WikiLeaks Attacks Illegal Says Internet Society - PCWorld

Image via WikipediaWikiLeaks Attacks Illegal Says Internet Society - PCWorld

Takedown attempts against WikiLeaks undermine what the Internet stands for, says the nonprofit group dedicated to open use of the Internet.

By Tim Greene

Dec 11, 2010 9:11 am

Takedown attempts against WikiLeaks undermine what the Internet stands for, and those responsible should be tracked down and prosecuted, says the Internet Society, a nonprofit group dedicated to the open use of the Internet.

Could Wikileaks spawn troubles for the IT industry?

In its December newsletter, ISOC says it recognizes that WikiLeaks' posting of diplomatic cables is a worry to some, but knocking the site offline is illegal.

"Unless and until appropriate laws are brought to bear to take the wikileaks.org domain down legally, technical solutions should be sought to reestablish its proper presence," ISOC says, "and appropriate actions taken to pursue and prosecute entities (if any) that acted maliciously to take it off the air."

Wikileaks has suffered distributed DoS attacks and in response supporters of WikiLeaks have launched DDoS attacks of their own against Visa, Mastercard, and Amazon.com.

"The Internet Society is founded upon key principles of free expression and non discrimination that are essential to preserve the openness and utility of the Internet," ISOC writes. "We believe that this incident dramatically illustrates that those principles are currently at risk.

"Free expression should not be restricted by governmental or private controls over computer hardware or software, telecommunications infrastructure, or other essential components of the Internet."

WikiLeaks has managed to continue posting the leaked documents and fresh ones with help from mirror sites around the world.

ISOC notes that due to the very resilient design of the Internet, the attempts to keep WikiLeaks offline have failed, but they have had a negative effect on the Internet in general.

The cooperation among several organizations has ensured that the impact on the Wikileaks organizational website has not prevented all access to Wikileaks material," ISOC says. "This further underscores that the removal of a domain is an ineffective tool to suppress communication, merely serving to undermine the integrity of the global Internet and its operation."

More...

Related articles

• WikiLeaks Vows to Never Say Die With 355 New Websites - PCWorld (armwoodlaw.com)
• WikiLeaks: A Case Study in Web Survivability (pcworld.com)
• Hacker Group Defends Attacks on WikiLeaks Foes (pcworld.com)
• Anonymous Takes Down Visa.com in WikiLeaks Protest (pcworld.com)

Personal Democracy Forum Wikileaks And Internet Freedom

Watch live streaming video from pdfleaks at livestream.com

pdfleaks on livestream.com. Broadcast Live Free

Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com - Empowered performance helps refugees

Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com - Empowered performance helps refugees

WikiLeaks cables: Shell's grip on Nigerian state revealed | Business | The Guardian

WikiLeaks cables: Shell's grip on Nigerian state revealed | Business | The Guardian

The oil giant Shell claimed it had inserted staff into all the main ministries of the Nigerian government, giving it access to politicians' every move in the oil-rich Niger Delta, according to a leaked US diplomatic cable.

The company's top executive in Nigeria told US diplomats that Shell had seconded employees to every relevant department and so knew "everything that was being done in those ministries". She boasted that the Nigerian government had "forgotten" about the extent of Shell's infiltration and was unaware of how much the company knew about its deliberations.

The cache of secret dispatches from Washington's embassies in Africa also revealed that the Anglo-Dutch oil firm swapped intelligence with the US, in one case providing US diplomats with the names of Nigerian politicians it suspected of supporting militant activity, and requesting information from the US on whether the militants had acquired anti-aircraft missiles.

Other cables released tonight reveal:

• US diplomats' fear that Kenya could erupt in violence worse than that experienced after the 2008 election unless rampant government corruption is tackled.

• America asked Uganda to let it know if its army intended to commit war crimes based on US intelligence – but did not try to prevent war crimes taking place.

• Washington's ambassador to the troubled African state of Eritrea described its president, Isaias Afwerki, as a cruel "unhinged dictator" whose regime was "one bullet away from implosion".

The latest revelations came on a day that saw hackers sympathetic to WikiLeaks target MasterCard and Visa over their decision to block payments to the whistleblowers' website.

The website's founder, Julian Assange, spent a second night in jail after a judge refused him bail prior to an extradition hearing to face questioning over sexual assault charges in Sweden.

Campaigners tonight said the revelation about Shell in Nigeria demonstrated the tangled links between the oil firm and politicians in the country where, despite billions of dollars in oil revenue, 70% of people live below the poverty line.

Cables from Nigeria show how Ann Pickard, then Shell's vice-president for sub-Saharan Africa, sought to share intelligence with the US government on militant activity and business competition in the contested Niger Delta – and how, with some prescience, she seemed reluctant to open up because of a suspicion the US government was "leaky".

But that did not prevent Pickard disclosing the company's reach into the Nigerian government when she met US ambassador Robin Renee Sanders, as recorded in a confidential memo from the US embassy in Abuja on 20 October 2009.

