
abbeherrera
You started something that nobody can stop. The Beginning of a New World. Remember, that community is behind you and support you (from Slovakia).
Do you have leaks on ACTA?
Julian Assange:
Yes, we have leaks on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, a trojan horse trade agreement designed from the very beginning to satisfy big players in the US copyright and patent industries. In fact, it was WikiLeaks that first drew ACTA to the public's attention - with a leak.
people1st
Tom Flanagan, a [former] senior adviser to Canadian Prime Minister recently stated "I think Assange should be assassinated ... I think Obama should put out a contract ... I wouldn't feel unhappy if Assange does disappear."
How do you feel about this?
Julian Assange:
It is correct that Mr. Flanagan and the others seriously making these statements should be charged with incitement to commit murder.
Isopod
Julian, why do you think it was necessary to "give Wikileaks a face"? Don't you think it would be better if the organization was anonymous?
This whole debate has become very personal and reduced on you - "Julian Assange leaked documents", "Julian Assange is a terrorist", "Julian Assange alledgedly raped a woman", "Julian Assange should be assassinated", "Live Q&A qith Julian Assange" etc. Nobody talks about Wikileaks as an organization anymore. Many people don't even realize that there are other people behind Wikileaks, too.
And this, in my opinion, makes Wikileaks vulnerable because this enables your opponents to argue ad hominem. If they convince the public that you're an evil, woman-raping terrorist, then Wikileaks' credibility will be gone. Also, with due respect for all that you've done, I think it's unfair to all the other brave, hard working people behind Wikileaks, that you get so much credit.
Julian Assange:
This is an interesting question. I originally tried hard for the organisation to have no face, because I wanted egos to play no part in our activities. This followed the tradition of the French anonymous pure mathematians, who wrote under the collective allonym, "The Bourbaki". However this quickly led to tremendous distracting curiosity about who and random individuals claiming to represent us. In the end, someone must be responsible to the public and only a leadership that is willing to be publicly courageous can genuinely suggest that sources take risks for the greater good. In that process, I have become the lightening rod. I get undue attacks on every aspect of my life, but then I also get undue credit as some kind of balancing force.
tburgi
Western governments lay claim to moral authority in part from having legal guarantees for a free press.
Threats of legal sanction against Wikileaks and yourself seem to weaken this claim.
(What press needs to be protected except that which is unpopular to the State? If being state-sanctioned is the test for being a media organization, and therefore able to claim rights to press freedom, the situation appears to be the same in authoritarian regimes and the west.)
Do you agree that western governments risk losing moral authority by
attacking Wikileaks?
Do you believe western goverments have any moral authority to begin with?
Thanks,
Tim Burgi
Vancouver, Canada
Julian Assange:
The west has fiscalised its basic power relationships through a web of contracts, loans, shareholdings, bank holdings and so on. In such an environment it is easy for speech to be "free" because a change in political will rarely leads to any change in these basic instruments. Western speech, as something that rarely has any effect on power, is, like badgers and birds, free. In states like China, there is pervasive censorship, because speech still has power and power is scared of it. We should always look at censorship as an economic signal that reveals the potential power of speech in that jurisdiction. The attacks against us by the US point to a great hope, speech powerful enough to break the fiscal blockade.
rajiv1857
Hi,
Is the game that you are caught up in winnable? Technically, can you keep playing hide and seek with the powers that be when services and service providers are directly or indirectly under government control or vulnerable to pressure - like Amazon?
Also, if you get "taken out" - and that could be technical, not necessarily physical - what are the alternatives for your cache of material?
Is there a 'second line' of activists in place that would continue the campaign?
Is your material 'dispersed' so that taking out one cache would not necessarily mean the end of the game?
Julian Assange:
The Cable Gate archive has been spread, along with significant material from the US and other countries to over 100,000 people in encrypted form. If something happens to us, the key parts will be released automatically. Further, the Cable Gate archives is in the hands of multiple news organisations. History will win. The world will be elevated to a better place. Will we survive? That depends on you.
I'll start the ball rolling with a question. You're an Australian passport holder - would you want return to your own country or is this now out of the question due to potentially being arrested on arrival for releasing cables relating to Australian diplomats and polices?
Julian Assange:I am an Australian citizen and I miss my country a great deal. However, during the last weeks the Australian prime minister, Julia Gillard, and the attorney general, Robert McClelland, have made it clear that not only is my return is impossible but that they are actively working to assist the United States government in its attacks on myself and our people. This brings into question what does it mean to be an Australian citizen - does that mean anything at all? Or are we all to be treated like David Hicks at the first possible opportunity merely so that Australian politicians and diplomats can be invited to the best US embassy cocktail parties.
girish89
How do you think you have changed world affairs?
And if you call all the attention you've been given-credit ... shouldn't the mole or source receive a word of praise from you?
Julian Assange:For the past four years one of our goals has been to lionise the source who take the real risks in nearly every journalistic disclosure and without whose efforts, journalists would be nothing. If indeed it is the case, as alleged by the Pentagon, that the young soldier - Bradley Manning - is behind some of our recent disclosures, then he is without doubt an unparalleled hero.
Daithi
Have you released, or will you release, cables (either in the last few days or with the Afghan and Iraq war logs) with the names of Afghan informants or anything else like so?
Are you willing to censor (sorry for using the term) any names that you feel might land people in danger from reprisals??
By the way, I think history will absolve you. Well done!!!
Julian Assange:WikiLeaks has a four-year publishing history. During that time there has been no credible allegation, even by organisations like the Pentagon that even a single person has come to harm as a result of our activities. This is despite much-attempted manipulation and spin trying to lead people to a counter-factual conclusion. We do not expect any change in this regard.
distrot
The State Dept is mulling over the issue of whether you are a journalist or not. Are you a journalist? As far as delivering information that someone [anyone] does not want seen is concerned, does it matter if you are a 'journalist' or not?
Julian Assange:I coauthored my first nonfiction book by the time I was 25. I have been involved in nonfiction documentaries, newspapers, TV and internet since that time. However, it is not necessary to debate whether I am a journalist, or how our people mysteriously are alleged to cease to be journalists when they start writing for our organisaiton. Although I still write, research and investigate my role is primarily that of a publisher and editor-in-chief who organises and directs other journalists.
achanth
Mr Assange,
have there ever been documents forwarded to you which deal with the topic of UFOs or extraterrestrials?
Julian Assange:Many weirdos email us about UFOs or how they discovered that they were the anti-christ whilst talking with their ex-wife at a garden party over a pot-plant. However, as yet they have not satisfied two of our publishing rules.
1) that the documents not be self-authored;
2) that they be original.
However, it is worth noting that in yet-to-be-published parts of the cablegate archive there are indeed references to UFOs.
gnosticheresy
What happened to all the other documents that were on Wikileaks prior to these series of "megaleaks"? Will you put them back online at some stage ("technical difficulties" permitting)?
Julian Assange:Many of these are still available at mirror.wikileaks.info and the rest will be returning as soon as we can find a moment to do address the engineering complexities. Since April of this year our timetable has not been our own, rather it has been one that has centred on the moves of abusive elements of the United States government against us. But rest assured I am deeply unhappy that the three-and-a-half years of my work and others is not easily available or searchable by the general public.
CrisShutlar
Have you expected this level of impact all over the world? Do you fear for your security?
Julian Assange:I always believed that WikiLeaks as a concept would perform a global role and to some degree it was clear that is was doing that as far back as 2007 when it changed the result of the Kenyan general election. I thought it would take two years instead of four to be recognised by others as having this important role, so we are still a little behind schedule and have much more work to do. The threats against our lives are a matter of public record, however, we are taking the appropriate precautions to the degree that we are able when dealing with a super power.
JAnthony
Julian.
I am a former British diplomat. In the course of my former duties I helped to coordinate multilateral action against a brutal regime in the Balkans, impose sanctions on a renegade state threatening ethnic cleansing, and negotiate a debt relief programme for an impoverished nation. None of this would have been possible without the security and secrecy of diplomatic correspondence, and the protection of that correspondence from publication under the laws of the UK and many other liberal and democratic states. An embassy which cannot securely offer advice or pass messages back to London is an embassy which cannot operate. Diplomacy cannot operate without discretion and the
protection of sources. This applies to the UK and the UN as much as the US.
In publishing this massive volume of correspondence, Wikileaks is not highlighting specific cases of wrongdoing but undermining the entire process of diplomacy. If you can publish US cables then you can publish UK telegrams and UN emails.
My question to you is: why should we not hold you personally responsible when next an international crisis goes unresolved because diplomats cannot function.
Julian Assange:If you trim the vast editorial letter to the singular question actually asked, I would be happy to give it my attention.
cargun
Mr Assange,
Can you explain the censorship of identities as XXXXX's in the revealed cables? Some critical identities are left as is, whereas some are XXXXX'd. Some cables are partially revealed. Who can make such critical decisons, but the US gov't? As far as we know your request for such help was rejected by the State department. Also is there an order in the release of cable or are they randomly selected?
Thank you.
Julian Assange:The cables we have release correspond to stories released by our main stream media partners and ourselves. They have been redacted by the journalists working on the stories, as these people must know the material well in order to write about it. The redactions are then reviewed by at least one other journalist or editor, and we review samples supplied by the other organisations to make sure the process is working.
rszopa
Annoying as it may be, the DDoS seems to be good publicity (if anything, it adds to your credibility). So is getting kicked out of AWS. Do you agree with this statement? Were you planning for it?
