This email is from WikiLeaks’ Joseph Farrell to Jemima Khan, a former Assange supporter and UK celebrity. Khan took a role on Universal’s $2.5m budget documentary “We Steal Secrets” by Alex Gibney. WikiLeaks and others strongly criticised the title as being false, biased, and prejudicial to ongoing criminal proceedings in the United States. In response Khan attacked Assange in the new Statesman, likening his criticism of the film to the behavior of the infamous Scientology cult leader, L. Ron Hubbard. The film’s director Alex Gibney then wrote an article likening Assange to the pope (in the context of promoting his film about paedophilia in the Catholic church). Khan’s character attack was pushed by Reuters and others and resulted in 343,000 wepages according to Google. This email is the response to Khan. It was sent on 1 March 2013. It appeared on Martha Mitchell Effect’s website after spreading on Twitter, on 7 March 2013. WikiLeaks has corroborated the email’s authenticity.
As you can imagine, when I read your article in the New Statesman I was very surprised. I was also shocked, but most of all, I was disappointed.
When you told me in September 2011 that Alex Gibney, who had been commissioned by Universal to do a WikiLeaks documentary, had approached you to offer you an Executive Producer position on his film I attempted to ask you subtly why you thought he was offering you the position. My exact words were: “Being called an Executive Producer on one of Alex Gibney’s films is full of kudos and will certainly be very helpful in any further documentary projects. I am an inherent cynic (likely augmented by this work) but, if he is not asking for any production money, then it is purely a matter of branding and using your name as an endorsement.” Before approaching you, Gibney had already been trying desperately to get an interview with Julian for more than half a year, since February 2011, and had thus far been unsuccessful. I feared he might have been using you, not because he valued your opinions on the film, or because he was likely to ever ask you to produce anything else with him in the future, but because he needed access to Julian. In fact, just two months before the film premiered at Sundance you said to me that you were “getting my agent to insist I see the finished Gibney doc”. That, in itself, struck me as an executive producer with very limited executive power.
Without access and without original interview footage, Gibney needed a tool to legitimise his film and add credibility to it. And, in the absence of the exclusive interview with Julian, what better way than to have the journalist celebrity who is publicly known to be a friend of Julian named in the credits? I am certain you were aware of that risk, because when you told me you were accepting the Executive Producer role you said: “I will still try to persuade Julian (via you) to cooperate (as I have done in the past) not because I’m now officially involved in the film – it’s not contingent upon any access to Julian – but because I genuinely think he needs friends not enemies now”.
From the moment Gibney approached us we did extensive research into him. We looked deep and took advice from people who knew him and some who had worked with him. Every colleague, ally, friend and even the documentarians we spoke to advised us against an interview with Gibney. Yet we were open to talks, we were ready for dialogue, and we engaged with him and with Alexis Bloom, his producer. None of our meetings allayed our fears that their piece was not going to be the true story. They did not appear genuine to us and they seemed to have many prejudices about Julian and the organisation. Their angle favoured sensationalism from the beginning, an angle I would have thought you would oppose had you had any influence on the picture.
Julian has had significant relationships with hundreds of people. Your list of so-called alienated and disaffected allies is not long: your article mentions nine people, one of whom Julian has never actually even met.
You list Mark Stephens, an internationally little-known media lawyer who had a contractual dispute with Julian and who charged Julian more than half a million pounds for a magistrate’s court case defence. Yet you overlook Gareth Peirce, “the doyenne of British defence lawyers”; Michael Ratner, President Emeritus of the Center for Constitutional Rights and other lawyers at the CCR; Baltasar Garzon, the Spanish judge; Jennifer Robinson, who left Mark Stephens’ firm over the issue; Baroness Helena Kennedy QC; Geoffrey Robertson QC, the acclaimed human rights lawyer whose table you sit at regularly; John Jones; Julian Burnside SC and Julian’s other lawyers in Australia; his lawyers in Ecuador; the Icelandic lawyers; the Danish lawyers; the Washington lawyers; or any of the rest of an international team of dozens of lawyers who represent or advise Julian and WikiLeaks.
