Will WikiLeaks unravel the American 'secret government'?

[Peter Presland]

I go along with everything said by David and Peter in posts 179 and 180 - except that I am marginally more inclined then Peter to see deep Zionist involvement because I'm persuaded it was pretty deep in 9-11 and 7-7. There's no doubt Mossad will do all it can to manipulate post-facto, as will other SIS's. That's a given. But what I still hold out as a possibility here is early deep manipulative involvement. Not fully committing on the issue though - and watching the Beltway and London Establishment squirm is very satisfying in its own right - distracting in the warm glow it provides in fact.

It would be interesting to do an analysis of everything to date from WL - and I mean before they went of line for alleged lack of funding earlier this year. I know there has been some serious flack thrown at them by China and many other repressive countries. I am NOT aware of anything seriously problematical for Israel. Same goes for the corporate stuff to date. Things like Trafigura for example.

Jeff Gates is also an ardent 'WL is controlled by Zionists' man too - as are a few others whose opinions I have come to respect.

I guess the most potentially incriminating thing for me is the management of the releases. I repeat, I do NOT buy the official WL reason; it is lame to put it mildly.

Fence-sitting can be damned uncomfortable but it can certainly tease out some seriously informative wrinkles at times.

[Peter Lemkin]

WikiLeaks cables blame Chinese government for Google hacking

Leading politician ordered attacks after Googling his own name and finding critical articles, US dispatches say

Comments (54)
Dan Sabbagh
guardian.co.uk, Saturday 4 December 2010 17.46 GMT
Article history

Google pulled out of China amid a row over government censorship and hacking of its systems, including Gmail accounts used by activists. Photograph: Bao Fan/Getty Images/Chinafotopress



The hacking of Google that forced the search engine to withdraw from mainland China was orchestrated by a senior member of the communist politburo, according to classified information sent by US diplomats to Hillary Clinton's state department in Washington.

The leading politician became hostile to Google after he searched his own name and found articles criticising him personally, leaked cables from the US embassy in Beijing say.

That single act prompted a politically inspired assault on Google, forcing it to "walk away from a potential market of 400 million internet users" in January this year, amid a highly publicised row about internet censorship.

The explosive allegation that the attack on Google came from near the top of the Communist party has never been made public until now. The politician allegedly collaborated with a second member of the politburo in an attempt to force Google to drop a link from its Chinese-language search engine to its uncensored google.com version.

A cable from the Beijing embassy marked as secret records that attempts to break into the accounts of dissidents who used Google's Gmail system had been co-ordinated "with the oversight of" the two politburo members.

The cyber assault was described to the Americans by a high-level Chinese source as "100% political in nature" and having "nothing to do with removing Google... as a competitor to Chinese search engines".

Last December Google said that it was hit by a "highly sophisticated and targeted attack on our corporate infrastructure". Part of it was aimed at the Gmail accounts of "Chinese human rights activists" – although in a statement released in January, Google said that there was no evidence the hackers were successful. Shortly after the attack, Google chose to abandon mainland China. It relocated to Hong Kong, where it was able to run an uncensored version of its website in English and Chinese, ending an awkward attempt to reconcile partial adherence to Chinese requirements with western democratic values.

While Google and the US suspected leading Chinese politicians were behind the hacking, neither the company nor the US government said so at the time. Diplomats even discussed whether China's most powerful man, Hu Jintao, the president, or his prime minister, Wen Jiabao, were "aware of these actions". The secret note sent back to Washington concedes that "it is unclear" whether advance knowledge of the attack went right to the top.

Google, whose motto is Don't Be Evil, entered China in 2006. In an attempt to gain market share from local rival Baidu, it launched Google.cn, in which results relating to Tibet, Taiwan and the Tiananmen Square massacre were among those filtered out.

Google retained a link to the unfiltered Google.com on its Google.cn website, which prompted months of tension before the January incident. A cable from Beijing records that Google was already sounding the alarm to the most senior American diplomat in the country at the time.

Dan Piccuta, the US chargé d'affaires, was told how the prominent politician had "recently discovered that Google's worldwide site is uncensored" after he "allegedly entered his own name and found results critical of him". Shortly afterwards, according to the cable, the Chinese government ordered "the three dominant SOE [state influence enterprises] telecoms [companies] to stop doing business with the company".

