Powers and Principalities

This WordPress.com site is the cat’s pajamas

Dayton Agreement

 
  

Dayton Agreement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Jump to: navigation, search

 
“Dayton Treaty” redirects here. For the Native American treaty, see Treaty with the Kalapuya, etc..
Dayton Agreement
General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina
DaytonAgreement.jpg
Seated from left to right: Slobodan Milošević, Alija Izetbegović, Franjo Tuđman initialling the Dayton Peace Accords at the Wright-Patterson Air Force Base on 21 November 1995.
Drafted November 1995
Signed 14 December 1995
Signatories Slobodan Milošević, Alija Izetbegović, Franjo Tuđman, Bill Clinton, Jacques Chirac, John Major, Helmut Kohl, Viktor Chernomyrdin
Bosnia and Herzegovina

This article is part of the series:
Politics and government of
Bosnia and Herzegovina

 
Portal icon Politics portal

The General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina, also known as the Dayton Agreement, Dayton Accords, Paris Protocol or Dayton-Paris Agreement, is the peace agreement reached at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base near Dayton, Ohio in November 1995, and formally signed in Paris on 14 December 1995. These accords put an end to the three and a half year long war in Bosnia, one of the armed conflicts in the former Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia.

Contents

 [hide

[edit] Negotiation and signature

Though the basic concepts of the Dayton Agreement began to appear in international talks since 1992,[1] the negotiations were initiated following the unsuccessful previous peace efforts and arrangements, the August 1995 Croatian military Operation Storm and its aftermath, the government military offensive against the Republika Srpska, conducted in parallel with NATO’s Operation Deliberate Force. During September and October 1995, many of the world powers (especially the USA and Russia), gathered in the Contact Group, applied intense pressure to the leaders of the three sides to attend the negotiations in Dayton, Ohio.

The conference took place from 1–21 November 1995. The main participants from the region were the President of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia Slobodan Milošević (representing the Bosnian Serb interests due to absence of Karadžić), President of Croatia Franjo Tuđman, and President of Bosnia and Herzegovina Alija Izetbegović with his Foreign Minister Muhamed Sacirbey.

The peace conference was led by U.S. Secretary of State Warren Christopher, and negotiator Richard Holbrooke with two Co-Chairmen in the form of EU Special Representative Carl Bildt and the First Deputy Foreign Minister of Russia Igor Ivanov. A key participant in the US delegation was General Wesley Clark (later to become NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) in 1997). The UK military representative was Col Arundell David Leakey (later to become Commander of EUFOR in 2005). Paul Williams, through the Public International Law & Policy Group (PILPG) served as legal counsel to the Bosnian Government delegation during the negotiations.

The secure site was chosen for several reasons: remove them from the luxury and media of Europe/Washington DC and to securely house over 800 staff and attendants. Curbing the participants’ ability to negotiate via the media was also an important consideration. Richard Holbrooke wanted to stop the posturing and walls that can be built up due to early leaks to the press.

After having been initialled in Dayton, Ohio on 21 November 1995, the full and formal agreement was signed in Paris on 14 December 1995[2] and witnessed by French President Jacques Chirac, U.S. President Bill Clinton, UK Prime Minister John Major, German Chancellor Helmut Kohl and Russian Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin.

[edit] Content of the agreement

The agreement’s main purpose is to promote peace and stability in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and to endorse regional balance in and around the former Republic of Yugoslavia (art. V, annex 1-B), thus in a regional perspective.

The present political divisions of Bosnia and Herzegovina and its structure of government were agreed upon as part the constitution that makes up Annex 4 of the General Framework Agreement concluded at Dayton. A key component of this was the delineation of the Inter-Entity Boundary Line, to which many of the tasks listed in the Annexes referred.

The State of Bosnia Herzegovina was set as of the Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina and of the Republika Srpska. Bosnia and Herzegovina is a complete state, as opposed to a confederation; no entity or entities could ever be separated from Bosnia and Herzegovina unless through due legal process. Although highly decentralised in its Entities, it would still retain a central government, with a rotating State Presidency, a central bank and a constitutional court.

The agreement mandated a wide range of international organizations to monitor, oversee, and implement components of the agreement. The NATO-led IFOR (Implementation Force) was responsible for implementing military aspects of the agreement and deployed on 20 December 1995, taking over the forces of the UNPROFOR. The Office of the High Representative was charged with the task of civil implementation. The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe was charged with organising the first free elections in 1996.

[edit] Decision of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina

On 13 October 1997, the Croatian 1861 Law Party and the Bosnia-Herzegovina 1861 Law Party requested the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina to annul several decisions and to confirm one decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and, more importantly, to review the constitutionality of the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina, since they alleged that the agreement violated the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina in a way that it undermined the integrity of the state and that it may cause the dissolution of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Court reached the conclusion that it is not competent to decide the disputes in regards to the mentioned decisions, since the applicants were not subjects that were identified in Article VI.3 (a) of the Constitution, in regard to those who can refer disputes to the Court. The Court also rejected the other request stating:

(…) the Constitutional Court is not competent to evaluate the constitutionality of the General Framework Agreement as the Constitutional Court has in fact been established under the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina in order to uphold this Constitution (…) The Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina was adopted as Annex IV to the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and consequently there cannot be a conflict or a possibility for controversy between this Agreement and the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina.[3]

This was one of the early cases in which the Court had to deal with the question of the legal nature of the Constitution. By making the remark in the manner of obiter dictum concerning the Annex IV (the Constitution) and the rest of the peace agreement, the Court actually “established the ground for legal unity[4] of the entire peace agreement, which further implied that all the annexes are in the hierarchical equality. In later decisions the Court confirmed this by using other annexes of the peace agreement as a direct base for the analysis and not only in the context of systematic interpretation of the Annex IV. However, since the Court rejected the presented request of the appellants, it did not go into details concerning the controversial questions of the legality of the process in which the new Constitution (Annex IV) came to power, and replaced the former Constitution of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Court used the same reasoning to dismiss the similar claim in a later case.[5]

[edit] Territorial changes

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (November 2010)

Before the Dayton agreement Bosnian Serbs controlled about 46% of Bosnia and Herzegovina (23,687 km2), Bosniaks 28% (14,505 km2) and Bosnian Croats 25% (12,937 km2).

Bosnian Serbs got large tracts of mountainous territories back (4% of Bosnian Croats and some small amounts from Bosniaks), but they were pressured to surrender Sarajevo and some vital Eastern Bosnian/Herzegovian positions. All in all by changing quality to quantity their percentage grew to 49% (48 if excluding the Brčko District, 24,526 km2) from a little bit more than 46% prior to Dayton.

Bosniaks got most of Sarajevo, and some important positions in eastern Bosnia and Herzegovina while they lost only a few locations on mount Ozren and in western Bosnia. Their percentage grew from 28% prior to Dayton to 30% and they greatly upheld quality of the gotten land. Large tracts of prewar Bosniak (and Bosnian Croat) inhabited lands remained under Bosnian Serb Control.[6]

Bosnian Croats gave most (4% of BiH territories) back to the Bosnian Serbs (9% of today’s RS), and also retreated from Una-Sana canton as well Donji Vakuf (in Central Bosnia canton) municipality afterward. Small enlargement of Posavina canton (Odžak and parts of Domaljevac municipality) has not changed the fact that after Dayton Bosnian Croats controlled just 21% of Bosnia and Herzegovina (10,640 km2) especially when compared to more than 25% prior to Dayton. It is important to note that one of the most important Bosnian Croat territories (Posavina with Bosanski Brod, Bosanski Šamac, Derventa and Modriča) was still left out of Bosnian Croat control.

[edit] Control of Republika Srpska

  • About 89.5%(22,059 km2) was under control of Bosnian Serbs
  • About 9% (2,117 km2) of today’s territories of Republika Srpska was controlled by Bosnian Croat forces; mainly in municipalities of, Šipovo, Petrovac, Istočni Drvar, Jezero, Kupres (RS) and part of Banja Luka municipality
  • About 1.5% (350 km2) of today’s territories of RS was controlled by Bosniak forces; mainly some villages in Ozren (Doboj and Petrovo municipalities), and western Bosnia (Krupa, and parts of Novi Grad and Oštra Luka municipalities)

[edit] Control of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina

  • About 53% (13,955 km2) of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina was under Bosniak control
  • About 41% (10,720 km2) of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina was under Bosnian Croat control
  • About 6% (1,435 km2) was under control of Bosnian Serbs

[edit] Cantons

Canton 10:

  • was almost completely under control of Bosnian Croats (4,924 km2)
  • Bosniaks controlled some points east of Kupres (10 km2)

Una-Sana Canton:

  • was almost completely under control of Bosniaks (3,925 km2)
  • Bosnian Croats controlled some mountain passes on the southern parts of Bosanski Petrovac and Bihać municipalities (200 km2)

West Herzegovina Canton:

  • was completely under Bosnian Croat control (1,362 km2)

Herzegovina-Neretva Canton:

  • was divided, more than half was under Bosnian Croat control (2,525 km2)
  • northern and central parts were under Bosniak control (1,666 km2)
  • eastern mountains were under Bosnian Serb control (210 km2)

Central Bosnia Canton:

  • was divided, a bit more than a third was under Bosnian Croat control (1,099 km2)
  • rest was under control of Bosniaks (2,090 km2)

Zenica-Doboj Canton:

  • was largely under Bosniak control (2,843 km2)
  • there were some small enclaves like Žepče, Usora, Daštansko under Bosnian Croat control (400 km2)
  • eastern mountains were under Bosnian Serb control (100 km2)

Tuzla Canton:

  • was largely under Bosniak control (2,544 km2)
  • there were some villages in Gradačac municipality under Bosnian Croat control (5 km2)
  • and some villages in Doboj and Gračanica municipalities under Bosnian Serb control (100 km2)

Posavina Canton:

  • was mostly under Bosnian Croat control (205 km2)
  • Bosnian Serbs controlled Odžak and parts of Domaljevac municipalities (120 km2)

Bosnian Podrinje Canton:

  • was mostly under Bosniak control (405 km2)
  • Bosnian Serbs controlled areas which linked it with Sarajevo (100 km2)

Sarajevo Canton:

  • was mostly under Bosnian Serbs control (800 km2)
  • while Bosniaks controlled some southern suburbs and most of the city itself (477 km2)

Brčko District was divided;

  • Bosniaks controlled most of its southern parts (200 km2)
  • Bosnian Serbs its northern parts (193 km2)
  • While Bosnian Croats controlled the rest, part near Orašje municipality and two enclaves on southern parts of municipality (100 km2)

[edit] Analysis and criticism

The immediate purpose of the agreement was to freeze the military confrontation, and prevent them at all costs from resuming. It was thefore defined as a “construction of necessity”[7].

Despite this, the Dayton Agreement proved to be a highly flexible instrument, allowing Bosnia and Herzegovina to move from an early post-conflict phase through reconstruction and consolidation, passing from a consociationalist approach to a more integrationist one. Many scholars refers to it as “the most impressive example of conflict resolution”[8]. Wolfgang Petritsch, OHR, has argued that the Dayton framework has allowed the international community to move “from statebuilding via institutions and capacity-building to identity building”, putting Bosnia “on the road to Brussels”[9]

Nevertheless, Dayton’s main shortcomings may be described as:

  1. enabling international actors (such as the OHR), unaccountable to BiH’s citizens, to shape the agenda of post-war transition, up to enacting punishment over local political actors[10]
  2. leaving each ethnic group discontent with the results: the Bosnian Serbs for the somehow limited results (although strongly favored in statistical terms), such as the arbitration over the Brcko district; the Bosniaks for ignoring the human rights issues such as the Srebrenica massacre and recognizing Serbian entities such as the Republika Srpska; the Bosnian Croats for the lack of equality, lacking a Croat Entity.[11]
  3. according to University of Leipzig professor and Bosnian Academy of Sciences and Arts member Edin Šarčević, the current legal structure of the agreement does not abide by the basic principles of international law and the secular concept of national citizenship, making the Bosnian territorial and political situation continually unstable and fractious since its implementation in 1995.[12]

[edit] See also

[edit] References

  1. ^ Munich All Over Again?, Time Magazine, August 31, 1992
  2. ^ “Dayton Peace Accords on Bosnia”. USA State Department. 30 March 1996. http://www.state.gov/www/regions/eur/bosnia/bosagree.html. Retrieved 19 March 2006. 
  3. ^ Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, U-7/97, p. 2 and 3, Sarajevo, 22 December 1997
  4. ^ Vehabović, Faris (2006). Odnos Ustava Bosne i Hercegovine i Evropske konvencije za zaštitu ljudskih prava i osnovnih sloboda. Sarajevo: ACIPS, 24. ISBN 9958-9187-0-6
  5. ^ Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, U-1/03, Sarajevo, 25 July 2003.
  6. ^ Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d3/BiH_territory_posession_just_before_Dayton.png
  7. ^ Rory Keane, Reconstructing sovereignity. Post-Dayton Bosnia uncovered, London: Ashgate 2001, p.61
  8. ^ Charles-Philippe David, “Alice in Wonderland meets Frankenstein: Constructivism, Realism and Peacebuilding in Bosnia”, Contemporary Security Policy 22, No.1, 2001
  9. ^ Wolfgang Petritsch, “My lessons learnt in Bosnia and Herzegovina”, Sarajevo, 2006
  10. ^ David Chandler, “From Dayton to Europe”, International Peacekeeping 12, No.3, 2005, pp. 336
  11. ^ Giulio Venneri, Modelling States from Brussels?, December 2007
  12. ^ Ethnic Segregation as a Desirable Constitutional Position?, Bosnian Institute, 09 December 2008

[edit] External links

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Dayton Agreement
[hide]

 
Part of the Yugoslav Wars
 
Timeline
 
1991
 
1992
 
1993
 
1994
 
1995
 
Peace plans
 
War crimes
 
 
 
Camps
 
Cases
 

View page ratings
Rate this page
Rate this page
Page ratings
Current average ratings.
 
Trustworthy
 
 
 
 
 
 
Objective
 
 
 
 
 
 
Complete
 
 
 
 
 
 
Well-written
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
I have a relevant college/university degree
It is part of my profession
It is a deep personal passion
The source of my knowledge is not listed here
I would like to help improve Wikipedia, send me an e-mail (optional)

We will send you a confirmation e-mail. We will not share your e-mail address with outside parties as per our feedback privacy statement.
 

Submit ratings

Saved successfully
Your ratings have not been submitted yet
 
Your ratings have expired
Please reevaluate this page and submit new ratings.
An error has occurred. Please try again later.
Thanks! Your ratings have been saved.
Please take a moment to complete a short survey.
 

Start surveyMaybe later

Thanks! Your ratings have been saved.
Do you want to create an account?
An account will help you track your edits, get involved in discussions, and be a part of the community.

Create an accountorLog inMaybe later

Thanks! Your ratings have been saved.
Did you know that you can edit this page?
 

Edit this pageMaybe later

 
 

 

Personal tools

Namespaces

 

Variants
 

Actions
 

 

August 17, 2012 Posted by | 1995, Covenants and treaties | , , | Leave a comment

Yugoslav Wars

 
 

 

Yugoslav Wars

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Jump to: navigation, search

 
This article is about the military conflicts resulting from the dissolution of Yugoslavia. For an account of the events entailing the destruction of the Yugoslav state, see Breakup of Yugoslavia.
This article needs attention from an expert in Military history. Please add a reason or a talk parameter to this template to explain the issue with the article. WikiProject Military history or the Military history Portal may be able to help recruit an expert. (May 2012)
This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (April 2012)
Yugoslav Wars
Part of the Breakup of Yugoslavia
Collage Yugoslav wars.jpg
clockwise from the top: Slovenian police escort captured JNA soldiers back to their unit during the 1991 Slovenian war of independence; A destroyed tank during the battle of Vukovar; Rocket installations in the siege of Dubrovnik; New graves for victims of the Srebrenica massacre in 1995. Burial took place on 11 July 2010; UN vehicle driving on the streets of Sarajevo during the siege.
Date 1991–21 June 1999
Location Territory of the former SFR Yugoslavia:

Result New countries independent; change in the political status of Kosovo
Belligerents
1991–92 Croatia


 Slovenia
(1991 only)

1991–92 Republic of Serbian Krajina


Logo of the JNA.svg Yugoslav People’s Army
(1991 only)

1992–94 Croatia

 

 Herzeg-Bosnia
(up to 1994)

1992–94Bosnia and Herzegovina Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovinaa 1992–94Federal Republic of Yugoslavia FR Yugoslavia
Republika Srpska Republika Srpska

 

Republic of Serbian Krajina

 

AP Western Bosnia (1993 on)

1994–95 Croatia

 

Bosnia and Herzegovina Republic of
Bosnia and Herzegovina


 NATO
(bombing operations in 1995)

1994–95Republika Srpska Republika Srpska

 

Republic of Serbian Krajina

 

AP Western Bosnia

1998–99: KLA


 NATO

(bombing operations in 1999)

1998–99: FR Yugoslavia
Commanders and leaders
Croatia Franjo Tuđman
Croatia Janko Bobetko


Croatian Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia Mate Boban

Croatian Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia Milivoj Petković

Croatian Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia Dario Kordić


Slovenia Milan Kučan
Slovenia Janez Janša

and others

Bosnia and Herzegovina Alija Izetbegović
Bosnia and Herzegovina Sefer HalilovićBosnia and Herzegovina Rasim Delić

and others

Federal Republic of YugoslaviaSerbia Slobodan Milošević
Federal Republic of YugoslaviaMontenegro Momir BulatovićFederal Republic of Yugoslavia Branko Kostić

Federal Republic of Yugoslavia Vojislav Šešelj


Logo of the JNA.svg Veljko Kadijević


Republika Srpska Radovan Karadžić

Republika Srpska Ratko Mladić


Republic of Serbian Krajina Milan Martić

Republic of Serbian Krajina Milan Babić


Fikret Abdić

and others

Casualties and losses
1991–95:
Croatia 13,583 killed[1]
Croatian Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia 7,788 killed[2]


Slovenia 18 killed


1998–99:

Kosovo 10,533 killed[3]

1991–95:
Bosnia and Herzegovina 64,341 killed[2]
1991–95:
File:Flag of Serbian Krajina (1991).svg 7,501 killed [4]
File:Flag of Republika Srpska.svg 24,905 killed[2]
1998-1999
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia 2,238 killed (Kosovo)[3]
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia 1,031 killed soldiers (outside Kosovo)[5]
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia 488-527 killed civilians (outside Kosovo)
a From 1992–1994 the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina was at the time representative mainly of the Bosniak (Bosnian Muslim) ethnic group in Bosnia and Herzegovina itself. From 1994–1995, after the Washington Agreement, the state was also representative of the Bosnian Croat ethnic group.
[show]

Yugoslav Wars
 

The wars in the former Yugoslavia were fought in the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s between the republics that sought sovereignty on one side and the government in Belgrade on the other side that wanted to either prevent their independence or keep large parts of that territory under its control. The wars were complex: characterized by bitter ethnic conflicts among the peoples of the former Yugoslavia, mostly between Serbs (and to a lesser extent, Montenegrins) on the one side and Croats and Bosniaks (and to a lesser degree, Slovenes) on the other; but also between Bosniaks and Croats in Bosnia (in addition to a separate conflict fought between rival Bosniak factions in Bosnia). The wars ended in various stages and mostly resulted in full international recognition of new sovereign territories, but with massive economic disruption to the successor states.

According to the 1994 United Nations report, the Serb side did not aim to restore Yugoslavia, but to create a “Greater Serbia” from parts of Croatia and Bosnia.[6]

Often described as Europe’s deadliest conflicts since World War II, the conflicts have become infamous for the war crimes involved, including mass murder and genocide. These were the first conflicts since World War II to be formally judged genocidal in character and many key individual participants were subsequently charged with war crimes.[7] The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) was established by the UN to prosecute these crimes.[8]

According to the International Center for Transitional Justice, the Yugoslav Wars resulted in the deaths of 140,000 people.[9] The Humanitarian Law Center writes that in the conflicts in former Yugoslav republics at least 130,000 people lost their lives.[10]

The Yugoslav wars are generally considered to be a series of largely separate but related wars caused by the dissolution of Yugoslavia and affecting most of the former Yugoslav republics:[11][12][13]

In addition, the insurgency in the Preševo Valley (1999–2001) and the insurgency in the Republic of Macedonia (2001) are also often discussed in the same context.[11][13][14]

Contents

 [hide

[edit] Terminology

The war(s) have alternatively been called:

  • “War in the Balkans”: largely inappropriate, partly because the war affected not only the Western Balkans but also because certain areas which saw fighting (e.g. most of Slovenia, the Croatian land of Slavonia) are often seen as belonging to Central Europe and not the Balkans.
  • “Wars/conflicts in the former Yugoslavia”[9][15]
  • “Wars of Yugoslav Secession/Succession”
  • “Third Balkan War”: a term suggested by British journalist Misha Glenny in the title of his book, alluding to the two previous Balkan Wars fought 1912–1913.[16] In fact, the term has already been applied by contemporary historians to World War I as an allusion that it was a direct sequel of the 1912–1913 Balkan wars.[17]
  • “Yugoslavia Civil War”/”Yugoslav Civil War”/”Yugoslavian Civil War”/”Civil War in Yugoslavia”[18][19]

[edit] Background

Main article: Breakup of Yugoslavia

Map of the six Yugoslav republics

The nation of Yugoslavia was created in the aftermath of World War I, and was composed mostly of South Slavic Christians, but the nation also had a substantial Muslim minority. This nation lasted from 1918 to 1941, when it was invaded by Axis powers during World War II. In 1943, a new government called the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was established under Josip Broz Tito, who maintained a strongly authoritarian leadership that was non-aligned with either the United States or the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

In the 1980s, relations among the six republics of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia deteriorated. Slovenia and Croatia desired greater autonomy within the Yugoslav confederation, while Serbia sought to strengthen federal authority. As it became clearer that there was no solution agreeable to all parties, Slovenia and Croatia moved toward secession.

Although tensions in Yugoslavia had been mounting since the early 1980s, it was 1990 that proved decisive. In the midst of economic hardship, Yugoslavia was facing rising nationalism amongst its various ethnic groups.

By the early 1990s there was no effective authority at the federal level. The Federal Presidency consisted of the representatives of all 6 republics and 2 provinces and JNA (Yugoslav People’s Army) and communist leadership was divided along national lines.

The representatives of Vojvodina, Kosovo and Montenegro were replaced with people loyal to Milošević by 1990. This way, Serbia secured four out of eight federal presidency votes[20] and was able to heavily influence decision-making at the federal level, since all the other Yugoslav republics only had one vote. While Slovenia and Croatia wanted to allow a multi-party system, Serbia, led by Milošević, demanded an even more centralized federation and Serbia’s dominant role in it.[21] At the 14th Extraordinary Congress of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia in January 1990, the Serbian-dominated assembly agreed to abolish the single-party system; however, Slobodan Milošević, the head of the Serbian Party branch (League of Communists of Serbia) used his influence to block and vote-down all other proposals from the Croatian and Slovene party delegates. This prompted the Croatian and Slovene delegations to walk out and thus the break-up of the party,[22] a symbolic event representing the end of “brotherhood and unity“.

[edit] The wars

[edit] Ten-Day War (1991)

Main article: Ten-Day War

The first of these conflicts, known as the Ten-Day War, was initiated by the federal Yugoslav People’s Army on 26 June 1991 after the secession of Slovenia from the federation on 25 June 1991.[23][24]

Initially, the federal government ordered the Yugoslav People’s Army to secure border crossings in Slovenia. Slovenian police and Slovenian Territorial Defence blockaded barracks and roads, leading to stand-offs and limited skirmishes around the republic. After several dozen casualties, the limited conflict was stopped through negotiation at Brioni on 9 July 1991, when Slovenia and Croatia agreed to a three-month moratorium on secession. The Federal army completely withdrew from Slovenia by 26 October 1991.

 

[edit] Croatian War of Independence (1991–1995)

Damage after the Dubrovnik bombing

Fighting in this region had begun weeks prior to the Ten-Day War in Slovenia. The Croatian War of Independence began when Serbs in Croatia, who were opposed to Croatian independence, announced their secession from Croatia. This was triggered by a provision in the new Croatian Constitution that replaced an explicit reference to Serbs in Croatia as a “constituent nation” with a generic reference to all other nations, and was interpreted by Serbs as being reclassified as a “national minority”.

The JNA had disarmed the Territorial Units of Slovenia and Croatia prior to the declaration of independence.[25] This was aggravated further by an arms embargo, imposed by the UN on Yugoslavia.

The Yugoslav People’s Army (JNA) was ostensibly ideologically unitarian, but its officer corps was predominantly staffed by Serbs or Montenegrins (70 percent).[26] As a result the JNA opposed Croatian independence and sided with the Croatian Serb rebels. The Croatian Serb rebels were unaffected by the embargo as they had the support of and access to supplies of the JNA. By mid-July 1991, the JNA moved an estimated 70,000 troops to Croatia. The fighting rapidly escalated, eventually spanning hundreds of square kilometres from western Slavonia through Banija to Dalmatia.[27]

The border regions faced direct attacks from forces within Serbia and Montenegro, and saw the shelling of UNESCO world heritage site Dubrovnik, where the international press was criticised for focusing on the city’s architectural heritage, instead of reporting the destruction of Vukovar, a pivotal battle involving many civilian deaths.[28]

[edit] Bosnian War (1992–1995)

Main article: Bosnian War

In March 1991 the Karađorđevo agreement took place between Franjo Tuđman and Slobodan Milošević. The two presidents tried to reach an agreement on the disintegration process of Yugoslavia, but their main concern was Bosnia, or more precisely its partition.

Meanwhile, control over central Croatia was seized by Croatian Serb forces in conjunction with the JNA Corps from Bosnia and Herzegovina, under the leadership of Ratko Mladić.[29]

These attacks were marked by the killings of captured soldiers and heavy civilian casualties (Ovčara; Škabrnja), and were the subject of war crimes indictments by the ICTY for elements of the Serb political and military leadership.

In January 1992, the Vance-Owen peace plan proclaimed UN controlled (UNPA) zones for Serbs in territory claimed by Serbian rebels as the Republic of Serbian Krajina and brought an end to major military operations, though sporadic artillery attacks on Croatian cities and occasional intrusions of Croatian forces into UNPA zones continued until 1995.

In 1992, conflict engulfed Bosnia and Herzegovina. The war was predominantly a territorial conflict between local Bosniaks and Croats backed by Zagreb, and Serbs backed by the Yugoslav People’s Army and Serbia.

The Yugoslav armed forces had disintegrated into a largely Serb-dominated military force. Opposed to the Bosnian-majority led government’s agenda for independence, and along with other armed nationalist Serb militant forces, the JNA attempted to prevent Bosnian citizens from voting in the 1992 referendum on independence.[30] This did not succeed in persuading people not to vote and instead the intimidating atmosphere combined with a Serb boycott of the vote resulted in a resounding 99% vote in support for independence.[31]

Fronts of Bosnian war.

On 19 June 1992, the war in Bosnia broke out, though the siege of Sarajevo had already begun in April after Bosnia and Herzegovina had declared independence. The conflict, typified by the years-long Sarajevo siege and Srebrenica, was by far the bloodiest and most widely covered of the Yugoslav wars. Bosnia’s Serb faction led by ultra-nationalist Radovan Karadžić promised independence for all Serb areas of Bosnia from the majority-Bosniak government of Bosnia.

To link the disjointed parts of territories populated by Serbs and areas claimed by Serbs, Karadzic pursued an agenda of systematic ethnic cleansing primarily against Bosnians through genocide and forced removal of Bosniak populations.[32]

The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in the United States reported in April 1995 that 90 percent of all the atrocities in the Yugoslav wars up to that point had been committed by Serb militants.[33] Most of these atrocities occurred in Bosnia.

In 1994 the US brokered peace between Croatian forces and the Bosnian Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. After the successful Flash and Storm operations, the Croatian Army and the combined Bosnian and Croat forces of Bosnia and Herzegovina, conducted an operation codenamed Operation Maestral to push back Bosnian Serb military gains.

Together with NATO air strikes on the Bosnian Serbs, the successes on the ground put pressure on the Serbs to come to the negotiating table. The fighting in Croatia ended in mid-1995, after Operation Flash and Operation Storm. At the end of these operations, Croatia had managed to reclaim all of its territory except the UNPA Sector East bordering Serbia, however most of the Serbian population in these areas had become refugees, and these operations have led to war crimes indictments by the ICTY against elements of the Croat military leadership. The areas uncaptured by the Croatian forces in “Sector East” came under UN administration (UNTAES), and were reintegrated to Croatia in 1998.

Pressure was put on all sides to stick to the cease-fire and finally negotiate an end to the war in Bosnia.

The war ended with the signing of the Dayton Agreement on the 14 December 1995, with the formation of Republika Srpska as an entity within Bosnia and Herzegovina being the resolution for Bosnian Serb demands.

[edit] Kosovo War (1998–1999)

Main article: Kosovo War

A Tomahawk cruise missile launches from the aft missile deck of the USS Gonzalez on March 31, 1999

Post-strike bomb damage assessment photograph of the Kragujevac Armor and Motor Vehicle Plant Crvena Zastava, Serbia

After its autonomy was quashed, Kosovo was faced with state organized oppression: since the early 1990s, the Albanian radio and television were restricted, the newspapers were closed whereas Kosovo Albanians were fired in large numbers from public enterprises and institutions, including banks, hospitals, the post office and schools.[34] Kosovo Albanian teachers were also prevented from entering school premises for the new school year beginning in September 1991. Albanian students who wanted to study in Albanian language were not able to attend classes. In June 1991 the University of Priština assembly and several faculty councils were dissolved and replaced by Serbs. A parallel university education system was thus organized for Kosovo Albanian students who attended classes in private homes.[34]

After several violent demonstrations, an agreement, stipulating the gradual re-opening of the university and schools and allowing for the sharing of facilities by Albanian and Serb students, was signed on 23 March 1998. The Institute of Albanology was the first to re-open a few days later, but few other faculties followed suit because Serbs opposed the concession of spaces to Albanian students in the University.[35] With time, Kosovo Albanians started an insurgency against Belgrade when the Kosovo Liberation Army was founded in 1996. Armed clashes between two sides broke out by 1998. The Rambouillet talks did not yield any results since Serbs and Albanians had two opposite goals – the Albanians wanted an independent Kosovo, while the Serbs wanted to return them autonomy, but refused disarming their forces there or allowing international peacekeepers to be deployed.[36]

The conflict became a full-scale war in 1999 and the violence by the Serbs forces caused the departure of about 700,000 Albanians from their homes.[37] It ended with the 1999 NATO bombing of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, a NATO intervention against Serbian forces in 1999, with a mainly bombing but partly ground-based campaign under the command of General Wesley Clark. Kosovo was placed under the governmental control of the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo and the military protection of KFOR.

[edit] Arms embargo

The UNSC had imposed an arms embargo. Nevertheless, various states had been engaged in, or facilitated, arms sales to the warring factions: Bulgaria, Poland, Ukraine, Romania and Russia were all export countries for weapons to the conflict; the headquarters for a huge logistics operation was in Vienna; financial transactions were executed by a Hungarian bank; arms smugglers used companies registered in the off-shore haven of Panama; and the United Kingdom sent military equipment and provided loans for arms purchases, as did Germany.[38] In 2012, Chile convicted nine people, including two retired generals, for their part in arms sales.[39]

[edit] War crimes

[edit] War rape

War rape occurred as a matter of official orders as part of ethnic cleansing, to displace the targeted ethnic group.[40]

During the Bosnian War, so-called “rape camps”, aimed at the birth of a new generation of Serb children, were reportedly used. The purpose of these camps was to impregnate the Bosnian and Croatian women. Because of the patrilineal make-up of their society, in which children inherit their father’s ethnicity, this was used as a method of ethnic cleansing. In the camps, women were kept in confinement until the late stages of their pregnancies.

According to the Tresnjevka Women’s Group, more than 35,000 women and children were held in such Serb-run “rape camps”.[41][42][43] Dragoljub Kunarac, Radomir Kovač, and Zoran Vuković were convicted of crimes against humanity for rape, torture, and enslavement committed during the Foča massacres.[44]

The evidence of the magnitude of rape in Bosnia and Herzegovina prompted the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) to deal openly with these abuses.[45] Reports of sexual violence during the Bosnian War (1992–1995) and Kosovo War (1996–1999) perpetrated by the Serbian regular and irregular forces have been described as “especially alarming”.[41] The NATO-led Kosovo Force documented rapes of Albanian, Roma and Serbian women by Serbs and members of the Kosovo Liberation Army.[46]

Others have estimated that during the Bosnian War between 20,000 and 50,000 women, mainly Muslim, were raped.[47][48] A Commission of Experts appointed in October 1992 by the United Nations concluded that:

Rape has been reported to have been committed by all sides to the conflict. However, the largest number of reported victims have been Bosnian Muslims, and the largest number of alleged perpetrators have been Bosnian Serbs. There are few reports of rape and sexual assault between members of the same ethnic group.[49]

Although men also became victim of sexual violence, war rape was disproportionately directed against women who were (gang) raped in the streets, in their homes and/or in front of family members.

War rape in the Yugoslav Wars has often been characterized as genocide. Rape perpetrated by Serb forces served to destroy cultural and social ties of the victims and their communities.[50] Serbian policies urged soldiers to rape Bosnian women until they became pregnant as an attempt towards ethnic cleansing. Serbian soldiers hoped to force Bosnian women to carry Serbian children through repeated rape.[51] Often Bosnian women were held in captivity for an extended period of time and only released slightly before the birth of a child conceived of rape.

The systematic rape of Bosnian women may have carried farther-reaching repercussions than the initial displacement of rape victims. Stress, caused by the trauma of rape, coupled with the lack of access to reproductive health care often experienced by displaced peoples, lead to serious health risks for victimized women.[52]

During the Kosovo War thousands of Kosovo Albanian women and girls became victims of sexual violence. War rape was used as a weapon of war and an instrument of systematic ethnic cleansing; rape was used to terrorize the civilian population, extort money from families, and force people to flee their homes. According to a report by the Human Rights Watch group in 2000, rape in the Kosovo can generally be subdivided into three categories: rapes in woman’s homes, rapes during fighting, and rapes in detention.[53][54] The majority of the perpetrators were Serbian paramilitaries, but they also included Serbian special police or Yugoslav army soldiers.[53][54] Virtually all of the sexual assaults Human Rights Watch documented were gang rapes involving at least two perpetrators.[53][54] Since the end of the war, rapes of Serbian, Albanian, and Roma women by ethnic Albanians — sometimes by members of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) — have also been documented.[53][54] Rapes occurred frequently in the presence, and with the acquiescence, of military officers. Soldiers, police, and paramilitaries often raped their victims in the full view of numerous witnesses.[40]

[edit] Analysis

The War Crimes Tribunal accused Slobodan Milošević of “attempting to create a Greater Serbia“‘, a Serbian state encompassing the Serb-populated areas of Croatia and Bosnia, and achieved by forcibly removing non-Serbs from large geographical areas through the commission of the crimes.[55]

One of the common misconceptions about the Yugoslav Wars is that they were the result of centuries of ethnic conflict. In fact, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the ethnically mixed region of Dalmatia held close and amicable relations between the Croats and Serbs who lived there, and many early proponents of a united Yugoslavia came from this region, such as Dalmatian Croat Ante Trumbić. However by the time of the outbreak of the Yugoslav Wars the historical hospitable relations between Croats and Serbs in Dalmatia had broken down, with Dalmatian Serbs fighting on the side of the Republic of Serbian Krajina. Clear ethnic conflict between the Yugoslav peoples only became prominent in the 20th century, beginning with tensions over the constitution of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes in the early 1920s and escalating into violence between Serbs and Croats in the late 1920s after the assassination of Croatian nationalist Stjepan Radić. Severe ethnic conflict occurred during World War II during which the Croatian Ustase movement committed genocide against Serbs, while the Serbian Chetnik movement responded with reprisals against Croats as well as murdering Bosniaks. However the Yugoslav Partisan movement was able to appeal to all national groups, including Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks.[56] Tito himself was half-Croat half-Slovene.[11]

In Serbia and Serb territories, violent confrontations occurred particularly between nationalist Serbs towards non-nationalist Serbs who had criticized the Serbian government and the Serb political entities in Bosnia and Croatia.[57] Serbs who publicly opposed the nationalist political climate during the Yugoslav wars were reported to have been harassed, threatened, or killed.[57]

[edit] Brief timeline

A shelled Croatian hotel resort of the Dalmatian coastline in Kupari near Dubrovnik (1991).

1990

Log revolution. SAO Krajina is proclaimed over an indefinite area of Croatia.

1991

Slovenia and Croatia declare independence in June, Macedonia in September. War in Slovenia lasts ten days.
The Yugoslav army leaves Slovenia, but supports rebel Serb forces in Croatia. The Croatian War of Independence begins in Croatia. Serb areas in Croatia declare independence, but are recognized only by Belgrade.
Cities of Vukovar, Dubrovnik, Karlovac and Osijek are devastated by bombardments and shelling. A flood of refugees from the war zones and ethnic cleansing overwhelm entire Croatia. Countries of Europe are slow in accepting refugees.
In Croatia, about 250,000 Croats and other non-Serbs were either removed out of their homes by the Serb forces or fled the violence.[58]

1992

Vance peace plan signed, creating four UNPA zones for Serbs and ending large scale fighting in Croatia.
Bosnia declares independence. Bosnian war begins with Serbs trying to create a new, separate Serb state, Republika Srpska, that would swallow as much of Bosnia as possible.
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia proclaimed, consisting of Serbia and Montenegro, the only two remaining republics.
United Nations impose sanctions against FR Yugoslavia and accepts Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia as members. FR Yugoslavia claims being sole legal heir to SFRY, which is disputed by other republics. UN envoys agree that Yugoslavia had ‘dissolved into constituent republics’.
The Yugoslav army retreats from Bosnia, but leaves its weapons to the army of Republika Srpska, which attacks poorly armed Bosnian cities of Zvornik, Kotor Varoš, Prijedor, Foča, Višegrad, Doboj. Siege of Sarajevo starts.
Approx. 600,000 non-Serbian refugees.
Bosniak-Croat conflict begins in Bosnia.

Two Croatian Defense Council (HVO) T-55 Main Battle Tanks pull into firing position during a three day exercise held at the Barbara Range in Glamoč, Bosnia and Herzegovina.

1993

Fighting begins in the Bihać region between Bosnian Government forces loyal to Alija Izetbegović, and Bosniaks loyal to Fikret Abdić who is supported by Serbs.
Sanctions in FR Yugoslavia, now isolated, create hyperinflation of 3.6 million percent a year of the Yugoslav dinar; this had never been known previously. The inflation exceeds that experienced in the Great Depression of 1929.
The Stari Most (The Old Bridge) in Mostar, built in 1566, was destroyed by Croats. It was rebuilt in 2003.

1994

Peace treaty between Bosniaks and Croats arbitrated by the United States, Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina formed.
FR Yugoslavia starts slowly suspending its financial and military support for Republika Srpska and stabilizes the economy structure with Economic Implementation Framework.

1995

Srebrenica massacre reported, 8,372 Bosniaks killed by Serb forces.
Croatia launches Operation Storm, reclaiming all UNPA zones except Eastern Slavonia, and resulting in exodus of 150,000–200,000 Serbs from the zones. War in Croatia ends.
NATO launches a series of air strikes on Bosnian Serb artillery and other military targets. Croatian and Bosnian army start a joint offensive against Republika Srpska.
Dayton Agreement signed in Paris. War in Bosnia and Herzegovina ends. Aftermath of war is over 100,000 killed and missing and two million people internally displaced or refugees.[59] Serb defeat in Croatia and West Bosnia allows Croatian and Bosniak refugees to return to their homes, but many refugees of all nationalities are still displaced today.
After signing the Dayton Agreement, Yugoslavia is granted with looser sanctions, still affecting much of its economy (trade, tourism, industrial production and exports of final products), but allowing for its citizens to exit Yugoslavia, for a limited time.

1996

FR Yugoslavia recognizes Croatia and Bosnia & Herzegovina.
Fighting breaks out between Serbian forces and ethnic Albanians in Kosovo.
Following a fraud in local elections, hundreds of thousands of Serbs demonstrate in Belgrade against the Milošević regime for three months.

1998

Eastern Slavonia peacefully reintegrated into Croatia, following a gradual three-year handover of power.
Fighting in Kosovo gradually escalates between Albanians demanding an independent Kosovo and the Serb forces.

Yugoslav Ministry of Defence building in Belgrade destroyed during the 1999 NATO bombing.

1999

Račak massacre, Rambouillet talks fail. NATO starts a military campaign in Kosovo and bombards FR Yugoslavia in Operation Allied Force.
Following Milošević signing of an agreement, control of Kosovo is handed to the United Nations, but still remains a part of Yugoslavia’s federation. After losing wars in Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo, numerous Serbs leave those countries to find refuge in Serbia. In 1999, Serbia was the host of about 700,000 Serb refugees.[60]
Fresh fighting erupts between Albanians and Yugoslav security forces in Albanian populated areas outside of Kosovo, with the intent of joining three municipalities to Kosovo.
Franjo Tuđman dies. Shortly after that, his party loses the elections.

2000

Slobodan Milošević is voted out of office, and Vojislav Koštunica becomes the new president of Yugoslavia.
With Milošević ousted and a new democratic government in place, FR Yugoslavia comes out of isolation. The political and economic sanctions are suspended in total, and FRY is reinstated in many political and economic organizations, as well as becoming a candidate for other collaborative efforts.

[edit] See also

[edit] Notes

  1. ^ Goldstein (1999), p. 256
  2. ^ a b c “Rezultati istraživanja “Ljudski gubici ’91-’95″”. Research and Documentation Center Sarajevo. http://www.idc.org.ba/index.php?option=com_content&view=section&id=35&Itemid=126&lang=bs
  3. ^ a b “Public review of data on victims, killed and missing – Presentation in Belgrade”. The Kosovo Memory Book. http://www.kosovomemorybook.org/?page_id=2884&lang=de. Retrieved 21 June 2012. 
  4. ^ Hoare, Marko Attila (2008) Genocide in Bosnia and the failure of international justice
  5. ^ “Serbia marks anniversary of NATO bombing”. B92. http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2011&mm=03&dd=24&nav_id=73402. Retrieved 2012-05-06. 
  6. ^ Annex IV – II. The politics of creating a «Greater Serbia»: nationalism, fear and repression
  7. ^ Bosnia Genocide | United Human Rights Council
  8. ^ United Nations Security Council Resolution 827 S-RES-827(1993) on 1993-05-25
  9. ^ a b “Transitional Justice in the Former Yugoslavia”. International Center for Transitional Justice. 1 January 2009. http://ictj.org/publication/transitional-justice-former-yugoslavia. Retrieved 8 September 2009. 
  10. ^ “About us – Humanitarian Law Center”. Humanitarian Law Center. Archived from the original on 22 April 2012. http://web.archive.org/web/20110522141442/http://www.hlc-rdc.org/stranice/Linkovi-modula/About-us.en.html. Retrieved 17 November 2010. 
  11. ^ a b c Judah, Tim (2011-02-17). “Yugoslavia: 1918 – 2003”. BBC. http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwone/yugoslavia_01.shtml. Retrieved 2012-04-01. 
  12. ^ Finlan (2004), p. 8
  13. ^ a b Naimark (2003), p. xvii
  14. ^ Rogel (2004), pp. 91-92
  15. ^ Ewa Tabeau (15 January 2009). “Casualties of the 1990s wars in the former Yugoslavia (1991-1999)”. Helsinki Commitee for human rights in Serbia. http://www.helsinki.org.rs/doc/testimonies33.pdf
  16. ^ Glenny (1996), p. 250
  17. ^ Bideleux & Jeffries (2007), p. 429
  18. ^ Google books
  19. ^ Google scholar
  20. ^ Brown & Karim (1995), p. 116
  21. ^ Annex IV – Prelude to the breakup
  22. ^ “Milosevic’s Yugoslavia: Communism Crumbles”. BBC News. http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/europe/2000/milosevic_yugoslavia/communism.stm
  23. ^ Race, Helena (2005) (in Slovene). “Dan prej” – 26. junij 1991: diplomsko delo [“A Day Before” – 26 June 1991: Diploma Thesis]. Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ljubljana. http://dk.fdv.uni-lj.si/dela/Race-Helena.PDF. Retrieved 3 February 2011. 
  24. ^ Prunk, Janko (2001). “Path to Slovene State”. Public Relations and Media Office, Government of the Republic of Slovenia. http://www.slovenija2001.gov.si/10years/path/. Retrieved 3 February 2011. 
  25. ^ Annex III – The Conflict in Slovenia
  26. ^ Annex III – General structure of the Yugoslav armed forces
  27. ^ Annex III – Forces operating in Croatia
  28. ^ Joseph Pearson, ‘Dubrovnik’s Artistic Patrimony, and its Role in War Reporting (1991)’ in European History Quarterly, Vol. 40, No. 2, 197–216 (2010),
  29. ^ “Profile: Ratko Mladic, Bosnian Serb army chief”. The British Broadcasting Corporation. 31 July 2012. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13559597. Retrieved July 11, 2012. 
  30. ^ Meštrović (1996), p. 36.
  31. ^ Meštrović (1996), p. 36.
  32. ^ Meštrović (1996), p. 7.
  33. ^ Meštrović (1996), p. 8.
  34. ^ a b The Prosecutor vs Milan Milutinović et al – Judgement 26 February 2009, pp. 88-89
  35. ^ The Prosecutor vs Milan Milutinović et al – Judgement 26 February 2009, p. 93
  36. ^ The Prosecutor vs Milan Milutinović et al – Judgement 26 February 2009, pp. 170-171
  37. ^ The Prosecutor vs Milan Milutinović et al – Judgement 26 February 2009, p. 416
  38. ^ Blaz Zgaga; Matej Surc (2 December 2011). “Yugoslavia and the profits of doom”. EUobserver. http://euobserver.com/24/114482. Retrieved 4 December 2011. 
  39. ^ “Chile generals convicted over 1991 Croatia arms deal”. BBC News. 20 January 2012. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-16660221. Retrieved 21 January 2012. 
  40. ^ a b de Brouwer (2005), p. 10
  41. ^ a b de Brouwer (2005), pp. 9–10
  42. ^ new Internationalist issue 244, June 1993. Rape: Weapon of War by Angela Robson.
  43. ^ Netherlands Institute for War Documentation Part 1 Chapter 9
  44. ^ Human Rights News Bosnia: Landmark Verdicts for Rape, Torture, and Sexual Enslavement: Criminal Tribunal Convicts Bosnian Serbs for Crimes Against Humanity 02/22/01.
  45. ^ Simons, Marlise (June 1996). “For first time, Court Defines Rape as War Crime”. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/specials/bosnia/context/0628warcrimes-tribunal.html
  46. ^ de Brouwer (2005), p. 11
  47. ^ “Sexual and Gender-Based Violence in Conflict: A Framework for Prevention and Response”. UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. 2008. http://ochaonline.un.org/News/InFocus/SexualandGenderBasedViolence/AFrameworkforPreventionandResponse/tabid/4751/language/en-US/Default.aspx. Retrieved 30 June 2009. 
  48. ^ “Film award forces Serbs to face spectre of Bosnias rape babies”. The Independent (UK). 20 February 2006. http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/film-award-forces-serbs-to-face-spectre-of-bosnias-rape-babies-526028.html. Retrieved 26 June 2009. 
  49. ^ United Nations Commission on Breaches of Geneva Law in Former Yugoslavia
  50. ^ Card, Claudia (1996). “Rape as a Weapon of War”. Hypatia 11 (4): 5–18. ISSN 08875367. http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/stable/3810388. Retrieved 10 September 2010. 
  51. ^ Allen (1996) , p. 77
  52. ^ McGinn, Therese (2000-12). “Reproductive Health of War-Affected Populations: What Do We Know?”. International Family Planning Perspectives 26 (4): 174–180. ISSN 01903187. http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/stable/2648255. Retrieved 5 September 2010. 
  53. ^ a b c d Serb Gang-Rapes in Kosovo Exposed
  54. ^ a b c d Kosovo: Rape as a Weapon of “Ethnic Cleansing” Human Rights Watch
  55. ^ Decision of the ICTY Appeals Chamber; 18 April 2002; Reasons for the Decision on Prosecution Interlocutory Appeal from Refusal to Order Joinder; Paragraph 8
  56. ^ Dr Stephen A Hart (17 February 2011). “Partisans: War in the Balkans 1941 – 1945”. BBC History. http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/partisan_fighters_01.shtml. Retrieved July 11, 2012. 
  57. ^ a b Gagnon (2004), p. 5
  58. ^ “Milosevic: Important New Charges on Croatia”. Human Rights Watch. October 21, 2001. http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2001/10/28/milosevic-important-new-charges-croatia. Retrieved October 29, 2010. 
  59. ^ “Returns to Bosnia and Herzegovina reach 1 million”. UNHCR. 21 September 2004. http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/search?page=search&docid=414ffeb44&query=bosnia. Retrieved 11 August 2012. 
  60. ^ “Bleak outlook for Serb refugees”. BBC News. 22 March 2000. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/687441.stm. Retrieved 4 July 2012. 

[edit] References

[edit] Books

[edit] Other sources

[edit] External links

  • Wiebes, Cees. Intelligence and the War in Bosnia 1992–1995, Publisher: Lit Verlag, 2003
[show]

Yugoslav Wars
 
Overview Timeline Participants People
 

Wars and conflicts

Background:

Consequences:

Articles on nationalism:

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

Ex-Yugoslav republics:

Unrecognized entities:

United Nations protectorate:

Armies:

Military formations and volunteers:

External factors:

Politicians:

Top military commanders:

Other notable commanders:

Key foreign figures:

 
[show]

Timeline of Yugoslav statehood

Timeline Prior to 1918 Creation
1918–1941
World War II
1938–1945
Socialist Yugoslavia
1943–1992
Breakup & Yugoslav Wars
1990–>
Slovenia territories controlled by Austria-Hungary
(1867–1918)Included Bay of Kotor

See also:

Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia

(1868–1918)Kingdom of Dalmatia
(1815–1918)

Condominium of BIH
(1878–1918)

Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes
(1918–1929)↓ renamed ↓

Kingdom of Yugoslavia
(1929–1943)

See also:

State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs
(1918)

Republic of Prekmurje
(1919)

Banat, Bačka and Baranja (1918–1919)

Free State of Fiume
(Free 1920–1924;
Italy 1924–1947)

annexed by Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany
(1941 – 1943/1945)
Prekmurje annexed by Hungary
Democratic Federal Yugoslavia
(DFY, 1943–1946)↓ renamed ↓
Federal People’s Republic of Yugoslavia
(FPRY, 1946–1963)↓ renamed ↓
Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
(SFRY, 1963–1992)Constituent federal subjects to the right
SR Slovenia
(1944–1991)
Republic of Slovenia
(since 1991; see Ten-Day War)
Dalmatia Independent State of Croatia
(1941–1945)puppet of Nazi Germany, parts annexed by Fascist Italy

Međimurje and Baranja annexed by Hungary

SR Croatia
(1943–1991)
Republic of Croatia
(since 1991; see Croatian War of Independence)
See also:
SAO Kninska Krajina (1990) → SAO Krajina (1990–1991)
SAO Western Slavonia (1990–1991)
Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Syrmia (1990–1991)
Republic of Serbian Krajina ↲ (1990–1995) → UNTAES (1996–1998)
Slavonia
Croatia
Bosnia SR Bosnia and Herzegovina
(1943–1992)
Bosnia and Herzegovina
(since 1992; see Bosnian War); Consists of:
Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (since 1995)
Republika Srpska (since 1995)
Brčko District (since 2000)
See also: Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatian Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia
SAOs Bosanska Krajina, North-Eastern Bosnia, Romanija, & Herzegovina (1991–1992)
Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina ↲ (1992–1995)
Herzegovina
Vojvodina Autonomous Banat (part of the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia)
Bačka annexed by Hungary (1941–1944)
Syrmia annexed by Independent State of Croatia (1941–1944)
SR Serbia
(1943–1990)Included APs:
SAP Vojvodina &
SAP Kosovo
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
(1992–2003)↓ renamed ↓

State Union of Serbia and Montenegro
(2003–2006)

Consisted of until 2006:
Republic of Serbia (1990)
Republic of Montenegro (1992)

See also:
Republic of Kosova
(1990–2000)

Republic of Serbia
(2006–2008)Included APs:
Vojvodina &
Kosovo and Metohija
(under UN administration)
Republic of Serbia
(since 2006)Includes AP Vojvodina
Serbia Kingdom of Serbia
(1882–1918)
Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia
(1941–1944)
See also: Republic of Užice
Kosovo Kingdom of Serbia
(1912–1918)
mostly annexed by Albania
(1941–1944)
along with western Macedonia and south-eastern Montenegro
Republic of Kosovo
(since 2008)
Declared unilateral independence, which is since then only partially recognised
Metohija Kingdom of Montenegro
(1910–1918)Metohija controlled by Austria-Hungary
(1915–1918)
Montenegro Protectorate annexed by Fascist Italy (1941–1943) and Nazi Germany
(1943–1944)
Smaller part annexed by Independent State of Croatia (1941–1944)
SR Montenegro
(1943–1992)
Montenegro
(since 2006)
Macedonia Kingdom of Serbia
(1912–1918)
annexed by Kingdom of Bulgaria
(1941–1944)
SR Macedonia
(1944–1991)
Republic of Macedonia
(since 1991)

 

[show]

 
Internal Background
 
International Background
 
Reforms
 
Regime Leaders
 
Opposition Methods
 
Opposition Leaders
 
Opposition Movements
 
Events by Location
 
Eastern Bloc
 
Soviet Union
 
Elsewhere
 
Individual Events
 
Later Events
[show]

Armed conflicts in Europe following the end of the Cold War
 
Balkans
 
Eastern Europe
 
North Caucasus
 
South Caucasus
 
Nagorno-Karabakh

View page ratings
Rate this page
Rate this page
Page ratings
Current average ratings.
 
Trustworthy
 
 
 
 
 
 
Objective
 
 
 
 
 
 
Complete
 
 
 
 
 
 
Well-written
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
I have a relevant college/university degree
It is part of my profession
It is a deep personal passion
The source of my knowledge is not listed here
I would like to help improve Wikipedia, send me an e-mail (optional)

We will send you a confirmation e-mail. We will not share your e-mail address with outside parties as per our feedback privacy statement.
 

Submit ratings

Saved successfully
Your ratings have not been submitted yet
 
Your ratings have expired
Please reevaluate this page and submit new ratings.
An error has occurred. Please try again later.
Thanks! Your ratings have been saved.
Please take a moment to complete a short survey.
 

Start surveyMaybe later

Thanks! Your ratings have been saved.
Do you want to create an account?
An account will help you track your edits, get involved in discussions, and be a part of the community.

Create an accountorLog inMaybe later

Thanks! Your ratings have been saved.
Did you know that you can edit this page?
 

Edit this pageMaybe later

 
 

 

Personal tools

Namespaces

 

Variants
 

Actions
 

 

August 16, 2012 Posted by | 1991, Timeline | , | Leave a comment

1991

 

1991

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Jump to: navigation, search

 
This article is about the year 1991. For the number (and other uses), see 1991 (number).
Millennium: 2nd millennium
Centuries: 19th century20th century21st century
Decades: 1960s  1970s  1980s  – 1990s –  2000s  2010s  2020s
Years: 1988 1989 199019911992 1993 1994
1991 by topic:
Subject
By country
Leaders
Birth and death categories
Establishments and disestablishments categories
Works and introductions categories
1991 in other calendars
Gregorian calendar 1991
MCMXCI
Ab urbe condita 2744
Armenian calendar 1440
ԹՎ ՌՆԽ
Assyrian calendar 6741
Bahá’í calendar 147–148
Bengali calendar 1398
Berber calendar 2941
British Regnal year 39 Eliz. 2 – 40 Eliz. 2
Buddhist calendar 2535
Burmese calendar 1353
Byzantine calendar 7499–7500
Chinese calendar 庚午年十一月十六日
(4627/4687-11-16)

— to —

辛未年十一月廿六日
(4628/4688-11-26)

Coptic calendar 1707–1708
Ethiopian calendar 1983–1984
Hebrew calendar 5751–5752
Hindu calendars  
 – Vikram Samvat 2047–2048
 – Shaka Samvat 1913–1914
 – Kali Yuga 5092–5093
Holocene calendar 11991
Iranian calendar 1369–1370
Islamic calendar 1411–1412
Japanese calendar Heisei 3
(平成3年)
Julian calendar Gregorian minus 13 days
Korean calendar 4324
Minguo calendar ROC 80
民國80年
Thai solar calendar 2534
Unix time 662688000–694223999
This box:

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: 1991

1991 (MCMXCI) was a common year starting on Tuesday (link will display full calendar) of the Gregorian calendar in the 20th century. It was the second year of the 1990s, and is usually considered the final year of the Cold War that had begun in the late 1940s. During the year, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics collapsed into fifteen sovereign republics. A U.N.-authorized coalition force from thirty-four nations fought against Iraq, which had invaded Kuwait in the previous year, 1990. The conflict would be called the Gulf War. The clash between Serbia and the other Yugoslavian countries would lead into the beginning of the Yugoslav Wars. The year 1991 was the 1991st year of Anno Domini, the 991st year of the 2nd millennium, the 91st year of the 20th century and 2nd in the 1990s.

[edit] Events

[edit] January

[edit] February

[edit] March

[edit] April

[edit] May

[edit] June

[edit] July

[edit] August

& August 5Sergey Bubka breaks the world record for men’s pole vault.

[edit] September

[edit] October

[edit] November

[edit] December

[edit] Date unknown

[edit] Births

[edit] January

[edit] February

[edit] March

[edit] April

[edit] May

[edit] June

[edit] July

[edit] August

[edit] September

[edit] October

[edit] November

[edit] December

[edit] Deaths

[edit] January

[edit] February

[edit] March

[edit] April

[edit] May

[edit] June

[edit] July

[edit] August

[edit] September

[edit] October

[edit] November

[edit] December

[edit] Nobel Prizes

Nobel medal dsc06171.png

[edit] References

 

 

Retrieved from “http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1991&oldid=507127933

View page ratings
Rate this page
Rate this page
Page ratings
Current average ratings.
 
Trustworthy
 
 
 
 
 
 
Objective
 
 
 
 
 
 
Complete
 
 
 
 
 
 
Well-written
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
I have a relevant college/university degree
It is part of my profession
It is a deep personal passion
The source of my knowledge is not listed here
I would like to help improve Wikipedia, send me an e-mail (optional)

We will send you a confirmation e-mail. We will not share your e-mail address with outside parties as per our feedback privacy statement.
 

Submit ratings

Saved successfully
Your ratings have not been submitted yet
 
Your ratings have expired
Please reevaluate this page and submit new ratings.
An error has occurred. Please try again later.
Thanks! Your ratings have been saved.
Please take a moment to complete a short survey.
 

Start surveyMaybe later

Thanks! Your ratings have been saved.
Do you want to create an account?
An account will help you track your edits, get involved in discussions, and be a part of the community.

Create an accountorLog inMaybe later

Thanks! Your ratings have been saved.
Did you know that you can edit this page?
 

Edit this pageMaybe later

 
 

 

Personal tools

Namespaces

 

Variants
 

Actions
 

Languages

 

August 16, 2012 Posted by | 1991, Timeline, years | , | Leave a comment

Somali Civil War

 
 

 

Somali Civil War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Jump to: navigation, search

 
Somali Civil War
Part of the Horn of Africa conflicts and War On Terror
Black Hawk Down Super64 over Mogadishu coast.jpg
A Black Hawk helicopter, callsign Super 6-4, over the Mogadishu coast (1993)
Date January 26, 1991 – ongoing
(21 years, 6 months and 3 weeks)
Location Somalia
Status Ongoing conflict
Casualties and losses
   
Casualties:
500,000+[1] dead

The Somali Civil War is an ongoing civil war taking place in Somalia. It began in 1991, when a coalition of clan-based armed opposition groups ousted the nation’s long-standing military government.

Various factions began competing for influence in the power vacuum that followed, which precipitated an aborted UN peacekeeping attempt in the mid-1990s. A period of decentralization ensued, characterized by a return to customary and religious law in many areas as well as the establishment of autonomous regional governments in the northern part of the country. The early 2000s saw the creation of fledgling interim federal administrations, culminating in the establishment of the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) in 2004. In 2006, the TFG, assisted by Ethiopian troops, assumed control of most of the nation’s southern conflict zones from the newly formed Islamic Courts Union (ICU). The ICU subsequently splintered into more radical groups, notably Al-Shabaab, which have since been fighting the Transitional Federal Government and its AMISOM allies for control of the region. In 2011, a coordinated military operation between the Somali military and multinational forces began, which is believed to represent one of the final stages in the war’s Islamist insurgency.[2]

Contents

 [hide

[edit] Fall of Barre regime (1986–1991)

Main article: Somali Revolution (1986–1991)
[show]

Somali Civil War
 
[show]

 

Three abandoned Somali National Army (SNA) M47 Tanks sit destroyed near a warehouse following the outbreak of the civil war.

After fallout from the unsuccessful Ogaden campaign of the late 1970s, the ruling socialist government of the Somali Democratic Republic under Major General Mohamed Siad Barre began arresting government and military officials under suspicion of participation in the abortive 1978 coup d’état.[3][4] Most of the people who had allegedly helped plot the putsch were summarily executed.[5] However, several officials managed to escape abroad and started to form the first of various dissident groups dedicated to ousting Barre’s regime by force.[6]

In May 1986, Barre suffered serious injuries in a life-threatening automobile accident near Mogadishu, when the car that was transporting him smashed into the back of a bus during a heavy rainstorm.[7] He was treated in a hospital in Saudi Arabia for head injuries, broken ribs and shock over a period of a month.[8][9] Lieutenant General Mohamed Ali Samatar, then Vice President, subsequently served as de facto head of state for the next several months. Although Barre managed to recover enough to present himself as the sole presidential candidate for re-election over a term of seven years on December 23, 1986, his poor health and advanced age led to speculation about who would succeed him in power. Possible contenders included his son-in-law General Ahmed Suleiman Abdille, who was at the time the Minister of the Interior, in addition to Barre’s Vice President Lt. Gen. Samatar.[7][8]

By that time, the moral authority of Barre’s ruling Supreme Revolutionary Council (SRC) had collapsed. Many Somalis had become disillusioned with life under military dictatorship. The regime was further weakened in the 1980s as the Cold War drew to a close and Somalia’s strategic importance was diminished. The government became increasingly totalitarian, and resistance movements, encouraged by Ethiopia’s communist Derg administration, sprang up across the country. This eventually led in 1991 to the outbreak of the civil war, the toppling of Barre’s regime and the disbandment of the Somali National Army (SNA). Among the militia groups that led the rebellion were the Somali Salvation Democratic Front (SSDF), United Somali Congress (USC), Somali National Movement (SNM) and the Somali Patriotic Movement (SPM), together with the non-violent political oppositions of the Somali Democratic Movement (SDM), the Somali Democratic Alliance (SDA) and the Somali Manifesto Group (SMG).

Many of the opposition groups subsequently began competing for influence in the power vacuum that followed the ouster of Barre’s regime. In the south, armed factions led by USC commanders General Mohamed Farah Aidid and Ali Mahdi Mohamed, in particular, clashed as each sought to exert authority over the capital.[10]

[edit] United Nations intervention (1992–1995)

Main articles: UNOSOM I, UNITAF, and UNOSOM II

An American soldier at the main entrance to the Port of Mogadishu points to identify a sniper’s possible firing position (January 1994).

