+- Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora)
+-- Forum: Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/Forum-Deep-Politics-Forum)
+--- Forum: Propaganda (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/Forum-Propaganda)
+--- Thread: UNESCO bans WikiLeaks from international conference on WikiLeaks (/Thread-UNESCO-bans-WikiLeaks-from-international-conference-on-WikiLeaks)
UNESCO bans WikiLeaks from international conference on WikiLeaks - Magda Hassan - 17-02-2012
From the Department of Irony...
Quote:http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/178756/unesco-bans-wikileaks-from-international-conference-on-wikileaks/UNESCO bans WikiLeaks from international conference on WikiLeaks
By DJ Pangburn 18 hours ago
An international UNESCO press freedom conference being held today, February 16-17, on the subject of WikiLeaks has restricted the free information publisher from appearing. As a result, WikiLeaks has denounced UNESCO and its decision as a "ban."
The conference, The Media World after Wikileaks and News of the World, has been organized by the international non-governmental organization World Press Freedom Committee (WPFC) along with UNESCO. A press release boasts that "The range of speakers from all parts of the world will ensure that these questions are considered from the different perspectives of the global media village," but leaves out WikiLeaks, one of the most important players in publishing in the last few years.
To put this contradiction in some perspective, it would be as if UNESCO and WPFC had organized a conference on The Pentagon Papers and failed to invite Daniel Ellsberg and The New York Times editors and reporters as speakers.
In a press release published yesterday, WikiLeaks stated:
The large two-day conference, which has 37 speakers listed, is to be held UNESCO Headquarters in Paris. US organizers have stacked the conference with WikiLeaks opponents and blocked all speakers from WikiLeaks, stating that the decision to censor WikiLeaks representation was an exercise in 'freedom of expression… our right to give voice to speakers of our choice'.Julian Assange added, "UNESCO has made itself an international human rights joke. To use freedom of expression' to censor WikiLeaks from a conference about WikiLeaks is an Orwellian absurdity beyond words."
"UNESCO has a duty to assure that fairness and balance is secured in important discussions carried out under the banner of the organization. It is obvious that this will hardly be the case, given the selection of speakers. This is both a disgrace to UNESCO and potentially harmful to WikiLeaks," wrote WikiLeaks spokesperson Kristinn Hrafnsson in a letter to UNESCO.
Indeed, it's rather repugnant that UNESCO and WPFC would seek to stifle free speech at a conference about, of all things, free speech. WikiLeaks should, in the interest of fairness, be given the opportunity to enter into debate with their critics and thus present a fair and balanced picture of press freedom.
UNESCO bans WikiLeaks from international conference on WikiLeaks - Magda Hassan - 17-02-2012
WikiLeaks denounces UNESCO after WikiLeaks banned from UNESCO conference on WikiLeaks
WIKILEAKS PRESS RELEASE. FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Wed Feb 15 17:00:00 2012 GMT"#OccupyUNESCO"WikiLeaks denounces UNESCO for banning WikiLeaks from conference about WikiLeaks (February 16-17, UNESCO Headquarters, Paris).WikiLeaks denounced UNESCO for banning WikiLeaks from tomorrow's international conference about WikiLeaks. The large two-day conference, which has 37 speakers listed, is to be held UNESCO Headquarters in Paris. US organizers have stacked the conference with WikiLeaks opponents and blocked all speakers from WikiLeaks, stating that the decision to censor WikiLeaks representation was an exercise in 'freedom of expression... our right to give voice to speakers of our choice'.WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange denounced the conference: 'UNESCO has made itself an international human rights joke. To use "freedom of expression" to censor WikiLeaks from a conference about WikiLeaks is an Orwellian absurdity beyond words. This is an intolerable abuse of UNESCO's Constitution. It's time to occupy UNESCO.'WikiLeaks spokesperson Kristinn Hrafnsson expressed consternation in a letter to UNESCO about the exclusion: 'UNESCO has a duty to assure that fairness and balance is secured in important discussions carried out under the banner of the organization. It is obvious that this will hardly be the case, given the selection of speakers. This is both a disgrace to UNESCO and potentially harmful to WikiLeaks.'Julian Assange calls for an immediate investigation "UNESCO must conduct a full, frank and open investigation as to how its constitution, which tasks it to promote freedom of expression, freedom of information and freedom of communication, has become a blunt instrument of censorship. UNESCO must demonstrate that cold-war style power-plays, by the United States, or indeed any other country, are no longer acceptable."The following hash tag may be used to follow the story: "#OccupyUNESCO"Full details and a longer explanatory article follow.Conference Details: - Livestream: The Media World after WikiLeaks and News of the World 09:00-16:45, 16-17 February 2012 mms://stream.unesco.org/live/room_4_en.wmv![[Image: puce.gif]](http://wikileaks.org/squelettes/puce.gif)
Conference URL: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/media-... Venue: UNESCO Headquarters 7 place de Fontenoy , 75352 Paris, France https://maps.google.com/maps/place?...UNESCO Constitution: http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-...Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19: http://www.udhr.org/UDHR/ART19.HTMWikiLeaks refused participation at UNESCO WikiLeaks conferenceWhen WikiLeaks became aware that a two day conference about WikiLeaks' impact was being hosted by UNESCO, WikiLeaks expressed its consternation that no-one from WikiLeaks had been approached to participate - and requested that WikiLeaks be given access to meaningful participation at the conference.UNESCO forwarded WikiLeaks' letter to Ronald Koven of the "World Press Freedom Committee". The WPFC is based in Reston, Virginia, in the United States. UNESCO lists the organizers as the U.S. "World Press Freedom Committee" (WPFC) in cooperation with the UNESCO Communication & Information Sector. The WPFC board (http://is.gd/1bF0N3 ), is comprised of Washington insiders, cold war ideological allies (such as Freedom House and the disgraced IAPA) and U.S. mainstream media groups.Although WikiLeaks has over 90 partner organisations and despite numerous other books having been published on WikiLeaks, UNESCO and the WPFC decided to exclude WikiLeaks and stack the UNESCO conference with a "who's who" of WikiLeaks opponents and critics, no matter how insignificant or poorly informed. This includes speakers who are not merely critics, but four who have active legal conflicts with the organization. Tellingly, the key note is by a journalist who serialized her failed anti-WikiLeaks book in a U.K tabloid as "The WikiFreak: In a new book one author reveals how she got to know Julian Assange and found him a predatory, narcissistic fantasist".Ronald Koven is the WPFC's spokesman on 'press freedom concerns' at UNESCO. Koven has been monitoring UNESCO for the U.S. organizations for over 30 years. In recent years he has been a U.S. Embassy informant and is mentioned in WikiLeaks' cables. Koven refused WikiLeaks participation due to what can only be interpreted as political considerations:"I can only share in your attachment to freedom of expression. It must include our right to give voice to speakers of our choice."Koven went on to justify the exclusion:"The main focus of this conference is not about WikiLeaks as such but about the implications of its actions for the future of professional journalism."This characterisation is at odds with the description of the aims of the conference on its website: "The conference aims to explore a wide range of new questions for traditional media and journalism posed by the WikiLeaks phenomenon" (that is, WikiLeaks).WikiLeaks again contacted UNESCO's Sylvie Coudray, who is in charge for Freedom of Expression, reminding UNESCO that it has a duty to ensure fairness and balance in conferences carried out under the banner of the organization, and in accordance with Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. UNESCO's legacy is at stake, and the political decisions driving this exclusion are yet another episode in the persecution of WikiLeaks.UNESCO responded "We do not have intention to cause any polemic" and stated that WikiLeaks could attend the conference- as long as WikiLeaks did not demand to participate as speakers. She appears to deny WikiLeaks work as journalism:"Mr Koven has already answered to some of your questions. May I underline that the conference is *about journalism* in light of the situations that occurred with Wikileaks and News of the World, and *not about the episodes themselves*."The full correspondence between WikiLeaks, UNESCO and WPFC is available at the end of this document.Although the conference is meant to be about WikiLeaks and freedom of the press, there is nothing about the most serious attack on WikiLeaks and freedom of expression everywhere. The extrajudicial attack has wiped out 95% of WikiLeaks revenues and has been the subject of wide-spread condemnation, including from the UN and the EU. Since Dec 2010, US financial giants VISA, MasterCard, The Bank of America, PayPal and Western Union have been involved in an economic censorship war against this organization. A formal U.S. Treasury investigation found there were no grounds for the US to blacklist WikiLeaks. Despite this, the unlawful blockade continues.MasterCard, along with the U.S. State Department, sponsored the WPFC organized the 2011, so-called, "UNESCO World Press Freedom Day", during the start of the U.S. economic censorship campaign against WikiLeaks. It also conspicuously avoided discussion of extrajudicial banking blockade against WikiLeaks.List of Speakers at UNESCO's WikiLeaks Conference that censors WikiLeakshttp://www.unesco.org/new/en/commun...Heather Brooke: (keynote speaker) - Journalist for the Guardian and author of The Revolution Will be Digitised. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Revolution-...David Leigh: Guardian journalist participating in the Panel: How Professional Media Confront Masses of Raw Data. Koven's email included the following sample question: "What is the fallout from WikiLeaks' decision to release all the materials without its original redaction of sensitive sources?" There is a clear conflict of interest when the Guardian's David Leigh was the one who released a top-secret password which resulted in the publishing of all the unredacted diplomatic cables onto the internet 48 hours before WikiLeaks published the cables onto their website. The Guardian's David Leigh then concealed the fact that he had provoked the publication of the unredacted cables. The question is either conceited or misinformed. Author of 'WikiLeaks' (working title: The Rise and Fall of WikiLeaks).
WikiLeaks Statement on the Release of the Unredacted Cables: http://www.wikileaks.org/Guardian-j... New Scientist 'Assange - Why WikiLeaks was Right to Release the Raw Cables' http://www.newscientist.com/article... 'WikiLeaks Password Leak FAQ' unspecified.wordpress.com/2011/09/03/wikileaks-password-leak-faq/ 'Full-Disclosure, Unredacted WikiLeaks, Security and The Guardian' http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/un... https://www.schneier.com/blog/archi...Charlie Beckett: Author of News in the Networked Era http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/polis/2012/0...Borja Bergareche: London correspondent, ABC, Madrid, author of "Wikileaks Confidencial" He misrepresents the way in which the raw cables were published online, either out of being grossly uninformed or out of misinterpreting the Guardian's false narrative. Bergareche claims that WikiLeaks 'forgot' a file on Cryptome' servers. He incorrectly states that WikiLeaks has published 2.5% of the US' classified diplomatic cables between 2004-2010. http://www.elcorteingles.es/tienda/... http://www.324.cat/noticia/1590652/...Invited but not attending:Daniel Domscheit-Berg: (No longer on the draft programme): was invited to speak on the panel 'How Professional Media Confront Masses of Raw Data'. He has destroyed evidence on war crimes, gross human rights abuses, and unethical banking practices. He has also stolen WikiLeaks material and attempted to destroy infrastructure. He is the only person publicly associated with WikiLeaks who has not been subpoenaed at the secret Grand Jury.'Statement by Julian Assange on the reported destruction of WikiLeaks source material by Daniel Domscheit-Berg' http://wlcentral.org/node/2170NOT INVITED:Out of over 50 active media partners, UNESCO-WPFC only give a platform to The Guardian, New York Times, and Le Monde.Other authors and books about WikiLeaks disclosures in 2010-2011:Santiago O'Donnell, author of ArgenLeaks, an in-depth analysis of the diplomatic cables' revelations relating to Argentina. http://argenleaks.net/Andrew Fowler, author of The Most Dangerous Man in the World (about Assange) URL http://catalogue.mup.com.au/978-0-5... , and a two ABC Foreign Correspondent episodes on WikiLeaks, URL http://www.abc.net.au/radionational...Holger Stark and Marcel Rosenbach of Der Spiegel, authors of Staatsfiend WikiLeaks URL http://www.spiegel.de/international...Nicky Hager, author of 'Other People's Wars'Natalia Viana - https://cartacapitalwikileaks.wordp...List WikiLeaks Partners around the World (this list is not exhaustive)ARD, Germany Privacy International, UK OWNI, France Bugged Planet, Germany La Nacion, Argentina Pagina 12, Argentina Sydney Morning Herald, Australia The Age, Australia Die Standard, Belgium Balkan Leaks, Bulgaria Folha de Sao Paulo, Brazil O Estado de Sao Paulo, Brazil APTN, Canada Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Canada CIPER, Chile El Espectador, Colombia Semana, Colombia La Nacion, Cosa Rica Politiken, Denmark El Comercio, Ecuador El Universo, Ecuador Al-Masry Al-Youm, Egypt El Faro, El Salvador Postimees, Estonia Helsingin Sanomat, Finland YLE, Finland Le Monde, France La Quadrature du Net, France Mediapart, France 20 Minutes, France Plaza Publica, Guatemala Des Spiegel, Germany Die Welt, Germany Ta Nea, Greece Haiti Liberte, Haiti Nederlandse Omroep Stichting, Holland NRC Handelsblad, Holland RUV, Iceland 365 Media, Iceland NDTV, India The Hindu, India Belfast Telegraph, Ireland Irish Independent, Ireland Yedioth Ahronoth, Israel L'Espresso, Italy La Republica, Italy The Gleaner, Jamaica Asahi Shimbun, Japan KazTAG, Kazakhstan Respublika, Kazakhstan Daily Nation, Kenya The Star, Kenya Al Akhbar, Lebanon Malaysia Today, Malaysia La Jornada, Mexico Sunday Star Times, New Zealand Herald on Sunday, New Zealand Aftenposten, Norway Verdens Gang, Norway Dawn, Pakistan La Prensa, Panama Panama America, Panama ABC Color, Paraguay El Comercio, Peru IDL Reporteros, Peru CRIJ, Romania Novaya Gazeta, Russia Russian Reporter, Russia Sov.Sekretno, Russia Koms Pravda, Russia The Scotsman, Scotland Scotland on Sunday, Scotland El Pais, Spain 20 Minutos, Spain Dagens Nyheter, Sweden Svenska Dagbladet, Sweden Sveriges Television, Sweden Aftonbladet, Sweden Le Temps, Switzerland Neue Zürcher Zeitung, Switzerland Asia-Plus, Tajikistan Asia Sentinel, Thailand Taraf, Turkey BBC, United Kingdom Greenpeace, United Kingdom Guardian, United Kingdom Telegraph, United Kingdom The Time, United Kingdom The Financial Times, United Kingdom Reuters, United Kingdom CounterPunch, United States New York Times, United States Brecha, Uruguay El Pais, UruguayConference registration: http://www.unesco-ci.org/cmscore/ci...References:Statement in support of WikiLeaks right to publish: http://www.cidh.oas.org/relatoria/s...UN Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression Frank La Rue (participant in UNESCO conference); and Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression, Catalina BoteroUNESCO Awards Mainstream media (Excluding the main player, WIKILEAKS) http://www.article19.org/resources.... See for comment: https://facthai.wordpress.com/2011/...Open Letter in Defence of WikiLeaks' Right to Publish http://wikileaksopenletter.com/WikiLeaks Stop the crackdowns http://www.avaaz.org/en/wikileaks_p...Selected WikiLeaks Awards:2008 The Economist - Index on Censorship Freedom of Expression award 2009 Sam Adams Award, US 2009 Amnesty International human rights reporting award (New Media), UK 2010 Martha Gellhorn Prize, UK 2010 Human Rights Film Festival of Barcelona Award for International Journalism and Human Rights, Spain 2010 Readers' Choice in TIME magazine's Person of the Year (Julian Assange) 2011 Jose Couso Press Freedom Award, Spain 2011 Voltaire Award of the Victorian Council for Civil Liberties, Australia 2011 Sydney Peace Foundation Gold Medal, Australia, for "exceptional courage and initiative in pursuit of human rights" 2011 Blanquerna Award for Best Communicator (WikiLeaks), Spain 2011 International Piero Passetti Journalism Prize of the National Union of Italian Journalists, Italy 2011 Walkley Award for Most Outstanding Contribution to Journalism, AustraliaEmails between WikiLeaks and UNESCO30 January 2012 First Communication from WikiLeaksEnvoyé: lundi 30 janvier 2012 16:19 À: Coudray, Sylvie Objet: WikiLeaks conference without WikiLeaks!!Ms CoudrayIt has been brought to my attention that UNESCO is hosting a conference in mid February where the main topic is WikiLeaks and its effect on for example law and traditional journalism. To my knowledge no one from WikiLeaks has been invited to speak at this conference. I am outraged at the fact that UNESCO has decided to bypasswholly the organization from this discussion.Furthermore I see that at least two representatives from media that areformer partners of WikiLeaks but have since criticized the organization. May I point out that WikiLeaks is in ongoing collaboration with 90 media organizations from all corners of the wold. None of them are represented at this conference. I believe this needs to be amended.Expecting your replyKristinn Hrafnsson Spokesperson for WikiLeaks30January 2012 Response from UNESCO by Sylvie Coudray Chief of Section for Freedom of Expression2012/1/30 Coudray, Sylvie ****Dear Kristinn Hrafnsson,I would like to thank you for your message. As you may know, UNESCO is hosting the conference and the World Press Freedom Committee is organizing the debate, in close collaboration with other partners. I am copying Mr Ronald Koven, who is going to reply to you as soon as he gets my message.With my best regardsSylvie Coudray Chief of Section for Freedom of Expression Division for Freedom of Expression and Media Development Communication and Information Sector30 January 2012 From: Ronald KovenDate: 2012/1/30 Subject: Re: WikiLeaks conference without WikiLeaks!! To: Kristinn HrafnssonCc: S.Coudray@unesco.org, powerginny@gmail.com, richard.winfield@cliffordchance.com, g.robertson@doughtystreet.co.uk, KovenRonald@aol.com, G.Berger@unesco.orgFrom: Koven Ronald Date: 2012/1/30 Subject: Re: WikiLeaks conference without WikiLeaks!! To: Kristinn Hrafnsson Cc: S.Coudray@unesco.org, powerginny@gmail.com, richard.winfield@cliffordchance.com, g.robertson@doughtystreet.co.uk, KovenRonald@aol.com, G.Berger@unesco.orgDear Kristinn Hrafnsson Thank you for your interest in our conference. You may not have seen the actual program, which I append below. It includes Geoffrey Robertson. QC. both as a leading British media lawyer and as a legal advisor for Julian Assange. Mr, Robertson has accepted our invitation and is scheduled as the featured lead speaker in our panel on the international law implications of recent events, including but not confined to the WikiLeaks episode. The conference will also deal with other issues currently concerning the media world, such as the fallout from the telephone hacking allegations against the News of the World.It is my understanding that Julian Assange is legally barred from traveling from the United Kingdom.The first panel includes editors from three of the five original news media partners of WikiLeaks. We are interested in their perspectives because theirs are amongst the world's most respected quality newspapers, and the main focus of this conference is not about WikiLeaks as such but about the implications of its actions for the future of professional journalism.I can only share in your attachment to freedom of expression. It must include our right to give voice to speakers of our choice. If Mr. Assange or an authorized spokesperson for him wishes to send a message to the conference participants, I would be pleased to distribute it to them and to include it in the published conference proceedings when they appear.Sincerely,Ronald Koven European Representative World Press Freedom Committee************The Media World After WikiLeaks and News of the World Salle IV, UNESCO Headquarters, Paris 16-17 February 2012Organizers: World Press Freedom Committee, in cooperation with the UNESCO Communication & Information Sector Co-sponsors: the World Association of Newspapers & News Publishers (WAN-IFRA), World Editors Forum and the International Press InstituteWith the support of JP-Politiken pubishing group, Denmark; Open Society Foundation's Network Media Program, London; and Nicholas B. Ottaway Foundation, New YorkBackground With a stunning 2 billion persons estimated to be using the Internet and producing 156 million public blogs in 2011, there has been a surge of social networks, user-generated content and micro-blogging that has enabled all Internet users to become public communicators. Along with the spread of the Internet, WikiLeaks' release of a massive number of classified government documents and its initial collaboration with traditional news media has modified the media landscape and raised crucial questions for journalism.Following a conference organized by WPFC and WAN at UNESCO HQ on "New Media: The Press Freedom Dimension" in February 2007, there is a need to explore further the future of traditional media and professional journalism with their established practices, traditions and standards as challenged by emergence of new actors and approaches like WikiLeaks.Objectives The WikiLeaks episode raised many issues related to freedom of expression, freedom of information, national security, privacy and ethics. The WikiLeaks developments raise basic questions about how journalists do their jobs. The conference aims to explore a wide range of new questions for traditional media and journalism posed by the WikiLeaks phenomenon:
How can journalists deal with the massive explosion of primary source data made available on the Internet ? Should journalists' roles and their professional and ethical standards be reconsidered? What is the relationship between "citizen journalism" and traditional journalistic professionalism ? What are the challenges for international and domestic law related to privacy, national security, public order and Internet freedom? What is the future of government-media relations? This conference aims to gather leading media representatives, professional and "citizen" journalists and media law experts to exchange views on these issues and to discuss good practices in traditional professional journalism and citizen journalism in the digital era.Thursday, 16 Feb. 9 a.m. Opening session: Irina Bokova, UNESCO Director General9:15 a.m, Keynote speech: Heather Brooke, author, "The Silent State," "The Revolution Will Be Digitised"9:45-11:15 a.m. Panel 1: How Professional Media Confront Masses of Raw Data Description: WikiLeaks claims access to some 250,000 US diplomatic cables mountains of raw data that confront society and professional media with dilemmas on their use. This explosion of primary source data has impacted newsgathering by journalists and their relation with governments. Editors of three media outlets chosen by WikiLeaks to review the dispatches for use discuss their experiences.Moderator: Guy Berger, UNESCO Director of Freedom of Expression & Media Development. Sylvie Kauffmann, columnist, former Editor-in-Chief, Le Monde, Paris Ian Fisher, Associate Managing Editor, New York Times Alan Rusbridger, Editor, The Guardian, London Charlie Beckett, Director, Polis, media think tank, London School of Economics; author, "WikiLeaks: News in the Networked Era" Daniel Domscheit-Berg, founder of OpenLeaks TBCSample questions: Was there a "silver lining" to WikiLeaks that reaffirmed journalistic professionalism ? Have there been lasting effects on newsgathering ? What is the fallout from WikiLeaks' decision to release all the materials without its original redaction of sensitive sources ? What effects on relations with democratic governments ? Have there been changes in relations with officialdom that affect the ability of journalists to access information ?11:15 a.m: coffee break11:30-1 p.m. Panel 2: Professionalism and Ethics in the New Media Environment After WikiLeaks and The News of the World Description: WikiLeaks and the illegal phone hacking scandal surrounding The News of the World have intensified public debates about journalistic practices and ethics In the Internet era. News media and journalists must come to grips with the ethical implications of dealing with information coming from many more sources and via more technologies than before.Moderator: Alison Smale, Executive Editor, International Herald Tribune Borja Bergareche, author, "Wikileaks confidencial"; London correspondent, ABC, Madrid; European consultant, Committee to Protect Journalists Guy Black, Baron Black of Brentwood, Exec, Director, Telegraph Media Group, ex-Director UK Press Complaints Commission Mikhail Fedotov, Head, Russian Presidential Human Rights Council; ex-Secretary, Russian Union of Journalists: ex-Russian Press/Information Minister: author, media law of 1991 Charles Onyango-Obbo, Executive Editor for digital media, Nation Media group, Kenya Aidan White, Director of Coalition for Ethical Journalism, of Global Editors Network; former General Secretary, International Federation of JournalistsSample questions: Is media self-regulation threatened by tabloid journalism ? Does the quantity of information change its ethical quality ? Should news outlets consult officials on possible endangerment of sources or persons cited ? How much double-checking or contextualizing of information in leaked documents is enough ? Do journalists need more training in ethics and law?1-2:30 p.m. lunch2:30-4 p.m. Panel 3: International Law After WikiLeaks Description: WikiLeaks has posed challenges of legal jurisdiction since it is not located or operating in a single country. This raises tensions between national and international law concerning the online information flow's transborder nature. Wikileaks also raised challenges for governments to protect their classified information. The relation of WikiLeaks to journalism raises questions of whether laws protecting freedom of expression, press freedom and freedom of information should apply to it.Moderator: Richard Winfield, Chairman, World Press Freedom Committee: former General Counsel, Associated Press Barbora Bukovska, Senior Director for Law, Article 19 Helen Darbishire, Executive Director, Access Info Europe Jane Kirtley, Director, U. of Minnesota Journalism School's Center for Study of Media Ethics & Law; ex-Exec. Director, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press Geoffrey Robertson, QC, leading UK media lawyer; author of the standard text, "Media Law"; legal counsel for Julian AssangeSample questions: Implications for protection of sources ? For access to information ? For governmental protection of classified data ? There is pressure for new international standards and law. Are they needed ? If so, how would new standards and laws be framed, by whom ?4-4:15 p.m. coffee break4:15-5:45 p.m. Panel 4: Government-Media Relations After WikiLeaks Description: WikiLeaks showed that, in the 21st Century, information tends to be free and that the power to monopolize information has been weakened. This impacts relations between journalists and government officials in terms of journalists' access information. What, if any, antidote is there to the likelihood that governments will now try to exercise more control over relations between officials and journalists ?Moderator: Henrikas Yushkiavitshus, ex-UNESCO Assistant Director General/Communication; former Vice-Chairman, Gostel Radio, Moscow Rohan Jayasekera, Associate Editor, Index on Censorship TBC Kamel Labidi, Head, Tunisian Independent Authority for Information & Communication; ex-Tunisia Monitoring Group Advocacy Director/IFEX Justine Limpitlaw, South African media lawyer, specialized in media legal issues in Africa Jan Malinowski, Head, Media & Information Society Division, Council of Europe Claudio Paolillo, Director-Editor-in-Chief, weekly Busqueda, Uruguay: Chairman, Inter American Press Assn. Press Institute and member IAPA Executive CommitteeSample questions: Can democratic officialdom and investigative journalists coexist ? Should their interaction be organized if so, how ? Is there now a need to redefine relations between democratic governments and news media ? How would one go about that ?Friday, 17 Feb. 9:30-11 a.m. Panel 5 Internet Freedom After WikiLeaks Description: Many actors are concerned by and seek involvement in Internet governance - NGOs, news media, Internet service providers, protectors of children, police and surveillance authorities, governments, etc. They all deal with aspects of freedom that did not previously appear to be so immediately related to traditional media freedoms. Freedom of expression on the Internet can be eroded as the various actors pursue such separate and potentially conflicting interests as counter-terrorism, national security, privacy, protection of intellectual property, etc. Governance and regulation of cross-border issues, have complicated the protection of freedom of speech in the cyberspace context.Moderator: Cynthia Wong, Director, Project on Global Internet Freedom, Center for Democracy & Technology Daoud Kuttab, Director, Institute of Modern Media, Al Quds University, Jerusalem; founder/Director, AmmanNet, the first Arabic Internet radio Frank La Rue, UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression Dunja Mijatovic, OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media Paula Schriefer, Director of Advocacy, Freedom House Doudou Ye, legal affairs writer and lawyer, Caixin Media Co. economic and financial news group, BeijingSample questions: Does the WikiLeaks approach alter the generally established democratic view that leakers may be prosecuted for revealing state secrets but media outlets should not ? Should there be special protections for online journalism ? What differentiates online journalism and social networking ? Are controls of social networks justifiable to protect national security and public order ?11-11:15 a.m. coffee break11:15-12:45 a.m. Panel 6 Professional and "Citizen" Journalism Working Together After WikiLeaks Description: Traditional news media are increasingly using materials contributed by non-professional "citizen journalists." It is crucial to insure that professional standards are applied to outputs of bloggers and "citizen journalists" used by the news industry. "Citizen journalists" themselves need to understand and follow professional standards and to learn how to contextualize their outputs to make them effective, useable, and legitimate.Moderator: Alison Bethel McKenzie. Executive Director, International Press Institute Lance Guma, journalist, SW Radio Africa; member, Zimbabwean journalists forum on Facebook Pierre Haski, founder of the French online news site Rue89 Riyaad Minty, Head of Social Media, Al Jazeera Julien Pain, Editor, Les Observateurs, France 24 Sankarshan Thakur, Executive Editor, Tehelka online newspaper, New DelhiSample questions: What are the professional criteria for accepting or rejecting citizen contributions for broadcast ? What proportion of contributions is professionally acceptable for use ? Are there contributions you regret having to turn down ? Why ? How can citizen journalists be taught professionalism ? How often do citizen bloggers originate news, as opposed to commentary ? Citizen contributions: fullfledged reporting and/or starting points for professional journalism ?12:45 a.m.-1:15 p.m. Closing session Rapporteur for synthesis: Cherilyn Ireton, Executive Director, World Editors Forum Closing remarks: Janis Karklins, UNESCO Assistant Director General/Communication8 February 2012 Reply from WikiLeaksDe : Kristinn Hrafnsson Envoyé : mercredi 8 février 2012 16:31 À : Coudray, Sylvie Cc : DG Objet : Re: WikiLeaks conference without WikiLeaks!!TO: Ms Sylvie Coudray CC: Irina BokovaMs CoudrayIt seems to be read from your reply that UNESCO has no responsibility overthe content of this conference. I disagree. This is hoste release of a massive number of classified government documents and its initial collaboration with traditional news media has modified the media landscape and raised crucial questions for journalism.Following a conference organized by WPFC and WAN at UNESCO HQ on "New Media: The Press Freedom Dimension" in February 2007, there is a need to explore further the future of traditional media and professional journalism with their established practices, traditions and standards as challenged by emergence of new actors and approaches like WikiLeaks.Objectives The WikiLeaks episode raised many issues related to freedom of expression, freedom of information, national security, privacy and ethics. The WikiLeaks developments raise basic questions about how journalists do their jobs. The conference aims to explore a wide range of new questions for traditional media and journalism posed by the WikiLeaks phenomenon: How can journalists deal with the massive explosion of primary source data made available on the Internet ? Should journalistsd by your organization and will be referred to as an UNESCO event. I reiterate my displeasure with the selection of speakers at this conference. It is obvious that it will result in an unfair and unbalanced discussion on the topics raised.For example, the key questions in the opening debate is; "What is the fallout from WikiLeaks´ decision to release all the materials without its original redaction of sensitive sources". It is well known that this release was caused by a breach of contract by one of our original media partner The Guardian. Do you seriously expect that Alan Rusbridger, the papers editor will have an impartial answer to this question? Not to mention the fact that it was an agreement signed by himself that was breached. At the urge the Guardian, Le Monde and New York Times teamed up against WikiLeaks in a common statement against the organization. Do you seriously deem it proper to have representatives from those two other papers, sharing a panel with the Guardian editor, discussing this question.To add insult to injury the panel includes as well Mr. Domscheit-Berg on this panel, a person who has admitted to sabotaging our organization and destroying a wealth of material intended for WikiLeaks. He is introduced as the founder of OpenLeaks that exists only as a name a year and a half after its foundation was announced.Ahead of this remarkable gathering you introduce Heather Brooke as a keynote speaker to set the tone. Ms Brooke has harmed WikiLeaks directlyand been an outspoken critic of the organization.Notably absent from all the discussions on WikiLeaks and its effect on the environment of journalists are representatives from all the media that partnered with us in the project in question and still have an on-going professional relationship with WikiLeaks. Your colleague, Mr. Koven asserts in a reply to me, that the three newspapers mentioned abow are "amongst the world´s most respected quality newspapers". I assure you that you will find respected quality newspapers among our partners if there was any interest in looking outside the narrow frame of western dimensions where an obvious intent was to handpick only voices critical of WikiLeaks.Mr. Koven seems to believe that by inviting Geoffrey Robertson QC a balance is struck in the conference. This is absurd as he is not invited to take part in the above mentioned discussions but participates in a panel on theimplications of WikiLeaks on international laws.As I have mentioned, UNESCO has a duty to assure that fairness and balance is secured in important discussions carried out under the banner of the organization. It is obvious that this will hardly be the case, given the selection of speakers. This is both a disgrace to UNESCO and potentially harmful to WikiLeaks.We will respond accordingly.With regardsKristinn Hrafnsson WikiLeaks spokespersonFrom: Coudray, Sylvie Date: 2012/2/8 Subject: RE: WikiLeaks conference without WikiLeaks!! To: Kristinn Hrafnsson Cc: DGDear Ms Hrafnsson,Thank you for your message. I have taken note of your concern and I think that Mr Koven has already answered to some of your questions. May I underline that the conference is *about journalism* in light of the situations that occurred with Wikileaks and News of the World, and *not about the episodes themselves*. We do not have intention to cause any polemic. I am attaching the latest programme. You or someone you want to designate are obviously welcome to attend the Conference and take part of the debate.With my best regardsSylvie CoudrayChief of Section for Freedom of Expression Division for Freedom of Expression and Media Development Communication and Information SectorTel : + 33 (1) 45 68 42 12 Mob : + 33 (0) 6 43 25 76 17(02:41:02 PM) stellamoris@jabber.ccc.de: Envoyé: lundi 30 janvier 2012 16:19 À: Coudray, Sylvie Objet: WikiLeaks conference without WikiLeaks!!Ms CoudrayIt has been brought to my attention that UNESCO is hosting a conference in mid February where the main topic is WikiLeaks and its effect on for example law and traditional journalism. To my knowledge no one from WikiLeaks has been invited to speak at this conference. I am outraged at the fact that UNESCO has decided to bypass wholly the organization from this discussion. Furthermore I see that at least two representatives from media that are former partners of WikiLeaks but have since criticized the organization. May I point out that WikiLeaks is in ongoing collaboration with 90 media organizations from all corners of the wold. None of them are represented at this conference. I believe this needs to be amended.Expecting your replyKristinn Hrafnsson Spokesperson for WikiLeaks
2012/1/30 Coudray, Sylvie ****Dear Kristinn Hrafnsson,I would like to thank you for your message. As you may know, UNESCO is hosting the conference and the World Press Freedom Committee is organizing the debate, in close collaboration with other partners. I am copying Mr Ronald Koven, who is going to reply to you as soon as he gets my message.With my best regardsSylvie CoudrayChief of Section for Freedom of ExpressionDivision for Freedom of Expression and Media Development Communication and Information Sector
De : Kristinn Hrafnsson Envoyé : mercredi 8 février 2012 16:31 À : Coudray, Sylvie Cc : DG Objet : Re: WikiLeaks conference without WikiLeaks!!TO: Ms Sylvie Coudray CC: Irina BokovaMs CoudrayIt seems to be read from your reply that UNESCO has no responsibility over the content of this conference. I disagree. This is hosted by your organization and will be referred to as an UNESCO event. I reiterate my displeasure with the selection of speakers at this conference. It is obvious that it will result in an unfair and unbalanced discussion on the topics raised.For example, the key questions in the opening debate is; "What is the fallout from WikiLeaks´ decision to release all the materials without its original redaction of sensitive sources". It is well known that this release was caused by a beach of contract by one of our original media partner The Guardian. Do you seriously expect that Alan Rusbridger, the papers editor will have an impartial answer to this question? Not to mention the fact that it was an agreement signed by himself that was breached. At the urge the Guardian, Le Monde and New York Times teamed up against WikiLeaks in a common statement against the organization. Do you seriously deem it proper to have representatives from those two other papers, sharing a panel with the Guardian editor, discussing this question. To add insult to injury the panel includes as well Mr. Domscheit-Berg on this panel, a person who has admitted to sabotaging our organization and destroying a wealth of material intended for WikiLeaks. He is introduced as the founder of OpenLeaks that exists only as a name a year and a half after its foundation was announced.Ahead of this remarkable gathering you introduce Heather Brooke as a keynote speaker to set the tone. Ms Brooke has harmed WikiLeaks directly and been an outspoken critic of the organization.Notably absent from all the discussions on WikiLeaks and its effect on the environment of journalists are representatives from all the media that partnered with us in the project in question and still have an on-going professional relationship with WikiLeaks. Your colleague, Mr. Koven asserts in a reply to me, that the three newspapers mentioned abow are "amongst the world´s most respected quality newspapers". I assure you that you will find respected quality newspapers among our partners if there was any interest in looking outside the narrow frame of western dimensions where an obvious intent was to handpick only voices critical of WikiLeaks. Mr. Koven seems to believe that by inviting Geoffrey Robertson QC a balance is struck in the conference. This is absurd as he is not invited to take part in the above mentioned discussions but participates in a panel on the implications of WikiLeaks on international laws.As I have mentioned, UNESCO has a duty to assure that fairness and balance is secured in important discussions carried out under the banner of the organization. It is obvious that this will hardly be the case, given the selection of speakers. This is both a disgrace to UNESCO and potentially harmful to WikiLeaks. We will respond accordingly.With regardsKristinn Hrafnsson WikiLeaks spokesperson
From: Koven Ronald Date: 2012/1/30 Subject: Re: WikiLeaks conference without WikiLeaks!! To: Kristinn Hrafnsson Cc: S.Coudray@unesco.org, powerginny@gmail.com, richard.winfield@cliffordchance.com, g.robertson@doughtystreet.co.uk, KovenRonald@aol.com, G.Berger@unesco.orgDear Kristinn Hrafnsson Thank you for your interest in our conference. You may not have seen the actual program, which I append below. It includes Geoffrey Robertson. QC. both as a leading British media lawyer and as a legal advisor for Julian Assange. Mr, Robertson has accepted our invitation and is scheduled as the featured lead speaker in our panel on the international law implications of recent events, including but not confined to the WikiLeaks episode. The conference will also deal with other issues currently concerning the media world, such as the fallout from the telephone hacking allegations against the News of the World.It is my understanding that Julian Assange is legally barred from traveling from the United Kingdom.The first panel includes editors from three of the five original news media partners of WikiLeaks. We are interested in their perspectives because theirs are amongst the world's most respected quality newspapers, and the main focus of this conference is not about WikiLeaks as such but about the implications of its actions for the future of professional journalism.I can only share in your attachment to freedom of expression. It must include our right to give voice to speakers of our choice. If Mr. Assange or an authorized spokesperson for him wishes to send a message to the conference participants, I would be pleased to distribute it to them and to include it in the published conference proceedings when they appear.Sincerely,Ronald Koven European Representative World Press Freedom Committee************The Media World After WikiLeaks and News of the World Salle IV, UNESCO Headquarters, Paris 16-17 February 2012Organizers: World Press Freedom Committee, in cooperation with the UNESCO Communication & Information Sector Co-sponsors: the World Association of Newspapers & News Publishers (WAN-IFRA), World Editors Forum and the International Press InstituteWith the support of JP-Politiken pubishing group, Denmark; Open Society Foundation's Network Media Program, London; and Nicholas B. Ottaway Foundation, New YorkBackground With a stunning 2 billion persons estimated to be using the Internet and producing 156 million public blogs in 2011, there has been a surge of social networks, user-generated content and micro-blogging that has enabled all Internet users to become public communicators. Along with the spread of the Internet, WikiLeaks' release of a massive number of classified government documents and its initial collaboration with traditional news media has modified the media landscape and raised crucial questions for journalism.Following a conference organized by WPFC and WAN at UNESCO HQ on "New Media: The Press Freedom Dimension" in February 2007, there is a need to explore further the future of traditional media and professional journalism with their established practices, traditions and standards as challenged by emergence of new actors and approaches like WikiLeaks.Objectives The WikiLeaks episode raised many issues related to freedom of expression, freedom of information, national security, privacy and ethics. The WikiLeaks developments raise basic questions about how journalists do their jobs. The conference aims to explore a wide range of new questions for traditional media and journalism posed by the WikiLeaks phenomenon:
How can journalists deal with the massive explosion of primary source data made available on the Internet ? Should journalists' roles and their professional and ethical standards be reconsidered? What is the relationship between "citizen journalism" and traditional journalistic professionalism ? What are the challenges for international and domestic law related to privacy, national security, public order and Internet freedom? What is the future of government-media relations? This conference aims to gather leading media representatives, professional and "citizen" journalists and media law experts to exchange views on these issues and to discuss good practices in traditional professional journalism and citizen journalism in the digital era.Thursday, 16 Feb. 9 a.m. Opening session: Irina Bokova, UNESCO Director General9:15 a.m, Keynote speech: Heather Brooke, author, "The Silent State," "The Revolution Will Be Digitised"9:45-11:15 a.m. Panel 1: How Professional Media Confront Masses of Raw Data Description: WikiLeaks claims access to some 250,000 US diplomatic cables mountains of raw data that confront society and professional media with dilemmas on their use. This explosion of primary source data has impacted newsgathering by journalists and their relation with governments. Editors of three media outlets chosen by WikiLeaks to review the dispatches for use discuss their experiences.Moderator: Guy Berger, UNESCO Director of Freedom of Expression & Media Development. Sylvie Kauffmann, columnist, former Editor-in-Chief, Le Monde, Paris Ian Fisher, Associate Managing Editor, New York Times Alan Rusbridger, Editor, The Guardian, London Charlie Beckett, Director, Polis, media think tank, London School of Economics; author, "WikiLeaks: News in the Networked Era" Daniel Domscheit-Berg, founder of OpenLeaks TBCSample questions: Was there a "silver lining" to WikiLeaks that reaffirmed journalistic professionalism ? Have there been lasting effects on newsgathering ? What is the fallout from WikiLeaks' decision to release all the materials without its original redaction of sensitive sources ? What effects on relations with democratic governments ? Have there been changes in relations with officialdom that affect the ability of journalists to access information ?11:15 a.m: coffee break11:30-1 p.m. Panel 2: Professionalism and Ethics in the New Media Environment After WikiLeaks and The News of the World Description: WikiLeaks and the illegal phone hacking scandal surrounding The News of the World have intensified public debates about journalistic practices and ethics In the Internet era. News media and journalists must come to grips with the ethical implications of dealing with information coming from many more sources and via more technologies than before.Moderator: Alison Smale, Executive Editor, International Herald Tribune Borja Bergareche, author, "Wikileaks confidencial"; London correspondent, ABC, Madrid; European consultant, Committee to Protect Journalists Guy Black, Baron Black of Brentwood, Exec, Director, Telegraph Media Group, ex-Director UK Press Complaints Commission Mikhail Fedotov, Head, Russian Presidential Human Rights Council; ex-Secretary, Russian Union of Journalists: ex-Russian Press/Information Minister: author, media law of 1991 Charles Onyango-Obbo, Executive Editor for digital media, Nation Media group, Kenya Aidan White, Director of Coalition for Ethical Journalism, of Global Editors Network; former General Secretary, International Federation of JournalistsSample questions: Is media self-regulation threatened by tabloid journalism ? Does the quantity of information change its ethical quality ? Should news outlets consult officials on possible endangerment of sources or persons cited ? How much double-checking or contextualizing of information in leaked documents is enough ? Do journalists need more training in ethics and law?1-2:30 p.m. lunch2:30-4 p.m. Panel 3: International Law After WikiLeaks Description: WikiLeaks has posed challenges of legal jurisdiction since it is not located or operating in a single country. This raises tensions between national and international law concerning the online information flow's transborder nature. Wikileaks also raised challenges for governments to protect their classified information. The relation of WikiLeaks to journalism raises questions of whether laws protecting freedom of expression, press freedom and freedom of information should apply to it.Moderator: Richard Winfield, Chairman, World Press Freedom Committee: former General Counsel, Associated Press Barbora Bukovska, Senior Director for Law, Article 19 Helen Darbishire, Executive Director, Access Info Europe Jane Kirtley, Director, U. of Minnesota Journalism School's Center for Study of Media Ethics & Law; ex-Exec. Director, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press Geoffrey Robertson, QC, leading UK media lawyer; author of the standard text, "Media Law"; legal counsel for Julian AssangeSample questions: Implications for protection of sources ? For access to information ? For governmental protection of classified data ? There is pressure for new international standards and law. Are they needed ? If so, how would new standards and laws be framed, by whom ?4-4:15 p.m. coffee break4:15-5:45 p.m. Panel 4: Government-Media Relations After WikiLeaks Description: WikiLeaks showed that, in the 21st Century, information tends to be free and that the power to monopolize information has been weakened. This impacts relations between journalists and government officials in terms of journalists' access information. What, if any, antidote is there to the likelihood that governments will now try to exercise more control over relations between officials and journalists ?Moderator: Henrikas Yushkiavitshus, ex-UNESCO Assistant Director General/Communication; former Vice-Chairman, Gostel Radio, Moscow Rohan Jayasekera, Associate Editor, Index on Censorship TBC Kamel Labidi, Head, Tunisian Independent Authority for Information & Communication; ex-Tunisia Monitoring Group Advocacy Director/IFEX Justine Limpitlaw, South African media lawyer, specialized in media legal issues in Africa Jan Malinowski, Head, Media & Information Society Division, Council of Europe Claudio Paolillo, Director-Editor-in-Chief, weekly Busqueda, Uruguay: Chairman, Inter American Press Assn. Press Institute and member IAPA Executive CommitteeSample questions: Can democratic officialdom and investigative journalists coexist ? Should their interaction be organized if so, how ? Is there now a need to redefine relations between democratic governments and news media ? How would one go about that ?Friday, 17 Feb. 9:30-11 a.m. Panel 5 Internet Freedom After WikiLeaks Description: Many actors are concerned by and seek involvement in Internet governance - NGOs, news media, Internet service providers, protectors of children, police and surveillance authorities, governments, etc. They all deal with aspects of freedom that did not previously appear to be so immediately related to traditional media freedoms. Freedom of expression on the Internet can be eroded as the various actors pursue such separate and potentially conflicting interests as counter-terrorism, national security, privacy, protection of intellectual property, etc. Governance and regulation of cross-border issues, have complicated the protection of freedom of speech in the cyberspace context.Moderator: Cynthia Wong, Director, Project on Global Internet Freedom, Center for Democracy & Technology Daoud Kuttab, Director, Institute of Modern Media, Al Quds University, Jerusalem; founder/Director, AmmanNet, the first Arabic Internet radio Frank La Rue, UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression Dunja Mijatovic, OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media Paula Schriefer, Director of Advocacy, Freedom House Doudou Ye, legal affairs writer and lawyer, Caixin Media Co. economic and financial news group, BeijingSample questions: Does the WikiLeaks approach alter the generally established democratic view that leakers may be prosecuted for revealing state secrets but media outlets should not ? Should there be special protections for online journalism ? What differentiates online journalism and social networking ? Are controls of social networks justifiable to protect national security and public order ?11-11:15 a.m. coffee break11:15-12:45 a.m. Panel 6 Professional and "Citizen" Journalism Working Together After WikiLeaks Description: Traditional news media are increasingly using materials contributed by non-professional "citizen journalists." It is crucial to insure that professional standards are applied to outputs of bloggers and "citizen journalists" used by the news industry. "Citizen journalists" themselves need to understand and follow professional standards and to learn how to contextualize their outputs to make them effective, useable, and legitimate.Moderator: Alison Bethel McKenzie. Executive Director, International Press Institute Lance Guma, journalist, SW Radio Africa; member, Zimbabwean journalists forum on Facebook Pierre Haski, founder of the French online news site Rue89 Riyaad Minty, Head of Social Media, Al Jazeera Julien Pain, Editor, Les Observateurs, France 24 Sankarshan Thakur, Executive Editor, Tehelka online newspaper, New Delhi[COLOR=#000000][FONT=Arial]Sample questions: What are the professional criteria for accepting or rejecting citizen contributions for broadcast ? What proportion of contributions is professionally acceptable for use ? Are there contributions you regret having to turn down ? Why ? How can citizen journalists be taught professionalism ? How often do citizen blogge
UNESCO bans WikiLeaks from international conference on WikiLeaks - Jan Klimkowski - 17-02-2012
Quote:The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization is a specialized agency of the United Nations (UN). Its stated purpose is to contribute to peace and security by promoting international collaboration through education, science, and culture in order to further universal respect for justice, the rule of law, and human rights along with fundamental freedoms proclaimed in the UN Charter.
:monkeypiss:
UNESCO bans WikiLeaks from international conference on WikiLeaks - Peter Lemkin - 17-02-2012
.."To use freedom of expression' to censor WikiLeaks from a conference about WikiLeaks is an Orwellian absurdity beyond words."
UNESCO bans WikiLeaks from international conference on WikiLeaks - Adele Edisen - 28-09-2012
US Designated Assange 'Enemy of State'
By Philip Dorling
THE US military has designated Julian Assange and WikiLeaks as enemies of the United
States - the same legal category as the al-Qaeda terrorist network and the Taliban
insurgency.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article32568.htm [http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001d_biEXoiOiN-gkSoXeYM3XI5eTLF67eWDd7HuNQw1PJD3rRTDIM7Gy91uVrWU63Z04zeqoxmlr6xwLmamvORSdLFQISTtGJyaXLfJ7suuxgOsjYzqFWJrFsnRWm0vk3ESIWxDP-IHsvABv87ZTQtT7TjzdFYE1e1]
Julian Assange to UN
'US Trying to Erect National Secrecy Regime'
Video and Transcript - Video is 19:10 Minutes long.
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has called on the United States to move from words
to actions, and put an end to its persecution of WikiLeaks, its people and its
sources. He made the statement during an address to a panel of UN delegates.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article32567.htm [http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001d_biEXoiOiNN3tZGFKJnYGIRHe1jCsJAALShcT0rmzrPHJ36r7o5fGQa6wVID441heZHTNYs9hkjNcK1rLUJ6AH3ZAysFEP0t6KNuvVn__NYUAAjGaiDeeWnf0YE2w4CnuCqh3XDVhkSyvMUBQ_PO_EnEw--xzvd]
Adele
UNESCO bans WikiLeaks from international conference on WikiLeaks - Albert Doyle - 04-10-2012
A declaration has to be made that the US military does not represent the will of the American people and that its self-serving designation of Assange as an enemy of state represents a serious breach of representational government and the establishment of a military police state-like situation in America. Assange represents freedom to a lot of Amercans and the military's attack on him puts that military in its correct position as far as respect towards transparent, accountable government. May this be a declaration that the US military is now what the American people have designated "an enemy of state".
UNESCO bans WikiLeaks from international conference on WikiLeaks - Peter Lemkin - 04-10-2012
Pardon me, Adele, but this IMHO deserves a full posting on the forum.....you gave the link....I post the article from your link...
US Designated Assange 'Enemy of State'
By Philip Dorling
September 27, 2012 "Brisbane Times" -- THE US military has designated Julian Assange and WikiLeaks as enemies of the United States - the same legal category as the al-Qaeda terrorist network and the Taliban insurgency.
Declassified US Air Force counter-intelligence documents, released under US freedom-of-information laws, reveal that military personnel who contact WikiLeaks or WikiLeaks supporters may be at risk of being charged with "communicating with the enemy", a military crime that carries a maximum sentence of death.
The documents, some originally classified "Secret/NoForn" - not releasable to non-US nationals - record a probe by the air force's Office of Special Investigations into a cyber systems analyst based in Britain who allegedly expressed support for WikiLeaks and attended pro-Assange demonstrations in London.
The counter-intelligence investigation focused on whether the analyst, who had a top-secret security clearance and access to the US military's Secret Internet Protocol Router network, had disclosed classified or sensitive information to WikiLeaks supporters, described as an "anti-US and/or anti-military group".
The suspected offence was "communicating with the enemy, 104-D", an article in the US Uniform Code of Military Justice that prohibits military personnel from "communicating, corresponding or holding intercourse with the enemy".
The analyst's access to classified information was suspended. However, the investigators closed the case without laying charges. The analyst denied leaking information.
Mr Assange remains holed up in Ecuador's embassy in London. He was granted diplomatic asylum on the grounds that if extradited to Sweden to be questioned about sexual assault allegations, he would be at risk of extradition to the US to face espionage or conspiracy charges arising from the leaking of hundreds of thousands of secret US military and diplomatic reports.
US Vice-President Joe Biden labelled Mr Assange a "high-tech terrorist" in December 2010 and US congressional leaders have called for him to be charged with espionage.
Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee - both once involved in presidential campaigns - have both urged that Mr Assange be "hunted down".
Mr Assange's US attorney, Michael Ratner, said the designation of WikiLeaks as an "enemy" had serious implications for the WikiLeaks publisher if he were to be extradited to the US, including possible military detention.
US Army private Bradley Manning faces a court martial charged with aiding the enemy - identified as al-Qaeda - by transmitting information that, published by WikiLeaks, became available to the enemy.
Mr Ratner said that under US law it would most likely have been considered criminal for the US Air Force analyst to communicate classified material to journalists and publishers, but those journalists and publishers would not have been considered the enemy or prosecuted.
"However, in the FOI documents there is no allegation of any actual communication for publication that would aid an enemy of the United States such as al-Qaeda, nor are there allegations that WikiLeaks published such information," he said.
"Almost the entire set of documents is concerned with the analyst's communications with people close to and supporters of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, with the worry that she would disclose classified documents to Julian Assange and WikiLeaks.
"It appears that Julian Assange and WikiLeaks are the 'enemy'. An enemy is dealt with under the laws of war, which could include killing, capturing, detaining without trial, etc."
The Australian government has repeatedly denied knowledge of any US intention to charge Mr Assange or seek his extradition.
However, Australian diplomatic cables released to Fairfax Media under freedom-of-information laws over the past 18 months have confirmed the continuation of an "unprecedented" US Justice Department espionage investigation targeting Mr Assange and WikiLeaks.
The Australian diplomatic reports canvassed the possibility that the US may eventually seek Mr Assange's extradition on conspiracy or information-theft-related offences to avoid extradition problems arising from the nature of espionage as a political offence and the free-speech protections in the US constitution.
Mr Assange is scheduled this morning to speak by video link to a meeting on his asylum case on the margins of the United Nations General Assembly in New York. The meeting will be attended by Ecuadorean Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino.
In a separate FOI decision yesterday, the Department of Foreign Affairs confirmed that the release of Australian diplomatic cables about WikiLeaks and Mr Assange had been the subject of extensive consultation with the US.
US Brands Julian Assange and WikiLeaks Enemies of the State'
By RT
September 27, 2012 "RT" -- Julian Assange and WikiLeaks have been declared enemies of the United States. Declassified US Air Force counter-intelligence documents reveal that military personnel contacting WikiLeaks may face execution for "communicating with the enemy."
The documents, which have been released under American Freedom of Information laws and published by WikiLeaks, were originally classified as secret and not releasable to non-US nationals.
Julian Assange said that the documents have been released just recently because of their sensitivity for some of the people involved in the investigation.
With these documents the "unusual position" and "difficulty" Assange and his organization face turn completely absurd.
"For example, that the US military should designate me and all of WikiLeaks as the enemy in its formal investigation, an investigation that carries a death-penalty offense into a person who was alleged to have come to my extradition hearing," he said. "And in the same document it speaks about the victim being that of society, when there is no allegation that any documents have been released or published by us."
The report exemplified the "absurdist, neo-McCarthyist fervor that exists within some of the government departments in the US," Assange said.
Enormous wheels have been set in motion, with over a dozen different US intelligence and investigative organizations turning through this, Assange said. "Everyone sees that it is completely absurd and counter to the values the United States should be trying to present to the world," he said, urging everyone to read the files.
The files covered a counter-intelligence investigation into a UK-based cyber systems analyst who allegedly supported WikiLeaks. The probe was trying to determine whether the analyst had disclosed any classified data to an "anti-US and/or anti-military group." She was suspected of breaching article 104-D of the US Uniform Code of Military Justice, which outlaws military personnel "holding intercourse with the enemy."
The probe, however, was closed as the investigators failed to prove the analyst had leaked any information.
But US Army Private Bradley Manning was not so lucky, as he could face execution though prosecutors have said they won't seek it to be decided by a military tribunal, as officials allege that he aided al-Qaeda by releasing classified documents through WikiLeaks.
And the fact that WikiLeaks was treated as an enemy of state would have serious implications in case Assange is extradited to the US, as he is likely to face military detention.
"It appears that Julian Assange and WikiLeaks are the 'enemy,'" Michael Ratner, Assange's US attorney, said. "An enemy is dealt with under the laws of war, which could include killing, capturing, detaining without trial, etc."
Assange was once labeled a "high-tech terrorist" by American Vice President Joe Biden in December 2010, and a number of top US officials have openly called on the authorities to hunt the whistleblower down.
The diplomatic cables released over the past months reveal the true scale of the US Justice Department investigation targeting both Assange and WikiLeaks. Assange himself called the investigation "unprecedented."
"The Federal Bureau of Investigation … now has, according to court testimony earlier this year, produced a file of 42,135 pages into WikiLeaks, of which less than 8,000 concern Bradley Manning," Assange said in an address to a panel of UN delegates.
-------------------------------------------------------------
So, no worries about being sent to Sweden?!....Ha!.....Sverige has been complicit in many US renditions and other such......