At the meeting, Pickard related how the company had obtained a letter showing that the Nigerian government had invited bids for oil concessions from China. She said the minister of state for petroleum resources, Odein Ajumogobia, had denied the letter had been sent but Shell knew similar correspondence had taken place with China and Russia.

The ambassador reported: "She said the GON [government of Nigeria] had forgotten that Shell had seconded people to all the relevant ministries and that Shell consequently had access to everything that was being done in those ministries."

Nigeria is Africa's leading oil producer and the eighth biggest exporter in the world, accounting for 8% of US oil imports. Although a recent UN report largely exonerated the company, critics accuse Shell, the biggest operator in the delta, and other companies, of causing widespread pollution and environmental damage in the region. Militant groups engaged in hostage-taking and sabotage have proliferated.

The WikiLeaks disclosure was today seized on by campaigners as evidence of Shell's vice-like grip on the country's oil wealth. "Shell and the government of Nigeria are two sides of the same coin," said Celestine AkpoBari, of Social Action Nigeria. "Shell is everywhere. They have an eye and an ear in every ministry of Nigeria. They have people on the payroll in every community, which is why they get away with everything. They are more powerful than the Nigerian government."

The criticism was echoed by Ben Amunwa of the London-based oil watchdog Platform. "Shell claims to have nothing to do with Nigerian politics," he said. "In reality, Shell works deep inside the system, and has long exploited political channels in Nigeria to its own advantage."

Nigeria tonight strenuously denied the claim. Levi Ajuonoma, a spokesman for the state-owned Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation, said: "Shell does not control the government of Nigeria and has never controlled the government of Nigeria. This cable is the mere interpretation of one individual. It is absolutely untrue, an absolute falsehood and utterly misleading. It is an attempt to demean the government and we will not stand for that. I don't think anybody will lose sleep over it."

Another cable released today, from the US consulate in Lagos and dated 19 September 2008, claims that Pickard told US diplomats that two named regional politicians were behind unrest in the Rivers state. She also asked if the American diplomats had any intelligence on shipments of surface to air missiles (SAMs) to militants in the Niger Delta.

"She claimed Shell has 'intelligence' that one to three SAMs may have been shipped to Nigerian militant groups, although she seemed somewhat sceptical of that information and wondered if such sensitive systems would last long in the harsh environment of the Niger Delta," the cable said.

Pickard also said Shell had learned from the British government details of Russian energy company Gazprom's ambitions to enter the Nigerian market. In June last year, Gazprom signed a $2.5bn (£1.5bn) deal with the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation to build refineries, pipelines and gas power stations.

Shell put a request to the US consulate for potentially sensitive intelligence about Gazprom, a possible rival, which she said had secured a promise from the Nigerian government of access to 17trn cubic feet of natural gas – roughly a tenth of Nigeria's entire reserves. "Pickard said that amount of gas was only available if the GON were to take concessions currently assigned to other oil companies and give them to Gazprom. She assumed Shell would be the GON's prime target." Pickard alleged that a conversation with a Nigerian government minister had been secretly recorded by the Russians. Shortly after the meeting in the minister's office she received a verbatim transcript of the meeting "from Russia", according to the memo.

The cable concludes with the observation that the oil executive had tended to be guarded in discussion with US officials. "Pickard has repeatedly told us she does not like to talk to USG [US government] officials because the USG is 'leaky'." She may be concerned that ... bad news about Shell's Nigerian operations will leak out."

Shell declined to comment on the allegations, saying: "You are seeking our views on a leaked cable allegedly containing information about a private conversation involving a Shell representative, but have declined to share this cable or to permit us sufficient time to obtain information from the person you say took part in the conversation on the part of Shell. In view of this, we cannot comment on the alleged contents of the cable, including the correctness or incorrectness of any statements you say it contains."

Related articles

• WikiLeaks: Shell 'knows everything' about the Nigerian government (telegraph.co.uk)
• WikiLeaks cables: Shell's grip on Nigerian state revealed (politics.ie)
• Cable: Shell has infiltrated Nigerian government ministries (cnn.com)

UGA to Mark 50th Anniversary of Desegregation

UGA to Mark 50th Anniversary of Desegregation

ATHENS, Ga. (AP) - One of the first blacks to register at the University of Georgia after the school was desegregated is returning to the college to mark the 50th anniversary of the event.

Charlayne Hunter-Gault is a 1963 graduate of the Grady College of Journalism and Mass Communication at UGA.

Hunter-Gault is an award-winning journalist who has worked for The New York Times, National Public Radio and CNN. She returns to the campus on Jan. 9, the anniversary of the day she and Hamilton Holmes became the first two African-Americans to register for classes at UGA. On Jan. 10, Hunter-Gault will deliver a 50th anniversary lecture. On Jan. 11, she will join in a campus-wide discussion about her 1992 memoir, "In My Place.

