Just arrived in Ghana after a journey complicated by the snow in the UK. A few meetings this morning, then some thoughts on Wikileaks, Chilcot and the so called complicity in torture inquiry to come.
Allowed HTML - you can use:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>
dreoilin thanks for the link. Honestly my first thought while reading it was ‘wow, who did the makeover?’. I remember when the latest leaks were first released and he had cut his hair and dyed it, I thought it was a good idea to be honest. Before that he looked like one of the Children of the Corn. I didn’t care, but thought it might have been a bit off putting to those a bit more mainstream. This latest pic though… looks like he is auditioning for a Hollywood production.
From the article: “If you trim the vast editorial letter to the singular question actually asked, I would be happy to give it my attention.”
ahahahaha.
Also from your link, I find it the height of irony that Hillary Clinton can state that WL is an “attack on the international community” when it was she that ordered spying on the top levels of the UN.
http://www.elpais.com/articulo/english/How/US/worked/to/get/three/soldiers/off/the/hook/for/cameraman/elpepueng/20101201elpeng_14/Ten
The cesspit grows deeper.
Child abuse, murdering journalists…
CheebaCow,
Did you refresh? He’s still there. More answers coming all the time. Up to a minute ago anyway.
Thanks for pointing that out dreoilin, I hadn’t realised. Assange seems to be a real canny guy. I liked this answer:
“Since 2007 we have been deliberately placing some of our servers in jurisdictions that we suspected suffered a free speech deficit in order to separate rhetoric from reality. Amazon was one of these cases.”
Hey all, just stopping by to say hi to all good people here. A tip of the fedora goes to Suhayl for resolutely ignoring the troll – I’ve had to tolerate persistent hyperventilating abuse from other trolls, and it is sometimes too tempting not to respond. Well done.
It is perhaps too early to say, but anyone think that Wikileaks might be the start of a substantial government clean-up? Assange has some essays on the web about ‘reducing a conspiracy’s ability to communicate destroys that conspiracy’ – intriguing stuff.
Thanks, Jon – and the same to you, with best wishes of the day!
Yes, let’s see what happens with Wikileaks… but surely, the cat is out of the bag, the horse has bolted from the stable and nine stitches have been sewn.
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/judgment-woolas-031210.pdf
Woolas found guilty.
Pity Straw wasn’t too when he was ‘treating’ the electors in Blackburn.
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/04/jack_straw_and.html
“Conscience is the inner voice that warns us somebody may be looking”.
H. L. Mencken
Ingo,
CheebaCow,
Other techies,
Ingo, did you get your PC fixed? Was a virus found? It just occurred to me, Ingo’s PC may have been part of the botnet that has been DDOS attacking WikiLeaks. So I hope a virus or something was actually found, if you see what I mean.
Horace Simpson said at December 1, 2010 8:38 PM
“… Last week, the Department of Homeland Security in the U.S. seized the domain names of some 70 websites for copyright infringement, without warrants, court orders, or court hearings before a judge. The DHS used their authority to grab websites on the basis they are perceived threats.
If WikiLeaks is really exposing dangerous classified diplomatic cables that are a threat to the United States, why didn’t DHS seize the WikiLeaks domain? … If WikiLeaks was a real whistleblower, DHS could shut them down by grabbing their domain name just as easily as it shut down the copyright violators. They didn’t.
WikiLeaks is a fake whistleblower, an attempt to repackage old ABCNNBBCBS lies in a new form that the public will swallow.”
Such logic no doubt compelled action to shut down Wikileaks.org, although as Arsalan points out, Wikileaks is still accessible at the IP address 213.251.145.96. The site can also be accessed via Wikileaks.info. This is quite consistent with Horace Simpson’s argument, i.e., action to shutdown Wikileaks has been perfunctory, and for the sake of appearances.
However, after a heroic battle, Wikileaks will no doubt be wrestled to the ground, by which time its work will have been done. The hundreds of thousands of low-level classified documents containing little but gossip with which to spice-up the stories the pro-war media have been pushing all along have already been transferred to the safe hands of five media organizagtions: Le Monde, El Pais in Spain, The Guardian in Britain and Der Spiegel in Germany. The Guardian shared the material with The New York Times, which organizations have been:
“advising WikiLeaks on which documents to release publicly and what redactions to make to those documents.”
