Antony Loewenstein Online Newsletter

BDS movement against Max Brenner gets make-over in Sydney

Posted: 27 Oct 2011

Those poor military contractors in Iraq just need a good hug

Posted: 27 Oct 2011

Trouble in paradise, as a legacy of American war-making (privatised security) faces new challenges. CNN reports:

With the removal of all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of the year looking more likely, absent an agreement to extend legal immunity, a large contingent of U.S. contractors will still remain facing their own legal and logistical ambiguities and challenges.

The complexity of the situation is not lost on top officials at the State Department who are busy preparing to assume control of every U.S. responsibility in Iraq – including contracting operations.

“The State Department is doing something that quite frankly we have never done before, this is not going to be easy and I think we all understand that,” Deputy Secretary of State Thomas Nides told CNN.

“We owe it to the families (who have lost loved ones in Iraq), and to the taxpayers to get this transition done correctly,” he added.

For years, thousands of civilian contractors have worked in Iraq operating in a variety of military and support functions. But they have always lacked the same criminal immunity from Iraqi laws that the U.S. military enjoys under existing agreements between the two countries. And for the most part, they operated under the purview of the Defense Department.

While contractors would be subject to the Iraqi criminal justice system as they always have, ambiguities will still exist as to how they would also be held accountable under U.S. law if a situation similar to the 2007 incident involving contractors working for Blackwater (now operating as Xe Services) were to occur.

The issues surrounding their presence in Iraq are likely to become only more complex when U.S. troops do pull out and leave the oversight of the entire contracting force to the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.

“What the State Department does is diplomacy, and you’re going to have the State Department managing contractors that are going to be flying helicopters, driving MRAP’s, medevac-ing wounded personnel,” Richard Fontaine, and expert on contracting issues with the Center for a New American Security, told CNN.

“This is the kind of thing that the State Department has very little in-house experience in managing,” he said.

Journalists get warning over sources; far safer to speak to Wikileaks than MSM

Posted: 27 Oct 2011

Christopher Soghoian, a fellow at the Open Society Foundations, writes a stunning piece in the New York Times about the distinct lack of awareness amongst media practitioners about online security. And who really gets it? Wikileaks:

Brave journalists have defied court orders and have even been jailed rather than compromise their ethical duty to protect sources. But as governments increasingly record their citizens’ every communication — even wiretapping journalists and searching their computers — the safety of anonymous sources will depend not only on journalists’ ethics, but on their computer skills.

Sadly, operational computer security is still not taught in most journalism schools, and poor data security practices remain widespread in news organizations. Confidential information is sent over regular phone lines and via text messages and e-mail, all of which are easy to intercept. Few journalists use secure-communication tools, even ones that are widely available and easy to use.

Government officials often attempt to get journalists to reveal their sources by obtaining subpoenas and compelling testimony and the required telecommunications records. But sometimes that’s not even necessary, because sources have already been exposed by their own lax communications. And then there is illicit monitoring — I believe that American journalists should assume that their communications are being monitored by their government — and possibly other governments as well.

As an expert on privacy and government surveillance, I regularly speak with journalists at major news organizations, here and abroad. Of the hundreds of conversations I’ve had with journalists over the past few years, I can count on one hand the number who mentioned using some kind of intercept-resistant encrypted communication tools.

Even when journalists try to do the right thing, they still make dangerous mistakes, like relying on Skype. Skype is slightly more secure than phones but is by no means safe from snooping — which can be done with commercially available interception software.

…

Many major media organizations have distanced themselves from WikiLeaks, which, they tell us, is reckless, and does not engage in real journalism. The announcement this week by WikiLeaks’s founder, Julian Assange, that it might close because companies like MasterCard and Visa will no longer process donations to the group, highlights the threat the group faces.

But if the hallmark of quality journalism is the ability to protect confidential sources, then WikiLeaks should, in fact, be seen as a beacon of best practices. In contrast to the shameful practices of most journalists, WikiLeaks has spectacular operational security: encrypted instant messages are used for all real-time communications, strong encryption technology is used to protect files as they are passed between individuals, and servers are hidden using the Tor Project, a popular privacy tool that enables anonymous communication.

Whatever one thinks of Mr. Assange, he is a skilled data security expert. He knows an awful lot more about information security than even the most tech-savvy journalist. His platform appears to have worked: none of WikiLeaks’s confidential sources have ever been exposed by the organization. (Bradley E. Manning, the detained Army private who has been accused of the leak, was exposed by an acquaintance.)

Until journalists take their security obligations seriously, it will be safer to leak something to WikiLeaks — or groups like it — than to the mainstream press.

Maintaining pressure on the autocratic thugs in Sri Lanka

Posted: 27 Oct 2011

I was honoured to be asked to sign the following statement released yesterday by Federal Greens MP Lee Rhiannon about the ongoing horrors in Sri Lanka:

Commenting on the arrival of Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa in Australia for CHOGM, Greens Senator Lee Rhiannon said: “Attorney General Robert McClelland’s decision to refuse permission for a criminal investigation of Mr Rajapaksa under the Commonwealth criminal code seriously tarnishes Australia’s human rights record.

“The Attorney General should have allowed this case to be tested in court,” Senator Rhiannon said.

“An investigation undertaken by a United Nations appointed panel found that up to 40,000 mainly Tamil civilians were killed in 2009 in the final months of the war.

“The same UN report found credible allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity which should be investigated.

“The failure of the Australian government to take strong action on the war crimes committed in the Sri Lankan civil war will undermine the Prime Minister’s push to reform Commonwealth institutions to encourage democracy and human rights.

“A broad alliance of Australians from across the political spectrum have joined together to call for a suspension from the Councils of the Commonwealth until the Sri Lankan government agree to an independent investigation into war crimes. (Full statement and names below).

“Julian Burnside QC, former Liberal Attorney General John Dowd and author Thomas Keneally signed onto this statement following a roundtable on Sri Lanka initiated by the Australian Greens.

“The Australian government should respond to this growing call for action by moving at the Perth meeting to ensure Sri Lanka does not host the 2013 CHOGM events.

“The Australian government is setting a dangerous precedent by rolling out the red carpet for Sri Lankan officials at CHOGM while allegations of war crimes remain unanswered.

“A report by the Eminent Persons Group has highlighted the failure of the Commonwealth to call countries to account for human rights violations.

“CHOGM is the time for the Commonwealth to show that the Sri Lankan government cannot escape unscathed against war crimes allegations,” Senator Rhiannon said.

Contact – 0487 350 880

Statement

We call on the Australian Government and the Federal Opposition to:

1. Support calls for Sri Lanka to be suspended from the Councils of the Commonwealth until the government of Sri Lanka agrees to an international independent investigation into war crimes, restoration of human rights and the rule of law and the implementation of all of the recommendations of the UN Expert Panel Report on War Crimes in Sri Lanka. Failing that event occurring within a reasonable time that steps be instituted to suspend Sri Lanka from the Commonwealth.

2. Oppose Sri Lanka hosting CHOGM in 2013.

We call on the Prime Minister Julia Gillard to follow the lead of Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper in saying he will not attend CHOGM in Sri Lanka in 2013 if there is no progress in Sri Lanka’s human rights and the establishment of an independent investigation into war crimes.

Endorsees

Thomas Keneally, Author
Robert Stary, Lawyer
Hon John Dowd AO QC, President of the International Commission of Jurists Australia
Professor Noam Chomsky, Institute Professor (retired), Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Boston
Julian Burnside AO QC, Barrister and Human Rights Advocate
Bruce Haigh, retired diplomat, political commentator and adviser to the UK-based Sri Lanka Campaign for Peace and Justice
Senator Bob Brown, the leader of the Australian Greens and Greens Senator for NSW Lee Rhiannon
Phil Lynch, Executive Director of the Human Rights Law Centre
Emeritus Professor Stuart Rees, Director of the Sydney Peace Foundation and adviser to the UK-based Sri Lanka Campaign for Peace and Justice
Associate Professor Jake Lynch, Director of the Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, Sydney University and adviser to the UK-based Sri Lanka Campaign for Peace and Justice
Professor Damien Kingsbury, Director of the Centre for Citizenship, Development and Human Rights, Deakin University
Peter Arndt, Executive Officer of the Catholic Justice and Peace Commission Brisbane
Professor Ben Saul, Professor of International Law at The University of Sydney
Dan Patrushnko, President of NSW Young Lawyers
Dr Raj Rajeswaran, Chairman of the Australian Tamil Congress
Rev Dr. S.J.Emmanuel, President of the Global Tamil Forum
Professor Wendy Bacon, The University of Technology, Sydney
Antony Loewenstein, independent journalist and adviser to the UK-based Sri Lanka Campaign for Peace and Justice
Edward Mortimer, Chair of the Sri Lanka Campaign for Peace and Justice
Professor Chris Nash, Professor of Journalism, Monash University

Of course #occupy is justified, here’s why

Posted: 27 Oct 2011

More here.

Murdoch press salutes “moderate” Palestinians (who indulge occupation)

Posted: 27 Oct 2011

Today’s editorial in the Australian praises those calm and lovely voices who speak nicely about “democratic” Israel and salute a “peace process” (that has only entrenched occupation of Palestine):

Given the increasingly febrile tone of anti-Israel rhetoric and protests this year, it was comforting yesterday to hear sensible words of moderation from the Palestinian Territories’ Australian representative.

The head of the General Delegation of Palestine to Australia, Izzat Abdulhadi, poured oil on the waters stirred up in recent months by Greens and academic activists. Mr Izzat told The Australian’s Imre Salusinszky that he did not support full-scale or violent imposition of the boycotts, divestments and sanctions campaign. This campaign has seen protesting mobs descend upon Max Brenner chocolate shops, urging a customer boycott because the company also supplies chocolate to the Israeli defence forces. “I don’t think it’s the right of anybody to use BDS as a violent action,” Mr Izzat said, “or to prevent people from buying from any place.” He should be heeded by the activists, some of whom would go so far as to have Sydney’s Marrickville Council sign up to the BDS campaign, and by the protesters, whose ugly intimidation has conjured up distasteful comparisons with the targeting of Jewish shops in Germany in the late-1930s.

Mr Izzat also sensibly defended a Sydney University Israel Research Forum, noting that a similar Arab forum would be held next year. An enlightened exchange of ideas must not be held hostage to partisan posturing over a conflict where there is plenty of blame to share around. This newspaper, along with the Palestinian and Israeli leaderships, supports a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine. While the anti-Israel protesters often focus on Israeli settlements outside the 1967 borders, they avoid any criticism of Palestinian actions. Resolution of this conflict cannot occur without considering how Israel’s complete withdrawal from Gaza was greeted only with a menacing stream of deadly rockets targeting its citizens. While Arabs in Egypt, Libya, Syria and Bahrain have taken to the streets demanding an end to tyranny and a say in their own affairs, their sympathisers in the West have assailed chocolate stores, railing against the Middle East’s only established democracy. Israel is a place where Arabs already have a vote, and continue to hold seats in parliament. As Mr Izzat suggested, rather than foment hatred, there are good reasons for people to be constructive on this issue.

Taking on Assad in Syria

Posted: 26 Oct 2011

Globalised terror; from Palestine to America

Posted: 26 Oct 2011

Welcome to a world where the rapacious arms industry has a global reach, and sees no difference between helping an occupying army and thuggish police in a supposed democracy. Max Blumenthal reports:

With the rise of the Occupy Wall Street, a new generation of mostly middle class Americans is learning for the first time about the militarization of their local police forces. And they are learning the hard way, through confrontations with phalanxes of riot cops armed with the latest in “non-lethal” crowd control weaponry. Yesterday’s protests in Oakland, California were the site of perhaps the harshest police violence leveled against the Occupy movement so far. Members of the Oakland Police Department and the California Sheriff’s Department attacked unarmed protesters with teargas canisters, beanbag rounds, percussion grenades, and allegedly with rubber bullets, leaving a number of demonstrators with deep contusions and bloody head wounds. It is not difficult to imagine such scenes becoming commonplace as the Occupy protests intensify across the country.

The police repression on display in Oakland reminded me of tactics I witnessed the Israeli army employ againstPalestinian popular struggle demonstrations in occupied West Bank villages like Nabi Saleh, Ni’lin and Bilin. So I was not surprised when I learned that the same company that supplies the Israeli army with teargas rounds and other weapons of mass suppression is selling its dangerous wares to the Oakland police. The company is Defense Technology, a Casper, Wyoming based arms firm that claims to “specialize in less lethal technology” and other “crowd management products.” Defense Tech sells everything from rubber-coated teargas rounds that bounce in order to maximize gas dispersal to 40 millimeter “direct impact” sponge rounds to “specialty impact” 12 gauge rubber bullets.