Pardon Bradley Manning Mr. Obama

15 08 2010

UPDATE 081510

UPDATE 031611 – fixed relocated video

Bradley Manning is a good Soldier who does not obey unlawful orders.  If he actually leaked anything it was in fulfillment of his Oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, domestic and foreign.

President Obama, do You seriously want to try to expand Parker v Levy [1][2][3]and the “Separate Society” of UCMJ in this climate?  Sure, maybe You can get SCOTUS to go along, but if You do You may have a revolt.  And if SCOTUS doesn’t go along You risk the bullshit decision of Parker v Levy being overturned.

You’re a smart guy, Sir.  Wisely avoid this particular battle.  Pardon Bradley Manning.  He’s a National, nay, International Hero.  If You find it too logistically difficult, politically speaking, to honor him, at least Keep Your Promises to Protect Whistleblowers and protect Him.

Oh, and one more thing.  Don’t murder, kidnap, or torture ahem detain or “interrogate” any Wikileaks Team member. They are working for Peace, and our ability to have sufficient access to History to know where we are.

Are You, Mr. Obama?

:dcm

UPDATE 081510

Listen to the SCOTUS Parker v Levy Opinion:




Hear the  SCOTUS Parker v Levy Oral Arguments:




:dcm 081510 1505hrs

Here’s a video from

From the original oojamaflipper video notes:

oojamaflipper | August 13, 2010

link to petition: http://www.petitiononline.com/manning…

Support Website: http://www.bradleymanning.org/

facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/savebradley

contact Bradley –
Inmate: Bradley Manning
3247 Elrod Avenue
Quantico, VA 22134
USA

Brig phone: +1 (703)432-6154
Brig fax: +1 (703)784-4242

wikipediapage on whistleblowing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleb…

many thanks for the protest clips: http://www.youtube.com/user/liamh2

how wikileaks can save the world: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=od3PYThcVqs

stalk me: https://twitter.com/#!/oojamaflipper





How Wikileaks Changed Journalism – Discussion :Frontline Club

12 08 2010

Professional journalists discuss the reaction of the release of 76,000 War Diaries documents online to date.  Julian Assange, Co-Founder and Senior Managing Editor of Wikileaks joined in via Skype.

From the Frontline Club:
The controversy surrounding WikiLeaks’ historic release of more than 70,000 classified US military documents on the war in Afghanistan has not died down.

But one thing is certain: online data and its dissemination is changing journalism and the relationship betwen public and power.

In this special event, we ask:

  • How are organisations like WikiLeaks changing the way public data is released?
  • What do the Afghan War Logs mean for the mainstream media and government media relations?
  • What are the legal implications of the War Logs files’ release?

Joining us on this panel are: Julian Assange, WikiLeaks editor-in-chief (via online link up); journalist, academic and freedom of expression activist Heather Brooke, whose successful campaigning led to the full release of MPs’ expenses files; media lawyer Mark Stephens of Finers, Stephens Innocent and Simon Rogers, editor of The Guardian’s Datablog.

Chaired by Paddy O’Connell, the presenter of BBC Radio 4’s Broadcasting House.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

:dcm





Julian Assange of WikiLeaks – Oslo Freedom Forum 2010

12 08 2010

From Oslo Freedom ForumFrom

May 18, 2010

Julian Assange is a spokesman and advisory board member of WikiLeaks, a transparency website whose mission is to “open governments” and expose human rights abuses. It has a core focus on protecting dissidents, whistleblowers, investigative journalists, and bloggers who face state threats, and it largely operates by publishing leaks of sensitive documents.

Winners of Amnesty International’s 2009 Media Award for exposing extrajudicial assassinations in Kenya, Assange and WikiLeaks have recently launched www.collateralmurder.com, a website that hosts a leaked video of U.S. military forces in Iraq apparently slaying over a dozen people indiscriminately.

In his speech, Assange chooses to focus specifically on WikiLeaks’s work against censorship and human rights abuses committed by Western governments. Paraphrasing Orwell, Assange explains that he who controls today’s internet servers controls the intellectual record of mankind.

He warns us that Western governments, large corporations, and certain wealthy individuals are increasingly able and increasingly trying to remove material permanently from the historical record using sophisticated methods.

Assange reviews WikiLeaks’s work in uncovering human rights abuses at Abu Ghraib, Bagram, and Guantanamo, and discusses the dangerous irony in the U.S. military’s conduct as it decorates its detention centers with “Honor Bound to Defend Freedom” signs.

If the West doesn’t reverse its course of increased censorship and rights abuses, Assange warns, it will lose all of the ideals that it once stood for.

