**JP** Pakistan Update

 

WikiLeaks No Threat to Free Society

WikiLeaks No Threat to Free Society
by Steven Greenhut

The response by pundits to the latest WikiLeaks classified-document dump has reminded me of a preacher who decries pornography, but who also insists on reading the dirty magazines page by page so that he can better understand the depth of the world's depravity. If WikiLeaks' actions were so wrong, why is there such widespread interest in these cables, often by the same people vociferously criticizing their release?

Clearly, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has done our nation a service by publishing at-times embarrassing accounts of how the U.S. government conducts its foreign policy. This is a government that claims to be of the people, by the people and for the people, and which has grand pretenses about projecting freedom worldwide, yet it wants to be able to keep most of the details of its actions away from the prying eyes of the public.

There's no evidence that any information released will endanger anyone, and the U.S. government reportedly refused Assange's request to work with him to scrub any names that could be compromised. Officials will always trot out the "endangering lives" or "protecting security" argument so they don't have to reveal what they are doing, how they are doing it, or any misconduct or mistakes they have made while doing it. That's human nature. I'm surprised by how readily most Americans, liberal and conservative, are content with allowing so much of their government to operate in secrecy, even though open government is the cornerstone of a free society.

Cablegate separates Americans into two categories. There are those who agree with our founders that government power is a corrupting force, so government officials need to be closely monitored. And there are those who have nearly blind trust in the public-spiritedness of those who run the bureaucracies and rule us.

Put me in category A, which is why I applaud WikiLeaks and its efforts to provide the information necessary so Americans can govern themselves in this supposedly self-governing society.

"How can the American system be regarded as participatory if the most potentially explosive government conduct is hidden?" writer Sheldon Richman asked in a Christian Science Monitor column. "Are 'we the people' really in charge or not?" That's the question of the hour.

I'm most astounded that some journalists interviewed have been so half-hearted in their defense of Assange. Journalists know that government officials fight the release of virtually every piece of information, especially that which casts them in a less-than-favorable light. I've received police reports with nearly every word (other than "is," "are" and "by") redacted. I've had information requests dismissed and ignored, even for information that is unquestionably part of the public record.

Officials obfuscate and delay and then force the average citizen to go to court to get files that are supposed to be ours, as citizens. They know that few people can afford the legal fight, and there's little cost for refusing to adhere to public records laws.

This is the nature of government. If it weren't for anonymous sources and leaked information, the journalism business would serve as a press-release service for officialdom. We're all better off because courageous people leak important documents to the media. That's true even when leakers have a personal agenda in releasing the information.

The New York Times reports that the leaked diplomatic cables "contain a fresh American intelligence assessment of Iran's missile program. They reveal for the first time that the United States believes that Iran has obtained advanced missiles from North Korea that could let it strike at Western European capitals and Moscow and help it develop more formidable long-range ballistic missiles." That seems like useful information if we, the people, want to monitor our political leaders' decisions about how to deal with those two rogue nations. No wonder Iranian dictator Mahmoud Ahmadinejad joined Republicans and Democrats in denouncing WikiLeaks.

We learned that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wanted to collect personal and financial information about foreign leaders, which gives the public valuable insight into this presidential hopeful's view of civil liberties and personal privacy.

Even conservative writer Jonah Goldberg, who wondered why Assange hasn't been "garroted in his hotel room" after the previous WikiLeaks release of documents relating to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan described U.S. forces shooting at a group that included civilians, found worthwhile information in the latest documents: "And what these documents confirm is that President Obama's foreign policy is a mess."

Despite that useful insight, Goldberg is still angry at Assange, who "is convinced that he has revealed the hypocrisy and corruption of U.S. foreign policy, when in reality all he has revealed is that pursuing foreign-policy ideals is messier and more complicated in a world where bad people pursue bad ends."

The public is better off that we can debate Goldberg's point, rather than remain in the dark about these matters.

Liberals have been as bad as conservatives in denouncing Assange as treasonous. This is not surprising, given how committed they are to a massive government that manages our lives.

Bill Anderson, writing for the libertarian Web site Lewrockwell.com, reminds readers that 19th century Americans largely embraced the view that "politicians were corrupt, governments generally wasted tax dollars and that elected officials could not be trusted." The Progressive movement then came onto the scene to advance its reforms, by which a gifted intelligentsia would rule for the public good. Open government is anathema to such elite rule, as the public gets to see that the elites are mere human beings with all the same temptations and foibles as everybody else.

WikiLeaks has helped demystify the inner workings of our government, sparking a much-needed debate over various U.S. policies across the world and reminded Americans that free societies depend on an informed citizenry. And the disclosures even provided some levity, as we got to read some honest assessments of puffed-up world leaders. We should thank Assange rather than malign him, and we should eagerly await his next release.

