Mayor Giuliani Opposes Ground Zero Mosque

Hizzoner's declaration of opposition, as transcribed by Politico's Maggie Haberman (ht JihadWatch):

"It sends a particularly bad message, particularly (because) of the background of the imam who is supporting this. This is an Imam who has supported radical causes, who has not been forthright in condemning Islamic (terrorism) and the worst instincts that that brings about.

"So it not only is exactly the wrong place, right at ground zero, but it's a mosque supported by an imam who has a record of support for causes that were sympathetic with terrorism. Come on! We're gonna allow that at ground zero?

"This is a desecration," he added. "Nobody would allow something like that at Pearl Harbor. Let's have some respect for who died there and why they died there. Let's not put this off on some kind of politically correct theory.

"I mean, they died there because of Islamic extremist terrorism. They are our enemy, we can say that, the world will not end when we say that. And the reality is, it will not and should not insult any decent Muslim because decent Muslims should be as opposed to Islamic extremism as you and I are."

Daniel Pipes: Britain World's Terrorist HQ

From DanielPipes.com:

In all, 28 countries have come under assault from British-based Islamist terrorists, giving some idea of their global menace. Other than India, the target countries divide into two distinct types, Western and majority-Muslim. An odd trio of the United States, Afghanistan, and Yemen have suffered the most British-linked terrorists.

Jacob Applebaum on Wikileaks' Rationale

From The Independent's (UK) story on his arrest by US Customs on arrival in NYC on his way to DefCon, this explanation of the need for Wikileaks:

At DefCon, Mr Appelbaum refused to confirm or comment on his detention but defended Wikileaks' commitment to exposing information that governments around the world want suppressed. "All governments are on a continuum of tyranny," he said. "In the US, a cop with a gun can commit the most heinous crime and be given the benefit of the doubt. In the US, we don't have censorship but we do have collaborating news organisations."

Wikileaks Co-Founder: Media Reporting Failures Create Wikileaks Demand

Australia's The Age newspaper interviewed Daniel Schmitt, co-CEO of Wikileaks, who said mainstream media has become a coverup industry, instead crusaders for truth:

And by week's end, wonder was that the medium was perhaps the message, that while the thrust of the documents was hardly revelational, the high-tech disgorging of secret material might prove an increasingly popular method for airing grievances, exposing lies and cover-ups, and - yes, maybe - for keeping governments honest.

''I'm sure that we are changing the game here,'' coos Daniel Schmitt, a 32-year-old former IT security specialist from Berlin who, along with Australian Julian Assange, is the public face of WikiLeaks. ''Just look at the sheer amount of good leaks we've had in the past three years. The whole idea of automating the leaking process is changing the way that society works.''

Call it the democratisation of leaking: individual media groups were more inclined to keep custody of the information they were scrutinising, argues Schmitt, [but] ''we publish the documents in full''.

''A source wants the maximum impact of their revelations. They want to change something. If they go to a newspaper, the newspaper will keep it secret and not share it with different papers to work further on the information. That is why sources mainly come to us. When we publish something, everyone can write a story about it.''

Sunday Times (UK): US OK'd BP-Libya Pan Am Bomber for Oil Deal

For some reason Rupert Murdoch doesn't want anyone to read the original article (The Sunday Times website is charging a pound a peep), so I've posted this link to the smoking gun quote as published on The Spectator (UK) website:

‘In the letter, sent on August 12 last year to Alex Salmond, the first minister, and justice officials, Richard LeBaron (deputy ambassador in London) wrote that the United States wanted Megrahi to remain imprisoned in view of the nature of the crime.

The note added: “Nevertheless, if Scottish authorities come to the conclusion that Megrahi must be released from Scottish custody, the US position is that conditional release on compassionate grounds would be a far preferable alternative to prisoner transfer, which we strongly oppose.” LeBaron added that freeing the bomber and making him live in Scotland “would mitigate a number of the strong concerns we have expressed with regard to Megrahi’s release”.

Of course, the US could have asked that Megrahi be extradited for trial in the US, since there is no statue of limitations on murder, and the original agreement with the UK specified that he would not be set free--which is why the US needed to kosher the handover, in the first place.