Julian Assange – Oslo Freedom Forum 2010

Two Parts


:dcm

Julian




White House Won’t Protect Afghan Sources, Won’t Rule Out Killing Assange

3 08 2010

Capturing Bin Laden Takes Back Seat to Fighting WikiLeaks

UPDATE 080410

Last Thursday I thought I’d ask the White House a simple question.  Is it more important to capture Osama Bin Laden, or to detain and “question” (under the PATRIOT Act, we all know what that can mean.) Julian Assange of WikiLeaks.

I thought this was a no brainer.  How wrong, I suppose, I was.  At least, for the White House.  The decision on what may be declassified has been removed from the Executive Branch of the United States (or any)  government, and it seems the Obama administration has yet to figure out how to respond, aside from scheming to capture / detain / or otherwise incarcerate Julian Assange, so that he may be interrogated.  With, or Without Due Process.  But really now, Patriots!  In secret?

Not Bloody Likely.

An absence of answers from the White House Press Office apparently means what?  Corking-up WikiLeaks is more important than stopping Al Qaeda?

On Friday morning, I called the White House Press Office again, and repeated that question, and another.  I spotted Assange’s interview with abcnews.au wherein he asserted the White House had been approached by the New York  Times on behalf of the media partnership, and asked if they would help remove names of our Afghan Friends.  The White house “declined.”

I asked, “Is this True?”

Since then, silence.

Seriously.  The White House declined an opportunity to protect our “assets”?

What’s wrong with this picture?

Just to keep this in perspective, here is WikiLeaks extraordinary press conference last week:

Link: http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/8526049

Short Link: http://bit.ly/aQyzbs

WikiLeaks Afghan War Diary, 2004-2010

The Guardian Afghanistan War Logs

Der Spiegel Afghanistan Protocol

New York Times Afghanistan War Logs

My email this morning to the White House Press Office is below.

-dcm

UPDATE 080410:

I took the press conference at the Frontline Club July 26 and split it in two and made it available for download here:

Frontline London Press Conference July 26 2010,downloadable,2 pcs http://bit.ly/WLatFL

Also,  rageunderground over at YouTube has mapped from the WikiLeaks War Diaries,  all of the Afghan War IED attacks from 2004 through 2009, and overlaid them on a NATO map of the area.  Here:

:dcm

UPDATE@ 080410

First, there is now an easy to use Citizen Journalist Research tool for the Afghan War Diary Database at http://www.diarydig.org/ .   Next…

Here’s a riotously succinct synopsis of why we need ironclad Net Neutrality, as illuminated by the release of the Wikileaks Afghan War Diaries, courtesy of thejuicemedia’s Rap News.

:dcm

Subject: 2 Simple Questions regarding WikiLeaks/Guardian/DerSpiegel/NYT War Diaries, from Scribal Thrum


David Manchester <david.c.manchester@gmail.com> Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 9:17 AM
To: White House Press Office <media_affairs@who.eop.gov>
Cc: [list of journalists]
Dear President Obama and Robert Gibbs:

Once again, I ask.  For the fourth (4th) time since last Thursday 07/29/10:

  • Which is a greater priority for the White House and Pentagon – capturing Osama Bin Laden, or detaining and “questioning” Julian Assange?

Once again, I ask.  For the third (3rd) time since last Friday 07/30/10:

  • Is it true the White House declined to help the media partnership of NYT/Guardian/DerSpiegel/WikiLeaks to scrub the names of our Human Resources from the War Diaries as part of their Harm Minimisation?

Every single time I have contacted the White House Press Office (“media affairs”) I have identified myself, given a phone number, email address, and identified the blog I publish.  Every single time I have been assured You will “get back” to me.

You have not.

Is it because I run a blog, and the White House does not think that merits a response?

Have I received no response because the White House does not think I am qualified as a journalist?  Let me assure You, I was trained in Print, Broadcast, and Photo Journalism by the Department of Defense Information School.  I served on active duty as an Army Journalist.  The paper I worked on won numerous awards during my tenure there.

Please respond to these questions with answers.

As I mentioned this morning when I called around 0715hrs, my headline for my next post on Scribal Thrum will be something like

White House Won’t Protect Afghan Sources, Won’t Rule Out Killing Assange
Capturing Bin Laden Takes Back Seat to Fighting WikiLeaks

If I have no response from You by 12 noon today I will surmise the White House is okay with this headline, and will proceed.

Thanks for the Help!

Regards,
Dave Manchester
xxx.xxx.xxxx

https://dredeyedick.wordpress.com
http://thewall.civiblog.org/nsa.html





U.S. must stop spying on WikiLeaks – Editorial

26 03 2010

UPDATE: Russia Today Video:

The following editorial now appears on WikiLeaks.

wikileaks logoU.S. must stop spying on WikiLeaks

Fri Mar 26 08:44:46 UTC 2010

Over the last few years, WikiLeaks has been the subject of hostile acts by security organizations. In the developing world, these range from the appalling assassination of two related human rights lawyers in Nairobi last March (an armed attack on my compound there in 2007 is still unattributed) to an unsuccessful mass attack by Chinese computers on our servers in Stockholm, after we published photos of murders in Tibet. In the West this has ranged from the overt, the head of Germany’s foreign intelligence service, the BND, threatening to prosecute us unless we removed a report on CIA activity in Kosovo, to the covert, to an ambush by a “James Bond” character in a Luxembourg car park, an event that ended with a mere “we think it would be in your interest to…”.

Developing world violence aside, we’ve become used to the level of security service interest in us and have established procedures to ignore that interest.

But the increase in surveillance activities this last month, in a time when we are barely publishing due to fundraising, are excessive. Some of the new interest is related to a film exposing a U.S. massacre we will release at the U.S. National Press Club on April 5.

The spying includes attempted covert following, photographng, filming and the overt detention & questioning of a WikiLeaks’ volunteer in Iceland on Monday night.

I, and others were in Iceland to advise Icelandic parliamentarians on the Icelandic Modern Media Initiative, a new package of laws designed to protect investigative journalists and internet services from spying and censorship. As such, the spying has an extra poignancy.

The possible triggers:

  • our ongoing work on a classified film revealing civilian casualties occurring under the command of the U.S, general, David Petraeus.
  • our release of a classified 32 page US intelligence report on how to fatally marginalize WikiLeaks (expose our sources, destroy our reputation for integrity, hack us).
  • our release of a classified cable from the U.S. Embassy in Reykjavik reporting on contact between the U.S. and the U.K. over billions of euros in claimed loan guarantees.
  • pending releases related to the collapse of the Icelandic banks and Icelandic “oligarchs”.

We have discovered half a dozen attempts at covert surveillance in Reykjavik both by native English speakers and Icelanders. On the occasions where these individuals were approached, they ran away. One had marked police equipment and the license plates for another suspicious vehicle track back to the Icelandic private VIP bodyguard firm Terr. What does that mean? We don’t know. But as you will see, other events are clear.

U.S. sources told Icelandic state media’s deputy head of news, that the State Department was aggressively investigating a leak from the U.S. Embassy in Reykjavik. I was seen at a private U.S Embassy party at the Ambassador’s residence, late last year and it is known I had contact with Embassay staff, after.

On Thursday March 18, 2010, I took the 2.15 PM flight out of Reykjavik to Copenhagen–on the way to speak at the SKUP investigative journalism conference in Norway. After receiving a tip, we obtained airline records for the flght concerned. Two individuals, recorded as brandishing diplomatic credentials checked in for my flight at 12:03 and 12:06 under the name of “US State Department”. The two are not recorded as having any luggage.

Iceland doesn’t have a separate security service. It folds its intelligence function into its police forces, leading to an uneasy overlap of policing and intelligence functions and values.

On Monday 22, March, at approximately 8.30pm, a WikiLeaks volunteer, a minor, was detained by Icelandic police on a wholly insignificant matter. Police then took the opportunity to hold the youth over night, without charge–a highly unusual act in Iceland. The next day, during the course of interrogation, the volunteer was shown covert photos of me outside the Reykjavik restaurant “Icelandic Fish & Chips”, where a WikiLeaks production meeting took place on Wednesday March 17–the day before individuals operating under the name of the U.S. State Department boarded my flight to Copenhagen.

Our production meeting used a discreet, closed, backroom, because we were working on the analysis of a classified U.S. military video showing civilian kills by U.S. pilots. During the interrogation, a specific reference was made by police to the video—which could not have been understood from that day’s exterior surveillance alone. Another specific reference was made to “important”, but unnamed Icelandic figures. References were also made to the names of two senior journalists at the production meeting.

Who are the Icelandic security services loyal to in their values? The new government of April 2009, the old pro-Iraq war government of the Independence party, or perhaps to their personal relationships with peers from another country who have them on a permanment intelligence information drip?

Only a few years ago, Icelandic airspace was used for CIA rendition flights. Why did the CIA think that this was acceptable? In a classified U.S. profile on the former Icelandic Ambassador to the United States, obtained by WikiLeaks, the Ambassador is praised for helping to quell publicity of the CIA’s activities.

Often when a bold new government arises, bureaucratic institutions remain loyal to the old regime and it can take time to change the guard. Former regime loyalists must be discovered, dissuaded and removed. But for the security services, that first vital step, discovery, is awry. Congenitally scared of the light, such services hide their activities; if it is not known what security services are doing, then it is surely impossible to know who they are doing it for.

Our plans to release the video on April 5 proceed.

We have asked relevant authorities in the Unites States and Iceland to explain. If these countries are to be treated as legitmate states, they need to start obeying the rule of law. Now.

—Julian Assange (editor@wikileaks.org)

Fundraising drive

We have received hundreds of thousands of pages from corrupt banks, the US detainee system, the Iraq war, China, the UN and many others that we do not currently have the resources to release to a world audience. You can change that and by doing so, change the world. Even $10 will pay to put one of these reports into another ten thousand hands and $1000, a million.

We have raised just over $360,000 for this year (our yearly budget is around $600,000.).

The Sunshine Press (WikiLeaks) is an non-profit organization funded by human rights campaigners, investigative journalists, technologists and the general public. Through your support we have exposed significant injustice around the world— successfully fighting off over 100 legal attacks in the process. Although our work produces reforms daily and is the recipient of numerous prestigious awards, including the 2008 Index on Censorship-Economist Freedom of Expression Award as well as the 2009 Amnesty International New Media Award, these accolades do not pay the bills. Nor can we accept government or corporate funding and maintain our absolute integrity. It is your strong support alone that preserves our continued independence and strength.

We are releasing some time sensitive disclosures on this page until the moment of our re-launch. [link added – dcm]





Clues to What’s Next for the Economy – List of Troubled US Banks

1 01 2009

All US Banks and their Texas Ratio

Chris Brunner at the Lew Rockwell Blog posted this interesting article about how to get a clue as to what banks might be the shakiest at the moment, and more likely to fail.

Brunner:

A few days ago, a friend of mine called me to ask if I had any idea how to figure out which banks would be the next to fail. Some extensive googling revealed that while lists of troubled banks obviously exist, none of them seem to be readily available to the public. Why? Because the bankers do not want you to have this. Just watch the president of the American Bankers Association in this interview talk about how important it is to keep this private.

This is a list of all of the banks in the United States and the corresponding Texas Ratio for each one. Developed by Gerard Cassidy, the Texas ratio is a measure of a bank’s credit troubles. Basically, the higher the ratio, the worse the situation is for that particular bank. Banks with a ratio of 100 and higher are in very serious danger of collapse, and banks with a ratio of 50 or higher are vulnerable.

This is the formula I used:

100 * ((Non-performing Assets – U.S guaranteed loans) + Other REO) / (Equity + Loss Reserves)

I recommend Chris’s post – read it!

I have put the list together as a word .doc file and as an excel spreadsheet sorted (ascending) by state and city and then (descending – worst to best) by Texas Ratio.

View:            doc spreadsheet

-dcm

Sphere-It!





Why aren’t Unlimited Text Plans $1 / Year?

28 12 2008

AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, Verizon Still Owe Senator Kohl (And their Customers) Some Explanations

There’s a reason costs for text plans have skyrocketed recently, and it’s not due to increased overhead.  From Randall Stross’s What Carriers Aren’t Eager to Tell You About Texting:

…text messages are not just tiny; they are also free riders, tucked into what’s called a control channel, space reserved for operation of the wireless network. That’s why a message is so limited in length: it must not exceed the length of the message used for internal communication between tower and handset to set up a call. The channel uses space whether or not a text message is inserted.nsa-med

Senator Herb Kohl would like to talk with the wireless carriers about that.

So far they haven’t been very forthcoming.  Stross writes:

The written responses to Senator Kohl from AT&T, Sprint and T-Mobile speak at length about pricing plans without getting around to the costs of conveying text messages. My attempts to speak with representatives of all three about their costs and pricing were unsuccessful. (Verizon Wireless would not speak with me, either, nor would it allow Mr. Kohl’s office to release publicly its written response.)

The carriers will have other opportunities to tell us more about their pricing decisions: 20 class-action lawsuits have been filed around the country against AT&T and the other carriers, alleging price-fixing for text messaging services.

We should All listen to what they have to say.

I wonder if they’ll get around to talking about what Common Carrier means.  Does the bus company charge You to use the bus’s rest room while enroute?  It’s there, on the bus, whether or not any passenger uses it.  And You’ve paid for it in the cost of the ticket.

From Ars Technica Sept 10 Article Senator to cellular carriers: UR TXTS R 2 XPENSIV:

Kohl’s office is asking each carrier to explain the method behind the text message rate madness, including any cost, technical, or other factors that justify the 100 percent increase between 2005 to 2008. Kohl also wants data on how text messages are utilized, comparisons of how text message packages stack up against competitors, and—perhaps most importantly—price comparisons against per-minute charges for voice plans, and per-KB charges for mobile Internet and tethering plans. It should be fun to hear AT&T defend why it charges over $1,300 per megabyte for text messages.

Again, Kohl’s office made it clear that this letter is more of an conversation starter (though a fairly forceful one) in what could turn out to be an embarrassing (for the carriers) discussion over high cost of text messages. The staffer did, however, hold out the possibility of further investigation, and even a request that antitrust regulators to look into the matter, should the situation call for it.

Donald Melanson at Engadget filed this report at the time.

Here is Senator Kohl’s letter:

For Immediate Release:

9/9/08
Phone: (202) 224-5653

KOHL CALLS ON CELL PHONE COMPANIES TO JUSTIFY RISING TEXTING RATES

In Three Years, Text Message Charges Have Doubled for Wireless Customers

WASHINGTON, DC — Today, US Senator Herb Kohl (D-WI), chairman of the Senate Antitrust Subcommittee, asked the presidents and chief executive officers of the four largest wireless telephone companies to justify sharply rising rates for its customers to send and receive text messages. In a letter, Senator Kohl requested an explanation from Verizon Wireless, AT&T, Sprint and T-Mobile, which collectively serve more than 90 percent of the nation’s cellular phone users. The text of Senator Kohl’s letter follows below.

September 9, 2008

Lowell McAdam President and CEO Verizon Wireless

Randall Stephenson Chief Executive Officer AT&T

Dan Hesse Chief Executive Officer Sprint

Robert Dotson President and Chief Executive Officer T-Mobile

Dear Messrs. McAdam, Stephenson, Hesse and Dotson:

I am writing to express my concern regarding what appear to be sharply rising rates your companies have charged to wireless phone customers for text messaging. Some industry experts contend that these increased rates do not appear to be justified by any increases in the costs associated with text messaging services, but may instead be a reflection of a decrease in competition, and an increase in market power, among your four companies.

Your four companies are the nation’s leading wireless telephone companies, collectively serving more than 90% of the nation’s wireless subscribers. Since 2005, the cost for a consumer to send or receive a text message over each of your services has increased by 100%. Text messages were commonly priced at 10 cents per message sent or received in 2005. As of the end of the month, the rate per text message will have increased to 20 cents on all four wireless carriers. Sprint was the first carrier to increase the text message rate to 20 cents last Fall, and now all of its three main competitors have matched this price increase.

What is particularly alarming about this industry-wide rate increase is that it does not appear to be justified by rising costs in delivering text messages. Text messaging files are very small, as the size of text messages are generally limited to 160 characters per message, and therefore cost carriers very little to transmit. Text messaging files are a fraction of the size of e-mails or music downloads. Also of concern is that it appears that each of companies has changed the price for text messaging at nearly the same time, with identical price increases. This conduct is hardly consistent with the vigorous price competition we hope to see in a competitive marketplace.

What has changed in recent years is the level of consolidation in the wireless telephone industry. The number of major national competitors has declined from six to four. And the large national wireless carriers continue to acquire their smaller, regional competitors, with the announced acquisition of Alltel by Verizon Wireless being just the latest example. As Chairman of the Antitrust Subcommittee, I am concerned with whether this consolidation, and increased market power by the major carriers, has contributed to this doubling of text messaging rates over the last three years.

Therefore, I specifically ask each of your companies to explain why text messaging rates have dramatically increased in recent years. Please explain the cost, technical, or any other factors that justify a 100% increase in the cost of text messaging from 2005 to 2008. Please also provide data on the utilization of text messaging during this time period. Please provide a comparison of prices charged for text messaging as compared to other services offered by your companies, such as prices per minute for voice calling, prices for sending e-mails, and prices charged for data services such as internet access over wireless devices, from 2005 to the present. Finally, please state whether your text messaging pricing structure differs in any significant respect from the pricing of your three main competitors. Please provide this information no later than Monday, October 6, 2008.

If you have any questions regarding this request, please contact Jeff Miller or Seth Bloom of my Antitrust Subcommittee staff at (202) 224-3406. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

###

-dcmSphere-It!








%d bloggers like this: