Did someone say rant?....
posted by Keito
2013-11-07 20:42:00In the words of several Google Engineers in recent weeks, I too would like to voice a very big "Fuck you"... this time aimed squarely at the 3 smug bastards who sat before the Intelligence and Security Committee hearing earlier today.
I really, truly, honestly couldn't give a flying toss how sincere or sensible these UK intelligence front-men come across as on TV... they are all self-righteous assholes. The whole hearing was nothing more than a PR stunt (from their viewpoint), meant to try and sway the masses into thinking these 'reasonable' people can be trusted to carry out such despicable actions... all in the name of "National Security".
Terrorism is a poor excuse for the blanket surveillance of an entire nation.
I am not scared of terrorism, though with the behaviour of our nation, the threat will undoubtedly grow, and with it state oppression too... unless we change our behaviour, this is almost inevitable.
*It's the government oppression that scares me*... and quite rightly so. A once in a blue moon freak terrorist attack, while abhorrent, is something we can overcome. A state modelling itself on Big Brother is not so easily dealt with.
We might (just might) be able to gain control and stop the government oppression, but it won't be easy... after all, how do you control entities that are entirely secretive and free from almost all oversight or public scrutiny?
Anyway, back to the televised débâcle which aired earlier today... The sound-byte getting published by several 24hr mainstream media news networks sees John Sawers suggests that "more Britons were killed abroad in 2013, than the past seven years combined."... and this I don't doubt, but perhaps for altogether different reasons to what he may insinuate throughout his speech. (What's more, the domestic threats we face are absolutely minuscule). To stem terrorism these people need to consider an entirely different approach to "attack prevention"... You know, how's about we stop bombing other nations and killing indiscriminately for a start. The current method of wholesale snooping is not the correct way to combat terrorism, it will never work, nor will drone strikes or military interventions/occupations.
In the words of Michael Rivero, "Stopping terrorism is simple. Just quit screwing around with other people's countries and the terrorists will go home. But the government of the United States wants to go on screwing around with other people's countries, refuses to stop, indeed views it as Manifest Destiny for the United States Government to persist in screwing around with other people's countries, and views the inconvenience, increased tax burden, loss of civil liberties, and even deaths among the American people as just another cost of doing business."
Let's be very clear about one thing... The risk of terrorism grows - DUE TO THE WAR ON TERROR.
In other words, the War on Terror hasn't helped combat terrorism, it has fuelled it.
With that in mind it is most concerning that many folk fail to understand this increased threat of terrorism - as a direct result of the War on Terror - is exactly what the government has been attempting to achieve... this presents itself as a very convenient excuse to clamp down hard on freedoms; to implement draconian measures and plenary powers for the ruthless and power-hungry rulers in government. They are sweeping the freedoms from under our feet at an alarming rate, with little to no resistance from the populace. After all, the easiest way to gain public support for government wrong-doing is to wrap that wrong-doing up as some sort of beautiful measure, concocted to prevent either of the following:
* Child Pornography
...and, right on cue, we see stories depicting that the Snowden Leaks have helped terrorists AND paedophiles evade law enforcement - a perfect way to not only deflect any blame from themselves, but also discredit Snowden and sully his reputation.
I dare say we'll be seeing some triple-A movie blockbuster that depicts a whistleblower as some sort of evil kingpin overlord, in the non-too-distant future. Unfortunately, propaganda is not something that has been relegated to the history books.
The insinuation that Snowden's leaks have in some way endangered this nation, angers me no end. The danger we may face is entirely manufactured - by our own governments' failed foreign policies - something the bare-faced liars that took to the courts today failed to detail.
You want to know the risk you face from terrorism? Here's a simple to understand graph that lays it out for you
You want to know the risk we face from government? Read some history books and then open your eyes to the world we live in today.
I am Bradley Manning
posted by Keito
US investigates possible WikiLeaks leaker for 'communicating with the enemy'
posted by Keito
2012-09-28 10:32:20'US military's new legal theory threatens to convert unauthorized leaks into a capital offense. Who is the real 'enemy'?
A US air force systems analyst who expressed support for WikiLeaks and accused leaker Bradley Manning triggered a formal military investigation last year to determine whether she herself had leaked any documents to the group. Air Force investigative documents, obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request, show that the analyst was repeatedly interviewed about her contacts with and support for WikiLeaks - what investigators repeatedly refer to as the "anti-US or anti-military group" - as well as her support for the group's founder, Julian Assange.
The investigation was ultimately closed when they could find no evidence of unauthorized leaking, but what makes these documents noteworthy is the possible crime cited by military officials as the one they were investigating: namely, "Communicating With the Enemy", under Article 104 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).
That is one of the most serious crimes a person can commit - it carries the penalty of death - and is committed when a person engages in "unauthorized communication, correspondence, or intercourse with the enemy". The military investigation form also requires investigators to identify the "victim" of the crime they are investigating, and here, they designated "society" as the victim:
How could leaking to WikiLeaks possibly constitute the crime of "communicating with the enemy"? Who exactly is the "enemy"? There are two possible answers to that question, both quite disturbing.
The first possibility is the one suggested by today's Sydney Morning Herald article on these documents (as well as by WikiLeaks itself): that the US military now formally characterizes WikiLeaks and Assange as an "enemy", the same designation it gives to groups such as Al Qaeda and the Taliban. This would not be the first time such sentiments were expressed by the US military: recall that one of the earliest leaks from the then-largely-unknown group was a secret report prepared back in 2008 by the US Army which, as the New York Times put it, included WikiLeaks on the Pentagon's "list of the enemies threatening the security of the United States". That Army document then plotted how to destroy the group.
But it's the second possibility that seems to me to be the far more likely one: namely, that the US government, as part of Obama's unprecedented war on whistleblowers, has now fully embraced the pernicious theory that any leaks of classified information can constitute the crime of "aiding the enemy" or "communicating with the enemy" by virtue of the fact that, indirectly, "the enemy" will - like everyone else in the world - ultimately learn of what is disclosed.
Indeed, the US military is currently prosecuting accused WikiLeaks leaker Bradley Manning on multiple charges including "aiding the enemy", also under Article 104 of the UCMJ, and a capital offense (though prosecutors are requesting "only" life imprisonment rather than execution). Military prosecutors have since revealed that their theory is that the 23-year-old Army Private "aided al-Qaida by leaking hundreds of thousands of military and other government documents" -- specifically, that "Manning indirectly aided al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula by giving information to WikiLeaks."
It seems clear that the US military now deems any leaks of classified information to constitute the capital offense of "aiding the enemy" or "communicating with the enemy" even if no information is passed directly to the "enemy" and there is no intent to aid or communicate with them. Merely informing the public about classified government activities now constitutes this capital crime because it "indirectly" informs the enemy.
The implications of this theory are as obvious as they are disturbing. If someone can be charged with "aiding" or "communicating with the enemy" by virtue of leaking to WikiLeaks, then why wouldn't that same crime be committed by someone leaking classified information to any outlet: the New York Times, the Guardian, ABC News or anyone else? In other words, does this theory not inevitably and necessarily make all leaking of all classified information - whether to WikiLeaks or any media outlet - a capital offense: treason or a related crime?
International Law Professor Kevin Jon Heller made a similar point when the charges against Manning were first revealed:
"[I]f Manning has aided the enemy, so has any media organization that published the information he allegedly stole. Nothing in Article 104 requires proof that the defendant illegally acquired the information that aided the enemy. As a result, if the mere act of ensuring that harmful information is published on the internet qualifies either as indirectly 'giving intelligence to the enemy' (if the military can prove an enemy actually accessed the information) or as indirectly 'communicating with the enemy' (because any reasonable person knows that enemies can access information on the internet), there is no relevant factual difference between Manning and a media organization that published the relevant information."
Professor Heller goes on to note that while "WikiLeaks or the New York Times could not actually be charged under Article 104" because "the UCMJ only applies to soldiers", there is nonetheless "still something profoundly disturbing about the prospect of convicting Manning and sentencing him to life imprisonment for doing exactly what media organizations did, as well".
What these new documents reveal is that this odious theory is not confined to Manning. The US military appears to be treating all potential leaks - at least those to WikiLeaks - as "aiding" or "communicating with" the enemy. But there is no possible limiting principle that would confine that theory only to such leaks; they would necessarily apply to all leaks of classified information to any media outlets.
It is always worth underscoring that the New York Times has published far more government secrets than WikiLeaks ever has, and more importantly, has published far more sensitive secrets than WikiLeaks has (unlike WikiLeaks, which has never published anything that was designated "Top Secret", the New York Times has repeatedly done so: the Pentagon Papers, the Bush NSA wiretapping program, the SWIFT banking surveillance system, and the cyberwarfare program aimed at Iran were all "Top Secret" when the newspaper revealed them, as was the network of CIA secret prisons exposed by the Washington Post). There is simply no way to convert basic leaks to WikiLeaks into capital offenses - as the Obama administration is plainly doing - without sweeping up all leaks into that attack.
Of course, that outcome would almost certainly be a feature, not a bug, for Obama officials. This is, after all, the same administration that has prosecuted whistleblowers under espionage charges that threatened to send them to prison for life without any evidence of harm to national security, and has brought double the number of such prosecutions as all prior administrations combined. Converting all leaks into capital offenses would be perfectly consistent with the unprecedented secrecy fixation on the part of the Most Transparent Administration Ever™.
The irony from these developments is glaring. The real "enemies" of American "society" are not those who seek to inform the American people about the bad acts engaged in by their government in secret. As Democrats once recognized prior to the age of Obama - in the age of Daniel Ellsberg - people who do that are more aptly referred to as "heroes". The actual "enemies" are those who abuse secrecy powers to conceal government actions and to threaten with life imprisonment or even execution those who blow the whistle on high-level wrongdoing.'
U.S. May Have Designated Julian Assange and WikiLeaks An
posted by Keito
2012-09-28 10:26:05'Documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act show WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange may have been designated an "enemy of the state" by the United States. U.S. Air Force counter-intelligence documents show military personnel who contact WikiLeaks or its supporters may be at risk of being charged with "communicating with the enemy" — a military crime that carries a maximum sentence of death. We speak to attorney Michael Ratner, president emeritus of the Center for Constitutional Rights and a legal advisor to Assange and WikiLeaks.'
TPP: Fuck the Corporate-bought Governments already...
posted by Keito
2012-09-08 10:25:52'At this very moment, the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPP)--a trade agreement that could affect the health and welfare of billions of people worldwide--is being negotiated behind closed doors. While 600 corporate lobbyists have access to the text, the press, the public, and even members of the US Congress are being kept in the dark.
But we don't have to stand meekly by as corporate cronies decide our futures. Concerned citizens from around the world are pooling together their resources as a reward to WikiLeaks if it makes the negotiating text of the TPP public. Our pledge, as individuals, is to donate this money to WikiLeaks should it leak the document we seek.
As WikiLeaks likes to say, information wants to be free. The negotiating text for the TPP wants to be free. Someone just needs to release it.
1. What is the TPP?
The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a multilateral "free trade" agreement for the Asia-Pacific region which some have taken to referring to as "NAFTA on steroids." The agreement was originally between just three nations--Chile, New Zealand, and Singapore--with a fourth, Brunei, joining shortly after. Today, seven additional countries are in negotiations to join the agreement: Australia, Peru, Vietnam, Malaysia, Mexico, Canada, and the United States. Eventually, every Pacific-rim nation could be included, making it possible for this trade agreement to affect the lives of billions of people.
2. What's so bad about the TPP?
The TPP negotiations have taken place under an unprecedented shrowd of secrecy, denying all but a very few any input into the terms of the agreement. The chapters that have been leaked are quite disturbing, revealing plans that would threaten public health, the environment, internet freedom, and the general well-being of perhaps billions of people. Here's a little taste of what the agreement would include: foreign investor protections that would help corporations offshore jobs, powers that allow multinational corporations to challenge domestic regulations before international tribunals, a strengthening of patent and intellectual property rules which would, among other things, raise the price of life-saving medicines in third world countries, and the ability for Wall Street to roll back safeguards meant to restore financial stability worldwide.
3. Haven't parts of the TPP been leaked?
Yes, some chapters of the TPP have been leaked to the public, but we want to see the whole text. We--the people who will be affected by this agreement--have the right to know what our governments are proposing.
4. Why WikiLeaks?
We're pushing WikiLeaks to do this because, if they do publish the TPP, it will show that WikiLeaks is still relevant to citizen demands for government transparency, that releasing US diplomatic cables wasn't the end of WikiLeaks' contribution to public knowledge of government misdeeds. And we want this because it will show that the WikiLeaks campaign for government transparency isn't just about national security issues.
Another reason for offering the reward to WikiLeaks is to shield the leaker against any claim that they leaked the document for personal gain. It will be clear that the leaker leaked the text to promote the public interest.
5. Why crowdsource the reward?
We didn't want to ask one rich person or a couple to put up the money for the reward because it's not just one or a few people who have an interest in the TPP--we all do. By asking people from all walks of life to contribute what they can, we help promote the idea we are all invested in the outcome of these negotiations.
6. How does the pledge thing work?
What happens if WikiLeaks publishes the TPP?
When you make a pledge, all you are doing is promising to make a donation at a later date. No payment information is required. If WikiLeaks should publish the TPP text, we will send you an email encouraging you to fulfill your pledge, along with information about how to make a donation to WikiLeaks.