However, that was not enough to persuade Google to back down. The US embassy was told that "removing the link to Google.com is against the company's principles". It refused to block access to Google.com.

China then upped its attacks on Google, according to another cable. A group of Chinese internet users reported that Google China was "not effectively filtering pornographic sites" and the Chinese government blocked access to Google for 24 hours.

The documents reveal a close relationship between Google and the US authorities in China. In January, a few days after Google made the hacking public – without specifying who it believed was responsible – Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, made a speech in Washington entitled "remarks on internet freedom".

Clinton weighed in heavily on the side of Google, warning that "countries that restrict free access to information or violate the basic rights of internet users risk walling themselves off from the progress of the next century".

She called on the Chinese government to "conduct a thorough review of the cyber intrusions" without revealing that it was her own officials who believed the attack was co-ordinated from inside the Chinese politburo.

[Peter Lemkin]

Julian Assange: Whoever leaked US embassy cables is unparalleled hero

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange answers questions on guardian.co.uk as it is claimed he faces imminent arrest

Comments (556)
Sam Jones
guardian.co.uk, Friday 3 December 2010 15.39 GMT
Article history

Julian Assange said there were references to UFOs in the cables. Photograph: Graeme Robertson

The WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, today hailed the person responsible for leaking the diplomatic cables as "an unparalleled hero" and suggested that his organisation had deliberately used servers in certain jurisdictions, such as Amazon's in the US, to test their commitment to freedom of speech.

In a live Q&A on guardian.co.uk, the Australian journalist highlighted the role alleged to have been played in the leaks by the soldier Bradley Manning.

"For the past four years one of our goals has been to lionise the source who take the real risks in nearly every journalistic disclosure and without whose efforts, journalists would be nothing," said Assange. "If indeed it is the case, as alleged by the Pentagon, that the young soldier – Bradley Manning – is behind some of our recent disclosures, then he is without doubt an unparalleled hero."

Assange was answering questions online as it was claimed that he faced imminent arrest. AFP reported that the Swedish authorities had issued a new international arrest warrant containing information requested by British police.

During the live Q&A, Assange responded to Amazon.com's decision earlier this week to pull the plug on hosting WikiLeaks. On Wednesday, the company announced it was cutting off WikiLeaks after being contacted by the staff of Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate's committee on homeland security.

He said: "Since 2007 we have been deliberately placing some of our servers in jurisdictions that we suspected suffered a free speech deficit in order to separate rhetoric from reality. Amazon was one of these cases."

His comments on the matter came after WikiLeaks tweeted that if Amazon was "so uncomfortable with the first amendment, they should get out of the business of selling books."

Despite facing arrest warrants over allegations of sexual crimes in Sweden, Assange found time to answer a reader's question about extraterrestrial life.

Asked whether WikiLeaks had ever received documents relating to UFOs, he said: "Many weirdos email us about UFOs or how they discovered that they were the antichrist whilst talking with their ex-wife at a garden party over a pot-plant."

However, he said, none had yet satisfied the twin publishing criteria: "that the documents not be self-authored; that they be original."

But he added: "It is worth noting that in yet-to-be-published parts of the cablegate archive there are indeed references to UFOs."

Meanwhile, Assange's lawyer, Mark Stephens, told the Guardian that neither he nor his colleagues had heard from police about the arrest warrants.

"We had an understanding with Scotland Yard of long standing that in the event they wanted to contact Julian Assange they would come to us and we would facilitate a congenial and convenient meeting," he said.

"I hope the police remember their undertaking. I've had no indication that anyone wants to talk to Julian at this moment in time; no member of his legal team has had a call from any law enforcement agency."

[Peter Lemkin]

WikiLeaks shutdown calls spark censorship row

France joins calls for WikiLeaks to be taken offline as liberal activists raise comparisons with China's Google censorship

Comments (29)
Ewen MacAskill and Josh Halliday
guardian.co.uk, Friday 3 December 2010 19.30 GMT
Article history

WikiLeaks went offline for the third time in a week. Photograph: Joe Raedle/Getty Images

The US opened new fronts in its fight against WikiLeaks today as civil rights groups accused the authorities of censorship.

The whistleblower's website went offline for the third time in a week this morning – the biggest threat to its online presence so far. The site re-emerged later on a Swiss domain.

France joined international calls for WikiLeaks to be closed down, warning that it was "unacceptable" for a "criminal" site to be hosted in the country.

The moves came only days after Amazon pulled the WikiLeaks site from its servers after political pressure from Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate homeland security committee.

Lieberman is not finished with Amazon, and is planning to write to the organisation within the next 24 hours asking for details of its relationship with WikiLeaks. The issue is fast turning into a row over freedom of speech, as Democratic and Republican politicians joined calls for action against WikiLeaks, including emergency legislation for legal challenge.

Liberal activists saw echoes of the row involving China and Google earlier this year, censorship the Obama administration decried at the time.

The US civil rights group Human Rights First wrote to Amazon saying that its decision to cease hosting WikiLeaks raised serious concerns and asked the book group to consider this before responding to Lieberman's request for more information.

Rainey Reitman and Marcia Hofmann, of the Electronic Freedom Foundation, which campaigns for internet freedom, writing on the organisation's site, said it was "unfortunate that Amazon caved in to unofficial government pressure to squelch core political speech. Amazon had an opportunity to stand up for its customer's right to free expression. Instead, Amazon ran away with its tail between its legs".

There have been calls on blogsites for a boycott of Amazon.

Leslie Phillips, communications director for the Senate homeland security committee, disputed any parallel with China's censorship of the internet. "It is not at all the same," she said. "In China, there is a fiat from above."

Lieberman, she said, does not have the authority to shut down Amazon or tell it who its clients should be.

She said Lieberman is to write to Amazon asking for basic facts such as when it first realised that WikiLeaks was disseminating classified information.

In a blogpost on Thursday night, Amazon denied giving in to political pressure. It said WikiLeaks was violating its terms of service, which included a provision that the content should not be harmful. "It is not credible that the extraordinary volume of 250,000 classified documents that WikiLeaks is publishing could have been carefully redacted in such a way as to ensure that they weren't putting innocent people in jeopardy," Amazon said.

Lieberman and other senators are to introduce legislation that they have named the Shield Act that would allow the administration to go after WikiLeaks. But the bill stands little chance of passage as it would probably go not to the homeland security committee but the Senate judiciary committee, which is headed by Patrick Leahy, a Democrat and long-time champion of liberal issues.
-------------------------------------------------------

December 2nd, 2010
Amazon and WikiLeaks - Online Speech is Only as Strong as the Weakest Intermediary

by Rainey Reitman and Marcia Hofmann

The First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees freedom of expression against government encroachment - but that doesn't help if the censorship doesn't come from the government.

The controversial whistle-blower website WikiLeaks, which has begun to publish a trove of over 250,000 classified diplomatic cables, found itself kicked off of Amazon's servers earlier this week. WikiLeaks had apparently moved from a hosting platform in Sweden to the cloud hosting services available through Amazon in an attempt to ward off ongoing distributed denial of service attacks.

According to Amazon, WikiLeaks violated the site's terms of service, resulting in Amazon pulling the plug on hosting services. However, news sources have also reported that Amazon cut off WikiLeaks after being questioned by members of the staff of Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairman Joe Lieberman. While it's impossible to know whether or not Amazon's decision was directly caused by the call from the senator's office, we do know that Lieberman has proposed "anti-WikiLeaks legislation" and that he has a history of pushing for online censorship in the name of "security."

Importantly, the government itself can't take official action to silence WikiLeaks' ongoing publications - that would be an unconstitutional prior restraint, or censorship of speech before it can be communicated to the public. No government actor can nix WikiLeaks' right to publish content any more than the government could stop the New York Times and Washington Post from publishing the Pentagon Papers, which were also stolen secret government documents.

But a web hosting company isn't the government. It's a private actor and it certainly can choose what to publish and what not to publish. Indeed, Amazon has its own First Amendment right to do so. That makes it all the more unfortunate that Amazon caved to unofficial government pressure to squelch core political speech. Amazon had an opportunity to stand up for its customer's right to free expression. Instead, Amazon ran away with its tail between its legs.

In the end, it's not just WikiLeaks that suffers from corporate policies that suppress free speech, here on matters of intense public importance. It's also readers, who lose out on their First Amendment right to read the information WikiLeaks publishes. And it's also the other Internet speakers who can't confidently sign up for Amazon's hosting services without knowing that the company has a history of bowing to pressure to remove unpopular content.

Today Amazon sells many things, but its roots are in books, which historically have been a lightning rod for political censorship campaigns. These campaigns tried and failed to suppress Allen Ginsberg's Howl, Nabokov's Lolita, and even Orwell's 1984. And it's the book industry - including writers, publishers, booksellers and libraries - that has championed the rights of readers and helped America maintain a proud history of free speech in the written word, even when faced with physical danger.

While it's frustrating to think of any hosting provider cutting services to a website because it considers the content too politically volatile or controversial, it's especially disheartening to see Amazon knuckle under to pressure from a single senator. Other Internet intermediaries should now expect to receive a phone call when some other member of Congress is unhappy with speech they are hosting. After all, it worked on Amazon.
---------------------------------------------------------

Hal Roberts
guardian.co.uk, Friday 3 December 2010 20.30 GMT

A WikiLeaks page: the decision by Amazon to take the site down, after it had already moved ISP to reduce its network's vulnerability to attack, has major implications for freedom of information and speech on the web, as only a handful of ISPs have the power to provide a secure service. Photograph: Alamy

For the past year, I've been working on a study on distributed denial of service (DDOS) attacks against independent media and human rights sites with colleagues at the Berkman Centre. The resulting report will be out shortly, but one of the main conclusions is that independent media sites are not capable of independently defending themselves of large, network based DDOS attacks.

There are many things an independent site can do to protect itself against smaller DDOS attacks that target specific application vulnerabilities (including simply serving static content), but the problem with a large, network-based attack is that it will flood the link between the targeted site and the rest of the internet, usually causing the hosting ISP to take the targeted site down entirely to protect the rest of its network.

Defending against these large network attacks requires massive amounts of bandwidth, specific and deep technical experience, and often connections to the folks running the networks where the attacks are originating from. There are only a couple dozen organisations (ISPs, hypergiant websites, and content distribution networks) at the core of the internet that have sufficient amounts of bandwidth, technical ability and community connections to fight off the biggest of these attacks.

Paying for services from those organisations is very expensive, though, starting at thousands of dollars per month without bandwidth costs, and often going much, much higher. An alternative is to use one of a handful of hosting services like blogger that offers a high level of DDOS protection at no financial cost. One of the recommendations we make in our report is for independent media sites that think they are likely to be attacked and want to be able to defend against themselves either find the resources to pay for a DDOS protection service or accept the compromises of hosting on a service like blogger in return for the free DDOS protection.

We make this recommendation with a great deal of caution, however, because moving independent media sites to these core network actors trades more freedom from DDOS attacks for more control by one of these large companies. It's great to be able to withstand a 10Gbps DDOS attack on YouTube, but it's not so great for YouTube to take down your video at its sole discretion for violation of its terms of service.

In general, these core companies have struggled in this genuinely difficult role. How is YouTube supposed to judge what to do when it receives complaints about a violent video in Arabic posted from Egypt? Do videos of police brutality qualify as the "graphic or gratuitous violence", which YouTube disallows in its terms of service?

So, with this context, I've been watching the WikiLeaks attack with great interest. It has been suffering a pretty big network attack (WikiLeaks claims about 10Gbps, which is big enough to take down all but a couple dozen or fewer ISPs in the world; arbor claims about 2-4 Gbps, which is still big enough to cause the vast majority of ISPs in the world major disruption). The attack successfully took its site offline at its main hosting ISP. WikiLeak's textbook response was to move to Amazon's web services, one of those core internet services capable of defending against big network attacks.

The move seemed to work for a couple of days, but then Amazon exercised its control, shutting the site down. Joe Lieberman claimed responsibility for Amazon's decision to take the site down. But Amazon responded with a message claiming that it made the decision to take the site down based purely on its decision based on its terms of service. The core of their argument is that WikiLeaks was hosting content that it did not own and that it was putting human rights workers at risk:

"for example, our terms of service state that 'you represent and warrant that you own or otherwise control all of the rights to the content… that use of the content you supply does not violate this policy and will not cause injury to any person or entity.' It's clear that WikiLeaks doesn't own or otherwise control all the rights to this classified content. Further, it is not credible that the extraordinary volume of 250,000 classified documents that WikiLeaks is publishing could have been carefully redacted in such a way as to ensure that they weren't putting innocent people in jeopardy. Human rights organisations have in fact written to WikiLeaks asking them to exercise caution and not release the names or identities of human rights defenders who might be persecuted by their governments."

If this is really how they made their decision, this is a worse process than merely succumbing to the political pressure of the US government. At least Lieberman is an elected official and therefore, to some degree, beholden to his constituents. Amazon is, instead, arguing dismissively that it made the decision based on its own interpretation of its terms of service. Without getting into the merits of either side, the questions of whether WikiLeaks has the rights to the content and especially of what level of risk of harm merits censorship are very, very difficult and should clearly be decided by some sort of deliberative jurisprudence, rather than arbitrarily and dismissively decided by a private actor.

This need for careful, structured and public deliberation on these questions is obviously balanced by Amazon's right to decide what to do with its own property. But as a society, we have reached a place where the only way to protect some sorts of speech on the internet is through one of only a couple of dozen core internet organisations.

Totally ceding decisions about control of politically sensitive speech to that handful of actors, without any legal process or oversight, is a bad idea (worse even than ceding decisions to grandstanding politicians). The problem is that an even worse option is to cede these decisions about what content gets to stay up to the owners of the botnets capable of executing large DDOS attacks.

• This article first appeared on Hal Roberts' blog at the Berkman Centre for internet and society

[Peter Lemkin]

Diplomatic cables: Gaddafi risked nuclear disaster after UN slight :vroam:

Highly enriched and unstable uranium left on Libyan runway because leader was banned from pitching tent in New York
David Leigh
guardian.co.uk, Friday 3 December 2010 21.30 GMT

WikiLeaks cables: Muammar Gaddafi was prepared to leave highly enriched uranium vulnerable to hijacking by terrorists – or a disastrous meltdown – in order to teach the UN a lesson. Photograph: Mohamed Messara/EPA

A potential "environmental disaster" was kept secret by the US last year when a large consignment of highly enriched uranium in Libya came close to cracking open and leaking radioactive material into the atmosphere.

The incident came after the mercurial Libyan leader, Muammar Gaddafi, suddenly went back on a promise to dispose of the weapons-grade uranium, apparently out of pique at a diplomatic slight received in New York when he was barred from pitching a tent outside the UN.

Leaked cables show that the shipment of seven metal casks – each weighing five tonnes and only sealed for transport, not storage – were left on the tarmac of a Libyan nuclear facility with a single armed guard. As US and Russian diplomats frantically lobbied Libyan officials, scientists warned that the uranium inside the casks was highly radioactive and rapidly heating up. The material was originally part of Gaddafi's nuclear weapons plan.

"Department of energy experts are deeply concerned by the safety and security risks," US ambassador Gene Cretz said in a secret cable back to Washington from Tripoli. "According to the DOE experts we have one month to resolve the situation before the safety and security concerns become a crisis.

"The temperature of the HEU [highly enriched uranium] fuel, which is radioactive, could reach such a level to cause cracking on the casks and release of radioactive nuclear material … Security concerns alone dictate that we must employ all of our resources to find a timely solution to this problem and to keep any mention of it out of the press."

The casks containing 5.2kg of HEU were considered "highly transportable" and would have represented a huge prize for terrorists or would-be nuclear states. US officials, the cables show, urged the Libyans to disengage the crane at the site that would have allowed intruders to load the casks on to a vehicle.

The containers were sitting at Libya's Tajoura nuclear facility. The DOE team "only saw one security guard with a gun (although they did not know if it was loaded)".

"Given the highly transportable nature of the HEU and the shoddy security at Tajoura any mention of this issue in the press could pose serious security concerns. We have to assume that the Libyan leader is the source of the problem."

The crisis blew up on 20 November 2009. A phone call suddenly came that day from Libya's atomic energy director, Ali Gashut, just as a Russian heavy transport aircraft, a specialised Antonov 124-100, was due to arrive in Libya to take away the uranium for disposal. Gashut had been "instructed", he said, to prevent the plane from landing.

The US government had offered to pay Russia to take back the HEU and dispose of it. It had originally been supplied by Moscow, supposedly for research.

Libya's agreement to get rid of its HEU was part of a package for Gaddafi to end his pariah status by abandoning weapons of mass destruction. By autumn 2009 he should have sent back all his HEU and started to destroy his stock of Scud B missiles. By the end of 2010 he is supposed to have converted his Rabta chemical weapons factory into a pharmaceutical plant and destroyed nerve gas ingredients. The final step, next year, is for Libya to destroy stocks of mustard gas.

When the HEU crisis broke, Cretz finally managed to confront Gaddafi's influential son, Saif al-Islam. Saif announced that the Libyans were "fed up" and Gaddafi had felt "humiliated" by his recent treatment in New York.

US diplomats recorded privately that Gaddafi's own compatriots felt embarrassed and ashamed by what were termed his "antics" in New York that August.

Gaddafi had been refused consent to pitch a tent outside UN headquarters, and a rambling speech almost two hours long he made to the UN general assembly was greeted with considerable hostility.

Cretz suggested that a personal message from Hillary Clinton to Gaddafi himself might soothe the dictator. A placatory message was accordingly rapidly dispatched on 3 December. But permissions were still not granted. The HEU casks remained on the tarmac, getting hotter.

A US diplomat went to see the Libyan foreign minister in alarm and "described the environmental disaster that could take place … We also are seeking a meeting with Saif al-Islam's aide … in hopes of ensuring that senior Libyan officials understand the grave security and safety risks".

On 7 December the situation finally brightened: armed guards appeared at the nuclear plant. "A close aide to Saif al-Islam al-Qadhafi indicated that [Clinton's] message … had been positively received and passed to the 'highest levels'."

There was more brinkmanship to come. The US said it would refuse to pay the $800,000 Russian transp ort bill unless the fuel was officially released by a deadline of 18 December.

Finally the giant Antonov plane was allowed to land. At dawn on 21 December, after a fraught month, it successfully took off for Russia with its radioactive cargo.

America's nuclear emergency team that oversaw the shipment reported that "the month-long impasse had taken a visible toll on Dr Ali Gashut, the head of the Libyan atomic energy establishment".

This year appears to have brought a new crisis – this time over the promised destruction of Libya's 240 Scud B missiles. "General Ahmed Azwai insisted that the US was mostly responsible for Libya's delayed fulfillment of Scud B destruction commitments," another cable from Tripoli reported.

"Azwai blamed the US for hampering Libyan efforts to find … alternative weapons system to replace its Scud B stock and refused to discuss a destruction timeline." He "insisted that the 2004 trilateral agreement included 'promises by the US and UK to find a replacement'."

The outcome of that dispute is unclear.

[Ed Jewett]

PayPal freezes WikiLeaks account [Credit Card Companies to follow suit]

Therein is proof of the suppurative nature of things, to borrow on Guyatt, given what we know about money laundering of narco-dollars washed through Wall Street, big American banks, etc.

[Ed Jewett]

I know that pic Ed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tkzc983aE0

I'd hoped I'd stumble upon a metal box under a chunk of volcanic glass that has no earthly right being under a rock wall in the vicinity of an oak tree in such a cornfield, but I've discovered equally valuable directives buried in the hearts of people.
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tkzc983aE0][/url]

[Ed Jewett]

WikiLeaks and The Sound of Silence

by Jeff Gates / December 4th, 2010


http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/12/wikile...more-25988



###


Wikileaks, Iran, and the US’s Arab Allies: What the Corporate Media Are Not Saying

by Deepa Kumar / December 4th, 2010


http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/12/wikile...more-26025



###


Wikileaks Shocker

Did Abbas Know in Advance about the Devastating Blitz on His Countrymen in Gaza?


by Stuart Littlewood / December 4th, 2010


http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/12/wikile...more-25993



###


WikiLeaks Reveals Diplomatic Cables on Aafia Siddiqui

by Stephen Lendman / December 4th, 2010


http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/12/wikile...more-26007

[Ed Jewett]

Library of Congress Blocks Access to Wikileaks 03 Dec 2010 The Library of Congress has blocked access to the Wikileaks site on its staff computers and on the wireless network that visitors use, two sources tell TPM. The library is a governmental institution and serves as the research arm for Congress.


December 4, 2010 by legitgov

[Magda Hassan]

Can't have documents and information in the library. Only the official party line and window decorations.