UN Security Council Resolution 733 and UN Security Council Resolution 746 led to the creation of UNOSOM I, the first mission to provide humanitarian relief and help restore order in Somalia after the dissolution of its central government.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 794 was unanimously passed on December 3, 1992, which approved a coalition of United Nations peacekeepers led by the United States. Forming the Unified Task Force (UNITAF), the alliance was tasked with assuring security until humanitarian efforts aimed at stabilizing the situation were transferred to the UN. Landing in 1993, the UN peacekeeping coalition started the two-year United Nations Operation in Somalia II (UNOSOM II) primarily in the south.[11] UNITAF’s original mandate was to use “all necessary means” to guarantee the delivery of humanitarian aid in accordance to Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter,[12] and is regarded as a success.[13]

Some of the militias that were then competing for power interpreted the UN troops’ presence as a threat to their hegemony. Consequently, several gun battles took place in Mogadishu between local gunmen and peacekeepers. Among these was the Battle of Mogadishu of 1993, an unsuccessful attempt by US troops to apprehend faction leader Aidid. The UN soldiers eventually withdrew altogether from the country on March 3, 1995, having incurred more significant casualties.

[edit] Decentralization

Main articles: Puntland, Somaliland, and Xeer

Following the outbreak of the civil war and the ensuing collapse of the central government, Somalia’s residents reverted to local forms of conflict resolution; either secular, traditional or Islamic law, with a provision for appeal of all sentences. The legal structure in Somalia is thus divided along three lines: civil law, religious law and customary law.[14]

While Somalia’s formal judicial system was largely destroyed after the fall of the Siad Barre regime, it was later gradually rebuilt and administered under different regional governments, such as the autonomous Puntland and Somaliland macro-regions. In the case of the later Transitional Federal Government, a new interim judicial structure was formed through various international conferences.

Despite some significant political differences between them, all of these administrations share similar legal structures, much of which are predicated on the judicial systems of previous Somali administrations. These similarities in civil law include: a) a charter which affirms the primacy of Muslim shari’a or religious law, although in practice shari’a is applied mainly to matters such as marriage, divorce, inheritance, and civil issues. The charter guarantees respect for universal standards of human rights to all subjects of the law. It also assures the independence of the judiciary, which in turn is protected by a judicial committee; b) a three-tier judicial system including a supreme court, a court of appeals, and courts of first instance (either divided between district and regional courts, or a single court per region); and c) the laws of the civilian government which were in effect prior to the military coup d’état that saw the Barre regime into power remain in force until the laws are amended.[15]

[edit] Rise and fall of the ICU, Ethiopian intervention, and the TFG (2006–2009)

Main articles: Advance of the Islamic Courts Union, War in Somalia (2006–2009), Transitional Federal Government, ARPCT, and Islamic Courts Union

The early 2000s saw the creation of fledgling interim federal administrations, with the Transitional National Government (TNG) established in 2000 followed by the formation of its successor the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) in 2004.

In 2006, the Islamic Courts Union (ICU), an Islamist organization, assumed control of much of the southern part of the country and promptly imposed shari’a law. The Transitional Federal Government sought to reestablish its authority. With the assistance of Ethiopian troops, African Union peacekeepers and air support by the United States, the reconstituted Somalian military managed to drive out the rival ICU and solidify the TFG’s rule.[16]

On January 8, 2007, as the Battle of Ras Kamboni raged, TFG President and founder Abdullahi Yusuf Ahmed, a former colonel in the Somali Army and decorated war hero, entered Mogadishu for the first time since being elected to office. The government then relocated to Villa Somalia in the capital from its interim location in Baidoa. This marked the first time since the fall of the Siad Barre regime in 1991 that the federal government controlled most of the country.[17]

Following this defeat, the Islamic Courts Union splintered into several different factions. Some of the more radical elements, including Al-Shabaab, regrouped to continue their insurgency against the TFG and oppose the Ethiopian military’s presence in Somalia. Throughout 2007 and 2008, Al-Shabaab scored military victories, seizing control of key towns and ports in both central and southern Somalia. At the end of 2008, the group had captured Baidoa but not Mogadishu. By January 2009, Al-Shabaab and other militias had managed to force the Ethiopian troops to retreat, leaving behind an under-equipped African Union peacekeeping force to assist the Transitional Federal Government’s troops.[18]

Due to a lack of funding and human resources, an arms embargo that made it difficult to re-establish a national security force, and general indifference on the part of the international community, President Yusuf found himself obliged to deploy thousands of troops from Puntland to Mogadishu to sustain the battle against insurgent elements in the southern part of the country. Financial support for this effort was provided by the autonomous region’s government. This left little revenue for Puntland’s own security forces and civil service employees, leaving the territory vulnerable to piracy and terrorist attacks.[19][20]

On December 29, 2008, Abdullahi Yusuf Ahmed announced before a united parliament in Baidoa his resignation as President of Somalia. In his speech, which was broadcast on national radio, Yusuf expressed regret at failing to end the country’s seventeen year conflict as his government had mandated to do.[21] He also blamed the international community for its failure to support the government, and said that the speaker of parliament would succeed him in office per the Charter of the Transitional Federal Government.[22]

[edit] Coalition government

See also: Al-Shabaab, Hizbul Islam, Ahlu Sunna Waljama’a, and Alliance for the Re-liberation of Somalia

The battle flag of Al-Shabaab, an Islamist group waging war against the federal government.

Between May 31 and June 9, 2008, representatives of Somalia’s federal government and the moderate Alliance for the Re-liberation of Somalia (ARS) group of Islamist rebels participated in peace talks in Djibouti brokered by the former United Nations Special Envoy to Somalia, Ahmedou Ould-Abdallah. The conference ended with a signed agreement calling for the withdrawal of Ethiopian troops in exchange for the cessation of armed confrontation. Parliament was subsequently expanded to 550 seats to accommodate ARS members, which then elected Sheikh Sharif Sheikh Ahmed, the former ARS chairman, to office. President Sharif shortly afterwards appointed Omar Abdirashid Ali Sharmarke, the son of slain former President Abdirashid Ali Sharmarke, as the nation’s new Prime Minister.[14]

With the help of a small team of African Union troops, the coalition government also began a counteroffensive in February 2009 to assume full control of the southern half of the country. To solidify its rule, the TFG formed an alliance with the Islamic Courts Union, other members of the Alliance for the Re-liberation of Somalia, and Ahlu Sunna Waljama’a, a moderate Sufi militia.[23] Furthermore, Al-Shabaab and Hizbul Islam, the two main Islamist groups in opposition, began to fight amongst themselves in mid-2009.[24]

As a truce, in March 2009, Somalia’s coalition government announced that it would re-implement shari’a as the nation’s official judicial system.[25] However, conflict continued in the southern and central parts of the country. Within months, the coalition government had gone from holding about 70% of south-central Somalia’s conflict zones, territory which it had inherited from the previous Yusuf administration, to losing control of over 80% of the disputed territory to the Islamist insurgents.[17]

[edit] War in Somalia (2009–present)

Main article: War in Somalia (2009–present)

In November 2010, a new technocratic government was elected to office, which enacted numerous reforms. Among these, in its first 50 days in office, the new administration completed its first monthly payment of stipends to government soldiers, and initiated the implementation of a full biometric register for the security forces within a window of four months.[26]

By August 2011, the new government and its AMISOM allies had managed to capture all of Mogadishu from the Al-Shabaab militants.[27] An ideological rift within Al-Shabaab’s leadership also emerged in response to pressure from the recent drought and the assassination of top officials in the organization.[28]

In October 2011, a coordinated operation between the Somali military and the Kenyan military began against the Al-Shabaab group of insurgents in southern Somalia.[29][30] The mission was officially led by the Somali army, with the Kenyan forces providing a support role.[30] In early June 2012, Kenyan forces were formally integrated into AMISOM.[31] Analysts expect the additional AU troop reinforcements to help the Somali authorities gradually expand their territorial control.[32]

