Could Jordan follow Egypt? Cables released by the Norwegian daily Aftenposten sheds light on US views

Could Jordan follow Egypt and Tunisisa? This question is likely asked in Washington at the moment. Protests are ongoing in the country and although the King remains popular there, there is serious unrest in the country and this unrest appears to rest on the view that political reforms are demanded, but never delivered.

According to Norwegian daily Aftenposten's recently leaked WikiLeaks cables, the US' view of King Abdullah is that he is largely withdrawn from politics and that he does not involve himself in reform efforts. In one of the cables released today (dated October 8, 2009), Ambassador R. Stephen Beecroft writes that...

Jordan´s politicians are looking intently to the King for direction, eagerly (and in some cases nervously) anticipating a royal ruling on the future of reform. They have received almost nothing. The King has been largely absent from the political scene as of late and sphinxlike in his increasingly rare public appearances. Beyond the usual business of meeting tribal leaders, greeting foreign dignitaries, and cutting ribbons, the King has said nothing to indicate his leanings on the future of the government, parliament, or reform efforts.

This view is likely to find support in Amman and other cities of Jordan. King Abdullah has called for reforms multiple times in the past, but has yet to actively deliver.

All of Aftenposten's cables related to Jordan can be read on the right side of this website.

Confidential US governmental information: Putin "cheats" in elections

I have previously looked at a few stories that highlight the trend that the US government is simply too fond of stamping information confidential. Another striking example of this emerged yesterday, and did not even concern the US the slightest bit. No, it in fact concerned Russia and the tendency that Russian governments cheat. This is hardly unknown to anyone,

The document, titled 07MOSCOW5598, concerns the 2007 Duma election in Russia. In the cable, the US Ambassador to the country argues that "three-fourths of the national television coverage and over half of the national print media coverage has gone to United Russia and Putin," and that this is caused by "Kremlin influence and media self-censorship."

Everything else the cable contains is simply references to research done by Russian polling agencies and references to comments on the situation made by other Russians. These names remain uncensored in the leaked WikiLeaks cable, which should indicate that whatever media station redacted it, did not view it as particularly threatening to that individual.

Since the information in this cable is so trivial, the only reason it was classified must have been that the US was afraid that publishing it would lead to increased difficulties in cooperating with the Russians. Looking at the wording of the cable, however, it is quite apparent that the cable hardly would be interpreted as anything serious, since the Russians unquestionably would have known that the US knew everything in the cable, and since the two countries do occasionally use strong words to describe the other.

This is not the only example of the absurd practice of stamping cables that contain what amount to reasonably trivial information.

Julian Assange "targets" Joe Biden and Sarah Palin

Julian Assange recently spoke to 60 minutes about the ongoing WikiLeaks-saga. In the interview, he spoke about the ongoing attempt to extradite him to the United States, and comments made about him by prominent American political figures.

Assange called the effort to extradite him to the United States “completely outrageous” and attacked both the US Vice President Joseph Biden and his contender in the last presidential election, Sarah Palin, for making what he referred to as "threats".

Biden recently called Assange a “high-tech terrorist” while Sarah Palin called for Assange to be "pursued with the same urgency we pursue al Qaeda and Taliban leaders."

“There’s calls either for my assassination or the assassination of my staff or for us to be kidnapped and renditioned back to the United States to be executed,” Assange said in the interview.

Assange said he “would like to believe” that Biden, Palin and others have simply exercised their First Amendment rights by strongly condemning WikiLeaks, he does feel endangered by what’s been said about him in the public arena. “The incitements to murder are a serious issue,” he said. “And unfortunately, there is a portion of the population that will believe in them and may carry them out.”

Assange clearly has a point here. That prominent politicians are repeatedly comparing Assange with terrorists is absurd and it can only lead towards inappropriate responses. The word "terrorism" is usually associated with people who agitate violence in some form, something Assange has never done. What Assange openly does is to promote transparency. Promoting transparency through publishing leaked documents is completely legal. The right to do it is guaranteed by the American constitution and it cannot be retracted by any political decision.

