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.
WilberWebb
Group Organizer
London, GB
Post #: 4,219


History Will Judge Bradley Manning And Laud Him For Telling The Truth
A former career intelligence officer and longtime critic of America's overseas debacles compares Bradley Manning to America's greatest patriots. December 21, 2011
http://www.alternet.o...­
BEST http://www.consortium...­
Share the Soldiers Burden; http://adoptresistanc...­



Con....

Apparently, Manning saw in ending the mindless slaughter of aggressive war, with its accumulated evil — its torture and other pus-flowing ugliness — what ethicists define as a “supervening value,” one that outweighs lesser values like keeping a secrecy promise required as a condition of employment.

Manning chose to break that promise. And Dr. King, in his Letter from the Birmingham Jail, addressed something analogous. King insisted “an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust,” and risks jail in order “to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the very highest respect for law.”

When Generals Lie

Bradley Manning’s courage hits a personal nerve in me. At age 28, I had an opportunity to blow the whistle on the lies of the senior U.S. military in Saigon. The evidence was documentary (a SECRET/EYES ONLY cable from Saigon); indeed, it was hard for me to believe the generals would put their deceit so explicitly in writing, but they did.

Younger readers need to be reminded that, at the time (August 1967) there was no WikiLeaks, but the New York Times was an independent newspaper prone to publishing documentary evidence critical of the government. The Times had not yet gotten into the habit of seeking prior approval from the White House.

Six years older than Bradley Manning was when he summoned the courage to do the right thing — and with college courses in ethics in my moral quiver — I nonetheless, well, quivered.

I blew a unique opportunity to let Americans know that, duty, honor, country be damned, unconscionable corruption at senior levels in Saigon and in Washington had badly misled us on the war and that our GIs and the Vietnamese were being chewed up in a March of Folly.

And that opportunity came months before so many got chewed up in the January-February 1968 Communist countrywide offensive, ushering in the second half of the bloody war in Vietnam. (I discussed this last year, in connection with the WikiLeaks disclosures, in “How the Truth Can Save Lives.”)

Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. After two years as an Army infantry/intelligence officer, he served as a CIA analyst for 27 years. He also serves on the SAAII nominating committee and the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).







vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv­vvvvvvv





[Activists from South Korea, who probably endured considerable risk of arrest as they staged a recent demo in Seoul.]

In Defense of Bradley Manning: A Primer for the Confused, Ambivalent
http://jetattendsdans...­
http://iam.bradleyman...­
Wilber W.
WilberWebb
Group Organizer
London, GB
Post #: 4,233
Why I Wrote PGP
Part of the Original 1991 PGP User's Guide (updated in 1999)
http://www.philzimmer...­



"Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it."
-Mahatma Gandhi


Philip R. Zimmermann
Boulder, Colorado
June 1991 (updated 1999)

Surveillance legislation by Biden inspired Phil Zimmermann to write PGP (Pretty Good Privacy), an encryption program in 1991

It's personal. It's private. And it's no one's business but yours. You may be planning a political campaign, discussing your taxes, or having a secret romance. Or you may be communicating with a political dissident in a repressive country. Whatever it is, you don't want your private electronic mail (email) or confidential documents read by anyone else. There's nothing wrong with asserting your privacy. Privacy is as apple-pie as the Constitution.

The right to privacy is spread implicitly throughout the Bill of Rights. But when the United States Constitution was framed, the Founding Fathers saw no need to explicitly spell out the right to a private conversation. That would have been silly. Two hundred years ago, all conversations were private. If someone else was within earshot, you could just go out behind the barn and have your conversation there. No one could listen in without your knowledge. The right to a private conversation was a natural right, not just in a philosophical sense, but in a law-of-physics sense, given the technology of the time.

But with the coming of the information age, starting with the invention of the telephone, all that has changed. Now most of our conversations are conducted electronically. This allows our most intimate conversations to be exposed without our knowledge. Cellular phone calls may be monitored by anyone with a radio. Electronic mail, sent across the Internet, is no more secure than cellular phone calls. Email is rapidly replacing postal mail, becoming the norm for everyone, not the novelty it was in the past.

Until recently, if the government wanted to violate the privacy of ordinary citizens, they had to expend a certain amount of expense and labor to intercept and steam open and read paper mail. Or they had to listen to and possibly transcribe spoken telephone conversation, at least before automatic voice recognition technology became available. This kind of labor-intensive monitoring was not practical on a large scale. It was only done in important cases when it seemed worthwhile. This is like catching one fish at a time, with a hook and line. Today, email can be routinely and automatically scanned for interesting keywords, on a vast scale, without detection. This is like driftnet fishing. And exponential growth in computer power is making the same thing possible with voice traffic.

Perhaps you think your email is legitimate enough that encryption is unwarranted. If you really are a law-abiding citizen with nothing to hide, then why don't you always send your paper mail on postcards? Why not submit to drug testing on demand? Why require a warrant for police searches of your house? Are you trying to hide something? If you hide your mail inside envelopes, does that mean you must be a subversive or a drug dealer, or maybe a paranoid nut? Do law-abiding citizens have any need to encrypt their email?

What if everyone believed that law-abiding citizens should use postcards for their mail? If a nonconformist tried to assert his privacy by using an envelope for his mail, it would draw suspicion. Perhaps the authorities would open his mail to see what he's hiding. Fortunately, we don't live in that kind of world, because everyone protects most of their mail with envelopes. So no one draws suspicion by asserting their privacy with an envelope. There's safety in numbers. Analogously, it would be nice if everyone routinely used encryption for all their email, innocent or not, so that no one drew suspicion by asserting their email privacy with encryption. Think of it as a form of solidarity.

Senate Bill 266, a 1991 omnibus anticrime bill, had an unsettling measure buried in it. If this non-binding resolution had become real law, it would have forced manufacturers of secure communications equipment to insert special "trap doors" in their products, so that the government could read anyone's encrypted messages. It reads, "It is the sense of Congress that providers of electronic communications services and manufacturers of electronic communications service equipment shall ensure that communications systems permit the government to obtain the plain text contents of voice, data, and other communications when appropriately authorized by law." It was this bill that led me to publish PGP electronically for free that year, shortly before the measure was defeated after vigorous protest by civil libertarians and industry groups.

The 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) mandated that phone companies install remote wiretapping ports into their central office digital switches, creating a new technology infrastructure for "point-and-click" wiretapping, so that federal agents no longer have to go out and attach alligator clips to phone lines. Now they will be able to sit in their headquarters in Washington and listen in on your phone calls. Of course, the law still requires a court order for a wiretap. But while technology infrastructures can persist for generations, laws and policies can change overnight. Once a communications infrastructure optimized for surveillance becomes entrenched, a shift in political conditions may lead to abuse of this new-found power. Political conditions may shift with the election of a new government, or perhaps more abruptly from the bombing of a federal building.

A year after the CALEA passed, the FBI disclosed plans to require the phone companies to build into their infrastructure the capacity to simultaneously wiretap 1 percent of all phone calls in all major U.S. cities. This would represent more than a thousandfold increase over previous levels in the number of phones that could be wiretapped. In previous years, there were only about a thousand court-ordered wiretaps in the United States per year, at the federal, state, and local levels combined. It's hard to see how the government could even employ enough judges to sign enough wiretap orders to wiretap 1 percent of all our phone calls, much less hire enough federal agents to sit and listen to all that traffic in real time. The only plausible way of processing that amount of traffic is a massive Orwellian application of automated voice recognition technology to sift through it all, searching for interesting keywords or searching for a particular speaker's voice. If the government doesn't find the target in the first 1 percent sample, the wiretaps can be shifted over to a different 1 percent until the target is found, or until everyone's phone line has been checked for subversive traffic. The FBI said they need this capacity to plan for the future. This plan sparked such outrage that it was defeated in Congress. But the mere fact that the FBI even asked for these broad powers is revealing of their agenda.
Wilber W.
WilberWebb
Group Organizer
London, GB
Post #: 4,234
Why I Wrote PGP
Part of the Original 1991 PGP User's Guide (updated in 1999)
http://www.philzimmer...­



"Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it."
-Mahatma Gandhi


Philip R. Zimmermann
Boulder, Colorado
June 1991 (updated 1999)

Surveillance legislation by Biden inspired Phil Zimmermann to write PGP (Pretty Good Privacy), an encryption program in 1991

It's personal. It's private. And it's no one's business but yours. You may be planning a political campaign, discussing your taxes, or having a secret romance. Or you may be communicating with a political dissident in a repressive country. Whatever it is, you don't want your private electronic mail (email) or confidential documents read by anyone else. There's nothing wrong with asserting your privacy. Privacy is as apple-pie as the Constitution.

Con...

Advances in technology will not permit the maintenance of the status quo, as far as privacy is concerned. The status quo is unstable. If we do nothing, new technologies will give the government new automatic surveillance capabilities that Stalin could never have dreamed of. The only way to hold the line on privacy in the information age is strong cryptography.

