Obama and GOPers Worked Together to Kill Bush Torture Probe

A highly interesting story in Mother Jones basically follows up the tendency that Wikileaks is supplying information that voters should have to be able to make a true choice when they vote. The story details how the Obama administration has protected the Bush administration officials against criminal investigation in Spain by putting pressure on Spanish officials. Obama has hardly been given any credit for doing this, but it has not exactly been widely known either. The first paragraph in the story reads:

"In its first months in office, the Obama administration sought to protect Bush administration officials facing criminal investigation overseas for their involvement in establishing policies the that governed interrogations of detained terrorist suspects. A "confidential" April 17, 2009, cable sent from the US embassy in Madrid to the State Department—one of the 251,287 cables obtained by WikiLeaks—details how the Obama administration, working with Republicans, leaned on Spain to derail this potential prosecution."

The fact that the administration decided to hide this from the news makes this story merely another example of information that is hidden simply because it would be uncomfortable for certain people if it was to be revealed. There is no security issue involved. It would certainly be difficult to uphold the deal if it wasn't hidden from the media and the real test is whether it can be upheld now that it has been revealed.

On a different note, it is noteworthy that major American newspapers or news broadcaster appear to not publish or run this story. This could be an example of some form of self-censorship on the basis of White House objections to the leaks, an issue I wrote about here.

Read the full story in Mother Jones here.

US tanks: License to kill (and not be prosecuted!)

Recent stories leaked by WikiLeaks must be understood as great news for Americans operating tanks around the world. In one such story, it has been revealed that US officials have attempted to influence processes in Spanish courts that sought to have American soldiers extradited after firing at a hotel where journalists stayed. As a result, three Americans walked free and were not subjected to questioning.

The message is clear: If an American soldier happen to shoot a hotel filled with journalists, don't worry, the US government will ensure you won't be punished!

Read the full story here

NY Times let the White House partake in editing... A democratic problem?

With the latest round of the Wikileaks cables, the New York Times followed suit with prior practices, and has let the White House in on what it was going to publish. According to the newspaper, the White House suggested redactions and the Times "agreed to some, but not all" of the government's suggestions. The newspaper agreed, furthermore, to forward "the administration’s concerns to other news organizations and, at the suggestion of the State Department, to WikiLeaks itself".

The Times' willingness to open up to the White House follows a worrying prior tendency that the newspaper is willing to sacrifice its editorial rights and support the governmental position. The Times' coverage of the early stage of the Iraq war was, for example, also found to be biased in favor of the government. Worse yet is the fact that the newspaper in 2008 ran a story on how government officials met with media reporters to try to influence their coverage on that war. If the Times found this story newsworthy in 2008, it's strange that they are willing to get into something quite similar now.

Update: It has become increasingly clear that these NY Times redactions are in fact posted on the WikiLeaks website too. This must mean that WikiLeaks must actually tolerate the practice. It could also be added that the NY Times may have had legitimate reasons to do what they did. Involving governmental officials could be legitimate, as long as the protection of individuals is a central issue.

Wikileaks lose hosting

Wikileaks was taken off Amazon Web Services by Amazon this morning and was therefore offline much of the day.

Although hosts are certainly free to reject hosting others, it does raise a few questions when a company openly rejects hosting the website of a widely cited organization for political reasons. Senator Joe Lieberman did not seem to mind, however, as he released the following statement:

“This morning Amazon informed my staff that it has ceased to host the Wikileaks website. I wish that Amazon had taken this action earlier based on Wikileaks’ previous publication of classified material. The company’s decision to cut off Wikileaks now is the right decision and should set the standard for other companies Wikileaks is using to distribute its illegally seized material. I call on any other company or organization that is hosting Wikileaks to immediately terminate its relationship with them.

Wikileaks’ illegal, outrageous, and reckless acts have compromised our national security and put lives at risk around the world. No responsible company – whether American or foreign – should assist Wikileaks in its efforts to disseminate these stolen materials. I will be asking Amazon about the extent of its relationship with Wikileaks and what it and other web service providers will do in the future to ensure that their services are not used to distribute stolen, classified information.”

With this statement, Lieberman joins the long list of politicians who are willing to label what Wikileaks is doing as something illegal. What these people seem to forget is that it is courts, not politicians, who should find whether people and organizations are guilty of committing a crime. What they also forget is that the first amendment guarantees the freedom of the press, and Wikileaks appears to be protected by that amendment.