addressalign-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcameraccwcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-checkcircle-with-crosscircle-with-pluscrossdots-three-verticaleditemptyheartexporteye-with-lineeyefacebookfolderfullheartglobegmailgooglegroupsimageimagesinstagramlinklocation-pinm-swarmSearchmailmessagesminusmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1outlookpersonJoin Group on CardStartprice-ribbonImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartickettrashtriangle-downtriangle-uptwitteruseryahoo

The London Expat American Meetup Group Message Board › Bradley Manning, WikiLeaks and Afghanistan - US Citizen in Guantanamo

Bradley Manning, WikiLeaks and Afghanistan - US Citizen in Guantanamo

Wilber W.
Group Organizer
London, GB
Post #: 3,040
Wikileaks Exposes Complicity of the Press
Gareth Porter is an investigative historian and journalist with Inter-Press Service specialising in U.S. national security policy
By GARETH PORTER December 1, 2010

Full text of the U.S. State Department report on the meeting of the Joint Threat Assessment in Washington Dec. 22, 2009:­

A diplomatic cable from last February released by Wikileaks provides a detailed account of how Russian specialists on the Iranian ballistic missile program refuted the U.S. suggestion that Iran has missiles that could target European capitals or intends to develop such a capability.

In fact, the Russians challenged the very existence of the mystery missile the U.S. claims Iran acquired from North Korea.

But readers of the two leading U.S. newspapers never learned those key facts about the document.

The New York Times and Washington Post reported only that the United States believed Iran had acquired such missiles - supposedly called the BM-25 - from North Korea. Neither newspaper reported the detailed Russian refutation of the U.S. view on the issue or the lack of hard evidence for the BM-25 from the U.S. side.

The Times, which had obtained the diplomatic cables not from Wikileaks but from The Guardian, according to a Washington Post story Monday, did not publish the text of the cable.

The Times story said the newspaper had made the decision not to publish "at the request of the Obama administration". That meant that its readers could not compare the highly- distorted account of the document in the Times story against the original document without searching the Wikileaks website.

As a result, a key Wikileaks document which should have resulted in stories calling into question the thrust of the Obama administration's ballistic missile defense policy in Europe based on an alleged Iranian missile threat has instead produced a spate of stories buttressing anti-Iran hysteria.

The full text of the U.S. State Department report on the meeting of the Joint Threat Assessment in Washington Dec. 22, 2009, which is available on the Wikileaks website, shows that there was a dramatic confrontation over the issue of the mysterious BM-25 missile.

The BM-25 has been described as a surface-to-surface missile based on a now-obsolete Soviet submarine-launched ballistic missile, the R-27 or SS-N-6. The purported missile is said to be capable of reaching ranges of 2,400 to 4,000 km – putting much of Europe within its range.

The head of the U.S. delegation to the meeting, Vann H. Van Diepen, acting assistant secretary for international security and nonproliferation, said the United States "believes" Iran had acquired 19 of those missiles from North Korea, according to the leaked document.

But an official of the Russian Defense Ministry dismissed published reports of such a missile, which he said were "without reference to any reliable sources".

He observed that there had never been a test of such a missile in either North Korea or Iran, and that the Russian government was "unaware that the missile had ever been seen". The Russians asked the U.S. side for any evidence of the existence of such a missile.

U.S. officials did not claim to have photographic or other hard evidence of the missile, but said the North Koreans had paraded the missile through the streets of Pyongyong. The Russians responded that they had reviewed a video of that parade, and had found that it was an entirely different missile.

The Russian official said there was no evidence for claims that 19 of these missiles had been shipped to Iran in 2005, and that it would have been impossible to conceal such a transfer. The Russians also said it was difficult to believe Iran would have purchased a missile system that had never even been tested.

U.S. delegation chief Van Dieppen cited one piece of circumstantial evidence that Iran had done work on the "steering (vernier) engines" of the BM-25. Internet photos of the weld lines and tank volumes on the second stage of Iran's space launch vehicle, the Safir, he said, show that the ratio of oxidizer to propellant is not consistent with the propellants used in the past by the Shahab-3.

That suggests that the Safir was using the same system that had been used in the R-27, according to Van Dieppen.

The Russians asserted, however, that the propellant used in the Safir was not the one used in the R-27.

Even more important evidence from the Safir launch that Iran does not have any BM-25 missiles was noted in an authoritative study of the Iranian missile program published by the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) last May.

The study found that Iran had not used the main engine associated with the purported BM-25 to help boost its Safir space-launch vehicle.

If Iran had indeed possessed the more powerful engine associated with the original Russian R-27, the study observes, the Safir would have been able to launch a much larger satellite into orbit. But in fact the Safir was "clearly underpowered" and barely able to put its 27 kg satellite into low earth orbit, according to the IISS study.

The same study also points out that the original R-27 was designed to operate in a submarine launch tube, and a road- mobile variant would require major structural modifications. Yet another reason for doubt reported by IISS is that the propellant combination in the R-27 would not work in a land- mobile missile, because "the oxidizer must be maintained within a narrow temperature range".

Van Diepen suggested two other Iranian options: use of the Shahab-3 technology with "clustered or stacked engines" or the development of a solid-propellant MRBM with a more powerful engine.

The Russians expressed strong doubts about both options, however, saying they were sceptical of Iranian claims to have a missile with a 2,000 km range. They pointed out that the longest range on a missile tested thus far is 1,700 km, and that it was achieved only by significantly reducing throw weight.

Van Diepen cited "modeling" studies that showed Iran could achieve a greater range, and that adding an additional 300 km "is not a great technological stretch". But the Russian delegation insisted that the additional length of the flight could cause various parts of the missile to burn through and missile could fall apart.

The head of the Russian delegation, Valimir Nazarov, deputy secretary of the Russian Security Council, said Russia believes any assessment of the Iranian missile program must be based not only on modeling but on "consideration of the real technical barriers faced by Iran".
Wilber W.
Group Organizer
London, GB
Post #: 3,041

One of several such barriers cited by the Russians was the lack of the "structural materials" needed for longer-range missiles that could threaten the United States or Russia, such as "high quality aluminum".

The Russians maintained that, even assuming favorable conditions, Iran would be able to begin a program to develop ballistic missiles that could reach Central Europe or Moscow only after 2015 at the earliest.

The Russians denied, however, that Iran has such an intention, arguing that its ballistic missile program continues to be directed toward "regional concerns" – meaning deterring an attack on Iran by Israel.

The U.S. delegation never addressed the issue of Iranian intentions – a position consistent with the dominant role of weapons specialists in the U.S. intelligence community's assessments of Iran and their overwhelming focus on capabilities and lack of interest in intentions.

Michael Elleman, the senior author of the IISS study of the Iranian missile programme, told me the report of the U.S.- Russian exchange highlights the differences in the two countries' approaches to the subject. "The Russians talked about the most likely set of outcomes," said Elleman, "whereas the U.S. side focused on what might happen."

*Gareth Porter is an investigative historian and journalist specialising in U.S. national security policy. The paperback edition of his latest book, "Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam", was published in 2006.

Full text of the U.S. State Department report on the meeting of the Joint Threat Assessment in Washington Dec. 22, 2009

Gareth Porter is an investigative historian and journalist with Inter-Press Service specialising in U.S. national security policy. The paperback edition of his latest book, "Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam", was published in 2006.
Wilber W.
Group Organizer
London, GB
Post #: 3,042

Who Precisely is Attacking the World?
Hillary's Blame Game

Paul Craig Roberts was an editor of the Wall Street Journal and an Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury.

he stuck pigs are squealing. To shift the onus from the US State Department, Hillary Clinton paints Wikileaks’ release of the “diplomatic cables” as an “attack on the international community.” To reveal truth is equivalent in the eyes of the US government to an attack on the world.

It is Wikileaks’ fault that all those US diplomats wrote a quarter of a million undiplomatic messages about America’s allies, a.k.a., puppet states. It is also Wikileaks’ fault that an American could no longer stomach the cynical ways in which the US government manipulates foreign governments to serve, not their own people, but American interests, and delivered the incriminating evidence to Wikileaks.

The US government actually thinks that it was Wikileaks’ patriotic duty to return the evidence and to identify the leaker. After all, we mustn’t let the rest of the world find out what we are up to. They might stop believing our lies.

The influential German magazine, Der Spiegel, writes: “It is nothing short of a political meltdown for US foreign policy.”

This might be more a hope than a reality. The “Soviet threat” during the second half of the 20th century enabled US governments to create institutions that subordinated the interests of other countries to those of the US government. After decades of following US leadership, European “leaders” know no other way to act. Finding out that the boss badmouths and deceives them is unlikely to light a spirit of independence. At least not until America’s economic collapse becomes more noticeable.

The question is: how much will the press tell us about the documents? Spiegel itself has said that the magazine is permitting the US government to censor, at least in part, what it prints about the leaked material. Most likely, this means the public will not learn the content of the 4,330 documents that “are so explosive that they are labelled ‘NOFORN,’” meaning that foreigners, including presidents, prime ministers, and security services that share information with the CIA, are not permitted to read the documents. Possibly, also, the content of the 16,652 cables classified as “secret” will not be revealed to the public.

Most likely the press, considering their readers’ interests, will focus on gossip and the unflattering remarks Americans made about their foreign counterparts. It will be good for laughs. Also, the US government will attempt to focus the media in ways that advance US policies.

Indeed, it has already begun. On November 29, National Public Radio emphasized that the cables showed that Iran was isolated even in the Muslim world, making it easier for the Israelis and Americans to attack. The leaked cables reveal that the president of Egypt, an American puppet, hates Iran, and the Saudi Arabian government has been long urging the US government to attack Iran. In other words, Iran is so dangerous to the world that even its co-religionists want Iran wiped off the face of the earth.

NPR presented several nonobjective “Iranian experts” who denigrated Iran and its leadership and declared that the US government, by resisting its Middle Eastern allies’ calls for bombing Iran, was the moderate in the picture. The fact that President George W. Bush declared Iran to be a member of “the axis of evil” and threatened repeatedly to attack Iran, and that President Obama has continued the threats--Adm. Michael Mullen, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, has just reiterated that the US hasn’t taken the attack option off the table--are not regarded by American “Iran experts” as indications of anything other than American moderation.

Somehow it did not come across in the NPR newscast that it is not Iran but Israel that routinely slaughters civilians in Lebanon, Gaza, and the West Bank, and that it is not Iran but the US and its NATO mercenaries who slaughter civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yeman, and Pakistan.

Iran has not invaded any of its neighbors, but the Americans are invading countries half way around the globe.

The “Iranian experts” treated the Saudi and Egyptian rulers’ hatred of Iran as a vindication of the US and Israeli governments’ demonization of Iran. Not a single “Iranian expert” was capable of pointing out that the tyrants who rule Egypt and Saudi Arabia fear Iran because the Iranian government represents the interests of Muslims, and the Saudi and Egyptian governments represent the interests of the Americans.

Think what it must feel like to be a tyrant suppressing the aspirations of your own people in order to serve the hegemony of a foreign country, while a nearby Muslim government strives to protect its people’s independence from foreign hegemony.

Undoubtedly, the tyrants become very anxious. What if their oppressed subjects get ideas? Little wonder the Saudis and Egyptian rulers want the Americans to eliminate the independent-minded country that is a bad example for Egyptian and Saudi subjects.

As long as the dollar has enough value that it can be used to purchase foreign governments, information damaging to the US government is unlikely to have much effect. As Alain of Lille said a long time ago, “money is all.”

Paul Craig Roberts was an editor of the Wall Street Journal and an Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury. His latest book, HOW THE ECONOMY WAS LOST, has just been published by CounterPunch/AK Press. He can be reached at:

How the Economy was Lost by Paul Craig Roberts

The US economy has disintegrated, and with it into the abyss plummet the blueprints of neoliberal economists, whose theories about "the free market" have now gone the way of medieval alchemy. No voice has been stronger, no prose more forceful, than that of Paul Craig Roberts in predicting collapse. His weekly columns in CounterPunch have won an audience of millions around the world, grateful for a trained economist who can explain lucidly how the well-being of the planet has been held hostage by the gangster elite. Now Dr. Roberts has written the shortest, sharpest outline of economics for the twenty-first century ever put between book covers. He traces the path to ruin and lays out the choices that must be made. There is the "empty world" of corporate exploitation, abetted by the vast majority of economists; or the "full world" of responsible management and distribution of our resources. Amid crisis, this is the guide you've been waiting for.
Wilber W.
Group Organizer
London, GB
Post #: 3,045
Why Wikileaks is Good for Democracy
Filling the Vacuum
By BILL QUIGLEY, Legal Director of the Center for Constitutional Rights and law professor at Loyola University New Orleans

“Information is the currency of democracy.”

-- Thomas Jefferson.

Since 9-11, the US government, through Presidents Bush and Obama, has increasingly told the US public that “state secrets” will not be shared with citizens. Candidate Obama pledged to reduce the use of state secrets, but President Obama continued the Bush tradition. The Courts and Congress and international allies have gone meekly along with the escalating secrecy demands of the US Executive.

By labeling tens of millions of documents secret, the US government has created a huge vacuum of information.

But information is the lifeblood of democracy. Information about government contributes to a healthy democracy. Transparency and accountability are essential elements of good government. Likewise, “a lack of government transparency and accountability undermines democracy and gives rise to cynicism and mistrust,” according to a 2008 Harris survey commissioned by the Association of Government Accountants.

Into the secrecy vacuum stepped Private Bradley Manning, who, according to the Associated Press, was able to defeat “Pentagon security systems using little more than a Lady Gaga CD and a portable computer memory stick.”

Manning apparently sent the information to Wikileaks – a non profit media organization, which specializes in publishing leaked information. Wikileaks in turn shared the documents to other media around the world including the New York Times and published much of it on its website.

Despite criminal investigations by the US and other governments, it is not clear that media organizations like Wikileaks can be prosecuted in the US in light of First Amendment. Recall that the First Amendment says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

Outraged politicians are claiming that the release of government information is the criminal equivalent of terrorism and puts innocent people’s lives at risk. Many of those same politicians authorized the modern equivalent of carpet bombing of Baghdad and other Iraqi cities, the sacrifice of thousands of lives of soldiers and civilians, and drone assaults on civilian areas in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen. Their anger at a document dump, no matter how extensive, is more than a little suspect.

Everyone, including Wikileaks and the other media reporting the documents, hopes that no lives will be lost because of this. So far, that appears to be the case as McClatchey Newspapers reported November 28, 2010, that ‘US officials conceded that they have no evidence to date that the [prior] release of documents led to anyone’s death.”

The US has been going in the wrong direction for years by classifying millions of documents as secrets. Wikileaks and other media which report these so called secrets will embarrass people yes. Wikileaks and other media will make leaders uncomfortable yes. But embarrassment and discomfort are small prices to pay for a healthier democracy.

Wikileaks has the potential to make transparency and accountability more robust in the US. That is good for democracy.

Bill Quigley is Legal Director of the Center for Constitutional Rights and law professor at Loyola University New Orleans. Contact Bill at
Wilber W.
Group Organizer
London, GB
Post #: 3,046
It's no secret what Pakistan's been doing with the Taliban
30 Jul 2010: Tariq Ali: All sides know what's been going on since Afghanistan was first occupied. It's also clear that this war can't be won­

David Cameron's post-WikiLeaks remarks on Pakistan helping the enemy in the Hindu Kush shouldn't be taken too seriously. The carefully orchestrated "outburst" in India was designed to please his hosts and seal a few business deals (Cameron and Cable are fagging for the British arms industry). It's all part of the schmoozing.

WikiLeaks: Pakistan continues to support Mumbai terror attack group‎ - 1 hour ago

The (Not So) Secret (Anymore) US War in Pakistan‎
The Nation. (blog) - 2 hours ago

WikiLeaks: David Cameron claimed; 'We let in some crazies'...‎
Daily Mail - 15 minutes ago

Speaking of Empire and Resistance

A leading political writer and activist speaks out on the crisis in the Middle East, the war on terror, and the resurgent militarism of the American Empire.

Exiled from Pakistan in the 1960s for his activism against the military dictatorship, Tariq Ali has gained a reputation as one of the English-speaking world’s most forceful political thinkers, speaking out consistently against imperialism, religious fundamentalism, and, most recently, the misguided Anglo-American war on terror, including the disastrous fiasco in Iraq. Ali’s most recent books, The Clash of Fundamentalisms and Bush in Babylon, have been widely praised and read. A prolific and eloquent writer, Ali is also a captivating conversationalist, and Speaking of Empire and Resistance captures him at his provocative best. This series of interviews brings together Ali’s insights into a wide range of topics—among them the fate of modern-day Pakistan, the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, the intractable Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the state of the Islamic world, and the continuing significance of imperialism in the twenty-first century. Speaking of Empire and Resistance reinforces Tariq Ali’s reputation as one of the most perceptive and engaging figures of today’s Left.


26 Jul 2010: Eighteen months ago, Tariq Ali got a call from Oliver Stone: could he help with his new film? The result was a powerful documentary about Latin America – and a new friendship­

John Lennon's power for the people
2 Feb 2010: Tariq Ali: Whether or not Lennon did regret his associations with the radical left, I still remember his beliefs – and his voice – fondly­

Wilber W.
Group Organizer
London, GB
Post #: 3,047
WikiLeaks spokesperson Kristinn Hrafnsson; LIVE online TONIGHT­

Julian Assange at Frontline Club 07/26/10­

Julian Assange and Daniel Ellsberg at Frontline Club 10/25/10­
Wilber W.
Group Organizer
London, GB
Post #: 3,053
Booted from US-based domain, WikiLeaks site finds refuge with Swiss Pirate Party
A US-based domain name provider terminated its relationship with, saying that attacks on the WikiLeaks site were causing problems for other users.
- 29 minutes ago

The website is no longer functioning, after its US-based domain host on Thursday terminated service for the controversial site. The expulsion forced WikiLeaks to relocate its domain name with a Switzerland-based domain name host, and the website is now found at

Perhaps fittingly, WikiLeaks' new domain name host is the Swiss Pirate Party, which the Associated Press calls "a political group formed two years ago to campaign for freedom of information and sensible technology policy." The New York Times reported that the party is a branch of the Swedish Pirate Party, according to the website

WikiLeaks was booted at 10 p.m. EST on Thursday from, a subsidiary of New Hampshire-based web host Dynamic Network Hosting, the company said in a statement on its website.

"The interference at issues [sic] arises from the fact that has become the target of multiple distributed denial of service (DDOS) attacks. These attacks have, and future attacks would, threaten the stability of the infrastructure, which enables access to almost 500,000 other websites," the statement says.

RELATED: Full WikiLeaks coverage

WikiLeaks confirmed the end of their service through on its Twitter account: “ domain killed by US after claimed mass attacks KEEP US STRONG,” they wrote, appealing for donations.

The termination came a day after canceled its hosting of WikiLeaks' site, saying that sites must contain their own material.

A website requires both a domain name provider and a web server host. For WikiLeaks, hosted its domain name while Amazon provided use of its web servers. Though Amazon terminated service as web server host, WikiLeaks is also hosted on the Swedish web server Banhof, which is still providing service, according to the Associated Press.

Amazon denied that its decision was because of government pressure, saying it was instead because the WikiLeaks site violated’s terms of service as it was “clear” that WikiLeaks didn’t own the rights to nor control the classified material.

“There have been reports that a government inquiry prompted us not to serve WikiLeaks any longer. That is inaccurate,” the company said, according to The Wall Street Journal.

It’s not just the WikiLeaks website that is under fire. Sweden has an arrest warrant out for him over allegations of rape, sexual molestation, and unlawful coercion. Assange’s lawyers have denied the charges, saying the encounters were consensual. International police organization Interpol has issued a "red notice" alert on him to all 188 member countries.

It is possible that the US already has an indictment out for Assange, potentially for espionage, but a judge could order it kept sealed until he is apprehended by the US to prevent him from going further into hiding, The Christian Science Monitor has reported.

The site’s founder, Assange, is said to be hiding in Britain. In an October profile in The New York Times, Assange described how he lives on the run, dying his hair and checking into hotels under false names. “When it comes to the point where you occasionally look forward to being in prison on the basis that you might be able to spend a day reading a book, the realization dawns that perhaps the situation has become a little more stressful than you would like,” he told the Times

WikiLeaks Struggles to Stay Online After Cyberattacks‎ - New York Times - 2 hours ago­

Julian Assange's arrest warrant: a diversion from the truth?

Who is Julian Assange?‎ - 2 hours ago
Tittle Tattle instead of results... Hindustan Times -
How to smear a hero...

Wilber W.
Group Organizer
London, GB
Post #: 3,054
Assange Family speak out on behalf of Julian Assange | Mother says don't hunt down my son
Julians mother and Son speak out on his behalf...
High noon approaches as Assange fights "The Baddies"

He wouldn't rape anybody - it was a set-up," Christine Assange said.

Mr Assange, 39, has denied the accusations, with his British lawyer Mark Stephens saying last month that they were "false and without basis".

Ecuador's Deputy Foreign Minister Kintto Lucas yesterday offered Mr Assange asylum in his country saying that "we are ready to give him [Mr Assange] residence in Ecuador, with no problems and no conditions".
Mr Assange's mother, Christine, who doesn't even own a computer and has been keeping up with her son's exploits through the media, said her son was a "seeker of truth".

"Whether you agree with what Julian does or not, living by what you believe in and standing up for something is a good thing," she said.

"He sees what he's doing as doing a good thing in the world, fighting baddies, if you like."

Ms Assange, told a local Australian newspaper she worried for her 39-year-old son had "gotten too smart for himself".

"I'm concerned it's gotten too big and the forces that he's challenging are too big."

Ms Assange said her "highly intelligent" son was brought up without religion, but with a strong code of ethics.

At 18, Mr Assange became a father when his son, Daniel, now 21, was born.

"Jules put his life and university studies on hold to parent Daniel and be there for him," Ms Assange said.

"He's a very good father - not many men of that age will fight for their kid, but he stepped up to the responsibility.

"To me that's an even greater achievement than WikiLeaks."

Daniel believes that his father’s best quality as a parent was this desire to share knowledge and discuss it intelligently with his son.

“The one thing I found that I appreciated most was that he wouldn’t treat me like a child when it came to intellectual concepts: he would speak to me as though he were really trying to get me to grasp the fullness of an idea,” Daniel says.

Father and son even attended university together when Daniel began his masters degree in genetics, aged 15, and his dad studied mathematics and physics at the University of Melbourne.

Ms Assange, who moved to the Sunshine Coast five weeks ago for health reasons, said Julian was distancing himself from the family for their own safety

When it comes to Assange rape case, the Swedes are making it up as they go along
We should stand up for Assange: Human rights lawyer Geoffrey Robertson tells Guy Rundle | Crikey­­

It is not Julian Assange that is on trial here but Sweden and its reputation as a modern and model country with rules of law, writes Melbourne barrister James D. Catlin who acted for Julian Assange in London in October

Respected media outlets work with WikiLeaks‎ - 5 hours ago­
Wilber W.
Group Organizer
London, GB
Post #: 3,056

RTS Huw Wheldon Lecture 2010 - Science: A Challenge to TV Orthodoxy
Dr Brian Cox
Wednesday 01 December 11:20pm - 12:00am

Professor Brian Cox uses this year's lecture to explore the challenges that exist in bringing science to a television audience, from the risks of over-simplification to the perils of eschewing scientific fact in pursuit of balance.

VIDEO Plus+: 989449
Subtitled, Widescreen

Dr Cox in his Huw Wheldon Lecture acceptance speech puts forward that science itself, brought forward to a mass audience must be "peer reviewed" mainstream, actual science or be clearly presented as opinion, not fact. Shouldn't economics, also a science, be the "peer reviewed" stuff, by actual economists or presented clearly as mere opinion.

Dr Rapley
TODAY Science museum 03 Dec 2010

Prince Charles backs 'Climategate' scientists and actual science

The Prince of Wales has given his support to the scientists involved in the "Climategate" saga, describing their treatment as "appalling".

Prince Charles's comments came as he opened the Science Museum's new £4.5 million Atmosphere gallery which explores the science behind global warming.

Amongst the prized displays was an original Keeling air sampling flask used by the American scientist Charles David Keeling who in 1958 began the longest continuous recordings of atmospheric CO2 concentrations in the world.

BBC - Wikileaks files: US rebuffed Brown over McKinnon offer
fair trials abroad denounces wikileaks prosecution as persecution

Supporting, training and mentoring fair trial and human rights defenders across the world
Fair Trials International is committed to improving access to justice around the world and a key element of this is working to improve access to criminal defence. Despite great advances in the administration of justice across the globe, there remain many countries where providing essential defence representation is poorly valued or worse, actively threatened.

For this reason, Fair Trials International works to maintain and expand our networks of defence practitioners and experts in criminal justice. In this way, we can host peer-to-peer support, mentoring and training for defenders and bolster their efforts to secure fair trials according to international standards of justice in the communities where they practice.

As part of this capacity-building programme, we hold regular forums and meetings, and have recently established a new group, the Young Defenders’ Network, to identify and support the next generation of fair trial defenders.


Mark Stephens, Julian Assange's UK Lawyer appointed Chair of Governors at University of East London
Wednesday 15 July 2009

Distinguished media lawyer Mark Stephens has been announced as the new Chair of Governors of the University of East London (UEL), taking up his post on 1 August.

Mark Stephens studied Law at UEL (then North East London Polytechnic) in the early 1980s and after graduating developed his career as a champion of artistic expression. Now a senior member of the law firm Finers Stephens Innocent, Mark has practised before every level of Court in England and Wales, and regularly appears before the European Court of Human Rights and the Privy Council.

Mark is also a prolific commentator, broadcaster, blogger and writer and his views on arts, law, media and human rights are frequently sought by the media. He holds a number of Government sanctioned, regulatory and charitable appointments.

Mark Stephens said: "I have lived in East London for thirty-four years and it is an honour to have been elected to serve my local university - a university of which I am proud to be a graduate. I hope that everyone will join me in moving our university forward to ever greater success in the years ahead".

The appointment was made following a meeting last week of UEL’s Board of Governors. The current Chair of Governors, Jim McKenna, steps down this month at the end of his term of office.

Roy Pointer, Deputy Chair, who led the search for a new Chair said: "I am delighted that Mark Stephens has agreed to become our new Chair. Mark's association with the University of East London goes back many years and his commitment to UEL is very strong. My fellow Governors look forward to a long and fruitful partnership as our university seeks to build on its past successes and its enormous potential".­
Wilber W.
Group Organizer
London, GB
Post #: 3,057
Mark Stephens, Julian Assange's UK Lawyer On Julian Assange's Defence
Assange Arrest Imminent, British police have known Assange location

Says lawyer Police in Britain know the whereabouts of Julian Assange, his lawyer said amid reports that they have failed to detain the WikiLeaks founder because of an error ... - [Dec 02 2010 - Yahoo! UK and Ireland]

UK, others know Assange location: lawyer British police and the security services of several nations know the whereabouts of Julian Assange, his lawyer said. London-based lawyer Mark Stephens made the comments ... - [Dec 02 2010 - Brisbane Times]




Assange under threat of arrest in UK‎ - 1 hour ago­­

PayPal cuts Wikileaks access for donations­
Powered by mvnForum

Our Sponsors

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy