Search

band annie's Weblog

I have a parallel blog in French at http://anniebannie.net

Category

wikileaks

Ecuador expels U.S. ambassador

P U L S E

“Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one.”

Heather Hodges

The following press release is from the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR). Mark Weisbrot is co-writer with Tariq Ali of the Oliver Stone film “South of the Border“.

A declaration by the Ecuadorian government that U.S. Ambassador Heather Hodges is “persona non grata” and must leave Ecuador as soon as possible should not come as a surprise, Mark Weisbrot, Co-Director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, said today. Weisbrot noted that the expulsion follows recent troubling revelations in cables released by Wikileaks that describe U.S. government co-ordination with Colombia over a public relations strategy to attempt to link Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa to the Colombian guerrillas the FARC.

“The Obama Administration doesn’t seem to know how to have normal diplomatic relations with democratic, left-of-center governments in the hemisphere,” Weisbrot said. He noted that there was a trend – well documented through U.S. government cables, funding disclosures, and other information – of attempts to undermine governments in Bolivia, Brazil, Honduras, Venezuela, and other countries.

“They still haven’t restored ambassadorial relations with Bolivia, and can’t seem to find an ambassador for Venezuela,” Weisbrot noted. “Despite a much better media image, they don’t seem be doing any better than the Bush administration in the region.”

The Ecuadorian government’s announcement was in reaction to disclosure of comments Ambassador Hodges had made — in cables also recently released by Wikileaks — describing “widespread and well-known” corruption among the Ecuadorian National Police, and making specific allegations against the ENP commander. Reuters reported that “Foreign Minister Ricardo Patiño told reporters he had not received a satisfactory explanation” from the Embassy regarding the cables.

Weisbrot noted that the Ecuadorian government would also have cause to be concerned about a March 27, 2008 cable from Bogotá, that was shared with the U.S. Embassy in Quito, revealing that “the [Government of Colombia] GOC plans to selectively leak information from FARC computers connecting Presidents Chavez and Correa and their Governments to the FARC over the next 4-6 weeks…” The cable notes that the Colombian government was providing the U.S. government with the hard drives, but “on the condition that we not release any information without first consulting with the GOC.”

The cable described how “the GOC plans to selectively provide intelligence from the computers to carefully chosen North American, Colombian, Spanish, and Latin media tied to specific themes”, with one of the proposed themes being “the FARC and President Correa”. There is no indication of U.S. government concern over the validity of these claims, which were based solely on information provided by the Colombian government.

The Ecuadorian government’s announcement follows other recent setbacks in U.S.-Latin American relations. U.S. Ambassador to Mexico Carlos Pascual resigned only two weeks ago following Mexican government outrage over cables, also released by Wikileaks, describing friction between Mexico’s army and navy, and tensions and poor co-ordination between various Mexican security forces.

Also just weeks ago, concurrent with the beginning of U.S. air strikes on Libya, former Brazilian president Lula da Silva conspicuously declined to attend a meeting between President Obama and former presidents of Brazil. Brazil’s government, like many in the region, has been outspoken in its opposition to the use of external military force in the Libyan conflict.

Empire – Information wars

Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression

UN Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection
the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression

Joint Statement On Wikileaks

December 21, 2010 � In light of ongoing developments related to the release of diplomatic cables by the organization Wikileaks, and the publication of information contained in those cables by mainstream news organizations, the United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression see fit to recall a number of international legal principles. The rapporteurs call upon States and other relevant actors to keep these principles in mind when responding to the aforementioned developments.

1. The right to access information held by public authorities is a fundamental human right subject to a strict regime of exceptions. The right to access to information protects the right of every person to access public information and to know what governments are doing on their behalf. It is a right that has received particular attention from the international community, given its importance to the consolidation, functioning and preservation of democratic regimes. Without the protection of this right, it is impossible for citizens to know the truth, demand accountability and fully exercise their right to political participation. National authorities should take active steps to ensure the principle of maximum transparency, address the culture of secrecy that still prevails in many countries and increase the amount of information subject to routine disclosure.

2. At the same time, the right of access to information should be subject to a narrowly tailored system of exceptions to protect overriding public and private interests such as national security and the rights and security of other persons. Secrecy laws should define national security precisely and indicate clearly the criteria which should be used in determining whether or not information can be declared secret. Exceptions to access to information on national security or other grounds should apply only where there is a risk of substantial harm to the protected interest and where that harm is greater than the overall public interest in having access to the information. In accordance with international standards, information regarding human rights violations should not be considered secret or classified.

3. Public authorities and their staff bear sole responsibility for protecting the confidentiality of legitimately classified information under their control. Other individuals, including journalists, media workers and civil society representatives, who receive and disseminate classified information because they believe it is in the public interest, should not be subject to liability unless they committed fraud or another crime to obtain the information. In addition, government “whistleblowers” releasing information on violations of the law, on wrongdoing by public bodies, on a serious threat to health, safety or the environment, or on a breach of human rights or humanitarian law should be protected against legal, administrative or employment-related sanctions if they act in good faith. Any attempt to impose subsequent liability on those who disseminate classified information should be grounded in previously established laws enforced by impartial and independent legal systems with full respect for due process guarantees, including the right to appeal.

4. Direct or indirect government interference in or pressure exerted upon any expression or information transmitted through any means of oral, written, artistic, visual or electronic communication must be prohibited by law when it is aimed at influencing content. Such illegitimate interference includes politically motivated legal cases brought against journalists and independent media, and blocking of websites and web domains on political grounds. Calls by public officials for illegitimate retributive action are not acceptable.

5. Filtering systems which are not end-user controlled � whether imposed by a government or commercial service provider � are a form of prior censorship and cannot be justified. Corporations that provide Internet services should make an effort to ensure that they respect the rights of their clients to use the Internet without arbitrary interference.

6. Self-regulatory mechanisms for journalists have played an important role in fostering greater awareness about how to report on and address difficult and controversial subjects. Special journalistic responsibility is called for when reporting information from confidential sources that may affect valuable interests such as fundamental rights or the security of other persons. Ethical codes for journalists should therefore provide for an evaluation of the public interest in obtaining such information. Such codes can also provide useful guidance for new forms of communication and for new media organizations, which should likewise voluntarily adopt ethical best practices to ensure that the information made available is accurate, fairly presented and does not cause substantial harm to legally protected interests such as human rights.

Catalina Botero Marino
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression

Frank LaRue
UN Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression

Cenk Uyger interviews Julian Assange –DylanRatiganShow-MSNBC 12-22-10.flv

Gilad Atzmon: Wikileaks and Israel

‘WikiLeaks to publish Israel files on Second Lebanon War, Dubai assassination’

Julian Assange said today that  thousands of documents related to Israel are due to be released over next six months.

Assange admitted also that so far only 2% of the Wikileaks released documents related to Israel were picked by the Western  mainstream media, something to do with ‘sensitivities’ of the Jewish communities in France, Germany, Britain and the USA.

I guess that more than ever we need Wikileaks. More than ever we need to establish our own channels of communication and information. The proof of the betrayal of Western media is conclusive.

Assange said that he holds 3,700 more files related to Israel, and the main source of them is the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv.

Take your time Julian and keep safe.

J’Accuse: Sweden, Britain, and Interpol Insult Rape Victims Worldwide

Naomi Wolf

 

How do I know that Interpol, Britain and Sweden’s treatment of Julian Assange is a form of theater? Because I know what happens in rape accusations against men that don’t involve the embarrassing of powerful governments.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is in solitary confinement in Wandsworth prison in advance of questioning on state charges of sexual molestation.

Read on from source

A Letter From Anonymous

 

Anonymous Strikes Back for WikiLeaks! (Operation Payback)

Julian Assange in the Honey Trap

by Guest Post on December 9, 2010

Spread it!

By Justin Raimondo * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

By Carlos Latuff 

Anyone who doubts the unmitigated evil of the US government and its international enablers has only to look at the disgraceful persecution of Julian Assange to see Washington’s brazen malevolence in full flower. As the WikiLeaks web site continues to release daily examples of US incompetence, bullying, venality, and corruption, the response from the Imperial City has been a coordinated campaign of lies, smears, and what can only be described as utter filth.

This outpouring of satanic bile has been disgorged onto the front pages of the world’s newspapers in retaliation for the “crime” of revealing the everyday machinations and cynical maneuverings of the US government as it rampages, loots, and murders its way across the face of the earth. In doing so, Assange and WikiLeaks have violated the first principle of the new world order, which is that they (the governments of the world) have every right to know what we’re saying in the privacy of our own homes: in our emails, our phone conversations, and anywhere else we (falsely) believe we’re free from prying eyes and ears. However, we have no right to know what they are doing, in our name – with our tax dollars – and to believe otherwise is “treason.”

