OPINION - Shields and Brooks 4/19/2019

"Shields and Brooks on the Mueller report" PBS NewsHour 4/19/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to analyze the week’s news, including what the Mueller report's details mean for the Trump Presidency and American politics, whether House Democrats should pursue impeachment, and how Attorney General William Barr’s handling of the report reflects on him.

Judy Woodruff (NewsHour):  And now to help us understand the broader implications of the Mueller report, we turn to the analysis of Shields and Brooks.  That's syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks, who joins us tonight from Vancouver.

And hello to both of you.

So, the Mueller report is out, still generating a lot of controversy, as we heard a few minutes ago on the show.

But, Mark, I want to ask the two of you, what do you — what is your main takeaway from this?  What is most important here?

Mark Shields, syndicated columnist:  I guess sadness, more than anything else, Judy, sadness about the state of the leadership of the country.

I mean, every White House is inevitably a mirror reflection of the President at the top of it, whether it's in terms of optimism of a Reagan or sort of the paranoia of a Nixon.

But this White House, it may be good at some level to have worked in Donald Trump's White House for somebody, but it's terrible for one's self-respect.  I mean, at no point in the entire narrative does any sense of the President's unselfishness or patriotism or larger national interest ever emerge in any way.

And I'm grateful that people who are there who didn't come with a heroic reputation did heroic things by resisting his orders to do corrupting acts.

Judy Woodruff:  David, your main reaction?

David Brooks, New York Times:  That we have a lot of threats to the infrastructure of our society.

Donald Trump is a threat to the systems of government we have, and a threat to the basic honesty of our system.  There are all the — every time he appears in the Mueller report, he's running roughshod over what he's supposed to be doing.  He's interfering with an investigation.  He's ordering somebody to fire somebody else.

He just takes all the procedures and all the systems we have in place in our government and he just runs right through them.

And then the second character in the report are the Russians, and they're undermining the informational infrastructure of our society, the fact that we can have a debate based on solid facts and solid information, and they are systematically, as the report says, aggressively trying to undermine that.

And then the third player in the report is Julian Assange and WikiLeaks.  And they're trying to undermine the idea that we can have privacy in our society, the idea that organizations can deliberate with each other.

So what I see are three players who in either a tight alliance or a loose alliance that are all engaged in the same project which is disrupting the basic infrastructures of our society.

INTERNATIONAL SPY - Julian Assange

IMHO:  Julian Assange is not a advocate of information transparency as he claims.  He is an international spy for terrorists, drug cartels, and other entities dangerous to the world.  His methods give information to these entities that allow them to continue their threat to the world, while hiding behind a FALSE claims of 'transparency' and being a whistleblower.

"Controversial WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange arrested in London" PBS NewsHour 4/11/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Julian Assange, the controversial figure who founded anti-secrecy organization WikiLeaks, was arrested Thursday in London, seven years after taking refuge in the Ecuadorian Embassy there.  Assange was defiant while being carried out by police.  The U.S. will seek his extradition on federal charges just unsealed, in connection with a leak of U.S. intelligence nearly a decade ago.  Amna Nawaz reports.

"What U.S. charges against Julian Assange mean for journalists" PBS NewsHour 4/11/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The arrest of Julian Assange renewed attention on the long-running U.S. attempt to prosecute the controversial WikiLeaks founder.  Amna Nawaz talks to Jesselyn Radack of the whistleblower and source protection group ExposeFacts, former federal prosecutor Amy Jeffress, and Jamil Jaffer former senior counsel for the House Intelligence Committee, about the specific computer fraud charge Assange faces.

AMERICAN POLITICS - Cohen & Trump's Border Wall

"Trump faces challenges on 2 sides, as House pushes resolution and Cohen testifies" PBS NewsHour 2/26/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The House is pushing a resolution to invalidate President Trump’s declaration of a national emergency over illegal immigration.  Meanwhile, Trump faced a challenge from the other side of Capitol Hill as his former attorney Michael Cohen testified in a closed session with the Senate Intelligence Committee.  Lisa Desjardins updates Judy Woodruff on a busy day on Capitol Hill.

"What new information came out of Cohen hearing?" PBS NewsHour 2/27/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The testimony of former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen in front of the House Oversight Committee produced plenty of material.  Lisa Desjardins, who attended the hearing, and Yamiche Alcindor join Judy Woodruff to discuss the day’s key takeaways, including House Republican and White House attacks on Cohen as not trustworthy and Cohen's argument that Trump ran for President solely to enrich himself.