And remember, the NY Times seeks the advice of the White House on what to Print. LOL. If that isn’t a Cass Sunstein cognitive disinformation operation, why the heck is the guy on the US public payroll?
And I believe Clark is wrong if he thinks Assange did not deliberately and falsely claim to have broken the Climategate emails story. In this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=W17dW_aJEwU
In response to the request for “comment on your role in the release of the hacked emails of the CRU…” Assange said:
“… your saying ‘maybe we shouln’t have released it’ of course our promise to our sources is ‘get it to us and if it was witheld from the public we will release it.’ Then we had no choice but to release it.”
So what Assange clearly and deliberately implies is that Wikileaks “released” the Climategate emails because they were at that time being withheld from the public. But that was a lie. The emails had already been made publicly available, first via a Russian server on November 19, 2009 and then from eastangliaemails.com.
Here’s Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit’s describing the events:
“Assange falsely claimed that the Climategate emails were broken by WikiLeaks. This is obviously untrue as CA readers know. I can date WikiLeaks’ entry by contemporary comments. The first notice of the emails at WikiLeaks was 2009/11/21 at 2.50 AM Eastern (12:50 AM blog time). The emails had been downloaded by many people (including me) from a Russian server on Nov 19 and had been downloaded by WUWT moderators on Nov 17. A contemporary comment in a CA thread says that WikiLeaks was down and refers people to megauploads. WikiLeaks has not even been a major reference for Climategate ?” that belongs to eastangliaemails.com (originally anelegantchaos.org) which was up on Nov 20 and provided a searchable database.”
Steve McIntyre, incidentally, is not as Clark seems to believe, some marginal anti-climate warming blogger. He’s a math wizz, an expert statistician and the author of a number of significant papers on climate science in the peer-reviewed literature, including a paper published this week in the Journal of Climate.
CheebaCow, I’m very wounded by your suggestion that I might use tinyurl to post a link to malware. But I’ll be polite, and desist.
Anent the taxonomy of trolls, my (tinyurl above – sorry) link to the void-komp test in Bladerunner is probably best. The author of the original story, Phillip K Dick, was obsessed by conventionally assumed differences between things that so far as he could see were not different. Read a few of his stories and there is a risk that you might begin to share his confusion. On the bottom line, he seems to be arguing for schizophrenia as a valid form of consciousness.
Is larry just sad? Is tony_opmoc just, as he claims, a rambling drunk? Or are they trolls? PK Dick says if there’s no difference, then there’s no difference. Troubling moment in the movie – Rachel says to Deckard (the killer): ‘Have you ever retired a human by mistake?’ (‘Retire’ means ‘kill’)
Non-humans are being retired wholesale in the Middle East. Too late with your warning, Mr Dick.
Letter to BBC Health Reporters, Jane Hughes, Branwen Jeffreys and Jabe Dreaper.
Dear Ms Hughes,
There is a steady stream of bad stories about the NHS. As a retired orthopaedic and trauma consultant with the deepest belief in OUR NHS, I certainly want poor practice and inadequate care to be exposed and the root causes found. Sadly, the latter are usually obfuscated. A cynic might think the BBC is promoting these stories in order to reduce public respect and love for the NHS and thus make that public more ready to accept accelerated privatisation as planned by Mr Lansley and this coalition government.
My plea to you and your fellow health correspondents is more confined however. Whenever you quote an organisation, usually a “Think Tank”, which is commenting on the NHS then you must broadcast whether there are conflicting interests. These are usually pecuniary but they are often political.
“Reform” is often quoted; its political philosophy is frankly right wing and it looks forward to the evisceration of our NHS.
You reported on examples of alleged terrible neglect of elderly people tonight. The Patients Association played a central part in the commentary. I doubt incidentally whether either of the young men had helped an elderly lady on to a bed pan or fed her. Please examine the list of corporations which contribute to the funding of the Patients Association
http://www.patients-association.com/Corporate-Members
I see see three at least which have a primary interest in private medical services. I have written before to the BBC on this subject but I did not get a reply.
The women’s fracture ward at Torbay hospital had 25 beds. It was always full (the annual increase in fractures in and about the hip was 7% latterly). Many of the ladies were bed bound for a time, some were ill with other conditions, some incontinent and some confused. We had two nurses to care for them at night. I spent many hours in that hospital and knew everything that went on. I knew that 2 nurses could not turn those patients 2 hourly who needed that help or care for those 25 as they were trained and would wish. I wrote to the management, raised it in the consultant staff meetings etc. Extra help never happened and the staff did their best. ‘It could not be afforded’ but the desks increased after the internal market of Margaret Thatcher. In fact it was not her but Prof Endhoven of the Rand Corporation and the rabid marketeers advising Thatcher. I fought that plan with every fibre.** What is happening now is the coup de grace, unless the all powerful media reports the facts.
For truth, reason and justice
David Halpin MB BS FRCS
** As forecast by myself and others, the market caused the cost of admin to jump from about 5-6% of total budget to well over 10%. In that first year the extra cost was estimated at 1.2 billion on a total budget, from memory, of about 38 billion.
Vronsky say:
“Is tony_opmoc just, as he claims, a rambling drunk? Or are they trolls? PK Dick says if there’s no difference, then there’s no difference. ”
Larry is sufficiently repetitive to be classified as a troll, and indeed, I have tested him and come to the conclusion that he is merely a semi-intelligent robot.
However, it seems common on this blog for folks to label as trolls anyone they disagree with. This seems to be entirely destructive of intelligent conversation. If a person has an argument, what the hell does it matter what their motivation is. Just as long as it is a reasonable and reasonably interesting argument couched in civil language why not address it?
I see that above I referred to a Cass Sunstein “cognitive disinformation operation.” I meant “cognitive infiltration”. Presumably, “infiltration” is Sunstein’s polite word for “disinformation.”
Jane Dreaper.
PS when I said I tested Larry, I mean by the Turing test.
And re trolls, of course if you only want to hear what you agree with, then label those with differing opinions as trolls by all means. They’ll soon bugger off, unless, of course, they really are trolls.
Here’s Cass Sunstein on the phenomenon of people using technology to shield themselves from views with which the disagree:
“…one of the most striking powers provided by emerging technologies: the growing power of consumers to “filter” what they see. As a result of the Internet and other technological developments, many people are increasingly engaged in a process of “personalization” that limits their exposure to topics and points of view of their own choosing.”
http://bostonreview.net/BR26.3/sunstein.php
Without resisting this tendency, our opinions become worthless.
“Reform” is often quoted.
Yup. We can use that. I’ll confess to my friends here (because I know it will go no further) that I am a blazing, utterly uncompromising Scottish separatist. Elsewhere though, I need to reassure people that I don’t want to end the Union, not at all, perish the thought. Just modernise it, reform it, ensure that it is fit for purpose, learns lessons and adapts to new realities. Perhaps, naturally, slim it down a little – let’s have a leaner, fitter Union. Who could quarrel with that?
Wink, wink.
Vronsky, you’re a hoot.
Democracy Now – Is WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange a Hero? Glenn Greenwald Debates Steven Aftergood of Secrecy News:
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/12/3/is_wikileaks_julian_assange_a_hero
[“The U.S. State Department has blocked all its employees from accessing the site and is warning all government employees not to read the cables, even at home.” It’s probably all Government employees. And some Uni students have got the memo too, I think.]
Hi Jon, good to hear from you, have to have a read of these essays.
Clark, symptoms were ultra slow connections, thrown out of the guardian website, my local papers came up with error messages, EI did not display.
That was during am, it got much better during the afternoon.
I did two scans and had loads of media trackers and ad server cookies, the rest went into the vault. Since then touch wood.
I don’t think that any botnet wants my tired old computer running on steam.
Botnets like PC’s that are constantly switched on, mine isn’t. When I’m not using the computer its switched off. I’m scrupellous with managing my time on the ‘puter.
Thanks for the link dreolin and somebody.
