law | KADAITCHA

December 30, 2010December 11, 2020

Tracking Lamo

History

File:Lamo-Mitnick-Poulsen.png (2001) (by photographer Matthew Griffiths)
Glenn Greenwald: Email exchange with Wired’s Kevin Poulsen (Jun 17, 2010)
Glenn Greenwald : The strange and consequential case of Bradley Manning, Adrian Lamo and WikiLeaks ( Jun 18, 2010)
Courtney Lambert: EXCLUSIVE: Former Hacker Lamo On Iraq Leaks (Jul 5, 2010)
Lamo: Blinded By Contempt (story tweeted by Lamo @6 #) (Jul 5, 2010)
Wired: Update: Ex-Hacker Denies Alleged WikiLeaker Gave Him Classified Documents (August 1, 2010)
Lamo: Wikileaks Whistle-blower Pushes for Assange Prosecution (Nov 28, 2010)

“Assange’s hubris in presuming to mediate global diplomacy unilaterally cannot be allowed to stand,” stated Lamo. “It is time for appropriate charges to be filed, and for Assange to be allowed to answer for them.” Lamo added.

“Mr. Assange has abused international sovereignty enough, and he should now be extended a firm invitation and comfortable transport to a court competent to hear a case based on his alleged criminal acts.”

Wired: U.S. Trying to Build Conspiracy Case Against WikiLeaks’ Assange
FDL: Bradley Manning and the Convenient Memories of Adrian Lamo (Dec 23, 2010) – this blog has an excellent annotated history of events prior to publication)
Empty Wheel: When Did Adrian Lamo Start Working with Federal Investigators?
FDL: Bradley Manning/Wikileaks Timeline
FDL: Merged Manning-Lamo Chat Logs
FDL: FDL’s Merged Version of Manning-Lamo Chat Logs Now Available (Dec 27, 2010)
WL Central: 2010-12-28 Wired Response to Glenn Greenwald (Dec 28, 2010)
Glenn Greenwald: The worsening journalistic disgrace at Wired (Dec 27, 2010)
Wired (by Evan Hansen & Kevin Poulsen) : Putting the Record Straight on the Lamo-Manning Chat Logs (Dec 28, 2010)
Glenn Greenwald: Response to Wired’s accusations (Dec 29, 2010)

Ultimately, what determines one’s credibility is not the names you get called or the number of people who get angry when you criticize them. What matters is whether the things you say are well-supported and accurate, to correct them if they’re not, and to subject yourself to the same accountability and transparency you demand of others.

On Wednesday 29th December 2010, @manuel_pineiro said:

@ggreenwald Since my #wikileaks comments are censored by @kpoulsen, I’ll put it here. Furthermore, I’ve just finished setting up space on the web for me to help document more fully Wired’s journalism malfeasance + more. Here is the comment I posted on Wired:

Is this supposed to convince anyone who is halfway paying attention?

It has been clear for some time that Threat Level has acted almost at the level of junior high school maturity, coming out with slam pieces about Wikileak’s *HTML forms* during one of the most historic achievements in journalism’s history while kpoulsen and rsingel snicker and giggle like children on their Twitter accounts.

I, too, wondered about Greenwald’s assertions about whether manning allegedly discussed Assange or a secure server.

And, Kevin, you sure drew that out.

How about some other disclosures that have never been made on this website:

1- Adrian Lamo has been caught, repeatedly, lying to reporters by myself and others working on doing the volunteer legwork of finding out the ways and means that the public has been deceived by Wired.

2- What IS a chat log, Hacker Kingpin? I wonder if Glenn Greenwald even knows this — I doubt it. A “CHAT LOG” is an absurd way of making an ASCII TEXT FILE sound more important than it is. But the story doesn’t sound anywhere near as sexy when you tell the truth, right? “Chat log” sounds official, like it is a confirmed chat that had to have been a chat between two internet peers. In reality, you couldn’t have had anything more than a text file filled with dialogue that could have been WRITTEN BY ANYONE. Does AOL keep records of chat logs? Has Wired looked into it to confirm the ASCII text files handed over to them by a guy with absolutely no credibility whatsoever was telling the truth?

Kevin: in all your years as a hacker, did you ever run across the elite hacking tool known as vi? Isn’t it true that vi is all anybody would need to produce an exact replica of the so-called “Chat Logs” you refer to all the time?

Kevin: why arent YOU suspicious of Lamo? That’s the real clincher here. The biggest mistake you could make in attempting to smooth this over is your non-stop, absurd defense of the most indefensible source ever. Someone who is on videotape saying one thing one day to one reporter and saying another thing another day to another reporter. But he’s stalwart and historically courageous to you! Julian Assange? No– he’s a coward who has only faced off against the largest and most corrupt and most violent military/government industry to ever exist in human history. You whine for sympathy regarding your own pretrial detention while simultaneously joining in a mob attack on a man whose done nothing more than expose war crimes that your magazine and all other media outlets should have been covering, instead of blah blah Apple gadget this.

I don’t know why I even bother writing this here since Wired has had a policy of censoring my comments ever since I embarrassed them so thoroughly on the very first article they ran on this story. You can go find it and watch the tone of the comments change after I stated what should have been obvious to anyone. Since then, my comments have been censored via prior restraint. Cowards.

Glenn Greenwald, many many months ago, gave you the answer to your so-called desire to “protect PFC Manning” and his privacy: agree on a third-party, have that person review the chat logs under obligation of confidentiality, and let that independent party determine if there is anything relevant in there. And let’s go from there.

You have NO argument against that proposal which he made forever ago. NONE.

Furthermore, these refutations above ignore the most significant points raised by Glenn Greenwald and many others who are not even professional journalists … people like me who will continue following through on this and documenting it and detailing for all to see in perpetuity the manner in which Wired continues to spit in the face of its readership and everything that is noble about the tradition of journalism.

Glenn Greenwald: Wired’s refusal to release or comment on the Manning chat logs (Dec 29, 2010)

Boing Boing: Wired.com: Lamo/Manning Wikileaks chat logs contain no unpublished references to Assange or private servers (Dec 29, 2010)

Kevin and Evan both independently verified that in the unpublished portions of the chat logs between Adrian Lamo and Bradly Manning there is no further reference to private FTP servers, and no further discussion about the relationship between Manning and Assange.

That’s kind of a big deal, because the published portions of the logs do not support or back up the statements Adrian Lamo seems to have been making. And that would mean that his claims are based solely on opinion, not based on evidence in the chat logs.

IANAL, but this would not appear to be good news for anyone attempting or threatening to prosecute Julian Assange and/or Wikileaks.

What could have been a smoking gun now looks more like an empty water pistol.

HeyKevinPoulsen.com
Glenn Greenwald and Wired Magazine: “I see no reason to doubt Poulsen’s integrity or good faith”
Guardian: Wired journalists deny cover-up over WikiLeaks boss and accused US soldier : Pair with access to transcript of comments by Bradley Manning deny they could help prosecution against Julian Assange (Dec 30, 2010)
Greenwald: Email/comment to Ryan Singel

Today’s Wikileaks Links

Cuba puts WikiLeaks disclosures online in Spanish
WikiLeaks cables claim Vladimir Putin has secret wealth hidden abroad
CNN: Jessica Yellin’s response to last night’s Assange discussion
Fmr. US State Dept. official in Tehran Henry Precht on WikiLeaks – “Foreigners will be less forthcoming with our officers; the reports produced by those officers will be more restricted in circulation. It will be harder to conduct our business under those conditions.”
The merger of journalists and government officials : Glenn Greenwald
Many Arab officials have close CIA links: Assange
My Parents Were Executed Under the Unconstitutional Espionage Act — Here’s Why We Must Fight to Protect Julian Assange
HaikuLeaks – Cable is Poetry

November 19, 2010December 11, 2020

National Security Legislation Amendment Bill 2010

Anti-terrorism laws have now been altered in Australia with some expansions of police powers and conditions that limit free speech. There has been little attention paid to these changes within the Australian media – the equal rights for gay marriage parliamentary debate has taken precedence.

“The National Security Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 seeks to achieve an appropriate balance between the Government’s responsibility to protect Australia, its people and its interests and instilling confidence that our national security and counter-terrorism laws will be exercised in a just and accountable way,” Mr McClelland said.

The legislation has been the subject of extensive public consultation and contains significant amendments, including:

* new powers for police to enter a premises without a warrant in emergency circumstances relating to a terrorism offence where there is material that may pose a risk to the health or safety of the public;
* extending the time available for police to re-enter a premises under a search warrant from one hour to 12 hours in emergency circumstances;
* establishing a maximum seven day limit on the detention period that may be disregarded when a person has been arrested for a terrorism offence;
* including a specific right of appeal for both the prosecution and the defendant against a bail decision relating to terrorism and serious national security offences;
* expanding the ‘urging violence’ offence so that it applies to individuals as well as groups who incite violence on the basis of race, religion, nationality, national or ethnic origin or political opinion;
* extending the expiration period of regulations proscribing a terrorist organisation from two to three years;
* amending the National Security Information (Criminal and Civil Proceedings) Act 2004 so that national security and counter-terrorism court proceedings may be expedited;
* establishing a Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement to extend parliamentary oversight to both the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Crime Commission; and
* extending the role of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security (IGIS) to inquire into an intelligence or security matter relating to any Commonwealth Department or agency.

There is still no independent National Security Monitor established.

The Australian Council for Civil Liberties president, Terry O’Gorman, says Australia should have followed Britain’s lead five years ago in appointing someone to oversee the application of counter-terrorism laws.

January 31, 2009December 12, 2020

Bliar Pronounces on Hamas

Does anyone really take any notice of discredited Tony Bliar anymore? Still, as Middle East envoy for the Quartet, he has a whole story in Haaretz devoted to his thoughts on Hamas.

Blair is the Middle East envoy for the quartet of Middle East peace negotiators – the United States, the United Nations, Russia and the European Union.

Blair told the newspaper that that the strategy of “pushing Gaza aside” and trying to create a Palestinian state on the West Bank “was never going to work and will never work.”

“Yes, we do need to show through the change we are making on the West Bank that the Palestinian state could be a reality,” said Blair.

“The trouble is that if you simply try to push Gaza to one side then eventually what happens is the situation becomes so serious that it erupts and you deliver into the hands of the mass the power to erupt at any point in time.”

Blair repeated the Quartet position that there can be no talks, official or unofficial, with Hamas until they renounce violence and recognize Israel. However, he said that his “basic predisposition is that in a situation like this you talk to everybody.”

So what is he really saying? that his private position differs from that of the Quartet? furthermore has he REALLY noticed the changes on the West Bank in the past year?

In the Times, Bliar expands his position:

Hamas must somehow be brought into the Middle East peace process because the policy of isolating Gaza in the quest for a settlement will not work, …

In an interview with Ginny Dougary in the Saturday Magazine, Mr Blair says that the strategy of “pushing Gaza aside” and trying to create a Palestinian state on the West Bank “was never going to work and will never work”. He hints in references to how peace was eventually achieved in Northern Ireland that the time may be approaching to talk to Hamas … “My basic predisposition is that in a situation like this you talk to everybody.”

…

Mr Blair, speaking after talks with the new US envoy George Mitchell, says that Gaza will not be pushed aside because there are 1.25 million people there who want a Palestinian state.

However, he repeated the Quartet position that there can be no talks, official or unofficial, with Hamas until they renounce violence and recognise Israel.

Mr Blair then says that there is a distinction between the difficulty of negotiating with Hamas as part of a peace process if they would not accept one of the states in the two-state solution, and “talking to Hamas as the de facto power in Gaza”.

He declines to answer whether he has talked to Hamas unofficially, although his staff later insists that he has not, and that all contacts have been via Egyptian diplomats. Under intense questioning later he replies: “I do think it is important that we find a way of bringing Hamas into this process, but it can only be done if Hamas are prepared to do it on the right terms.”

Pressed to go further Mr Blair says that he has to be careful how he expresses things because “if you do this in the wrong way it can destabilise the very people in Palestine who have been working all through for the moderate cause”.

He added: “We do have to find a way of making sure that the choice is put before Hamas and the people of Gaza in a clear, understandable, unambiguous way, for them to choose their future. You have to find a way of communicating that choice to them in their terms. Now exactly what way you choose at the moment, that is an open question.”

Diplomats will point out that Mr Blair fully signed up to the Annapolis accord which envisaged the creation of a Palestinain state by the end of 2008 whether Gaza was part of it or not. Even though sceptics said that the goal was unrealistic, Mr Blair insisted that a deal could be done by the end of last year.

Why none of these Quartet goons recognise that it is the right under international law for an illegally occupied people to resist occupation with arms if necessary is beyond us. To not do so is to implicitly back fully Israel’s continued illegal occupation and repulsive domination of the Palestinian territories. Why are Palestinians denied the right to defend themselves from Israel’s obvious, disgusting aggression?

If Bibi Netanyahoo obtains power in the Israeli elections, extended confrontation between his goals to expand settlements and renounce previous agreements and Obama’s policies is liable to delay peace and the potential for a Palestinian state for years.

Hamas’ stance toward Israel’s demands is consolidated by senior member, Khalil Al-Hayya.

Hamas had not yielded on its demands that the Israeli blockade of the Gaza enclave be lifted and Gaza’s borders opened to normal trade, he said.

Hayya reaffirmed his group’s demands to conclude a prisoner swap with Israel that would see the release of hundreds of Palestinian prisoners for the return of Israel Defense Forces soldier Gilad Shalit, kidnapped by Gaza militants in 2006.

“Gilad Shalit will never see the light and life until our prisoners see the light among their women and children,” he said.

YnetNews steps up its vapid, transparent propaganda campaign, quoting unnamed sources in an attempt to show that Al Qaeda has thousands of supporters in Gaza. Who are they trying to kid? only the terminally stupid would believe such blatant manufactured claptrap.

January 13, 2009December 13, 2020

Legal Opinion on Israel’s Occupation of Gaza & Its ‘Self-Defence’ Lie

Signed by distinguished Professors of Law, this opinion published in the Times illumines aspects of Israel’s occupation of Gaza, which didn’t end when it pulled its troops out of Gaza in 2005. The opinion also describes why Israel is not acting in self defence as it wantonly slaughters Gazan civilians.

Israel’s bombardment of Gaza is not self-defence – it’s a war crime

ISRAEL has sought to justify its military attacks on Gaza by stating that it amounts to an act of “self-defence” as recognised by Article 51, United Nations Charter. We categorically reject this contention.

The rocket attacks on Israel by Hamas deplorable as they are, do not, in terms of scale and effect amount to an armed attack entitling Israel to rely on self-defence. Under international law self-defence is an act of last resort and is subject to the customary rules of proportionality and necessity.

The killing of almost 800 Palestinians, mostly civilians, and more than 3,000 injuries, accompanied by the destruction of schools, mosques, houses, UN compounds and government buildings, which Israel has a responsibility to protect under the Fourth Geneva Convention, is not commensurate to the deaths caused by Hamas rocket fire.

For 18 months Israel had imposed an unlawful blockade on the coastal strip that brought Gazan society to the brink of collapse. In the three years after Israel’s redeployment from Gaza, 11 Israelis were killed by rocket fire. And yet in 2005-8, according to the UN, the Israeli army killed about 1,250 Palestinians in Gaza, including 222 children. Throughout this time the Gaza Strip remained occupied territory under international law because Israel maintained effective control over it.

Israel’s actions amount to aggression, not self-defence, not least because its assault on Gaza was unnecessary. Israel could have agreed to renew the truce with Hamas. Instead it killed 225 Palestinians on the first day of its attack. As things stand, its invasion and bombardment of Gaza amounts to collective punishment of Gaza’s 1.5m inhabitants contrary to international humanitarian and human rights law. In addition, the blockade of humanitarian relief, the destruction of civilian infrastructure, and preventing access to basic necessities such as food and fuel, are prima facie war crimes.

We condemn the firing of rockets by Hamas into Israel and suicide bombings which are also contrary to international humanitarian law and are war crimes. Israel has a right to take reasonable and proportionate means to protect its civilian population from such attacks. However, the manner and scale of its operations in Gaza amount to an act of aggression and is contrary to international law, notwithstanding the rocket attacks by Hamas.

Ian Brownlie QC, Blackstone Chambers

Mark Muller QC, Bar Human Rights Committee of England and Wales

Michael Mansfield QC and Joel Bennathan QC, Tooks Chambers

Sir Geoffrey Bindman, University College, London

Professor Richard Falk, Princeton University

Professor M Cherif Bassiouni, DePaul University, Chicago

Professor Christine Chinkin, LSE

Professor John B Quigley, Ohio State University

Professor Iain Scobbie and Victor Kattan, School of Oriental and African Studies

Professor Vera Gowlland-Debbas, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva

Professor Said Mahmoudi, Stockholm University

Professor Max du Plessis, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban

Professor Bill Bowring, Birkbeck College

Professor Joshua Castellino, Middlesex University

Professor Thomas Skouteris and Professor Michael Kagan, American University of Cairo

Professor Javaid Rehman, Brunel University

Daniel Machover, Chairman, Lawyers for Palestinian Human Rights

Dr Phoebe Okawa, Queen Mary University

John Strawson, University of East London

Dr Nisrine Abiad, British Institute of International and Comparative Law

Dr Michael Kearney, University of York

Dr Shane Darcy, National University of Ireland, Galway

Fortunately, Israel’s barbarous war crimes are being documented.

Israel targets children’s hospital and destroys a clinic.

Israeli forces have attacked a children’s hospital in Gaza in a fourth day of attacks after a UN Security Council call for ceasefire.

The al-Dorra children’s hospital was targeted by Israeli forces.

…

On Sunday, Israeli aircraft also bombed and destroyed a clinic in the Gaza Strip after firing warning shots close to the building.

The orgy of Zionist arrogance continues as Arab parties are banned from participating in the forthcoming elections. 23% of the Israeli population are Arab. Apartheid anyone?

The ruling, made by the body that oversees the elections, reflected the heightened tensions between Israel’s Jewish majority and Arab minority caused by Israel’s offensive in the Gaza Strip. Israeli Arabs have held a series of demonstrations against the offensive.