Wikileaks and the arrest of Julian Assange « UK Human Rights Blog

Image via WikipediaWikileaks and the arrest of Julian Assange « UK Human Rights Blog

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange was arrested yesterday and refused bail after a hearing at Westminster Magistrates Court.

He was not arrested in relation to the whistle-blowing website Wikileaks, but rather on suspicion of having sexually assaulted two women in Sweden. His lawyers have said that “many believe” the arrest was politically motivated.

The mechanism for his arrest is of interest. He was arrested under a “European arrest warrant”, with a view to extraditing him to Sweden to face the charges. Carl Gardner explains the process in an excellent post on his Head of Legal Blog:

All this is happening under Part 1 of the Extradition Act 2003. Sweden having issued a European arrest warrant (here’s the Interpol “red notice”) it seems Assange attended a police station this morning, and was arrested presumably under section 3. The initial hearing today took place in accordance withsections 7 and 8, the district judge simply setting the date of the full extradition hearing (or at least its formal opening) under section 8(1)(a), and making a decision on bail or custody in the meantime.

European arrest warrants make it relatively easy for European states to extradite suspected criminals such as Assange. They have been fairly controversial (see this post) and are currently under review by the coalition government (see our post), alongside the also-controversial extradition arrangement with the United States. It would appear that the United States have not submitted their own extradition request, which may reflect the difficulty in finding a crime to accuse him of.

Gardner finds it unsurprising that bail wasn’t granted in this case, given the seriousness of the charges and the likelihood that he may have fled the jurisdiction. In relation to the Swedish charges, the New York Times reviews the law relating to sexual assault in Sweden, which is not much stricter on sexual assault than other European states.

The full extradition hearing has to be within 21 days. A judge will have to decide (again, thanks to Carl Gardner):

whether the offence he’s wanted for is an “extradition offence” (section 10read with section 64, I think in this case section 64(3) in particular); there seems to be no dispute about this;

whether extradition is “barred” under section 11, which it is by reason of “extraneous conditions” under section 11(1)(b) read with section 13 if extradition is really about punishing him for his political views, or if they might prejudice his trial, and

whether extradition would comply with human rights (section 21).

According to Afua Hirsch at The Guardian, Assange will argue, amongst other things, that he would be unfairly deprived of his liberty in Sweden and therefore should be protected under human rights law.

Human rights law is often (some say increasingly) invoked, although rarely successfully, in extradition proceedings. If a person can show that there is a real risk of his rights – such as to a fair trial or against inhuman and degrading treatment – being breached in the receiving state, then a UK court will not extradite him as that would amount to a UK public authority – the court – causing the breach, which is unlawful under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

For example, the High Court recently questioned whether the Russian criminal justice system was too corrupt to ensure a fair trial for a man faced with extradition (see my post). The court was asked to decide whether the lack of accountability of prosecutors in Russia would lead to a “flagrant denial of justice” if a man were extradited. The extradition request ultimately failed for other reasons, but the judge expressed significant concerns in relation to the Russian justice system.

But Sweden is not Russia. Assange may argue that since the charges are politically motivated, he will not receive a fair trial. But without solid proof of such serious allegations, he will not succeed. European Arrest Warrants are designed to make extradition between states simple and quick, and it will be difficult even in such a high-profile case to prevent this happening.

He may also invoke the right to freedom of expression. Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides that everyone has a right to freedom of expression, but a state can restrict that right, amongst other reasons, in the interests of national security and the prevention of crime. If Assange was facing extradition to the United States, which may follow soon, this argument would be at front and centre.

But as things stand, unless he can show that the sexual assault allegations are politically motivated, which seems unlikely, it is hard to see how freedom of expression will play much of a part. The Wikileaks site is still running despite his arrest, and freedom of expression rights can legitimately be breached to prevent crime.

Update, 8 December 2010 - Afua Hirsch, writing on Guardian.co.uk, asks what is likely to happen next for Assange:

In short, for every politician itching to put Assange on trial, there is a legal obstacle to be overcome, which makes one thing and one thing only certain – for the question of Assange’s future under the law, there is no end in sight.

Related articles

• Extradition issues (bbc.co.uk)
• Julian Assange extradition attempt an uphill struggle, says specialist | Media | The Guardian (armwoodnews.com)
• Julian Assange arrest: How the extradition process works (guardian.co.uk)

US: Clarify Position on Targeted Killings | Human Rights Watch

US: Clarify Position on Targeted Killings | Human Rights Watch

Ruling on Targeted Cleric Highlights Need to Explain Legal Basis for Lethal Attacks

December 7, 2010

(New York) - The US government should immediately clarify its legal rationale for targeted killings, Human Rights Watch said in a letter today to President Barack Obama.

A federal court judge's dismissal of a lawsuit on December 7, 2010, challenging the US government's targeted killing program abroad underscores the urgent need for the Obama administration to publicly explain its policy, Human Rights Watch said. Judge John Bates of the US district court in Washington, DC dismissed the lawsuit on procedural grounds but did not address the merits of the case.

"President Obama should answer the fundamental questions of how his administration determines whether a person may be targeted," said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. "Such operations may be lawful under certain circumstances, but absent clear boundaries, they will inevitably violate international law and set a dangerous precedent for abusive regimes around the globe."

The lawsuit, brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights, challenged the US government's decision to authorize the targeted killing of American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who is believed to be hiding in Yemen. The US government says al-Awlaki is linked to the Yemen-based al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula but has not brought formal charges against him. The lawsuit also sought to have the government disclose the legal standard it uses to place US citizens on alleged government "kill lists."

The Obama administration dramatically expanded the use of targeted killings outside of traditional battlefields following the attacks of September 11, 2001. Many of these killings are conducted by the Central Intelligence Agency through the use of Unmanned Combat Aircraft Systems (drones). The US government asserts that it has authority under international law to use lethal force outside of clearly defined war zones because it is engaged in a global armed conflict with al Qaeda and associated forces.

Human Rights Watch recognizes that the US government has a responsibility to respond to national security threats. The deliberate use of lethal force can be legal in operations involving a combatant on a genuine battlefield, or in a law enforcement action in which the threat to life is imminent and there is no reasonable alternative.

"US government claims that the entire world is a battleground in which the laws of war are applicable undermine the protections of international law," Roth said. "This discredited notion invites the application of lethal force by other countries in situations where the US would strongly object to its use."

Related articles

• Judge dismisses bid to remove Anwar al-Awlaki from US 'kill list' - Christian Science Monitor (news.google.com)
• You: Suit Over Targeted Killing in Terror Case Is Dismissed (nytimes.com)
• Legal challenge to US assassination policy divides rights groups (guardian.co.uk)

In Calif., Prop. 8 Debate Tests Limits Of Tolerance : NPR

In Calif., Prop. 8 Debate Tests Limits Of Tolerance : NPR

Supreme Court to Hear Wal-Mart Discrimination Case - NYTimes.com

Supreme Court to Hear Wal-Mart Discrimination Case - NYTimes.com

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear an appeal in the biggest employment discrimination case in the nation’s history, one claiming that Wal-Mart discriminated against hundreds of thousands of women in pay and promotion. The lawsuit seeks back pay that could amount to billions of dollars.

The question before the court is not whether there was discrimination but rather whether the claims by the individual employees may be combined as a class action. The court’s decision on that issue will almost certainly affect all sorts of class- action suits, including ones asserting antitrust, securities and, products liability and other claims.

If nothing else, many pending class actions will slow or stop while litigants and courts await the decision in the case.

Brad Seligman, the main lawyer for the plaintiffs, said in a telephone interview after the court decision: “Wal-Mart has thrown up an extraordinarily broad number of issues, many of which, if the court seriously entertained, could very severely undermine many civil rights class actions. We welcome the court’s review of this limited issue, and we’re confident that the core of our action will go forward.”

In their brief urging the justices to deny review, the plaintiffs had said Wal-Mart’s objection to class-action treatment boiled down to the enormous size of the class.

“Petitioner returns repeatedly to the refrain that the certified class is very large, a fact that is indisputably true but legally irrelevant,” the brief said. “The class is large because Wal-Mart is the nation’s largest employer and manages its operations and employment practices in a highly uniform and centralized manner.”

Wal-Mart, which says its policies expressly bar discrimination and promote diversity, said the plaintiffs, who worked in 3,400 different stores in 170 job classifications, cannot possibly have enough in common to make class-action treatment appropriate.

In April, an 11-member panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, ruled by a 6-to-5 vote that the class action could go forward.

Judge Michael Daly Hawkins, writing for the majority, said the company’s policies and treatment of women were similar enough that a single lawsuit was both efficient and appropriate. He added that the six women who represent the class, four of whom had left Wal-Mart, had claims typical of the other plaintiffs.

The size of the proposed class was not an obstacle, Judge Susan P. Graber wrote in a concurrence.

“If the employer had 500 female employees, I doubt that any of my colleagues would question the certification of such a class,” Judge Graber wrote. “Certification does not become an abuse of discretion merely because the class has 500,000 members.”

That drew a sharp dissent from Chief Judge Alex Kozinski. “Maybe there’d be no difference between 500 employees and 500,000 employees if they all had similar jobs, worked at the same half-billion square foot store and were supervised by the same managers,” he wrote. “But the half-million members of the majority’s approved class held a multitude of jobs, at different levels of Wal-Mart’s hierarchy, for variable lengths of time, in 3,400 stores, sprinkled across 50 states, with a kaleidoscope of supervisors (male and female).”

“They have little in common but their sex and this lawsuit,” Judge Kozinski concluded.

In a second dissent, Judge Sandra S. Ikuta said that allowing the case to go forward as a class action would prevent Wal-Mart from presenting tailored defenses to individual claims.

In their briefs in the case, Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes, No. 10-277, the two sides cited the work of the court’s newest justices to the court. Wal-Mart twice relied on an influential unsigned law review note that Justice Elena Kagan wrote as a student at Harvard Law School on class certification in employment discrimination suits.

The plaintiffs responded by noting that Justice Sonia Sotomayor had voted to certify an even larger class action in an antitrust case involving eight million merchants when she was a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in New York. Wal-Mart was a plaintiff in that class action.

Judge Sotomayor acknowledged that the very fact of class certification provided the plaintiffs with “leverage in settlement negotiations.”

“While the sheer size of the class in this case may enhance this effect,” she added, “this alone cannot defeat an otherwise proper certification.”

Related articles

• Court's handling of Wal-Mart appeal to have wide implications (seattletimes.nwsource.com)

Never has the line between entertainment and serious debate been so blurred

Never has the line between entertainment and serious debate been so blurred

Stanley Crouch

False identities are as basic to comedic farce as they are to American public life. Put on a costume, learn the expected cliches and get into action. Those waiting to be hustled are already in place.

When we see the Republicans digging in their heels as they thunder about how harmful it will be to the middle class if the Bush tax cuts are not sustained for the wealthiest 2% of the American public, we find ourselves right in the middle of a dangerous farce. The elephants, who love to present themselves as financially responsible, are willing to foist $700 billion in debt on this nation in order to make sure that the GOP can hold its position as a shill for the rich.

Recognizing this trick is central to understanding America today. The tradition of the hustler has swept from the world of pop entertainment to the world of politics. Reality has never been as enjoyable as fantasy, but when rabble-rousing entertainers - for the example, the Palin family - begin to dominate the big national arguments, we need to find some place in which actual facts have a sacred position of importance.

Questions of taste and preference are basic to the world of entertainment, but our enjoyments have descended into the muck exactly the same way we've seen serious political disagreement descend. Political ideology has become no more than an offshoot of entertainment advertising, where no truth is necessary.

When "King Kong" first appeared in 1933, no one had to explain that an ape 50 feet tall had never actually flipped out in Manhattan. Yet by the time of Orson Welles' 1938 broadcast of "War of the Worlds," many thought they were hearing the actual reporting of an invasion from Mars.

Welles was widely blamed for creating a panic. Rupert Murdoch's Fox News network is an update of the Welles broadcast. It has the same content of illusion and fear, often resorting to fabrication. This is not solely a right-wing phenomenon: The left can also be caught smudging the lines separating truth from fiction, or putting convenient rhetorical decals on individuals.

A perfect example is the Rev. Jesse Jackson claiming that LeBron James was being treated not like a free man but a slave during the controversy over his free agency. James ended up signing with the Miami Heat, which is paying him $14.5 million this season. Jackson got to be the center of a controversy entirely of his own making. So much for fact.

And that's not quite as bad as Cornel West pretending that Jay-Z wasn't a real crack dealer: The brother was a freedom fighter and a revolutionary. Black prisoners have enough trouble with reality; they do not need a Princeton professor telling them that they're actually rebels, not acidic slime burning holes in the social fabric of their communities.

Having what remains the most successful commercial culture in the history of the world brings special problems if the techniques of business begin to overshadow our attempts to stand up to existing realities.

Hustlers will always tell you that the only rule is that money must come from your efforts, whatever they might be. That's one of the reasons that the airheads of hip hop can make recordings about how many units they've sold.

Unfortunately, the conservatives now roosting in Washington play by those same rules. Emboldened by Murdoch's attack dog of Fox News and talk show rabble-rousers, they advertise billionaires as though they're part of the beleaguered middle class. The masquerade goes on and on.

crouch.stanley@gmail.com

Stanley Crouch's column appears in the Daily Nwes every Monday. Stanley, who has written for the paper since 1995, has received many awards for his writing, including a MacArthur Foundation "genius" grant. His books have been widely praised and he was recently inducted into the Academy of Arts and Sciences.

BBC News - Malaysia urged to stop caning 'epidemic'

BBC News - Malaysia urged to stop caning 'epidemic'

Caning as a form of judicial punishment in Malaysia has reached "epidemic" proportions and should be banned, according to a human rights group.

Blows administered to the body with a long cane are a legal punishment for more than 60 offences in the country.

Amnesty International claims at least 10,000 prisoners and 6,000 refugees are caned there each year.

The government says caning is a legal and effective deterrent from criminal activity.

Malaysia's law minister would not comment on the report but told the BBC that there are no plans to review the law.

Migrant workers

Amnesty says the practice amounts to cruel and inhumane treatment as it leaves both physical and psychological damage, and should be banned.

"Across Malaysia, government officials regularly tear into the flesh of prisoners with rattan canes travelling up to 160km/h. The cane shreds the victim's naked skin, turns the fatty tissue into pulp, and leaves permanent scars that extend all the way to muscle fibres," Amnesty says in a report on the practice.

More...