It could be that Assange's strategy used to promote transparency may be poor. If so, people has the right to respectfully disagree with it. It is difficult not to recognize that Assange has a point, however. Among the documents revealed by WikiLeaks, one made the striking revelation that the US and Canada are close allies. The mere knowledge that such a cable is kept confidential should underline to people that much that should never be confidential, is in fact kept confidential.

What politicians should be concerned with is what the over-willingness to stamp documents means for people's ability to make a decision on election day. Some of the information WikiLeaks has made available is information that clearly could have affected people's willingness to vote for a given candidate. It is not difficult to imagine, for example, that had the different information that has been revealed about the Bush administration's practices not been unknown to voters during Buh's re-election campaign, he might simply have been re-elected at all. Ensuring that people have access to this information is therefore completely necessary if voters are to be able to make a judgment on who to vote for.

60 Minutes/Vanity Fair poll on WikiLeaks

60 Minutes/Vanity Fair Poll Finds Americans Don’t Like WikiLeaks, If They Know What It Is

A new poll by 60 Minutes and Vanity Fair finds that few Americans like WikiLeaks. Only 9 percent view it as a good thing, while 22 percent view it as a treasonous website. 23 percent see the website as destructive, but still legal.

The most surprising thing is perhaps that a whopping 42 percent of Americans don't know what WikiLeaks is.

I have a serious problem with this poll. Tons of research has shown just how easily affected people are when they are asked to respond to a question by a polling agency. Reseach by John Zaller, for example, has argued that what we answer in polls is often the result of the last tidbit of information we receive to sway our views in a given way. When 60 Minutes and Vanity Fair thus decides that they are to include two potential negative responses and only one positive, they may therefore be affecting the result of the poll. The two negative responses may simply reinforce one another and lead towards people picking that answer. This effect may be added to by the fact that the positive answer is relatively "neutral" whereas the negative ones are highly negative.

This is a small issue, but looking at polls over the last month, the same seems to be happening over and over again. There is one positive answer and then there's two negative ones.

Why can't these polling organizations not just ask people what they think of WikLeaks and give them the alternatives "a good thing" and "a bad thing"? That would ensure a scientifically easier data to interpret. Only the headlines would get worse...

Former WikiLeaks spokeswoman Birgitta Jonsdottir speaks

The former WikiLeaks spokeswoman and now an Icelandic parliamentarian, Birgitta Jonsdottir, recently spoke to the National Post about her time working with WikiLeaks, threats made to her and Julian Assange, as well as her recent decision to change her flight plans so that she avoided landing in the United States on her recent trip to Canada.

On the question of why she changed her travel itinerary to avoid going through the U.S. to get to Toronto, Jonsdottir said:

"I was advised by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Iceland and lawyers in the United States right now that while this is not clear about how the U.S. authorities would respond to the complaints from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, that it would be better to avoid going through the United States."

About threats made by Sarah Palin, among others, she said:

"You don’t put out empty threats like this. This is a very serious threat. Here is a person that was running as a vice-president of the United States saying things like this. How can you possibly take the United States seriously if this is the quality of the dialogue of the people that are running for the highest offices in this country?"

Never put your trust in things prefixed ‘Wiki’

David Porter, who works for the Illinois Press Association, makes a few interesting observations in an opinion piece published today.

Highly regarded reporters don’t trust anything that has “wiki” in front of it. To be taken seriously, wiki information must be independently verified. “Wiki,” by definition, is something that is edited by virtually anyone. It’s a Swahili word that means, literally, “not to be trusted,” which you can verify on Wikipedia.

I’ve heard complaints that the “mainstream” media hasn’t taken Wikileaks seriously. That’s because they used the prefix “wiki” in their name. If you want people to take notice, you have to use a different phrase, like “naked pictures of Paris Hilton.”

There's not much to say about this claim other than to conclude that Porter may have a point. The name of the organization may simply harm it. WikiLeaks is taken much more seriously in other parts of the world than in the United States, so it could, of course, be that there's other reasons too.

Chairman King: Assange is a supporter of terrorism

Following the Treasury Department's rejection of Homeland Security Committee Chairman Peter King's recent proposal to place sanctions on WikiLeaks, King remained unimpressed and has requested that the department explains why it does not share his view.

"Recent reports indicate that the U.S. has been forced to relocate individuals around the world due to WikiLeaks’ actions," King told The Hill in an e-mailed statement.

"Additionally, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael Mullen has acknowledged the threat posed by WikiLeaks," he said.

"If, despite that evidence, the administration does not consider [WikiLeaks founder] Julian Assange to be a supporter of terrorism that threatens U.S. national security, then it should explain its reasons to the American people,” he said.

The most obvious conclusion here is that King clearly isn't tiring of seeing himself in the media headlines. But second to that, it should be added that it's striking just how willing certain politicians are of calling Julian Assange a "supporter of terrorism". If King cares so much for evidence, he might want to back up that statement with some actual evidence (which of course does not exist).

Tunisia: WikiLution?

CNN has a story today on recent developments in Tunisia:

Tunisia's president vowed Thursday to cut prices of basic foodstuffs, to lift censorship and to ensure police do not use live ammunition except in self-defense, and implied that he will not run again for president.

"Enough violence," President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali said on national television after days of riots that have killed at least 21 people. "I also gave orders to the interior minister ... not to use live ammunition. It is unacceptable and unjustified unless someone uses his weapon and forces you to defend yourself."

Ben Ali said he had asked the prime minister to reduce prices of staples, including sugar, milk and bread and said he had decided to give "complete freedom to all media outlets ... as long as they respect our values and the value of the profession."

The 74-year-old president added that he would not push to change the law setting an age limit for presidential candidates in the next election in 2014. By then, he would have exceeded the 75-year age limit. "There will not be presidency for life," he said.

This story follows from developments that some - including The Guardian - speculate could stem from recent WikiLeaks revelations. If it is the case and if it leads towards increased political rights and general improvements in Tunisia, it must be said to be a major victory for WikiLeaks, and one more reason why certain countries should reconsider their negative stances towards the organization.

China knows words Americans don't?

In a recent Rasmussen poll, 51 percent of the respondents answered affirmatively when asked if the recent WikiLeaks leak was an act of treason. The problem with this poll is that "treason" does not simply mean something the United States does not like, but an act against ones own country.

The Chinese president, Hu Jintao, seems better up to date with the fine nuances of language. According to a recently leaked document, Hu referred to Dalai Lama as a traitor. Dalai Lama is from Tibet (which is a part of China) and can therefore be considered a traitor. Good work, Hu!

In the United States, however, there seems to be considerable movement towards simply changing the meaning of the word. This follows a trend that George W. Bush also liked, when he attempted to change the word "torture". I've suggested previously that the new, less freedom-loving version of the United States, might opt to have new federally funded dictionaries. I think it's a good idea to ensure that ALL Americans are up to date with the recent meaning of words.

Media organizations: Example of framing

Whereas censorship gets quite a bit of attention from various people on the internet, another serious issue that is about as important, is given much less attention. Media framing means that media organizations offer different cues to readers and these cues are known to influence the opinions of readers. That people respond positively to cues - if they lack information that counters it - is a primary reason why propaganda works.

There are a lot of stories nowadays that offer certain cues or that frame stories in a given way. Take this recent CBS story, for example, which is titled "When Did Assange Know Pvt. Manning?". By titling an article this way, the journalist seem to indicate that Assange knew Manning, even if no information has been offered to support this position.

While this may seem like a small thing, it is the combined effort by all the major news organizations to do this that really matters. When everyone promotes similar views, people become more likely to accept those views.

