The mystery of the Casio F-91W.

One of the latest stories, since the release of the Guantanamo Bay files, is that a number of terrorist suspects have been apprehended wearing a Casio F-91W watch. Supposedly, one of the leaks revealed that Al Qaida terrorists were presented with the watch after attending terrorist training camps. This particular watch is favoured by the Al- Qaida group because it is used ‘as the timing device for improvised exploding devices’ (The Guardian, 2011), although some terrorists have tried to use other reasons for being in possession of the F-91W.

There were nearly 28 inmates found in possession of the F-91W, and argued that the watch was favoured by their group because it was waterproof and they were often washing their hands up to their elbows in preparation for praying. This has been a particularly interesting leak because so many of the inmates were found wearing the watch, why these watches?  They aren't the latest model, in fact, the article has stated that this model of watch is nearly 20 years old!

I will admit here that by outing these watches as a terrorist possession, it is going to prove a nuisance for anyone who now wears it. This is, I believe, when WikiLeaks could be wrong for making it known that these watches are a symbol of Al- Qaida as this is bound to cause panic for anyone caught wearing it.

To be continued...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2011/apr/28/casio-f-91w-watch-design-hipsters-al-qaida?INTCMP=SRCH

Developments made on the release of the Guantanamo Bay files show that political commentator Bill O’reilly wants Wikileaks to stand trial for the damage they have caused. He argues that; “If I got leaked WikiLeaks documents, I wouldn't put them on air. I would tell everybody flat out I wouldn't do it. Especially if it put the USA in any kind of dangerous situation – which the Guantánamo Bay thing can whip up people easily around the world.” (O’Reilly cited in Guardian, 2011). What O’reilly fails to understand is that if WikiLeaks is penalised for publishing these documents then so should the companies responsible for putting them into the press.

WikiLeaks, actually, have every right to print articles/ cables that are presented to them. The Guardian article writes that; ‘WikiLeaks has a right and even a responsibility to make the information public’ (Guardian, 2011). I happen to agree, WikiLeaks did not actively seek these files, they were sent to them by an anonymous source, and as the article identifies; ‘unless WikiLeaks colluded with or actively encouraged whoever actually downloaded the secret documents, they should not be prosecuted for publishing the information – any more than the New York Times should be prosecuted.’ (Guardian, 2011). What is often ignored is the fact that companies, who condone the site by printing these cables/articles, are just as ‘guilty’ as WikiLeaks itself.

I happen to believe that the release of these documents is enthralling and I am eager to see what they will do next.

To be continued...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/apr/27/fox-news-us-television?INTCMP=SRCH

Prisoners Revealed!

One new development, since WikiLeaks released the Guantanamo Bay files, is that one of the prisoners was an Al-Qaida assassin, who had previously worked for MI6. The article unveils that he ‘withheld important information from the Canadian Secret Intelligence Service and British Secret Intelligence Service … and to be a threat to US and allied personnel in Afghanistan and Pakistan’ (Guardian, 2011), because prisoners were found to be held in Guantanamo Bay with little evidence there has, quite obviously, been further research into other prisoners and the findings have been quite shocking.

It has been argued that WikiLeaks has obtained these Guantanamo Bay cables illegally, which raises the issue of “sheer bureaucratic incompetence” of the US military’s intelligence gathering’ (Guardian, 2011). This shows how WikiLeaks can affect people’s views on organisations, for example the US military. Another interesting point raised is that; "When you gather intelligence in such an unintelligent way; if for example you sweep people up who you know are innocent, and it is in these documents; and then mistreat them horribly, you are not going to get reliable intelligence. You are going to make yourself a lot of enemies." (Guardian, 2011). This conveys, in relation to the Guantanamo Bay files, that due to prisoners being held with little pertinent evidence the people who have sent the prisoners to Guantanamo Bay will now be held in very low regards.

The WikiLeaks site is not only having accusations made against them by leaking, supposedly, illegal files, but also creating hostility towards US military for mistakenly sending people to the prison (without sufficient evidence).

To be continued...

The Guantanamo Bay files.

Over the past couple of days there has been a huge boom on twitter concerning WikiLeaks. The site has produced, in the last 24 hours, 92 Tweets! The majority of which are concerning the release of Guantanamo Bay files.

The unveiling of the Guantanamo files has obviously caused huge amounts of controversy, and as a result is featuring in the top headlines on most news websites! These files revealed that some prisoners are being held with a sparse amount of evidence, as well as children and elders who are being wrongfully held.

WikiLeaks released over 700 files about the world’s most famous prison and found that out of the 172 being detained many were being held on the ‘flimsiest of grounds’ (Guardian, 2011).

I believe that WikiLeaks has yet again surpassed itself; some of these people are innocent and being held just because they might know something of some value. Surely if the prisoners had been investigated properly they would have found out that these people were innocent?

It is thought that WikiLeaks have obtained these files ‘illegally’ (Guardian, 2011), which no doubt will cause another uproar against Assange and his employee’s!

To be continued...

Transparency: a society with no secrets?

The about pages of the Wikileaks site claim that 'Publishing improves transparency, and this transparency creates a better society for all people' (Wikileaks 2011). First of all, this suggestion of transparency touches upon ideas of a society with no secrets, and implies notions of communication, openness, clarity, words which portray that the site is merely trying to create a more open, communicative publishing system, something which has the ability to create a better ‘society’ for the majority. Assange’s views on transparency could possibly mean that the release of certain documents is positive, because if people are aware then this, perhaps, creates a stronger democracy?

A guardian article from December 2010; ‘Wikileaks the cause of transparency’ suggests that; ‘the WikiLeaks saga reminds us of something we already knew: there is no privacy anymore’ (Schiffrin, 2010). Therefore, among claims from the Wikileaks site, that the organisation is creating something different (‘A new model of journalism’ – Wikileaks, 2011), Schriffin argues that the site is simply reminding us that there is no longer any privacy. She also suggests that ‘much of what Wikileaks reveals, adds to what was known or suspected by people in the know, and so shows again that transparency is often the best way to defuse conspiracy theories’ (Schriffin, 2010).  I believe Schriffin is trying to convey that WikiLeaks is not revealing anything we did not, perhaps, already suspect, which means that whilst the site is exposing many government documents it is not actually teaching us more then what we may have expected already. In fact, the article even argues that this idea of transparency is a good thing as it obliterates conspiracy theories and replaces them with truth, and frankly I happen to agree.

An article from the Guardian 5th of February 2011; ‘Traditional papers didn’t know how to handle the biggest story of our time’ by: Arriana Huffington

Wikileaks is an organisation surrounded by controversy. Due to the release of official government documents the site has been under heavy scrutiny from media sources. This can be seen by looking at the amount of articles produced since the sites launch in 2006. I merely glanced over the amount of articles produced by The Guardian in 2010 and it came up with 1,713. This conveys what a substantial issue Wikileaks has become. Wikileaks claims to ‘provide an innovative, secure and anonymous way for independent sources around the world to leak information to our journalists’ (Wikileaks, 2011). This is exactly what Wikileak’s is doing, there is no malicious intent in what they are doing, and they are merely bringing to light leaked government documents. The site also claims that any article submitted is then checked and re-written by one of their official journalists, therefore it cannot be argued that simply anyone can offer a ‘leak’, each leak is researched and they do not let just anyone edit their ‘source documents’ (Wikileaks, 2011).

 One thing I have found particularly interesting is a quote found in an article from The Guardian, which argues that; ‘it’s especially important to look at what Wikileaks is doing, as distinct from what its critics claim it’s doing’. The use of the word ‘critics’ show that it is being criticised, and it is perhaps more useful to look at objective reports on the site rather than ones fuelled by opinion/bias, as it should give one a better insight into the Wikileaks site. From my own personal research on the ‘about’ pages of the site I have become sensitised to the pro Wikileaks way of thinking and have found media reports to be fascinating now that I, personally, have a better knowledge of what the site is actually trying to achieve.