I’m sure that if the State Department bans people from watching the site it will get plenty of traffic.
I’m also duffing my cap to Suhayl, for his noncholant, thickskinned paree of our resident kosher sausage, larry the lamb.
CheebaCow @ 12:18 : Re: Trolls
“I have been on the net since 94 or 95 and I can tell you from personal experience that there are many people that really have nothing better to do”
Chorus: We agree. We are the lurkers and we agree.
I’ve tried to make exactly that same point, several times over, but it just doesn’t seem to stick.
It’s odd, because anybody old enough to have their own ‘net connection must surely, in the rest of their lives, have seen people acting the arsehole, without any need to explain it with anything more elaborate than “they’re an arsehole” ? But, come here and it turns into some sort of fantasy game. All anybody has to do is to be Wrong On The Internet[TM xkcd/386] and they can have all the attention they want. Anybody can be an evil spy genius, and anybody who spots one gets to be important enough to deserve devilish clever people plotting against them, round in circles.
(Is that enough to explain why I dropped out ? I’ll turn into another chip on the shoulder, throwing tantrums about how stupid people are. It’s too frustrating)
And, quite frankly, people are so easy to wind up, it’s a temptation. Suhayl, you’re one of the good guys, but your “analysis” of the robot who said “shan’t” was a prime example. You’ve seen other people writing things over your own name, so you _know_, you can’t not know, that there’s nothing to stop different people from using the same name. When you offer to engage a robot in conversation, can you not see that somebody might think it amusing to take the name up and respond ? Really, there’s no way on earth it proves that the original robot was anything except the usual junk, or that a human who borrows the name is anything except someone with 2 minutes to spare and a sense of humour. Ahem. It wasn’t me the first time round, honest, yer honour. It was 2nd time, though. Does that make my point ? (Go penetrate your own chickens !)
Waves to all the nice people, relurks, and waits for as many as will to guess who would pay me to say such things …
Suhayl
I was the anonymous poster with the Jonathan Cook link at 10.24. Forgot.
A Wikileak of interest to the French is this one –
SUBJECT: EMBASSY PARIS – MINORITY ENGAGEMENT STRATEGY
http://213.251.145.96/cable/2010/01/10PARIS58.html
WIKILEAK REF-
10PARIS58 2010-01-19 09:09 2010-12-01 12:12 CONFIDENTIAL//NOFORN Embassy Paris
QUOTE —
” (C/NF) Fourth, we will encourage moderate voices of
tolerance to express themselves with courage and conviction.
Building on our work with two prominent websites geared
toward young French-speaking Muslims — oumma.fr and
saphirnews.com — we will support, train, and engage media
and political activists *”who share our values”*. As we continue
to meet with moderate leaders of minority groups, we will
also expand our efforts to facilitate grass roots inter-faith
exchanges. We will share in France, with faith communities
and with the Ministry of the Interior, the most effective
techniques for teaching tolerance currently employed in
American mosques, synagogues, churches, and other religious
institutions. We will engage directly with the Ministry of
Interior to compare U.S. and French approaches to supporting
minority leaders who seek moderation and mutual
understanding, while also comparing our responses to those
who seek to sow hatred and discord.”
Vronsky.
‘Reform’ mentioned is this think tank
http://www.reform.co.uk/
whose spokespersons are very often given airtime on the BBC and other channels.
Aww, Richard, you’re missed.
“The U.S. State Department has blocked all its employees from accessing the site and is warning all government employees not to read the cables, even at home.”
Does MOSSAD assume we are *that* gullible; a bunch of suckers? Surely what is important is what wiki-wide eyed-Leaks does not expose. The puppet Karzai corruption and drug dealing for instance, involving the CIA and their private contractors and some unnamed Congress members.
The aim of WikiLeaks since its ‘rise to fame’ after the Iraq journalist massacre that demonized America is to keep Pakistan pressured and cornered while diverting our attention from our own SAS cross border recons and raids which are escalating big-time according to my knowledge straight from military sources.
Brigadier Asif Haroon Raja makes this quite clear in his ‘London Report’ which must be read *before* falling hook, line and sinker for slippery-leaks.
http://pakobserver.net/201006/27/detailnews.asp?id=38395
WikiLeaks? I have seen more confidential information on a weather report!!
I’d been trying to figure out what was missing here lately and I’ve just realised — there’s hardly any humour now.
Mark, I’m switching sides every five minutes on Assange. Literally. I can’t make up my mind. Awaiting further evidence.
Oh, btw, he’s not in hiding. According to Ch 4 News, both the police in Britain and the lawyers in Sweden know his exact whereabouts in London.
Off topic – but on global jurisprudential point.
To date, the International Criminal Court held investigations into these five situations:-
DRC
Central African Republic
Sudan ( Darfur)
Kenya; and
Northern Uganda
I ask a few questions of all:-
A. Is there equality of international justice when the likes of Blair and Bush, who have advanced wars of aggression, are excluded from answering for their war crimes?
B. Since heads of state from the African continent can so readily be indicted and/or put in the international dock ?” why when equal or larger crimes against humanity are committed by Western leaders aren’t they too held accountable.
C. Forget questions A and B above and accept that the makers of the rules manipulate and exclude themselves from justice ?”they laugh and thumb their noses at the very thought of any subjugation to the very courts they have created.
Would be great to hear from all on the prevailing international justice system and have views shared. I humbly offer my little parody on the topic :-
“Criminal’s Accomplice”
(A one act/one scene play with a potentially horrific end.)
Setting: A War Crimes Tribunal, somewhere in Europe.
Actors: Three Judges; an international war crimes Prosecutor; a Court Clerk; two armed court officers; Donald Rumsfeld
Act 1
Scene one. A black curtain is slowly drawn to reveal a somber setting. Three Judges ( A President of the Court; the Judge on the President’s right; The Judge on the President’s left); two armed guards; a Court Clerk who reads the charges; the Prosecutor; Donald Rumsfeld, standing as an accused before the Tribunal.
President ( looking at Rumsfeld): Mr. Rumsfeld you have been brought before this Tribunal for reason that by international consensus, a vast majority of people in the world had petitioned for your trial for complicity in crimes against humanity. Should this Tribunal find you guilty, you can be sentenced to life imprisonment. Do you understand?
Rumsfeld: Yes I do.
President: Is there anything you wish to say before the trial commences?
Rumsfeld: I am an American citizen, and this court has no jurisdiction over me. I am American, I am above international law, and in fact I am a law unto myself.
President: Precisely, and it is those misconceived notions which got you into this predicament in the first place. Commence with the charges.
Court Clerk: Reads a long list of jurisprudential formalities, and then adds…
” facilitating the procurement of chemical weapons , namely bis- ( 2-cholorethyl) ?” sulfide ( more commonly known as mustard gas) for sale to the Government of Iraq under the rule of Saddam Hussein.”
Rumsfeld: Is that supposed to be a charge?
President: Mr. Rumsfeld the international law applicable to your alleged heinous conduct was read out to you previously. Would you care rica?
Rumsfeld: Yes.
Prosecutor: During the period of the Iran- Iraq War ?” do you recall being an envoy to Baghdad?
Rumsfeld: Yes.
Prosecutor: And at the time you carried a hand-written letter and personally delivered it to Iraq’s President, Saddam Hussein?
Rumsfeld: Yes.
Prosecutor: It is also true to say that at the time of your visit to Iraq you were the highest ranking United States official to have visited Iraq in the previous six years.
Rumsfeld: Probably.
Prosecutor: It was either so or it wasn’t. Are you able to name anyone in the preceding six years, prior to your visit to Baghdad, who held higher office than yourself who had visited Baghdad; or, more precisely had at all visited Iraq?
Rumsfeld: No.
Prosecutor: So…
Rumsfeld: Look, it’s all lawyers’ games, if this then that, so what ? O.K. yes I was the top guy who visited.
Prosecutor: Would you have a look at the three exhibits which I am about to hand up to you – listed “A” , “B” and “C’ for ease for reference.
( papers are handed to Rumsfeld)
Prosecutor: Please look at ” A”. And you accept that in March 1984 you were in Baghdad.
Rumsfeld: Yes.
Prosecutor: Now turn to “B”. From that United Press International report, you accept that it was reported internationally that, and I quote in part, ” Mustard gas laced with a nerve agent has been used on Iranian soldiers in the 43-month Persian Gulf War between Iran and Iraq… .” And it goes on ” Meanwhile, in the Iraqi capital of Baghdad, U.S. presidential envoy Donald Rumsfeld held talks with Foreign Minister Tarek Aziz on the Gulf War before leaving for an unspecified destination.” Do you accept that report as factually accurate?
Rumsfeld: Well I already told you that I was in Baghdad, but I wasn’t there doing the gassing.
Prosecutor: Do you have reason to doubt that at the time it was reported, you personally knew, and the day before your meeting with Tariq Aziz it had been reported that some 600 Iranian soldiers had been gassed with chemical weapons on the southern front.
Rumsfeld: I told you I wasn’t there gassing, so how am I to know?
Prosecutor: Look at exhibit “C” Mr. Rumsfeld. By reference to that document, is it no less a person than US Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick, who acknowledged, ” We think the use of chemical weapons is a very serious matter. We’ve made that clear in general and particular.” Now, do you deny that as a very senior US official you knew and were fully aware of the gassing with chemical weapons?
Rumsfeld: O.K., you got me on that one.
Prosecutor: And on March 29, 1984, it was reported in the New York Times, ” American diplomats pronounce themselves satisfied with relations between Iraq and the United States and suggest that normal diplomatic ties have been restored in all but name.”
Rumsfeld: Look, I am no dummy, my name is Donald, not George, you are going to go to some paper and ask this, and question the other , and therefore this, and all that lawyer bullshit. Let me just tell you plain and straight. In May, 1984, I resigned. You want to suggest that I am the facilitator who gave support when Iraq was actively using chemical weapons. You are then going on to say that during my period Iraq was actively purchasing weapons and chemical agents from American firms. Well let me tell you something Buddy, that’s just how the world is. I did it for my country, The U.S. of A. which I love. Look, I am not some kind of Milosovic, or some criminal, who you put in some monkey cage and get away with it. We will bomb the shit out of this court before that is allowed to happen. You guys just don’t get it, yes we sold ?” yes I helped procure the weapons. I did what was right for my country at the time. I came back and I have loyally served George W. Yes, Saddam gassed the Kurds in 1988.Yes we sold him 60 Hughes helicopters and more stuff too.
President: Mr. Rumsfeld, just a couple questions.
Rumsfeld: Sure.
President: Having just admitted as you did, you have been a great help to this Tribunal, and have probably shortened the trial considerably ?” however, just for the record, a couple points. Do you, personally, not feel any sense of remorse for the complicity in first facilitating the Iraqi government’s atrocities, and then never having done anything about it?
Rumsfeld: Look, under Clinton I signed a letter saying that we should get rid of Saddam.
President: But when you were in a position to inform the world about the atrocities you were totally silent.
Rumsfeld: You just don’t get it. We sold him the stuff, and we needed him then, so why should I have said anything? It would not be logical. It would not have made sense. But when Geroge W. got back in we are focused on oil and we moved aggressively after him. The guy is a tyrant, so he had to be got rid of.
Prosecutor: Mr. Rumsfeld…
Rumsfeld: I have had enough of this court crap.
Rumsfeld turns and walks towards the main doors of the court, and as he does so he is approached by the court’s two armed officers. Rumsfeld turns and says…
“If one of you so much as puts a hand on me, the Marines will be here quicker than you can say ‘Saddam Hussein’ . I am out of here guys, back to God’s own country, the U.S.of A.”
As he walks through the court’s doors a loud mocking laugh is heard.
The End.
@ Craig,
You are in Ghana – so – a great and relevant place to post from re. my just posted question.
Enjoy your African visit.
Courtenay
You see, you can torture me, You can make me experience the most aweful pain, but you can’t take it away from me, no matter what you do…
You can assassinate me
You can string me up by my balls until I slowly die
But You Can’t Take My Love Away From Me
Tony
” Cheney Charged In Nigerian Corruption Trial”
Really?