Related articles

• Amnesty decries 'epidemic' Malaysia prison canings (sfgate.com)

WikiLeaks Vows to Never Say Die With 355 New Websites - PCWorld

WikiLeaks Vows to Never Say Die With 355 New Websites - PCWorld

WikiLeaks has asked the Web community to open mirror sites so it cannot be downed or censored and said Monday that 355 new sites are already up.

"Wikileaks is currently under heavy attack," the group said on its website. "In order to make it impossible to ever fully remove Wikileaks from the Internet, we need your help."

The site is asking people with Unix-based servers and excess hosting resources to answer its call. WikiLeaks' entire website "should not take more than a couple of GB at the moment," it said.

Mirror sites are additional websites that have all of the same information as the original site and are updated automatically each time the original site adds new content. WikiLeaks hopes the new sites can ensure the survival of the mass of leaked documents, videos and other data it has collected and published.

Last Friday, the controversial website could not be accessed through its WikiLeaks.org domain name after EveryDNS.net terminated its domain name service over repeated DDOS (Distributed Denial of Service) attacks against WikiLeaks. The U.S.-based service provider said it did provide prior notice. The move came just days after Amazon Web Services stopped hosting WikiLeaks on its servers for breaking user rules saying that websites must use their own content and not carry data that might injure others. The U.S. Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, chaired by Senator Joe Lieberman, had also asked Amazon to stop hosting the controversial website.

WikiLeaks has come under fire for publishing classified U.S. documents, including videos and documents from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as sensitive cables sent between U.S. embassies and the U.S. State Department. WikiLeaks continues to post the cables.

WikiLeaks has faced a number of DDOS attacks, designed to knock out access to the website. WikiLeaks.org appears to still be offline. New links to WikiLeaks from the company's Twitter feed are going to WikiLeaks.ch.

Netcraft, which tracks web attacks, shows in a series of graphs that WikiLeaks.org has been down since last Friday.

Related articles

• WikiLeaks.org Downed by Domain Hosting Service (pcworld.com)
• WikiLeaks Rebounds as New Hosting Provider Seeks Protection (pcworld.com)
• WikiLeaks reappears on Swiss Net domain (news.cnet.com)

Justice Brennan: A Liberal Icon Gets Another Look : NPR

Image via WikipediaJustice Brennan: A Liberal Icon Gets Another Look : NPR

While the U.S. Supreme Court today is dominated by conservatives, it still abides by many of the landmark decisions written by the court's liberal icon, Justice William J. Brennan Jr., who retired in 1990 after 34 years of service.

This fall, a long-awaited biography, Justice Brennan: Liberal Champion, is on the nation's bookshelves — an account of Brennan's life, times and influence on the nation's highest court.

For those not familiar with Brennan's incredible record, let us recapitulate. As the conservative National Review put it in writing about the liberal justice: "An examination of Brennan's opinions, and his influence upon the opinions of his colleagues, suggests that there is no individual in this country, on or off the Court, who has had a more profound and sustained impact on public policy in the United States."

Justice Brennan: Liberal Champion

By Seth Stern and Stephen Wermiel

Hardcover, 688 pages

Houghton Mifflin Harcourt

List price: $35

Brennan's legacy is spelled out in more than 1,300 legal opinions — from Baker v. Carr, his opinion for the court establishing the "one person, one vote" principle in legislative apportionment, to his passionate dissents on the death penalty.

For reasons that even the book's authors cannot fathom, Brennan agreed in the mid-1980s to cooperate on a biography with Stephen Wermiel, then of The Wall Street Journal and now a law professor at American University. The justice asked for nothing in return, not even editorial control. Wermiel spent four concentrated years with Brennan while the justice was still on the bench. The biographer had unfettered access to Brennan's papers, and unparalleled access to the justice. Not only was Wermiel permitted to be something of a fly on the wall in the Brennan chambers, but the justice also sat for more than 60 hours of tape-recorded interviews.

More...

Related articles

• Author stresses Justice Brennan's continued relevance (cnn.com)
• Justice Brennan: Liberal Champion misses the secret of his vision. (slate.com)
• Sidebar: Brennan's Biographer Took His Time (nytimes.com)
• Getting to Five (nytimes.com)

Club Mistakes Black Harvard Crowd For "Local Gangbangers"

Club Mistakes Black Harvard Crowd For "Local Gangbangers"

A party for black Harvard and Yale alums at a Boston club this weekend was shut down just after 11pm. Why? The club owner was concerned that a long line of black people outside would make the club look bad.

A group of recent graduates had sold tickets in advance for a party at a new Boston club, Cure, to follow Saturday's Harvard-Yale game. By 10:30pm, though, club management freaked out and claimed it had seen "local gang bangers" around, despite the strict guest-list policy implemented by organizers. At first they demanded that guests show student ID — not exactly practical given the fact that it was a party aimed at alums — and then eventually shut down the entire club.

