GOOGLE, YOUTUBE & FACEBOOK POWERFUL THAN FEDS (1ST AMEND CENSORSHIP)

GOOGLE, YOUTUBE & FACEBOOK MORE POWERFUL THAN FEDS:

INTERNET GIANTS STILL CENSOR VIEWS OPPOSING OBAMA & SOROS' AGENDA AS EXTREMIST.

WHAT ABOUT THE FIRST AMENDMENT?

IS CONGRESS AFRAID OF GOOGLE, YOUTUBE & FACEBOOK?

IS OBAMA STILL PRESIDENT OF THE US?


Sources: Infowars, Jihad Watch, YouTube


******* YOUTUBE DECLARES WAR ON POLITICALLY INCORRECT OPINIONS

Google-owned platform demonetizes "controversial" content


A new “advertiser friendly” policy introduced by YouTube will punish those who express politically incorrect opinions or dare to offend viewers by de-monetizing their content.

The new rules have sparked an outcry from the YouTube community because they are so incredibly restrictive.

YouTube will now retain the right to demonetize any videos that contain, “Controversial or sensitive subjects and events, including subjects related to war, political conflicts, natural disasters and tragedies, even if graphic imagery is not shown.”

“Inappropriate language, including harassment, profanity and vulgar language,” is also being demonetized.

YouTube’s new policy will completely disincentivize YouTubers from discussing politically incorrect topics or expressing controversial opinions because they know they will be punished for doing so.

Many YouTubers make a living off their channel and will therefore be walking on eggshells to avoid the company’s stringent new rules.

The new policy bears some hallmarks of the Communist Chinese government’s “social credit score system,” whereby Internet users are punished by private companies and their peers for expressing unpopular views on social media.

The move is primarily designed to scare away YouTubers from making anti-establishment political content, but prominent YouTubers are already reporting that videos on everything from acne solutions to tips on combating depression are being demonetized because they are not “advertiser friendly”.

“The channels that self-identify as vulnerable by these advertising guidelines seem to be news channels covering sensitive real-world topics,”reports Kotaku.

Prominent YouTuber Philip DeFranco responded to the controversy by vowing, “I’m not going to censor myself,” despite the fact that dozens of his videos have already been demonetized.

Google-owned YouTube is of course a private company and can enforce any rules it likes, but with the advent of such corporations becoming so large (more powerful than countries in some cases), in addition to them insisting on being treated as a public utility, the move is a massive stab in the back for the content creators who helped build the platform in the first place.

As Matt Drudge warned about when he appeared on the Alex Jones Show nearly a year ago, creators allowing their content to be swallowed up by social media ghettos was always going to lead to this outcome.

“I don’t know why they’ve been successful in pushing everybody into these little ghettos, these Facebooks, these Tweets, these Instagrams,” Drudge told Jones. “This is ghetto, this is corporate; they’re taking your energy and you’re getting nothing in return.”

The video below sums up the impact the new rules will have on YouTube unless they are reversed.

YOUTUBE & GOOGLE REMOVES CENSORSHIP OF SOME LGBT CONTENT AMID BACKLASH

YOUTUBE & GOOGLE REMOVES CENSORSHIP OF SOME LGBT CONTENT FOLLOWING BACKLASH:

HOWEVER CONTINUES TO CENSOR CONTENT OPPOSING OBAMA & SOROS' AGENDA.

IS OBAMA STILL PRESIDENT OF THE US?


Sources: Endgaget, The Guardian, YouTube


****** YouTube pledges to 'fix' Restricted Mode's LGBTQ+ censorship

The company says that filtering out the videos along with mature content was a 'mistake.'

After a post by Rowan Ellis, many people recently noticed that YouTube's Restricted Mode filter consistently blocked videos containing LGBTQ+ related content. Despite tweeting that it is supposed to only filter mature content, users tracked down selections like this Tegan & Sara video that were blocked despite being incredibly tame.

In a blog post tonight, YouTube VP Johanna Wright stated that "we must and will do a better job."

The exec admitted that "...this feature isn't working the way it should.

We're sorry and we're going to fix it." While claiming that only 1.5 percent of traffic comes with Restricted Mode turned on, Wright also said that as a matter of principle, access to "important content and different points of view" should be allowed. YouTube has already manually unblocked a few videos where the system made "mistakes in understanding context and nuances," but she also writes that it will take time to roll out more changes.

Elizabeth Edwards' Funeral To Be Picketed By Westboro Baptist Church Protesters

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Edwards' Funeral To Be Picketed By Controversial Church

A church that pickets funerals to protest what it calls American immorality says its members will be picketing the service this Saturday for Elizabeth Edwards, who died of breast cancer on Tuesday.

Based in Topeka, Kan., the Westboro Baptist Church said it would be outside the Edenton Street United Methodist Church in Raleigh, N.C., during the funeral for the former wife of one-time vice presidential candidate John Edwards.

Westboro members, led by the Rev. Fred Phelps, have also picketed military funerals to make their point that U.S. deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq are punishment for Americans' immorality, including tolerance of homosexuality and abortion.

Signs like "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" have been raised at military funerals, and the church announced its latest action with a press release titled "God hates Elizabeth Edwards."

The church, founded in 1955, has about 70 members consisting mostly of Phelps' children, grandchildren or in-laws. Phelps, 80, and his followers have protested at more than 200 military funerals, according to court documents.

The church has gotten the attention of the U.S. Supreme Court, which last October heard arguments over whether it has a free speech right to picket funerals with its controversial signs.

The justices are expected to rule by mid-2011 in the case brought by the father of a Marine killed in Iraq. He wants a $5 million civil verdict reinstated against members of the church.

An appeals court threw out the fine on the ground that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right of free speech.

The Supreme Court justices heard arguments in the emotion-laden case of Albert Snyder. His son died in Iraq in 2006, and members of the church protested the funeral.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the question is whether the First Amendment must tolerate "exploiting this bereaved family."

There was no clear answer from the court during the questioning.

Snyder is asking the court to reinstate the lower-court verdict's fine against the Westboro members who held signs outside the funeral of Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, including ones that read "Thank God for Dead Soldiers, "You're Going to Hell" and "God Hates the USA." The Marine was killed in a Humvee accident in 2006.

The church also posted a poem on its website that attacked Snyder and his ex-wife for the way they brought up Matthew.

The case pits the right of the father, Albert Snyder, to grieve privately against the church members' right to say what they want, no matter how offensive.

The members of the small church welcome the attention the protests have brought, mocking their critics and vowing not to change their ways whatever the outcome at the Supreme Court.

"No American should ever be required to apologize for following his or her conscience," said Margie Phelps, a daughter of Fred Phelps and the lawyer arguing the case for the church.

Snyder won an $11 million verdict against the church for intentional infliction of emotional distress, among other claims. A judge reduced the award to $5 million before the federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., threw out the verdict altogether, citing the church's free speech rights under the First Amendment.

For Snyder, the case is not about free speech but harassment. "I had one chance to bury my son and it was taken from me," Snyder said.

Forty-eight states, 42 U.S. senators and veterans groups have sided with Snyder, asking the court to shield funerals from the church's "psychological terrorism."

While distancing themselves from the church's message, media organizations, including The Associated Press, have called on the court to side with church because of concerns that a victory for Snyder could erode free speech rights.


View Larger Map


Sources: AP, CNN, MSNBC, WCNC, Google Maps

Assange's Supporters Wage Cyberwar For Web 2.0 Freedom Of Speech: Wikileaks "Hacktivists"

Hackers Wage Global Cyberwar In Defense Of WikiLeaks


They're calling it a global "cyberwar." Among the victims: Visa, MasterCard, PayPal, Swiss bank PostFinance, and now the Swedish government. Among the attackers: Hackers from Chile to Norway to New Zealand.

"The fact that it’s so global is just a sign of the times. This type of operation has no borders," says Gregg Housh, an unofficial spokesman for the loosely knit "hactivist" group Anonymous, which is organizing the cyberattacks.

Hackers worldwide have launched what they call “Operation Payback” targeting companies that have cut off support for WikiLeaks or its beleaguered founder Julian Assange. On the Twitter feed for "Operation Payback," the hackers today announced their next target: Amazon.com.

“The war is on,” said one person on the Anonymous chat forum WhyWeProtest.net, which Mr. Housh helped create in 2008. In return, Anonops.net, a site that Anonymous has used to announce its attack plans, has come under cyberattacks from those apparently opposed to WikiLeaks.



Their efforts so far have disrupted the websites of the targeted companies for brief periods of time, though it isn't clear how much money – if any – it's costing the companies.

While the Anonymous hackers have called this a "cyberwar" over Internet freedom and support for WikiLeaks, Internet security specialist Bruce Schneier says this is not a "war" in any sense of the word. "It’s kids playing politics."

Indeed, while Mr. Housh is in his 30s, many of the Anonymous participants are said to be teenagers.

The Swedish government’s official website, regeringen.se, was the latest to come under distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks, which is when a mass of individual computers simultaneously attempt to access the same website, overloading and collapsing the website. A DDoS barrage overnight on Dec. 8 disabled the government website for several hours.

It came under attack because the government last month issued an arrest warrant for Mr. Assange on allegations of sexual assault, which he denies. He was arrested Dec. 7 in London and now faces possible extradition to Sweden. Assange's lawyer has called the arrest a "political stunt."

"In a lot of respects this has become a war. Assange is definitely thought of as a political prisoner," says Housh in a telephone interview from Boston, where he works by day for a computer repair company. While intimately aware of Anonymous activities, Housh himself says he is only an observer at this time.

As pressure has come from the US government for WikiLeaks to cease operations, US companies have also dropped support for the site, which on Nov. 28 began publishing more than 250,000 secret US diplomatic cables.

On Dec. 1, Amazon.com refused to allow its web servers to host WikiLeaks any longer. (Ironically, Amazon's UK website is now selling the WikiLeaks cables for the Kindle.) A day later, New Hampshire-based company EveryDNS.net refused to continue supporting the domain name WikiLeaks.org. On Dec. 3, the online payment service provider PayPal stopped processing donations to WikiLeaks. On Dec. 6, the Swiss bank PostFinance said it had frozen Assange’s account.

Some of those companies, in turn, have faced the wrath of hactivists who also call themselves "Anons" – short for Anonymous. PostFinance was disabled by DDoS attacks on Dec. 6. PayPal has reported slower services because of DDoS attacks. The websites for MasterCard and Visa were down for several hours Dec. 8.

“Anons have been organizing attacks on various sites,” confirms Mr. Housh.

But who is Anonymous? Housh says the loose-knit group is composed of anyone who joins an Anonymous online message board, shows up for an Anonymous event, or joins in Anonymous projects. The Guardian, attempting to describe the group, writes that "the membership of Anonymous is impossible to pin down; it has been described as being like a flock of birds – the only way you can identify members is by what they're doing together."

A spokesman for Anonymous in London who goes by the name "Coldblood" – and whom Housh knows – told the BBC today that "more and more people are joining and helping in" Operation Payback.

"I see this as becoming a war but not your conventional war. This is a war of data, we are trying to keep the Internet open and free for everyone, just the way the Internet has been and always was," he said.

And in a now widely circulated open letter to the world, Anonymous has spoken:

“We are not a terrorist organization as governments, demagogues, and the media would have you believe. At this time Anonymous is a consciousness focused on campaigning peacefully for Freedom of Speech. We ask the world to support us, not for our sake, but for your own.

“… Pay attention citizens, governments, and the world. Anonymous' peaceful campaign will focus on any organization, corporation, government, or entity until the Internet is truly free.”

Suspicions are in the air over what site might be the next to come under attack.

"If the big companies weren't locking down their information before, they're definitely doing it now,” Carole Theriault, a senior security consultant at a computer security firm Sophos told the Telegraph: "This is really unprecedented and Amazon could be next."

Whether the hackers succeed in downing Amazon, says security expert Mr. Schneier, depends on the volume of traffic that Amazon.com is able to handle and the volume of DDoS attacks that Anonymous delivers.

"If the attacker has a bigger pipe than the defender, then the attacker wins," he says. "It all depends on the size of the pipe."


View Larger Map

Sources: Christian Science Monitor, Mastercard, Paypal, RT, Youtube, Google Maps

"Assange Is Engaged In Information Warfare & Terrorism", Newt Gingrich Speaks (Videos)

Sources: Fox News, Fox News Sunday, Guardian.co.uk, Youtube

Bradley Manning: Who Is He? Young Hero Or Dangerous Criminal?

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Bradley Manning, In His Own Words: "This Belongs In The Public Domain"


On 21 May this year, Bradley Manning initiated a series of online chats with former hacker Adrian Lamo. Below are edited excerpts that took place over several days, and which Lamo gave to Wired.com (and to the FBI). Dates are approximate.

May 21

(1:41:12 pm) Bradley Manning: hi

(1:44:04 pm) Manning: how are you?

(1:47:01 pm) Manning: im an army intelligence analyst, deployed to eastern baghdad, pending discharge for "adjustment disorder" [. . .]

(1:56:24 pm) Manning: im sure you're pretty busy…

(1:58:31 pm) Manning: if you had unprecedented access to classified networks 14 hours a day 7 days a week for 8+ months, what would you do?

May 22

Manning apparently told Lamo that he had provided WikiLeaks with 260,000 classified diplomatic cables (as well videos of a 2007 airstrike in Iraq and a 2009 airstrike in Afghanistan).

(1:39:03 pm) Manning: i cant believe what im confessing to you :'(

(1:40:20 pm) Manning: ive been so isolated so long… i just wanted to be nice, and live a normal life… but events kept forcing me to figure out ways to survive… smart enough to know whats going on, but helpless to do anything… no-one took any notice of me

(1:43:59 pm) Manning: im self medicating like crazy when im not toiling in the supply office (my new location, since im being discharged, im not offically intel anymore)

Later, Manning discussed his role as a source for WikiLeaks and his links with its founder Julian Assange.

(2:04:29 pm) Manning: im a source, not quite a volunteer

(2:05:38 pm) Manning: i mean, im a high profile source… and i've developed a relationship with assange…

Manning went on to discuss his growing disillusionment with the army and the US.

(2:26:01 pm) Manning: i dont believe in good guys versus bad guys anymore… i only a plethora of states acting in self interest… with varying ethics and moral standards of course, but self-interest nonetheless

(2:29:04 pm) Manning: i guess im too idealistic

(2:38:45 pm) Lamo: What would you do if your role /w Wikileaks seemed in danger of being blown?

(2:39:34 pm) Manning: try and figure out how i could get my side of the story out… before everything was twisted around to make me look like Nidal Hassan [the suspect in the fatal Fort Hood shootings]

(2:40:15 pm) Manning: i dont think its going to happen

(2:40:26 pm) Manning: i mean, i was never noticed

(2:41:10 pm) Manning: regularly ignored… except when i had something essential… then it was back to "bring me coffee, then sweep the floor"

Manning elaborated on how easy it was to siphon off data from classified networks.

(1:52:30 pm) Manning: funny thing is… we transfered so much data on unmarked CDs…

(1:52:42 pm) Manning: everyone did… videos… movies… music

(1:53:05 pm) Manning: all out in the open

(1:53:53 pm) Manning: bringing CDs too and from the networks was/is a common phenomeon

(1:54:14 pm) Lamo: is that how you got the cables out?

(1:54:28 pm) Manning: perhaps

(1:54:42 pm) Manning: i would come in with music on a CD-RW

(1:55:21 pm) Manning: labelled with something like "Lady Gaga"… erase the music… then write a compressed split file

(1:55:46 pm) Manning: no-one suspected a thing

(2:00:12 pm) Manning: everyone just sat at their workstations… watching music videos / car chases / buildings exploding… and writing more stuff to CD/DVD… the culture fed opportunities

(2:12:23 pm) Manning: so… it was a massive data spillage… facilitated by numerous factors… both physically, technically, and culturally

(2:13:02 pm) Manning: perfect example of how not to do INFOSEC

(2:14:21 pm) Manning: listened and lip-synced to Lady Gaga's Telephone while exfiltratrating [sic] possibly the largest data spillage in american history

(2:15:03 pm) Manning: pretty simple, and unglamorous

(2:17:56 pm) Manning: weak servers, weak logging, weak physical security, weak counter-intelligence, inattentive signal analysis… a perfect storm

Manning said security should be improved.

(2:21:32 pm) Manning: its sad

(2:22:47 pm) Manning: i mean what if i were someone more malicious

(2:23:25 pm) Manning: i could've sold to russia or china, and made bank?

(2:23:36 pm) Lamo: why didn't you?

(2:23:58 pm) Manning: because it's public data

(2:24:15 pm) Lamo: i mean, the cables

(2:24:46 pm) Manning: it belongs in the public domain

(2:25:15 pm) Manning: information should be free

(2:25:39 pm) Manning: it belongs in the public domain

(2:26:18 pm) Manning: because another state would just take advantage of the information… try and get some edge

In a later chat Manning tried to sum himself up.

(4:42:16 pm) Manning: im not sure whether i'd be considered a type of "hacker", "cracker", "hacktivist", "leaker" or what … (4:42:26 pm) Manning: im just me… really.






View Larger Map


Sources: MSNBC, Guardian.co.uk, Youtube, Google Maps

Wikileaks Release Protected By First Amendment; Legal Case Weak

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

U.S. Looks For Way To Prosecute Over Leaks


Striking back, the Obama administration branded the WikiLeaks release of more than a quarter-million sensitive files an attack on the United States Monday and raised the prospect of criminal prosecutions in connection with the exposure.

The Pentagon detailed new security safeguards, including restraints on small computer flash drives, to make it harder for any one person to copy and reveal so many secrets.

The young Army Pfc. suspected of stealing the diplomatic memos, many of them classified, and feeding them to WikiLeaks may have defeated Pentagon security systems using little more than a Lady Gaga CD and a portable computer memory stick.

The soldier, Bradley Manning has not been charged in the latest release of internal U.S. government documents. But officials said he is the prime suspect partly because of his own description of how he pulled off a staggering heist of classified and restricted material.

"No one suspected a thing," Manning told a confidant afterward, according to a log of his computer chat published by Wired.com. "I didn't even have to hide anything."

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton asserted Monday that WikiLeaks acted illegally in posting the material. She said the administration was taking "aggressive steps to hold responsible those who stole this information."

Attorney General Eric Holder said the government was mounting a criminal investigation, and the Pentagon was tightening access to information, including restricting the use of computer storage devices such as CDs and flash drives.

"This is not saber-rattling," Holder said. Anyone found to have broken American law "will be held responsible."

Holder said the latest disclosure, involving classified and sensitive State Department documents, jeopardized the security of the nation, its diplomats, intelligence assets and relationships with foreign governments.

A weary-looking Clinton agreed.

"I want you to know that we are taking aggressive steps to hold responsible those who stole this information," Clinton said. She spoke in between calls to foreign capitals to make amends for scathing and gossipy memos never meant for foreign eyes.

Manning is charged in military court with taking other classified material later published by the online clearinghouse WikiLeaks. It is not clear whether others such as WikiLeaks executives might be charged separately in civilian courts.

Clinton said the State Department was adding security protections to prevent another breach. The Pentagon, embarrassed by the apparent ease with which secret documents were passed to WikiLeaks, had detailed some of its new precautions Sunday.

Col. Dave Lapan, a Pentagon spokesman, said it was possible that many people could be held accountable if they were found to have ignored security protocols or somehow enabled the download without authorization.

A senior Defense Department official, speaking on condition of anonymity because the criminal case against Manning is pending, said he was unaware of any firings or other discipline over the security conditions at Manning's post in Iraq.

In his Internet chat, Manning described the conditions as lax to the point that he could bring a homemade music CD to work with him, erase the music and replace it with secrets. He told the computer hacker who would turn him in that he lip-synched along with pop singer Lady Gaga's hit "Telephone" while making off with "possibly the largest data spillage in American history."

Wired.com published a partial log of Manning's discussions with hacker R. Adrian Lamo in June.

"Weak servers, weak logging, weak physical security, weak counterintelligence, inattentive signal analysis," Manning wrote. "A perfect storm."

His motive, according to the chat logs: "I want people to see the truth ... because without information, you cannot make informed decisions as a public."

By his own admission, Manning was apparently able to pull material from outside the Pentagon, including documents he had little obvious reason to see. He was arrested shortly after those chats last spring. He was moved in July to the Quantico Marine Corps Base in Virginia to await trial on the earlier charges and could face up to 52 years in a military prison if convicted.

There are no new charges, and none are likely at least until after a panel evaluates Manning's mental fitness early next year, said Lt. Col. Rob Manning, spokesman for the Military District of Washington. He is no relation to Bradley Manning.

Manning's civilian lawyer, David Combs, declined comment.

Lapan, the Pentagon spokesman, said the WikiLeaks experience has encouraged discussion within the military about how better to strike a balance between sharing information with those who need it and protecting it from disclosure.

So far, he said, Pentagon officials are not reviewing who has access to data but focusing instead on installing technical safeguards.

Since summer, when WikiLeaks first published stolen war logs from the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Defense Department has made it harder for one person acting alone to download material from a classified network and place it on an unclassified one.

Such transfers generally take two people now, what Pentagon officials call a "two-man carry." Users also leave clearer electronic footprints by entering a computer "kiosk," or central hub, en route to downloading the classified material.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said the WikiLeaks case revealed vulnerable seams in the information-sharing systems used by multiple government agencies. Some of those joint systems were designed to answer another problem: the failure of government agencies to share what they knew before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

"These efforts to give diplomatic, military, law enforcement and intelligence specialists quicker and easier access to greater amounts of data have had unintended consequences," Whitman said.

Agencies across the U.S. government have installed safeguards around the use of flash drives and computer network operations, said Navy Rear Adm. Michael Brown, the Department of Homeland Security's director for cybersecurity coordination.

Like the Pentagon, Homeland Security has laid out policies to ensure that employees are using the networks correctly, that the classified and unclassified networks are properly identified, and that there are detailed procedures for moving information from one network to another.

Dale Meyerrose, former chief information officer for the U.S. intelligence community, said Monday that it will never be possible to completely stop such breaches.

"This is a personnel security issue, more than it is a technical issue," said Meyerrose, now a vice president at Harris Corp. "How can you prevent a pilot from flying the airplane into the ground? You can't. Anybody you give access to can become a disgruntled employee or an ideologue that goes bad."

One official in contact with U.S. military and diplomatic staff in Iraq said they already were seeing the effect of a tighter collar on information.

The State Department and other agencies are restricting access among the Army and nonmilitary agencies, the official said. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the sharing of classified information.

Former CIA director Michael Hayden warned the latest leak will affect what other governments are willing to share with the U.S. as well as change the way U.S. officials share information among themselves.

"You're going to put a lot less in cables now," he said.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

U.S. Can't Let WikiLeaks Limit Candor, Diplomats Say


The release of a quarter-million secret U.S. diplomatic communiqués could lead to serious misunderstandings in some of the most sensitive parts of the world, but it can't be allowed to change how American diplomats gather and report information, current and former diplomats said Monday.

Publication of the documents by WikiLeaks.org was dangerous not so much because of what was in them — many are unclassified and none are labeled "top secret" — but because the breach of confidentiality complicates the U.S. government's gathering of "hard-hitting analysis" from its personnel around the world, said Carey Cavanaugh, a former U.S. ambassador and special negotiator for conflicts in Eurasia.

"It's a horrible thing that has happened" because foreign officials and other sources of information may be less willing to trust that what they tell the United States will remain confidential, Cavanaugh said, adding that "very frank, candid" cables are necessary "to make the world work."

Michael Sheehan, a former ambassador-at-large and assistant U.N. secretary-general for peacekeeping operations, saw a different potential problem, saying he feared that the WikiLeaks release would "make a lot of conversations go offline."

Reluctance to put diplomatic information in writing "increases the chances for a misunderstanding in some of the most sensitive discussions" around the world, said Sheehan, who cited negotiations over the nuclear ambitions of North Korea and Iran as especially critical.

"These are very important, sensitive issues," he said. "We cannot afford to have a misunderstanding."

New restrictions under consideration

In a memo circulated Monday by its Office of Management and Budget, the White House said it was ordering a review of safeguards that could shut down some users' access to classified information.

That would further limit diplomatic communications that have been restricted in response to earlier disclosures by WikiLeaks. The Defense Department has already limited the number of computer systems that can handle classified material and made it harder to save material to removable media, such as flash drives, on classified computers.

Bryan Whitman, a Defense Department spokesman, said Monday that it was inevitable that steps like that would "compromise ... efforts to give diplomatic, military, law enforcement and intelligence specialists quicker and easier access to greater amounts of data."

But current and former ambassadors said the United States should do whatever it could to avoid that outcome.

Unvarnished analysis in secure diplomatic cables is vital to informing U.S. policy on "nonproliferation and arms control, addressing violent extremism and promoting the spread of democracy and human rights, to name just a few," Louis Susman, the U.S. ambassador to Britain, said in a statement.

And in a commentary Monday in the Pakistani newspaper The News, Cameron Munter, the U.S. ambassador to Pakistan, wrote that "honest dialogue — within governments and between them — is part of the basic bargain of international relations; we couldn't maintain peace, security and international stability without it."

That's because cables like those released Sunday are the way diplomats tell policymakers what they really think is going on, which often isn't what they're telling their foreign counterparts or the public, Cavanaugh said.

'It's not helpful to have it out on the table'
"At the end of the day, everyone acknowledges that these are the kinds of reports that governments need to advance the interests of their people," said Cavanaugh, who is now director of the Patterson School of Diplomacy at the University of Kentucky.

"If you think of it like a family," people always have conversations about their parents "that are important and valid and needed, but if they were fully public could also be hurtful," he said. "The kids will talk about this — they'll talk about it in frank terms — but it's not helpful to have it out on the table."

In this case, Cavanaugh said, the United States appeared to dodge a bullet, as there didn't seem to be anything seriously damaging in the new documents.

Diplomatic cables are how the United States and the former Soviet Union resolved the Cuban Missile Crisis 37 years ago this month, and if secret deals discussed in those cables had been disclosed to the public, "it could have taken both nations to the brink of nuclear war," Cavanaugh said.

To resolve the standoff over the Soviet construction of nuclear missile bases in Cuba, the United States withdrew its naval blockade of Cuba and promised never to invade the island.

President John F. Kennedy also agreed to remove U.S. missiles from Turkey, but "a condition of that agreement was there would be no reference to it in the Cuban context," Cavanaugh said. Had that agreement been made public by a 1963 counterpart to WikiLeaks, "it would have been a disaster," he said.

"I don't see things like that" in the new documents, Cavanaugh said, "but I do see where there's information about current issues under negotiation — six-party talks in North Korea, efforts to deal with nuclear proliferation, concerns in Iran, a new START treaty. Those could become impediments."

Countries like Russia, China, Pakistan, Iran and North Korea know the United States makes judgments they wouldn't like in its diplomatic cables because "if you were to get the same things from other countries, you'd find the same types of discussions."

It's when such assessments become public that nations are forced into a diplomatic corner,as Kennedy would have been in 1963.

"It's a little rougher than people expected, but if you think of countries being like people ... you do have those conversations," he said.


Sources: MSNBC

Washington Press Pool Comes To The Aid Of Fox News...Busts White House Boycott

(How the Press Pool Busted the White House Boycott of Fox!)




(Then U.S. Senator Barack Obama Goes on Fox News Sunday. Circa 2008)




(Fox News Sunday Panel Discusses the Fox Boycott! Circa 2008)







White House's Fox News Boycott Attempt Prompts Network Revolt

The White House attempted to block Fox News from a round of interviews with "pay czar" Kenneth Feinberg Thursday, but the Washington bureau chiefs of the five TV networks included in the White House pool refused to interview Feinberg unless Fox News was included.

Fox News says that the White House "failed in its attempt to manipulate other news networks into isolating and excluding Fox News."

The attempt to shut Fox News out was the latest move in the administration's ongoing battle against the cable news channel, which several senior administration officials have claimed is not a legitimate news organization.

The decision by the network bureau chiefs to stand with Fox News is one of the first instances of the mainstream media defending Fox News against the White House's claims.

"I'm really cheered by the other members saying "No, if Fox can't be part of it, we won't be part of it,'" Baltimore Sun TV critic (and regular Fox News detractor) David Zurawik said Thursday.

"What it's really about to me is the Executive Branch of the government trying to tell the press how it should behave. I mean, this democracy -- we know this -- only works with a free and unfettered press to provide information," he said.


Sources: Fox News, Huffington Post