"Cohen calls Trump ‘a conman’ and ‘a cheat’" PBS NewsHour 2/27/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  In public testimony before the House Oversight Committee, former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen said some of his past offenses were “for the benefit of, at the direction of, and in coordination with” President Trump.  He also called his former boss a conman, racist, and cheat but said he had no "direct evidence" of Trump's campaign colluding with Russia.

"Cohen accuses Trump of inaccurately reporting finances to IRS, banks" PBS NewsHour 2/27/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  In his congressional testimony on Wednesday, Michael Cohen produced evidence of hush money paid to porn actress Stephanie Clifford, also known as Stormy Daniels, to keep her from revealing an affair with President Trump.  Cohen also accused the President of inflating his financial assets during dealings with banks but under-reporting them to the IRS.  Judy Woodruff talks to Lisa Desjardins for more.

"Why Cohen’s answers on Russia could pose potential legal problems for Trump" PBS NewsHour 2/27/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  During his appearance before the House Oversight Committee, Michael Cohen was questioned about possible ties between the President and Russia, as well as Trump’s relationship with Roger Stone.  Yamiche Alcindor talks to Judy Woodruff about the significance of the information Cohen relayed and whether any of it could pose a potential legal problem for the President.

"How a former independent counsel analyzes the legal implications of Cohen’s testimony" PBS NewsHour 2/27/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Michael Cohen’s testimony raises many questions about President Trump’s personal, political and financial dealings.  For analysis of its potential legal implications, Judy Woodruff turns to Solomon Wisenberg, who was Deputy Independent Counsel during the Whitewater investigation of the early 1990s.

"The ‘stunning’ details Cohen offered about Trump’s business" PBS NewsHour 2/28/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  During a public hearing before the House Oversight Committee, former Trump attorney Michael Cohen discussed the president’s personal, political and financial affairs.  William Brangham talks to The Washington Post’s David Fahrenthold, and Andrea Bernstein co-host of the podcast "Trump, Inc.," about "startling" details of Trump's business and why Congress might want to talk to Allen Weisselberg.

THE INVESTIGATIONS - Roger Stone

aka "Another Trump Hood in the Docks"

"After indictment, pressure on Stone is ‘significant,’ says former prosecutor" PBS NewsHour 1/25/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Former Trump adviser Roger Stone has been indicted by special counsel Robert Mueller on seven counts, including obstructing an investigation, making false statements and tampering with a witness.  The indictment focuses on the relationship with WikiLeaks head Julian Assange and damaging emails released by WikiLeaks.  Nick Schifrin reports and discusses with former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti.

ELECTION THREATS - Highly Probable Russian Interference

"Why this author says it’s ‘highly probable’ Russian interference swung the 2016 election" PBS NewsHour 11/1/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Did the involvement of Russian trolls and hackers swing the 2016 presidential election?  Kathleen Hall Jamieson, author of “Cyberwar,” believes it is “highly probable” that they did.  She joins Judy Woodruff to discuss her research on how the Russians found the right messages and delivered them to key audiences using social media--as well as how we can manage foreign election meddling in the future.

BRIEF BUT SPECTACULAR - Looking at an American Traitor and an International Spy

"What it's like to turn the camera on Snowden and Assange" PBS NewsHour 7/20/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Who people tell you they are is often different from how they act, says award-winning filmmaker Laura Poitras, whose latest film, "Risk," looks at WikiLeaks and Julian Assange.  By observing subjects like Edward Snowden make decisions in real time, she gets to experience the immediate drama of her story and change her opinion.  Poitras gives her Brief but Spectacular take on making documentaries.

SPY SECRETS - WikiLeaks Puts America at Risk

"WikiLeaks publishes purported CIA cyber tools for hacking phones, TVs" PBS NewsHour 3/7/2017

aka WikiLeaks, a Terrorist Support Group

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  WikiLeaks published thousands of pages on Tuesday of what it says are files about the CIA and its hacking activities.  The material comes reportedly from the CIA's Center for Cyber Intelligence and includes a range of documents which describe cyber tools for hacking cellphones, computers, television and even vehicles.  Jeffrey Brown speaks Mark Mazzetti of The New York Times about the revelations.

JEFFREY BROWN (NewsHour):  The material comes from the CIA's Center for Cyber Intelligence.  It includes a range of documents from 2013 to 2016 which describe cyber-tools for hacking cell phones, computers, television, and even vehicles.

The documents also contain computer code.  One program, dubbed Weeping Angel, entails infecting Samsung smart TVs, turning them into bugging devices.  Another program is aimed at hacking Apple and Android cell phones, undercutting encryption on services like WhatsApp, Signal, and Telegram.

WikiLeaks also says these documents show that when the CIA discovered flaws in computer code written by Apple, Google, or Samsung, [and] it failed to notify those companies about the vulnerabilities to allow fixes to be made.

Mark Mazzetti of The New York Times has been covering this, and joins us now.

Mark, welcome to you.

So, the CIA hasn't said much so far.  What do we know about the authenticity of the documents and where they came from?

MARK MAZZETTI, The New York Times:  Well, we're still trying to confirm the authenticity.

We have several people we have spoken to today who say they believe they're authentic.  We have heard nothing thus far from the government indicating that they are not.  Some people we have spoken to have said that some of the code names that were cited in the documents are, indeed, legitimate.

So it does appear at the moment — and I should say at the moment — that they are legitimate.

JEFFREY BROWN:  Well, when you look at the totality, Mark, of all of these cyber-tools that being described, help us understand, what are they aimed at?  What is this program about?

MARK MAZZETTI:  Well, they're a series of — and we're talking about thousands of documents that are laying out some of the tools the CIA allegedly has to carry out hacking of any number of different devices (as you said, [for example]  cars) against foreign adversaries or people overseas.

I should stress that there is — unlike the Snowden disclosures, there were not specific mentions of where these have been used.  But they're more sort of like the toolkit the CIA has.  And it's pretty expansive, if the documents are to be believed.

And in terms of where they came from, you asked.  I mean, that's another thing we're still trying to figure out.  WikiLeaks said today that they had a source come to them who was concerned about the use of these tools.  We don't know anything about the source.  And there's a lot of questions still at the moment.

"Panetta: WikiLeaks dump of hacking documents 'seriously damaging' to CIA" PBS NewsHour 3/8/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  A day after WikiLeaks published documents on the CIA's tools for hacking into personal electronics, Reuters reported that intelligence officials are focused on contractors as the likeliest source of the leak.  How is the CIA likely responding to the revelations?  Former CIA Director Leon Panetta joins Hari Sreenivasan to discuss the consequences for counterterrorism efforts and more.

"When smart devices are always on, vulnerability may be a trade-off of convenience" PBS NewsHour 3/9/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  WikiLeaks' release of a trove of documents about the CIA's ability to breach smartphone and TV encryption was a revelation of potential vulnerabilities that surprised many.  Hari Sreenivasan separates fact from fiction about their capabilities to take advantage of those devices with Brian Barrett, news editor of Wired, and how to be mindful about the reality of today's “internet of things.”

RUSSIA - The Hack Attack on U.S. Elections

IMHO:  With the complicity of WikiLeaks (International Anti-U.S. Spy Agency).

"In debate on Russian interference and disinformation, there's a lot we still don't know" PBS NewsHour 12/12/2016

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The CIA has concluded that pre-election Russian hacking was aimed to sway the vote in President-elect Donald Trump's favor.  What could we learn from serious investigations?  Hari Sreenivasan gets reactions from two men who have extensive experience in intelligence and diplomacy: Michael McFaul, former U.S. ambassador to Russia, and former CIA director James Woolsey.

HARI SREENIVASAN (NewsHour):  And we're joined by two men with extensive experience with intelligence and diplomacy.

James Woolsey was CIA director during the Clinton administration.  He's now with Booz Allen, one of the largest defense and intelligence contractors.  He also serves as a senior adviser to President-elect Trump on issues of national security and intelligence.  And Michael McFaul was U.S. Ambassador to Russia during the Obama administration.  He's now a professor of political science at Stanford University.

Mike McFaul, let me start with you first.

Your reaction to the news that Russia may have played an active role in helping President-elect Trump?

MICHAEL MCFAUL, Former U.S. Ambassador to Russia:  Well, for some of us, it's not news.  Some of us have been talking and writing about this for many months now, especially after the hacking of the DNC computers and the data dump from WikiLeaks.

I think the two pieces of news that are new is that the intelligence community is now claiming that they have evidence to show that the Russians gave it to WikiLeaks.  That was uncertain.  Now we know that.

And the second piece is about the Republican — the hacking into the Republican side.  They now have evidence to show that.

And what it all means to me, to be clear, my bottom line is, we need an independent, bipartisan commission to investigate this.  It's not enough for the Obama administration to do their review.  And, frankly, it's not enough to have hearings on it at the U.S. Congress.

