Monday Reads

Good Morning!! The long holiday weekend is officially over. Of course the big story is still the latest Wikileaks release.

This McClatchy story at the Miami Herald points out that despite hysterical warnings from U.S. officials there is “no evidence that WikiLeaks releases have hurt anyone”

American officials in recent days have warned repeatedly that the release of documents by WikiLeaks could put people’s lives in danger.

But despite similar warnings before the previous two releases of classified U.S. intelligence reports by the website, U.S. officials concede that they have no evidence to date that the documents led to anyone’s death.

Before Sunday’s release, news organizations given access to the documents and WikiLeaks took the greatest care to date to ensure no one would be put in danger. In statements accompanying stories about the documents, several newspapers said they voluntarily withheld information and that they cooperated with the State Department and the Obama administration to ensure nothing released could endanger lives or national security.

The newspapers “established lists in common of people to protect, notably in countries ruled by dictators, controlled by criminals or at war,” according to an account by Le Monde, a French newspaper that was among the five news organizations that were given access to the documents. “All the identities of people the journalists believed would be threatened were redacted,” the newspaper said in what would be an unusual act of self censorship by journalists toward government documents.

I see no reason to believe this release will be any different. Yes, there will be embarrassment for various world leaders–so what? We have a right to know what our government is doing. I say more power to whistleblowers the world over.

The New York Times posted an exchange of letters between Julian Assange and the U.S. government. The letter show that Wikileaks was very open to withholding information if it would really cause harm to anyone.

In other news, Claire McCaskill is attempting to distance herself from Obama, now that he’s no longer seen as the messiah. Will wonders never cease? You’d think McCaskill would go down with the ship, but I guess she’d rather hang onto her job in the Senate than continue her worshipful attitude toward the President.

Appearing on “Fox News Sunday,” McCaskill said that she’d voted against the president on cap-and-trade, the second round of cash-for-clunkers, comprehensive immigration reform and every omnibus bill.

McCaskill said she’d also sometimes disagreed with Obama when he was a senator.

“My record of independence, frankly, stretches back for a long period of time,” she said.

When asked to name an issue where Obama had fallen short, the senator said his move into healthcare legislation at a time when he should have been focusing on job creation was “very difficult,” and therefore economic issues “didn’t get the attention they needed.”

The Obots continue to drop like flies. It would be nice if Nancy Pelosi would get the message and start standing up for Democratic principles for a change.

I’m not sure what to think about this next story. The DHS and ICE have summarily shut down more than 70 websites. Supposedly these sites were involved in counterfeiting products or encouraging theft of intellectual property, but what is the recourse for a site that is wrongly shut down?

From the Wall Street Journal: Website Closures Escalate U.S. War on Piracy

A federal crackdown that shut more than 70 websites last week is the latest sign of an escalating war against counterfeit and pirated products, using legal tactics that may be closely scrutinized by civil-liberties groups.

Domain names of the affected sites—which offered such diverse goods as scarves, golf gear and rap music—were seized by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, part of the Department of Homeland Security, under court-approved warrants.

This is controversial because civil actions are generally used in piracy cases.

ICE’s latest crackdown is based on procedures used in criminal cases, including seizing domains and assets of suspect websites without prior notification of their owners, lawyers tracking the case said.

“It’s time to stop playing games,” said Chris Castle, a Los Angeles attorney who has represented copyright holders as well as technology companies involved in digital music.

Here a two different reactions to the government shutting down websites.

From Stephen J. Vaughn-Nichols at ZDnet: The Rise of Web Censorship

Back in 1964, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart of famously wrote on what was, and wasn’t “hard-core pornography” that, “I know it when I see it.” Today, free speech on the Web is impeded by far more restrictions than just what is, or isn’t, pornographic. On the Web in 2010, even the appearance of enabling file-sharing of copyright materials seems to be enough for the Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to shut down Web-sites without notice.

But here’s the problem, according to Vaughn-Nichols:

I have no use for sites that traffic in counterfeit goods such as fake autographed sports jerseys or designer purses. I do, on the other hand, worry when a site like Torrent-Finder is shut down.