You list Jamie Byng, who published an unprepared, unapproved, unfinished manuscript that had not been fact-checked without Julian’s knowledge, but you do not mention Colin Robinson or John Oakes of OR Books, with whom Julian has published a successful and acclaimed book without any problems or disagreements. Neither do you mention the more than fifteen other publishers who are releasing his Cypherpunks book in various languages, or indeed the publishers of Underground with whom he has maintained a good relationship for more than fifteen years.
You list Daniel Domscheit-Berg, who sabotaged WikiLeaks’ anonymous online submission system, first stole and then deleted more than 3,000 submissions evidencing, inter alia, war crimes, corruption and bank fraud. He also started a rival organisation, OpenLeaks, a still-born branding exercise with zero publications. His entire livelihood is earned by constantly backstabbing the man who fired him.
You list a person, who you incorrectly describe as “the technical whizz behind much of the WikiLeaks platform”, who was in actual fact a technician contracted to upgrade our submission platform according to Julian’s architectural design specifications. He was first referred to in Domscheit-Berg’s book as “the architect”, a propaganda term invented by Domscheit-Berg for his book well after he was suspended from WikiLeaks. The term is clearly designed as an attempt to steal Julian’s creative authority. But you are correct that this is the way that he is portrayed in Daniel Domscheit-Berg’s book, which contains numerous falsehoods. I am, as I have always been, at your disposal to clarify those stories that are promoted in an attempt to harm WikiLeaks and Julian and to give you the true facts. Had I known you had an interest in the architectural make-up of the submissions platform and its coding genesis, I could have explained this to you further in person.
You list the Guardian and the New York Times, the two organisations who broke their agreements with us. One of the contractual clauses that the Guardian broke was to disclose a password that unlocked a list to all the diplomatic cables, which it published in its book in an act of gross negligence. Both the Guardian and the New York Times have written factually incorrect books about us to whitewash their deceitful actions, which they continue to profit from and promote. You don’t, however, mention the 110 media partners with whom we have ongoing working relationships, some of whom have also written books about WikiLeaks but who donate all the profits to us, as a gesture and in solidarity to help us circumvent a banking blockade that has eroded the majority of our resources.
Why don’t you list the hundreds of activists, researchers and publishers who play a day-to-day role in WikiLeaks’ operations – the technicians who maintain servers; the developers, mathematicians and cryptographers who build new search interfaces and oversee the internal security protocol; those who curate data for us; the investigators who corroborate submitted material; or the managers and administrators who plan and bring projects to fruition?
Why don’t you list the allies and friends across the world who enjoy a close personal relationship with Julian and who are part of the same support community that you once were – the more than 150 people you spent time with at Julian’s private 40th birthday party, to which Julian was generous enough to invite even Alex Gibney?
Is it because they do not seek acclaim in the press and because they do not say negative things about Julian, and hence have zero currency in the news?
As to falling out with Alex Gibney, Julian never fell out with him - Gibney was never a friend in the first place so there was never any relationship to fall apart. Alex Gibney was just another one in a long list of people trying to cash in on Julian and WikiLeaks. You may remember me saying how utterly offensive I find it that there are all these people out there who are benefiting financially from Julian, while the organisation suffers a banking blockade and lawyers have eaten away all of his personal funds.
You asked me for a response to David Allen Green’s article on 20th August 2012 and I told you that it was being produced. I told you that your request for this response did not go directly to Julian as you thought it had, but instead that it came to me. My email to you after we met said: “I will get you a response to the DAG article and, as I said, blame me, not him, for the lack of response.” What you asked for was not as simple as you thought, which was that Julian could probably rattle off the legal sections and sub-sections by heart - the response was far more complicated than that.
I have attached it. It is 55,972 words long, which is roughly 70 per cent of the length of a doctoral thesis. Julian’s legal defence committee prioritised this and asked a person to look into the arguments in depth, in order to produce a compelling response due to the harm caused by David Allen Green’s misinformation. It was peer-reviewed and revised and took six months to produce for you - a time resource that does not come cheap to a defence committee that has to deal with simultaneous challenges, David Allen Green being just one. Something of this length and detail ought to have taken three years to produce.