Poll: 38 percent of Americans are tired of press freedom

In a recent poll, Fox News found the following:

"Americans are far less harsh in their judgment of news organizations -- like the New York Times -- that published the leaked information, as only 38 percent would push for punishment of those media outlets."

It is quite amazing that "only" 38 percent would push for punishment. The number is really low, considering the potential negative effects it could have on press freedom and democracy. If New York Times were to be found guilty, it could become illegal to publish anything the US government finds to be "secret", for whatever reason. That would mean the press would essentially have to print just what the government wants it to print.

So yeah, 38 percent of Americans must want to make the country look more and more like China. But then again, China may be right.

Fox News journalist Bill McGowan: Paranoia club boss?

Fox News journalist Bill McGowan responded yesterday to recent arguments made by the New York Times reporter David E. Sanger. Sanger defended the newspaper's decision to publish WikiLeaks stories by concluding that "what we did was responsible, it was legal and it was important for a democratic society"

McGowan does not quite agree. Sure,he agrees that it was probably legal to publish the stories, but not so much on the other two issues:

"On Sanger's other two points, that The Times acted responsibly in publishing some of the leaked cables' contents and that doing so was good for democracy, the picture is much more ambiguous.

(...)

But for all the good these revelations about our allies and adversaries do, they come at high cost, largely by stripping away the veils that American diplomats need to conduct their business around the world, particularly against Islamic terrorism."

This argument would be all well and good if it actually made sense. Yet no one are willing to even touch the following question: What effect does McGowan and his censorship-pals think it would have if American newspapers did not write about the story? Would WikiLeaks realize they're beaten, apologize and stop publishing?

No, it seems as if McGowan misses the point that there are other countries, other newspapers that do a good job publishing these things. There's also Wikileaks.ch, Wikileaks.de and a lot of other versions of that site. So even if American newspapers would not publish the information, it would still be out there.

The only actual effect of it would be that Americans won't have as easy access to it as they've used to. This situation mirrors the one people in China would face in case leaks that could be troublesome for that country, would happen. Chinese people really will have to struggle to get the information.

Are people like Bill McGowan really suggesting that the Chinese way is the better way? Bye, bye freedom, welcome paranoia?

Confidential: The USA and Canada are close allies

I found the following story in Korea Times (of all places) and I thought it was interesting:

It is widely agreed, including by the officials who are in charge of the process, that the U.S. government classifies way too much information. Give bureaucrats a "top secret" stamp and they will use it freely. No one ever gets called on the carpet for a document that doesn't get out.

As the Associated Press found in reviewing the classified documents posted by WikiLeaks, U.S. diplomats classified as secret or confidential information that was in the public domain ― public speeches, summaries of what the local newspapers were saying, accounts of widely reported political feuds and stuff of only passing historical interest like how deceased dictator Josef Stalin was being taught in schools.

One classified cable from our embassy in Ottawa to new President Barack Obama contained this startling revelation:

"No matter which political party forms the Canadian government during your administration, Canada will remain one of our staunchest and most like-minded of allies, our largest trading and energy partner, and our most reliable neighbor and friend."

Despite periodic stabs at transparency, like Obama telling bureaucrats to err on the side of openness, the natural tendency of governments is to err on the side of secrecy. President George W. Bush, who tried to reclassify information that was already public, and his vice president, Dick Cheney, who gave us the phrase "undisclosed secret location," are probably closer to the norm.

Keeping secrets like this is a democratic problem because it reduces the chance that voters have sufficient information about what to vote for. The more trivial confidential information, however, may not have any implication whatsoever of what people would vote. This does not mean that it doesn't have consequences, however:

The refusal of government agencies to share classified information with each other was fingered as a critical U.S. weakness in the war on terror. And, as the AP points out, these things have costs: "The government spent at least $9 billion keeping classified information under wraps last year, and that doesn't include the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency and others that keep their spending on classified information classified."