Thank you for doing what you are doing.
Julian Assange:Since 2007 we have been deliberately placing some of our servers in jurisdictions that we suspected suffered a free speech deficit inorder to separate rhetoric from reality. Amazon was one of these cases.
abbeherrera
You started something that nobody can stop. The Beginning of a New World. Remember, that community is behind you and support you (from Slovakia).
Do you have leaks on ACTA?
Julian Assange:Yes, we have leaks on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, a trojan horse trade agreement designed from the very beginning to satisfy big players in the US copyright and patent industries. In fact, it was WikiLeaks that first drew ACTA to the public's attention - with a leak.
people1st
Tom Flanagan, a [former] senior adviser to Canadian Prime Minister recently stated "I think Assange should be assassinated ... I think Obama should put out a contract ... I wouldn't feel unhappy if Assange does disappear."
How do you feel about this?
Julian Assange:It is correct that Mr. Flanagan and the others seriously making these statements should be charged with incitement to commit murder.
Isopod
Julian, why do you think it was necessary to "give Wikileaks a face"? Don't you think it would be better if the organization was anonymous?
This whole debate has become very personal and reduced on you - "Julian Assange leaked documents", "Julian Assange is a terrorist", "Julian Assange alledgedly raped a woman", "Julian Assange should be assassinated", "Live Q&A qith Julian Assange" etc. Nobody talks about Wikileaks as an organization anymore. Many people don't even realize that there are other people behind Wikileaks, too.
And this, in my opinion, makes Wikileaks vulnerable because this enables your opponents to argue ad hominem. If they convince the public that you're an evil, woman-raping terrorist, then Wikileaks' credibility will be gone. Also, with due respect for all that you've done, I think it's unfair to all the other brave, hard working people behind Wikileaks, that you get so much credit.
Julian Assange:This is an interesting question. I originally tried hard for the organisation to have no face, because I wanted egos to play no part in our activities. This followed the tradition of the French anonymous pure mathematians, who wrote under the collective allonym, "The Bourbaki". However this quickly led to tremendous distracting curiosity about who and random individuals claiming to represent us. In the end, someone must be responsible to the public and only a leadership that is willing to be publicly courageous can genuinely suggest that sources take risks for the greater good. In that process, I have become the lightening rod. I get undue attacks on every aspect of my life, but then I also get undue credit as some kind of balancing force.
tburgi
Western governments lay claim to moral authority in part from having legal guarantees for a free press.
Threats of legal sanction against Wikileaks and yourself seem to weaken this claim.
(What press needs to be protected except that which is unpopular to the State? If being state-sanctioned is the test for being a media organization, and therefore able to claim rights to press freedom, the situation appears to be the same in authoritarian regimes and the west.)
Do you agree that western governments risk losing moral authority by
attacking Wikileaks?
Do you believe western goverments have any moral authority to begin with?
Thanks,
Tim Burgi
Vancouver, Canada
Julian Assange:The west has fiscalised its basic power relationships through a web of contracts, loans, shareholdings, bank holdings and so on. In such an environment it is easy for speech to be "free" because a change in political will rarely leads to any change in these basic instruments. Western speech, as something that rarely has any effect on power, is, like badgers and birds, free. In states like China, there is pervasive censorship, because speech still has power and power is scared of it. We should always look at censorship as an economic signal that reveals the potential power of speech in that jurisdiction. The attacks against us by the US point to a great hope, speech powerful enough to break the fiscal blockade.
rajiv1857
Hi,
Is the game that you are caught up in winnable? Technically, can you keep playing hide and seek with the powers that be when services and service providers are directly or indirectly under government control or vulnerable to pressure - like Amazon?
Also, if you get "taken out" - and that could be technical, not necessarily physical - what are the alternatives for your cache of material?
Is there a 'second line' of activists in place that would continue the campaign?
Is your material 'dispersed' so that taking out one cache would not necessarily mean the end of the game?
Julian Assange:The Cable Gate archive has been spread, along with significant material from the US and other countries to over 100,000 people in encrypted form. If something happens to us, the key parts will be released automatically. Further, the Cable Gate archives is in the hands of multiple news organisations. History will win. The world will be elevated to a better place. Will we survive? That depends on you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
The list of countries that Woodrow Wilson the "League of Nations" peace-lover invaded is longer than almost any other US president's:
Mexico
China
Nicaragua
Panama
Dominican Republic
Haiti
Cuba
Guatemala
Honduras
Phillipine
Yugoslavia
the U.S.S.R.
Major General Smedley Butler, the 4-star Marine general who was the most decorated soldier in US history, had this to say about Wilsonian "idealism:"