I did not merely tell you that Julian was “very busy”. You know that. What I did say was that he was very busy and that we were a very small core team. Your email asking for a response to the David Allen Green piece was written the day after Julian made his first speech in public since he had entered the embassy, four days after he formally obtained asylum and only five days after the embassy was surrounded by more than 50 Metropolitan police who were preparing to force their way into the diplomatic mission to get him. On top of this, we were still publishing the Syria Files and we had just begun a new release, the Detainee Policies. I told you that since the establishment of the Guantanamo Bay prison facility none of the world’s media and none of the world’s NGOs had released a single Guantanamo Bay Manual, and we had just released our third. During all of this, we were also dealing with the vitriol coming from the UK establishment media while Julian was having his asylum claim evidence reviewed. He was (and still is) in fear of being extradited onwards to the United States, he had not been outside in more than two months, and he was overseeing the publication of hundreds of thousands of documents.
Over a lunch you questioned this fear of extradition to the US, and when I asked you what you would do in his position you refused to answer the question. I asked you more than six times what you would do in his shoes. Having offered to cooperate with the Swedish investigation non-stop for the past two years and been refused with no proper explanation, and believing that you would end up in an American prison for decades, in solitary confinement and under SAMs, what would you do? You never gave me a concrete answer. Instead, you skirted the question with another question and discounted the numerous legal opinions out there, favouring instead an article by David Allen Green. I reiterated that Julian had never said that it would be likely in practice that he would face the death penalty, although the Espionage Act permits this. But more to the point, and one that everyone always ignores, there was (and still is) the fear of being extradited to face life imprisonment and almost certainly torture or other inhumane and degrading treatment for his publishing activities.
I told you that the Swedish authorities could, if they wanted to, charge Julian in absentia. Even if they were to do that, they should, according to their own procedures, conduct an interview with him before requesting his extradition. I repeated that he remains available even in the embassy for questioning by the Swedish authorities should they wish to employ the standard procedures they use regularly in other cases.
I explained to you how the argument that “he is no more vulnerable to extradition to the US from Sweden than he is from the UK” is a red herring. I explained why the US had not already requested his extradition from the UK, because this would create a case of competing extradition requests that the Home Secretary would have to judicially review and prioritise one over the other, thereby creating political embarrassment for a major ally whichever way the decision went. I cited the US Ambassador’s own admission that the US would wait to see what happened with the Swedish case before they made a move. I was careful to explain this with Jennifer Robinson present to add a legal perspective if needed. However, in spite of this explanation, you allowed this claim not only to go into your article but also to remain in Gibney’s film - expressed in remarks made by Baroness Helena Kennedy QC that have been misleadingly edited to remove their proper context. She has since said that she “did not expect that he [Gibney] would fillet my interview” and also says “I regret thinking I could present a sensible perspective”.
Irrespective of my explanations and those of two lawyers whose counsel you seek yourself, you could have spoken to Julian in person. He did call you - more than once. You could have called back. You could have come to visit him to check on his well-being, as many others have done. On that note, you were never invited just for a “photo opportunity”. You were invited to the embassy by us in September but you heard that there was a paparazzi waiting outside the embassy. This is no great surprise following the biggest diplomatic incident in recent years. However, you knew about it beforehand and avoided it. Then I relayed a request from Vivienne Westwood’s team, asking you if you would model her “I am Julian Assange” t-shirt at her fashion show. The request came after you had already said you were unavailable even to attend her show. This was her idea and her request. She was trying to do something to help us and thought you would want to do the same. You were also invited to visit Julian shortly after he entered the embassy on 22nd June; for tea and cake on his birthday on 3rd July; for a sureties’ get-together in late July; for afternoon tea on 11th September and again on the 9th October; and for a breakfast meeting on the 21st December. All of which you declined. These are all times when you could have asked Julian in person about your issues. As you will recall from your discussion the last time you saw him, in December 2011, he enjoys debate and disagreement. How do you know that Julian had not seen the Gibney film by the time it premiered? We do not steal secrets but people leak things to us. Irrespective of the “ironic” meaning behind the title of the film you claim it has, it will not be understood by the general public with that meaning. What they will see is a straightforward conjunction of a quote, a proper noun and the word “story”, and they will read it as such. It is tantamount to someone doing a documentary about you and calling it “I am a War Apologist: The Jemima Khan Story” because they had interviewed someone completely unrelated to you and quoted them saying “I am a war apologist”.
