Antony Loewenstein

Following the controversy over the recent Wikileaks information dump, Reporters Without Borders attempts to get out of a hole created by itself:

There has been a great deal of controversy about the Wikileaks website’s decision to post thousands of leaked reports that include the names of Afghan civilians who have collaborated with the international military coalition in Afghanistan. The controversy has grown even more since Reporters Without Borders and other NGOs criticised a lack of responsibility on the part of Wikileaks.

As hate messages and unfair accusations proliferate in the online newspapers that reported this criticism, Reporters Without Borders would like to caution against any attempts to put words in its mouth.

We reaffirm our support for Wikileaks, its work and its founding principles. It is thanks in large part to Wikileaks that the world has seen the failures of the wars waged by the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is also thanks to Wikileaks that we have seen how the US army deliberately targeted a Reuters crew in Baghdad in July 2007. The video of this tragedy has been posted on our website ever since it was leaked.

The controversy has resulted in a real threat to the website of closure in the United States and targeted persecution of its contributors. The US authorities would be very mistaken if they tried to use our criticism as support for a decision to silence Wikileaks. The Obama administration made a serious mistake when it broke its promise to reveal the human, moral and financial cost of the “war against terror” launched by President George W. Bush. Wikileaks has rightly defied this blockade on access to information.

Raising the question, as we did, of the danger of releasing certain sensitive data does not in any way constitute incitement to censorship or, less still, support for the war. Should we be blamed for pointing out that the information provided by Wikileaks could be used by the Taliban and could serve as grounds for reprisals? Is it contrary to a humanitarian organisation’s vocation to draw attention to the possible impact on human lives of high-risk information? Is it wrong to point out that Wikileaks’ recent actions could backfire not only on itself but also on the independent researchers and journalists who cover these subjects online?

A media is responsible for what it publishes or disseminates. To remind it of that is not to wish its disappearance. Quite the contrary. Editorial responsibility, liked freedom of expression, to which it is linked, cannot be reduced to mere partisan or ideological interests. To accuse Wikileaks’ critics of being “Pentagon accomplices” distorts and pre-empts any discussion about the work of the media and media ethics. The principle of free expression is indivisible, as is the careful observation of the media that it requires.

The Guardian is spot on:

When the nuclear whistleblower, Mordechai Vanunu, was released from prison in 2004 after serving 18 years, 12 of them in solitary confinement, he said he was ready to start a new life. The authorities in Israel were not. He was charged with breaking the terms of his parole which forbade him from speaking to foreigners, a restriction which can be traced to the emergency regulations of the British Mandate. A week ago Vanunu was released once again, after serving 10 weeks for that so-called offence. He said he hoped the prime minister and the head of Shin Bet would solve the problem of having to rearrest him by letting him leave the country. The idea that 24 years after he leaked details and pictures of Israel’s nuclear bomb programme to the Sunday Times, and six years after he completed his sentence, this junior technician from Dimona would still have sensitive secrets up his sleeve is plainly ludicrous. It is one that no serious Israeli military analyst accepts. He survived his vindictive spell in isolation, and his pariah status as Israel’s most reviled man, with his head unbowed. As Daniel Ellsberg, the man who released the Pentagon Papers has said, Vanunu is the preeminent hero of the nuclear era. By telling the truth, and revealing that his country’s stockpile was much larger than the CIA and others had guessed, he certainly caused it mild problems 24 years ago, when Norway announced a ban on exports of heavy water. He causes no problems now. Israel must allow Vanunu to go.

Let’s hope the churches stand firm against Zionist bullying. The idea of boycotting goods made in the occupied Palestinian territories is the least the church establishment should be doing:

Australian Jewish and Christian leaders have met in Sydney to heal the wounds caused by a call last month for Australians to boycott Israeli goods made in occupied Palestinian territories.

The National Council of Churches in Australia called for Australians to consider the boycott at the request of Middle Eastern churches, but the Jewish community was outraged.

Executive Council of Australian Jewry president Robert Goot wrote to the council that the resolution was a ”most unpleasant surprise … we feel that we have been badly let down by people we have long thought of as our friends”.

Last week senior members from both councils – including the heads of the Australian Catholic and Anglican Churches, Archbishops Philip Wilson of Adelaide and Philip Aspinall of Brisbane – met to restore good relations.

Yesterday both councils released a joint statement saying there had been a ”serious exchange of views” which helped Christian leaders better understand Jewish concerns and Jewish leaders better understand why the resolution was adopted.

But the resolution – which called for an end to the Israeli occupation of Palestine and to all acts of terrorism, and suggested churches consider a boycott of Israeli goods from the occupied territories – remains in place. Representatives of both groups will meet again to work on a ”more comprehensive” statement for the Christian council to consider at its next meeting in November.

When do computer game companies enjoy being co-opted by the state (especially police states) to earn profits?

While the war in Sri Lanka is over fighting the LTTE is not, at least on a new video game to be launched this November by French gaming company Ubisoft. In the game to be titled Ghost Recon Predator, players are tasked with an elite squad on the hunt for terrorists in Sri Lanka.

The video trailer of the game shows the players in the jungles of Sri Lanka going behind the LTTE. The trailer shows messages appearing on the top of the screen saying the players are after the terrorists “who thinks nothing of hiding among innocent civilians, of using people as a shield for their illegal and immoral campaign”.

The LTTE was defeated by the Sri Lankan military last year and one of the allegations raised by the government and human rights groups was that the LTTE had used civilians as human shields during the war.