You don't have to distrust the government to want to use cryptography. Your business can be wiretapped by business rivals, organized crime, or foreign governments. Several foreign governments, for example, admit to using their signals intelligence against companies from other countries to give their own corporations a competitive edge. Ironically, the United States government's restrictions on cryptography in the 1990's have weakened U.S. corporate defenses against foreign intelligence and organized crime.

The government knows what a pivotal role cryptography is destined to play in the power relationship with its people. In April 1993, the Clinton administration unveiled a bold new encryption policy initiative, which had been under development at the National Security Agency (NSA) since the start of the Bush administration. The centerpiece of this initiative was a government-built encryption device, called the Clipper chip, containing a new classified NSA encryption algorithm. The government tried to encourage private industry to design it into all their secure communication products, such as secure phones, secure faxes, and so on. AT&T put Clipper into its secure voice products. The catch: At the time of manufacture, each Clipper chip is loaded with its own unique key, and the government gets to keep a copy, placed in escrow. Not to worry, though–the government promises that they will use these keys to read your traffic only "when duly authorized by law." Of course, to make Clipper completely effective, the next logical step would be to outlaw other forms of cryptography.

The government initially claimed that using Clipper would be voluntary, that no one would be forced to use it instead of other types of cryptography. But the public reaction against the Clipper chip was strong, stronger than the government anticipated. The computer industry monolithically proclaimed its opposition to using Clipper. FBI director Louis Freeh responded to a question in a press conference in 1994 by saying that if Clipper failed to gain public support, and FBI wiretaps were shut out by non-government-controlled cryptography, his office would have no choice but to seek legislative relief. Later, in the aftermath of the Oklahoma City tragedy, Mr. Freeh testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that public availability of strong cryptography must be curtailed by the government (although no one had suggested that cryptography was used by the bombers).

The government has a track record that does not inspire confidence that they will never abuse our civil liberties. The FBI's COINTELPRO program targeted groups that opposed government policies. They spied on the antiwar movement and the civil rights movement. They wiretapped the phone of Martin Luther King. Nixon had his enemies list. Then there was the Watergate mess. More recently, Congress has either attempted to or succeeded in passing laws curtailing our civil liberties on the Internet. Some elements of the Clinton White House collected confidential FBI files on Republican civil servants, conceivably for political exploitation. And some overzealous prosecutors have shown a willingness to go to the ends of the Earth in pursuit of exposing sexual indiscretions of political enemies. At no time in the past century has public distrust of the government been so broadly distributed across the political spectrum, as it is today.

Throughout the 1990s, I figured that if we want to resist this unsettling trend in the government to outlaw cryptography, one measure we can apply is to use cryptography as much as we can now while it's still legal. When use of strong cryptography becomes popular, it's harder for the government to criminalize it. Therefore, using PGP is good for preserving democracy. If privacy is outlawed, only outlaws will have privacy.

It appears that the deployment of PGP must have worked, along with years of steady public outcry and industry pressure to relax the export controls. In the closing months of 1999, the Clinton administration announced a radical shift in export policy for crypto technology. They essentially threw out the whole export control regime. Now, we are finally able to export strong cryptography, with no upper limits on strength. It has been a long struggle, but we have finally won, at least on the export control front in the US. Now we must continue our efforts to deploy strong crypto, to blunt the effects increasing surveillance efforts on the Internet by various governments. And we still need to entrench our right to use it domestically over the objections of the FBI.

PGP empowers people to take their privacy into their own hands. There has been a growing social need for it. That's why I wrote it.

Philip R. Zimmermann
Boulder, Colorado
June 1991 (updated 1999)

Wilber W.
WilberWebb
Group Organizer
London, GB
Post #: 4,237
The Early Roots of PGP
http://en.wikipedia.o...­
http://en.wikipedia.o...­
http://www.philzimmer...­

Years before developing PGP, I was active in geopolitical issues. In the 1980s in Boulder, Colorado, I worked nearly full-time as a military policy analyst with the Nuclear Weapons Freeze Campaign, while still keeping my day job as a software engineer.

The world was a different place then. Reagan was in the White House, Brezhnev was in the Kremlin, FEMA was telling cities to prepare evacuation plans, and millions of people feared the world was drifting inexorably toward nuclear war. A million Americans marched for peace in Central Park.

It was in that political climate, in 1984, that I saw the need to develop what would become PGP, both for protecting human rights overseas, and for protecting grassroots political organizations at home. I started on the early design of PGP, but the more pressing matters of the peace movement postponed the bulk of the development effort until years later.

I served on the speakers bureau for the Union of Concerned Scientists, publicly debated government officials, served as defense policy advisor in a couple of U.S. House and Senate races, trained lobbyists, and helped organize the 1983 human encirclement of the Rocky Flats [Nuclear Weapons] Plant. I also managed the development of database software for Freeze Voter, the political action committee for the Nuclear Weapons Freeze Campaign. I was arrested twice for civil disobedience at the Nevada [Nuclear Weapons] Test Site. One of many memorable experiences from that time was meeting Carl Sagan, Martin Sheen, and Daniel Ellsberg in jail.

Throughout the mid-1980s, I taught a class on military policy, called Get Smart on the Arms Race. The course covered the history of the nuclear arms race, NATO doctrine, limited deterrence vs. extended deterrence, mutual assured destruction, arms control treaties, treaty verification, nuclear proliferation, the Strategic Defense Initiative, comparisons of U.S. and Soviet force structures and weapon systems, command and control systems, launch on warning, the strategic implications of hard-target capable counterforce weapons, power projection, the effects of nuclear weapons, Nuclear Winter, and the effects of the Cold War on foreign policy in the Third World.
Wilber W.
WilberWebb
Group Organizer
London, GB
Post #: 4,239




The Simpsons at 500: cameos from Julian Assange and Alison Krauss
http://www.stuff.co.n...­
http://www.huffington...­

Ay caramba! Because Four aired the 500th episode of The Simpsons last night - titled At Long Last Leave, with cameos from Julian Assange and Alison Krauss - as part of the show's Season 23*, I thought we could celebrate the momentous occasion with a Simpsons-centric questionnaire.



The Simpsons: At Long Last Leave
http://en.wikipedia.o...­

Australian activist Julian Assange — the founder of WikiLeaks — appears as himself. Many of his lines were written by Australian author Kathy Lette, who is one of Assange's friends. According to Lette, "Julian and The Simpsons producers asked me to rewrite his scene and dialogue. I guess they just wanted me to add a little Aussie irony to the script. Julian does not suffer from an irony deficiency! I used to write a sitcom for Columbia Pictures, the long-running series The Facts of Life, so the producers knew I could fire off a quip or two." In 2010, Swedish authorities issued a European Arrest Warrant to extradite Assange from Britain to Sweden for questioning in relation to sexual assault allegations made against him there. Assange was arrested in England, before being freed on conditional bail until a decision would be made as to whether or not he should be extradited to Sweden. Assange recorded his lines over the phone while under house arrest in England. Jean, who directed Assange's performance from Los Angeles, only acquired a phone number to call and received no information about the whereabouts of the activist. According to Jean in an interview with Entertainment Weekly, The Simpsons creator Matt Groening had found out through a rumor that Assange wanted to appear on the show. Casting director Bonnie Pietila was therefore given the task to contact Assange and make sure the guest appearance could happen. The episode features no reference to Assange's legal situation at the time of his recording. Jean commented that "He’s a controversial figure, and there’s a good reason he’s controversial. There was discussion internally whether or not to have him on the show, but ultimately we went ahead and did it." Groening has said in an interview that "We [the staff] dare ourselves to do things and Julian Assange was a dare."




Wilber W.
WilberWebb
Group Organizer
London, GB
Post #: 4,244
Wilber W.
WilberWebb
Group Organizer
London, GB
Post #: 4,245
MORE THAN 8,000 PEOPLE WATCH LIVE-STREAM OF THE RADICALISATION OF BRADLEY MANNING WORLDWIDE
http://www.theatre-wa...­
http://www.youtube.co...­
http://www.youtube.co...­



A total of 8,804 people in 76 countries around the world* watched the live-stream of National Theatre Wales’ The Radicalisation of Bradley Manning, according to statistics revealed today.

All public performances of the production were live-streamed on a dedicated website - nationaltheatrewales.org/bradleymanning – allowing online audiences to browse through material on the real story of Bradley Manning whilst watching the dramatisation. Alongside this live stream, the site hosted hyperlinks to websites, videos and articles referred to in the script, and a live comment stream to which the online audience contributed. The site was free to view and was only available live alongside the stage performance.

National Theatre Wales calls this ‘hyper-connected theatre’ - a combination of a live online transmission of the performance, hyperlinks to background information, and an opportunity for the audience to interact through livechat.

Written by Tim Price, and directed by the company’s artistic director, John E McGrath, The Radicalisation of Bradley Manning tackled one of the most important political and digital stories of our age, and brought that story to both local and global audiences.

This production marries National Theatre Wales’ reputation for making pioneering multiplatform work with the extraordinary story of Bradley Manning, who spent much of his adolescence in Haverfordwest, west Wales. The production opened at Tasker Milward School, which Bradley attended in his teens.



Reviewing the hyper-connected theatre experience, The Arts Desk said: "[Tim] Price and NTW have not only placed themselves at the cutting-edge of theatre, but at the very coalface of ideas". News stories about the production were published around the world, and appeared on CBS News, in the Washington Post, the Huffington Post, and the New Statesman.

Announcing the statistics, John E McGrath said: “'Every since becoming the first national theatre to launch itself with an online community, and a live-cast announcement of our opening season, National Theatre Wales has placed its digital presence at the heart of its theatre making. We have been thinking for a while about how best to incorporate live online viewing into our work, and Bradley Manning's story - with its huge news presence and direct relationship to digital information - was the perfect place to start. We are delighted to have reached such a wide global audience through this experiment, and we are looking forward to developing our live web presence.'

Multiplatform designer Tom Beardshaw, of Native HQ, added: “We continue to experiment and develop our understanding of how social media can connect with live performance through our collaborations with National Theatre Wales, and I think it has been very important to everyone involved in the production that we have been able to reach a wider international audience with our telling of Bradley Manning's story.”

A documentary on the making of The Radicalisation of Bradley Manning, with behind-the scenes footage and exclusive interviews with the director and writer, entitled Sky Arts at National Theatre Wales, will be broadcast on Sky Arts 1 on Monday 7th May 2012, 7pm-7.30pm.

Tuesday, May 01, 2012

The SKY ARTS documentary on the play is on Monday
Sky Arts at National Theatre Wales on Sky Arts 1, 7pm-7.30pm - a behind-the-scenes look at the development and production of the show.


7:00PM Sky Arts 1 HD
Sky Arts at National... ( 30 min )
...Theatre Wales: New. A look at Tim Price's new play about Bradley Manning, the US soldier accused of releasing secret embassy cables and military logs from the Iraq and Afghan wars.
http://theatre.revsta...­

http://skyarts.sky.co...­

Compiled by Poly Gianniba
Monday May 7

7pm on Sky Arts 1: Sky Arts at the National Theatre of Wales, a look at Tim Price's play about Bradley Manning, the US soldier accused of releasing secret material from the Iraq and Afghan wars.

http://ayu-londonthea...­
http://revstansfilmbl...­

http://www.whatsontv....­
http://community.nati...­
http://www.theatre-wa...­





Ron Paul on Bradley Manning, Wikileaks and Government Transparency
A hero; NOT giving info to "The enemy"










Wilber W.
WilberWebb
Group Organizer
London, GB
Post #: 4,246
http://www.youtube.co...­



Published on 10 Mar 2012 by bewareofyak

Chase Madar is the author of the recently published book, The Passion of Bradley Manning. Madar is a civil rights attorney, who also writes for the London Review of Books, Le Monde diplomatique, The American Conservative (where he is a contributing editor), CounterPunch and TomDispatch. He can be found on twitter at @ChMadar.



Published on 15 Mar 2012 by bewareofyak

I spoke with Denver Nicks about his upcoming book, Private: Bradley Manning, WikiLeaks, and the Biggest Exposure of Official Secrets in American History



Published on 18 Mar 2012 by bewareofyak

I recently spoke with Naomi Colvin of the UK Friends of Bradley Manning and Occupy London about the UN Special Rapporteur Report on Torture as it concerns Bradley Manning, as well as European sentiment and advocacy for the U.S. political prisoner and alleged whistleblower. You can Naomi on twitter at @auerfeld



I recently spoke with Kevin Gosztola, journalist and blogger at The Dissenter at FDL. We spoke about media coverage of Bradley Manning's legal proceedings, as well as the recent demand by a coalition of 46 media organizations for access to Court records. You can find Kevin on twitter @kgosztola
Wilber W.
WilberWebb
Group Organizer
London, GB
Post #: 4,247





Wilber W.
WilberWebb
Group Organizer
London, GB
Post #: 4,248
May Day London: Free Bradley Manning!
http://www.flickr.com...­
http://t.co/ErYhNM2...­
//www.flickr.com/photos/64728140@N02/s­ets/72157629941782633/with/6986371210/
http://www.flickr.com...­

Peter Tatchell joins Bradley Manning contingent on Mayday march London
Jill Green in NYC!
http://www.indymedia....­
http://open.salon.com...­
https://wiseupforbrad...­
http://www.sott.net/a...­
http://www.youtube.co...­
http://www.youtube.co...­
http://www.fagburn.co...­






Quote of the Day: "I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts."

- Abraham Lincoln
















http://t.co/ErYhNM2...­
http://www.channel4.c...­
http://www.youtube.co...­
http://www.youtube.co...­




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