Wednesday, December 29, 2010
ADL defends Israeli spooks
on ties to Wikileaks affair
The Anti-Defamation League has come out swinging against conspiracy theories linking the Israel lobby or Israeli intelligence operatives to the Wikileaks disclosures.
Interestingly, the ADL neglected to mention this blog, which was probably the first to note that Israel had benefited from the disclosures as reported by the Guardian, the New York Times and other publications.
That may be because one had to scroll down to the highlighted paragraphs to see that point:
Interestingly, the ADL neglected to mention this blog, which was probably the first to note that Israel had benefited from the disclosures as reported by the Guardian, the New York Times and other publications.
That may be because one had to scroll down to the highlighted paragraphs to see that point:
http://conantcensorshipissue.blogspot.com/2010/11/shouted-from-rooftops.html
Clearly, it makes sense for the ADL to try to defend Jews in general from accusations of subversive behavior. However, when the ADL defends a government, that of Irsael, from using covert means for foreign policy ends, one has to wonder how the ADL can be so certain. Who knows, really, what the Mossad is capable of? Remember the Dubai assassination conspiracy?
The ADL again shoots down the 9/11 tale about 4,000 Jews escaping the twin tower collapses through forewarning. But the ADL declines to mention the fact that Israel citizens received a message 2 hours in advance warning of a major event in lower Manhattan. Later, the Israel authorities were satisfied that they had accounted for several thousand Israelis in the New York region, including the sole Israeli known to have died in the catastrophe.
See also Assange: editors spiked Israel cables
Clearly, it makes sense for the ADL to try to defend Jews in general from accusations of subversive behavior. However, when the ADL defends a government, that of Irsael, from using covert means for foreign policy ends, one has to wonder how the ADL can be so certain. Who knows, really, what the Mossad is capable of? Remember the Dubai assassination conspiracy?
The ADL again shoots down the 9/11 tale about 4,000 Jews escaping the twin tower collapses through forewarning. But the ADL declines to mention the fact that Israel citizens received a message 2 hours in advance warning of a major event in lower Manhattan. Later, the Israel authorities were satisfied that they had accounted for several thousand Israelis in the New York region, including the sole Israeli known to have died in the catastrophe.
See also Assange: editors spiked Israel cables
http://conantcensorshipissue.
Here is the ADL press release:
Here is the ADL press release:
| Press Release | Israel / Middle-East |
 | |
| Conspiracy Theory Links Israel to WikiLeaks; ADL Says Latest 'Big Lie' is Taking Root Among Anti-Israel Conspiracy Theorists New York, NY, December 28, 2010 … The unauthorized publication of thousands of pages of classified U.S. diplomatic cables by the WikiLeaks organization has had a serious unintended consequence: the proliferation of anti-Israel conspiracy theories claiming that Israel and the "Israel lobby" played a secret role in the documents' release. The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) said the WikiLeaks affair was "being exploited to spread false and malicious conspiracy theories against Israel," as a part of a disinformation campaign that has gained traction with those catering to the far right and the left, some Arab and Islamic Web sites and others dedicated to spreading "anti-Zionist" messages like Islam Times and Hezbollah's Al Manar. "Once again, as we saw with the 9/11 attacks and the financial meltdown, we are seeing yet another manifestation of the Big Lie against Jews and Israel," said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director. "The WikiLeaks affair has given new life to the old conspiracy theories of underhanded Jewish and Israeli involvement in an event with significant repercussions for the U.S. and many nations around the world. The news is being exploited by conspiracy theorists, some world leaders, and various Web sites across the ideological spectrum to spread false and malicious conspiracy theories against Israel." After 9/11, a widely circulated conspiracy theory suggested that Israel and the Mossad were the true perpetrators of the terrorist attacks and that "4,000 Jews" who worked at the World Trade Center had been forewarned and did not show up for work that day. And during the financial crisis in 2008, a rumor widely circulated on the Internet suggested that just prior to the collapse of Lehman Brothers and other major investment banks, $400 billion in funds was secretly transferred to Israeli banks. According to ADL, WikiLeaks conspiracy theories are being promoted on several Arab and Islamic sites and have also surfaced in articles on conspiracy-oriented Internet sites catering to the far right and the left. Among the claims is that WikiLeaks and its founder, Julian Assange, "struck a deal" with Israel to withhold those cables that were "embarrassing to Israel," or that Assange actually works for Israel as a "spy" and that Israel's intelligence agencies orchestrated WikiLeaks as a public relations campaign. On December 1, Hüseyin Celik, a deputy leader of AKP, Turkey's ruling party, hinted in comments during a press conference that Israel could be responsible for WikiLeaks. "Israel is very pleased [with the WikiLeaks controversy]," he said. "Israel has been making statements for days, even before the release of these documents." Similar claims have surfaced on anti-Zionist sites and even on Al Manar, a Lebanon-based news service run by the terrorist group Hezbollah. According to an ADL analysis, the narrative about Israel negotiating with Assange may have first surfaced in Al Haqiqa, an online publication affiliated with a Syrian opposition group. "A number of commentators, particularly in Turkey and Russia, have been wondering why the hundreds of thousands of American classified documents leaked by the website last month did not contain anything that may embarrass the Israeli government," reads an article titled "WikiLeaks 'Struck a Deal' to Keep Away Anything Damaging to Israel," published on Al Manar. "The answer appears to be a secret deal struck between the WikiLeaks 'heart and soul,' as Assange humbly described himself once, with Israeli officials, which ensured that all such documents were 'removed' before the rest were made public." Many of the conspiracy theories about Israel and WikiLeaks were promulgated by Gordon Duff, an anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist, and posted on his Web site, Veterans Today. Duff's articles have also appeared on white supremacist sites, including Stormfront, a popular forum for extremists. Other allegations against Israel had their origins in the left-leaning Web site Indybay, which furthered the claim that WikiLeaks collaborated with Israel to restrict the publication of cables that could appear damaging to Israel. A spectrum of anti-censorship links http://veilside78.blogspot.com/ | |
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Random House bucks drive
to punish Wikileaks founder
Random House is defying the government-corporate push to punish Julian Assange, founder of WikiLeaks, by going ahead with its part of a reported $1.3 million deal to publish Assange's autobiography.
Random House would not confirm the dollar amount, but said in a statement, “We are very excited to be publishing this book. The work that Assange has been doing at WikiLeaks has tremendous importance around the world.”
Assange, who is under house arrest in eastern England amid allegations of sexual misconduct, told the Sunday Times newspaper, “I don’t want to write this book, but I have to.” Citing his mounting legal bills, he said, “I need to defend myself and to keep Wikileaks afloat.”
Assange said Random House’s Alfred Knopf division was paying $800,000 to publish the book in the United States and that Canongate was paying about $500,000 to publish it in Britain.
Random House's decision to stick with its contract with Assange doesn't bode well for the orchestrated military-industrial complex campaign to "get" the net journalist.
Son of Wikileaks
"The system" faces more headaches as a Wikileaks spin-off, Openleaks, prepares to publish more secrets.
Openleaks was founded by a disgruntled Wikileaks associate, Daniel Domscheit-Berg, who is also being published by Random House.
Inside WikiLeaks: My Time With Julian Assange at the World’s Most Dangerous Website, will “reveal the evolution, finances and inner tensions” of the organization, said an announcement last week from Crown publishers, another imprint of Random House.
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Assange: editors spiked
sensitive Israel cables
Julian Assange reportedly told Al-Jazeera that few documents involving
Israel have so far been published because the newspapers to which he gave
exclusive rights to publish the cables were unwilling to publish
sensitive information about Israel.
WikiLeaks will release sensitive leaked diplomatic
cables regarding Israel in the coming months, Assange is reported to have told Al-Jazeera.
assassination of a high-level Palestinian official in Dubai suspected
to have been carried out by the Mossad, and other Israel-related
cables, according to the Jewish Telegraph Agency.
Assange claims to have about 3,700 files related to Israel, most from
the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv.
He said he was certain that Israeli intelligence is currently
monitoring WikiLeaks closely and denied that there was a deal between
Israel and WikiLeaks to keep information on Israel private.
Norway paper says it has
entire cache of cables
The Afternoon Post says it will plumb the cache selectively in order to write informed articles over the coming months. It declined to say how it had obtained the stash, but previously the Guardian had provided all the cables to the New York Times.
We must also not neglect the possibility that U.S. intelligence spirited the trove to the paper in order to deprive Wikileaks of control over timing of releases, though the former possibility seems more credible.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/23/wikileaks-cables-leaked-a_n_800731.html
Wikileaks chief tells of reams of death threats
Not only is he regularly threatened, but also his children, Assange tells El Pais.
http://www.elpais.com/articulo/english/I/get/death/threats/constantly/do/my/lawyer/and/my/children/elpepueng/20101220elpeng_4/Ten
A well-organized mirror
The mirror site listed here is useful because of the many descriptive and useful links.
http://mirror.wikileaks.info/
sensitive Israel cables
Julian Assange reportedly told Al-Jazeera that few documents involving
Israel have so far been published because the newspapers to which he gave
exclusive rights to publish the cables were unwilling to publish
sensitive information about Israel.
WikiLeaks will release sensitive leaked diplomatic
cables regarding Israel in the coming months, Assange is reported to have told Al-Jazeera.
The provocative internet journalist said
his website will release top secret letters dealing with the 2006 Second Lebanon war, theassassination of a high-level Palestinian official in Dubai suspected
to have been carried out by the Mossad, and other Israel-related
cables, according to the Jewish Telegraph Agency.
Assange claims to have about 3,700 files related to Israel, most from
the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv.
He said he was certain that Israeli intelligence is currently
monitoring WikiLeaks closely and denied that there was a deal between
Israel and WikiLeaks to keep information on Israel private.
Norway paper says it has
entire cache of cables
The Afternoon Post says it will plumb the cache selectively in order to write informed articles over the coming months. It declined to say how it had obtained the stash, but previously the Guardian had provided all the cables to the New York Times.
We must also not neglect the possibility that U.S. intelligence spirited the trove to the paper in order to deprive Wikileaks of control over timing of releases, though the former possibility seems more credible.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/23/wikileaks-cables-leaked-a_n_800731.html
Wikileaks chief tells of reams of death threats
Not only is he regularly threatened, but also his children, Assange tells El Pais.
http://www.elpais.com/articulo/english/I/get/death/threats/constantly/do/my/lawyer/and/my/children/elpepueng/20101220elpeng_4/Ten
A well-organized mirror
The mirror site listed here is useful because of the many descriptive and useful links.
http://mirror.wikileaks.info/
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
German cabinet member lashes
business attacks on Wikileaks
Germany's interior minister sharply questioned the wisdom of moves by U.S. internet businesses, possibly spurred by the U.S. government, to punish Wikileaks. In an interview with der Spiegel, Karl Ernst Thomas de Maizière characterized Wikileaks as more of an annoyance than a threat.
business attacks on Wikileaks
Germany's interior minister sharply questioned the wisdom of moves by U.S. internet businesses, possibly spurred by the U.S. government, to punish Wikileaks. In an interview with der Spiegel, Karl Ernst Thomas de Maizière characterized Wikileaks as more of an annoyance than a threat.
Though the interior minister made clear that he thought Wikileaks' philosophy is irresponsible, he said a business boycott was not acceptable.
From der Spiegel:
SPIEGEL: Is it acceptable that Amazon, PayPal and others boycott WikiLeaks?
De Maizière: If this occurs under pressure from the US government, I don't think it is acceptable. If a company freely decides to do so, then that is a corporate decision, but it is also politically problematic. I am a big advocate of what is known as net neutrality. This means that providers are compelled to transmit content without political or commercial pre-selection.
SPIEGEL: Then you should now show your solidarity with WikiLeaks because it is precisely this net neutrality that is being violated when the French minister of industry calls for blocking all WikiLeaks content.
De Maizière: Such bans effectively lead us to difficult issues that we will have to deal with for years to come. And, at some point in time, it also has to do with freedom of speech. This debate ranks among the most challenging Internet-related issues that I see on the horizon.
Meanwhile, the Federal Communications Commission moved nearer yesterday to adopting net neutrality rules which would forbid blocking of "lawful" web sites. Of course, this would not stop some in Washington from trying to claim Wikileaks sites aren't "lawful" because they contain illegally leaked information.
The credit card company decision to impede Wikileaks follows disclosure in a leaked cable that the United States was lobbying Russia on behalf of Visa and Mastercard to make sure the American financial services could compete equally under a planned Russian financial law. (Cable below.)
Wicked leak: a couple of weeks ago a top secret tape emerged in which Henry Kissinger is heard telling President Nixon that a second Jewish Holocaust in the Soviet Union "is not an American concern."
The dark world of national security indeed does need light shed within it.
C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 MOSCOW 000228 SIPDIS STATE FOR EUR/RUS, EEB TREASURY FOR TORGERSON/WRIGHT NSC FOR MCFAUL WHITE HOUSE FOR USTR EHAFNER E.O. 12958: DECL: 01/28/2020
TAGS: EINV ETRD RS
SUBJECT: RUSSIAN DRAFT BILL WOULD REQUIRE ON-SHORE CREDIT CARD PROCESSING REF: MOSCOW 00079 Classified By: ECONMINCOUNS Matthias Mitman for Reasons 1.4(b) and (d)
1.(C) SUMMARY: The latest version of the Russian draft law "On the National Payment System" contains several provisions that would disadvantage U.S. businesses. The draft law would set up a National Payment Card System (NPCS) including its own payment card that banks and payment card companies could join voluntarily. Most likely to be a consortium of state-owned banks, the NPCS operator would process the domestic payments for all members and collect processing fees estimated at $4 billion per year. The draft also forbids sending abroad any payment data for domestic transactions. Should international payment card companies such as Visa and MasterCard chose not to join the NPCS they would have to set up the infrastructure to do their Russian payment processing domestically. END SUMMARY.
2.(C) On January 27, the Russian newspaper Kommersant reported that it had received a copy of the "final" version of the draft legislation "On the National Payment System." Visa's Public Relations head XXXX XXXX, who along with MasterCard representatives met Ministry of Finance officials on January 22, told us that MinFin is still seeking consent from the various ministries and agencies involved in the legislation. XXXX reported that Deputy Finance Minister Svyatugin leads MinFin's effort on this legislation, including shepherding the bill through the GOR interagency process. XXXX passed a copy of the latest draft law to econoff.
To Join or Not To Join -----------------------
3.(C) According to Visa's XXXX, the latest version follows the "China model" of payment card systems. The law would set up a National Payment Card System (NPCS), which XXXX reported would likely be run by a consortium of state banks as either a non-profit entity or a joint stock, profit-making company. Banks and credit card companies would have the option of joining the NPCS. If they joined, banks in Russia would issue cards under the NPCS brand, with its own logo. Payment processing for these cards would be done on-shore by the NPCS entity. According to the Kommersant article, the fees for these services are estimated at Rb 120 billion ($4 billion) annually. As XXXX pointed out, the vast majority of Visa's business in Russia is done with cards issued and used in Russia; with earnings from processing going to NPCS, Visa would no longer profit from these transactions.
4.(C) While joining the NPCS would be optional for both banks and international payment card companies, membership has its privileges. If Visa and MasterCard choose to join the NPCS, they would not have any role in domestic transaction processing, but the bank-issued NPCS cards could be "co-branded" with Visa or MasterCard. When the cardholder used his card abroad, the transaction theoretically would go through the normal Visa or MasterCard processing that takes place outside of Russia. While XXXX said such a deal is a possibility, it would require negotiations to specify this approach in the draft law.
ON-SHORE PAYMENT PROCESSING REQUIRED ------------------------------------
5.(C) In the proposed draft of the law, if international payment card companies choose not to join the NPCS, they will have to set up on-shore processing centers. But neither Visa nor MasterCard representatives, which together have 85% of the Russian payment card market, are willing to say whether they would be willing to do so. MasterCard's Head in Russia, XXXX XXXX, said MasterCard would have to "build and assess the business model of setting up on-shore processing" before it could reach a decision. The draft law stipulates that international payment card companies will have one year to establish processing centers inside of Russia. (Note: Currently no international companies have processing centers in Russia.) A ban on sending abroad payment data for purely domestic transactions will become effective two years after the law enters into force.
6.(C) According to XXXX, MinFin understands that this MOSCOW 00000228 002 OF 002 would entail so much expense and difficulty for Visa and MasterCard that the two companies might quit the Russian domestic market. XXXX believes that, at least at the Deputy Minister level, MinFin's hands are tied. Implying that Russian security services were behind this decision, XXXX said, "There is some se-cret (government) order that no one has seen, but everyone has to abide by it." As described reftel, credit card company and bank representatives have told us that GOR officials apparently assume that US payment systems routinely share data associated with payment transactions by Russian cardholders with intelligence services in the US and elsewhere.
STATE EMPLOYEES ALL GET NPCS CARDS ----------------------------------
7.(C) The current draft of the law would require all stated-owned enterprises and all state employees to be issued NPCS cards and to receive their salaries via electronic deposit into NPCS member-banks. (Note: Eighty percent of payment card holders have what are called "salary cards," a type of debit card negotiated between the employer and a bank. Historically, employees have used their salary cards almost exclusively to withdraw their salaries at the beginning of each month, though they can also use them as debit cards.) One positive aspect of the latest version of the law is that vendors are not required to accept NPCS cards, as was required in earlier versions.
COMMENT -------
8.(C) This draft law continues to disadvantage U.S. payment card market leaders Visa and MasterCard, whether they join the National Payment Card System or not. If they join, the NPCS operator will collect the fees, leaving them to collect processing fees only when card-holders travel abroad -- a tiny section of the market. If they do not join but choose to compete with NPCS cards, they will have to set up payment processing centers in Russia, a very large investment in itself, and compete against a system likely backed by the largest Russian state banks. While the draft legislation has yet to be submitted to the Duma and can still be amended, post will continue to raise our concerns with senior GOR officials. We recommend that senior USG officials also take advantage of meetings with their Russian counterparts, including through the Bilateral Presidential Commission, to press the GOR to change the draft text to ensure U.S. payment companies are not adversely affected. END COMMENT. Beyrle
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Brzezinksi smells a WikiRat
ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI, in an interview with PBS, raises the question of whether Wikileaks is being manipulated in order to complicate U.S. relationships with other governments.
The longtime national security expert said that "I think the most serious issues are not those which are getting the headlines right now. Who cares if Berlusconi is described as a clown. Most Italians agree with that. Who cares if Putin is described as an alpha dog? He probably is flattered by it. The real issue is, who is feeding Wikipedia on this issue — Wiki — Wiki — Wikileaks on this issue? They’re getting a lot of information which seems trivial, inconsequential, but some of it seems surprisingly pointed. …The very pointed references to Arab leaders could have as their objective undermining their political credibility at home, because this kind of public identification of their hostility towards Iran could actually play against them at home.
"It’s, rather, a question of whether Wikileaks are being manipulated by interested parties that want to either complicate our relationship with other governments or want to undermine some governments, because some of these items that are being emphasized and have surfaced are very pointed.
"And I wonder whether, in fact, there aren’t some operations internationally, intelligence services, that are feeding stuff to WikiLeaks, because it is a unique opportunity to embarrass us, to embarrass our position, but also to undermine our relations with particular governments."
Brzezinski, who served Jimmy Carter as national security adviser, has a point, but I wonder whether his idea of motive is all that simple.
Vice President Joe Biden today likened Assange to a "hi-tech terrorist," the strongest criticism yet from the Obama administration, reports the Guardian.
Biden told Meet the Press that by leaking diplomatic cables Assange had put lives at risk and made it more difficult for the U.S. to conduct its business around the world.
His description of Assange shows a level of irritation that contrasts with more sanguine comments from other senior figures in the White House, who said the leak had not done serious damage.
The justice department is struggling to find legislation with which to prosecute Assange in attempt to overcome the First Amendment that forbids Congress from making a law to abridge press freedom.
Asked if what Assange had done was criminal, Biden seemed to suggest it would be considered criminal if it could be established that the WikiLeaks founder had encouraged or helped Bradley Manning, the US intelligence analyst suspected of being behind the leak. Biden claimed this was different from a journalist receiving leaked material.
Biden, like others, is demonizing Assange while the security system responsible for the bizarre lapse gets a pass. If Assange is a "high-tech terrorist," we would then face the possibility of intelligence units in or outside America being responsible for this "terrorism."
The lid has lifted from police statements concerning Assange's sex episodes. This from the Guardian:
[Miss A's] account to police, which Assange disputes, stated that he began stroking her leg as they drank tea, before he pulled off her clothes and snapped a necklace that she was wearing. According to her statement she “tried to put on some articles of clothing as it was going too quickly and uncomfortably but Assange ripped them off again”. Miss A told police that she didn’t want to go any further “but that it was too late to stop Assange as she had gone along with it so far”, and so she allowed him to undress her.
According to the statement, Miss A then realised he was trying to have unprotected sex with her. She told police that she had tried a number of times to reach for a condom but Assange had stopped her by holding her arms and pinning her legs. The statement records Miss A describing how Assange then released her arms and agreed to use a condom, but she told the police that at some stage Assange had “done something” with the condom that resulted in it becoming ripped, and ejaculated without withdrawing.
We certainly can see why the Swedish prosecutor moved to drop the case. And it seems quite evident that her superior's decision to reinstate the case came as a result of political pressure.
A Wikileaks mirror site tells of getting the bum's rush based on false claims.
This is Wikileaks.info's report:
On Tuesday, 14-Dec-2010 Spamhaus has issued a statement wherein it labels wikileaks.info as "unsafe", as they consider our hosting company as a malware facilitator:
http://www.spamhaus.org/news.lasso?article=665
We find it very disturbing that Spamhaus labels a site as dangerous without even checking if there is any malware on it. We monitor the wikileaks.info site and we can guarantee that there is no malware on it. We do not know who else is hosted with Heihachi Ltd and it is none of our business. They provide reliable hosting to us. That's it.
While we are in favour of "Blacklists", be it for mail servers or web sites, they have to be compiled with care. Just listing whole IP blocks as "bad" may be quick and easy for the blacklist editors, but will harm hosters and web site users.
Wikileaks has been pulled from big hosters like Amazon. That's why we are using a "bulletproof" hoster that does not just kick a site when it gets a letter from government or a big company. Our hoster is giving home to many political sites like castor-schottern.org and should not be blocked just because they might have hosted some malware sites.
Fortunately, more responsible blacklists, like stopbadware.org (which protects the Firefox browser, for example), don't list us. We do hope that Spamhaus hasn't issued this statement due to political pressure.
Wikileaks.info will always be safe and clean. Promised:
Google Safe Browsing Check for wikileaks.info
Update (15-Dec-2010 17:00 PM GMT): Spamhaus has updated their statement to say that they don't blacklist us.
Update 2 (20-Dec-2010 8:00 AM GMT): In another statement update on 18-Dec-2010, Spamhaus states that they have been DDOSed by Anonops and they link us to Anonops. Spamhaus is wrong there again, we are in now way linked to Anonops. A day later (19-Dec-2010), Spamhaus corrects itself by now saying that Anonops was not DDOSing them. They now think it was Heihachi Ltd. (which is our hosting provider). We don't know if that is true or not, but Spamhaus seems to be very fast at pointing at somebody without proof. Bottomline: We are a group that supports Wikileaks with no connection to cybercriminals.
The wikileaks.info Team
Apple on Tuesday confirmed that it had removed from its online store an iPhone and iPad app that let users view the content on the WikiLeaks site and follow the WikiLeaks Twitter account, the New York Times reports.
Trudy Muller, an Apple spokeswoman, said the company had removed the app “because it violated our developer guidelines.” Muller added: “Apps must comply with all local laws and may not put an individual or group in harm’s way.”
So by that reasoning Apple should block New York Times and Guardian related app. Correct? Governments have been saying for years that news organizations put people in harm's way. By the way, don't app-rigged cell phones put people in harm's way, increasing the probabilities of traffic accidents?
This is all about the profit-oriented system going after someone who doesn't worship at the altar of Mammon, but who exercises freedom of the press as an activist, without asking the system's permission.
'Secret accord' between Israel, U.S. for settlement growth. Here's the cable:
ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI, in an interview with PBS, raises the question of whether Wikileaks is being manipulated in order to complicate U.S. relationships with other governments.
The longtime national security expert said that "I think the most serious issues are not those which are getting the headlines right now. Who cares if Berlusconi is described as a clown. Most Italians agree with that. Who cares if Putin is described as an alpha dog? He probably is flattered by it. The real issue is, who is feeding Wikipedia on this issue — Wiki — Wiki — Wikileaks on this issue? They’re getting a lot of information which seems trivial, inconsequential, but some of it seems surprisingly pointed. …The very pointed references to Arab leaders could have as their objective undermining their political credibility at home, because this kind of public identification of their hostility towards Iran could actually play against them at home.
"It’s, rather, a question of whether Wikileaks are being manipulated by interested parties that want to either complicate our relationship with other governments or want to undermine some governments, because some of these items that are being emphasized and have surfaced are very pointed.
"And I wonder whether, in fact, there aren’t some operations internationally, intelligence services, that are feeding stuff to WikiLeaks, because it is a unique opportunity to embarrass us, to embarrass our position, but also to undermine our relations with particular governments."
Brzezinski, who served Jimmy Carter as national security adviser, has a point, but I wonder whether his idea of motive is all that simple.
Vice President Joe Biden today likened Assange to a "hi-tech terrorist," the strongest criticism yet from the Obama administration, reports the Guardian.
Biden told Meet the Press that by leaking diplomatic cables Assange had put lives at risk and made it more difficult for the U.S. to conduct its business around the world.
His description of Assange shows a level of irritation that contrasts with more sanguine comments from other senior figures in the White House, who said the leak had not done serious damage.
The justice department is struggling to find legislation with which to prosecute Assange in attempt to overcome the First Amendment that forbids Congress from making a law to abridge press freedom.
Asked if what Assange had done was criminal, Biden seemed to suggest it would be considered criminal if it could be established that the WikiLeaks founder had encouraged or helped Bradley Manning, the US intelligence analyst suspected of being behind the leak. Biden claimed this was different from a journalist receiving leaked material.
Biden, like others, is demonizing Assange while the security system responsible for the bizarre lapse gets a pass. If Assange is a "high-tech terrorist," we would then face the possibility of intelligence units in or outside America being responsible for this "terrorism."
The lid has lifted from police statements concerning Assange's sex episodes. This from the Guardian:
[Miss A's] account to police, which Assange disputes, stated that he began stroking her leg as they drank tea, before he pulled off her clothes and snapped a necklace that she was wearing. According to her statement she “tried to put on some articles of clothing as it was going too quickly and uncomfortably but Assange ripped them off again”. Miss A told police that she didn’t want to go any further “but that it was too late to stop Assange as she had gone along with it so far”, and so she allowed him to undress her.
According to the statement, Miss A then realised he was trying to have unprotected sex with her. She told police that she had tried a number of times to reach for a condom but Assange had stopped her by holding her arms and pinning her legs. The statement records Miss A describing how Assange then released her arms and agreed to use a condom, but she told the police that at some stage Assange had “done something” with the condom that resulted in it becoming ripped, and ejaculated without withdrawing.
We certainly can see why the Swedish prosecutor moved to drop the case. And it seems quite evident that her superior's decision to reinstate the case came as a result of political pressure.
A Wikileaks mirror site tells of getting the bum's rush based on false claims.
This is Wikileaks.info's report:
On Tuesday, 14-Dec-2010 Spamhaus has issued a statement wherein it labels wikileaks.info as "unsafe", as they consider our hosting company as a malware facilitator:
http://www.spamhaus.org/news.lasso?article=665
We find it very disturbing that Spamhaus labels a site as dangerous without even checking if there is any malware on it. We monitor the wikileaks.info site and we can guarantee that there is no malware on it. We do not know who else is hosted with Heihachi Ltd and it is none of our business. They provide reliable hosting to us. That's it.
While we are in favour of "Blacklists", be it for mail servers or web sites, they have to be compiled with care. Just listing whole IP blocks as "bad" may be quick and easy for the blacklist editors, but will harm hosters and web site users.
Wikileaks has been pulled from big hosters like Amazon. That's why we are using a "bulletproof" hoster that does not just kick a site when it gets a letter from government or a big company. Our hoster is giving home to many political sites like castor-schottern.org and should not be blocked just because they might have hosted some malware sites.
Fortunately, more responsible blacklists, like stopbadware.org (which protects the Firefox browser, for example), don't list us. We do hope that Spamhaus hasn't issued this statement due to political pressure.
Wikileaks.info will always be safe and clean. Promised:
Google Safe Browsing Check for wikileaks.info
Update (15-Dec-2010 17:00 PM GMT): Spamhaus has updated their statement to say that they don't blacklist us.
Update 2 (20-Dec-2010 8:00 AM GMT): In another statement update on 18-Dec-2010, Spamhaus states that they have been DDOSed by Anonops and they link us to Anonops. Spamhaus is wrong there again, we are in now way linked to Anonops. A day later (19-Dec-2010), Spamhaus corrects itself by now saying that Anonops was not DDOSing them. They now think it was Heihachi Ltd. (which is our hosting provider). We don't know if that is true or not, but Spamhaus seems to be very fast at pointing at somebody without proof. Bottomline: We are a group that supports Wikileaks with no connection to cybercriminals.
The wikileaks.info Team
Apple on Tuesday confirmed that it had removed from its online store an iPhone and iPad app that let users view the content on the WikiLeaks site and follow the WikiLeaks Twitter account, the New York Times reports.
Trudy Muller, an Apple spokeswoman, said the company had removed the app “because it violated our developer guidelines.” Muller added: “Apps must comply with all local laws and may not put an individual or group in harm’s way.”
So by that reasoning Apple should block New York Times and Guardian related app. Correct? Governments have been saying for years that news organizations put people in harm's way. By the way, don't app-rigged cell phones put people in harm's way, increasing the probabilities of traffic accidents?
This is all about the profit-oriented system going after someone who doesn't worship at the altar of Mammon, but who exercises freedom of the press as an activist, without asking the system's permission.
'Secret accord' between Israel, U.S. for settlement growth. Here's the cable:
VZCZCXRO5810 OO RUEHDBU RUEHFL RUEHKW RUEHLA RUEHNP RUEHROV RUEHSL DE RUEHFR #0827 1731354 ZNY SSSSS ZZH O 221354Z JUN 09 FM AMEMBASSY PARIS TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 6494 INFO RUEHXK/ARAB ISRAELI COLLECTIVE PRIORITY RUEHZL/EUROPEAN POLITICAL COLLECTIVE PRIORITY RHEHNSC/WHITE HOUSE NSC WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY
S E C R E T PARIS 000827 NOFORN SIPDIS NSC FOR SHAPIRO/KUMAR LONDON FOR TSOU E.O. 12958: DECL: 06/22/2019 TAGS: PGOV PREL FR SUBJECT: FRANCE MID-EAST DIRECTOR ON PEACE PROCESS Classified By: Acting Political Minister Counselor Andrew R. Young for reasons 1.4 (b) and (d). ¶1. (S/NF) MFA Middle East Director (Assistant Secretary-equivalent) Patrice Paoli informed POL Minister Counselor June 18 that Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak told French officials in Paris June 15 that the Israelis have a "secret accord" with the USG to continue the "natural growth" of Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Paoli noted that the French anticipate strong Israeli resistance to USG pressure on this issue. He asked whether the USG has considered how to adapt to possible Israeli responses: "How will you react to Israeli reactions to your pressure?" He claimed that "the credibility of President Obama will be judged on the issue of settlements." MFA DAS Ludovic Pouille, who also attended the meeting, underlined this point: "Arabs are saying progress on settlements is crucial. Saudi Arabia and Egypt seem obsessed with the settlements issue; they won't even enter the game without progress on settlements." Paoli added that "negotiations can wait until the fall, but steps forward cannot wait until then." Both diplomats emphasized the need to build confidence measures on the ground now. ¶2. (S/NF) In stressing the energy with which the GOF plans to approach the peace process, Paoli said that France will not wait until all 27 EU members are in agreement before pressing ahead with their support of USG efforts. Pouille said the French can play an important role on "two key issues": working toward a settlements freeze and monitoring the implementation of an eventual agreement. By leaning on other countries in the European Union and within the Quartet to bring their resources to bear ("their diplomatic presence, their networks"), Paoli said that France hopes to contribute to pressing the parties forward as quickly as possible. Pouille stressed monitoring in particular, which he described as "a big hole at the Annapolis conference." He argued that "the US cannot be the only judge" of progress. ¶3. (S/NF) Paoli explained that President Sarkozy will have three messages to convey to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu when they meet in Paris on June 24: -- "You think you've got time, but you don't." -- "You think you have an alternative solution, but you don't." -- "You think you're stronger than the Palestinians, but you're not." Paoli said that Sarkozy will stress that "there is a single door and it is imperative to move through it now." Paoli and Pouille both expressed disappointment with the reservations contained in Netanyahu's June 14 speech, but noted that it nonetheless reflected significant movement in the Likud position regarding a Palestinian state. "It's not easy to reverse a campaign promise two months after the campaign," Paoli observed. They also said that President Obama's address in Cairo was extremely well received in France and in the Arab world. "It was a speech, though, and it was a received as a speech," Pouille said. "The reaction in the Arab world was: 'Now do it.'" PEKALA
Saturday, December 18, 2010
with shamed security chiefs
Bank of America Corp said Saturday it will refuse to process payments intended for WikiLeaks, which has angered U.S. authorities with the mass release of U.S. diplomatic cables, reports Reuters.
The largest U.S. bank by assets joins a growing group of financial services companies, including MasterCard, PayPal and Visa Europe, that are restricting payments to the global organization which has said its next large document release will be bank information.
"This decision is based upon our reasonable belief that WikiLeaks may be engaged in activities that are, among other things, inconsistent with our internal policies for processing payments," the bank said in a statement obtained by Reuters.
WikiLeaks has said it will release documents early next year that will point to "unethical practices" at a major U.S. bank, widely thought to be Bank of America.
Why has no one been called on the carpet
over the huge security lapse exposed by Wikileaks?
Clearly, Julian Assange did the United States a big favor by publicly exposing the monstrous flaw in computer security. Yet neither Obama nor members of Congress seem to be concerned at all. Press discussion of the lapse has been muted.
It's understandable that Obama and his Pentagon chief, Gates, would not like to draw attention to such a snafu, with all its implications for covert terrorist and foreign government access. But it is difficult to understand why Republican lawmakers have seemingly raised few public alarms.
I think what we see is the rich and powerful covering for each other and lobbying to find a way to shut down Wikileaks before it embarrasses BankAmerica executives.
Vatican spurned Irish sex abuse inquiry, we learn from a Wikileaks cable published by the Guardian.
A Guardian editorial rightly notes that, whatever the truth about the allegations against Assange, citizens everywhere have been getting powerful insights into how things really work. Of course, members of the press generally already know about official doublespeak. But now the ordinary person can see the level of coverup and duplicity that goes on.
Here is the cable reporting on the Vatican:
Friday, 26 February 2010, 16:32
S E C R E T SECTION 01 OF 03 VATICAN 000033
SIPDIS
EO 12958 DECL: 2/26/2035
TAGS PREL, PHUM, SOCI, KIRF, VT, EI
SUBJECT: SEX ABUSE SCANDAL STRAINS IRISH-VATICAN RELATIONS, SHAKES UP
IRISH CHURCH, AND POSES CHALLENGES FOR THE HOLY SEE
VATICAN 00000033 001.2 OF 003
CLASSIFIED BY: Julieta Valls Noyes, DCM, EXEC, State. REASON: 1.4 (b) 1. (C) Summary: The November 2009 report of cover-up by local bishops of revelations of physical and sexual abuse of children by Irish clergy appalled Catholics and others worldwide. Vatican and Irish officials' first concern was for the victims, but that reality was sometimes obscured in the events that followed which also cast a chill on Irish-Vatican relations. The Vatican believes the Irish government failed to respect and protect Vatican sovereignty during the investigations. Much of the Irish public views the Vatican protests as pettily procedural and failing to confront the real issue of horrific abuse and cover-up by Church officials. The resulting profound crisis in the Irish Church, meanwhile, required intervention by Pope Benedict, who met with Irish Church leaders in December 2009 and in February 2010 to discuss next steps. Although the Pope will address a pastoral letter on the situation to Irish Catholics in the next few weeks, both the Vatican and the local Catholic Church agree that further follow-up should be handled domestically in Ireland. The Vatican's relatively swift response to this crisis showed it learned key lessons from the U.S. sex abuse scandals in 2002 but still left some Catholics - in Ireland and beyond -- feeling disaffected. The crisis will play out for years inside Ireland, where future revelations are expected, even as new clerical sex abuse allegations are being made in Germany. End Summary.
Origin of a Scandal: Horrific and Endemic
------------------------------------------
2. (U) The Irish scandal broke in the 1990s, following a series of criminal cases and Irish government enquiries that established that hundreds of lay persons and priests had abused thousands of children in Ireland for decades. In 1999, Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern announced a program to respond to the abuse, including a compensation scheme into which the government and various religious orders made contributions. In announcing this program, Ahern was the first Irish official to apologize to the victims. He also launched a study into abuse at Irish institutions run by religious orders but overseen and funded by Ireland's Department of Education. After nine years of investigation, the Ryan Commission issued a report in May 2009 that detailed horrific abuses, including 325 alleged cases of abuse by priests, and concluded they were "endemic." With the crisis unfolding, Irish Catholics and Irish investigators turned to Rome for additional answers.
Political Reaction: Inquiries Offend Vatican and Irish Public
--------------------------------------------- ----------------
3. (SBU) After release of the Ryan report, the Irish Government ordered an investigation of the Ryan Commission's allegations against priests in the Archdiocese of Dublin, to be conducted by the independent Murphy Commission. Sidestepping diplomatic channels, the Murphy Commission sent a letter requesting further information to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), which follows issues relating to clerical misconduct and crimes. The Commission also asked the Vatican Nuncio in Ireland to answer questions. (Judge Murphy argued that the body did not have to follow normal inter-state procedures in making its requests because the independent commission was not part of the Irish government.)
4. (S/NF) While Vatican contacts immediately expressed deep sympathy for the victims and insisted that the first priority was preventing a recurrence, they also were angered by how the situation played out politically. The Murphy Commission's requests offended many in the Vatican, the Holy See's Assessor Peter Wells (protect strictly) told DCM, because they saw them as an affront to Vatican sovereignty. Vatican officials were also angered that the Government of Ireland did not step in to direct the Murphy Commission to follow standard procedures in communications with Vatican City. Adding insult to injury, Vatican officials also believed some Irish opposition politicians were making political hay with the situation by calling publicly on the government to demand that the Vatican reply. Ultimately, Vatican Secretary of State (Prime Minister equivalent) Bertone wrote to the Irish Embassy that requests related to the investigation must come through diplomatic channels via letters rogatory.
5. (S/NF) The Irish Embassy to the Holy See offered to facilitate better communications between the Irish commission and the Holy See, but neither party took any further action. Irish Ambassador Noel Fahey (formerly ambassador to Washington) told DCM this was the most difficult crisis he had ever managed. The Irish government wanted to be seen as cooperating with the investigation because its Education Department was implicated, but did not want to insist that the Vatican answer the requests because they had come outside of regular channels. In the end, the Irish government decided not to press the Vatican to reply, according to Fahey's Deputy, Helena Keleher. Moreover, Keleher
VATICAN 00000033 002.2 OF 003
told Polchief the CDF probably did not have much to add to the inquiry. Regarding the request for the Nuncio to testify, Keleher said the GOI understood that foreign ambassadors are not required or expected to appear before national commissions. Nevertheless, Keleher thought the Nuncio in Ireland made things worse by simply ignoring the requests.
6. (C) The resentment caused by the Murphy Commission tactics - and failure of the Government of Ireland to temper them -- now has worn off a little in Rome. This is in part because the legal and diplomatic questions posed by the Commission's demands are now moot since the Murphy Commission released its report in November 2009. It substantiated many of the claims and also concluded that some bishops tried to cover up the abuses, putting the interests of the Church ahead of those of the victims.
7. (C) The Irish people's anger, however, has not worn off. The refusal of the Holy See to respond to the Murphy Commission questions caused a furor of public disbelief in Ireland when it became known. Foreign Minister Martin was forced to call in the Papal Nuncio to discuss the situation. The Irish public was not mollified. Resentment toward the Church in Rome remains very high, particularly because of the institutionalized cover-up of abuse by the Catholic Church hierarchy. In the wake of the scandal, four of the five bishops named in the Murphy Report have resigned; the fifth has refused to quit. Archbishop Martin's Christmas Eve Midnight Mass announcement of the resignation of two of the five key bishops named in the Murphy report was met be thunderous applause, which he had a hard time quieting.
Pastoral Reaction: Meetings with Clerics and Messages to Catholics
--------------------------------------------- --------------
--------
8. (C) Meanwhile, the normally cautious Vatican moved with uncharacteristic speed to address the internal Church crisis. The Pope convoked a meeting with senior Irish clerical leaders on December 11, 2009. Irish Cardinal Sean Brady and Archbishop of Dublin Diarmuid Martin came to Rome and met with the Pontiff, who was flanked by Cardinal Bertone (the Vatican Prime Minster equivalent), and four other Cardinals whose duties include oversight over some aspect of the Irish situation. At the end of the meeting, the Vatican issued a statement saying that the Pope shared the "outrage, betrayal, and shame" of Irish Catholics over the deliberations, that he was praying for the victims, and that the Church would take steps to prevent recurrences. Archbishop Martin told reporters afterwards that he expected a major shake-up of the Church in Ireland.
9. (SBU) The Vatican's next move was to call a broader, two-day meeting with Irish bishops, February 15-16, to discuss the crisis. There, the Pope urged the bishops to address the sexual abuse with resolve and courage, to prevent any recurrences, and to bring healing to the victims. Meeting participants examined and discussed a draft of the "Pastoral Letter of the Holy Father to the Catholics of Ireland" that the Pope will issue by the end of March. A later Vatican statement said the abuses in Ireland were a "heinous crime and also a grave sin."
10. (U) At a press conference on February 16, Vatican spokesman Lombardi said the meeting was aimed at dialogue and direction-setting, and was not intended to produce specific policy decisions. The statement quoted the bishops' assurances that "significant measures have now been taken to ensure the safety of children and young people." The full text is available at http://212.77.1.245/news services/bulletin/news/25154.php?index=25154& po date=16.02.2010&lang=en
Public Reaction: Vatican Response Helps, but More Needed
--------------------------------------------- -----------
11. (C/NF) Judging by media commentary, many non-Irish Catholics felt the Vatican's response to the crisis was a good start but more was needed. Irish Deputy Head of Mission Keleher told polchief on February 18 that she sympathized with victims' groups' criticism of the Vatican statement, because it was not more focused on the pain caused to the victims. Victims' associations also have complained that the Pope did not issue an apology for the abuses and that he did not order the removal of the remaining bishop accused of the cover-up. (Archbishop Martin's comments in December apparently had convinced many that the Vatican would remove the errant bishops if they did not quit.)
Comment: Some Lessons Learned, but Crisis Will Play Out for Years
--------------------------------------------- --------------------
VATICAN 00000033 003.2 OF 003
12. (C) In keeping with the Catholic practice of making local bishops ultimately responsible for the management of their dioceses, we expect that the locus of the crisis and measures to address it will remain largely with the Catholic Church in Ireland. One exception will be on decisions of whether to accept or reject resignation offers from the implicated bishops -- or the removal of the bishop who refused to offer his resignation -- which rest with the Pope. The other big exception will be the Pope's pastoral letter to Irish Catholics, in which the Vatican may address concerns and criticisms about statements and actions undertaken to date. After this, though, the Vatican will return to the background - while keeping an eye on the Irish bishops and continuing to urge them to speak with one voice. Our contacts at the Vatican and in Ireland expect the crisis in the Irish Catholic Church to be protracted over several years, as only allegations from the Dublin Archdiocese have been investigated to date. Investigations of allegations from other Archdioceses will lead, officials in both states lament, to additional painful revelations.
13. (C) In Ireland, these abuse scandals occurred at the end of a long period of increasing secularization of society - and may further reduce the influence of the Catholic Church. Indeed, the great vehemence of the Irish reaction to this crisis reflects how far the Catholic Church in Ireland has fallen. Once ensconced in the Irish Constitution, the Irish Catholic Church reached the height of its prestige and power with the 1979 visit of Pope John Paul II but it has been falling ever since. At the same time, the Murphy Report reflects Irish shame over the collaboration of Ireland's state bodies, including its schools, courts and police, in the appalling abuses and cover-up that occurred for decades.
14. (S) Vatican analysts, meanwhile, agree that the Holy See's handling of the Irish scandal shows the Vatican learned some important lessons from the U.S. sex abuse scandal of 2002. By acting quickly to express horror at allegations, to label the alleged acts both crimes and sins, and to call in the local leaders to discuss how to prevent recurrences, the Vatican limited - but certainly did not eliminate - the damage caused to the Church's standing in Ireland and worldwide. Unfortunately, given the growing abuse scandal in Germany, it may need to deploy those lessons again before long. End Comment.
15. (U) Embassy Dublin contributed to and cleared this cable. DIAZ
S E C R E T SECTION 01 OF 03 VATICAN 000033
SIPDIS
EO 12958 DECL: 2/26/2035
TAGS PREL, PHUM, SOCI, KIRF, VT, EI
SUBJECT: SEX ABUSE SCANDAL STRAINS IRISH-VATICAN RELATIONS, SHAKES UP
IRISH CHURCH, AND POSES CHALLENGES FOR THE HOLY SEE
VATICAN 00000033 001.2 OF 003
CLASSIFIED BY: Julieta Valls Noyes, DCM, EXEC, State. REASON: 1.4 (b) 1. (C) Summary: The November 2009 report of cover-up by local bishops of revelations of physical and sexual abuse of children by Irish clergy appalled Catholics and others worldwide. Vatican and Irish officials' first concern was for the victims, but that reality was sometimes obscured in the events that followed which also cast a chill on Irish-Vatican relations. The Vatican believes the Irish government failed to respect and protect Vatican sovereignty during the investigations. Much of the Irish public views the Vatican protests as pettily procedural and failing to confront the real issue of horrific abuse and cover-up by Church officials. The resulting profound crisis in the Irish Church, meanwhile, required intervention by Pope Benedict, who met with Irish Church leaders in December 2009 and in February 2010 to discuss next steps. Although the Pope will address a pastoral letter on the situation to Irish Catholics in the next few weeks, both the Vatican and the local Catholic Church agree that further follow-up should be handled domestically in Ireland. The Vatican's relatively swift response to this crisis showed it learned key lessons from the U.S. sex abuse scandals in 2002 but still left some Catholics - in Ireland and beyond -- feeling disaffected. The crisis will play out for years inside Ireland, where future revelations are expected, even as new clerical sex abuse allegations are being made in Germany. End Summary.
Origin of a Scandal: Horrific and Endemic
------------------------------------------
2. (U) The Irish scandal broke in the 1990s, following a series of criminal cases and Irish government enquiries that established that hundreds of lay persons and priests had abused thousands of children in Ireland for decades. In 1999, Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern announced a program to respond to the abuse, including a compensation scheme into which the government and various religious orders made contributions. In announcing this program, Ahern was the first Irish official to apologize to the victims. He also launched a study into abuse at Irish institutions run by religious orders but overseen and funded by Ireland's Department of Education. After nine years of investigation, the Ryan Commission issued a report in May 2009 that detailed horrific abuses, including 325 alleged cases of abuse by priests, and concluded they were "endemic." With the crisis unfolding, Irish Catholics and Irish investigators turned to Rome for additional answers.
Political Reaction: Inquiries Offend Vatican and Irish Public
--------------------------------------------- ----------------
3. (SBU) After release of the Ryan report, the Irish Government ordered an investigation of the Ryan Commission's allegations against priests in the Archdiocese of Dublin, to be conducted by the independent Murphy Commission. Sidestepping diplomatic channels, the Murphy Commission sent a letter requesting further information to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), which follows issues relating to clerical misconduct and crimes. The Commission also asked the Vatican Nuncio in Ireland to answer questions. (Judge Murphy argued that the body did not have to follow normal inter-state procedures in making its requests because the independent commission was not part of the Irish government.)
4. (S/NF) While Vatican contacts immediately expressed deep sympathy for the victims and insisted that the first priority was preventing a recurrence, they also were angered by how the situation played out politically. The Murphy Commission's requests offended many in the Vatican, the Holy See's Assessor Peter Wells (protect strictly) told DCM, because they saw them as an affront to Vatican sovereignty. Vatican officials were also angered that the Government of Ireland did not step in to direct the Murphy Commission to follow standard procedures in communications with Vatican City. Adding insult to injury, Vatican officials also believed some Irish opposition politicians were making political hay with the situation by calling publicly on the government to demand that the Vatican reply. Ultimately, Vatican Secretary of State (Prime Minister equivalent) Bertone wrote to the Irish Embassy that requests related to the investigation must come through diplomatic channels via letters rogatory.
5. (S/NF) The Irish Embassy to the Holy See offered to facilitate better communications between the Irish commission and the Holy See, but neither party took any further action. Irish Ambassador Noel Fahey (formerly ambassador to Washington) told DCM this was the most difficult crisis he had ever managed. The Irish government wanted to be seen as cooperating with the investigation because its Education Department was implicated, but did not want to insist that the Vatican answer the requests because they had come outside of regular channels. In the end, the Irish government decided not to press the Vatican to reply, according to Fahey's Deputy, Helena Keleher. Moreover, Keleher
VATICAN 00000033 002.2 OF 003
told Polchief the CDF probably did not have much to add to the inquiry. Regarding the request for the Nuncio to testify, Keleher said the GOI understood that foreign ambassadors are not required or expected to appear before national commissions. Nevertheless, Keleher thought the Nuncio in Ireland made things worse by simply ignoring the requests.
6. (C) The resentment caused by the Murphy Commission tactics - and failure of the Government of Ireland to temper them -- now has worn off a little in Rome. This is in part because the legal and diplomatic questions posed by the Commission's demands are now moot since the Murphy Commission released its report in November 2009. It substantiated many of the claims and also concluded that some bishops tried to cover up the abuses, putting the interests of the Church ahead of those of the victims.
7. (C) The Irish people's anger, however, has not worn off. The refusal of the Holy See to respond to the Murphy Commission questions caused a furor of public disbelief in Ireland when it became known. Foreign Minister Martin was forced to call in the Papal Nuncio to discuss the situation. The Irish public was not mollified. Resentment toward the Church in Rome remains very high, particularly because of the institutionalized cover-up of abuse by the Catholic Church hierarchy. In the wake of the scandal, four of the five bishops named in the Murphy Report have resigned; the fifth has refused to quit. Archbishop Martin's Christmas Eve Midnight Mass announcement of the resignation of two of the five key bishops named in the Murphy report was met be thunderous applause, which he had a hard time quieting.
Pastoral Reaction: Meetings with Clerics and Messages to Catholics
--------------------------------------------- --------------
--------
8. (C) Meanwhile, the normally cautious Vatican moved with uncharacteristic speed to address the internal Church crisis. The Pope convoked a meeting with senior Irish clerical leaders on December 11, 2009. Irish Cardinal Sean Brady and Archbishop of Dublin Diarmuid Martin came to Rome and met with the Pontiff, who was flanked by Cardinal Bertone (the Vatican Prime Minster equivalent), and four other Cardinals whose duties include oversight over some aspect of the Irish situation. At the end of the meeting, the Vatican issued a statement saying that the Pope shared the "outrage, betrayal, and shame" of Irish Catholics over the deliberations, that he was praying for the victims, and that the Church would take steps to prevent recurrences. Archbishop Martin told reporters afterwards that he expected a major shake-up of the Church in Ireland.
9. (SBU) The Vatican's next move was to call a broader, two-day meeting with Irish bishops, February 15-16, to discuss the crisis. There, the Pope urged the bishops to address the sexual abuse with resolve and courage, to prevent any recurrences, and to bring healing to the victims. Meeting participants examined and discussed a draft of the "Pastoral Letter of the Holy Father to the Catholics of Ireland" that the Pope will issue by the end of March. A later Vatican statement said the abuses in Ireland were a "heinous crime and also a grave sin."
10. (U) At a press conference on February 16, Vatican spokesman Lombardi said the meeting was aimed at dialogue and direction-setting, and was not intended to produce specific policy decisions. The statement quoted the bishops' assurances that "significant measures have now been taken to ensure the safety of children and young people." The full text is available at http://212.77.1.245/news services/bulletin/news/25154.php?index=25154& po date=16.02.2010&lang=en
Public Reaction: Vatican Response Helps, but More Needed
--------------------------------------------- -----------
11. (C/NF) Judging by media commentary, many non-Irish Catholics felt the Vatican's response to the crisis was a good start but more was needed. Irish Deputy Head of Mission Keleher told polchief on February 18 that she sympathized with victims' groups' criticism of the Vatican statement, because it was not more focused on the pain caused to the victims. Victims' associations also have complained that the Pope did not issue an apology for the abuses and that he did not order the removal of the remaining bishop accused of the cover-up. (Archbishop Martin's comments in December apparently had convinced many that the Vatican would remove the errant bishops if they did not quit.)
Comment: Some Lessons Learned, but Crisis Will Play Out for Years
--------------------------------------------- --------------------
VATICAN 00000033 003.2 OF 003
12. (C) In keeping with the Catholic practice of making local bishops ultimately responsible for the management of their dioceses, we expect that the locus of the crisis and measures to address it will remain largely with the Catholic Church in Ireland. One exception will be on decisions of whether to accept or reject resignation offers from the implicated bishops -- or the removal of the bishop who refused to offer his resignation -- which rest with the Pope. The other big exception will be the Pope's pastoral letter to Irish Catholics, in which the Vatican may address concerns and criticisms about statements and actions undertaken to date. After this, though, the Vatican will return to the background - while keeping an eye on the Irish bishops and continuing to urge them to speak with one voice. Our contacts at the Vatican and in Ireland expect the crisis in the Irish Catholic Church to be protracted over several years, as only allegations from the Dublin Archdiocese have been investigated to date. Investigations of allegations from other Archdioceses will lead, officials in both states lament, to additional painful revelations.
13. (C) In Ireland, these abuse scandals occurred at the end of a long period of increasing secularization of society - and may further reduce the influence of the Catholic Church. Indeed, the great vehemence of the Irish reaction to this crisis reflects how far the Catholic Church in Ireland has fallen. Once ensconced in the Irish Constitution, the Irish Catholic Church reached the height of its prestige and power with the 1979 visit of Pope John Paul II but it has been falling ever since. At the same time, the Murphy Report reflects Irish shame over the collaboration of Ireland's state bodies, including its schools, courts and police, in the appalling abuses and cover-up that occurred for decades.
14. (S) Vatican analysts, meanwhile, agree that the Holy See's handling of the Irish scandal shows the Vatican learned some important lessons from the U.S. sex abuse scandal of 2002. By acting quickly to express horror at allegations, to label the alleged acts both crimes and sins, and to call in the local leaders to discuss how to prevent recurrences, the Vatican limited - but certainly did not eliminate - the damage caused to the Church's standing in Ireland and worldwide. Unfortunately, given the growing abuse scandal in Germany, it may need to deploy those lessons again before long. End Comment.
15. (U) Embassy Dublin contributed to and cleared this cable. DIAZ
Friday, December 17, 2010
White House asserts right
to curb press readership
A Fox News Reporter, in her scanty coverage of yesterday's Wikileaks hearing in Washington, styled Julian Assange as a person who was not a "legitimate" member of the press.
And that's what the system is up to: apply different laws to "illegitimate" members of the press. But of course as soon as lawmakers and the Justice Dept. do that, government officials are in effect licensing journalists, something that should never happen in a self-respecting democracy.
The reason the heat is on Julian Assange is because of his news medium's published content. Doesn't that automatically qualify him as a member of the press?
Now why is the White House saying it is an offense for federal employees and contractors, who lack requisite security clearances, to view classified documents published in the media?
“Classified information, whether or not already posted on public websites or disclosed to the media, remains classified, and must be treated as such by federal employees and contractors, until it is declassified by an appropriate U.S. Government authority,” said a notice sent on Dec. 3 by the Office of Management and Budget, which is part of the White House, to agency and department heads.
One of the deliberate confusions here, mentioned by a government spokesman, concerns the viewing of entire documents, rather than excerpts, with the feds implying that "legitimate" media don't publish entire classified documents. However, two points: the Constitution makes no such distinction; the American press from time to time has published entire classified documents, sometimes inside the paper, sometimes in books. Certainly the Times has published entire, though redacted, cables from the Wikileaks trove.
But the White House assertion that it is an offense for a government worker or contractor to read a document appearing in the press is a bizarre new twist in exercise of executive power. If the government can choose who is allowed to read what, then it can continue a process of cutting off selected people from public domain materials, based on political decisions.
The government's theory is that if it can't tell the press what it can publish, it can still tell the press's readers what they can read.
The only reason the White House did not attempt to enforce this theory against the American people as a whole is because they aren't yet (God help us) ready to accept that idea. After all, it's ridiculous to assert that Americans who work for the government do not have a First Amendment right to read what everyone else can read.
The government's excessive maneuvering to try to blacklist and destroy members of the press who don't fit into the current system is one of the reasons for growing public distrust of central government. First they want to compel me to buy health insurance against my will; now they're telling me I can only read what they approve, even if it's already in the press.
The government's heavy hand showed up when Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs received an e-mail advising them not to discuss or post Wikileaks links online, especially on popular social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter. The e-mail was forwarded to students by the Office of Career Services, who received the advisory from a State Department official who is an alumnus of the school.
"Engaging in these activities would call into question your ability to deal with confidential information, which is part of most positions with the federal government," the e-mail said.
One concern was to warn students about records of their comments kept on Facebook. In other words, student right of free speech should be curtailed because federal officials would know about a controversial public issue in which they had been interested. One might also wonder whether the caution reflected the possibility that the FBI or NSA is, using perhaps National Security Letters, tracking those who visited Wikileaks, the Guardian, the N.Y. Times and other sites.
Reports from Threat Level, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and the Guardian on yesterday's hearing.
http://www.rcfp.org/newsitems/index.php?i=11666
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/16/julian-assange-extradition-us
Wikileaks war logs redacted. But the question is, by whom?
It's apparent that if one doesn't have Javascript, there are some disruptions. However, would that technicality result in nearly all names being crossed out with percentage signs from a number of Wikileaks war documents?
I realize Wikileaks took a lot of grief for publishing identifying information that might, in some cases, have been of use to al Qaeda or others. And I suppose that Assange, under ferocious political pressure, might have OKd redacting the material after it had already been posted.
But my concern is that some busybody working for an internet server may have found a "techicality" to cover doing the Pentagon's bidding. Please write me with any explanations you have. It's vaguely possible the control freaks will let your email through.
Here is an example:
IED DISCOVERED BY -%%% SW OF FALLUJAH: NO BDA
2004-01-01 06:10:00
Expand acronyms: Take care; definitions may be wrong.
<h2>Javascript required for full view</h2> <h3>Limited script-free view:</h3> AT %%% HRS, -%%% REPORTS IED DISCOVERED AT (%%% METERS FROM FOB %%%. MERE SOUTH GATE)(11KM SOUTH EAST OF FALLUJAH) , %%%-GAL %%% WITH A HAND GRENADE UNDERNEATH. ROUTE %%% FOB %%%. MERE IS BLOCKED. -%%% IS SECURING THE SITE, AND EOD HAS BEEN NOTIFIED.
AT %%% HRS, -%%% REPORTS IED DISCOVERED AT (%%% METERS FROM FOB %%%. MERE SOUTH GATE)(11KM SOUTH EAST OF FALLUJAH) , %%%-GAL %%% WITH A HAND GRENADE UNDERNEATH. ROUTE %%% FOB %%%. MERE IS BLOCKED. -%%% IS SECURING THE SITE, AND EOD HAS BEEN NOTIFIED.
One concern was to warn students about records of their comments kept on Facebook. In other words, student right of free speech should be curtailed because federal officials would know about a controversial public issue in which they had been interested. One might also wonder whether the caution reflected the possibility that the FBI or NSA is, using perhaps National Security Letters, tracking those who visited Wikileaks, the Guardian, the N.Y. Times and other sites.
Reports from Threat Level, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and the Guardian on yesterday's hearing.
http://www.rcfp.org/newsitems/index.php?i=11666
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/16/julian-assange-extradition-us
Wikileaks war logs redacted. But the question is, by whom?
It's apparent that if one doesn't have Javascript, there are some disruptions. However, would that technicality result in nearly all names being crossed out with percentage signs from a number of Wikileaks war documents?
I realize Wikileaks took a lot of grief for publishing identifying information that might, in some cases, have been of use to al Qaeda or others. And I suppose that Assange, under ferocious political pressure, might have OKd redacting the material after it had already been posted.
But my concern is that some busybody working for an internet server may have found a "techicality" to cover doing the Pentagon's bidding. Please write me with any explanations you have. It's vaguely possible the control freaks will let your email through.
Here is an example:
IED DISCOVERED BY -%%% SW OF FALLUJAH: NO BDA
2004-01-01 06:10:00
Expand acronyms: Take care; definitions may be wrong.
<h2>Javascript required for full view</h2> <h3>Limited script-free view:</h3> AT %%% HRS, -%%% REPORTS IED DISCOVERED AT (%%% METERS FROM FOB %%%. MERE SOUTH GATE)(11KM SOUTH EAST OF FALLUJAH) , %%%-GAL %%% WITH A HAND GRENADE UNDERNEATH. ROUTE %%% FOB %%%. MERE IS BLOCKED. -%%% IS SECURING THE SITE, AND EOD HAS BEEN NOTIFIED.
AT %%% HRS, -%%% REPORTS IED DISCOVERED AT (%%% METERS FROM FOB %%%. MERE SOUTH GATE)(11KM SOUTH EAST OF FALLUJAH) , %%%-GAL %%% WITH A HAND GRENADE UNDERNEATH. ROUTE %%% FOB %%%. MERE IS BLOCKED. -%%% IS SECURING THE SITE, AND EOD HAS BEEN NOTIFIED.
No comments:
Post a Comment