Obama’s shame is getting bigger and bigger. Yesterday, 250 of America’s most eminent legal scholars have signed a letter protesting the inhumane treatment of Bradley Manning – the 23-year old soldier who was the original whistleblower to WikiLeaks. The signatories include Laurence Tribe of Harvard University, a foremost authority on US constitutional law, former professor of Obama, and backer of his 2008 campaign.
As featured extensively on the Internet (including this blog, see here, here, here and here) and lately also in the mainstream media, Manning is treated in ways that are cruel and inhumane, if not amounting to torture. He is permanently stripped of clothes during the night and public morning inspection; solitarily confined for 23 hours a day; permanently shackled during his one hour of outside-cell time; and under constant surveillance, even though he is not suicidal.
Manning’s treatment, clearly unlawful and unconstitutional, seems very much meant to intimidate future whistleblowers. All this is occurring under the watchful eye of Barack Obama. So no wonder the American legal establishment is (finally) starting to protest – including regarding the constitutionality of Manning’s treatment. Read the full letter here.
An excerpt:
Bradley Manning is the soldier charged with leaking US government documents to Wikileaks. He is currently detained under degrading and inhumane conditions that are illegal and immoral.
(…)
The sum of the treatment that has been widely reported is a violation of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment and the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee against punishment without trial. If continued, it may well amount to a violation of the criminal statute against torture, defined as, among other things, “the administration or application…of… procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality.”
Private Manning has been designated as an appropriate subject for both Maximum Security and Prevention of Injury (POI) detention. But he asserts that his administrative reports consistently describe him as a well-behaved prisoner who does not fit the requirements for Maximum Security detention.
(…)
The administration has provided no evidence that Manning’s treatment reflects a concern for his own safety or that of other inmates. Unless and until it does so, there is only one reasonable inference: this pattern of degrading treatment aims either to deter future whistleblowers, or to force Manning to implicate Wikileaks founder Julian Assange in a conspiracy, or both.
If Manning is guilty of a crime, let him be tried, convicted, and punished according to law. But his treatment must be consistent with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. There is no excuse for his degrading and inhumane pretrial punishment. As the State Department’s P.J. Crowley put it recently, they are “counterproductive and stupid.” And yet Crowley has now been forced to resign for speaking the plain truth.
The Wikileaks disclosures have touched every corner of the world. Now the whole world watches America and observes what it does, not what it says.
President Obama was once a professor of constitutional law, and entered the national stage as an eloquent moral leader. The question now, however, is whether his conduct as commander in chief meets fundamental standards of decency. He should not merely assert that Manning’s confinement is “appropriate and meet[s] our basic standards,” as he did recently. He should require the Pentagon publicly to document the grounds for its extraordinary actions—and immediately end those that cannot withstand the light of day.
Some signatories: Brucke Ackerman, Jack Balkin, Kwame Anthony Appiah, Alexander M. Capron, Norman Dorsen, Michael W. Doyle, Randall Kennedy, Mitchell Lasser, Sanford Levinson, David Luban, Frank I. Michelman, Robert B. Reich, Kermit Roosevelt, Kim Scheppele, Alec Stone Sweet, Laurence H. Tribe, and more than 250 others. Check the full list here.
Haha, geniaal. Dit zie ik nu pas op GeenStijl. Zat ik mij gisteren een partijtje ouderwetsch druk te maken over de reactie van minister Rosenthal op vragen van GroenLinks over een mogelijk uitleveringsverzoek van de Verenigde Staten aan Nederland betreffende Rop Gonggrijp (antwoord: zo’n verzoek wijzen wij niet op voorhand af); reageert Rop ‘ The Dude’ Gonggrijp zelf vandaag uiterst relaxed.
I think there is not much else he could have said. Was anyone really expecting him to say: “We have an extradition treaty with the US, and we have laws in place that deal with extradition requests. But if there is ever an extradition request for Gonggrijp we’ll ignore all that and we’ll tell you now that we’ll never extradite him, no matter what?
(…)
There are no new events other than the justice minister in The Netherlands providing rather obvious answers to questions from MPs. I really don’t think the minister giving perfectly predictable answers should be news. There is, as of yet, no indictment. Let alone an extradition request. (…) My lawyers and me have absolutely no idea what crime they could even charge me with. (…) So there may very well never be an extradition request, just a very long period of nothing much happening.
Nou, ja, ok. Dat is natuurlijk ook zo. Desalniettemin hoop ik dat er geen uitleveringsverzoek komt, dat als het er komt Gonggrijp niet uitgeleverd wordt, en dat als hij toch uitgeleverd wordt, hij niet geisoleerd opgesloten en onmenselijk behandeld wordt, zoals Bradley Manning.
Die Rop, die chillt hem gewoon hard. Maakt zich hier absoluut niet druk om, laat staan boos. Nog niks aan het handje, mensen. Gewoon doorlopen. Laten we al die energie bewaren voor het moment dat de Amerikanen het alsnog in hun hoofd halen om Rop te criminaliseren. Wat Rop dus niet ziet gebeuren. Okee, dank, Rop. Orde van de dag, we komen er aan.
Terwijl in de Verenigde Staten soldaat Bradley Manning (23), de klokkenluider die WikiLeaks informatie verschafte over onder meer oorlogsmisdaden in Irak en Afghanistan, systematisch geïsoleerd en onmenselijk behandeld wordt, overweegt het kabinet-Rutte de uitlevering van internetactivist Rop Gonggrijp aan de V.S.
Gonggrijp, oprichter van Nederlands eerste internetprovider XS4ALL, is al jaren bezorgd over enerzijds de toenemende greep van overheden wereldwijd op informatie over hun burgers, en anderzijds de geheimhouding van onwelgevallige informatie. Hoewel hij niet structureel betrokken is geweest bij WikiLeaks, dat zijn zorgen deelt, heeft hij wel meegewerkt aan de totstandkoming en publicatie van de “Collateral Murder”-video – waarop te zien is hoe de bemanning van een Amerikaanse Apache-helikopter in Irak als in een computerspel onschuldige burgers en journalisten vermoordt. Een nobele daad van Gonggrijp, zou je zeggen, gezien de aard van de handelingen en de overmatige reactie van de Amerikaanse overheid op het vrijkomen van deze informatie.
Daar denkt minister Rosenthal (VVD) dus blijkbaar anders over – evenals de Telegraaf, die Gonggrijp een “linkse terreuractivist” en “Assanges adjudant” noemde. Wat Rosenthal betreft is uitlevering van Gonggrijp aan de V.S. – hoewel het Europees Parlement vragen heeft gesteld over de waarschijnlijk illegale methodes van datavergaring die de Amerikaanse overheid op onder meer Gonggrijp heeft toegepast – niet uitgesloten. Dat medewerkers van WikiLeaks door de regering-Obama stelselmatig geïntimideerd en onder druk gezet worden doet er blijkbaar niet toe. Sterker nog, Rosenthal zegt – hoewel de woordvoerder van het Amerikaanse ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken vorige maand nog ontslagen werd omdat hij de behandeling van Manning ‘belachelijk en contraproductief’ had genoemd – hier niet eens van op de hoogte te zijn.
GroenLinks-Kamerlid Arjen El Fassed noemt de antwoorden van Rosenthal ‘genânt’. Dat is nog een understatement, wat mij betreft.
Minister Uri Rosenthal sluit niet uit dat Nederland XS4ALL-oprichter en stemcomputercriticus Rop Gonggrijp gaat uitleveren aan de VS. De procedure is volgens hem met voldoende waarborgen omkleed.
Dat blijkt uit antwoorden van de Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken op vragen van het GroenLinks-kamerlid Arjan El Fassed. Sinds begin dit jaar is duidelijk dat de Amerikaanse autoriteiten onderzoek doen naar Gonggrijp. Daar wordt gekeken naar de vermeende rol van Gonggrijp bij Wikileaks.
(…)
Gonggrijp komt voor in het onderzoek naar Bradley Manning, die ervan wordt verdacht documenten te hebben gelekt. Gonggrijp zou hebben meegeholpen aan het samenstellen van de film Collateral Murder, waarin te zien is hoe vanuit een Amerikaanse gevechtshelikopter journalisten onder vuur worden genomen. Volgens Rosenthal is die video de aanleiding: “De naam van de heer Gonggrijp wordt hierbij genoemd omdat hij Wikileaks, naar eigen zeggen, heeft geholpen een video over Irak te publiceren en er een strafrechtelijk onderzoek loopt naar degene die de beelden aan Wikileaks heeft verstrekt.”
Op dit moment ligt er volgens de bewindvoerder geen aanklacht tegen Gonggrijp, maar als dat zo is dan sluit hij uitlevering niet uit. “Uit dat verzoek dient onder andere te blijken naar welke strafbare feiten onderzoek wordt gedaan, zodat de Amerikaanse strafrechtelijke belangen kunnen worden afgewogen tegen de belangen van betrokkene”, stelt Rosenthal. “Dat proces is met voldoende waarborgen omkleed. Ik sluit daarom niet nu uit dat Nederland medewerking zal verlenen.”
(…)
De uitspraak is belangrijk. Als er daadwerkelijk een aanklacht komt dan wordt niet op inhoud van de zaak getoetst, maar alleen op procedurele zaken gelet. Zo mag er nooit de doodstraf worden opgelegd. Dat er veel ophef is over de behandeling van Bradley Manning in de gevangenis, is Rosenthal niet bekend. “Met het detentieregime van de heer Manning ben ik niet bekend. Het betreft een Amerikaanse strafzaak tegen een verdachte met de Amerikaanse nationaliteit.” Vorige maand stapte de voorlichter van de Amerikaanse minister van Buitenlandse Zaken nog op, omdat hij de behandeling van Manning kwalificeerde als ‘belachelijk’ en ‘stom’.
Dat er valt te twijfelen op de manier waarop de VS met gevangenen omgaan weet de bewindvoerder wel. Nederland heeft in november 2010 vragen tijdens een soort examen voor de mensenrechten, de Universal Periodic Review, vragen over de VS gesteld. Zo zijn onder andere vragen gesteld over regeling rond seksueel geweld tegen homo’s en of eerdere aanbevelingen rond het vastbinden van vrouwen tijdens de bevalling. “Tot slot is gevraagd wat de Amerikaanse regering doet om de lichamelijke en geestelijke situatie van gevangenen in penitentiaire instellingen te verbeteren.”
Eerder werd al duidelijk dat Nederland niet in actie voor Gonggrijp willen komen, zoals de IJslanders dat wel voor hun parlementslid Birgitta Jónsdóttir doen.
Gonggrijp heeft altijd ontkend onderdeel van Wikileaks te zijn, maar is open over zijn bijdrage aan de Colleteral Murder video. Die bestond vooral uit het doen ondersteunende zaken bij het samenstellen van de video.
(…)
In een reactie zegt El Fassed de antwoorden ‘genânt’ te vinden. “Ze doen niet eens meer een poging om te verhullen dat ze hier geen aandacht aan willen geven”, vertelt hij Webwereld. “Wij zullen de minister van Buitenlandse Zaken bij het aankomend debat over mensenrechten hierover opheldering vragen.”
Before WikiLeaks, Julian Assange was a lowlife bum who exploited the hospitality of “friends of friends”. This reenactment is based on an “absolutely true story”:
This is interesting, and somewhat reassuring, if it’s true. I continue to be amazed, by the way, at how structured, rational, and heroic the people and authorities of Japan are reacting to this crisis. Read this story, for instance, on the last 50 nuclear plant workers who are struggling to avert disaster at Fukushima. And anticipated on it. As high as it is, the death toll could be way, way higher, as could the scope of the destruction. Not to say it’s not disastrous as it is – for instance the plight for thousands without food, medicine and heat sources is starting just now – but it could, in the immediate, have been a lot worse.
- Edit: This, by the way, doesn’t speak in favour of the Japanese government’s anticipatory abilities. According to a WikiLeaks cable (yes, that’s right), they were warned two years ago about the inability of their older nuclear power plants to withstand large earthquakes.
A concern for the people not just of Japan but the Pan Pacific area is whether Fukushima will turn into the next Chernobyl with radiation spread over a big area. The answer is that this scenario is highly unlikely, because of the wildly different design of the two reactors.
The reason why radiation was disseminated so widely from Chernobyl with such devastating effects was a carbon fire. Some 1,200 tonnes of carbon were in the reactor at Chernobyl and this caused the fire which projected radioactive material up into the upper atmosphere causing it to be carried across most of Europe. There is no carbon in the reactors at Fukushima, and this means that even if a large amount of radioactive material were to leak from the plant, it would only affect the local area.
The Japanese authorities acted swiftly and decisively in evacuating people living within 20km of the plant, and ensuring people living within 30km of the plant remained in their homes, with windows and doors closed. The radiation measured so far at Fukushima is 100,000 times less than that at Chernobyl.
Even across mainstream media, President Obama is increasingly being criticized for the way in which the Pentagon has decided to treat Bradley Manning (23), the WikiLeaks whistleblower. As documented earlier on this blog (and earlier before that), Manning is under a detention regime of enforced nudity, 23-hour isolation, and constant surveillance. As he is, according to his laywer, family and friends, not suicidal, this is clearly meant to intimidate him and possible future whistleblowers.
Just three days ago, the spokesman of the State Department Philip J. Crowley publicly criticized the treatment of Manning, calling it “ridiculous and counterproductive and stupid”.
And how does Barack Obama react to that? By firing the guy. That’s how this president deals with criticism regarding the torturous treatment of an American citizen and soldier at the hands of the US army on American soil, after an act of whistleblowing.
As Andrew Sullivan (a longtime Obama cheerleader) has written, Obama now officially “owns” the case of the treatment of Bradley Manning. But not only Sullivan is starting to get his doubts about this president; across the media spectrum, commentators formerly supportive of Obama are voicing their concerns about his decisions. Glenn Greenwald has a nice round-up:
Denunciations of the President from his own supporters are as intensive and pervasive here as they have been for other prior incident, if not more so. Matt Yglesias wrote that “to hold a person without trial in solitary confinement under degrading conditions is a perversion of justice” and that it’s a ”sad statement about America that P.J. Crowley is the one being forced to resign over Bradley Manning.” Andrew Sullivan — writing under the headline ”Obama Owns the Treatment of Manning Now” — said that Crowley was forced out “for the offense of protesting against the sadistic military treatment of Bradley Manning,” that “the president has now put his personal weight behind prisoner abuse,” and that “Obama is directly responsible for the inhumane treatment of an American citizen.” Meanwhile, Ezra Klein previews his denunciation of the President’s treatment of Manning and Crowley by announcing that it’s his first ever lede “that isn’t about economic or domestic policy” but rather is ”about right and wrong,” and then questions “whether the Obama administration is keeping sight of its values now that it holds power.” Those strong words are all from supporters of the President.
Elsewhere, The Philadelphia Daily News‘ progressive columnist Will Bunch accuses Obama of “lying” during the campaign by firing Crowley and endorsing “the bizarre and immoral treatment of alleged Wikileaks leaker.” In The Guardian, Obama voter Daniel Ellsberg condemns “this shameful abuse of Bradley Manning,” arguing that it “amounts to torture” and “makes me feel ashamed for the [Marine] Corps,” in which Ellsberg served three years, including nine months at Quantico. Baltimore Sun columnist Ron Smith asks: ”Why is the U.S. torturing Private Manning?,” while UCLA Professor Mark Kleiman — who only last year hailed Obama as “the greatest moral leader of our lifetime” and eagerly suggested on Friday (before Obama’s Press Conference) that Crowley was speaking for Obama — mocked Obama’s defense of the Manning treatment as “clueless on the Bush level” and now says of Crowley’s firing: ”The Torturers Win One,” lamenting Obama’s overt support for a policy that is ”unconscionable and un-American and borderline criminal.”
Not all is bad for Obama though. On the Republican right, his policies are increasingly finding approval…
HotAir‘s Ed Morrissey, as but one example, lavishly praises the President’s decisions: ”The White House acted appropriately in kicking Crowley out at State, and should be commended for taking quick action,” and then defends the conditions of Manning’s detention as appropriate and necessary. It really is quite striking — and quite revealing — how, at least in the areas about which I wrote most (civil liberties, secrecy, surveillance, privacy, war, due process, detention, etc. etc.), and for many of the specific controversies on which I’ve focused (WikiLeaks, Manning, indefinite detention, Afghanistan, drone attacks, the due-process-free assassination program, legal immunity for Bush officials, state secrets, etc.), the greatest support for the President’s policies (with a few early exceptions) are found, by far, among the same faction of America’s Right who so eagerly supported the Bush/Cheney policy framework.
Pretty interesting twist to the Julian Assange extradition drama. Apparently the police investigator who questioned Assange regarding rape allegations is a political associate and friend of one of the accusers! And she’s known for having made ‘anti-Assange’ comments online. You don’t make this shit up. They know each other through the Swedish Social Democratic party, and as recently as February 10 commented on each other’s Facebook pages. Also their blogs link to each other’s.
Now I’m not saying that rape allegations shouldn’t be taken seriously (of course they should), but this is pretty poignant, isn’t it?
The police investigator who first interviewed two Swedish women about allegations of rape and sexual assault against Julian Assange is a friend and political associate of one of the women, a Swedish newspaper has claimed.
The female officer and the woman referred to in court as Miss A became friends through Sweden‘s Social Democratic party, in which both are involved, according to Expressen.
The pair had corresponded on the internet 16 months before the allegations were made against Assange.
As recently as 10 February Miss A commented on a Facebook update on the police officer’s page, the paper said. and Miss A links from her personal page to the officer’s private blog.
The paper said the officer had made anti-Assange comments on the internet.
The WikiLeaks founder is appealing against a British magistrate’s decision last month to extradite him to Sweden to answer the accusations, which include an allegation of rape against another woman, Miss B. Miss A alleges Assange had sex with her without a condom, against her wishes. He has not been charged with any offence.
His legal team has argued that the Swedish judicial process is unfair and a number of those involved in the prosecution are politically motivated.
According to Expressen, Miss A and the police interrogator had internet contact in April 2009, when Miss A wrote a blog about white men “who take the right to decide what is not abusive”. The officer commented that the author “puts her finger on the bottom line and speaks out”, to which Miss A replied: “Hello! Thanks for the compliment. And like you say, white men must always defend the right to use abusive words. Then they of course deny that these very words are part of a system that keeps their group at the top of the social ladder.”
The paper said that when another newspaper, Aftonbladet, hosted a recent webchat with Assange, the officer commented “What the heck is this! Judgement zero!”
The previous day she had commented on the same page: “Way to go Claes Borgstrom!”
Borgstrom is the lawyer representing the women and a former SDP politician, who Assange’s team has argued is acting from political motives.
The paper says the officer had just started her shift at Klara police station in central Stockholm on 20 August last year when Miss A and Miss B arrived to make a complaint against Assange. It says she did not declare a conflict of interest.
The NYT reports that Bradley Manning (23) - the American soldier who originally passed the Iraq helicopter video, the Iraq and Afghan war logs and the US diplomatic cables to WikiLeaks – is being treated in an increasingly inhumane way in the cell in which he is locked up in Quantico, Virginia. He is now permanently stripped of this clothes during the night and the morning inspection, where he stands along the other detainees. This comes in addition to his 23-hour solitary confinement; his one hour of outside-cell time, during which he is shackled and must walk around all time; his deprivation of exercise; and the constant surveillance he is under. Bradley Manning, even though he is not suicidal and has acted like a model detainee (although he’s increasingly showing signs of psychological duress) has been forced to endure this treatment for the past ten months.
Four days ago, charges of ‘aiding the enemy’ have been filed against him, which could theoretically lead to the death penalty.
Let’s be clear about this: Bradley Manning’s treatment amounts to torture. Forced nudity is a breach of the standards of the Geneva Conventions, and prolonged solitary confinement is torture anyhow. And this is being done under one President Barack Obama. Manning is the person thanks to whom we know that American soldiers in Iraq shot innocent civilians from an Apache helicopter; thanks to whom we know how high the death toll of the Iraq War really was; and thanks to whom we know all those revelations from the WikiLeaks cables, that are still coming out. They even played a role in the Tunisian uprising, leading to the historic events of the past few weeks. In other words, this person is a hero if there ever was one. And yet, even though he has not been convicted of any crime, he is being handled in a manner reserved for the worst criminals in Supermax prisons (or terror suspects in Guantánamo Bay).
Here’s an excerpt from the chat logs between Adrian Lamo (the guy who turned him in) and Manning, revealing the latter’s motivations for revealing information being held secret to the public:
Manning: [B]ecause it’s public data. . . . it belongs in the public domain -information should be free – it belongs in the public domain – because another state would just take advantage of the information… try and get some edge – if its out in the open . . . it should be a public good.
(…)
Lamo: what’s your endgame plan, then?. . .
Manning: well, it was forwarded to [WikiLeaks] – and god knows what happens now – hopefully worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms – if not, than [sic] we’re doomed – as a species – i will officially give up on the society we have if nothing happens – the reaction to the [Baghdad Apache attack] video gave me immense hope; CNN’s iReport was overwhelmed; Twitter exploded – people who saw, knew there was something wrong . . . Washington Post sat on the video… David Finkel acquired a copy while embedded out here. . . . – i want people to see the truth . . . regardless of who they are . . . because without information, you cannot make informed decisions as a public.
So this is how the American government treats whistleblowers. And it is all happening under the watchful eye of President Obama, who as a candidate in 2007 said the following things:
They will be ready to show the world that we are not a country that ships prisoners in the dead of night to be tortured in far off countries. That we are not a country that runs prisons which lock people away without ever telling them why they are there or what they are charged with. That we are not a country which preaches compassion and justice to others while we allow bodies to float down the streets of a major American city.
That is not who we are.
Yes we can, President Obama. Change we can believe in.
OK. So what now? First, Assange may win the trial in Sweden. That’s perfectly possibly. Second, I honestly doubt he’d be extradited to the US from a EU country. That’s because on the one hand, there have been no charges filed against Assange in the US yet (as it’s not even sure he committed any ‘crime’ that’s currently in the books), and on the other hand, if there will be, there are of course serious concerns about his life and health.
The United States today ranks among the developmental countries in the world when it comes to treatment of prisoners (especially political prisoners, like Assange would be); in that respect, the US is on par with Libya and China. Just consider the treatment of detainees on Guantánamo Bay, and that of the WikiLeaks whistleblower Bradley Manning. These people are being deprived of basic human rights, being solitarily confined for months or years on end (which amounts to torture). They come out of it scarred for life. So, if European norms and values with respect to the rule of law mean anything at all, there will be no extradition to a country like the United States.
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is to be extradited to Sweden to face allegations of rape and sexual assault. Assange will appeal, his legal team confirmed. If this is unsuccessful, he will be extradited to Sweden in 10 days.
(…)
Assange has been fighting extradition since he was arrested and bailed in December. He has consistently denied the allegations, made by two women in August last year.
At a two-day hearing earlier this month, his legal team argued that Assange would not receive a fair trial in Sweden. They said the European arrest warrant (EAW) issued by Sweden was invalid because the Australian had not been charged with any offence and that the alleged assaults would not be legitimate extraditable offences.
Assange fears that an extradition to Sweden would make it easier for Washington to extradite him to the US on possible charges relating to the release by WikiLeaks of leaked US embassy cables.
If this was to happen, Sweden would have to ask permission from the UK for the onward extradition. No such charges have been laid, though the website’s activities are under investigation in the US.
Dat bericht de NRC, op basis van weer een nieuwe WikiLeak (pdf). Dit na het bericht dat ook een tweede ambtenaar, deze maal van Jan Peter Balkenende’s Algemene Zaken, de Amerikanen aanspoorde om persoonlijke druk uit te oefenen op Wouter Bos inzake Afghanistan.
Wat een shit komt er toch naar boven… En opnieuw zal de betrokken minister het afdoen met ‘Daar kunnen wij niet op ingaan, dat is voor rekening van de Amerikanen’. Dat zal, hoop je, op een gegeven moment toch niet meer volstaan. Welke belangen dienen onze ambtenaren eigenlijk?
Een Nederlandse topambtenaar heeft namens Shell tegenover de Amerikaanse ambassade het woord gevoerd over sancties tegen Iran. Deze werknemer van het ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken was van 2006 tot 2008 uitgeleend aan olieconcern Shell om daar op de afdeling overheidsrelaties te werken. Toen de ambtenaar na deze detachering weer op het ministerie werkte, bleef hij op de Amerikaanse ambassade de standpunten van Shell uitdragen.
„Koninklijke/Shell heeft grote invloed op het Nederlandse buitenlandbeleid” staat in de codeberichten van de Amerikaanse ambassade in Den Haag die in bezit zijn van NRC Handelsblad en RTL Nieuws. De naam van de ambtenaar krijgt in deze diplomatenpost de aanduiding „protect”, wat aangeeft dat de identiteit van deze bron extra beschermd moet worden.
De regels zijn dat „de ambtenaar tijdens zijn detachering absoluut niet het woord mag voeren namens Shell”, liet een Shell-woordvoerder vanochtend weten. Ook daarna „heeft hij geen bemoeienis” meer met het bedrijf, aldus de woordvoerder. „Eenmaal terug op het ministerie is hij uit beeld.”
Uit de diplomatenpost ontstaat echter het beeld dat het olieconcern en de overheid samen optrokken. In de minstens drie gesprekken die de topambtenaar tijdens en na zijn detachering met VS-diplomaten voerde deed hij uitspraken over Shells investeringsbeleid, over mogelijke reputatieschade en over het besluit de activiteiten in Iran niet op korte termijn uit te breiden wegens de gevoelige politieke situatie. Wel wil het bedrijf „een vinger in de pap houden” voor de lange termijn. Tegelijkertijd lichtte de ambtenaar de ministeriële uitgangspunten over nieuwe Amerikaanse sancties toe.
Het ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken zegt in een reactie dat „er geen sprake is van belangenverstrengeling omdat de medewerker [tijdens zijn detachering] werkzaam is voor Shell, door Shell wordt betaald en niet door Buitenlandse Zaken wordt aangestuurd.” Shell betaalde aan het ministerie het salaris van de hoge ambtenaar tijdens zijn detachering.
Shell is het winstgevendste bedrijf van het land en een van ’s werelds grootste multinationals. Shell „heeft evenredig veel greep” op de overheid, stelt de ambassade in 2009. Het detacheringsproject wordt hiervoor als bewijs aangedragen. De laatste jaren heeft de ambassade bijna honderd ‘cables’ verstuurd over Shell. Daarin wordt ook een conflict met Rusland uitgediept. Toenmalig bestuursvoorzitter Jeroen van der Veer zou de Russische zakenpartners van „maffia-achtige praktijken” hebben beticht.
Well well, it seems that all the talk about WikiLeaks causing damage to American diplomacy and interests – leading right-wing commentators to label Julian Assange a ‘terrorist’ and call for his assassination - has been severely overblown.
I still think that a whisteblowers’ organization like WikiLeaks should take care to redact documents so that individuals like Afghan informants will not be harmed; and that releasing documents about either diplomatic gossip or vulnerable infrastructure is either unnecessary or irresponsible; but otherwise, it’s transparency 1, secrecy 0.
The damage caused by the WikiLeaks controversy has caused little real and lasting damage to American diplomacy, senior state department officials have concluded.
It emerged in private briefings to Congress by top diplomats that the fallout from the release of thousands of private diplomatic cables from all over the globe has not been especially bad.
This is in direct opposition to the official stance of the White House and the US government which has been vocal in condemning the whistle-blowing organisation and seeking to bring its founder, Julian Assange, to trial in the US.
A congressional official briefed on the reviews told Reuters news agency that the administration felt compelled to say publicly that the revelations had seriously damaged American interests in order to bolster legal efforts to shut down the WikiLeaks website and bring charges against the leakers. “I think they want to present the toughest front they can muster,” the official said.
The official implied that the WikiLeaks fiasco was bad public relations but had little concrete impact on policy.
“We were told [it] was embarrassing, not damaging,” the official added.
It appears that damage was localised in terms of a few specific cables, for example about Yemen, and thus expected to be containable in the long-run.
(…)
So far WikiLeaks has released just a fraction of a cache of diplomatic messages which came into its possession. It has done so with the co-operation of several global news organisations like the Guardian, the New York Times and Der Spiegel.
Thank God for WikiLeaks. De door NRC en RTL gekaapte cables bevatten weliswaar geen wereldschokkende informatie, maar zoals inmiddels gebruikelijk wel genoeg om een aardige blik achter de schermen van het politiek bedrijf te krijgen.
Wat mij betreft mag wat nu naar buiten komt over de handelwijze van actoren in vorige regeringen meewegen in de besluitvorming over een nieuwe missie naar Afghanistan. Zoals bijvoorbeeld het dankzij WikiLeaks nu bekende gegeven dat de veiligheidssituatie in Uruzgan in 2006 veel ernstiger was dan het Nederlandse publiek is voorgehouden. En de Amerikaanse bewering – vandaag door minister Rosenthal weliswaar ontkend, dus het is hun woord tegen het zijne – dat een topambtenaar van Buitenlandse Zaken een buitenlandse regering heeft gevraagd om druk uit te oefenen op een minister in het kabinet waar hij onder dient. Ook al vertolkt de partij van die minister, de PvdA, al jarenlang de mening van het overgrote deel van de Nederlandse bevolking in de kwestie terzake.
Ik zou weleens willen weten: hoe is de situatie in de nieuwe locatie, Kunduz, nú echt? Welke shady back deals vinden er op dit moment plaats rondom de huidige besluitvorming over een nieuwe Afghanistan-missie? Het is dankzij WikiLeaks dat we de gerechtvaardigde impressie krijgen dat er bij zaken als deze, vanuit een optiek van “nationaal belang”, door zekere actoren altijd gemarchandeerd wordt met enerzijds de mening van het publiek, en anderzijds die van een groot deel van hun politieke representanten, zelfs als die in de regering zitten. Ik hoop dat D66, GroenLinks en de ChristenUnie dat meenemen in hun overweging.
Wie de Groene Amsterdammervan deze week leest, kan – als hun reportages kloppen – bijna niet anders dan tot de conclusie komen dat Nederland ook nu weer naar een desolaat oorlogsgebied gestuurd wordt, waar nauwelijks aan enige zinnige hulp of opbouw gedaan kan worden. Als er echt iets gedaan kan worden ben ik voor, maar als het weer alleen om onze trans-Atlantische standing gaat – net als, blijkbaar, jaren geleden – dan zeg ik: laat maar.
2,000 super-rich from all over the world are sh*tting their pants right now. Julian Assange has personally obtained cd-roms with banking information from the high-profile Swiss bank Julius Baer. Former head of the Cayman Islands office of that bank, Rudolf Elmer (picture above), gave the disks to Julian Assange at a press conference today. The data will allegedly reveal tax evasion on a grand scale by the individuals. There are supposedly 40 politicians and “pillars of society” on the list. This is a nice opportunity for Assange to improve his tarnished reputation. According to the New York Times:
[Elmer] told The Observer newspaper over the weekend that those named in the documents come from “the U.S., Britain, Germany, Austria and Asia — from all over,” and include “business people, politicians, people who have made their living in the arts and multinational conglomerates — from both sides of the Atlantic.”
Mr. Assange said that WikiLeaks would verify and release the information, including the names, in as little as two weeks. He suggested possible partnerships with financial news organizations and said he would consider turning the information over to Britain’s Serious Fraud Office, a government agency that investigates financial corruption.
Mr. Elmer said he had turned to WikiLeaks to educate society about what he considers an unfair system designed to serve the rich and aid money launderers after his offers to provide the data to universities and governments were spurned and, in his opinion, the Swiss media failed to cover the substance of his allegations. “The man in the street needs to know how this system works,” he said, referring to the offshore trusts that many “high net worth individuals” across the world use to evade taxes.
On Monday, Mr. Elmer declined say how he had obtained the documents, which were on two CDs. He faces trial in Switzerland on Wednesday on charges of stealing the information from the bank. He was held for 30 days in 2005 over allegations that he violated Swiss banking secrecy laws, falsified documents and sent threatening messages to two people at the bank.
WikiLeaks and Bank Julius Baer previously clashed in early 2008 when the anti-secrecy organization published hundreds of documents pertaining to its offshore activities. On that occasion, it did not identify the 15 individuals concerned. But the bank succeeded, briefly, in gaining a court order to shut down the WikiLeaks.org Web site anyway. The injunction was subsequently overturned and the case was dropped.
- Update: Nieuwe cable over bezoek Balkenende aan Obama. Waarin o.m. staat dat Verhagen bang was dat opname van Guantánamo-gevangenen in Nederland de populariteit van Wilders zou doen vergroten; dat Nederland harder roept dan handelt over klimaatverandering; en dat Beatrix waarschijnlijk binnen een jaar zou aftreden.
- Update: Absurd eigenlijk hoe veel die kabinetsleden de Amerikanen vertellen. Van Middelkoop noemt de besluitvorming in het kabinet tegen de ambassadeur ”frustrerend”. Classy.
- Update: Belangrijkste nieuws is ongetwijfeld Beatrix die een voorstander blijkt van de Afghanistan-missie (net als het merendeel van de Nederlandse elite, de ‘senior body politic’). Edit: De Volkskrant houdt er een andere interpretatie van de term “finding a way forward” op na.
Verder schijnt Wouter Bos nogal alleen te hebben gestaan in het kabinet én de PvdA-Kamerfractie met zijn verzet. Amerikanen hadden ook enorm de pik op Bos en de PvdA.
Opmerkelijk vind ik (maar daar heb ik verder nog niemand over gehoord) dat Bos wel in vertrouwen tegen de Amerikaanse ambassadeur heeft gezegd dat Nederland na 2010 nog wel in Afghanistan zal blijven, alleen niet in Uruzgan.
Ook aardig is dat de relatie tussen Verhagen en Koenders omschreven wordt als “gespannen, maar niet vijandig”. Van Middelkoop wordt beschreven als ‘het derde wiel aan de wagen’.
Authentieke cables te bekijken hier: codeberichten 1150 (15 juni 2000), 114457 (5 juli 2007), 222211 (25 augustus 2009) en 241007 (21 december 2009)
Codebericht 241007 (21 december 2009), over kabinetsberaad:
1. (S) SUMMARY: Dutch cabinet deliberations on Afghanistan are stalled going into the holiday break, with no clear indication when the impasse will be broken. Dutch post-2010 commitments to Afghanistan are being held hostage to the Labor Party´s (PvdA) uncompromising stance. Ambassador´s engagement with key leaders reveals few new assessments: Dutch will likely stay in Afghanistan focusing on training, enablers and development – outside of Uruzgan. END SUMMARY
4. (S) PvdA – Bos has completely shunned the diplomatic corps, relegating Afghanistan discussions to Koenders who has categorically said the Dutch will not be in Uruzgan after 2010 except for development efforts. The Australian Ambassador met with PvdA Foreign Affairs spokesperson Martijn van Dam who was even more unyielding on the Uruzgan departure. He stated that if Dutch security was needed in Uruzgan for development efforts after 2010, then the Dutch would simply stop those efforts as well. The PvdA defense spokesperson opined that it would not be of any benefit for U.S. leaders to engage either Bos or van Dam as they were not “open-minded” on Afghanistan. The PvdA is a party in disarray; their December 12 party congress was very mixed. Although there was no formal party statement made on Afghanistan, Labor´s position remained clear – it was standing firm on withdrawal of all troops from Uruzgan in 2010. Bos has stated he wants a Cabinet decision around January 8, before the Davids Commission issues it report about the political support the Dutch Government gave the U.S. decision to attack Iraq in 2003. Press commentary after the party congress heavily criticized Labor for failing to recognize: (1) any positive developments in Uruzgan over the past two years; (2) the importance for the Dutch to support the new NATO strategy and mission; and (3) the lives lost Qthe new NATO strategy and mission; and (3) the lives lost needlessly and effort wasted if the Dutch withdrew from Uruzgan
Codebericht 222211 (25 augustus 2009), o.m. over Beatrix:
1. (C) This cable continues reporting on post´s efforts to get the Dutch to “yes” on a post-2010 deployment in Afghanistan (reftels).
2. (S/NF) SUMMARY: Labor Party leader Bos told the Ambassador in confidence (STRICTLY PROTECT) the Dutch will likely stay in Afghanistan post-2010 but not in Uruzgan. The cabinet will probably not take that decision until the end of the year. Post recommends next steps in our engagement (para 7). END SUMMARY.
(…)
4. (S/NF) Bos then said the Government, with Labor Party support, will be able to stay in Afghanistan after its current mandate expires, but not in Uruzgan. The Ambassador pressed Bos that it was more logical for the Dutch to remain in Uruzgan where they had developed important contacts with local tribes and leaders as well as funded numerous projects. Bos admitted this was true, but did not know if staying in Uruzgan would fly with his party.
6. (S/NF) COMMENT: Queen Beatrix commented to the Ambassador during her credentialing ceremony on August 19 that finding a way forward on Afghanistan “would be difficult,” but must be done. It appears the senior leadership of the body politic agrees. We had heard from other Cabinet members, including Foreign Minister Verhagen, that Bos and the Labor Party would likely agree to extending the Dutch mission in Afghanistan past 2010. Bos´s statement, however, was the first time any senior Labor Party leader had made that clear. Although appearing to draw a line in the sand about leaving Uruzgan, Qappearing to draw a line in the sand about leaving Uruzgan, Bos did not seem categorical about that issue. In our engagement, we need to continue to stress the Alliance need for the Dutch to remain in Afghanistan and in Uruzgan, in particular; the progress the Dutch have made in Uruzgan and the need to build upon their stability and development efforts there; the increased U.S. contribution in military and civilian personnel and resources in Afghanistan; and the enhanced contributions of NATO and other partners. A word of caution – the Dutch are concerned Jan Mohammed, the former governor and local warlord, might be re-appointed governor of Uruzgan if Pres. Karzai is re-elected. If that were to happen, everyone, including our strongest supporters, says the Dutch will not/not return to Uruzgan under any circumstances. END COMMENT.
Codebericht 114457 (5 juli 2007), over relaties binnen het kabinet:
1. (C) Summary: The GONL sent a letter to the Dutch Parliament on June 30 noting it will decide this summer whether to extend its ISAF mission in Afghanistan. The decision will follow an exhaustive review of all options, including staying in the mission´s current capacity, reducing its contribution or moving to another location, or even withdrawing altogether. Cabinet officials have stressed that “all options are on the table,” while public statements by Defense Minister Eimert van Middelkoop in favor of remaining in some capacity may have tipped the hand of the GONL and temporarily unsettled the political process. Dutch officials are cautiously optimistic that the conditions are in place to arrive at a positive extension decision, but stress that sequencing is vital: first the review of options, then consultations with Allies, followed by a decision and subsequent debate with Parliament. End summary.
(…)
19. (S//NOFORN) Working level contacts describe the relationship between Verhagen and Koenders as “contentious but not outright hostile.” Instead of direct confrontation, the two often wage battles through their staffs at the working level, said MFA Security Affairs Chief Robert de Groot. That said, when the two ministers agree, the resulting decision has added weight and is often “ironclad.” Van Middelkoop is described as “the third wheel,” or the “inexperienced junior partner” by working level contacts. While substantively knowledgeable, his inexperience in the government is obvious, and he often defers to Verhagen and Koenders.
1.(C) SUMMARY: THE DUTCH ARE PLEASED THAT THE 6/13-14 EU GAC ENDORSED MORE FREQUENT UPDATES OF THE EU SERBIA VISA BAN LIST. THEY THINK THEY NOW HAVE A POLITICALLY RESPONSIVE TOOL TO PRESSURE MILOSEVIC AND HIS REGIME. THEY STILL SUPPORT CLOSER EU COORDINATION WITH NON-EU STATES ON FINANCIAL SANCTIONS, BUT SEE LITTLE PROSPECT OF AN EU CONSENSUS ON THIS POINT. THEY SUGGEST MORE AD HOC APPROACHES TO THIS PROBLEM AND WELCOME FURTHER BILATERAL CONSULTATION WITH THE U.S. FINALLY, THE DUTCH SAY THAT THE UK AND THE NETHERLANDS ARE “BRAINSTORMING” ON HOW TO MANAGE ANTICIPATED AUGUST CALLS TO DROP OUTRIGHT THE EU SERBIA FLIGHT BAN. END SUMMARY.
Daar gaat m’n dag… Om 16.00 uur hierrrinchecken! RTL en NRC hebben alle diplomatieke cables uit standplaats Den Haag in handen gekregen. 3000 berichten, van 2000 tot 2010. En gaan daar lekker over berichten. O.m. over Beatrix die zich uitliet over de Afghanistan-missie (zie onder).
RTL Nieuws en NRC Handelsblad hebben de beschikking gekregen over de duizenden diplomatieke codeberichten van de Amerikaanse diplomatieke dienst uit Den Haag. Het gaat hier om rapportages van de Amerikaanse ambassade in Nederland aan de Verenigde Staten. RTL en NRC hebben inzage gekregen in alle codeberichten vanuit Nederland in de ruim 250.000 WikiLeaks-documenten.
RTL Nieuws en NRC Handelsblad kregen toegang tot de stukken via de Noorse krant Aftenposten, die enkele weken geleden, buiten de WikiLeaks-organisatie om, alle 250.000 diplomatieke berichten in handen kreeg. RTL en NRC berichten vandaag om 16.00 uur over een deel van de documenten. RTL doet dit in een extra RTL Z-bulletin bij RTL 7 en NRC Handelsblad vanaf vanmiddag in de krant en op nrc.nl. Later deze week volgen meer berichten over de rest van de stukken.
De twee Nederlandse nieuwsorganisaties maken deel uit van een kleine club van Europese media die de handen ineen hebben geslagen om de tienduizenden diplomatieke berichten te onderzoeken en journalistiek te duiden. Naast Aftenposten, RTL Nieuws en NRC gaat het om Svenska Dagbladet (Zweden) en Politiken (Denemarken).
De liberale fractie in het Europees Parlement rocks. Erg sterk op privacy-bescherming en burgerrechten. De ALDE heeft, bij monde van D66′er Sophie in ‘t Veld, vragen aan de Europese Commissie gesteld over het opvragen door het Amerikaanse ministerie van Justitie van de Twittergegevens – en waarschijnlijk ook Facebook- en andere gegevens – van onder meer de Nederlandse internetactivist Rop Gonggrijp. Dit vanwege zijn betrokkenheid bij het publiceren van de Collateral Murder-video, waarin te zien is hoe Amerikaanse Apache-piloten onschuldige burgers doodschieten. Zo iemand noemt de Telegraaf overigens een “linkse terreuractivist” en een “meesterhacker”.
De liberale fractie van het Europarlement vermoedt dat de Amerikaanse datavordering bij webbedrijven over onder meer Rop Gonggrijp illegaal is. De partij eist uitleg van Brussel en Washington.
De liberale fractie ALDE stelt vandaag vragen aan de Europese Commissie over de rechtmatigheid van het vorderen van privégegevens van Europese burgers door de Amerikaanse justitie. De partij eist een plenair debat over de kwestie en de EC moet dringend vragen stellen aan de Amerikaanse autoriteiten.
(…)
“De Commissie moet uitleggen of deze handelswijze in strijd is met de Europese regels voor databescherming en of de Amerikaanse autoriteiten de bevoegdheid hebben om de privacyrechten van EU-burgers terzijde te schuiven”, aldus Sophie In’t Veld (D66), Vice-President van de ALDE-fractie.
Aanleiding is het gerechtelijk bevel uit de VS aan in ieder geval Twitter en waarschijnlijk ook andere bedrijven om allerlei accountgegevens en communicatie op te hoesten van een vijftal personen betrokken bij Wikileaks.
Twitter kreeg het voor elkaar dat dit bevel in ieder geval openbaar gemaakt kon worden. Van de vijf wiens gegevens gevorderd zijn is er één inwoner van de EU: de Nederlandse hacker Rop Gonggrijp. Hij hielp in het voorjaar van 2010 mee met de Wikileaks-productie van de video Collateral Murder, van een Apache-helikopter die Irakese burgers neermaait.
(…)
Naar alle waarschijnlijkheid zal tegen het databevel beroep worden aangetekend. De Amerikaanse burgerrechtenbeweging EFF heeft zich al opgeworpen als advocaat voor Birgitta Jonsdottir, een IJslands parlementslid. Ook haar accountgegevens zijn gevorderd. Daarnaast gaat het om accounts van klokkenluider Bradley Manning, de Amerikaanse hacker Jacob Appelbaum en Wikileaks-leider Julian Assange.
Finally: the Julian Assange coloring book. Unleash your creative skills on the world’s most famous whistleblower.
Love him or loathe him, hero or villain, Julian Assange is probably the most talked about person alive today. WikiLeaks, with Julian as editor-in-chief, has caused quite the stir, and with mirror sites sprouting up around the globe, they will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. “Collateral murder”, “Cablegate”, sexual misconduct charges against Julian in Sweden, calls for his assassination by the CIA, intrigue, suspense, and conspiracy theories – it all makes for pretty serious stuff.
So where does the Julian Assange Coloring Book fit in? Well, simply put, it’s not “serious stuff”. It’s a coloring book about Julian Assange (with the occasional WikiLeaks page for good measure). Coloring in is fun and relaxing – try it and see!
Looks like an unofficial iPhone and iPad app that let you view WikiLeaks site content and follow the WikiLeaks Twitter account on the go has been removed from the App app store earlier today.The app used to be available here (here’s the Google cache).From the WikiLeaks App’s description:
“The Wikileaks app gives instant access to the world’s most documented leakage of top secret memos and other confidential government documents.”
Basically the paid app was selling WikiLeaks content (available for free) for $1.99. Its entry into the app store on December 17th was actually surprising, as Apple is usually quite strict and somewhat vague about its app approval standards. WikiLeaks and founder Julian Assange are quite controversial, to put it lightly but I’m not sure if the app directly violated anything in Apple’s TOS.
In the past couple of weeks corporate biggies Amazon, PayPal, Mastercard, Visa and Bank of America have all tried to disassociate themselves in one way or another from WikiLeaks. If this isn’t some kind of glitch, Apple has plenty company.
I’ve contacted both Apple and and the developer for more information and will update this post when they respond.
WikiLeaks App, an unofficial iPhone and iPad that, according to its description, “gives instant access to the world’s most documented leakage of top secret memos and other confidential government documents,” was removed by Apple from the App Store. As TechCrunch reports, the app’s developer, Igor Barinov, was told by Apple’s iTunes Store Team that the WikiLeaks app’s status was changed to “Removed from sale.” The app had appeared in Apple’s App Store just several days before, on December 17th.
For every purchase of the $1.99 app, the developer promised to donate “1 dollar of the purchase price towards organizations that work to promote the future of online democracy.”
The app also promised to “continue to feed content regardless of server disruptions,” a reference to the downtime the official WikiLeaks website suffered after Amazon announced that it would no longer host WikiLeaks.
Only three reviews of the app, two of them giving it just a one-star rating, had been posted prior to its removal. “Waste of money,” said one. Another commented, “Do not buy!” adding, “This app is just a wrapper for the mobile web site. There is no access to the actual released documents.”
Free Pussy Riot
Peaches, the twenty-first century torchbearer of feminist punk, just released a video and track in support of Pussy Riot, the Russian female anarc...
EHRM handhaaft SGP-uitspraak Hoge Raad
Dat ging nog best snel: het Europese Hof voor de Rechten van de Mens (EHRM) heeft zich uitgesproken over de vrouwen uitsluitende praktijk van de S...
Ik zou weleens willen weten: hoe is de situatie in de nieuwe locatie, Kunduz, nú echt? Welke shady back deals vinden er op dit moment plaats rondom de huidige besluitvorming over een nieuwe Afghanistan-missie? Het is dankzij WikiLeaks dat we de gerechtvaardigde impressie krijgen dat er bij zaken als deze, vanuit een optiek van “nationaal belang”, door zekere actoren altijd gemarchandeerd wordt met enerzijds de mening van het publiek, en anderzijds die van een groot deel van hun politieke representanten, zelfs als die in de regering zitten. Ik hoop dat D66, GroenLinks en de ChristenUnie dat meenemen in hun overweging. 