You see, Torrent-Finder, which is back up under a new domain name, Torrent-Finder.info doesn’t host Torrent file or even BitTorrent file trackers. It’s just a search engine dedicated to file torrents such as movies, TV shows, or software programs. You can find the same file torrents with Google if you know what you’re doing. Torrent-Finder, and sites like it, just makes specific kinds of file searches easier.

I think its fine for the government to try to block the sales of fake LeBron James Miami Heat jerseys and the like. It’s when we start moving into the murkier land of intellectual property and the “right” to block searches, that I start getting worried.

From Elliot’s blog, which is devoted to “domain name investing news and tips”: Why I Am Not Worried About Domain Name Seizures

I will preface this by saying that I don’t like the idea of the government acting as judge and juror, while not seeming to give the website and/or domain name owners the opportunity to defend their actions. It’s scary that the government can simply take over some websites at it’s whim without the owner’s chance to defend his or her actions.

However, if the companies that own the websites are or were doing something illegal while violating the rights of people in the US (whom ICE is responsible to protect), this seizure is not such a huge deal as some might make it out to be….

Eventually, these website operates should have their day in court, but taking away their platform is a way to temporarily stop them from doing what the government believes is an illegal act (although it seems pretty simple to move to another domain name). I don’t know where to draw the line when it comes to seizures such as this, but if a company happens to be brazenly flouting the law, I am not opposed to government intervention. If these website operators are in the right, then they will certainly have their day in court.

I don’t know, this whole thing makes me uneasy, especially with the TSA being permitted to violate the 4th amendment rights of airline passengers. To me this feels like an attempt to begin censoring the internet.

Here’s an interesting story on possible effects on the health care law if Congress makes serious attempts to cut the deficit: Deficit battle threatens job-based health care

Budget proposals from leaders in both parties have urged shrinking or eliminating tax breaks that help make employer health insurance the leading source of coverage in the nation and a middle-class mainstay.

The idea isn’t to just raise revenue, economists say, but finally to turn Americans into frugal health care consumers by having them face the full costs of their medical decisions.

Such a re-engineering was rejected by Democrats only a few months ago, at the height of the health care overhaul debate. But Washington has changed, with Republicans back in power and widespread fears that the burden of government debt may drag down the economy.

Death panels, anyone?

Hypocrisy watch? Senator Lindsey Graham says DADT won’t be repealed.

The South Carolina Republican, a proponent of the law banning openly gay service in the armed forces, said definitively that there was no support for repeal on the Republican side of the aisle. He called for an additional study to determine whether the military itself favored overturning the 17-year-old legislation.

“This is a political promise made by Senator Obama when he was running for president,” said Graham, during an appearance on Fox News Sunday. “There is no groundswell of opposition to Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell coming from our military. This is all politics. I don’t believe there is anywhere near the votes to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. On the Republican side, I think we will be united in the lame duck [session] and the study I would be looking for is asking military members: Should it be repealed, not how to implement it once you as a politician decide to repeal it. So I think in a lame duck setting Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is not going anywhere.”

Please, someone, snap some pics of Lindsey Graham next time he hits a gay bar. I wonder what his pals McCain and Lieberman would say then?

According to interviews with the Daily Beast, the Taliban is laughing at the U.S., Britain, and NATO, because they negotiated with a fake Taliban leader for months.

Taliban commanders in Afghanistan reacted with amusement this weekend to news of an impostor who, by claiming he was a senior Taliban leader, managed to fool NATO officials and get invited to high-level peace talks.

The man pretending to be insurgent leader Mullah Akhtar Muhammad Mansour was in fact a shopkeeper from Quetta in Western Pakistan, they said.

“Imagine,” Mohammad Hafiz, a senior Taliban commander, told The Daily Beast, “if a shopkeeper from Quetta can make a fool of them and keep them engaged in talks for months, how do they believe they can defeat the Taliban?”

Hafiz, himself a close aide to the insurgent leader Mansour, said Taliban commanders were laughing at the fact that American and British officials could be so easily deceived. But he and other insurgent leaders denied the shopkeeper was a plant; in fact, they said, they wouldn’t mind finding him and having a chat.

That is pretty pathetic. It’s time to get out of Afghanistan. Iraq too.

What stories are you following today?