It is one thing to publicly disagree with someone, or even to distance oneself in public from a former ally, but it is quite another to use one’s own publication to the further harm of a political refugee suffering the persecution of a superpower. I imagine you must have vetted the magazine cover, which claims that Julian is ’alone’. Julian is not alone. That New Statesman front page was used to harm the entire WikiLeaks project out of disaffection. It was also an attempt to cast a shadow on all his allies. And yet you were the one who said: “he needs friends not enemies..”. Julian has both friends and enemies. He does not need or seek friends who only agree with him (in fact, I have not met one non-argumentative friend of his) but he certainly does not need friends who are in fact enemies.
From the point of view of defending a film in which you feature as “Executive Producer”, your actions are straightforward: your name is on the credits of a dated WikiLeaks documentary with a prejudicial title which features all the hostile people who haven’t had anything to do with WikiLeaks in years. You chose a production credit over principle and in doing so attacked a vulnerable political activist and fellow journalist, something which I know to be beneath you.
Facing the brunt of Israeli missiles and a stifling blockade as part of a new offensive in the Gaza strip, Palestinians have started receiving some help from an unlikely quarter, hacktivist group Anonymous.
The group, which has in recent years emerged as global political force with a view to resist oppression, started their latest campaign, #OpIsrael in response to Israel’s Operation Pillar of Defense.
Initial skirmishes for Anonymous have echoed both aspects of their hacktivist moniker.
Though another twitter account linked to the group tweeted that defacing or taking down websites was not a priority for the group, rather it was ensuring that Palestinians on the ground had access to internet, cut off by Israel, so that communications with aid providers and rest of the world continue unhampered.
“Taking down websites is not a priority at the moment. Ensuring internet access to get information out of Gaza is the #1 priority.”
Multiple accounts linked to the group or supporting the group tweeted online tutorials on how to stay connected to the internet when the government shuts down internet service providers.
It may not be something you have noticed but this blog has been neglected of late. I don’t even remember the last time I looked at the number of followers I had and I am pretty sure it was no more than 1000. Not even close. Now I see there are 4,729 followers!
Thank you for following! I feel pleasantly surprised and a wee bit guilty now, so I’ll post more for you.
But I really must ask because I’m terribly curious, where on earth did all you lovely people all come from?
PFC Manning has offered to plead guilty to various offenses through a process known as “pleading by exceptions and substitutions.” To clarify, PFC Manning is not pleading guilty to the specifications as charged by the Government. Rather, PFC Manning is attempting to accept responsibility for offenses that are encapsulated within, or are a subset of, the charged offenses. The Court will consider whether this is a permissible plea.
PFC Manning is not submitting a plea as part of an agreement or deal with the Government. Further, the Government does not need to agree to PFC Manning’s plea; the Court simply has to determine that the plea is legally permissible. If the Court allows PFC Manning to plead guilty by exceptions and substitutions, the Government may still elect to prove up the charged offenses. Pleading by exceptions and substitutions, in other words, does not change the offenses with which PFC Manning has been charged and for which he is scheduled to stand trial.
PFC Manning has also provided notice of his forum selection. He has elected to be tried by Military Judge alone.
Posted by Army Court-Martial Defense Specialist at 8:54 PM
Julian Assange’s mother slams ‘untrustworthy’ Sweden | Asia News – Politics, Media, Education | Asian Correspondent
On extradition to Sweden…
“I’m against that, because I wouldn’t trust the Swedish government as far as you can throw them. They’ve given assurances before, and broken them. The Swedish government are not to be trusted, under any circumstances….
“The Swedish prosecutor has shown absolutely no bona fides in this case. The original prosecutor has had no basis for this whatsoever. The Swedish prosecutor has continued to refuse every reasonable legal way to interview Julian, from day one, including even at the Swedish Embassy in London, or Scotland Yard. So the motivations are, that if she has to interview him, then she either has to drop the case, or charge him. If she charges him, she has to give evidence. And she’s got no evidence.
