Wikileaking the Truth about American Unaccountability for Torture -report 2012

 

View this document on Scribd

Page 1
L. Hajjar/Societies Without Borders 7:2 (2012) 192-225
~192~
© Sociologists Without Borders/Sociologos Sin Fronteras, 2012
Wikileaking the Truth about American
Unaccountability for Torture
Lisa Hajjar
University of California—Santa Barbara
Received September 2011; Accepted March 2012
______________________________________________________
Abstract.
Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions are international offenses and
perpetrators can be prosecuted abroad if accountability is not pursued at home. The
US torture policy, instituted by the Bush administration in the context of the “war on
terror” presents a contemporary example of liability for gross crimes under
international law. For this reason, classification and secrecy have functioned in
tandem as a shield to block public knowledge about prosecutable offenses. Keeping
such information secret and publicizing deceptive official accounts that contradict the
truth are essential to propaganda strategies to sustain American support or apathy
about the country’s multiple current wars. Although a great deal of information and
evidence has come to light about the US torture policy, there has been no thorough
domestic investigation up the chain of command, no full public disclosure, and no
effort to prosecute its intellectual authors in US courts. The classified diplomatic
cables allegedly provided to Wikileaks by Bradley Manning have revealed one critical
way in which this unaccountability has been enforced. This article addresses four
issues: First, a consideration of the importance of accountability for torture and other
gross violations of international law; second, a summary of efforts to hold US officials
accused of torture-related offenses accountable in European courts; third, an
examination of several leaked diplomatic cables that expose the lengths to which both
the Bush and Obama administrations have gone to derail these foreign criminal
investigations in Germany and Spain; and fourth, the unexpected consequences that
leaks played in unleashing anti-authoritarian uprisings in the Arab world and the
possibilities of future accountability.

The right not to be tortured is the most universal and,
arguably, the most important right that human beings have because it
applies to all people everywhere under all circumstances, including in
the context of war and armed conflict, and it is absolutely non-
derogable (Hajjar 2009a). The right not to be tortured is a negative
right, constituted through the prohibition of practices that meet the
Page 2
L. Hajjar/Societies Without Borders 7:2 (2012) 192-225
~193~
© Sociologists Without Borders/Sociologos Sin Fronteras, 2012
legal definition of torture, namely those acts of omission or
commission that purposefully cause severe physical harm and/or
mental suffering to people who are in custody but have not been
found guilty of any crime. (The prohibition excludes the harms arising
from lawful, court-ordered punishments regardless of their brutality.)
Thus, the legal prohibition of torture imposes a sharp limit on the
rights of states by depriving state agents and anyone acting under the
color of law (e.g., government-hired contractors) of any lawful excuse
to engage in or abet such prohibited practices.
Torture is in the same negative-right company with genocide
and war crimes. Together, these negative rights aptly have been
termed the “harder human rights” (Hagan, Schoenfeld and Palloni
2006). What distinguishes torture from violations of other harder
human rights is the custodial relationship. The clarity of the custodial
relationship (i.e., people are either in custody or they are not) and the
extreme power imbalance between custodians and prisoners
distinguishes the harms of torture from the conditions in which
violations of the other harder human rights occur. At least in theory,
people who are vulnerable to non-custodial violations can fight back,
flee or surrender. Those self-preservation options are not available to
people in custody.
The prohibition and criminality of torture is customary
international law, which creates legal obligations to prosecute people
accused of perpetrating or abetting this gross crime. When those who
are accused of engaging in torture are not prosecuted and punished,
their immunity or impunity makes a mockery of the law itself (see
Human Rights Watch 2011). Such mockery characterizes post-9/11
decisions by US officials in the Bush administration to institute
policies that disregarded the legal prohibition of torture in the
interrogation and detention of suspects captured in the “war on
terror,” and was compounded by disregarded obligations under
federal and international law to pursue accountability, which extended
to the next administration (Hajjar 2009b). President Obama has
justified this failure with the facile mantra of “looking forward, not
backward.” However, domestic unaccountability does not absolve
perpetrators and abettors because torture is a crime that attaches
universal jurisdiction, which means that perpetrators can be
prosecuted in foreign national court systems if they are not prosecuted
Page 3
L. Hajjar/Societies Without Borders 7:2 (2012) 192-225
~194~
© Sociologists Without Borders/Sociologos Sin Fronteras, 2012
in the country with jurisdiction over the accused (active personality
jurisdiction) or the country where the crime occurred (passive
personality jurisdiction).
The doctrine of universal jurisdiction is premised on the
principle that some crimes under international law—including
torture—are so grave that their perpetrators are “enemies of all
mankind” (hostis humani generis) and, therefore, that all countries have
an interest in enforcing the law against them. When torture occurs in
the context of war, as was the case in the US torture policy, it
constitutes a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, at
minimum violations of Common Article 3, which pertains to “non-
international” (i.e., not state-to-state) wars. Common Article 3
prohibits and criminalizes torture, cruel treatment, and “outrages on
human dignity” of detained people who do not qualify for prisoner-of
-war status. Such violations are war crimes, which attach a principle of
accountability similar to universal jurisdiction because the Geneva
Conventions are customary international law and impose an explicit
duty on every state party—which, since the turn of the twenty-first
century, includes every state in the world—to seek extradition of
accused war criminals or at least to avail its courts for prosecution (aut
dedere aut judicare).
The vast majority of war crimes committed in conflicts
around the world go unpunished. Torture, for reasons noted above
(i.e., the non-derogable nature of the prohibition and the clarity of the
custodial relationship), lends itself more readily to the possibility of
prosecution than other types of war crimes. The use of excessive force
or the deliberate targeting of civilians are no less illegal but impose
greater challenges to prosecution because the so-called “fog of war”
makes it more difficult to ascertain and prove that those ordering or
executing a military operation in which civilians are killed did so
intentionally. Unintentional killing of civilians in a legitimate military
operation targeting combatants is not a war crime; rather, it bears the
cold label “collateral damage.” The use of indiscriminate weaponry
(e.g., landmines, chemical weapons), which is a policy decision, is even
harder to penalize in practice because the issue of intent lies far up the
chain-of-command

 

South African Competition Commission: unredacted final Report on Banking:Uncensored

WIKILEAKS

 

Decrypted, unredacted 590 page report on the South African banking industry. Redacted parts were released on 12 Dec 2008 by the South African Competition Commision here: http://www.compcom.co.za/banking/technical%20report.htm

Using technical methods, Wikileaks has decrypted and removed the redactions from all of the report appart from a few images. The previously redacted regions, are shown in blue highlight.

The Competition Commission has the power to put some regulatory pressure on the banks to eg. lower fees & pay fines should the report find that the banks have formed a cartel with their exorbitant fees and unfair business practices. This report is important as it might explain why Banking fees in South Africa are so extremely high.

View this document on Scribd

 

 

Big Pharma inside the WHO: confidential analysis of unreleased WHO Expert Working Group draft reports

WIKILEAKS

December 10, 2009

By Kaitlin Mara (Intellectual Property Watch)[1]

Confidential documents related to the World Health Organization Expert Working Group on innovative financing for research and development surfaced today, revealing the group’s thinking as well as pharmaceutical industry thinking about the WHO process. The documents immediately raised concern about possible undue access to the process by industry; the WHO told Intellectual Property Watch the industry group was not supposed to have the documents.

View this document on Scribd

The documents appear to have come from the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations (IFPMA), and include draft reports on innovative financing mechanisms from the working group as well as an analysis by the IFPMA on the reports’ contents. They were released on Wikileaks, a website that anonymously publishes sensitive documents.

”IFPMA was not supposed to have working drafts of the expert working group in their possession and they were not given these documents,” said Precious Matsoso, director of Public Health Innovation and Intellectual Property (PHI) at the WHO, under whose auspices the expert working group falls. “It was understood by the working group that its report is intended for the director general and” WHO members, she added.

Public health advocates reacted strongly to the leaked documents. “The IFPMA document confirms much of what had been feared,” that there is “a larger WHO strategy to protect the status quo, particularly as it relates to intellectual property issues,” said James Love, the director of Knowledge Ecology International, a non-profit group focussed on transparency in policymaking and which has been advocating for prize funds, a biomedical R&D treaty, and other initiatives to fund R&D.

An introductory letter included with the documents addressed to the Public Health Advocacy Committee at IFPMA says “the overall result [of the working group’s report] is in line with most of the industry positions on this matter,” but says that “there is still room for them to introduce new language” as the documents date from before the final working group meeting concluded on 2 December.

The Expert Working Group’s “comparative analysis of innovative financing proposals for health R&D,” available from Wikileaks here [pdf], divides aspects of drug development into six categories and then lists the ideas from “least likely” to “most likely” to work.

The six categories are: fundraising, research and development capacity building in developing countries, basic research and product discovery, product development, manufacturing and distribution, and efficiencies.

The leaked documents are all available from Wikileaks here.

Expert Analysis

View this document on Scribd

The draft reports available on Wikileaks do not contain final recommendations. These will be available only in the final report, expected to be released this week (IPW, WHO, 7 December 2009). Instead, it contains an analysis of all proposals made thus far, through two calls for advice from the public, and ranks them on efficacy and feasibility.

Within “fundraising,” proposals considered “least likely to work” include diverting existing resources to health, reducing tax evasion and havens, levying new charges on services or access rights. A proposal for a “Green IP” system (IPW, Inside Views, 27 June 2008) is currently “too hard to operationalise” but some elements could potentially be useful.

Most likely to work include new indirect taxes, for example on internet users; voluntary private contributions, new donor funds, and taxes on pharmaceutical profits. Taxing pharmaceutical profits is estimated to generate only USD 160 million versus, for example, a potential USD 2 billion from internet taxes.

On building research capacity, specific recommendations are not made, but the report says there is a lot of potential in this idea as innovative pharmaceutical development is often done in commercial ventures and, in developing countries, “commercial targets often have significant overlap with public health targets,” as local markets demand treatment for neglected diseases.

On basic research, prize systems and prize funds for completed drugs, as well as a “health impact fund,” are deemed least effective, as is the idea of a biomedical R&D treaty. “Endstage prizes” and the treaty were also seen as not particularly beneficial for product development. Prizes have been advocated as a solution to R&D financing problems by several health advocacy NGOs (IPW, Public Health, 12 February 2009).

Deemed more effective in incentivising research were funding for product development partnerships, grants to companies working on neglected diseases, and prizes for reaching “milestones” (such as those provided by Innocentive). Similar incentives were considered beneficial for product development.

Prizes were seen as possible incentives for manufacturing and distribution, though “likely only for diagnostics” as opposed to vaccines or medicines.

“Absolutely Fair Towards the Industry”

The draft report, the IFPMA said, is “absolutely fair” regarding industry concerns, using “real figures” on the cost of drug and vaccines developments and containing “many references to the importance of intellectual property … to achieve further innovation.”

As far as streamlining the current R&D system, which the report calls “unwieldy,” removing data exclusivity was seen as less effective compared to harmonising medicine regulatory systems and “pre-competitive platforms” for R&D.

The IFPMA analysis raised two major concerns.

The first relates to proposed taxes on the pharmaceutical industry, which the IFPMA document says “places the burden of the R&D … exclusively on industry and reinforces the negative image of pharmaceutical profits.”

“Operationalising this proposal may lead to companies increasing prices to compensate which would be counterproductive,” it adds. Further, it is not certain to be acceptable by all partners “as the tax should be imposed on the whole pharmaceutical sector, generic included.”

The second area of concern is drug-purchasing mechanism UNITAID’s proposed patent pool, and in particular its structure for royalty payments to IP owners. These payments would be determined based on the “therapeutic benefits and the affordability of royalities in particular countries,” the analysis says, adding that this “does not follow past or current patent pool structures” and emphasising that voluntary participation should be an “essential prerequisite.”

A UNITAID board meeting on 14-15 December will review an expert study on the patent pool, which the UNITAID board agreed in principle to establish in July 2008. In May 2009, the board instructed the organisation’s secretariat to prepare an implementation plan. An expert team analysed a range of issues and its report, completed in November, clearly recommends the implementation of the pool, sources told Intellectual Property Watch.

The IFPMA analysis also called for vigilance regarding the potential use of open source systems.

NGOs: Documents “A Step Backwards”

View this document on Scribd

Love said the expert working group process was “a step backwards” and “evidence of a deeper problem in WHO regarding the influence of the pharmaceutical industry, and its philanthropic supporter, the Microsoft founder’s Gates Foundation.”

”This is a very disturbing set of documents,” said Sarah Rimmington, from nongovernmental organization Essential Action’s Access to Medicines Project. She added that the report “embraces the status quo and rejects the feasibility of almost every single important proposal aimed at truly solving these complicated problems.”

Kaitlin Mara may be reached at kmara@ip-watch.ch.

As published in Intellectual Property Watch. Thanks to Kaitlin Mara and IP Watch for covering this material. Copyright remains with the aforementioned.

You are all suspects now. What are you going to do about it?

 

You are all potential terrorists. It matters not that you live in Britain, the United States, Australia or the Middle East. Citizenship is effectively abolished. Turn on your computer and the US Department of Homeland Security’s National Operations Center may monitor whether you are typing not merely “al-Qaeda”, but “exercise”, “drill”, “wave”, “initiative” and “organisation”: all proscribed words. The British government’s announcement that it intends to spy on every email and phone call is old hat. The satellite vacuum cleaner known as Echelon has been doing this for years. What has changed is that a state of permanent war has been launched by the United States and a police state is consuming western democracy.

What are you going to do about it?

In Britain, on instructions from the CIA, secret courts are to deal with “terror suspects”. Habeas Corpus is dying. The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that five men, including three British citizens, can be extradited to the US even though none except one has been charged with a crime. All have been imprisoned for years under the 2003 US/UK Extradition Treaty which was signed one month after the criminal invasion of Iraq. The European Court had condemned the treaty as likely to lead to “cruel and unusual punishment”. One of the men, Babar Ahmad, was awarded 63,000 pounds compensation for 73 recorded injuries he sustained in the custody of the Metropolitan Police. Sexual abuse, the signature of fascism, was high on the list. Another man is a schizophrenic who has suffered a complete mental collapse and is in Broadmoor secure hospital; another is a suicide risk. To the Land of the Free, they go – along with young Richard O’Dwyer, who faces 10 years in shackles and an orange jump suit because he allegedly infringed US copyright on the internet.

As the law is politicised and Americanised, these travesties are not untypical. In upholding the conviction of a London university student, Mohammed Gul, for disseminating “terrorism” on the internet, Appeal Court judges in London ruled that “acts… against the armed forces of a state anywhere in the world which sought to influence a government and were made for political purposes” were now crimes. Call to the dock Thomas Paine, Aung San Suu Kyi, Nelson Mandela.

What are you going to do about it?

The prognosis is clear now: the malignancy that Norman Mailer called “pre fascist” has metastasized. The US attorney-general, Eric Holder, defends the “right” of his government to assassinate American citizens. Israel, the protege, is allowed to aim its nukes at nukeless Iran. In this looking glass world, the lying is panoramic. The massacre of 17 Afghan civilians on 11 March, including at least nine children and four women, is attributed to a “rogue” American soldier. The “authenticity” of this is vouched by President Obama himself, who had “seen a video” and regards it as “conclusive proof”. An independent Afghan parliamentary investigation produces eyewitnesses who give detailed evidence of as many as 20 soldiers, aided by a helicopter, ravaging their villages, killing and raping: a standard, if marginally more murderous US special forces “night raid”.

Take away the videogame technology of killing – America’s contribution to modernity – and the behaviour is traditional. Immersed in comic-book righteousness, poorly or brutally trained, frequently racist, obese and led by a corrupt officer class, American forces transfer the homicide of home to faraway places whose impoverished struggles they cannot comprehend. A nation founded on the genocide of the native population never quite kicks the habit. Vietnam was “Indian country” and its “slits” and “gooks” were to be “blown away”.

The blowing away of hundreds of mostly women and children in the Vietnamese village of My Lai in 1968 was also a “rogue” incident and, profanely, an “American tragedy” (the cover headline of Newsweek). Only one of 26 men prosecuted was convicted and he was let go by President Richard Nixon. My Lai is in Quang Ngai province where, as I learned as a reporter, an estimated 50,000 people were killed by American troops, mostly in what they called “free fire zones”. This was the model of modern warfare: industrial murder.

Like Iraq and Libya, Afghanistan is a theme park for the beneficiaries of America’s new permanent war: Nato, the armaments and hi-tech companies, the media and a “security” industry whose lucrative contamination is a contagion on everyday life. The conquest or “pacification” of territory is unimportant. What matters is the pacification of you, the cultivation of your indifference.

What are you going to do about it?

The descent into totalitarianism has landmarks. Any day now, the Supreme Court in London will decide whether the WikiLeaks editor, Julian Assange, is to be extradited to Sweden. Should this final appeal fail, the facilitator of truth-telling on an epic scale, who is charged with no crime, faces solitary confinement and interrogation on ludicrous sex allegations. Thanks to a secret deal between the US and Sweden, he can be “rendered” to the American gulag at any time. In his own country, Australia, prime minister Julia Gillard has conspired with those in Washington she calls her “true mates” to ensure her innocent fellow citizen is fitted for his orange jump suit just in case he should make it home. In February, her government wrote a “WikiLeaks Amendment” to the extradition treaty between Australia and the US that makes it easier for her “mates” to get their hands on him. She has even given them the power of approval over Freedom of Information searches – so that the world outside can be lied to, as is customary.

What are you going to do about it?

 

26 June 2012 WikiLeaks Setting Another Trap for Journalists, NGOs

2012-00414 WikiLeaks Partner for Global Intelligence Files June 26, 2012 (copy below) via Google Search

 

Cryptome rejects this proprietary publishing manipulation. Again, WikiLeaks is inducing participation in a crime covered with pseudo-journalistic exculpation. Again excluding open public access in favor of contractual marketing of stolen material and aiding its profitable commercialization.

It’s a trap, don’t do it, don’t encourage others to take the bait.

Don’t send anything to me you don’t want published. This note will be published .

_____

At 06:24 PM 6/26/2012, you wrote:

Please Do Not Post, still working on getting us access.

Below if the terms and conditions that WL is sending to everyone.

_Terms and Conditions for access to the Global Intelligence Files

These Terms and Conditions are an agreement between you as an individual (not your organisation) and WikiLeaks with respect to use of the Global Intelligence Files.

1. WikiLeaks will provide access to the data known as Project Rock Guitar through WikiLeaks’ search database. You will use the search database as per instructions on the site and will not use robots on the system.

2. The decision what to publish in news articles and papers will remain at your discretion. You will credit WikiLeaks in the following manner: “investigative partnership organised by WikiLeaks” and refer to the data as having been “obtained by WikiLeaks”.

3. You will refer clearly on your website to the document(s) provided by WikiLeaks that were used in preparation of these news articles or papers and link from your publication to the data on WikiLeaks’ website.

4. You will treat any alleged and/or suspected WikiLeaks sources for the Global Intelligence Files as confidential sources of your own, with all the ethical and legal protections such sources are entitled to. You, in accordance with journalistic and professional ethics, will not speculate as to their identities. In relation to WikiLeaks’ provision of confidential information to you, you will treat WikiLeaks as a confidential journalistic source. Although you will publicly describe the information has having been “obtained by WikiLeaks” you will not, for the protection of WikiLeaks, you and the WikiLeaks sources, say that the information was “given” to you by WikiLeaks.

5. When publishing any story or material based on the Global Intelligence Files you understand that in relation to exclusivity you must inform WikiLeaks of the identification number of the data informing your publication and will submit this number to WikiLeaks’ release platform before the story is to first appear in any of your publishing mediums, so that WikiLeaks can publish the original data at the same time. You will also provide a URL link to where the story or material will appear on your site. Instructions for this release system are on the GI Files site and must be read and followed once you have access to the site. You understand that the release system provided by WikiLeaks must be treated in a reputable manner: there is to be no playing of the system to schedule large quantities of data in advance to reserve them, or using robots on the system. Scheduling must reflect true intentions to publish at the date and time you list on the release system.

6. You will treat each of the documents made available to you by WikiLeaks as confidential unless and until a story based on their content is published. You will exercise care in ensuring that the materials will not be vulnerable to hacking or other efforts to discover their content.

7. WikiLeaks journalists, employees, consultants and infrastructure are the subject of State and private intelligence activity and politicised financial blockades. To protect its continued ability to publish effectively, various WikiLeaks methods, people and locations need to be kept confidential. Unless otherwise stated, these include, but are not limited to: identifying details of all WikiLeaks personnel, security methods, communication systems or methods, locations, strategic plans, information on threats against WikiLeaks, the number of WikiLeaks personnel, the number of WikiLeaks personnel in different areas, usernames, passwords, transportation and financial arrangements including financial transportation methods.

8. Trading, selling, sharing or giving away your account is prohibited, as is trading and selling invites or offering them in public.

9. You understand that any breach of these Terms and Conditions or mismanagement of the search database or release platform will result in your access being withdrawn, along with the access of the anyone that invited you and anyone you invite. You are responsible for your own account and for the people you invite.

By ticking this box you agree to abide by all of the above Terms and Conditions

Your login and password will be sent by mail.

GIFiles Signup Instructions
Becoming a WikiLeaks Partner for the Global Intelligence Files

You have been invited to enter a secret world.

By joining the global WikiLeaks partnership on the Global Intelligence Files (the GI Files) — you will have access to more than five million emails from the Texas-headquartered “global intelligence” company Stratfor. The emails date from between July 2004 and late December 2011. They reveal the inner workings of a company that fronts as an intelligence publisher, but provides confidential intelligence services to large organisations, including the US Department of Homeland Security and the US Defense Intelligence Agency. Being part of this international team will allow you to search the emails using the sophisticated search engine designed by WikiLeaks to enable you to research and publish articles and papers using this data.

The purpose of this system is to maximise global impact of the GI Files by restricting supply to those who are most likely to research and publish on them.

We are allowing journalists, academics and human rights organisations to search and publish the GI Files. To enter into this partnership you will need to be given a unique code by one of our existing partners. Users who demonstrate research and publishing ability will be considered as partners for new WikiLeaks publications.

Once you have this code please follow the instructions below to enter the partnership and gain access to the GI Files. These instructions are designed to be idiot-proof. They explain every step of this process, but don’t be scared – for most people this will be quick.

1. Download Tor, a tool for encrypted anonymous web-browsing. Without this you will not be able to access our Terms and Conditions, or the GI Files database.

Tor Instructions:
– To get Tor please go to the following URL to download the “Tor Browser Bundle:” https://www.torproject.org/projects…
– Choose the correct version depending on whether you use Windows, Mac or Linux and download it in the language you want.
– Click on the correct version to download it and then save it – we suggest to your Desktop.
– Once you have saved it you can find the “Tor Browser Bundle” application in the place you saved it.
– You will need to double-click on the Start Tor browser application to run Tor.
– You will need Tor running to access the site to agree to our Terms and Conditions, and then to later access the GI Files site.

2. Start Tor and go to the following site (it will only work using Tor). Wait up to 30 seconds for the site to load for the first time: http://7f4lihm464gdcwfc.onion/invit…

3. Enter your unique invite code to get access to the GI Files partner Terms and Conditions.

4. Enter your name, organisation name, email address and phone number. The email address you give cannot be a personal email address; it must be a work email account.

5. Read all parts of the Terms and Conditions and make sure you understand them. If you have any questions, please email: signup@wikileaks.org

6. Once you understand your responsibilities under the Terms and Conditions tick the check box to confirm your agreement.

7. Within 15 minutes you will receive an email to the email address you supplied giving you login details to the GI Files website.

8. Login to the site at the following URL: http://7f4lihm464gdcwfc.onion/ giving your username and password as supplied in the email. This URL can only be accessed when using Tor.

9. Once you are logged into the site you will see your user page, the search interface and publishing interface. At the top of the page are tabs that explain how these work. On your user page you will have five invite codes for you to give to others so that they can also gain access to the GI Files.

10. If you wish to invite someone to the GI Files then give them a unique invite code, along with the URL to this page of instructions – each person you invite must be a journalist, NGO worker or academic from a different organisation (for complete understanding of who you can invite please see the invite rules below).

11. If you violate any of the Terms and Conditions you risk having your login terminated, along with that of the person that invited you and the people that you invited. If any of the contacts you invited violate the terms of the Terms and Conditions, they risk having their login terminated, your login terminated and the logins of the people they invited terminated.

Invite Rules:

Each invite code must be given to a person who:
A. is a real person
B. is either a journalist, Professor or Associate Professor at a University or an employee of a human rights organisation
C. is from a different organisation to you and your other invitees
D. is using an email that is not a personal email
E. is using an email that is from a different domain to your email address and that of the other people you invite
F. is going to use the GI Files search and release site for research, the results of which will be communicated to the public.

For any issues or questions related to this signup process, please email: signup@wikileaks.org

28 June 2012 Ecuador Has Two Forms of Political Asylum

 

http://www.elcomercio.com/politica/Regimen-interpretacionesopuestas-asilo-politico_0_726527614.html

 

El Comercio (Quito)

The scheme has conflicting interpretations of political asylum

Thursday 28/06/2012

Rafael Correa’s government has different ways of interpreting the figure of the asylum. It is based on who requests it. The first is a critical, when an Ecuadorian citizen seeking asylum in a third country, feeling persecuted politically for his regime. Since last February, six people have applied for such protection, considering that his integrity was at risk against the Correa administration.

The journalist Emilio Palacio and Carlos Perez, director of The Universe, were the first to call for such protection to United States and Panama. They did it on the grounds that Correa lobbied on trial for insulting them, where they received an adverse ruling. By then, the various government spokesmen chose to dismiss both applications. The processing of the Palace is branded as “ridiculous”, while in the case of Perez said that there was no need to issue a pass so he could go from the Embassy of Panama to the airport.

“Government action was shameful and blatant disregard of the conditions of asylum.” That is the criterion of Joffre Campaign, solicitor of The Universe, who notes that in this chapter, the Executive showed “contempt” for the institution of asylum policy.

A similar stance taken by the Government in May. This month, four suppliers of the contracts between the state and firms linked to Fabricio Correa asked for political asylum in Britain, Costa Rica, Chile and Panama. On that occasion, the government not only dismissed the suppliers, but the Foreign Office displayed a diplomatic offensive to block their applications. From the office of Foreign Minister Ricardo Patiño contact was made with the various foreign ministries of the countries involved. In these dialogues the Ecuadorian diplomacy explained that suppliers were tried by a criminal offense. The government accuses them of lying, because in its report noted that Correa allegedly did know of his brother’s contracts with the state.

“At that time the Government did not think our human rights, as it says in the case of Julian Assange”. With those words, the seer Paul Chambers questioned the opposite view that the President has asked for asylum against the Director of Wikileaks, a refugee from the previous week at the Embassy in London. In fact, in the case of Assange, the Government has evidenced its second way to interpret the institution of asylum.

In this regard, the President said he will discuss in detail the grounds on which requested protection Assange Ecuador. In addition, he anticipated that the decision whether to grant asylum to journalist who has four demands for sexual offenses in Sweden, is a sovereign decision of Ecuador.

Luis Saavedra, director of the Regional Foundation of Human Rights Advisory, explains that political asylum is a right that people have, to be persecuted in their countries. And while indicating that it is normal that governments seek to stop asylum claims, objected that Ecuador use a tone “angry” and “arrogant” to do when he is accused of persecution, as in the case of suppliers. From the diplomatic notes that it is wrong that the government has different interpretations of political asylum, depending on who you ask.

Ambassador Luis Narvaez stresses that since the state must have a course of action be in line with “the legal and human depth of the topic” in any situation.

 

Transcript | US v PFC Bradley Manning, Article 32 Pretrial, 12/22/11 (by an anonymous journalist, ed. by Alexa O'Brien) By Alexa O'Brien on December 22, 2011 11:59 AM | |

 

This transcript of the December 22, 2011, Article 32 Pretrial hearing in U.S. v Pfc. Manning was obtained from a respected journalist in attendance that day at Fort Meade.

The journalist wished to remain anonymous, but wanted the transcript to be made public. The journalist requested that I clean up the transcript and fact check. Any errors are, therefore, my own.

The Investigation Officer is Paul Almanza, an Army Reserve Lieutenant Colonel and Justice Department prosecutor.

Prosecution is Captain Ashden Fein, Captain Joe Morrow, and Captain Angel Overgaard.
Defense is Mr. David Coombs, Major Matthew Kemkes, and Captain Paul Bouchard.

9:00 a.m. COURT CALLED TO ORDER

DEFENSE’S CONCLUDING STATEMENT.

Defense (Coombs): Officer Almanza, you are in a unique position here to give the U.S. Government a reality check. Your recommendation will carry considerable weight with the Government.

The Government has overcharged to strong-arm a plea from my client. Look at the charge case. The U.S. Government has brought 22 charges against Manning. Five specifications of eight 18 U.S.C. 793, two of 18 U.S.C. 1030(a)(1). Each carries a ten-year maximum. That means 150 years with maximum punishment.

But the Government wasn’t satisfied with that. They also charged Manning with “aiding the enemy,” which carries the death penalty or life in prison without parole.

I recommend dismissing “aiding the enemy.” I recommend dismissing the Article 92 offenses, the strong form enforcement of information assurance. We have seen that this S2 was lawless. It did not enforce rules. It is the unit’s lack of response to that, which also smacks in the face of justice.

I ask that you combine 18 USC into one specification [missed]; one specification of 18 U.S.C 793; and one specification of 18 U.S.C. 1030(a)(1). If you did that, the maximum sentence would be 30 years.

30 years ago, the U.S. was assisting Saddam Hussein with Iran. Ronald Reagan was president. My client was not even born. In support of this punishment, you need to understand why it occurred and what was the result

Gender Identity Disorder. Not a disorder; it is a reality. One my client was struggling with. In a letter to Master Sergeant Adkins, Pfc. Manning wrote:

[The transcriber abbreviated the following in their notes:]

“This is my problem. I’ve had signs of it for a very long time. I’ve been trying very, very hard to get rid of it. I thought military would get rid of it. But it is not going away. It is haunting me more and more as I get older. Now the consequences are getting harder. I am not sure what to do with it. It is destroying my ties with family. It is preventing me from developing as a person. It is the cause of my pain and confusion. It makes the most basic things in my life very difficult. The only solution is getting rid of me. The fear of getting caught has made me cover up. It is difficult to sleep and impossible to have conversations. It makes my entire life feel like a bad dream that won’t end. I don’t know what to do. I don’t know what to do. I don’t know what will happen to me. But at this point I feel like I am not here anymore. Everyone is concerned about me, and everyone is afraid of me. I am sorry.”

– Pfc. Bradley Manning

From a journal found in Pfc. Manning’s lodgings: “I may have gender identity issues.” Found on his computer: Google searches for “transgender,” etc. [Coombs mentions an article about transgendered members of the military.] “Transsexuals in the Military: Flight into Hyper-Masculinity” by Captain George R. Brown, M.D., U.S.A.F.
As a psychologist, Captain Brown has studied patients in hyper-masculine environments. Striking similarity: they joined the service to “become a real man.” Another quote: “In uniform, I was above reproach.”

During his deployment, Manning created a virtual identity, Breanna Manning. If only life was so simple, and you could push a few buttons and solve your problems. It was not.

Manning struggled in isolation, but not in silence. Non-commissioned officers are the backbone of the military The one thing that makes the U.S. Army different is that we have non-commissioned officers who enforce the rules and step in and correct, regardless of rank. We have had a breakdown from Major Clausen, S2, all the way down to the most junior officer.

The most responsible is Master Sergeant Adkins, yet he refused to testify. Adkins wrote three memoranda.

Memorandum One: “Pfc. Manning’s instability heightened in 2009.” Psychiatric care one to two times a week might have helped Manning. Yet Master Sergeant Adkins did nothing.

Memorandum Two: “Pfc. Manning exhibits bizarre behavior…event’s reemerged…” Adkins wrote that memo, and yet did nothing.

Memorandum Three: “Manning was sitting upright, knees clutched as though in pain.” Adkins noticed an open Gerber knife. “Manning had etched on his seat ‘I want’ with the blade. He felt that he was not there; was not a person. He said he was a turtle with a core personality and several layers of hard shell to protect his personality. He seemed able to recover.” Adkins wrote that memo, and yet did nothing. That night, Manning struck Showman.

Adkins wrote three memos, gave unsworn statements, but took no action. It would be useful to hear from these individuals [Master Sergeant Adkins, Major Clausen]. They did nothing.

Regarding my client’s actions: If anything, it has helped. Why would an O.C.A. [Original Classification Authority] say this could cause harm, because it reinforces the Government’s “Chicken Little” response: “The sky is falling!”

If they feel this, let them come into this courtroom. I would enjoy that cross-examination. The sky is not falling. The sky has not fallen. The sky will not fall.

In your early twenties you believe you can change the world. Make a difference. That’s a good thing. You believe a politician who says, “Yes, we can.” The idea that my client needs to pay with his life is overreacting. This strips the military of credibility.

Let’s give the Government a reality check. Let’s tell them their ruling is over-reacting.

“An individual who breaks a law and they do so because the law is unjust, and they risk jail to arouse the public,” [paraphrasing Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,”] “they’re really expressing the very highest respect for the law.”

Sunlight has always been the best disinfectant. [quoting U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis]

PROSECUTION’S CONCLUDING STATEMENT

Prosecution (Fein): Pfc. Manning was trained and trusted to provide intelligence. He used his time and training to defy our trust and indiscriminately harvest over 700,000 documents from SIPRnet.

He used WikiLeaks’ “most wanted list” as a guiding light. Pfc. Manning continued to harvest this information knowing it would be used by our enemies. Pfc. Manning knew that the enemies of the United States were using the Internet, and that they could access WikiLeaks.

Your task is to inquire into truth and make a recommendation. The evidence is overwhelming: including a thorough investigation, testimony, date and times, and minute by minute accounts of how he harvested over 300,000 pages of classified information. Communication with Julian Assange and WikiLeaks; uploading files; bypassing security on multiple databases. Wantonly published information.

[Fuller notes that Fein “laid out his coming statement, as he’d review each section of information that Manning allegedly released, and each of the related charges.”]

Pfc. Manning indirectly passed along to WikiLeaks: an Apache video; O.G.A. [Other Government Agency] documents; C.I.D.N.E. Iraq; SOUTHCOM documents; CENTCOM documents; Garani video; the NetCentric Diplomacy database; an individual cable 13 January 2010; U.S. Army agency documents; and the US Forces – Iraq Global Address List.

Pfc. Manning was a trained “all-source” analyst. He was trained to do all sorts of things; trained to help leaders make decisions; trained to protect the United States against threats. Manning had to have secret clearance.

PROSECUTION PRESENTS N.D.A.’s

Pfc. Manning signed this [N.D.A] and six others. He also took multiple classes on OpSec [Operations Security] and InfoSec [Information Security].

PROSECUTION PRESENTS MANNING’S PPT ON OPSEC

Manning learned that disclosure could damage the national security. He received a briefing that was recovered on his desktop from June 13, 2008. Dates and Times. Definition of OpSec. Individual information. Official information. Adversaries. Methods etc. of the U.S. Army. Manning researched common OpSec leaks. One of these was leaking on the Internet. He was taught that you have to be careful because many enemies have access.

After his deployment to F.O.B. Hammer, he researched the Shia around the time of the Iraq elections. Each of the charged offenses was done at a separate time and date.

Manning’s three main charges spanned six months, but each occurred at different times and with different methods. .22 and .40 SIPRnet computers reveal that he searched for the following:

1.) CIA retention of interrogation videos on 28 November 2009. He then used Wikileaks’ “Most Wanted List” without regard for security, to run searches. His searches: 190 times for WikiLeaks; four times: Julian Assange; 26 times for Iceland…

2.) His brash and arrogant admissions to Adrian Lamo matched, word for word, what was found on his computer.

3.) C.D. mounting data. When a burn occurs, a year/month/day/min label is placed on that C.D.: 100215_0621/11/wi/c3.txt; 5391001408 Classified information;

4.) Centaur: Class [missed]; G.T.M.O.; C.I.D.N.E.; [missed] Florida…

Apache Video: 12 July 2007. Provided air support information. Pfc. Manning transferred the video to a Macintosh computer. 12Jul07 CZ ENGAGEMENT ZONE OC

Manning conversed with Assange. On February 14, 2009, Manning searched for that video. Just a day later, the video was transferred onto a CD marked with a SECRET sticker. 5 April 2010, WikiLeaks released the video. [Fuller notes that the video was not classified, but because Manning places the sticker that meant he was under the impression that it was classified.]

During the time between the compromise and WikiLeaks’ disclosure, Manning searched the Internet for the video several times. After it was released, Manning searched for information on the video hourly.

On 22 May 2010, Manning admitted leaking the video to Eric Schmiedl in an email. Then, he spoke to Adrian Lamo.

[Fuller notes, “Next he discussed the ‘Blah.zip’ folder found on Manning’s computer, which he said including classified reports that Manning transmitted to WikiLeaks. He moved on quickly to the C.I.D.N.E. Iraq and Afghanistan logs. He said these logs were only available on the SIPRnet network. Fein said Manning knew these logs contained unit names, reaction techniques, and Medevac procedures.”]

Migrations in Blah folder. With date and time. 22 March 2010 at 12:18. e/Volumes/10032_1255/blah.zip

[To the Investigating Officer] United States would like you to notate bates numbers 378084 through 378090. Starting with 410623, these documents were classified and located on SIPRnet. Thus Manning knew they were classified.

C.I.D.N.E. was used for intelligence preparation for the battlefield. He knew information was classified. He knew C.I.D.N.E. database contained usernames, call times, etc.

Agent Shaver examined and testified regarding information found at Manning’s aunt’s house. Those documents [missed]; ._README.TXT was created by a Macintosh computer.

PROSECUTION PRESENTS MANNING CHAT ENDING GOVERNMENT ALLEGES WITH ASSANGE ENDING WITH “HAVE A GOOD SAY”

PROSECUTION PRESENTS MANNING “SMILING” IN A PICTURE AT HIS AUNT’S HOUSE

[Prosecution mentions reports that were and still are classified.]

Specification eight of charge two. Specification nine: more than three of these were SOUTHCOM documents. J.T.F. G.T.M.O database, only available on SIPRnet.

2009 was his first search. 8 December 2009, accessed. 10 March 2010, attempted to download. He downloaded over 700 documents. 144708 is the document number on WGET. [Missed] 74b39ef6.zip Manning chatted with Julian Assange. They discussed the document upload.

PRESENTATION OF 15 PAGES OF A CHATS

Nobody [Government alleges is Manning]: Anyway, I’m throwing everything I’ve got on JTFGITMO at you now. Should take a while to get up though.

Nathanial Frank [Government alleges is Assange]: OK, great.

Nobody: Upload is at about 36 PCT.

Nathanial Frank: ETA?

Nobody: Eleven to twelve hours I’m guessing since it’s been going six already.

[Transcriber notes that the Government also presented chats alleging Assange offered assistance to Manning in cracking a logon password to allow him to search anonymously on a computer.]

Nobody: Any good at LM NT hash cracking?

Nathanial Frank: Yes. We have rainbow tables for LM.

[from Kim Zetter, Wired

In another chat, dated March 8, 2010, Manning asked “Nathaniel Frank,” believed to be Assange, about help in cracking the main password on his classified SIPRnet computer so that he could log on to it anonymously. He asked “Frank” if he had experience cracking IM NT hashes (presumably it’s a mistype and he meant NTLM for the Microsoft NT LAN Manager). “Frank” replied yes, that they had “rainbow tables” for doing that. Manning then sent him what looked like a hash.]

[According to the transcriber, the Government says that the person it alleges to be Julian Assange confirms receipt.] 24 April 2011, WikiLeaks posts the documents.

Farah documents. Transmission of [missed number] Farah documents. Elements of the Garani airstrike video. Documents downloaded and put into the “farah.zip” folder. Seven Farah files found on Manning’s computer. Manning admitted to Adrian Lamo. Garani video. CENTCOM folder encrypted, could only be opened by password. Less than two weeks after working at S.C.I.F., Manning leaked video to WikiLeaks without viewing it. Garani Airstrike Video: Bates No. 378028. Reports are classified, Manning noticed they were classified.

[Fuller notes, “Fein recalled that the computer’s index.back folder shows when these files (the video and accompanying documents) were downloaded and compressed to a ‘Farah.zip’ folder. He again said Manning admitted this transmission to Adrian Lamo, and that WikiLeaks had tweeted their possession of the files.”]

Specification 3, adding unauthorized software. 251,288 cables. Cost over $2 million to contain. Searched Google for WGET. Downloaded cables. Deleted CSV file with over 100,000 cables. His .22 SIPRnet computer: “Backup.slxs”

Contained three spreadsheets:

1.) WGET
2.) 03100410
3.) 0510
ID Date/Time
251288 2010-03-01 0:25
251289 2010-03-01 0:27

28 March to 9 April 2010: Constant activity. Methodical process of numbered files. Moved all 251,288 cables onto his personal computer. Documents were and still are classified.

2010 Reykjavik 13, gave to WikiLeaks. Rather than researching Shia threat, Manning researched Iceland. He admitted that 10 Reykjavik 13 was a test. Why Iceland? Because it was the base for Julian Assange.

Bates No. 376903, a classified document. 1 December 2009, searched Intellink for WikiLeaks for the first time. 29 December 2009, accessed again. 1 March 2010, searched for WikiLeaks. 15 February 2010, transferred report to WikiLeaks. 15 March 2010, WikiLeaks released.

By searching for WikiLeaks, Manning found info on how transmitting classified information to WikiLeaks could do harm. Known terrorist entities like Al Qaeda use WikiLeaks for their own information.

United States Forces – Iraq GAL [Global Address List] includes the names, ranks, etc. for thousands of service members and civilians. WikiLeaks tweeted: “We would like a list of as many .mil email addresses as possible. Please contact editor@wikileaks.org to submit.

TASK: Acquire and exfiltrate the Global Address List from U.S. Forces – Iraq Microsoft Outlook…The string Manning gave to Assange in a chat: 14:80211049faebf44ld524fb24…

A soldier’s C.H.U. [Containerized Housing Unit] is not authorized for storage of classified information. Another charge: that Manning passed information to WikiLeaks knowing that the enemy would receive it. He knew because of an Army report showed that the enemy used WikiLeaks. Enemies of the U.S. [Al Qaeda, etc.] do contain classified material.

PROSECUTION SCREENS A VIDEO CREATED BY AS_SAHAB [ASSAHAB FOUNDATION FOR ISLAMIC MEDIA PUBLICATION, VIDEO PRODUCTION ENTITY FOR AL-QAEDA]

[Denver Nicks notes:

“Video features “Adam Gadahn, aka Azzam al-Amriki, an American-born al Qaeda spokesperson, discussing the Collateral Murder video and the State Department cables Manning stands accused of leaking.”]

Transcriber notes that the date of the video is believed to be 6 June 2011.
Al Qaeda is compiling a log of Wikileaks logs.

We have this on a computer. Pfc. Manning’s actions bring discredit to the armed forces.

He used that training to defy our trust, to indiscriminately and systematically harm the United States during a time of war and while deployed. This affects the national security of the US. The charges and specifications are properly grounded and appropriate. It is appropriate for you to recommend that this be court martial.

Investigating Officer: My recommendation is advisory only. This hearing is closed. source

 

Disclosures Anonymous- the method and the proof

8 July 2012

Disclosures Anonymous

Step 1

Anybody — individual, government or institution can and should disclose — there are no requirements, no restrictions, using true or false identity, press officers or all the iterations of anonymous sources — commonplace or never before used.

Step 2

Call it what you like, The Truth, disclosure, leak, whistleblow, propaganda, lies, spy operation, official secrets, false flag, taking the king’s coin — best to create new, alluring and mesmerizing locutions.

Step 3

Disclose quietly with inscrutable understatement to be impossibly noticed then dramatically discovered through a strategic disclosure to select outlets, or with maximum exaggeration, publicity stunts, hired agencies, sock puppets, spookily covert or ostenatiously overt.

Step 4

Disclose from the inside or the outside or offside the rules of the game; don’t hesitate to preach, fabricate, prevaricate, embellish, distort, bombast, editorialize, repeat, hector, condemn, laud, headline, blare, bumper sticker, or stupefyingly frank and earnest.

Step 5

Calibrate with the topical or risk being overlooked; board bandwagons; ridicule and pretend to ignore competitors; declare highest and mightiest of principles with deepest grievance; advertise your pain and threats from gargantuan opposition; be ever ready to give media interviews with easy to understand quotes; offer pity to those who fail to grasp the importance of your disclosures; rue those who misquote you; say you forgive the ignorant who misunderstand you.

Step 6

Conspire, co-conspire, multi-conspire, mega-conspire; mimic the master conspiracists in major sources of public disclosure of invaluable information required to save nations and faiths against barbarous atheism — hyperbole without restraint.

Step 7

Join with those who bestow awards and recognition on the best of the disclosure championship breed, and condemn the mongrels, the nobodies, the fakers, the publicists, the apostates, with highest scorn for those who mock noble, selfless, high-risk disclosure.

Step 8

Form splinters to attack, demean and debunk main stream disclosers, in particular the recipients and grantors of awards for disclosure.

Step 9

Disclose insider secrets of disclosers, splinters, other insiders, leaders and spies, covert and overt funders, boosters and informants, their neglected families and jilted lovers.

Step 10

Originate a group (declare confidentiality for security its funding source, leaders or membership) to console former disclosers and those who believe they have been exploited by trusted, high-profile disclosers — target families, lovers and investors — invite and flatter documentarians and media profilers to get inside early to record the casualties’ disclosures.

Step 11

Disclose that the originated console group was a fraudulent sting to ensnare the disaffected as evidence disclosure is forever corrupt, dishonest, self-serving and under the sway and in the pay of sinister, unknown, powerful, ancient and new-ly camouflaged fronts for amoral manipulators. Up ratchet the disclosure deception, critique and historicize it with other confidence exploits ancient and modern.

Step 12

Prepare and distribute a prospectus and contract terms for a Disclosures Anonymous series for the bottomless pocketed NGOs and vulture capitalists; for entertainment and cyberwar industries; for the UN, foreign ministries, spy agencies, foreign and military aid agencies, and propagandists; the educational and conferencing industries; for aggregators, siphons and SM; for persistant advertising attackers; for hacktivists, FOI and cellphone warriors; above all for the flocks of all ages and places being educated, intimidated and counseled to be law abiding, keep quiet, be obedient. patriotic and trust authority. Tip Disclosures Anonymous to the grandiloquizers and anonymous sources combine.

Wikileaks : Libya,Raytheon,Bhopal,Lockheed,Chavez and the US

On Monday February 27th, 2012, WikiLeaks began publishing The Global Intelligence Files, over five million e-mails from the Texas headquartered “global intelligence” company Stratfor. The e-mails date between July 2004 and late December 2011. They reveal the inner workings of a company that fronts as an intelligence publisher, but provides confidential intelligence services to large corporations, such as Bhopal’s Dow Chemical Co., Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon and government agencies, including the US Department of Homeland Security, the US Marines and the US Defence Intelligence Agency. The emails show Stratfor’s web of informers, pay-off structure, payment laundering techniques and psychological methods.
Re: [alpha] INSIGHT – Some thoughts on US, UK, France, Turkey
Email-ID 67353
Date 1970-01-01 01:00:00
From bhalla@stratfor.com
To alpha@stratfor.com
no one said the entire reason Libya is happening is because of these
reasons. what they were explaining was that on the mil side of the
equation, they’re getting a lot out of the mission and it’s not a total
drain on them

———————————————————————-

From: “Marko Papic”
To: “Alpha List”
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 11:11:53 AM
Subject: Re: [alpha] INSIGHT – Some thoughts on US, UK, France, Turkey

Zagros… sounds like Lord of the Rings (yes, I know, the mountains).

I call bullshit on the entire reason Libya is happening is so that
Americans can teach UK-France how to do command and control. That is
post-facto reasoning by military guys who see that as the biggest
positive, so they are rationalizing it after the fact.

On 5/19/11 10:50 AM, Emre Dogru wrote:

Yeah, same in NATO. NATO sometimes organizes simulations based on
totally faked countries, flags and geography. I worked in one of those.
But this one is a bit different. Because everything is based on real
facts except for Iran.

———————————————————————-

From: “scott stewart”
To: “Alpha List”
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 6:44:32 PM
Subject: Re: [alpha] INSIGHT – Some thoughts on US, UK, France, Turkey

But that is actually a pretty common longstanding practice.

When I was in the Army used to always make up goofy country names for
the scenarios we created for exercises. But of course anybody who read
the scenario could tell exactly what country the scenario was referring
to.

From: alpha-bounces@stratfor.com [mailto:alpha-bounces@stratfor.com] On
Behalf Of Emre Dogru
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 11:38 AM
To: Alpha List
Subject: Re: [alpha] INSIGHT – Some thoughts on US, UK, France, Turkey

hahaha, gotta love this part. and you know why

They’re about to do what sounds like a pretty elaborate war game within
NATO, and they complain that every time they do this, they’re not
allowed to call Iran ‘Iran’ in the game. It’s referred to as ‘Zagros’.
Why? Because the Turks insist on not calling Iran by it’s name in these
things.

————————————————————————–

From: “Reva Bhalla”
To: “Alpha List”
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 6:24:55 PM
Subject: [alpha] INSIGHT – Some thoughts on US, UK, France, Turkey

My briefing yesterday with the USAF’s strategy group was to help prep
the USAF chief of staff before his trip to Turkey the first week of
June. In this meeting, there was a US lt col, French lt col guy and
British group captain, as well as the Europe guy from the State Dept’s
Office of the Secretary (who I completely owned in the discussion. he
finally quit trying and then literally applauded stratfor’s knowledge of
these issues). Most of the discussion I had with them centered on our
view on Turkey, the intermarium, Turkey’s power struggle, etc. so
nothing new to add there. The State Dept is still trying to wrap its
head around how to deal with Turkey more effectively when it’s becoming
clear that Turkey isn’t ready to handle everything on its plate. THere’s
also a lack of understanding on why Azerbaijan matters in this mix.
They’re about to do what sounds like a pretty elaborate war game within
NATO, and they complain that every time they do this, they’re not
allowed to call Iran ‘Iran’ in the game. It’s referred to as ‘Zagros’.
Why? Because the Turks insist on not calling Iran by it’s name in these
things.

When I brought up Libya, and asked what’s next in terms of the air
campaign, the British adn French guys had an interesting response. The
talk of UK only having 6 more months of funding for this air campaign is
all about inter-service rivalry, justifying budgets, etc. The Brits and
the French really don’t seem concerned at all about the financial
aspect. THey said it’s an expense, but it’s not expensive. It’s costing
each 1.3 million euro per month to do Libya (including the daily patrols
and everything else). By comparison, Afghanistan costs them 1.4 million
per month.

They are fine with the stalemate. The British guy, who had met with the
British air force chief a few days ago, said that no one is really
trying to force the issue at this point. the rebels don’t want to ask
for state recognition until they get the West back. No one seems really
prepared to force regime change and give that commitment, but they’re
willing to wait this one out until something gives within to make
Ghadafi fall (non-militarily.)
The money isn’t what matters. What the Brits and the FRench are really
getting out of this mil campaign is a good, hard lesson from their
“American cousins” on command and control for these missions. The lesson
here is vital for them. THey gave all sorts of examples. When the LIbya
campaign began, France was still coordinating its mission with the UK
through this lt col French liaison in the Pentagon instead of directly
with UK. Now, finally, the Brits have set up a command office in Paris
for them to coordinate. Little things like that make a huge difference,
and the US is helping them along the way so that they can prove they can
do missions like this more independently and manage their neighborhood.
Classic balance of pwoer, as they put it. French-UK cooperation has
really benefited from this whole thing. They could really care less that
it’s about Libya. They see this mission as a very useful boost for NATO
and that this raises the bar for new entrants.

I countered that you can’t consider it a boost for NATO when you’re
missing GERMANY (!) They acknowledged that NATO’s original purpose is
broken. These regional realignments, with France, UK adn US working
closely together is the new future. They still seem to think that
despite warming German-Russian ties, they don’t need to worry yet about
Germany. Their military is still largely seen as irrelevant, and so in
that sense, NATO is still doing the job of keeping Germany down and
Russia out.

The French guy joked that now Strauss-Kahn is out of the running,
Sarkozy doesn’t need to continue the war in Libya anymore. He’s got the
election

—
—
Emre Dogru
STRATFOR
Cell: +90.532.465.7514
Fixed: +1.512.279.9468
emre.dogru@stratfor.com
http://www.stratfor.com

—
—
Emre Dogru
STRATFOR
Cell: +90.532.465.7514
Fixed: +1.512.279.9468
emre.dogru@stratfor.com
http://www.stratfor.com

—
Marko Papic
Senior Analyst
STRATFOR
+ 1-512-744-4094 (O)
+ 1-512-905-3091 (C)
221 W. 6th St, Ste. 400
Austin, TX 78701 – USA
http://www.stratfor.com
@marko_papic

 
WIKILEAKS

Three Little Words: WikiLeaks, Libya, Oil

‘Libya has some of the biggest and most proven oil reserves — 43.6 billion barrels — outside Saudi Arabia, and some of the best drilling prospects.’

So reported the Washington Post on June 11, in a rare mainstream article which, as we will see, revealed how WikiLeaks exposed the real motives behind the war on Libya.

So what happens when you search UK newspaper archives for the words ‘WikiLeaks’, ‘Libya’ and ‘oil’? We decided to take a look.

From the time prior to the start of Libya’s civil war on February 17, and of Nato’s war on Libya on March 19, we found a couple of comments of this kind in the Sunday Times:

‘Gadaffi’s children plunder the country’s oil revenues, run a kleptocracy and operate a reign of terror that has created simmering hatred and resentment among the people, according to the cables released by WikiLeaks.’ (Michael Sheridan, ‘Libya froths at plundering by junior Gadaffis,’ February 6, 2011, Sunday Times)

The Telegraph described political wrangling over the alleged Lockerbie bomber, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi:

‘The documents, obtained by the WikiLeaks website and passed to this newspaper, provide the first comprehensive picture of the often desperate steps taken by Western governments to court the Libyan regime in the competition for valuable trade and oil contracts.’ (Christopher Hope and Robert Winnett, ‘Ministers gave Libya legal advice on how to free Lockerbie bomber,’ The Daily Telegraph, February 1, 2011)

From the time since Nato launched its war, we found this warning from Jackie Ashley in the Guardian:

‘…cast aside international law, and there is nothing but might is right, arms, oil and profits.

‘Well, you might say, but isn’t that where we are already? Not quite. Many of us may feel great cynicism about some of the west’s war-making and the strange coincidence of military intervention and oil and gas reserves. I do.’ (Ashley, ‘Few would weep for Gaddafi, but targeting him is wrong: In war, international law is all we have. If we cast it aside there’ll be nothing left but might is right, arms, oil and profits,’ The Guardian May 2, 2011)

This hinted in the right direction, but no facts were cited in support of the argument, certainly none from the WikiLeaks diplomatic cables.

The Guardian’s Alexander Chancellor managed to discover a leaked cable revealing that Libya ‘sometimes demands billion-dollar “signing bonuses” for contracts with western oil companies’. (Chancellor, ‘The bonanza of kickbacks and corrupt deals between Libya and the west have helped Gaddafi cling on to power,’ The Guardian, March 25, 2011)

Other cables offer more significant insights, but Chancellor made no mention of them.

George Monbiot’s March 15 Guardian article contained all three search terms – his sole mention of Libya in the past 12 months – but he was writing about Saudi Arabia: ‘We won’t trouble Saudi’s tyrants with calls to reform while we crave their oil.’ The article had nothing to say about the looming assault on Libya, just four days away. Monbiot has had nothing to say since.

Johann Hari wrote about the Libyan war in his sole article on the subject in the Independent on April 8, commenting:

‘Bill Richardson, the former US energy secretary who served as US ambassador to the UN, is probably right when he says: “There’s another interest, and that’s energy… Libya is among the 10 top oil producers in the world. You can almost say that the gas prices in the US going up have probably happened because of a stoppage of Libyan oil production… So this is not an insignificant country, and I think our involvement is justified”.’

This was a rare affirmation of the role of oil as a motive, albeit one that emphasised the specious claim that the US concern is simply to keep the oil flowing (Hari did mention, vaguely, that results were intended to be ‘in our favour’). And again, Hari appeared to be innocent of any relevant information released by WikiLeaks. A lack of awareness which perhaps explains why he had ‘wrestled with’ the alleged moral case for intervention before rejecting it.
Soured Relations – Gaddafi And Big Oil

Remarkably, then, we found nothing in any article in any national UK newspaper reporting the freely-available facts revealed by WikiLeaks on Western oil interests in Libya. And nothing linking these facts to the current war.