Classifying innocuous or pointless information also devalues the job of protecting it. How seriously can someone be expected to take the job of keeping secret the insight that Canada is our friendly neighbor to the north? Getting rid of that kind of material would make it that much easier to safeguard what's left.

Can Julian Assange be extradited to the US?

With the recent news that the US will likely seek to have Julian Assange extradited to the US on espionage charges, it is worth asking the question of whether Assange can be extradited, and on what charges.

First, American authorities that Sweden and the United Kingdom are two completely different countries in terms of how US-friendly they are. Whereas the UK has what has been described as a "special relationship" with the US, Sweden upholds neutrality, has a very independent media and a strong tradition of media freedom. Handing over Assange to the United States, where he would likely be charged for a lot of different things to see what sticks, is therefore much less likely if Assange is first extradited to Sweden.

This is likely one of the reasons why the United States is acting now. The US government wants Assange handed over before he arrives in Sweden, simply because the United Kingdom is more likely to look the other way and send Assange to the United States. The UK's policies has been among the more liberal when it comes to handing over people to the US court system and the country has traditionally been very concerned with its pro-US image. Retaining this may ultimately hinge on sending Assange to what appears to become a mock trial.

What complicates this issue is that the US must - in accordance with its agreements with the UK and Sweden - in some way show how what they do is in fact illegal in the country the target is being held. This, combined with the fact that the United Kingdom may not be able to hold their nose long enough, may make the whole transaction of goodwill vs. Assange, difficult. Such transactions take years and any popular backlash in Britain could certainly complicate this affair. It is worth noting here that the Guardian is actually covering the WikiLeaks cables, unlike its American counterparts. I've written about that in several previous entries.

The question of what Assange will be charged for is a difficult one. He could, as US officials have hinted, be charged for espionage. The evident problem is that it will ultimately be very easy to defend Assange against such charges. Assange can simply argue that he did not partake in any hacking and merely published whatever material he came across. By showing that he did publish material on other countries, he will most definitely be protected by the first amendment.

The problem is, however, the recent tendency where American politicians have sought to have alleged terrorists sentenced in courts and where any failure to get the desired sentence, has been seen as an example of how the system is unable to deliver an appropriate sentence. That a suspect can be found to be innocent is therefore no longer the strength of a system, but its weakness. This means that a suspect is not innocent until proven guilty, but guilty until proven guilty. This sounds like a description of China and it disrupts and puts pressure on a system that still works reasonably well.

This furthermore is also a problem for press freedom. If Assange was in fact to be sentenced for espionage, it would mean that the US would find itself in a situation where whatever the government decides is secret, is essentially out of hands of the media. The media will be able to quote governmental officials, but they will not be able to prove they are lying by publishing secret governmental documents. This situation would mean that Obama could create another Gulag. Reporting on it would be a crime of espionage as long as the fact is made secret/classified.

Any such charges could therefore be made, but it does not necessarily mean they expect a sentence in accordance with it. It is likely that the government will instead throw in a lot of other minor charges, and hope the total sentence for minor things, will be high enough to keep Assange away for a relatively long time. One thing they've spoken of is theft of governmental property, but this is difficult since what Assange "conspired" in was merely copying of documents that by the law cannot be copyrighted.

What is sure is that the eventual result will be highly interesting. A trial against Assange will be heavily covered and it could mean worsening relations with many countries, especially if it appears that Assange does not get a fair trial. Any such operation is risky business for the US, because allies simply may not be able to hold their nose throughout the trial. There is also a chance that some countries may become braver and actually issue an arrest warrant for George W. Bush - an issue that would only highlight the hypocrisy of the current US government further.

But that's for the future (and maybe another blog post).

Why the U.S. Has a Weak Legal Case Against WikiLeaks' Assange

I've previously written about how the US stands a poor chance to get Julian Assange and WikiLeaks sentenced for anything in an American court. This conclusion is drawn from the fact that the first amendment to the American constitution offers the press freedom to publish. Time's Michael A. Lindenberger supports this view in a blog post he wrote today:

Putting someone like Assange in jail for publishing documents he did not himself steal, on the other hand, is exactly the kind of thing that First Amendment makes difficult. "From everything we've seen, [Manning] was merely responding to the notion that Assange might publish the cables," former CIA inspector general Frederick P. Hitz told TIME. "There's nothing to show that Assange played an active role in obtaining the information." He conceded that the leaks had been tremendously damaging, but added "I don't see any easy effort there" in pursuing charges.

Holder has said the government will explore whether Assange could be charged with a form of theft since the records had been stolen, though such a course is fraught will obstacles, given that the files are digital copies of government records. Holder said too the government will consider whether Assange might be guilty of conspiring somehow with Manning, or went beyond the traditional role of publisher by acting as a kind of broker in dissemenating the files to newspapers around the world. What worries famed First Amendment attorney Floyd Abrams is that if the government stretches to get around the Constitution to charge Assange, it may end up damaging the press freedoms enjoyed by every publisher.

This mirrors several posts I've previously made on this blog.

The "hacktivists" strike back!

Osama Bedier, VP of Platform at PayPal, today took the stage at Le Web’10, and declared that the company cut off WikiLeaks because of political pressure.

Bedier was quoted as saying: "State Dept told us these were illegal activities. It was straightforward. We first comply with regulations around the world making sure that we protect our brand."

The State Department later denied these allegations. "It is not true," the department spokesman P.J. Crowley told The Cable. "We have not been in touch with PayPal."

Hacktivism
Regardless of who's responsible, hacktivists are currently working hard to hit websites that "censor" WikiLeaks. By launching hacking attacks at the websites of PayPal, Mastercard, Visa and the Swiss bank that banned Julian Assange as their customer, the group attempts to state their opinion in opposition to censorship.

The success of the attempts to attack these websites can be seen here. It is quite evident that Mastercard is struggling hard, but the hardest hit is unquestionably the Swiss bank. If they operate a net bank service, they better solve their issues soon or customers will flee.

I've previously written about how the hacker group Anonymous has been attacking PayPal here.

Media figures come to defence of Assange after arrest on sex charges

I wrote yesterday that I would not follow the trial against Julian Assange, but it seems increasingly clear that the US wants him handed over to have him tried there. In that case, the story becomes much more interesting. It is very unlikely that Assange could actually be found guilty in an American court, but in todays society, the chance is better. Any court trying Assange, will face enormous pressure to deliver the desired verdict, and there is a chance that they might just cave in and deliver.

Some media figures have stepped up and decided to defend Assange recently. The website journalism.co.uk runs the following story today, on the Frontline Club's support of Assange:

The founder of investigative journalism club the Frontline Club has spoken out in defence of the WikiLeaks' founder and editor Julian Assange, following his arrest yesterday.

(...)

In a statement released last night, Vaughan Smith said that Assange has spent "much of the last several months" working from the Frontline Club and had been offered the address for bail. Smith also attended court yesterday to show his support for Assange "on a point of principle", he says.

"In the face of a concerted attempt to shut him down and after a decade since 9/11 that has been characterised by manipulation of the media by the authorities, the information released by Wikileaks is a refreshing glimpse into an increasingly opaque world.

"The Frontline Club was founded seven years ago to stand for independence and transparency. Recent informal canvassing of many of our more than 1,500 members at the Frontline Club suggests almost all are supportive of our position.

"I am suspicious of the personal charges that have been made against Mr Assange and hope that this will be properly resolved by the courts. Certainly no credible charges have been brought regarding the leaking of the information itself."

Sporadic attempts like this will likely have no major effect. It seems that what is needed is truly some actual, constant source of opposition. In the United States today, there is a tendency that the two biggest parties work together in most big cases (the war on terrorism, any actual war, the WikiLeaks war). This is unfortunate because it reduces the chances that people will stumble upon arguments that counter the core arguments that figure in the United States today.

Over time now, I will begin to try to present some of the research that shows just how much this actually matters. While people think they shape their opinions on their own, it is hardly the case. People form opinions based on cues and when the cues given to them are of a similar character ("WikiLeaks" = "terrorists", "illegal" etc.), people are likely to start believing in it, simply because no other sources counter such information. Humans are simply naive by nature.

With the two major American parties sharing the same view, the chances that questions that could be raised are not, increases sharply. Such questions would include what a verdict against Assange will mean in the future and whether it actually does any good. Some American politicians have been quite open about their view that the American system was better in the past when people were not as informed as they are today. This is a reality they may achieve if Assange is sentenced. Locking up Assange will set a precedence and other media organizations doing what he did, stands a high risk of ending up in Assange's position. This means that the United States will basically restrict the freedom of the press.

The other question is about as important. There are many signs that the way the US has fought terrorism, has in fact been a great source of recruitment to these terrorism organizations. The big question is what a verdict of Assange would do. Would others risk continuing if Assange is arrested? It remains to be seen, but there are many people who believes strongly in this. The freedom of the press isn't a right that can be taken away without reactions. This too must be taken into account when the response among allies is considered.

I definitely do hope I will not have to write more about this in the future. There is a good chance that Assange will not be found guilty and even a chance that he may not be handed over to the US. If he is, the results could be very bleak. There will be more on this story though.

Senator Lieberman: New York Times could be investigated

US senator Joseph Lieberman suggested in an interview with Fox News today that the New York Times and other media organizations could be investigated for publishing the US embassy cables that have been released by WikiLeaks. According to Lieberman, these organizations could be breaking American espionage laws when they publish these stories.

Lieberman is quoted in The Guardian as saying: "To me the New York Times has committed at least an act of, at best, bad citizenship, but whether they have committed a crime is a matter of discussion for the justice department."

According to The Guardian, Lieberman also suggested that Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, should be indicted under the 1917 Espionage Act.

The whole idea that New York Times and other news organizations should be prosecuted is, of course, quite absurd. It does, however, follow quite logically from what law specialists has previously stated. Jonathan Turley, for example, has said that if WikiLeaks is to be prosecuted, "we could be entering a very dangerous period for press freedom in our country". This is where most people would probably realize that it's a bad idea to go after WikiLeaks, but Lieberman is definitely not like most people.

I put a picture of Lieberman in the top of this blog. If you see him and have read this blog, it seems like a good idea to run!

I'll try to follow this story too.

What Americans want to read

I think this is interesting enough to blog about:

Yesterday I made a blog post about the recently leaked list of places that are deemed vital to the United States. See the list and story on it here.

Over the last day it has, however, become quite clear that this list is something a lot of Americans wanted to see. It has gotten many, many times more hits than for anything else I've written here. This is good. I think that when the media starts writing about how this list is a "to do"-list for terrorists, it influences the opinion of people who reads it, but unless they see the list for themselves, they can't actually judge this information.

This brings me to my point here: I'd like to know if others who saw the list are as unimpressed as I am. In my understanding, this is a list full of locations that are well known and unless terrorists already know them, they must lack something.

So feel free to comment!

Visa and Mastercard block WikiLeaks

Both Visa Europe and Mastercard have suspended payments to WikiLeaks after determining that an investigation into whether WikiLeaks' operation is in conflict with their rules, is necessary.

This move will make it even more difficult for WikiLeaks to receive donations. It is, furthermore, yet another indication that the company is being censored.

It should be mentioned that this happened after the WikiLeaks' founder, Julian Assange, was jailed for one week for sexual crimes. This case against Assange, as it appears, may be about a legitimate crime and until there are more indications that it isn't, I will abstain from writing about it.

Read more the story on BBC