He accused his media partners at The Guardian newspaper, which worked with him to make the embarrassing leaks public, of unfairly tarnishing him by revealing damaging details of the sex assault allegations he faces in Sweden.
WikiLeaks' Assange Turns on Friends and Foes
Fox News
December 21, 2010
NewsCore
Julian Assange, the man behind WikiLeaks, Monday launched a wide ranging series of attacks on both his enemies and allies as he defended his public and private conduct.
In his first UK newspaper interview since releasing hundreds of secret diplomatic cables last month, Assange told The (London) Times he predicts the United States will face reprisals if it attempts to extradite him on conspiracy charges.
He accused his media partners at The Guardian newspaper, which worked with him to make the embarrassing leaks public, of unfairly tarnishing him by revealing damaging details of the sex assault allegations he faces in Sweden.
He insisted that the women behind the claims were motivated by revenge.
Finally, looking ahead to next year, Assange said he has enough material ready to destroy the bosses of one of the world’s biggest banks.
Speaking from a Suffolk mansion where he is confined on bail, the 39-year-old Australian said that the decision to publish incriminating police files about him was “disgusting.” The Guardian had previously used him as its source for hundreds of leaked US embassy cables.
Assange was understood to be particularly angry with a senior reporter at the paper and former friend, for “selectively publishing” incriminating sections of the police report, although The Guardian made clear that the WikiLeaks founder was given several days to respond...
Showing posts with label WikiLeaks. Show all posts
Showing posts with label WikiLeaks. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Saturday, October 16, 2010
WikiLeaks and 9/11: What if?
WikiLeaks and 9/11: What if?
Frustrated investigators might have chosen to leak information that their superiors bottled up, perhaps averting the terrorism attacks.
October 15, 2010
By Coleen Rowley and Bogdan Dzakovic
Los Angeles Times
If WikiLeaks had been around in 2001, could the events of 9/11 have been prevented? The idea is worth considering.
The organization has drawn both high praise and searing criticism for its mission of publishing leaked documents without revealing their source, but we suspect the world hasn't yet fully seen its potential. Let us explain.
There were a lot of us in the run-up to Sept. 11 who had seen warning signs that something devastating might be in the planning stages. But we worked for ossified bureaucracies incapable of acting quickly and decisively. Lately, the two of us have been wondering how things might have been different if there had been a quick, confidential way to get information out.
Ads by Google
* Counterterrorism DegreesEarn a Counterterrorism Degree Taught by Former CIA, FBI and DoD www.Henley-Putnam.edu
* Counter-Terrorism DegreeOnline Counter Terrorism Degrees from American Public University. www.StudyatAPU.com/CounterTerrorism
One of us, Coleen Rowley, was a special agent/legal counsel at the FBI's Minneapolis division and worked closely with those who arrested would-be terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui on an immigration violation less than a month before the World Trade Center was destroyed.
Following up on a tip from flight school instructors who had become suspicious of the French Moroccan who claimed to want to fly a jet as an "ego boost," Special Agent Harry Samit and an INS colleague had detained Moussaoui. A foreign intelligence service promptly reported that he had connections with a foreign terrorist group, but FBI officials in Washington inexplicably turned down Samit's request for authority to search Moussaoui's laptop computer and personal effects.
Those same officials stonewalled Samit's supervisor, who pleaded with them in late August 2001 that he was "trying to keep someone from taking a plane and crashing into the World Trade Center." (Yes, he was that explicit.) Later, testifying at Moussaoui's trial, Samit testified that he believed the behavior of his FBI superiors in Washington constituted "criminal negligence."
The 9/11 Commission ultimately concluded that Moussaoui was most likely being primed as a Sept. 11 replacement pilot and that the hijackers probably would have postponed their strike if information about his arrest had been announced.
WikiLeaks might have provided a pressure valve for those agents who were terribly worried about what might happen and frustrated by their superiors' seeming indifference. They were indeed stuck in a perplexing, no-win ethical dilemma as time ticked away. Their bosses issued continual warnings against "talking to the media" and frowned on whistle-blowing, yet the agents felt a strong need to protect the public.
Frustrated investigators might have chosen to leak information that their superiors bottled up, perhaps averting the terrorism attacks.
October 15, 2010
By Coleen Rowley and Bogdan Dzakovic
Los Angeles Times
If WikiLeaks had been around in 2001, could the events of 9/11 have been prevented? The idea is worth considering.
The organization has drawn both high praise and searing criticism for its mission of publishing leaked documents without revealing their source, but we suspect the world hasn't yet fully seen its potential. Let us explain.
There were a lot of us in the run-up to Sept. 11 who had seen warning signs that something devastating might be in the planning stages. But we worked for ossified bureaucracies incapable of acting quickly and decisively. Lately, the two of us have been wondering how things might have been different if there had been a quick, confidential way to get information out.
Ads by Google
* Counterterrorism DegreesEarn a Counterterrorism Degree Taught by Former CIA, FBI and DoD www.Henley-Putnam.edu
* Counter-Terrorism DegreeOnline Counter Terrorism Degrees from American Public University. www.StudyatAPU.com/CounterTerrorism
One of us, Coleen Rowley, was a special agent/legal counsel at the FBI's Minneapolis division and worked closely with those who arrested would-be terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui on an immigration violation less than a month before the World Trade Center was destroyed.
Following up on a tip from flight school instructors who had become suspicious of the French Moroccan who claimed to want to fly a jet as an "ego boost," Special Agent Harry Samit and an INS colleague had detained Moussaoui. A foreign intelligence service promptly reported that he had connections with a foreign terrorist group, but FBI officials in Washington inexplicably turned down Samit's request for authority to search Moussaoui's laptop computer and personal effects.
Those same officials stonewalled Samit's supervisor, who pleaded with them in late August 2001 that he was "trying to keep someone from taking a plane and crashing into the World Trade Center." (Yes, he was that explicit.) Later, testifying at Moussaoui's trial, Samit testified that he believed the behavior of his FBI superiors in Washington constituted "criminal negligence."
The 9/11 Commission ultimately concluded that Moussaoui was most likely being primed as a Sept. 11 replacement pilot and that the hijackers probably would have postponed their strike if information about his arrest had been announced.
WikiLeaks might have provided a pressure valve for those agents who were terribly worried about what might happen and frustrated by their superiors' seeming indifference. They were indeed stuck in a perplexing, no-win ethical dilemma as time ticked away. Their bosses issued continual warnings against "talking to the media" and frowned on whistle-blowing, yet the agents felt a strong need to protect the public.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Is there hope for the First Amendment?
Is WikiLeaks Judge Having Second Thoughts?
By David Kravets
February 28, 2008
U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White issued a document late Thursday suggesting he might have erred last week when he signed an order that took down the WikiLeaks site and also locked "the WikiLeaks.org domain name to prevent transfer of the domain name to a different domain registrar."
...As fellow THREAT LEVEL scribe Kim Zetter has been reporting, Dynadot -- WikiLeaks' U.S. hosting company and domain registrar based in San Mateo, California -- agreed to take down and lock the site at the behest of Julius Baer Bank and Trust.
Judge White signed the accord without hearing from WikiLeaks -- an accord that broaches a myriad of First Amendment issues.
In a three-page order issued hours ahead of Friday's hearing, White, appointed by the second President Bush, wondered whether last week's order went too far. "Without WikiLeaks making an appearance, was there any more narrowly tailored remedy for protecting private information from stolen documents from the web site beside locking and disabling the web site until such time as the disputed documents were removed or redacted?"
White also asked whether the accord trumps the First Amendment. He demanded responses concerning a 2001 Supreme Court ruling, in which the high court generally found that it was wrong to be "punishing disclosures of lawfully obtained information of public interest by one not involved in the initial illegality."
White wondered whether the bank's remedy is against Rudolf Elmer, the bank's former vice president of its Cayman Islands' operation. The bank claims Elmer stole and leaked the bank's private documents that purport to show the institution assists its clients in hiding assets from the tax man...
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/02/is-wikileaks-ju.html
By David Kravets
February 28, 2008
U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White issued a document late Thursday suggesting he might have erred last week when he signed an order that took down the WikiLeaks site and also locked "the WikiLeaks.org domain name to prevent transfer of the domain name to a different domain registrar."
...As fellow THREAT LEVEL scribe Kim Zetter has been reporting, Dynadot -- WikiLeaks' U.S. hosting company and domain registrar based in San Mateo, California -- agreed to take down and lock the site at the behest of Julius Baer Bank and Trust.
Judge White signed the accord without hearing from WikiLeaks -- an accord that broaches a myriad of First Amendment issues.
In a three-page order issued hours ahead of Friday's hearing, White, appointed by the second President Bush, wondered whether last week's order went too far. "Without WikiLeaks making an appearance, was there any more narrowly tailored remedy for protecting private information from stolen documents from the web site beside locking and disabling the web site until such time as the disputed documents were removed or redacted?"
White also asked whether the accord trumps the First Amendment. He demanded responses concerning a 2001 Supreme Court ruling, in which the high court generally found that it was wrong to be "punishing disclosures of lawfully obtained information of public interest by one not involved in the initial illegality."
White wondered whether the bank's remedy is against Rudolf Elmer, the bank's former vice president of its Cayman Islands' operation. The bank claims Elmer stole and leaked the bank's private documents that purport to show the institution assists its clients in hiding assets from the tax man...
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/02/is-wikileaks-ju.html
Free speech groups oppose WikiLeaks shutdown
Update: Rights groups seek court OK to intervene in Wikileaks case
Shutdown of whistle-blower site violates First Amendment, they say
By Jaikumar Vijayan
from Computerworld
February 28, 2008
A growing number of privacy and civil rights advocates are calling on a federal court to reconsider its decision two weeks ago ordering the controversial Wikileaks.org whistle-blower Web site to be disabled...
"The First Amendment encompasses the right to receive information and ideas," the groups said in the brief. "The documents and materials posted on the Wikileaks website concern matters of great public interest" that each of the parties filing the motion had regularly accessed, they said.
Expressing similar support was Harvard Law School's Berkman Center for Internet & Society's Citizen Media Law Project (CMLP). Yesterday, the center filed a brief opposing the court's injunctions against Wikileaks and its domain registrar Dynadot LLC...
"Under established First Amendment law, prior restraints, if constitutional at all, are permissible only in the most extraordinary circumstances," David Ardia, director of the CMLP, said in a statement. "In this case, you have court orders that effectively shut down a website that has been at the forefront of exposing corruption in governments and corporations around the world."
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&taxonomyName=government&articleId=9065399&taxonomyId=13&intsrc=kc_top
Shutdown of whistle-blower site violates First Amendment, they say
By Jaikumar Vijayan
from Computerworld
February 28, 2008
A growing number of privacy and civil rights advocates are calling on a federal court to reconsider its decision two weeks ago ordering the controversial Wikileaks.org whistle-blower Web site to be disabled...
"The First Amendment encompasses the right to receive information and ideas," the groups said in the brief. "The documents and materials posted on the Wikileaks website concern matters of great public interest" that each of the parties filing the motion had regularly accessed, they said.
Expressing similar support was Harvard Law School's Berkman Center for Internet & Society's Citizen Media Law Project (CMLP). Yesterday, the center filed a brief opposing the court's injunctions against Wikileaks and its domain registrar Dynadot LLC...
"Under established First Amendment law, prior restraints, if constitutional at all, are permissible only in the most extraordinary circumstances," David Ardia, director of the CMLP, said in a statement. "In this case, you have court orders that effectively shut down a website that has been at the forefront of exposing corruption in governments and corporations around the world."
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&taxonomyName=government&articleId=9065399&taxonomyId=13&intsrc=kc_top
Saturday, February 23, 2008
WikiLeaks: Why is the US protecting a Cayman Islands Bank instead of protecting freedom of speech?
Christian Science Monitor says closing down WikiLeaks will probably have reverse effect:
The Christian Science Monitor
February 22, 2008
Oakland, Calif.
By Ben Arnoldy
...the Julius Baer Bank sought an injunction against Wikileaks, a website that anonymously publishes whistleblower documents, for posting papers purporting to show money laundering and tax evasion schemes at the bank's Cayman Islands branch. A federal district judge late last week took the unusual step of shutting down the entire site instead of removing just the bank's documents.
What followed was an explosion of interest in the relatively obscure website, with many online activists helping to redirect curious eyes to alternative sites. where the content had been reinstated.
"I think we are seeing the limits of a jurisdiction-based judicial system as it faces a relatively borderless Internet," says David Ardia, director of the Citizen Media Law Project, a Harvard-linked group advocating for free speech.
The court orders are stunningly broad, he says, and suggest a lack of seriousness about the First Amendment...
If this kind of order had been given in the 1971 Pentagon Papers case, says Mr. Ardia, the court would be ordering the Teamsters to park their trucks and permanently refuse to deliver any copies of The New York Times...
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0222/p02s02-usgn.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)