This is way too big to be handled in those places.  We need to know the facts.

And, here, I agree with President-elect Trump in the piece you played with him.  He said several times, we don't know.

Well, as an academic, I want to know the facts.  And I think the only way you're going to get it is if you set up that commission.

HARI SREENIVASAN:  James Woolsey, do you agree; is that the right course?

JAMES WOOLSEY, Former CIA Director:  I don't see anything wrong with a well-assembled commission going into an important issue.

I think what needs to be focused on here, though, from the beginning is that we have got a couple of different things going on.  And conflating them causes a lot of confusion.

One is what the Soviets and then now the Russians call disinformation, dezinformatsiya, otherwise known as lying.  And they propagate disinformation throughout the world on all sorts of subjects.

But they particularly focus on organizations and groups that embody values that they find abhorrent, such as the Catholic Church and Judaism.

They are apparently moving into disseminating disinformation about Western political parties.  It's not any different in principle from what they have been doing for decades.

I think that's one set of things that's going on.  Another set of things that conceivably could go on is hacking into the records of the voting in order to change those votes.  I don't know that there is any indication that we have that this latter is taking place, counting people who are dead as voters and the sort of things that you read about in the American system.

So, I think, insofar as someone says that the Russians were not participating in anything may not be correct, because they may have been participating in disseminating disinformation, but not participating in what most of us think of as voting fraud, namely, counting people who vote who are dead and so forth.

"Reconstructing the Russian hacks leading up to the election" PBS NewsHour 12/14/2016

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Reports that the CIA believes Russia sought to help the president-elect win the election by hacking Democratic political organizations has rocked the nation.  Mr. Trump dismisses claims that Russia had any influence in the process or that it wanted him in office.  Hari Sreenivasan examines what investigations have revealed with Dmitri Alperovitch of Crowdstrike, and Eric Lipton of The New York Times.

"How Putin could have been involved in U.S. election disruption" PBS NewsHour 12/15/2016

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  A CIA investigation reportedly found that Russia tried to sway U.S. election results in President-elect Donald Trump's favor.  On Thursday, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said he believes Russian President Vladimir Putin was personally involved in efforts to disrupt the election.  Judy Woodruff talks to Angela Stent of Georgetown University about Putin and the U.S. options for response.

WIKILEAKS - Assange Denied Internet Access

YES!  Finally this anti-government kook gets somewhat isolated.  Next, he gets thrown out and we burn him at the stake (I'll bring the barbecue sauce).

"What's the motive behind Julian Assange's internet ban?" PBS NewsHour 10/19/2016

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Julian Assange, founder of WikiLeaks, has been living in exile in London's Ecuadorian embassy for four years.  Now Ecuador says it's shut off Assange's internet access, months after WikiLeaks began to release documents and emails stolen from the DNC and the Clinton campaign.  Hari Sreenivasan learns more from Raphael Satter of the Associated Press.

HARI SREENIVASAN (NewsHour):  For the last four years, Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, the anti-secrecy group, has been staying in self-imposed exile in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London.

He's taking refuge from a sexual assault investigation in Sweden that Assange claims is an American plot to have him extradited.  Over the summer, WikiLeaks began divulging thousands of pages of documents and e-mails stolen from the Democratic National Committee, and, most recently, Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman, all in an effort, said Assange himself, to damage her presidential candidacy.

Now a new twist in this saga.  In a statement issued yesterday, Ecuador said it had cut off Assange's Internet access, saying in part:  “The government of Ecuador respects the principle of nonintervention in the internal affairs of other states.  It doesn't interfere in external electoral processes, nor does it favor any particular candidate.”

For more on this, I'm joined now from London by Raphael Satter of the Associated Press.  He's covered WikiLeaks extensively.

Is there anything more to it than that statement by the Ecuadorian government?

RAPHAEL SATTER, Associated Press:  You know, it's not much more — not much more official.

There is an enormous amount of speculation about what's going on behind the scenes.  WikiLeaks alleges that, despite what the Ecuadorian government has said, they are, in fact, bound to pressure from the U.S. State Department, and, in particular, John Kerry, the secretary of state.  Now, the State Department has denied all this.

HARI SREENIVASAN:  The batches of e-mails have been trickling out for months, Hillary Clinton's e-mails, John Podesta's e-mails for weeks now.  So, why now?  Why intervene now to try to cut off his Internet access?

RAPHAEL SATTER:  It's quite puzzling, actually.

The timing is a bit of a mystery.  And the best people to speak about this are the parties concerned themselves.  But neither WikiLeaks nor the Ecuadorian — nor various Ecuadorian officials that we have tried have returned our calls or even deigned to comment.  They have communicated via Twitter or through their Web sites in a series of terse statements, which leave a lot to the imagination, frankly.

OPINION - Shields and Brooks 10/14/2016

"Shields and Brooks on Trump assault allegations, Clinton leaked email insights" PBS NewsHour 10/14/2016

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week's news, including another barrage of sexual misconduct allegations for Donald Trump, the morality of Republicans who have changed their minds about their candidate, Michelle Obama's "authentic” speech, and whether the newest WikiLeaks dump will make a difference.

TOO MUCH INFO - WikiLeaks Becomes a Danger to Personal Privacy

"Why is WikiLeaks publishing private individuals' personal information?" PBS NewsHour 8/23/2016

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  WikiLeaks has revealed classified information to the public for over a decade.  A new Associated Press report found that the website has also published personal details about private citizens, including the names of two teenage rape victims and a Saudi citizen arrested for being gay.  Some of the leaks have the potential to endanger lives.  William Brangham speaks with AP's Raphael Satter for more.

JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour):  For a decade, the anti-secrecy Web site WikiLeaks has published online millions of original documents and other material — leaks that have exposed the inner workings of the National Security Agency, the U.S. military and State Department, the Saudi government and, most recently, the Democratic National Committee.

But a new report by the Associated Press says that many private individuals are caught up in the disclosures.

William Brangham has more.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM (NewsHour):  The AP went through a sampling of the tens of thousands of documents WikiLeaks released in the last year, and found many personal details about private citizens, Social Security numbers, medical files, sensitive family and financial information.

In what the AP calls particularly egregious, WikiLeaks published the names of two teenage rape victims, as well as the name of a Saudi citizen who'd been arrested for being gay.  That revelation could endanger the man's life because, in Saudi Arabia, being gay is punishable by death.

Joining me now from Paris is Raphael Satter, one of the AP reporters who wrote this story.

Raphael, thanks for being here.

I wonder if you could tell us, what made you, first off, want to do this deep dive into WikiLeaks in the first place?

RAPHAEL SATTER, Associated Press:  I covered the Saudi files released back in 2015, and there was an enormous amount of newsworthy information in there.

But as we were going through the files with my colleague Maggie, who co-wrote today's story, we noticed that there was a lot of irrelevant information in there, too, including a few medical files.  Now, at the time, we sort of shrugged it off.  We thought, well, maybe there are a couple of stray files in there.

But we flagged it for further research.  And, finally, this year, we have gone back and done some digging.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM:  We mentioned that there was the mention of the Saudi man who had been arrested for homosexuality.  What sorts of other things did you find in this — in these documents?

RAPHAEL SATTER:  We found all kinds of things.

If it's personal or sensitive or family-related, we found it.  So, we found details of custody battles.  We found parents writing to authorities about missing children.  We found details of elopements, of divorces, of partners who had sexually transmitted diseases, partners who had AIDS, people who were in debt, in distress, in all kinds of financial difficulty, and, of course, some of the cases that you mentioned earlier, that is to say, people who were raped, including children who were raped.

AMERICA - Bradley Manning Pleas Guilty

"Bradley Manning Leaked Classified Documents to Spark 'Debate' on Foreign Policy" PBS Newshour 2/28/2013

Excerpt

JUDY WOODRUFF (Newshour):  Bradley Manning, the U.S. Army private who is charged with leaking massive amounts of classified material to the Web site WikiLeaks, entered guilty pleas today.

He pleaded guilty to 10 of the 22 charges against him, admitting to violating military regulations, but not federal espionage laws.  Manning spoke for more than an hour in the military courtroom, explaining his reasons for leaking classified information.

He said -- quote -- "I believe that if the general public had access to the information, this could spark a domestic debate as to the role of the military and foreign policy in general."  He added -- quote -- "I felt I accomplished something that would allow me to have a clear conscience."

Later in the day, the judge accepted Manning's pleas.  He still faces trial on the remaining charges.

For more now on Manning's statement, his pleas and what comes next, we are joined by Charlie Savage of The New York Times, who was in the courtroom today, and Arun Rath, who has been covering the Manning case for PBS' FRONTLINE.

LAW - WikiLeaks, Manning Trial Update

"Alleged WikiLeaks Source Manning Faces First Court Appearance" (Part-1) PBS Newshour 12/16/2011

Excerpt

RAY SUAREZ (Newshour): The normally tight security at Fort Meade, Md., outside Washington was tighter still today. It was the first court appearance for Army Pvt. Bradley Manning, accused as the prime source for the WikiLeaks document dumps.

The Army intelligence analyst, who turns 24 tomorrow, faced an Article 32 hearing, a military grand jury proceeding. Prosecutors hoped to show there's enough evidence to court-martial Manning on 22 charges, including espionage and aiding the enemy. It all stems from the largest disclosure of classified information in U.S. history.

JULIAN ASSANGE, WikiLeaks: The first casualty of war is the truth.

RAY SUAREZ: In three installments, the website founded by anti-secrecy advocate Julian Assange posted a fraction of the many thousands of classified documents it was given about the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and a trove of State Department cables.

MAN: This is Bushmaster 7. Roger. Engage.

RAY SUAREZ: Among the most incendiary releases, video from a U.S. attack helicopter over Baghdad in 2007.

MAN: Oh, yes, look at that, right through the windshield.

(LAUGHTER)

RAY SUAREZ: The gun crew killed 11 men they deemed a threat. It turned out one of the dead was a cameraman for the Reuters news service.

Then there were the State Department cables showing U.S. efforts to curb Iran's influence and offering blunt appraisals of corrupt Middle East regimes. Top U.S. officials gave no details, but insisted the leaks caused severe damage to national security.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was out front then and again yesterday.

SECRETARY OF STATE HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: It was a very unfortunate and damaging actions that -- action that were taken that put at risk individuals and relationships, to an extent that we took it very seriously and launched a vigorous diplomatic effort to try to counter.

RAY SUAREZ: Since his arrest 19 months ago, Manning has been jailed with unusually restrictive conditions at both the Marine base at Quantico, Va., and lately, at Fort Leavenworth, Kan.

Supporters charge his treatment, solitary confinement and routine denial of clothing, has been tantamount to torture. A small group gathered outside Fort Meade today.

If convicted, Manning, who left court today under heavy guard, could face life in prison.

"In Manning Trial, Tracing WikiLeaks Files to Harm May Be 'Extremely Complicated'" (Part-2)
PBS Newshour 12/16/2011

MEDIA - Hacker Attack on PBS Newshour and Frontline

The following NYT story is of special interest to me because, as you can tell, PBS Newshour is one of my prime sources. I consider the Newshour to be the finest, and most balanced, news program on TV. I was wondering why I could not reach the Newshour home page Monday 5/30/2011.

"Web Hackings Rattle Media Companies" by BRIAN STELTER, New York Times 5/31/2011

Excerpt

It might just be the most worrisome letter to the editor any news organization can receive.

PBS fought on Monday and Tuesday to restore the Web sites for two news programs on public television, “Frontline” and “PBS NewsHour,” which were crippled by hackers who said they were angered by coverage of WikiLeaks.

The incidents were the latest examples of what security experts call “reputational attacks” on media companies that publish material that the hackers disagree with. Such companies are particularly vulnerable to such attacks because many of them depend on online advertising and subscription revenue from Web sites that can be upended by the clicks of a hacker’s keyboard — and because unlike other targets, like government entities and defense contractors, they are less likely to have state-of-the-art security to thwart attacks.

The PBS attack was said to be motivated by a “Frontline” film about WikiLeaks that was broadcast and published online on May 24. Some supporters of Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder, and Bradley Manning, a soldier who is suspected of having shared hundreds of thousands of government files with WikiLeaks, criticized the film and claimed that it portrayed the two men in a negative light.

When the anonymous hackers posted a fake news article on a PBS blog and published passwords apparently obtained from PBS servers late Sunday night, they attached complaints about the film, which was titled “WikiSecrets.”

Staff member at PBS said they were appalled by the hackings — which were perceived to be attempts to chill independent journalism — and, to a lesser extent, by the long delay in having the sites restored. In a telephone interview on Tuesday, David Fanning, the executive producer of “Frontline,” called the incidents a “real intrusion into the press” and said they should not be characterized as mere pranks.

“This is what repressive governments do,” he said. “This is what people who don’t want information out in the world do — they try to shut the presses.”

Mr. Fanning said “Frontline” included multiple points of view in “WikiSecrets” and provided forums for criticism of the film. Other staffers, speaking anonymously because they had not been authorized by PBS to speak on the record, did not point the finger for the hack directly at WikiLeaks, but some did suggest that it would be hypocritical for any supporters of such a group to try to tamp down on freedom of information.

