WikiLeaks about to hit the fan

Quote:

To me, it looks like neither the US government, nor the Yemeni government, comes out of this with much credit.

They colluded to cover-up the loss of civilian lives as a result of these US drone attacks in Yemen.

I agree that neither party comes out with much credit, but why do you assume the intention of the collusion was to cover up the loss of civilian life? I believe the intention of the collusion was to disguise the fact that the US was actively participating in strikes within the Yemini borders. .....

...Agreeing with FA, I assume that there's a reason that each of these groups wanted that fact kept under wraps. We can guess all we want as to what motivated both sides, but at this point that's all they would be.

...An alleged al-Qa’ida training camp at al-Ma’jalah, Abyan, was hit by a cruise missile on 17 December 2009. A Yemeni parliamentary inquiry found that 41 local residents, including 14 women and 21 children, and 14 alleged al-Qa’ida members were killed in the attack. In the 4 January cable, General Petraeus is recorded as saying that the attack had caused the deaths of “only” three “civilians”.

According to the (Wikileaks) cable, this prompted Yemeni Deputy Prime Minister Rashad al-‘Alimi “to joke that he had just ‘lied’ by telling Parliament that the bombs in Arhab, Abyan, and Shebwa were American-made but deployed by the ROYG [Republic of Yemen Government]”.

In the 4 January cable, General Petraeus is recorded as saying that the attack had caused the deaths of “only” three “civilians”.

Can you provide a link to the Yemeni cables? I'm unable to find one.

Is the fact that Petraeus is reported, in a cable, to have stated that there were only three dead civilians the evidence of which you write about of a cover-up of civilian casualties?

The attacks took place and civilians were killed no matter who took responsibility for the attacks.

As I have already posted here, earlier in this thread, it is no longer available.

However, Amnesty international, the Guardian newspaper, ABC news (Australia) & probably other media I didn't personally access, all reported on that Yemen Wikileak. I doubt that they all lied about the leak.

As I've already gone to some length to explain, the civilian casualties were a result of the (2009) secret US drone attacks in Yemen.

General Petraeus's assessment of "only" three civilian deaths, as a result of the US attack, differs from the finding of that inquiry. (go back to my last post & the Amnesty link for details)

But we know, as a result of the Yemen Wikileak that the pm of Yemen told General Petraeus that he would cover -up US involvement.
And that he said he would continue to lie in the future.
He also said to General Petraeus that he lied to the the Yemeni parliament inquiry.

Could you supply us with details of this "shift" in US tactics, please.

Al Qirbi said that the Yemeni government halted air strikes last December because of the possibility of "collateral damage,"

Don't Cry for Bradley Manning
By JOHN MCCORMACKS

Bradley Manning, the soldier accused of giving Julian Assange all of those classified cables, is being held "under conditions that constitute cruel and inhumane treatment and, by the standards of many nations, even torture," according to lefty blogger Glenn Greenwald. Keith Olbermann, running with Greenwald's blog post, is equally outraged. Just how bad are things for the alleged traitor Manning?

This bad: Manning only gets access to basic local TV for one to three hours on weekdays and three to six hours on weekends; only gets two hours and twenty minutes a day to write correspondence; only has access to one magazine or book at a time; only gets one hour of exercise a day; only gets to meet with visitors for three hours a day on weekends and holidays.

And yet, because the man accused of leaking sensitive national security information isn't allowed to chat with his fellow inmates, he is enduring "inhumane, personality-erasing, soul-destroying, insanity-inducing conditions," according to Greenwald, who never gets around to spelling out what exactly would constitute humane conditions for an accused criminal like Manning.

That's a whistleblower in the purest and most noble form: discovering government secrets of criminal and corrupt acts and then publicizing them to the world not for profit, not to give other nations an edge, but to trigger "worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms." Given how much Manning has been demonized -- at the same time that he's been rendered silent by the ban on his communication with any media -- it's worthwhile to keep all of that in mind.

Federal investigators are "are looking for evidence of any collusion" between WikiLeaks and Bradley Manning -- "trying to find out whether Mr. Assange encouraged or even helped" the Army Private leak the documents -- and then "charge him as a conspirator in the leak, not just as a passive recipient of the documents who then published them."

...this theory would mean "the government would not have to confront awkward questions about why it is not also prosecuting traditional news organizations or investigative journalists who also disclose information the government says should be kept secret — including The New York Times."

In sum, investigative journalists routinely -- really, by definition -- do exactly that which the DOJ's new theory would seek to prove WikiLeaks did.

The need to have Manning make incriminating statements against Assange -- to get him to claim that Assange actively, in advance, helped Manning access and leak these documents -- would be one obvious reason for subjecting Manning to such inhumane conditions: if you want to have better treatment, you must incriminate Assange.

It would be bizarre indeed to make a deal with the leaking government employee in order to incriminate the non-government-employee who merely published the classified information.

SNL Julian Assange on Time choice for Man of The Year

One potentially credible argument for denying WikiLeaks full First Amendment protection is that it is merely posting documents without adding its own analysis or commentary. Although I am not sufficiently familiar with the details of WikiLeaks’ website to evaluate the veracity of this claim, if it is true, it could provide a basis for prosecutors and courts to thread the constitutional needle and proceed with a case against WikiLeaks without running afoul of the First Amendment.

That said, the protections of the First Amendment are not absolute -- far from it. Application of the First Amendment to WikiLeaks would raise the bar substantially for prosecutors -- and might result in an inability to convict Assange for violating U.S. law. But it would not end their case.

Another claim made by some who dispute Assange’s right to First Amendment protection has to do with scale: "Real" journalists may disclose private or secret information selectively, in the context of a given story, while WikiLeaks is in the business (so to speak) of massive document dumps. Here again, there does not appear to be a reasoned basis for depriving WikiLeaks of First Amendment protections extended to others. The principles underlying the First Amendment do not suggest that its protections dissipate the more one engages in the activity it is designed to protect.

So is Assange a journalist? You and I are free to apply whatever standards we like when answering that question. But if the United States government decides to prosecute Assange, it will not have that luxury. Prosecutors and judges will have to put aside their subjective judgments about what constitutes journalism, and instead apply well-established constitutional principles to determine what protections, if any, the First Amendment affords Assange. And applied dispassionately -- without regard for one's personal feelings about Assange's actions -- those principles suggest he is entitled to whatever protections the First Amendment extends to his activities, just as if they had been undertaken by the New York Times.

The Obama administration has important decisions to make when it considers whether and how to prosecute Assange. The government is appropriately concerned with protecting national security and preserving diplomatic initiatives. But the lines distinguishing professional journalists from other people who disseminate information, ideas and opinions to a wide audience have largely disappeared with the advent of the Web and inexpensive and powerful personal computers and software. WikiLeaks is just the beginning, and the government’s decision about how to proceed will have important implications for press freedom for years to come.

And you give it your own title rather than the one the author gave it:

Touchy are we?