"We were perceived as a threat because of our skin color," wrote one organizer, Michael Beal, in the email below. "I am further dismayed that after having spent the last few hours with the club owner, I do not believe him to be a racist; which only adds to my consternation around what this event says about race relations in our country."

It echoed a firestorm three years ago, on the other side of the Charles River. In May 2007, called by other students, Harvard University Police asked students at a gathering of black Harvard student organizations on a campus green to show ID. That sparked an independent review and a police restructuring.

More...

Related articles

• Harvard and Yale undergrad, professional and graduate school alums look like gangbangers [DrugMonkey] (scienceblogs.com)
• Racism Will Find You, Even at the Harvard-Yale Game (abovethelaw.com)

Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty - Secretary Clinton Emphasizes Relationship Between Free Speech, Freedom of Religion

Image via WikipediaBaptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty - Secretary Clinton Emphasizes Relationship Between Free Speech, Freedom of Religion

In her remarks introducing the State Department's annual International Religious Freedom Report, Secretary Hilary Clinton emphasized two important things: that religious freedom means more than the freedom to worship, and that it goes hand in hand with the freedom of speech.

This report reflects a broad understanding of religious freedom, one that begins with private beliefs and communal religious expression, but doesn’t end there. Religious freedom also includes the right to raise one’s children in one’s faith, to share one’s faith peacefully with others, to publish religious materials without censorship, to change one’s religion – by choice, not coercion, and to practice no religion at all. And it includes the rights of faith communities to come together in social service and public engagement in the broader society.

...

Now, some people propose that to protect religious freedom, we must ban speech that is critical or offensive about religion. We do not agree. The Defamation of Religions Resolution adopted by the United Nations Human Rights Council again this year, and now pending before the General Assembly, reflects the other view. And the United States joins in all nations coming together to condemn hateful speech, but we do not support the banning of that speech. Indeed, freedom of speech and freedom of religion emanate from the same fundamental belief that communities and individuals are enriched and strengthened by a diversity of ideas, and attempts to stifle them or drive them underground, even when it is in the name and with the intention of protecting society, have the opposite effect. Societies in which freedom of religion and speech flourish are more resilient, more stable, more peaceful, and more productive.

The first point may be the administration's answer to critics who questioned the use of "freedom to worship" as a short-hand for religious liberty generally. The White House, those detractors argued, did not fully appreciate the breadth of religious freedom. That first paragraph above, however, shows a broad understanding of what it means to be a free person of faith.

Banned books, Jordan: In Jordan, a bookstore devoted to forbidden titles - latimes.com

Banned books, Jordan: In Jordan, a bookstore devoted to forbidden titles - latimes.com

Banned books — on sex, politics, religion — are a specialty at Sami Abu Hossein's shop in Amman. 'We have them,' he says with a grin, 'but don't tell anyone.'

By Borzou Daragahi, Los Angeles Times

November 15, 2010

Reporting from Amman, Jordan

At Sami Abu Hossein's cramped bookstore, the hundred or so book titles listed on a wall aren't bestsellers. They're banned.

And the cheery Abu Hossein can you get you any of them, sometimes in the few minutes it takes to sit down and drink a cup of thick-brewed Turkish coffee.

"There are three no-nos," the owner of Al Taliya Books explains with a big smile. "Sex, politics and religion. Unfortunately, that's all anyone ever wants to read about."

He laughs uproariously.

"These are all the banned ones," he says, gesturing to the list taped to the wall above the store entrance, books on sexuality to ones that critically examine the life and times of the prophet Muhammad, the most taboo topic in the Arab world.

"We have them," he says, grinning broadly, "but don't tell anyone."

The tubby father of five seems to get a tremendous kick out of bucking the rules. (Not that they're strictly enforced; he's never been arrested or even summoned by the authorities.)

His partner in thought crime is Hossein Yassin, a self-described Marxist in a worn beige linen suit. Abu Hossein summons his wiry 48-year-old comrade in for the really tough jobs.

Yassin jokes that he's the Special Forces for getting banned or hard-to-find books. He makes allusions to a murky past as an underground revolutionary. He says he calls upon a network that stretches across the Middle East to locate and transport hard-to-find titles.

"I can get any book," he boasts. "But don't ask how I get them."

The most widely requested banned book remains "The Satanic Verses," the 1988 novel that suggested some parts of the Koran weren't God's words and thereby earned its author, Salman Rushdie, a fatwa issued by Iran's Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and the hatred of pious Muslims worldwide.

Other top requests include "23 Years," by the Iranian scholar Ali Dashti, which questions miracles ascribed to Muhammad in the Koran; and "The Joke in the Arab World," by the Egyptian writer Khaled Qashtin, a sarcastic view of the Middle East, its rulers and customs.

Abu Hossein's shop, in the capital's rambling but lively downtown, also sells nonblacklisted books. His shelves are filled with titles from serious political studies about the Middle East to romance novels and pirated software manuals.

But his shop is known as the place in Amman to get forbidden fruits of knowledge.