Like the Wikileaks controversy, it is important that the facts come out, so that the problem can be resolved. If not, continued "credibility gaps" will suck all the life out of the administration as well as America's international posture, IMHO. Let's see all the relevant memos, in full, on the internet, sooner rather than later, please. Otherwise, it's just drip...drip...drip...

Arthur Herman has more in the NY Post (which Rupert still permits us to read online, for now):

Tuesday, Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) announced that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was going to suspend its hearings on the sudden release last year of convicted Lockerbie bomber and Libyan citizen Abdel Baset al-Megrahi.

Menendez claims the reason he had to stop the investigation that he, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and other Democrats have been screaming for is that the British witnesses they wanted to question on the possible link between Megrahi's release and a big BP offshore-drilling deal with Libya refused to testify.

Congressional Dems stopped a probe that would have disclosed what Obama and AG Holder knew about the release of Libyan terrorist Abdel Baset al-Megrahi.

The real reason is that the probe might also have had to disclose what President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder knew and when they knew it. That's because the London Times on Sunday published a letter written by deputy US ambassador Richard LeBaron in the days before Megrahi was set free, telling Scotland's first minister that, while the Obama administration opposed the terrorist bomber's release, it was nonetheless "far preferable" that he be sprung on compassionate grounds than be moved to a Libyan prison.

At the very least, the letter undermines Obama's statement that he had been "surprised, disappointed and angry" by the release last August. It turns out that he knew all along and that his anger and disappointment didn't extend so far as to make a diplomatic big deal about it.

At the time, an outraged Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) said the release of the man convicted of murdering the 189 Americans on Pan Am 103 on grounds of "compassion" turned the meaning of the word on its head. It seems Obama was one of those doing the headstand.

Now that the Lockerbie hearings have been suspended, we may never get to the truth of what happened in those crucial days in mid-August or read the transcript that the White House is withholding of a conversation Holder had with his Scottish counterpart before the release.
That's unfortunate, because the truth would help us answer a more important question: How serious is this president about fighting and winning the War on Terror?

Meanwhile, Politico's Laura Rozen repeats US State Department boilerplate, including this link to the full text of LeBaron's 2009 letter as posted on the State Department website. After reading the text, including this paragraph:

We appreciate the manner in which the Scottish Government has handled this difficult situation. We recognize that the prisoner transfer decision is one that the Scottish Government did not invite, but now must take. We hope that the Scottish Government would consider every available alternative before considering the granting of Megrahi's prisoner transfer application;

IMHO, The Sunday Times interpretation is correct, and the State Department is misrepresenting the letter's implications.

If the US had objected strenuously, the UK (including Scottish) government would not have gone ahead with Megrahi's release.

Safe to say, from reading the document, that America's diplomats shed only "Crocodile Tears."

Wikileaks Reveals Iranian Ties to Al Qaeda

According to this article in the Wall Street Journal (ht JihadWatch):

U.S. officials and Middle East analysts said some of the most explosive information contained in the WikiLeaks documents detail Iran's alleged ties to the Taliban and al Qaeda, and the facilitating role Tehran may have played in providing arms from sources as varied as North Korea and Algeria.

The officials have for years received reports of Iran smuggling arms to the Taliban. The WikiLeaks documents, however, appear to give new evidence of direct contacts between Iranian officials and the Taliban's and al Qaeda's senior leadership. It also outlines Iran's alleged role in brokering arms deals between North Korea and Pakistan-based militants, particularly militant leader Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and al Qaeda.

Sherrod to Sue Breitbart

Sherrod v. Breitbart could be an interesting case, for it surely raises questions of defamation, libel, and the worth of one's personal reputation, as well as the responsibility of a blogger to correct mistakes on the record--provided they were mistakes. It would also be interesting from a freedom of the press point-of-view, insofar as Shirley Sherrod's status as a "public figure" who gave a public speech would probably become an issue.

SAN DIEGO — Ousted Agriculture Department employee Shirley Sherrod said Thursday she will sue a conservative blogger who posted a video edited in a way that made her appear racist.

Sherrod was forced to resign last week as director of rural development in Georgia after Andrew Breitbart posted the edited video online. In the full video, Sherrod, who is black, spoke to a local NAACP group about racial reconciliation and overcoming her initial reluctance to help a white farmer.

Speaking Thursday at the National Association of Black Journalists convention, Sherrod said she would definitely sue over the video that took her remarks out of context. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has since offered Sherrod a new job in the department. She has not decided whether to accept.

Sherrod said she had not received an apology from Breitbart and no longer wanted one. "He had to know that he was targeting me," she said.

Breitbart did not immediately respond to a call or e-mails seeking comment. He has said he posted the portion of the speech where she expresses reservations about helping the white farmer to prove that racism exists in the NAACP, which had just demanded that the tea party movement renounce any bigoted elements. Some members of the NAACP audience appeared to approve when Sherrod described her reluctance to help the farmer.

The farmer came forward after Sherrod resigned, saying she ended up helping save his farm.

Vilsack and President Barack Obama later called Sherrod to apologize for her hasty ouster. Obama said Thursday that Sherrod "deserves better than what happened last week."

I'm looking forward to the trial, and think it might become a bellwether libel and press freedom case...unless it is settled out of court and sealed by a non-disclosure agreement. The libel case represents a coming of age, of sorts, for bloggers. Plenty of mainstream news outlets get sued for damages. For example, Vicki Iseman, a former aide to Sen. John McCain, sued The New York Times for libel. She settled the case in 2009.

Storm Cuts Power to 250,000 Homes in Washington Capital Area

I published an open memo to President Obama (reprinted in my local neighborhood newspaper, The Northwest Current) in May 2009. It recommended using stimulus money to bury power lines. Had the administration taken my advice, a quarter-million homes in and around Washington, DC would not have been in the dark after last Sunday's storm:

Memo to President Obama: Use Federal Stimulus Funds to Bury Urban Power Lines

TO: The President
FROM: LJ
RE: Using Stimulus Funds to Bury Power Lines
DATE: May 18, 2009

The night before last, a big thunderstorm knocked down some trees that cut power to our urban block in the Nation's Capital. We were without power for some 10 hours before repair crews fixed the problem. The experience reminded me of complaints from participants in a seminar that I teach for families of international diplomats. Every year, some of the foreigners posted here express shock and dismay that their power goes out during storms in Washington, DC. Europeans and delegates from the former Soviet block simply cannot believe that the richest and most powerful country in the world allows its capital to suffer power cuts and blackouts "like a third-world country." I used to just shrug my shoulders and repeat the mantra that "burying power lines is very expensive..."

However, given the massive spending on the stimulus package and the need to create jobs in the USA, it would seem to me that there would be no better time than right now for the Obama administration to announce a federal program to bury power lines in urban areas. These are jobs that can't be moved to China or India, and the benefits will be felt as soon as residents of Washington, DC no longer need to stock up on candles and flashlights every time there is a bad weather forecast.

Furthermore, from a national security point of view it would seem to be a no-brainer that buried power lines are less subject to disruption from terrorism than those hanging on flimsy telephone poles. Needless to say, if climate change predictions are correct, increasingly severe weather would result in more power outages affecting above-ground transmission wires. Not to mention the disruption power cuts cause to the disabled dependent on electrically-powered medical equipment.

Burying power lines with stimulus funds would create jobs, improve national security, and enhance the quality of life in urban areas. At the same time, the latest FiOS and other high-tech connections could be installed, providing infrastructural improvements requisite for the industries of tomorrow where people are living today, perhaps lowering electricity rates in the bargain..Last but not least, it would no doubt help improve the image of America in the hearts and minds of diplomats posted here from around the world.

To those who say it can't be done, let us remind them of your campaign slogan: "Yes, we can!"

The Guardian's Wikileaks Website (Nice Graphics...)

French TV Interviews Wikileaks Founder Julian Assange

Wikileaks v FOIA

The Wikileaks story has made me think a bit about the Freedom of Information Act. This law, signed by Lyndon Baines Johnson on September 6, 1966 (officially Public Law 89-554, 80 Stat. 383; Amended 1996, 2002, 2007), was intended to make information about activities of the US government available to the American public--who as citizens and taxpayers are responsible for the federal government. The principle was simple. However, in practice, over time, more and more loopholes have been added to the law through legislation, regulation, executive and administrative decisions, and court rulings--to the point where, due to fees allowed for search, review, and duplication by government agencies, it has become almost prohibitive for individual citizens to request information. Instead, a series of preferences has emerged over time that has privileged various sectors of society--such as newspapers, television stations, universities, non-profit organizations and the like--which have been exempted from certain charges.

These privileges resulted, no doubt, from well-intended attempt to reduce the burden of answering requests from thousands of American citizens, to give "bang for the buck" to the law. The idea would be that such institutional players would be best situated to disseminate information to the American public.

However, since the law was written, advances in technology have shifted the nature of information dissemination. As the Wikileaks controversy reveals, news organizations such as the New York Times offered to collaborate with the US government to suppress information. That is, they served not only as disseminators, but also as filters, editors, indeed censors of information.

On the other hand, the Wikileaks website provided universal, immmediate, instantaneous and total dissemination. Thus, the mainline news organizations provided an inferior medium of dissemination to Wikileaks.

This only has to do with the question of dissemination. However, dissemination is a key problem that is considered under FOIA when granting categorical preferences and fee reductions.

Secondly, the "data dump" on Wikileaks permitted thousands of interested readers all over the world to comb through the data looking for keywords of interest to them--in the aggregate, small numbers add up to big numbers. Thus, in combination with distributed computer processing, the data mining possibilities of an internet post by a lone individual on Wikileaks are much greater than a release to an established newspaper or media company.

More interesting is that the Wikileaks release demonstrates that US Government information is already available in electronic form. Clearly, automated computer programs could scan data for keywords to classify and/or de-classify the information on a regular basis. Such routine declassification--which might include excision of specific information "too hot to handle" while allowing more general material to be distributed--could be automatically posted on government websites.

A daily release of routine information, much like a daily press conference, removes much of the drama and "gotcha!" from information. It would allow sober citizens to evaluate what is going on--perhaps with computer matrices of their own devising that might actually help win the war that the US has been losing since 9/11 (Islamist extremism has metastasized, spreading around the globe, "on a roll," due in large measure to America's failure to catch Bin Laden "dead or alive", the express war aim stated by President George W. Bush, and reiterated by President Obama).

Such sharing of information would probably help mobilize the American citizenry, creating pressure to win--rather than the current situation, where a "Top Secret America" (to quote the Washington Post) keeps ordinary citizens in the dark, yet demands trillions of tax dollars for projects of dubious efficacy, legality, or prudence. The resulting enrichment and corruption of Washington decision-makers actually serves the interests of America's enemies. America grows weaker and poorer, the stock market and housing market collapse, America's adversaries strike with impunity--and still no one is held to account, because the American public has been kept in the dark.

It has become a cliche to quote Justice Brandeis's observation that "sunshine is the best disinfectant." But it does not make it less true.

The first rule of war, to know one's enemy, cannot be practiced in the dark. The key problem, now as always, is for the American public to be able to "identify friend, or foe?" Americans don't know the answer to that question in Iraq, or Afghanistan. Indeed, due to a flawed strategy that shrank from properly identifying allies and enemies (despite public rhetoric of "with us, or against us"), Americans have been literally kept in the dark by political and military leaders.

The Wikileaks controversy could provide a welcome change, by reminding American leaders that the public's right to know is not an obstacle to victory--but a prerequisite for it. What is needed is honest debate about the struggle America faces, based on honest information.

Let's hope the Wikileaks story doesn't go away, but is the beginning of a flow of new information that will enable America to chart the right course in the years to come...based not on ideology, wishful thinking, "conflict resolution," "reconciliation," "power sharing," or blaming allies. The 90,000 documents have been a gift to the American people, that could serve as a catalyst for a realignment of political and economic forces in such a way as to clear the decks.

Let us hope that there is someone in America with the common sense, and leadership, to grasp this opportunity for what it represents...

Wikileaks Documents Embarrass Central Asia, Per Eurasianet

Joshua Kucera looked for Central Asian references in the Wikileaks file, and found a few:

Here, an outgoing US ambassador to Uzbekistan (apparently Jon Parnell) gives his thoughts in 2007:

*Uzbekistan is not that hard to figure out. Coming up with effective policy mechanisms to advance U.S. interests in Tashkent is a much more difficult question. On the eve of my departure after over three years in Tashkent, I offer some thoughts on where we are and what may lie ahead. Uzbekistan does not pose all that complex a picture. It is a post-Soviet police state run in the interest of a small coterie of families who monopolize political and economic life. Membership in the inner circle is no longer based on loyalty to a ruling ideology or party as it was in the Soviet era, but on loyalty to the president, Islam Karimov. He will be reelected for another term later this year (probably on December 23) regardless of what the constitution may say. His many public and private statements to the contrary, he is not interested in reform of any sort, but in tight bureaucratic control of the economic and political system.

Here, a US embassy cable complains about Tajikistan's president "ranting" about Uzbekistan in July 2007:

*"This new bridge is as important for us as oxygen," Tajik President Emomali Rahmon told Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez, who led the US presidential delegation to the opening of the new US-funded bridge linking Tajikistan and Afghanistan across the Pyanj River. Rahmon used the remainder of a ninety-minute US-Tajik bilateral meeting to elicit US assistance and investment for additional infrastructure projects, expound on Tajikistan's favorable foreign policy and business climate, and rant about Uzbekistan. A separate trilateral meeting with Afghan President Hamid Karzai was more scripted and concluded the business portion of the festive weekend (August 25-26).

A May 2007 cable from the US embassy in Tashkent reports on frustrations that the Germans have with Uzbekistan:

*According to the German Ambassador, the German-Uzbek counterterrorism relationship is "stagnant," with no real dialog taking place. In addition to providing little credible information, the Government of Uzbekistan allows little access to the Islamic community, thus impeding Germany's ability to reach an independent assessment about the real terrorist threat here. The Uzbeks profess to want more cooperation, but their approach to cooperation is that German equipment and money are welcome, but that German values on such things as respect for human rights are not. The German Ambassador expects that the Uzbeks will "scream" publicly if European Union sanctions are not lifted completely in May, but that the decision will have little negative impact on the German base at Termez because of the money that the Uzbeks receive as a result of the German presence.

In June 2007, the US embassy in Dushanbe analyzes Tajikistan's relationship with Iran:

*Tajikistan has characterized its ties with Iran as purely economic, but growing political, military and diplomatic relations indicate that more than investment and trade is bringing the two countries closer together. In the last eighteen months, Tajik President Rahmon and Iranian President Ahmadinejad have made trips to each other's capitals and signed a raft of agreements and declarations ranging from education, science and culture to inter parliamentary and defense cooperation. Iranian assistance has also trickled into impoverished rural areas, building schools and mosques in places where the government has provided little development. But although friendship with a country that supports religion-based insurrections in neighboring states is a dangerous game for Tajikistan, neither Rahmon nor Tajikistan can afford to say no to infrastructure development and investment. In the short run, both countries stand to gain from closer relations: Tajikistan needs the money, and Iran needs the friend.

A Kyrgyz politician is called "melodramatic" for warning of the possibility of civil war:

*A meeting between opposition MP Kubatbek Baibolov and SCA DAS Evan Feigenbaum April 19 revealed that Baibolov, at least, has little hope for a near-term solution to Kyrgyzstan's political instability. Baibolov said that the struggle for power and resources between rival clans remained the core explanation for the country's dilemmas, and was doubtful that constitutional reforms alone could resolve the current standoff. Ever melodramatic, he forecast that if a resolution was not found, civil war could ensue.

I imagine this could be resulting in some awkward conversations this week in Tashkent and Dushanbe...

Afghan Police Chief Was Iranian Spy, Per Wikileaks Documents

From Jihad Watch:

Here again we see that those in authority had no mechanism for and/or no interest in distinguishing "moderates" who merited being given powerful positions in post-Taliban Afghanistan from Islamic supremacists and jihadists. And even they had cared to make such a distinction and tried to do so, how could they have gone about it?

Wikileaks Founder Fears US Arrest as "Material Witness" in Manning Case

Julian Assange fears the US government, reports London's Daily Telegraph:

Mr Assange says despite this he still fears he is at risk of being forcefully detained by the US government as a material witness in the prosecution of US intelligence analyst Bradley Manning.

Mr Manning, 22, was arrested in Baghdad in May and charged earlier this month with multiple counts of mishandling and leaking classified data, after a computer hacker turned him in.
In the United States an authority has the right to detain and hold a material witness for an indefinite period to ensure they give their testimony in a criminal investigation.

The Wikileaks founder said: "Today the White House put out a private briefing to reporters about Wikileaks and me and it quoted a section from an interview with me in Der Spiegel saying that I enjoy crushing -------- [bastards].

"Somehow the White House finds that offensive.

"In terms of returning to the United States I don't know. Our sources advise from inside the US government that there were thoughts of whether I could be charged as a co-conspirator to espionage, which is serious.

"That doesn't seem to be the thinking within the United States any more however there is the other possibility of being detained as a material witness and being kept either in confinement or not being allowed to leave the country until the Manning case is concluded."

He also claimed that Bradley Manning is being held in a secluded facility in Kuwait which he says is like "a second Guantanamo Bay".

He also accused the US government of doing this to "hide" Mr Manning from effective civil representation.

Wikipedia on Wikileaks

An interesting account, here:

Staff and funding

According to a January 2010 interview, the Wikileaks team then consisted of five people working full-time and about 800 people who worked occasionally, none of whom were compensated.[31] Wikileaks has no official headquarters. The expenses per year are about €200,000, mainly for servers and bureaucracy, but would reach €600,000 if work currently done by volunteers were paid for.[31] Wikileaks does not pay for lawyers, as hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal support have been donated by media organisations such as the Associated Press, The Los Angeles Times, and the National Newspaper Publishers Association.[31] Its only revenue stream is donations, but Wikileaks is planning to add an auction model to sell early access to documents.[31] According to the Wau Holland Foundation, Wikileaks receives no money for personnel costs, only for hardware, travelling and bandwidth.[45] An article in TechEYE.net wrote

As a charity accountable under German law, donations for Wikileaks can be made to the foundation. Funds are held in escrow and are given to Wikileaks after the whistleblower website files an application containing a statement with proof of payment. The foundation does not pay any sort of salary nor give any renumeration [sic] to Wikileaks' personnel, corroborating the statement of the site's German representative Daniel Schmitt on national television that all personnel works voluntarily, even its speakers.[45]
[edit]Hosting

Wikileaks describes itself as “an uncensorable system for untraceable mass document leaking”. Wikileaks is hosted by PRQ, a Sweden-based company providing “highly secure, no-questions-asked hosting services.” PRQ is said to have “almost no information about its clientele and maintains few if any of its own logs.” PRQ is owned by Gottfrid Svartholm and Fredrik Neij who, through their involvement in The Pirate Bay, have significant experience in withstanding legal challenges from authorities. Being hosted by PRQ makes it difficult to take Wikileaks offline. Furthermore, "Wikileaks maintains its own servers at undisclosed locations, keeps no logs and uses military-grade encryption to protect sources and other confidential information." Such arrangements have been called "bulletproof hosting."[46] Wired reported in July 2010 that is currently not possible to make submissions to the Wikileaks website. Assange responded that the submissions engine is currently being re-engineered.[47] Since 16 July 2010 the submission page is reachable again.

The Wikipedia entry posts an interesting list of prominent scoops, as well as a link to the Wikipedia profile of Julian Assange, director of Wikileaks. Thanks to this link on WaPedia's entry for Assange, I found this post from Assange's 2007 blog, that I think explains his rationale for Wikileaks:

Sun 31 Dec 2006 : The non linear effects of leaks on unjust systems of governance

You may want to read The Road to Hanoi or Conspiracy as Governance ; an obscure motivational document, almost useless in light of its decontextualization and perhaps even then. But if you read this latter document while thinking about how different structures of power are differentially affected by leaks (the defection of the inner to the outer) its motivations may become clearer.

The more secretive or unjust an organization is, the more leaks induce fear and paranoia in its leadership and planning coterie. This must result in minimization of efficient internal communications mechanisms (an increase in cognitive "secrecy tax") and consequent system-wide cognitive decline resulting in decreased ability to hold onto power as the environment demands adaption.

Hence in a world where leaking is easy, secretive or unjust systems are nonlinearly hit relative to open, just systems. Since unjust systems, by their nature induce opponents, and in many places barely have the upper hand, mass leaking leaves them exquisitely vulnerable to those who seek to replace them with more open forms of governance.

Only revealed injustice can be answered; for man to do anything intelligent he has to know what's actually going on.

Kingston Daily Freeman on Wikileaks and the New Media Order

An interesting analysis of the import of the Wikileaks story from the Kingston (NY) Daily Freeman:

THE online release of an estimated 91,000 secret U.S. military documents on the Afghanistan war has shaken the old order.

In brief, a private group — WikiLeaks.org — obtained the records and scheduled the material for release on the Internet.

Yes, the White House, Britain and Pakistan were — and are — all up in arms at what is being called one of the largest unauthorized disclosures in military history.

But the organization also made the records available to three news organizations — The New York Times, the German magazine Der Spiegel, and the Guardian newspaper in London — about a month before the scheduled release. By doing so, WikiLeaks not only disseminated information to the displeasure of three sovereign governments, but also put three esteemed “old media” news organizations to work, effectively daring them not to publish stories on the documents.

NOT too long ago, editors at those publications would have been deciding whether and, if so, on what terms the public would receive leaked material.

In today’s world, all three organizations knew WikiLeaks was going to post the documents with or without their parallel participation.

In that way, the decision to write about the hither-to secret material was taken out of the hands of the old media editors by the distribution power of the Internet...

Or, as President Obama declared on ABC News’ Good Morning America: “...we now live in this media culture where something goes up on YouTube or a blog and everybody scrambles.”

Document of the Week: Wikileaks Afghan War Diary

I'm reading it now, and shall comment as I figure out what's going on here. But in the meantime, here's the link to the 90,000 pages of documents posted on the web by Wikileaks, so you can read the original material:

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Afghan_War_Diary,_2004-2010.

There's also a dedicated webpage, with a number of download options:

http://wardiary.wikileaks.org.

Some preliminary thoughts:

The following statement seems to indicates that the leak may be coming from somewhere nearer the top than the bottom of the chain-of-command:

We have delayed the release of some 15,000 reports from total archive as part of a harm minimization process demanded by our source. After further review, these reports will be released, with occasional redactions, and eventually, in full, as the security situation in Afghanistan permits.

The White House reaction, so far, seems to support a view that this "leak" may have been sanctioned from the top, as indicated by this July 26th White House press conference statement by Robert Gibbs:

MR. GIBBS: Look, again, I would point you to -- as I said a minute ago, I don’t know that what is being said or what is being reported isn’t something that hasn’t been discussed fairly publicly, again, by named U.S. officials and in many news stories. I mean, The New York Times had a story on this topic in March of 2009 written by the same authors.

Likewise, National Security Advisor General James Jones' statement:

These irresponsible leaks will not impact our ongoing commitment to deepen our partnerships with Afghanistan and Pakistan; to defeat our common enemies; and to support the aspirations of the Afghan and Pakistani people.

More evidence of a leak from the top can be found in today's statement from President Obama, as reported by The Guardian (UK):

Barack Obama today claimed the disclosures about the mishandling of the Afghanistan war contained in leaked US military documents justified his decision to embark on a new strategy.

If the release of 90,000 leaked messages doesn't damage US releations with Afghanistan and Pakistan, why were they classified in the first place?

I'll hazard one other comment at this point. Whatever the source, even if President Obama or Vice President Biden, a recourse to "leaks" is a symptom that the document classification system is not working properly.

At a certain point, the US government invites a climate of distrust--as it did in Vietnam--when it refuses to routinely declassify and release information that poses little danger to the war effort. In that sense, over-classification becomes a security risk, because it encourages leaks. These leaks, in turn, undermine the justification for secrecy in the first place--and lead to questions as to whether information had been properly classified by the US government.

Indeed, this article in the Christian Science Monitor discusses the problem of overclassification, in the light of the Wikileaks story.

A perceived "credibility gap" is the logical consequence of such an approach. In the end, it would tend to undermine both the war effort and the administration, despite any protests to the contrary...

Randall Terry Calls Senate Republican Leader "Spineless Chicken"

From the Louisville Courier-Journal:

In an interview yesterday, Terry called [Sen. Mitch] McConnell [R-KY] "a spineless chicken" for not leading a filibuster against Kagan.

He said he believes that Republicans can cobble together enough opposition to Kagan using her positions on abortion, gun rights and other issues to sustain a filibuster.

"Find your problem with Elena Kagan and make that your hill to die on," he said.

Frank Gaffney: Elena Kagan Has Not Come Clean About Her Shariah Past

From TownHall.com:

Which is where Elena Kagan's enabling of the penetration of Shariah into our capital markets through the Harvard Law School's Islamic Finance project comes in. The purpose of that project is, according to an excellent essay by Andy McCarthy entitled "Elena Kagan's ‘Don't Ask Don't Tell' Shariah Policy" published last week in National Review Online, "to promote Shariah compliance in the U.S. financial sector."

This is accomplished by via legal support to an industry known as "Shariah-Compliant Finance" (SCF)." It was invented in the mid-20th Century by Brotherhood operatives as a means of facilitating and underwriting the penetration of Shariah into Western societies by mainlining it into their capitalist bloodstreams.

McCarthy notes that: "Kagan and other apologists for Shariah-Compliant Finance would absolve themselves from the real-world consequences of their allegedly well-intentioned diversity fetish. But legitimizing any aspect of Shariah is the endorsement of all of it....There is no cut-and-dried separation of Shariah brutality from the tidy, white-collar world of financial transactions."

Against this backdrop another Kagan connection to Shariah looms large. As my colleague, Christine Brim, observed in a post at Andrew Breitbart's awesome new national security web portal, BigPeace.com: During her time as Harvard Law's dean, Kagan twice (once in absentia, the other time in person) awarded the school's "Medal of Freedom" to the controversial Chief Justice of Pakistan, Iftikhar Chaudry. Today, according to Brim, the thus-legitimated Chaudry is engaged in a "powergrab...to impose Shariah law across Pakistan's government."

As a new ad by the Center for Security Policy asks, "If Kagan tolerates promoting the injustice of Shariah law on the campus of Harvard, what kind of injustice will she tolerate in America during a lifetime on the Supreme Court?"

Althouse: Kagan Least Popular Supreme Court Nominee Since Bork & Miers

From Ann Althouse's blog:

 Instead, she and we got the supposedly charming Kagan, who, for some reason, is the least popular Supreme Court nominee...since Gallup started polling people, at the time of the Bork nomination. (Bork and Harriet Miers,unsuccessful nominees,  were less popular than Kagan.) 

IMHO, Kagan's a Bork of the Left; that is, an Ivy-League law professor, Solictor General, extremist on the abortion issue, political operative, lacking empathy or judicial temperament.

Full disclosure: I had an unhappy debate with Bork at the American Enterprise Institute years ago about Madonna v. Gypsy Rose Lee, when he was hawking his book "Slouching Towards Gomorrah." At the AEI event, Bork, who denounced Madonna vociferously for her lewd act, defended Gypsy Rose Lee, whom he admitted seeing perform in person, with these words: "Madonna is no Gypsy Rose Lee."

A gasp filled the room, then chuckles.

The event was reported in The New York Times by William Grimes.

Oddly enough, both Mr. Bork and Professor Berns, the strongest voices for censorship, indulged in fond reminiscence over the good old days when the strip shows they attended, on rare occasions, showed a respect for the decencies.

AEI certainly practiced what it preached when it comes to censorship: I was never invited back to speak on a public panel at AEI, after that. Later I attended a Bork debate versus C. Boyden Gray--and Gray wiped the floor with him.

Bottom Line: If the Republicans allow Kagan through, they don't deserve to win control of Congress in November...