According to Ubisoft Entertainment the game will feature multiplayer options with up to three players and features include character swapping, third-person cover and tons of customizable weapons and high-tech gadgets. The game is intended to deliver classic Ghost Recon action.

“Since your enemy has the terrain advantage, more allies, and knows where to attack, you’ll rely on technology and training to overcome the terrorists,” Ubisoft said.

Moderate Islam is still a problem for Muslim haters (and here’s looking at you, radical Zionists):

In March 2003, federal officials were being criticized for disrespecting the rights of Arab-Americans in their efforts to crack down on domestic security threats in the post-9/11 environment. Hoping to calm the growing tempers, FBI officials in New York hosted a forum on ways to deal with Muslim and Arab-Americans without exacerbating social tensions. The bureau wanted to provide agents with “a clear picture,” said Kevin Donovan, director of the FBI’s New York office.

Brought in to speak that morning — at the office building located just blocks from Ground Zero — was one of the city’s most respected Muslim voices: Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf. The imam offered what was for him a familiar sermon to those in attendance. “Islamic extremism for the majority of Muslims is an oxymoron,” he said. “It is a fundamental contradiction in terms.”

It was, by contemporaneous news accounts, a successful lecture.

Flash forward six-and-a-half years, and Feisal Abdul Rauf occupies a far different place in the political consciousness. The imam behind a controversial proposal to build an Islamic cultural center near those same FBI offices has been called “a radical Muslim,” a “militant Islamist” and, simply, the “enemy” by conservative critics. His Cordoba House project, meanwhile, has been framed as a conduit for Hamas to funnel money to domestic terrorist operations.

What’s wrong with taking photos of imprisoned Palestinians and showing the moral degradation of the Israeli occupation?

What could be funnier than an Israeli soldier posting pictures of blind-folded Palestinians?

When democracies start trying to silence brave journalism, be afraid:

Royal sex scandals rarely come riper. A government minister is caught in bed with the king’s wife – in fact, one of the king’s 14 wives. Ndumiso Mamba, justice minister in Swaziland, is forced to resign and could yet face much worse from King Mswati III.

But just about the last people to read this story were those in Swaziland itself. The censorious atmosphere in the tiny, impoverished kingdom contrasts with South Africa, where newspapers had a field day.

Such freedom is the envy of much of the continent. South African papers have repeatedly exposed bribery and corruption in high places, including a tainted multibillion pound arms deal investigated by the Mail & Guardian. President Jacob Zuma‘s business and romantic relationships do not escape scrutiny either.

But now South African journalists are facing their most serious threat since the persecution of the apartheid regime. The governing African National Congress is proposing new laws that would make it illegal to leak or publish information deemed classified by the government, with the offence punishable by up to 25 years in jail. The ANC wants to create a media tribunal to regulate journalists’ work.

How many Western nations believe in protecting organisations that make governments truly uncomfortable?

The founder of WikiLeaks says he will seek a publishing license for his controversial operation in Sweden where whistleblower protections are strong.

Julian Assange said he would apply for a Swedish publishing license this week in order to maximize legal protections for the sources who provide WikiLeaks with documents that some governments don’t want released to the public.

“We’re dealing with organizations that don’t obey the law,” Assange told the Swedish news agency TT. “We’re dealing with intelligence agencies.”

WikiLeaks made its biggest international splash earlier this year with the release of a huge number of documents from the U.S. military in Afghanistan.

TT said Sunday that WikiLeaks moved its computer servers to Sweden in 2007 and currently operates in the Scandinavian nation. Legal analysts, however, say a publishing license would ensure that WikiLeaks was fully covered by the whistleblower shield law.

Amira Hass in Haaretz on the growing intolerance of dissent by Hamas in Gaza:

Senior Hamas officials may watch their language when they talk with representatives of the depleted left, but the real attitude shines through in the conduct of younger activists and people lower in the hierarchy. They don’t stand so much on pretense and openly express the spirit of the times.

…

But the shamelessly brutal suppression of the protest shows just how scared the Gaza government is. It has suppressed all activities by Fatah in the Strip, be it public or internal.

Last week, it prevented a protest by the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine in the al-Maghazi refugee camp, also based on the electricity crisis. It even banned a celebration by the Khan Yunis refugee committee for students who passed their matriculation exams.

This is because any activity not controlled by Hamas or protesting the Israeli siege is defined as a threat to the movement’s rule. If Hamas felt it still had public support, it wouldn’t need to suppress any activity that it didn’t initiate or finds unflattering.

We so rarely these days read accurate reports about life inside the Islamic Republic. A rare exception (via the ABC):

While in the West some might associate Iran’s restrictions on freedom with the religion of Islam, it’s over-simplistic to assume that this mass dissatisfaction with the state of the country necessarily signifies dissatisfaction with the state religion. While a surprising number of people I spoke to declared they had “no religion”, almost all of them qualified that statement by declaring that they believed in God.

“I am not a Muslim but I believe in one God and I think the Koran is a very good book,” the motorcycle man explained to me. “Islam is not a bad religion but this is a bad government and it makes Islam look bad.”

“Islam is a good religion but I do not think this is Islam,” said a young woman.

But the Islamic faith of some young Iranians comes with conditions.

“In Iran the Koran is still made to mean that thieves must have their hands cut off and women who have sex with a man not their husband are stoned to death,” another man said. “The world changes with time and Islam must change with the world.”

While Iran’s religion and Iran’s government might have a lot in common, many Iranians urge that they should remain separate lest one pollute the other.

“In the West they see what the Iranian government does and thinks that this is Islam,” said one young woman, holding two cupped hands together and slowly pulling them apart, “but actually they are not the same.”