Censoring books in the age of the Internet may seem like a quaint idea. Even the government official in charge of restricting them recently announced in a newspaper article that "stopping books from reaching the people is a page we've turned."

The censor, Abdullah Abu Roman, occasionally stops by the bookstore to hobnob with Abu Hossein. So do plainclothes security officials. Abu Hossein serves them his Turkish coffee. They very politely ask him for the copies of the forbidden books. He hands them over. It's all very civilized.

"Allah maakon," he bids them farewell. God be with you.

"They are very sensitive to politics and criticism of politicians," says Abu Hossein, who has been working at his family shop for decades. "But there are some books that are banned arbitrarily. Sometimes a censor will ban a book for a sentence he doesn't like."

More...

Related articles

• Indonesia writes off book-banning law - UPI.com (armwoodlaw.com)
• Banned Books Week: In Which We Enter The Land Of Forbidden Literature (thefrisky.com)

The Maddow Blog - McCain mints new reason for clinging to Don't Ask, Don't Tell

The Maddow Blog - McCain mints new reason for clinging to Don't Ask, Don't Tell

Legal challenge to US assassination policy divides rights groups | World news | The Guardian

Image via WikipediaLegal challenge to US assassination policy divides rights groups | World news | The Guardian

Civil liberties groups criticised for representing Anwar al-Awlaki, an Islamist cleric targeted by US for assassination

Mark Tran

Anwar al-Awlaki has openly urged followers to kill several people, among them Salman Rushdie. Photograph: AP

Human rights advocates have criticised two US civil liberties groups for mounting a legal challenge to the Obama administration's policy of targeted assassinations by representing the interests of Anwar al-Awlaki, the Yemen-based radical cleric.

Last week, the Centre for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) began a lawsuit in a federal court in Washington in connection with the US decision to authorise the killing of Awlaki, the only US citizen known to have been targeted for assassination.

The two groups have been retained by Awlaki's father, Nasser al-Awlaki. But a CCR board member has distanced herself from the group's decision to represent Awlaki's interests. Karima Bennoune, a law professor at Rutgers school of law, Newark, New Jersey, has gone public with her misgivings at the CCR's decision, reflecting a debate within human rights groups on how to deal with Islamist fundamentalists.

"I support the important work the centre has done on torture and extraordinary rendition," said Bennoune, "but I expressed grave concern at CCR offering to represent Awlaki's interests pro bono. Anwar al-Awlaki is not a detainee; he is still at liberty and able to gravely harm others by inciting and advocating murder."

Bennoune pointed out that Awlaki published an article in al-Qaida's English language magazine, Inspire, in July openly calling for assassinations of several people, including a young woman cartoonist in Seattle and Salman Rushdie. This was at around the time the CCR was offering to represent Awlaki's father, she said.

Bennoune, who is of Algerian descent, also expressed fears that the CCR and the ACLU were in danger of "sanitising" Awlaki to western audiences.

"Since the inception of the case," she said, "there has been increased mystification of who Anwar al-Awlaki is in liberal and human rights circles in the United States. This may in part have resulted from the fact that a highly reputable organisation like CCR was willing to represent his interests, and described him only as 'a Muslim cleric' or 'an American citizen', and repeatedly suggested that the government did not possess evidence against Awlaki."

The CCR has come under fire in the UK, too. Chetan Bhatt, director of the centre for the study of human rights at the LSE, who was approached by the CCR for advice on Awlaki, said: "I have considerable respect for CCR. But in this case they have made a serious error of ethical judgment. Does a highly respected organisation, founded in the midst of historic struggles for civil rights and racial justice, now wish to be perceived by some as al-Qaida's legal team? Can you fight extra-judicial assassinations by standing alongside someone who advocates extra-judicial assassinations?"

Five prominent Algerian non-governmental organisations, including associations of victims of terrorism and women's groups, have also sent a strongly worded letter to the CCR expressing their dismay that the group has decided to represent Awlaki's interests.

Vincent Warren, executive director of the CCR, argued that his group had actively opposed torture, indefinite detention and targeted killing for years by filing lawsuits against the US government, which few organisations had the capacity to do. "That's what we do," he said. "We file lawsuits. We had a dramatic effect on US policy and the treatment of detainees in Guantánamo."

As for the Awlaki case, Warren said the focus was on US policy and the US government "because we don't believe the US should be wreaking violence for political reasons. It should be up to a court, not just the US government, to decide whether Awlaki poses a threat. The US should not be conducting the killing of US citizens outside the legal process, far away from any battlefield."

The case echoes a dispute in the UK early this year when the head of Amnesty International's gender unit left the group because of its links with Islamist pressure groups. Gita Sahgal fell out with Amnesty after claiming that the charity's links with Moazzam Begg, a former inmate at Guantánamo bay, and his group, Cageprisoners, were undermining its campaign for women's rights.

More...

Related articles

• Court Hears Targeted Killing Challenge (abcnews.go.com)