Expressen: Swedish prosecution planned to attend #Assange's proceedings undercover, while refusing to question him in the UK.
Two representatives of the Swedish Prosecutor’s Office was invited to attend the extradition proceedings conducted against Wikileaksgrundaren Assange in London under the guise of law students, reports TV4.
It’s an email conversation between the British prosecutor and the Swedish prosecutor who reveal the intended guise.
Marianne Ny is the prosecutor in charge of the Swedish investigation against Assange. She did not participate in the extradition negotiations, as this could be perceived that she was trying to influence a decision.
Karin Rosander, the Authority’s communications director wanted to go, however, and wondered if she could travel for educational purposes, without any thought that she went on behalf of the Swedish prosecutor.
A strange image conjured up in conversation between the two authorities. The British side offered the two women to go to England because they could be presented as two young law students passing through. On the way the press would not be able to ask them questions, reports TV4.
- I was a little surprised. I was definitely not planning on going in any guise.However, I was anxious not to be afflicted by the media, says Karin Rosander told TV4.
After discussion with colleagues, they came to the conclusion that she still could be recognized and therefore chose not to go.
THE WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, has lost his final appeal in a British court and faces extradition to Sweden where he is accused of rape and sexual assault.
But the Supreme Court gave Mr Assange a stay of 14 days on the extradition order so his lawyer, Dinah Rose, QC, could apply to have the proceedings reopened. She said the judgment was partly based on a legal question that had not been raised during the hearing and which she had not had a chance to argue. She said this related to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
Mr Assange did not appear in court. Supporters later said he had been stuck in traffic.
Advertisement: Story continues below
In a majority decision of five to two, the judges decided that the European Arrest Warrant issued by Sweden asking for Mr Assange’s extradition was legal and should be enforced.
If the court does not allow its proceedings to be re-opened, his only other legal avenue would be the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. If that court should agree to take his case, he would be allowed to remain in Britain until the hearing.
Wikileaks Partners With Anonymous, Releases Security Firm's Emails
Even with founder Julian Assange under house arrest in Britain, WikiLeaks’s engines are set to “full steam ahead.” And the whistleblowing organization has a new partner: Anonymous.
WikiLeaks’s new and apparently effective relationship with Anonymous, the international group of hackers and “hacktivists,” was announced with the posting of more than 5 million classified emails on Monday. The documents were allegedly obtained by Anonymous from Stratfor, a global security firm based in Texas.
The emails date from June 2004 to December 2011 and have been dubbed the “Global Intelligence Files.” According to WikiLeaks, the emails give a look at the “inner workings” of Stratfor, which serves as a sort of intelligence network for private corporations.
The emails detail the company’s role as intelligence provider to major corporations, including Dow Chemical Co., Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon and various U.S. government agencies. The emails purportedly show that Stratfor pays global “government and diplomatic sources” for advance knowledge of world events, and that Stratfor “cultivates close ties” with U.S. government agencies by working with and hiring former employees of said agencies.
Assange, still editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks, commented on the leak in a press conference Monday morning.
“One thing that has saved the world is that incompetence prevails in the dark,” said Assange, who is appealing extradition from Britain to Sweden in order to stand trial for accusations of sexual misconduct.
One batch of emails details how Stratfor carefully watched the “Yes Men,” a group of activists, on behalf of Dow Chemical. The Yes Men want Dow held responsible for a 1984 environmental disaster in India, which killed thousands of people and injured many more.
Four thousand of the intercepted emails were relevant to the “U.S. attacks against Julian Assange and WikiLeaks” and Stratfor’s mission to “subvert” the organization. Those conversations also indicate that Stratfor was interested in tapping into the “‘leak-focused’ gravy train” after WikiLeaks released classified information about the U.S. war in Afghanistan.
WikiLeaks will be working with media organizations throughout the world to dissect and share information in the massive email collection, as it has done with prior dumps. In the U.S., WikiLeaks has partnered with McClatchy and Rolling Stone instead of The New York Times and The Washington Post, with which the organization has previously worked.