For these people – the scum who inhabit the corridors of power – character assassination is an art, to be practiced with a fine attention to detail: and, to be sure, in this case they have outdone themselves. While sex is a weapon they’ve often used to hunt down their quarry, they can’t nowadays merely expose the intimate details of their victims’ personal life. In a society that resembles the last days of the Roman empire, where what we used to think of as immorality is rife, the smear artists have to give their revelations a more specific character, and in Assange’s case they have given us a textbook example.

The “charges” against Assange, made by two women – Anna Ardin, a “feminist” harridan who works as the “gender equity” officer at Uppsala University, and Sophia Wilen, a sometime photographer and former Assange groupie with stalkerish tendencies – are quite murky. Assange had come to Sweden at Ardin’s invitation, or, rather, at the invitation of the ” Brotherhood,” a Christian faction of Sweden’s Social Democratic party for which Ardin is the press secretary. He was staying at her home because she was supposedly going to be gone for a few days with her family, but Ardin returned early, for some reason, and they agreed to cohabit on a temporary basis. Ardin avers that she had agreed to (or perhaps – who knows? – even initiated) consensual sex with Assange, and so, as the Daily Mail reported, “they had sexual relations, but there was a problem with the condom – it had split. She seemed to think that he had done this deliberately but he insisted that it was an accident.” Ardin also claims Assange used the weight of his body to keep her immobilized – being a feminist, she likes to be on top.

However, she gave no indication of distress, either that day or the next: instead, she threw a party for Assange at her home. That evening Assange gave a seminar at the Stockholm headquarters of a trade union, and in the front row sat Sophia Wilen, an employee of the local Social Democratic-controlled council in the northern town of Enkoping. Wilen later told police that she had seen Assange on television and had become “obsessed” by him. When she heard he was speaking in Sweden, she called the “Brotherhood” of Social Democratic Christians to volunteer to help at the event, but was turned down: she came anyway, of course, and was soon glomming on to Assange with all the persistence of a blond and very leggy tick – the kind that give you Lyme Disease.

Loitering outside the venue in her shocking pink jumper, she approached Assange and two others who were going to a local café, and managed to get herself invited to join. One of the participants in the ensuing conversation describes her as “certainly an odd character,” who seemed out of place. Aggressively pursuing Assange, she sat there looking at him adoringly, and there was – say witnesses – what seemed to be a mutual attraction. After lunch, the two went out to a movie, and later on, when Assange said he had to go – Ardin was planning a crayfish party for him, a traditional Swedish-style event – she asked if she could see him again. He readily agreed. Later, at the party, Ardin would Tweet to her friends that she was “‘Sitting outside … nearly freezing, with the world’s coolest people. It’s pretty amazing!” She later tried to erase this record of her short-lived joy, but the internet knows all, sees all, now doesn’t it?

The honey-trap was nearly sprung, but there were a few more details to take care of. As Ardin was stuffing her face with crayfish and getting drunk, Assange was on the phone with Sophia. They arranged to meet in Stockholm. As the Daily Mail reported:

“When they did meet they agreed to go to her home in Enkoping, but he had no money for a train ticket and said he didn’t want to use a credit card because he would be ‘tracked’ (presumably, as he saw it, by the CIA or other agencies).”

Little did he suspect that was already being tracked. Sophia generously offered to buy him a ticket. When they got to her Enkoping digs, they had sex: he used a condom. The next morning, they again had sex, this time without a condom. They went out for breakfast, with no sign of displeasure or even the barest hint of “rape” coming from her side of the fence: she told him to stay in touch, and he said he would. She then bought him a return ticket to Stockholm, and he was gone – but hardly forgotten.

Here is where the story gets murky: for some reason not readily apparent to me, Sophia called Anna, and the two got to talking: the former confided she had been sleeping with Assange. Anna was furious: here is a woman who had earlier posted on her personal blog a rather scary “Seven Steps to Legal Revenge,” which reads like it might have been written by   Valerie Solanis.

Sitting alone in Enkoping, wondering why Assange didn’t call, Sophia had been simmering in her own resentments, and Ardin was more than happy to give her the opportunity to vent. Together they concocted a plan to go to the police: initially the focus was on Sophia’s obsession with the possibility she might have contracted AIDS from the unprotected sex. The two of them went to a police station and asked if it was possible to force Assange to undergo a test for STDs.

It was the weekend, and the regular prosecutor was off duty: a substitute prosecutor listened to their story and decided, on her own authority, to go after Assange. The police combed the entertainment district of Stockholm, looking for him: to no avail. This indictment was later rescinded, however, by the regular prosecutor, due to the fact that, as the office put it, there was “no evidence” a crime had been committed.

The two had leaked the story to the Swedish tabloid Expressen, which relentlessly blared it on their front pages. Pretty professional work for a couple of alleged groupies. Indeed, Ardin is a former Swedish embassy official who served in Buenos Aires, and Havana: she was reportedly asked to leave Cuba after her interactions with Cuban exile groups linked to the CIA.

With those kinds of connections, Ardin was not easily deterred by the dropping of the charges. In order to construct a legal case against Assange, she recruited  Claes Borgström, a lawyer and the former “Equal Opportunities Ombudsman” for “gender equity issues.” He has been working assiduously to expand the legislative reach of high feminist theory, including by extending the legal definition of rape. According to this new manifestation of extreme political correctness – which is only possible, one hopes, in dreary, suicide-prone Sweden – rape need not necessarily involve physical coercion. There is also, these professional victimologists believe, a form of “psychological” coercion enforced by the unequal “power relations” between the sexes.

In league with a third prosecutor, Marianne Ny, Borgström succeeded in having the case re-opened in order to advance this unique legal innovation: the concept of “rape” without physical coercion. As Assange’s Australian lawyer, James Caitlin, puts it:

“Consensual sex can be rape, according to Borgström and Ny – but the alleged victims don’t decide – they do. “The new laws which establish these ‘precedents’ are not yet on the books – but it’s Marianne Ny’s intention to make the Assange affair into a test case for that purpose. “In other words: Marianne Ny wants to try Julian Assange for something that wasn’t a crime when it took place.”

So much for the “legal” case against Assange. It’s a put up job, pure and simple, so brazen that one wonders how anyone – let alone a sitting judge outside of Zimbabwe, or Saudi Arabia – can entertain it with a straight face. And yet a British judge has indeed upheld the validity of the international arrest warrant, which went straight to the top of Interpol’s agenda as soon as it was issued: in the new world order, “sex by surprise” is on a par with being a mass murderer. In spite of having pledges of funding from prominent supporters, the judge denied Assange bail: and so the governments of the world have him where they want him – behind bars.

In their quest to destroy WikiLeaks, the Powers That Be are destroying their own credibility – such as it is, or was. This disgusting frame-up discredits them much more than it does Assange, or WikiLeaks. As the corporate extensions of the US government – PayPal, MasterCard, Visa, etc., ad nauseam – shut their doors to WikiLeaks, and COINTELPRO-style disruption of its operations continues unabated, the fact that the site is still up – indeed, it’s much easier to access now than ever before – indicates the battle is far from over.

What this all means is that the future of the internet is being decided, right here, right now: if the worldwide alliance of tyrants and crooks succeeds in shutting WikiLeaks down, the rest of us are doomed. If they can get away with this, they can get away with anything – including legislation regulating content. That’s where we’re headed, unless the authoritarian assault – led by Senators Joe Lieberman and Dianne Feinstein, Fox News (excepting Judge Napolitano, of course), and neocons left and right – is repulsed.

There is no more important task for antiwar activists, civil libertarians, and all those who treasure freedom than the defense of WikiLeaks, and Julian Assange. That’s why the Amazon boycott is so important. That’s why we’ve got to work tirelessly to free Assange. That’s why we must never give in to the Liebermans, the Feinsteins, and the Fox News lynch mob. As the commies would say: No Pasaran!

The extradition of Assange to Sweden would signal the final phase of Britain’s long slow slide into authoritarianism, an outcome that seems nearly inevitable for a society that imposes a draconian “speech code,” and has its population under constant surveillance. From there the plan is obviously to jail him in Sweden until the US can cook up a “legal” rationale to have him extradited for trial in the US – perhaps as a material witness in the case of Bradley Manning, suspected of providing the diplomatic cables – and the Afghan and Iraq war logs – to WikiLeaks.

Truth is on trial – and a conviction would be fatal not only to WikiLeaks, but for the cause of liberty itself. This is an issue that the ruling elite is counting on to plug the giant hole in their armor called the internet. We can’t afford to lose this one – at least without inflicting some pretty heavy damage on the enemy.

Assange is the first high-profile political prisoner is a new age of repression and fear. If he is martyred to the cause of liberty, let his bravery and determination serve as an example and an inspiration to us all. But we don’t need any more martyrs: we need living activists, like Assange, who are willing to take on the States of the world. We must tirelessly work to free him, and in the process free ourselves.

* Justin Raimondo is the editorial director of Antiwar.com.

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