By contrast, in his June 11 article for the Washington Post, Steven Mufson focused intensely on WikiLeaks exposés in regard to Libyan oil. In November 2007, a leaked State Department cable reported ‘growing evidence of Libyan resource nationalism’. In his 2006 speech marking the founding of his regime, Gaddafi had said:

‘Oil companies are controlled by foreigners who have made millions from them. Now, Libyans must take their place to profit from this money.’

Gaddafi’s son made similar comments in 2007. As (honest) students of history will know, these are exactly the kind of words that make US generals sit up and listen. The stakes for the West were, and are, high: companies such as ConocoPhillips and Marathon have each invested about $700 million over the past six years.

Even more seriously, in late February 2008, a US State Department cable described how Gaddafi had ‘threatened to dramatically reduce Libya’s oil production and/or expel… U.S. oil and gas companies’. The Post explained how, in early 2008, US Senator Frank R. Lautenberg had enraged the Libyan leader by adding an amendment to a bill that made it easier for families of the victims of the Lockerbie bombing to ‘go after Libya’s commercial assets’.

The Libyan equivalent of the deputy foreign minister told US officials that the Lautenberg amendment was ‘destroying everything the two sides have built since 2003,’ according to a State Department cable. In 2008, Libyan oil minister Shokri Ghanem warned an Exxon Mobil executive that Libya might ‘significantly curtail’ its oil production to ‘penalize the US,’ according to another cable.

The Post concluded: ‘even before armed conflict drove the U.S. companies out of Libya this year, their relations with Gaddafi had soured. The Libyan leader demanded tough contract terms. He sought big bonus payments up front. Moreover, upset that he was not getting more U.S. government respect and recognition for his earlier concessions, he pressured the oil companies to influence U.S. policies’.

Similarly, compare the chasm in rational analysis separating the mainstream UK media and the dissident Real News Network, hosted by Paul Jay. Last month, Jay interviewed Kevin G. Hall, the national economics correspondent for McClatchy Newspapers. Jay concluded with a summary of their conversation discussing oil shenanigans in Libya:

‘So you’ve got the Italian oil companies already at odds with the US over Iran. The Italian oil company is going to, through its deals with Gazprom, allow the Russians to take a big stake in Libyan oil. And then you have the French. As we head towards the Libyan war, the French Total have a small piece of the Libyan oil game, but I suppose they would like a bigger piece of it. And then you wind up having a French-American push to overthrow Gaddafi and essentially shove Gazprom out. I mean, I guess we’re not saying one and one necessarily equals two, but it sure – it makes one think about it.’

Hall responded:

‘Yeah, it’s not necessarily causation, but there’s – you might suggest there’s correlation. And clearly this shows the degree to which oil is kind of the back story to so much that happens. As a matter of fact, we went through 251,000 [leaked] documents – or we have 250,000 documents that we’ve been pouring through. Of those, a full 10 percent of them, a full 10 percent of those documents, reference in some way, shape, or form oil. And I think that tells you how much part of, you know, the global security question, stability, prosperity – you know, take your choice, oil is fundamental.’ (Our emphasis)

Jay replied with a wry smile:

‘And we’ll do more of this. But those who had said it’s not all about oil, they ain’t reading WikiLeaks.’

Hall replied: ‘It is all about oil.’

In March, we drew attention to a cable released by WikiLeaks sent from the US embassy in Tripoli in November 2007. The cable communicated US concerns about the direction being taken by Libya’s leadership:

‘Libya needs to exploit its hydrocarbon resources to provide for its rapidly-growing, relatively young population. To do so, it requires extensive foreign investment and participation by credible IOCs [international oil companies]. Reformist elements in the Libyan government and the small but growing private sector recognize this reality. But those who dominate Libya’s political and economic leadership are pursuing increasingly nationalistic policies in the energy sector that could jeopardize efficient exploitation of Libya’s extensive oil and gas reserves. Effective U.S. engagement on this issue should take the form of demonstrating the clear downsides to the GOL [government of Libya] of pursuing this approach, particularly with respect to attracting participation by credible international oil companies in the oil/gas sector and foreign direct investment.’ (our emphasis)

The US government has certainly been ‘demonstrating the clear downsides’ since March 19.

US analyst Glenn Greenwald, asks:

‘Is there anyone – anywhere – who actually believes that these aren’t the driving considerations in why we’re waging this war in Libya? After almost three months of fighting and bombing – when we’re so far from the original justifications and commitments that they’re barely a distant memory – is there anyone who still believes that humanitarian concerns are what brought us and other Western powers to the war in Libya? Is there anything more obvious – as the world’s oil supplies rapidly diminish – than the fact that our prime objective is to remove Gaddafi and install a regime that is a far more reliable servant to Western oil interests, and that protecting civilians was the justifying pretext for this war, not the purpose?’

‘The Urge To Help’

It does seem extraordinary that anyone could doubt that this is the case. But the fact is that the WikiLeaks cables cited above, the Washington Post’s facts, and Greenwald’s conclusions, have been almost completely blanked by the UK media system. Notice that they have been readily accessible to us, a tiny website supported by public donations.

As though reporting from a different planet, the BBC reported last week:

‘Nato is enforcing a UN resolution to protect civilians in Libya.’

Is this Absolute Truth? Holy writ? In fact, no. But it does reflect the mainstream political consensus and so the BBC feels content to offer it – by way of a service to democracy – as the only view in town. And yet, we need only reflect on three obvious facts: while UN Resolution 1973 did authorise a no-fly zone to protect Libyan civilians, Nato is now openly seeking regime change and rejecting all peace overtures out of hand. The UN did not authorise regime change.

An Observer leader entitled, ‘The west can’t let Gaddafi destroy his people,’ told the same tale in March:

‘the only response that matters now is a common position which brooks no more argument… to pledge, with the honest passion we affect to feel that, whether repulsed in time or not, this particular tyranny will not be allowed to stand’. (Leading article, ‘Libya: The west can’t let Gaddafi destroy his people,’ The Observer, March 13, 2011)

Like a cut and paste from Orwell, the paper insisted:

‘This is a regional uprising of young people seeking freedom, remember? Do you recall all the power of the tweet, as lauded only a fortnight ago?

‘The millions who began this revolution won’t be much impressed by a democracy defined only by inertia. They won’t thank the west – or China, India, Russia, the African Union – for letting this Arab spring die in a field of flowery promises.’

The Guardian also focused on the ‘ethical’ motivation. In a February 24 leading article entitled, ‘Libya: The urge to help,’ the editors simultaneously mocked and reversed the truth:

‘It is hard to escape the conclusion that European leaders are advocating these moves in part because they want to be seen by their electorates at home to be doing something, and in part because they want to be seen by people in the Middle East as being on the right side in the Arab democratic revolution. They may hope that a dramatic line on Libya will go some way toward effacing the memory of the dithering and equivocation with which they greeted its earlier manifestations in Tunisia and Egypt, France being particularly guilty in this regard.’

Compared to the analysis discussed above this reads like a bed-time story for children. The deceptive words ‘dithering and equivocation’ refer to the West’s iron-willed resolve to protect tyrannical clients and to thwart democratic revolution in the region while appearing (the key word) to be ‘on the right side’.

The conclusion: ‘a no-fly zone should become an option. Lord Owen was therefore right to say that military preparations should be made and the necessary diplomatic approaches, above all to the Russians and the Chinese, set in train to secure UN authority for such action’.

The Guardian’s argument was shorn of the political, economic and historical facts that make a nonsense of the idea that Western military action ‘should become an option’. There may indeed have been a moral case for action by someone. But not by Western states with a bitter history of subjugating and killing people in Libya, and elsewhere in the region, for the sake of oil. But then it is a trademark of Guardian liberalism that Britain and its allies are forever Teflon-coated, forever untainted by the evident brutality of ‘our’ actions. This is the perennial, vital service the paper performs for the establishment.

We are asked to believe that the facts sampled in this alert are somehow unknown to the hard-headed corporate executives who write of ‘The urge to help’ and the ‘common position which brooks no more argument’. And yet, the Guardian was one of WikiLeaks’ major ‘media partners’ at the time the cables were published – it is well aware that ‘a full 10 percent of those documents, reference in some way, shape, or form oil’. Like the rest of the corporate media, Britain’s leading liberal newspaper knows but is not telling.Source