In a press release, Stratfor said it was “not affiliated with any government,” that the emails are “private property” and were taken by “thieves.” Stratfor also said it would decline any questioning on the release.
The dump was announced on WikiLeaks’ official Twitter feed, prefaced by teaser messages about “extraordinary news” and a countdown to the press release.
WikiLeaks and Anonymous, despite having somewhat compatible goals, have never worked together with such transparency. WikiLeaks’ press release did not directly reference Anonymous, but Anon-related Twitter accounts claimed responsibility for getting the Stratfor emails and sending them to WikiLeaks.
For over than two weeks, the steadfast Baba Amro neighborhood in Homs has been under barbaric siege and shelling. Hundreds of its citizens are martyred. Children, women, and elderly are injured in addition to total destruction of dozens of buildings and the neighborhood’s infrastructure which d
eprives the citizens from the most basic and simple life requirements.
In Baba Amro Neighborhood, there is no place to bury dozens of martyred individuals. There is no way of treating or medicating hundreds of wounded and sick people since the regime prevents any attempt that aims to get medical and humanitarian aid to the neighborhood.
People there are waiting for the inevitable fate.
With leaked information from several sources, the regime is intending to break into Baba Amro and destroy the neighborhood entirely, after the later has proved it’s legendary steadfastness. So we appeal to our brothers in all Syrian districts to continue the revolution escalation march with all available means in order to exert pressure on this criminal regime. We also uphold the historical responsibility of both the Arab and International communities, as we ask them to do the maximum effort they can to establish humanitarian corridors for this neighborhood and other regions as well.
Baba Amro is officially a distressed region. We also demand the SNC to intensify their communications and lead a diplomatic and political escalation campaign that keeps up the uprising in order to accomplish the same demands,
* the neighbourhoods in Hader are completely under siege and the sounds of gunfire and explosions are heard non-stop * the neighbourhoods of the Souq is witnessing intensive security presence and random raids and arrests * humanitarian situation generally bad in the city as there is lack of fuel, gasoline, medical and food supplies and complete power cuts in some neighbourhoods and partial power cuts in others while communications are completely cut * the number of the injured who cannot be rescued is on the rise * Snipers are deployed on all governmental buildings which the regime has evacuated completely * intensive deployment of tanks and armored vehicles on the outskirts of the city * Confirmed use of mortar shells in the bombardment of al-Haser neighbourhoods such as Hamedieh * Al-Asi Square is occupied by a large number of military vehicles * Bakeries have not opened for a second day in a row and a bread shortage is starting to strike the city * The city is in dire need for medical and relief cadres asap * the number of martyrs is unknown so far but it is at least 10 and many wounded WE PRAY FOR ALL IN HAMA TONIGHT
HAMA; HOMS; ATARIB:ALEPPO; SAHEM:DARAA; UNDER SHELLING AND TANK ATTACK TO OBLITERATE ALL OPPOSITION TO MURDEROUS REGIME (NO REPORTS FROM IDLEB AT PRESENT.)
HAMA: Hama:Al Hamidiyah, Al Sharqiyah and Al Manakh neighbourhoods have been stormed. Al Arbaeen, Al Amiriyah, Al Faraiyah, Al Eliliat, AL Bashourah and Bab Qibli are witnessing intensive shelling by heavy weapons including nail bombs. Many injured but cannot be reached due to the heavy shelling.
HOMS: Warplanes flew over Baba Amr and blew up an oil pipeline; this has resulted in columns of smoke and a number of cases of people choking.
ALEPPO: ATARIB: Besieged and under heavy firing. Random gunfire toward the houses from the tanks, several people fell injured. Storming houses under heavy gunfire and the village is besieged from all directions with huge numbers of tanks, armored vehicles and buses full of thugs and security elements. The roads from and to Aleppo is closed near Arom Al Sughra area.
SAHEM: DARAA: Regime forces raided the town using tanks and heavy machinery amid heavy gunfire from heavy weapons.
BARZEH: Damascus Suburbs: Hamam neighbourhood stormed and campaign of arrests
Update on the attack on Masayfrah, #Daraa, last weekend. #Syria
MASAYFRAH: DARAA: We are finally able to release a report from the Regime attack on Saturday and Sunday which shows the lengths the Regime will go to in the smaller towns to obliterate the rebels, civilians and Free Syrian Army.
The military campaign led by the regime’s army last Saturday and Sunday resulted in 22 martyrs, among them the town’s chant leader, Hussein Rashid Al-Zou’bi, nicknamed “Msaifara’s Qashoush.” In addition, 8 members of the FSA were martyred. The regime’s heavy weapons completely destroyed 7 homes; security forces arrested 90 people, including many children; and refused to release the martyrs’ corpses.
Baba Amro: Shells target the mosque of Abullah Ibn al-Zubeer 15-02-2012 Assad thugs continue their assault on the flashpoint neighbourhood of Baba Amro using rocket launchers, Shilka and T72 tanks, mortar and Artillery.
Baba Amro: Shells target the mosque of Abullah Ibn al-Zubeer 15-02-2012
The number of unconfirmed deaths is much higher and many bodies may not be found for days or weeks under the rubble of Homs, Zabadani, Rankous and Ma’arrat Al Numan, where bodies could not be reached today.
We congratulate the Arab League for suspending its observer mission in Syria and making the decision to improve its performance in its national and humanitarian duty to the Syrian people. The Arab League will have fulfilled its duty to the Syrian people in creating an overarching Arab and international committee that is more professional, objective, and neutral, and that can protect the lives of Syrian civilians. We encourage the Arab League and United Nations Security Council members to raise the issue of the severity of the regime’s crimes and to do all they can to prevent further bloodshed, which would ultimately cause Syria to be a failed state and would represent a source of even more misery for the Syrian people. We in the Local Coordinating Committees in Syria welcome any efforts to re-energize the peaceful demonstrators and help the Syrians to control both their present-day and future circumstances as we transition to a united, free people in a united land. We therefore appeal to brotherly and friendly nations, international organizations, and non-governmental organizations around the world to expedite development and relief programs to help Syrians in overcoming the daily oppression and injustice under which they live. We also call on all Syrian political and activist entities to coordinate their efforts under a consolidated framework to ensure that relief supplies and other assistance are delivered immediately to those who need them.
the Local Coordinating Committees in Syria
(See the link below for the original post to facebook.)
Town of #Tasil, #Daraa under full invasion. #Syria
Tasil, Daraa: security and shabiha are conducting an invasion campaign and burning some shops and private property of citizens in the town.
Military aircraft are doing low-altitude flights above the town.
Security forces have launched and carried out the security operation in the town since last Wednesday up until today.
They launched a detention campaign where more than 50 men got arrested; one of them was Dr. Arshad Al-Qaddah.
A house-to-house raiding campaign of all the homes and public places in the town was launched. The pharmacies, clinics, commercial shops and private properties were subotaged amid sporadic gunfire and extensive deployment of fully-equipped security members and thugs.
Snipers were deployed on the rooftops all around the town.
SOS from the people of QALA'AT AL MADIQ last night #Syria #Ghab
We call on all free people in the Ghab area including doctors and relief and emergency committees.Our people in Madeeq Citadel have been subject over the past few days to barbaric attacks by the Assad forces. The injuries among residents are on the rise and they lack the capacity to provide treatment due to severe lack of emergency medical supplies and medical staff. Hence, we call on anyone capable of extending help to do so particularly that we have received confirmed reports a short while ago that there are several critical injuries (in the head and neck) which require immediate medical attention. Do extend help to your distressed brothers and sisters and do not allow this savage regime to take us down one town after another.
Greetings world, this is the first press release by #OpGreece. We want to raise awareness of the critical situation in Greece, and about our existence. We want to raise the awareness not only of Greeks within Greece, but Greek expatriates, you who are of Greek descent and the entire world.
We all saw the UC spray cop right? And the Tony Bologna spraying of young women in New York Yes? Well if that shocked you, here it is a daily routine. Greek citizens who peacefully protest receive this treatment almost EVERY week yet no one is responding to the acts of violence happening in this country.
Last month Greek police sprayed disabled people in wheel chairs, two months ago they attacked civilians who were only protesting peacefully - just walking and not even shouting - The police were throwing tear gas and stones and hitting them with sticks and iron rods. Three months ago the same thing and even hit reporters and whoever held a camera.
Now, as we write these words, the internet is being threatened by Makis Voridis, a person who in the 70’s and 80’s belonged into a group similar to KKK and is currently a member of the fascist party in Greece. Voridis is now in charge of the internet. A week after his “election” (he was elected by politicians and not by the people), blogs for freedom of speech were shut down, accounts on Facebook - mainly activists, anons, anarchists, communists and trolls - were deleted. Now Voridis and his cronies are planning to censor all the ISP’s so they will know when an “act of terrorism” is being generated by the public. Any political discourse that is not their flavor of fascism is considered “TERRORISM”
So yeah, this is Greece right now.
We need your help!
Here are some links that will help you understand Greece’s curretn situation:
- Athens 29-06-2011 Greek police attack against greek citizens in Syntagma square.
- The new minister in charge for the internet, the 1st words he says “I agree that fights are being done by the people but not using rods sticks and helmets” the next picture is him holding an axe during his time in the KKK-like group he was. this man is currently in charge for the internet in Greece and is a member of the Fascist party. He wasn’t elected by us but by the government it self.
So what is really going on in Greece right now? Why all this violence?
It all started when the ex Prime-Minister of Greece George Papandreou started to cut off the people’s payments and adding more austerity measures. The media helped spread a propaganda as if the people of Greece really had to do something with the money the government used for their own benefits.
NO. The Greek citizens have been poor for almost 2 years now and they’re getting poorer day by day.
The government spend this money in luxury products such as cars, houses and land.
For more info about this google these words individually: Vatopedi, Siemens scandal in Greece, Greek wiretapping case 2004.
So what is happening right now in Greece?
- People pay more taxes even though they cannot afford it
- Pensions have been cut off, so the elderly cannot even afford their medicine, rent and bills
- People are getting evicted due to loans
- Electricity company forces people to pay a lot more than they’re supposed to, either wise they shut down their power at home
- Banks are in charge
- Media spread propaganda and not covering the true stories such as, protests, riots, deaths, beating, police brutality, political scandals etc
- Getting a job is rare and even if you find one, the payment is not enough
- Stores are shutting down
- Homes are being abandoned
- People are living Greece to find a better life abroad
"Unfortunately the president of the U.S.A. has already muddied the waters of this investigation by declaring that Manning had "broken the law." How is it possible for there to be a "fair" trial when the Commander-in-Chief has already pronounced a verdict? Why is the president openly supporting the rights of whistle-blowers except in the case of Bradley Manning?
Bradley Manning Pre-Trial Hearing: Live Blog | The Dissenter
The first day of Bradley Manning’s pre-trial hearing is about to begin in the Meade Courthouse. Manning’s pre-trial hearing will be starting on his 24th birthday.
I have made it into the Media Operations Center at Ft. Meade. I am unable to post live updates while court is in session but check back here for updates throughout the morning and afternoon. I will be posting during breaks and when classified information is being reviewed (because press and the public are not allowed to follow these portions of the hearing).
“ACLU on Obama’s non-veto
White House Backs Away from Defense Bill Veto Threat
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 14, 2011 WASHINGTON – The White House today announced that it will support passage of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which contains harmful provisions that some legislators have said could authorize the U.S. military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians, including American citizens, anywhere in the world. The final version of the NDAA was agreed to earlier this week by House and Senate conferees. Though Obama administration had threatened to veto a previous version of the bill based on these provisions, it has reversed its position. The House is expected to pass the bill tonight and Senate will vote soon after. “The president should more carefully consider the consequences of allowing this bill to become law,” Laura W. Murphy, director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. “If President Obama signs this bill, it will damage both his legacy and American’s reputation for upholding the rule of law. The last time Congress passed indefinite detention legislation was during the McCarthy era and President Truman had the courage to veto that bill. We hope that the president will consider the long view of history before codifying indefinite detention without charge or trial.”—GGDrafts: ACLU on Obama’s non-veto