Reprinted with permission from the Orange County Register.

Moral or Immoral Government

Moral or Immoral Government
by Walter E. Williams

Immorality in government lies at the heart of our nation's problems. Deficits, debt and runaway government are merely symptoms. What's moral and immoral conduct can be complicated, but needlessly so. I keep things simple and you tell me where I go wrong.

My initial assumption is that we each own ourselves. I am my private property and you are yours. If we accept the notion that people own themselves, then it's easy to discover what forms of conduct are moral and immoral. Immoral acts are those that violate self-ownership. Murder, rape, assault and slavery are immoral because those acts violate private property. So is theft, broadly defined as taking the rightful property of one person and giving it to another.

If it is your belief that people do not belong to themselves, they are in whole or in part the property of the U.S. Congress, or people are owned by God, who has placed the U.S. Congress in charge of managing them, then all of my observations are simply nonsense.

Let's look at some congressional actions in light of self-ownership. Do farmers and businessmen have a right to congressional handouts? Does a person have a right to congressional handouts for housing, food and medical care?

First, let's ask: Where does Congress get handout money? One thing for sure, it's not from the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus nor is it congressmen reaching into their own pockets. The only way for Congress to give one American one dollar is to first, through the tax code, take that dollar from some other American. It must forcibly use one American to serve another American. Forcibly using one person to serve another is one way to describe slavery. As such, it violates self-ownership.

Government immorality isn't restricted only to forcing one person to serve another. Some regulations such as forcing motorists to wear seatbelts violate self-ownership. If one owns himself, he has the right to take chances with his own life. Some people argue that if you're not wearing a seatbelt, have an accident and become a vegetable, you'll become a burden on society. That's not a problem of liberty and self-ownership. It's a problem of socialism where through the tax code one person is forcibly used to care for another.

These examples are among thousands of government actions that violate the principles of self-ownership. Some might argue that Congress forcing us to help one another and forcing us to take care of ourselves are good ideas. But my question to you is: When congressmen and presidents take their oaths of office, is that oath to uphold and defend good ideas or the U.S. Constitution?

When the principles of self-ownership are taken into account, two-thirds to three-quarters of what Congress does violate those principles to one degree or another as well as the Constitution to which they've sworn to uphold and defend. In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 to assist some French refugees, James Madison, the father of our Constitution, stood on the floor of the House to object, saying, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." Did James Madison miss something in the Constitution?

You might answer, "He forgot the general welfare clause." No, he had that covered, saying, "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one."

If we accept the value of self-ownership, it is clear that most of what Congress does is clearly immoral. If this is bothersome, there are two ways around my argument. The first is to deny the implications of self-ownership. The second is to ask, as Speaker Nancy Pelosi did when asked about the constitutionality of Obamacare, "Are you serious? Are you serious?"

http://www.lewrockwell.com/williams-w/w-williams61.1.html

WikiLeaks and Claim of Warmest Year On Record, Expose Climate Criminality

WikiLeaks and Claim of Warmest Year On Record, Expose Climate Criminality
by Dr. Tim Ball

Oh what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practice to deceive! -- Sir Walter Scott (1771-1832)

Question; How and why can a year be claimed as the warmest on record two months before it is over? Answer: To help participants in Cancun Climate Conference desperate because the public don't believe, funding and power is being lost, as their deceptions are exposed.

Most believe 2010 is the warmest year ever, which is what government weather agencies, proponents of anthropogenic global warming and their supporters want. What is actually claimed is that 2010 is on the way to being the warmest on record, but they know media headlines will distort and USA Today along with others obliges with; 2010: Warmest year on record.

Distortion and deception became necessary to support the collapsing exploitation of climate science (Figure 1) faced by all enjoying the warmth of Cancun Mexico while attending the Conference of the Parties (COP) 16 climate meeting. The paradox of record cold wasn't lost on the public.

Figure 1: Sources: (Left and Right)

The Same Messengers and the Same Old Gang of Deceivers

Who is making the claim about warmest year while record cold reinforces public cynicism? It's the same old cast of deceivers identified by BBC reporter Richard Black, who Michael Mann considered reliable. He's the person they asked to silence BBC reporter Paul Hudson when he produced a skeptical article. Hudson was first recipient of the leaked CRU emails, but did nothing, apparently intimidated by Black.

Black reports; "Temperatures reached record levels in several regions during 2010, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) says, confirming the year is likely to be among the warmest three on record."

There were also record lows, but the stations they selected bias toward warm.

Black: The global average temperature was 0.58C above the average for 1961-90 according to Nasa, while the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) put the figure at 0.54 above.

Why is there a difference if there is only one data set? They both over estimate, but NASA GISS, with political scientist James Hansen in charge, are always highest.

Black: The UK record, kept by the Met Office and the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, has 2010 in joint first place with the El Nino-dominated year of 1998.

The UKMO is re-examining its data. The Sunday Times notes:

The new analysis of the data will take three years, meaning that the Met Office will not be able to state with absolute confidence the extent of the warming trend until the end of 2012.

All these groups have actively modified the data to emphasize warming. D'Aleo and Watts' detailed the extent in their paper, "Surface Temperature Records: Policy-Driven Deception?" Reduction in the number of stations alone created a severe warming distortion. (Figure 2) All government weather offices have adjusted their data to reduce early temperatures, making the current readings seem warmer.

Figure 2: Average temperature versus # of stations, Source

Understanding of Climate Science Necessary to Understand Deception

Some accused me of extremism for asking if the deliberate climate deception constituted crimes against humanity. People don't want to believe such a massive deception could occur, especially if government is involved. It's why they dismiss those who see what is happening as conspiracy theorists. There are conspiracies, defined as a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful. Cabal may be a better description of their actions; "the artifices and intrigues of a group of persons secretly united in a plot (as to overturn a government); also: a group engaged in such artifices and intrigues." However, deliberately altering data is unlawful and harmful.

There are two big problems created by the exploitation of climate for a political agenda; lack of scientific understanding and lack of knowledge about the political manipulation and criminality practiced. They are interdependent. People don't grasp the extent of the criminality because they don't understand the science. It's why people didn't understand the implications of the false IPCC Reports and leaked CRU emails.

Now WikiLeaks reveals the extent of government involvement in the deception. The leftist British paper, the Guardian, blames the US with the headline "WikiLeaks cables reveal how US manipulated climate accord" and the charge that, "Hidden behind the save-the-world rhetoric of the global climate change negotiations lies the mucky realpolitik: money and threats buy political support; spying and cyberwarfare are used to seek out leverage."

They ignore the fact that all nations are involved. Maurice Strong embroiled all the world's weather and climate bureaucracies when he organized the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change through the WMO. Anthony Watts describes what the WikiLeaks material exposes. "What really strikes us is the fact that all this Copenhagen/Cancun stuff has nothing to do with the Climate, or saving the World. It's about political positioning, money, and plain old fascism cult promotion."

Politicians are involved, but most control and duplicity is by national weather agencies. They're the majority of the IPCC people and dominate conferences like the travesty in Cancun. Politically biased scientists and environmental groups support them. They know the public is not buying the science any more (Figure 1). They've switched to exploiting fear, but that exposes them even more as temperatures plummet. Some are so desperate to achieve their goal they've openly abandoned the sinking science ship and revealed the real redistribution of wealth agenda. "Last week the German newspaper NZZ Online quoted German economist Ottmar Edenhofer, who is co-chair of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) Working Group III on Mitigation of Climate Change, as saying, "The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War."

James Taylor of the Heartland Institute provides further evidence.

The UN-sponsored climate talks underway in Cancun are living up to – or down to – expectations. Proving once again that global warming is more a political issue than a scientific one at the UN, and that wealth transfer rather than warming mitigation is the true goal of UN action, Professor Kevin Andersen of the UK's Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research has submitted a paper saying "rich" nations such as the U.S. should halt economic growth over the next 20 years while allowing developing nations such as China and India to continue their explosive growth and emissions growth. Enforcement of economic growth restrictions in nations such as the U.S. should be enforced by World War II-style rationing, according to Andersen.

World Held Hostage to False Climate Science

My question about crimes against humanity was based on the degree of deliberate deception of climate science practiced. The emails leaked from the CRU alone are sufficient to condemn what has occurred. The scientists involved provided the corrupted science through the IPCC that those led by Maurice Strong needed. They were exploiting climate to destroy developed economies and in doing so have caused untold trauma, disruption, costs and despair. Billions of dollars were wasted on research. False economies were created to promote alternative energy and green jobs. Viable industries and businesses have disappeared or are pushed to the edge with unnecessary costs and regulations. Real problems were ignored. Countries that went further down the false CO2 path, such as Spain, are already paying a high price. Food prices are just one example. They soar as corn is diverted to produce biofuels threatening starvation among people in developing regions. Millions of people including children were driven to fear about the world coming to an end. Progress to deal with real problems and improve economies were set back years because of wrong policies. Credibility of science was seriously undermined.

The only thing that allowed the world to withstand some of the damage was the viability and strength of economies built on fossil fuel energy and free market policies. Hopefully, those who don't understand the climate science will at least understand the corruption, malfeasance, and deceptions in the CRU emails, the WikiLeaks information and other disclosures. It doesn't require science to understand the tangled web of those deceptions.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/ball-t6.1.1.html

By 2022, there'll be a naked photo of everyone on the planet lurking somewhere in the interverse

By 2022, there'll be a naked photo of everyone on the planet lurking somewhere in the interverse
What's on your handset? Intimate texts? Raunchy emails?
Charlie Brooker
The Guardian, Monday 6 December 2010

Only someone with the heart of a concrete robot could fail to feel faintly – just faintly – sorry for the American diplomats whose cables were leaked, what with all that private unguarded chit-chat being made public. If the world had an annual end-of-year office party (which, come to think of it, is a brilliant idea), 2010's would be an awkward affair.

Still, what's most surprising about the mass leak isn't the content – it'd have been more astonishing if they'd said Berlusconi was actually rather charming and North Korea is great in bed – but the fact that this kind of thing isn't happening every day. Because in our terrible modern hell, it's possible for absolutely anyone to leave a comprehensive dossier of ultra- sensitive private information about themselves on the back seat of a bus just by misplacing their phone.

The more these devices are capable of, the greater potential for embarrass-ment. What's on your handset? Intimate texts? Embarrassing photos? Raunchy emails? An eye-opening internet history? I just hope you trust the staff down the Orange store next time you're upgrading your phone.

Actually, if you're anything like me, you don't have anything lurid on your handset at all – partly out of sheer paranoia – but still can't help feeling anxious whenever someone asks to borrow it. It's the same uneasy frisson you feel when a policeman looks you in the eye while stopped at the lights – a vague sense of guilt, like you're hiding something.

And phone-borrowers don't even have to be deliberately nosy to stumble across your personal details. Even if they only want to make a call, simply by accessing the dial option they'll be treated to a list of who rang you last and how long you spoke for. On the phone to the doctor for an hour were you? That's interesting. Here, have it back. Just going to wash my hands.

Another example of inadvertent intrusion: I once used a computer belonging to someone I knew, and logged on to Amazon to look up the release date for a DVD. That's how I roll. I'm crazy. Anyway, the moment I arrived at the home page, it assumed I was her, and presented me with a list of suggested purchases, all of which were self-help books for people trapped in terrible relationships, with titles such as STOP CRYING, START LOVING and WHEN SEX IS HARROWING. It was an uncomfortable and rather sad glimpse into someone else's life, I thought, once I'd stopped pointing and laughing.

Still, at least that was nothing more harmful than someone's innermost thoughts being laid bare. But it's not just our personal information that's increasingly insecure. It's our personal persons.

Not so long ago, a tourist couple stopped me in the street and asked me to take a snap of them grinning in front of something vaguely picturesque (this being London, probably an especially colourful pavement puke-puddle or a tramp with a funny neck tumour). But unfamiliar as I was with the workings of their phone, instead of taking their picture, I inadvertently brought up the gallery of previous photographs, and was treated to a view of one of them in the shower, followed by a series of close-up views of various biological and overwhelmingly intimate occurrences involving the pair of them.

As I fumbled with menus, trying not to betray my embarrassment, I glimpsed at the man and something in his eyes told me that he knew, somehow, what had happened, but couldn't snatch the phone off me for fear of embarrassing his girlfriend, who remained oblivious. Eventually I took the photo. His smile was fixed and unconvincing. I handed the device back. She thanked me. He stared at the ground. We went our separate ways in silence. Somehow, it was as if we'd all taken part in a terrible threesome.

This kind of acute personal embarrassment simply wouldn't have been possible 10 years ago. But with our every folly entered into an electronic ledger somewhere, it's becoming commonplace. Scarcely a week goes by without a leaked nudey phone photo of some hapless celebrity doing the online rounds. Paris, Britney, Rihanna, Miley . . . eventually we'll be treated to raunchy snaps of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Vince Cable. Don't pretend you'll turn away. You'll stand and stare like the rest of us.

And those are just the famous people. By the year 2022, there'll be a naked photo of everyone on the planet lurking somewhere in the interverse. You might as well take a really good one this afternoon, while you're young and pliable, and upload it yourself before some future peeping-tom equivalent of WikiLeaks does it for you. Face it: there's a 45% chance that Julian Assange is rooting through an exhaustive collection of photographs of your bum right this very minute. And you know he'll release the least flattering ones first. So you might as well beat him to it.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/dec/06/charlie-brooker-phones-embarrassing-info