A hit job on Wikileaks


Joshua Keating an otherwise excellent blogger of international affairs for Foreign Policy‘s blog Passport (i am a subscriber), wrote a blog piece that oddly seems like a slanderous hit job on Wikileaks. Probably socialized by his pals at the State Department into hating Wikileaks, i dont know.

The post is titled “Collaborate with WikiLeaks at your own risk”. It accuse Wikileaks of “no longer seems very good at protecting its sources.” Then imply that Wikileaks has something to do with the arrest of PFC Bradley Manning and soon-to-be-arrest of Swiss banker Rudolf Elmer; and generally abandon its original mission.

From Passport:

[Wikileaks] now relies more on cooperation with major news outlets like the Guardian and the New York Times rather than its own website, which can no longer really be described as a Wiki. WikiLeaks’ primary adeversaries these days are global superpowers and the world’s most powerful corporations, rather than the “oppressive regimes in Asia, the former Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East” who were its original stated targets.

But perhaps most important for the WikiLeaks project, the site no longer seems very good at protecting its sources. Pfc. Bradley Manning, the U.S. soldier thought to be the source of the Afghan and Iraq war logs as well as the WikiLeaks cables, has been held a detention center in Quantico, Va. for the last five months without even a pre-trial hearing, kept in solitary confinement for 23 hours a day and prevented from excercising or sleeping during the day. WikiLeaks dragged its feet for months on a pledge to donate money to his defense fund.

Yesterday, Swiss banker Rudolf Elmer was arrested by Swiss authorities after handing over two CDs of client data to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. Elmer had just avoided jail time related to a previous release of data to WikiLeaks in 2007.

Granted, Elmer’s motives seem more than a little suspect and he had no interest in anonymity — he handed over the data to Assange at a news conference. But the fact that the sources behind WikiLeaks’ biggest revelations are winding up in jail — contradicting the site’s original stated purpose — doesn’t bode very well for its ability to continue attracting whistleblowers.

This post have no obviously journalistic value, other than demonstrating the negative bias Joshua Keating have toward Wikileaks.
I was going to write a retort of this sleazy hit job on Wikileaks but instead of i am just going to quote a commentator signed “J-BENTHAM”. Links in the quotation are obviously mine.

Misleading and Untrue

This piece contains elements that are misleading and untrue.

Wikileaks does rely on cooperation with the Times and the Guardian, but it alone hosts the entire document database, surely an arduous task.

Given the recent Tunisian revolt brought about by Wikileaks revelations, I think that it’s difficult to say that Wikileaks has not done enough in the Middle Eastern realm.

Bradley Manning was responsible for his own arrest, revealing himself as the one responsible for the release of thousands of documents and the collateral murder video. To imply that the intolerable way in which he is being treated is the fault of Wikileaks as opposed to the U.S government is wrong.

Neither is Wikileaks responsible for the release of Elmer’s name, as the author mentions. In fact, Wikileaks couldn’t have been responsible due to the way its publishing system is set up. It does not know the identity of its sources. The author of this piece seems to know this at the beginning, and then apparently not.

The reason Wikileaks has not contributed to Manning’s defence fund is because the organization itself is struggling to stay afloat. It is by no means “dragging its feat.”

Knock it off! Joshy

Should Bush torture policy be investigated?


Glenn Greenwald debates Chuck Todd on whether Bush torture policy should be investigated and the role of the Press. Great debate a must hear.

My thoughts on this is that Bush torture policy should be investigated, but only prosecuted if it can be won. cause if Obama’s justice demand losses Bush torture policy will be in effect legal. and we dont want that to happen.

or some legal mind please tell me that i am wrong.

Economist got hit hard by a letter to the editor


SIR – When questioning the qualifications of Barack Obama (“But could he deliver?”, February 16th) please remember your endorsement of George Bush in 2000 when Americans were deciding the direction of our nation. It turns out you endorsed a man who is, and will be remembered as, one of the worst presidents our nation has ever had.

This remined me of another bad call: in 2003 Economist editorial board were for the Iraq war.

Economist is one of my most frequent read, its usually excellent, but it has it occasional bad calls.
Come on, prediction is hard, we have all made bad calls in the past.

Here is some other predictions made before the Iraq invasion.

Notice the Yale economist had the closest prediction amount them, and sadly current reality is worse than his worse case senario.
In fact, Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz has conservatively estimate the war to cost America $3 trillion.

Obama IS NOT Osama


Obama IS NOT Osama

Got this CNN blooper(or i hope thats what it was) from people at the Crooks and Liars. After following trails of links through Our Descent Into Madness and Shakespeare’s Sister.

Apparently the moment of confusion was shown during The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer. Honest mistake or not, mistake cost people elected offices so…… not to mention that people on the Fox News are already taking issues with Barack Obama‘s name.

For the record,
I like Barack Obama, its about time for some fresh air in the White House.
and i much prefer BBC News

Here is the transcript