WikiLeaks about to hit the fan

USA’s hypocrisy on press freedom, human rights and democracy
by Hilton Munendoro

Ali H. Soufan 40, a former Federal Bureau Investigations (FBI) operative, is subjected to terror as he is finding out firsthand that, freedom of speech, and press freedom in the US isn't something guaranteed to every American. His colleagues at the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) are restraining him from printing some of his own personal accounts in his upcoming book "The Black Banners: The Inside Story of 9/11 and the War Against Al Qaeda."

Soufan wants to expose candidly that the CIA could have managed to avert the national calamity of September 11, 2001, terror attacks from happening, if they were competent enough and expeditious. He elucidates that the CIA were fully conscious of the hijackers living in San Diego, involved in the al-Qaeda plot eighteen months prior to the strikes. While that information might have been of great interest to the FBI, the CIA withheld the crucial information for sinister reasons unnecessarily until when human life was endangered.

http://bulawayo24.com/index-id-opinion-sc-columnist-byo-7050-article-usa%E2%80%99s+hypocrisy+on+press+freedom,+human+rights+and+democracy.html

Arab Deaths and U.S. Hypocrisy
by John V. Walsh / March 21st, 2011

The stench of death hanging over protest centers in the Arab world is more than matched by the rank hypocrisy befouling Washington and the lesser capitals of Western Empire. There is, however, not the slightest allusion to “hypocrisy,” in the imperial media. The “H” word is not to be used with respect to Obama or the other lords of Empire, even though it is as obvious as the proverbial nose on one’s face; the censorship in the mass media is holding.

Consider it. The Western powers have now launched a full-scale military assault on Muammar Qaddafi’s Libya, never a reliable “partner” of the West. First there were denunciations and demonization of Qaddafi following the Libyan uprising in the East, then sanctions, then the attack. Ostensibly, the attack is to “protect” the Libyan people from the hand of Qaddafi. But is such a rationale even remotely credible?

Look at other events happening on the very same weekend the attacks began. In Bahrain Shia protesters by the score are being gunned down by the Sunni police of the Al Khalifa “royal family,” sometimes killing the protesters like animals with hunting rifles. They are joined by the tanks of the Saudi “royals,” the same Saudi Arabia whence came the majority of the perpetrators of 9/11. There are no American cruise missiles aimed at the Saudi tanks and no threats from the Western powers to stop the carnage of the thugs ruling Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. What comes from the U.S.? No denunciation, no demonization, no sanctions, no attack.

In Saudi Arabia, itself, Al-Jazeera tells us:

The ban on public demonstrations (throughout the country) comes amid media reports of a huge mobilization of Saudi troops in Shia-dominated provinces in order to quell any possible uprising…. 10,000 security personnel are being sent to the region by road, clogging highways into Dammam and other cities.

And in Riyadh: “Several protesters were arrested in Saudi Arabia on Sunday at a demonstration demanding the release of thousands of prisoners, held captive for years without trial. They were among dozens of men and women who tried to push their way into Riyadh’s interior ministry building, which was fortified with up to 2,000 special forces and 200 police vehicles, according to the Associated Press news agency. ‘We have seen at least three or four police vehicles taking people away,” said an activist there who declined to be named.

‘Security forces have arrested around 15 people. They tried to go into the ministry to go and ask for the freedom of their loved ones.’” But the US sponsors no UN resolutions about the “Right to Protect” in Saudi Arabia. No denunciation, no demonization, no sanctions, no attack.

Then there is Yemen, another U.S. ally, where today Ali Abdullah Saleh, the country’s “president” for 32 years, is massacring his people by the score. In response there is nothing more than a muffled call for “maximal restraint” by Obama and company. No denunciation, no demonization, no sanctions, no attack.

Or regard the spectacle of Gaza where Apartheid Israel is again launching a bombing campaign on a besieged and helpless population. Not a peep of protest from the U.S. No denunciation, no demonization, no sanctions, no attack.

All that is just this weekend. But behold the events of recent weeks Let us not forget Egypt where hundreds or thousands of unarmed protesters were slaughtered while the U.S. in the person of Joe Biden and others cautioned that “president” for 41 years and U.S. ally, Hosni Mubarak, was not a dictator. Hillary Clinton defended him as a personal friend of hers and her family. This is the same Mubarak, whose police tormented the entire Egyptian population to the point that virtually everyone knew someone beaten or tortured. This is the same Mubarak, whose prisons always had room to torture CIA victims transported there from around the world, an endless cargo of “extraordinary renditions. Mubarak killed and killed with guns, goons and helicopters before he fell. And from the U.S.? No denunciation, no demonization, no sanctions, no attack.

The failure of the Egyptian army to join in the slaughter, apparently for fear of being on the losing side, was the sole reason the slaughter ended. And now the same army, consulting interminably with the US, is working a counter-revolution in that hapless country. Whether it will prevail against the people is anyone’s guess, but there is no doubt that the US is working overtime to turn back the clock and shackle Egypt to a new model of the old imperial harness.

This is a small sample. Jordan, Iraq, Tunisia and other U.S. allies could be added to the list of those perpetrating endless atrocities against their people for many decades. And from the U.S.? No denunciation, no demonization, no sanctions, no attack.

I conclude with the caveat that I am not holding up Qaddafi as a model. What goes on in Libya I cannot tell at a distance. But as Justin Raimondo at Antiwar.com, drawing on the testimony of Dartmouth professor, Diedreick Vandewalle, an expert on Libya, has noted, the rebellion in Libya seems to be one of the east versus west of the country, a return to old tribal boundaries. That is quite different from Egypt where the demand is for development and democracy. Is there anything unique about Libya other than its disloyalty to the West? I can think of only one other thing which distinguishes it from Egypt or various other African dictatorships. As Fidel Castro pointed out when he first predicted an invasion of Libya many days back, Libya has a Human Development Index which is the highest in all of Africa. In fact, it puts Libya in the same league as the developed nations of Europe.

Certainly man does not live by bread alone although a bit helps. But it would seem that Libyans need less protection than the many U.S.-Arab allies, which not only brutally oppress their people but also impoverish them.

http://dissidentvoice.org/2011/03/arab-deaths-and-u-s-hypocrisy/

Given the reality that these cables do have this information, you can't reply simply that it shouldn't be there.

<snip>

I asked if you'd do the same as WL given the information. I do think that if you thought harder about this you'd come to the conclusion I have; that Amnesty International has; that even Wikileaks has. Saying the info shouldn't be there to begin with doesn't answer what you'd do with it if you had it.

I suspect it's gonna be ugly.

Go where you may, search where you will, roam through all the monarchies and despotisms of the old world, travel through South America, search out every abuse, and when you have found the last, lay your facts by the side of the everyday practices of this nation, and you will say with me, that, for revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy, America reigns without a rival.

Take the American slave-trade, which, we are told by the papers, is especially prosperous just now. Ex-Senator Benton tells us that the price of men was never higher than now. He mentions the fact to show that slavery is in no danger. This trade is one of the peculiarities of American institutions. It is carried on in all the large towns and cities in one-half of this confederacy; and millions are pocketed every year, by dealers in this horrid traffic. In several states, this trade is a chief source of wealth.

It is called (in contradistinction to the foreign slave-trade) "the internal slave trade." It is, probably, called so, too, in order to divert from it the horror with which the foreign slave-trade is contemplated. That trade has long since been denounced by this government, as piracy. It has been denounced with burning words, from the high places of the nation, as an execrable traffic. To arrest it, to put an end to it, this nation keeps a squadron, at immense cost, on the coast of Africa.

Everywhere, in this country, it is safe to speak of this foreign slave-trade, as a most inhuman traffic, opposed alike to the laws of God and of man. The duty to extirpate and destroy it, is admitted even by our doctors of divinity. In order to put an end to it, some of these last have consented that their colored brethren (nominally free) should leave this country, and establish themselves on the western coast of Africa!

It is, however, a notable fact that, while so much execration is poured out by Americans upon those engaged in the foreign slave-trade, the men engaged in the slave-trade between the states pass without condemnation, and their business is deemed honorable.

http://www.blackpast.org/?q=1852-frederick-douglass-what-slave-fourth-july

Activists denounce U.S. hypocrisy on Libya, ignoring Black suffering
BY NISA ISLAM MUHAMMAD -STAFF WRITER- | LAST UPDATED: AUG 20, 2011 - 9:18:40 PM

HARLEM, New York (FinalCall.com) - Thousands lined Malcolm X Boulevard Aug. 13 to join a demonstration against America's “illegitimate war” against Libya, efforts to exploit Africa and Black suffering in the Big Apple and across the country.
“We're sending a message to the White House, to the State House and to City Hall,” said New York City Councilman Charles Barron. “Don't have us bring London (riots) to America. Don't push us to bring Egypt (riots) to America. We've had enough. Black people are fed up.”

“America has trillions for war. We need to declare a war on poverty, unemployment and racism. We've had enough and need to take it to the streets,” he said.

Radio legend Bob Law and Viola Plummer, of the December 12th Movement, emceed the Millions in Harlem rally. “Dr. King came to Harlem and took a stance against the war in Viet Nam and energized the movement. Minister Farrakhan returns to Harlem to speak against the war in Libya. The movement continues to be energized,” said Mr. Law.

For more than 10 years the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan served as the minister of Muhammad Mosque No 7, located in Harlem, where his service was legendary. He was welcomed back with cheers and applause.

“We have to carve out a destiny for ourselves,” the Minister told a crowd standing outside along Malcolm X Boulevard on a sunny Saturday afternoon. “No Black or White man in the White House is going to give us what our unity can produce,” he said.

read on at,

http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/National_News_2/harlem_8103.shtml

WikiLeaks dumps cast journalistic care to the winds
(Ken Paulson, FirstAmendmentCenter.org, Commentary, September 1, 2011)

News reports that WikiLeaks is more aggressively releasing diplomatic cables without redacting the names of informants and others raises the stakes for government and the news media.

WikiLeaks has worked collaboratively with some news organizations in the past, but now expresses frustration that there’s not as much coverage of its leaks. That seems to be translating into greater volume and less care. WikiLeaks claims the distribution of unredacted cables was the result of a security breach, but that’s no comfort to those who sought anonymity.

Ethical American news organizations have long had restrictions on whom they identify in news stories. For example, rape victims and juvenile offenders are almost never named because of concern that disclosing their names would cause harm disproportionate to the value of identifying them. The theory is that rape victims would be less likely to report the crime and that juvenile offenders would be less likely to be rehabilitated as they grow into adulthood.

The WikiLeaks disclosures are identifying individuals who cooperated with governments with the promise that their identities would never be known. That raises the question of whether these individuals will be placed in harm’s way by these leaks.

The Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics includes the admonition that journalists should “minimize harm.” Among other standards, it says that journalists should:
•“Show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage.”
•“Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance.”

Major news organizations with access to the WikiLeaks cables, including The New York Times, have redacted the identities of individuals named in leaked cables in the past, and presumably will continue to do so.

There will always be those who will indiscriminately post or distribute information. The test for journalism professionals is to assess that material independently, apply journalistic ethical standards, and publish news and information that informs the public and does not do unnecessary harm.

I think the information should be released. Fully, completely.

If I would just think harder, I'd come around to the 'right' way of thinking. You know that's just not a good strategy. It works about as well as the appeal to authority.

Australia's foreign minister has said the US is to blame for the release of thousands of diplomatic cables on Wikileaks, not its Australian founder, Julian Assange.
Kevin Rudd said the release cables raised questions about US security.

but that’s no comfort to those who sought anonymity.

Ethical American news organizations

The Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics includes the admonition that journalists should “minimize harm.” Among other standards, it says that journalists should:
•“Show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage.”
•“Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance.”

and some knowledge about history of the world.

but that's not my spiel 100% of the time like you.

I'm putting you on Ignore.

In the recently published Cambridge University History of the Cold War, Latin American scholar John Coatsworth writes that from that time [1962] to “the Soviet collapse in 1990, the numbers of political prisoners, torture victims, and executions of non-violent political dissenters in Latin America vastly exceeded those in the Soviet Union and its East European satellites,” including many religious martyrs and mass slaughter as well, always supported or initiated in Washington.

The last major violent act was the brutal murder of six leading Latin American intellectuals, Jesuit priests, a few days after the Berlin Wall fell. The perpetrators were an elite Salvadorean battalion, which had already left a shocking trail of blood, fresh from renewed training at the JFK School of Special Warfare, acting on direct orders of the high command of the U.S. client state.

The consequences of this hemispheric plague still, of course, reverberate.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/noam-chomsky/was-there-an-alternative-_b_950216.html

Danger in leaks of secret state papers
(Amando Doronila, Philippine Daily Inquirer, Opinion Essay, September 6, 2011)

The deluge of secret state documents pilfered by the self-appointed global whistle-blower WikiLeaks and unloaded into the ocean of information in the guise of “creating open governments” has at last swamped our shores, causing turmoil in our society and international relations.

No event has wreaked more havoc on civilized relations among modern nations than this great flood of leaks of diplomatic documents since the barbarian invasion of Europe (400-800 A.D) in the transition from late antiquity to the early Middle Ages. These leaks reveal the communications of diplomats negotiating treaties that have governed relations of nations and determined war or peace.

The sad and frightening part of this massive leakage of state secrets is that it has been inspired by the goal of a group of computer hackers to change the world. Julian Assange, described by the magazine “Democracy Forum” as “Australia’s most famous ethical computer hacker,” has defined the philosophy behind WikiLeaks thus:

“To radically shift regime behavior, we must think clearly and boldly for if we have learned anything, it is that regimes do not want to be changed.

“We must think beyond those who have gone before us and discover technological changes that embolden us with ways to act in which our forefathers did not. The more secretive or unjust an organization, the more leaks induce fear and paranoia in its leadership and planning coterie… Since unjust systems, by their nature, induce opponents, and in many places have the upper hand, mass leaking leaves them exquisitely vulnerable to those who seek to replace them with more open forms of governance.”

With this philosophy, Assange sought to justify the scheme of pilferage of information from secret state documents by a group of people who are using their expertise in digital age technology to do a job no less nefarious than the piracy of buccaneers during the golden age of exploration and discovery in the 13th and 14th century. When a group of people, no matter what their vocation and what tools they use, get ideas that they can change the world, they become self-appointed messiahs and cannot be trusted with power. They become as dangerous as mad scientists.

It is hard to say if Assange and his group are journalists or another form of gatekeepers of information with power to vet its contents and with the absolute power to censor like dictators of modern times. Assange claims that WikiLeaks has released more classified documents than the rest of the world press combined. “That’s not a way of saying how successful we are,” he said, “rather, that shows you the parlous state of the rest of the media.”

No matter how effective his instruments are in pilfering information, Assange and his group belong to the category of whistle-blowers, a breed of social creatures despised for ratting on colleagues engaged in the same racket, sought by governments to aid them in breaking rackets, and loathed by those they have betrayed so that they end up with their heads broken with a baseball bat, the way the Mafia deals with squealers.

But WikiLeaks is different. It does not squeal on the pilfering activities of its small band of confederates, with the stated purpose of “creating open governments” (using the more popular language of the day for “good governance,” the favorite buzz word of the self-proclaimed honest government of President Aquino, who claims temporal sanctity without being embarrassed). What it does is pilfer information from confidential diplomatic files, exposure of which to the general public generates tensions between governments and damages the fabric of secret diplomacy in negotiations prior to the signing of treaties.

Assange is viewed with mixed reactions, ranging from the extreme of being a public and security menace and being an agent of open and transparent statecraft.

Counter Punch magazine called him “Australia’s most infamous former computer hacker.” The Age newspaper of Melbourne called him “Internet’s freedom fighter.”

In November 2010, WikiLeaks began releasing some of the 251,000 American diplomatic cables in their possessions, of which over 53 percent are listed as unclassified, 40 percent are “Confidential” and just over 6 percent are “Secret.”

Australia’s Attorney-General Robert McCleland has told the press that his government would inquire into Assange’s activities and WikiLeaks. “From Australia’s point of view, we think there are potentially a number of criminal laws that could have been breached by the release of this information,” he said.

The US State Department has launched a criminal investigation related to the leak.

The WikiLeaks revelations have been credited with sparking the Tunisian Revolution. What this suggests is that the wholesale revelation of secret diplomatic documents can provoke political turbulence in crisis-torn countries and cause a disruption of diplomatic relations between normally friendly countries, as in the case of the leaked dispatches of former American ambassadors to the Philippines. The diplomatic furor over the dispatches of former Ambassador Kristie Kenney that called former President Cory Aquino a “tarnished” and “weak” leader is a case in point.

Disclosure of secret diplomatic papers is a nemesis of stable diplomacy. It cannot be left in the hands of pilferers of state secrets.

And as to the constant US government response about concerns about the Wikileaks “endangering innocent lives” of informants ...

Where is the evidence of this from the earlier redacted leaks?

Surely the governments which have been saying this from the beginning (of the Wikileaks) would have let us know if it has happened? To “prove their case” against Wikileaks.