WIKILEAKS - Frontline on Bradass87

"Frontline's 'WikiSecrets' Explores Mysteries of Bradley Manning" PBS Newshour Transcript 5/24/2011

Excerpt

JEFFREY BROWN (Newshour): Finally tonight, shedding new light on WikiLeaks.

This evening on "Frontline," correspondent Martin Smith unravels the mystery of Bradley Manning, the Army private who allegedly stole thousands of classified government documents.

One part of the tale has been largely unknown, the story of the hacker who blew the whistle on Manning.

Here's how it unfolds from tonight's program titled "Wiki Secrets." (link to full 54min program, opens in new page)

MEDIA - New York Times and WikiLeaks

"For New York Times, a Complex Relationship With WikiLeaks, Government"
PBS Newshour 1/28/2011

WORLD - WikiLeaks, European View

"Europeans Criticize Fierce U.S. Response to Leaks" By STEVEN ERLANGER, New York Times 12/9/2010

Excerpt

For many Europeans, Washington’s fierce reaction to the flood of secret diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks displays imperial arrogance and hypocrisy, indicating a post-9/11 obsession with secrecy that contradicts American principles.

While the Obama administration has done nothing in the courts to block the publication of any of the leaked documents, or even, as of yet, tried to indict the WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, for any crime, American officials and politicians have been widely condemned in the European news media for calling the leaks everything from “terrorism” (Representative Peter T. King, Republican of New York) to “an attack against the international community” (Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton). Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates called the arrest of Mr. Assange on separate rape charges “good news.” Sarah Palin called for him to be hunted as an “anti-American operative with blood on his hands,” and Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor and Republican presidential candidate, said that whoever leaked the cables should be executed.

For Seumas Milne of The Guardian in London, which like The New York Times has published the latest WikiLeaks trove, the official American reaction “is tipping over toward derangement.” Most of the leaks are of low-level diplomatic cables, he noted, while concluding: “Not much truck with freedom of information, then, in the land of the free.”

John Naughton, writing in the same British paper, deplored the attack on the openness of the Internet and the pressure on companies like Amazon and eBay to evict the WikiLeaks site. “The response has been vicious, coordinated and potentially comprehensive,” he said, and presents a “delicious irony” that “it is now the so-called liberal democracies that are clamoring to shut WikiLeaks down.”

A year ago, he noted, Mrs. Clinton made a major speech about Internet freedom, interpreted as a rebuke to China’s cyberattack on Google. “Even in authoritarian countries,” she said, “information networks are helping people to discover new facts and making governments more accountable.” To Mr. Naughton now, “that Clinton speech reads like a satirical masterpiece.”

Suggestion to my fellow Americans, maybe we should take heed?

WORLD - WikiLeaks Battle Goes Cyber

"WikiLeaks Finds Itself Target of, Inspiration for Cyber Attacks" PBS Newshour Transcript 12/8/2010 (includes video)

Excerpt

GWEN IFILL (Newshour): Next: WikiLeaks and the cyber-attacks surrounding it.

Last night, we looked at the legal challenges ahead for the Web site and its founder, Julian Assange. Since its latest release of confidential government documents, WikiLeaks has also been the target of computer hackers.

Its supporters are striking back, temporarily shutting down MasterCard's Web site and targeting other companies who are severing ties with WikiLeaks.

NewsHour correspondent Spencer Michels has our story on the online battle.

SPENCER MICHELS: For months, beginning when it revealed to the world secret U.S. war logs from Afghanistan and Iraq, the WikiLeaks organization has been engaged in a global battle to keep its financial and distribution system intact on the Web.

Now, the effort to stop WikiLeaks has redoubled, as the Web site slowly drips out in small daily handfuls some of the 250,000 U.S. State Department cables in its possession, all stemming, allegedly, from computer theft committed by an Army private, Bradley Manning.

WikiLeaks is being bombarded daily by cyber-attacks attempting to shut down its Web sites.

KEVIN POULSEN, senior editor, Wired.com: As they were getting ready to launch the State Department cables, there was what is called a distributed denial of service attack. This is a very common problem on the Internet.

AND

"Vigilantes Take Offensive in WikiLeaks Censorship Battle" by Ryan Singel, Wired.com 12/8/2010

Excerpt

Internet vigilantes stepped up attacks in support of WikiLeaks on Wednesday, downing Visa’s web site in a widening protest against a handful of companies that banned the secret-spilling site after it began publishing hundreds of secret U.S. diplomatic cables.

The outages, organized by the group Anonymous under the banner “Operation Payback,” have taken the battle between WikiLeaks supporters and opponents over web censorship to the streets, so to speak, sparking a series of tit-for-tat retaliations that appeared to be growing at the time this article was posted.

At stake is not just the future of WikiLeaks, the protesters seem to believe, but freedom on the net in general — a principle worth defending by any means possible, however dubious.

“There are people that want to send a message that the Internet is a sovereign territory,” according to Barrett Lyon, CEO of 3Crowd and one of the early pioneers in fighting DDoS (distributed denial of service) attacks from 2000 to 2006.

Online speech and corporate attempts to control it have sparked firefights before, but the naked control of commercial service providers over WikiLeaks’ cash flow and internet presence has sparked an unprecedented reaction that may not be easily brought to heel.

An Anonymous member or sympathizer wrote to Wired.com to announce the attacks, passing along this statement from the chat channel being used to organize the attack:

We are the clear logic used to unveil wrongdoing. The general public, clouded by misleading information mostly by the media with a political agenda, fails to see and understand this wrongdoing. Because of this, those who do the wrongdoing escape unpunished. Anonymous is here to ensure punishment does not go unserved to those who deserve it.

In an interview, Lyon called the attacks historic in how well-organized the attackers are, estimating as many as 5,000 people may be involved and noting that the organizing site includes an FAQ, a propaganda operation and a radio station.

MORE

"A Selection From the Cache of Diplomatic Dispatches" New York Times

WORLD - WikiLeaks & Diplomacy

"How Will New WikiLeaks Revelations Affect Diplomatic Candor?"
PBS Newshour 11/29/2010

Excerpt

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI, former adviser, U.S. National Security: Well, you know, the best assessment I can give is to cite a phrase which used to be used very often in Vienna when it was the capital of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

And when some crisis would take place, it would be said, it's catastrophic, but not serious. And this is the way I look at. I think Steve has put his finger on it by saying that some things will pass. Of course, some things will endure.

But I think the most serious issues are not those which are getting the headlines right now. Who cares if Berlusconi is described as a clown. Most Italians agree with that. Who cares if Putin is described as an alpha dog? He probably is flattered by it.

The real issue is, who is feeding Wikipedia on this issue -- Wiki -- Wiki -- WikiLeaks on this issue? They're getting a lot of information which seems trivial, inconsequential, but some of it seems surprisingly pointed.

JUDY WOODRUFF (Newshour): Well, what are you referring to?

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: Well, for example, there are references to a report by our officials that some Chinese leaders favor a reunified Korea under South Korea.

This is clearly designed to embarrass the Chinese and our relationship with them. The very pointed references to Arab leaders could have as their objective undermining their political credibility at home, because this kind of public identification of their hostility towards Iran could actually play against them at home.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And I want to ask you about that, because the impression is -- and I want to turn to Steve Hadley on this as well -- Saudi Arabia has not been public about its view, as -- and we heard the quote from King Abdullah, that the U.S. should go after or Israel should go after Iran and its nuclear weapons program.

So, what -- what effect could this have now that that's out there that it's confirmed?

STEPHEN HADLEY, former adviser, U.S. National Security: Well, actually, I don't think that's new.

And a lot of people have been saying, without going into details and without going into these sort of sensational quotes, that the Arab states are very concerned about Iran, very concerned about the impact of a nuclear Iran. People have been saying that's one of the odd things about how Israel and the Arab states actually have common cause about their concern about Iran.

So, I think the fact that there is concern is not new. But, unfortunately, the way it is expressed, with these, you know, very headline-grabbing phrases, that's what's unfortunate and that's what's embarrassing. And that's what may make people a little bit less candid in their communications in the future.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And what is it -- what are you worried about with regard to the knowledge that...

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: It's not a question of worry. It's, rather, a question of whether WikiLeaks are being manipulated by interested parties that want to either complicate our relationship with other governments or want to undermine some governments, because some of these items that are being emphasized and have surfaced are very pointed.

And I wonder whether, in fact, there aren't some operations internationally, intelligence services, that are feeding stuff to WikiLeaks, because it is a unique opportunity to embarrass us, to embarrass our position, but also to undermine our relations with particular governments.

For example, leaving aside the personal gossip about Sarkozy or Berlusconi or Putin, the business about the Turks is clearly calculated in terms of its potential impact on disrupting the American-Turkish relationship.