[edit] See also

Portal icon Somalia portal

[edit] Notes

  1. ^ “Twentieth Century Atlas – Death Tolls and Casualty Statistics for Wars, Dictatorships and Genocides”. Users.erols.com. http://necrometrics.com/20c300k.htm#Somalia. Retrieved 2011-04-20. 
  2. ^ Heinlein, Peter (October 22, 2011). “E. African Nations Back Kenyan Offensive in Somalia”. Voice of America. http://www.voanews.com/english/news/africa/East-African-Nations-Back-Kenyan-Offensive-in-Somalia-132374053.html. Retrieved October 23, 2011. 
  3. ^ ARR: Arab report and record, (Economic Features, ltd.: 1978), p.602.
  4. ^ Ahmed III, Abdul. “Brothers in Arms Part I”. WardheerNews. http://wardheernews.com/Articles_2011/Oct/29_Brothers_in_Army_abdul.pdf. Retrieved February 28, 2012. 
  5. ^ New People Media Centre, New people, Issues 94–105, (New People Media Centre: Comboni Missionaries, 2005).
  6. ^ Nina J. Fitzgerald, Somalia: issues, history, and bibliography, (Nova Publishers: 2002), p.25.
  7. ^ a b World of Information (Firm), Africa review, (World of Information: 1987), p.213.
  8. ^ a b Arthur S. Banks, Thomas C. Muller, William Overstreet, Political Handbook of the World 2008, (CQ Press: 2008), p.1198.
  9. ^ National Academy of Sciences (U.S.). Committee on Human Rights, Institute of Medicine (U.S.). Committee on Health and Human Rights, Scientists and human rights in Somalia: report of a delegation, (National Academies: 1988), p.9.
  10. ^ Library Information and Research Service, The Middle East: Abstracts and index, Volume 2, (Library Information and Research Service: 1999), p.327.
  11. ^ Ken Rutherford, Humanitarianism Under Fire: The US and UN Intervention in Somalia, Kumarian Press, July 2008, ISBN 1-56549-260-9
  12. ^ “United Nations Operation In Somalia I – (Unosom I)”. United Nations. http://www.un.org/Depts/DPKO/Missions/unosomi.htm. Retrieved 2012-01-29. 
  13. ^ “Operation Restore Hope”. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/restore_hope.htm. Retrieved 2008-01-15. 
  14. ^ a b Central Intelligence Agency (2011). “Somalia”. The World Factbook. Langley, Virginia: Central Intelligence Agency. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/so.html. Retrieved 2011-10-05. 
  15. ^ Dr Andre Le Sage (2005-06-01). “Stateless Justice in Somalia”. Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue. http://www.hdcentre.org/files/Somalia%20report.pdf. Retrieved 2009-06-26. 
  16. ^ “Ethiopian Invasion of Somalia”. Globalpolicy.org. 2007-08-14. http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/153/26334.html. Retrieved 2010-06-27. 
  17. ^ a b Online, Garowe (2011-01-12). “Somalia President, Parliament Speaker dispute over TFG term”. Garoweonline.com. http://www.garoweonline.com/english/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=558:somalia-president-parliament-speaker-dispute-over-tfg-term&catid=55:somalia&Itemid=79. Retrieved 2011-06-12. 
  18. ^ United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (2009-05-01). “USCIRF Annual Report 2009 – The Commission’s Watch List: Somalia”. Unhcr.org. http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/publisher,USCIRF,,,4a4f272bc,0.html. Retrieved 2010-06-27. 
  19. ^ “Somalia: Guide to Puntland Election 2009”. Garoweonline.com. 2008-12-25. http://www.garoweonline.com/artman2/publish/Somalia_27/Somalia_Guide_to_Puntland_Election_2009.shtml. Retrieved 2011-06-12. 
  20. ^ “Opening Annual General Assembly Debate, Secretary-General Urges Member States to Press in Tackling Poverty, Terrorism, Human Rights Abuses, Conflicts”. Unis.unvienna.org. http://www.unis.unvienna.org/unis/pressrels/2005/ga10386.html. Retrieved 2011-06-12. 
  21. ^ “Somalia’s president quits office”, BBC News, December 29, 2008.
  22. ^ “Somali President Yusuf resigns”, Reuters (FT.com), December 29, 2008.
  23. ^ Kamaal says: (2010-05-22). “UN boss urges support for Somalia ahead of Istanbul summit”. Horseedmedia.net. http://horseedmedia.net/2010/05/un-boss-urges-support-for-somalia-ahead-of-istanbul-summit/. Retrieved 2010-06-27. 
  24. ^ “Islamists break Somali port truce”. BBC News. 2009-10-21. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8318798.stm. Retrieved 2010-06-27. 
  25. ^ Shariah in SomaliaArab News
  26. ^ “Security Council Meeting on Somalia”. Somaliweyn.org. http://www.somaliweyn.org/pages/news/Jan_11/15Jan18.html
  27. ^ Independent Newspapers Online (2011-08-10). “Al-Shabaab ‘dug in like rats’”. Iol.co.za. http://www.iol.co.za/news/africa/al-shabaab-dug-in-like-rats-1.1114585
  28. ^ Chothia, Farouk (2011-08-09). “Could Somali famine deal a fatal blow to al-Shabab?”. BBC. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14373264
  29. ^ “Somalia government supports Kenyan forces’ mission”. Standardmedia.co.ke. http://www.standardmedia.co.ke/agriculture/InsidePage.php?id=2000045933&cid=4&
  30. ^ a b Joint Communique – Operation Linda Nchi
  31. ^ “Kenya: Defense Minister appointed as acting Internal Security Minister”. Garowe Online. 19 June 2012. http://www.garoweonline.com/artman2/publish/Somalia_27/Kenya_Defense_Minister_appointed_as_acting_Internal_Security_Minister.shtml. Retrieved 20 June 2012. 
  32. ^ “Kenya agrees to join AMISOM”. China Daily. 2011-12-07. http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2011-12/07/content_14225808.htm

[edit] External links

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Somali Civil War

Retrieved from “http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Somali_Civil_War&oldid=507716629

View page ratings
Rate this page
Rate this page
Page ratings
Current average ratings.
 
Trustworthy
 
 
 
 
 
 
Objective
 
 
 
 
 
 
Complete
 
 
 
 
 
 
Well-written
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
I have a relevant college/university degree
It is part of my profession
It is a deep personal passion
The source of my knowledge is not listed here
I would like to help improve Wikipedia, send me an e-mail (optional)

We will send you a confirmation e-mail. We will not share your e-mail address with outside parties as per our feedback privacy statement.
 

Submit ratings

Saved successfully
Your ratings have not been submitted yet
 
Your ratings have expired
Please reevaluate this page and submit new ratings.
An error has occurred. Please try again later.
Thanks! Your ratings have been saved.
Please take a moment to complete a short survey.
 

Start surveyMaybe later

Thanks! Your ratings have been saved.
Do you want to create an account?
An account will help you track your edits, get involved in discussions, and be a part of the community.

Create an accountorLog inMaybe later

Thanks! Your ratings have been saved.
Did you know that you can edit this page?
 

Edit this pageMaybe later

 
 

 


Personal tools

Namespaces

 

Variants
 

Actions
 

 

August 16, 2012 Posted by | 1991, Wars and conflicts | , , , | Leave a comment

Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act

 

Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  (Redirected from Brady bill)

Jump to: navigation, search

 
Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act
Great Seal of the United States.
Full title Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act
Enacted by the 103rd United States Congress
Effective November 30, 1993
Citations
Public Law 103-159
Stat. 107 Stat. 1536
Codification
Title(s) amended 18
U.S.C. sections created 921-922
Legislative history
  • Introduced in the House of Representatives as H.R.1025 by Rep. Charles E. Schumer (D-NY) on February 22, 1993
  • Passed the House of Representatives on November 10, 1993 (238 – 189)
  • Passed the Senate on November 20, 1993 (63-36)
  • Reported by the joint conference committee on November 22, 1993; agreed to by the House of Representatives on November 23, 1993 (238 – 187) and by the Senate on November 24, 1993 (passed by voice vote)
  • Signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 30, 1993
U.S. Firearms Legal Topics

The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Pub.L. 103-159, 107 Stat. 1536) is an Act of the United States Congress that instituted federal background checks on firearm purchasers in the United States.

It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 30, 1993, and went into effect on February 28, 1994. The Act was named after James Brady, who was shot by John Hinckley, Jr. during an attempted assassination of President Ronald Reagan on March 30, 1981.

Contents

 [hide

[edit] Provisions

The Brady Act requires that background checks be conducted on individuals before a firearm may be purchased from a federally licensed dealer, manufacturer or importer—unless an exception applies. If there are no additional state restrictions, a firearm may be transferred to an individual upon approval by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) maintained by the FBI. In some states, proof of a previous background check can be used to bypass the NICS check. For example, a state-issued concealed carry permit usually includes a background check equivalent to the one required by the Act. Other alternatives to the NICS check include state-issued handgun purchase permits or mandatory state or local background checks.

Section 922(g) of the Brady Act prohibits certain persons from shipping or transporting any firearm in interstate or foreign commerce, or receiving any firearm which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, or possessing any firearm in or affecting commerce. These prohibitions apply to any person who:

  1. Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
  2. Is a fugitive from justice;
  3. Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;
  4. Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution;
  5. Is an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States;
  6. Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
  7. Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced U.S. citizenship;
  8. Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner, or;
  9. Has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
  10. Has a record of being a felon

Section 922(n) of the Act makes it unlawful for any person who is under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year to ship or transport any firearm in interstate or foreign commerce, or receive any firearm which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.[1]

Currently, 92% of Brady background checks through NICS are completed while the FBI is still on the phone with the gun dealer.[2] In rare cases, a gun purchaser may have to wait for up to three business days if the NICS system fails to positively approve or deny his/her application to purchase a firearm. If a denial is not issued within those three days, the transfer may be completed at that time.

Firearm transfers by unlicensed private sellers that are “not engaged in the business” of dealing firearms are not subject to the Brady Act, but may be covered under other federal, state, and local restrictions.

The Brady Act also does not apply to licensed Curios & Relics (C&R) collectors, but only in respect to C&R firearms.[3] The FFL Category 03 Curio & Relic license costs $30 and is valid for 3 years. Licensed C&R collectors may also purchase C&R firearms from private individuals or from federal firearms dealers, whether in their home state or in another state, and ship C&R firearms in interstate commerce by common carrier. Curios or relics are defined in 27 C.F.R. 478.11 as “Firearms which are of special interest to collectors by reason of some quality other than is associated with firearms intended for sporting use or as offensive or defensive weapons.” The regulation further states:

To be recognized as curios or relics, firearms must fall within one of the following categories:(a) Firearms which were manufactured at least 50 years prior to the current date, but not including replicas thereof;(b) Firearms which are certified by the curator of a municipal, State, or Federal museum which exhibits firearms to be curios or relics of museum interest; or

(c) Any other firearms which derive a substantial part of their monetary value from the fact that they are novel, rare, bizarre, or because of their association with some historical figure, period, or event. Proof of qualification of a particular firearm under this category may be established by evidence of present value and evidence that like firearms are not available except as collector’s items, or that the value of like firearms available in ordinary commercial channels is substantially less.

[edit] Jim and Sarah Brady

Jim Brady

Jim Brady was press secretary to President Ronald Reagan when both he and the president, along with Secret Service agent Tim McCarthy and District of Columbia police officer Thomas Delehanty, were shot on March 30, 1981, during an assassination attempt by John Hinckley, Jr. Brady was shot in the head and suffered a serious wound that left him partially paralyzed for life.[4]

John Hinckley, Jr., bought the .22 caliber Röhm RG-14 revolver used in the shooting at a Dallas, Texas, pawn shop on October 13, 1980. In a purchase application that he filled out before taking possession of the revolver, he provided a false home address on the form and showed an old Texas driver’s license as “proof” that he lived there. This constituted a felony offense. Additionally, Hinckley had been arrested four days earlier at the Metropolitan Airport in Nashville, Tennessee, when he attempted to board an American Airlines flight for New York with three handguns and some loose ammunition in his carry-on bag.[5] That same day, President Jimmy Carter was in Nashville and scheduled to travel to New York. Finally, Hinckley had been under psychiatric care prior to his gun purchase.

According to Sarah Brady, had a background check been conducted on Hinckley, it could have detected some, or all, of this important criminal and mental health history.[6]

Sarah Brady, Jim’s wife, became active in the gun control movement a few years after the shooting. She joined the Board of Handgun Control, Inc. (HCI) in 1985 and later became its Chair in 1989. Two years later, she became Chair of the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, HCI’s 501(c)(3) sister organization.

On February 4, 1987, the Brady Act was introduced in the U.S. Congress for the first time. Sarah Brady and HCI made the passage of the bill their top legislative priority.[7] In a 1991 editorial, President Reagan opined that the Brady Act would provide a crucial “enforcement mechanism” to end the “honor system” of the 1968 Gun Control Act and “can’t help but stop thousands of illegal handgun purchases.”[8]

Jim and Sarah Brady were guests of honor when President Bill Clinton signed the Brady Act into law on November 30, 1993.[9] President Clinton has stated, “If it hadn’t been for them, we would not have passed the Brady Law.”[10] In December 2000, the Boards of Trustees for HCI and the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence voted to honor Jim and Sarah Brady’s hard work and commitment to gun control by renaming the two organizations the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.[11]

In 2000, controversy arose when Sarah Brady purchased a .30-06 Springfield rifle in Delaware for her son.[12] Gun rights groups claimed that this action was a straw purchase, intended to avoid the NICS, and may have also violated Delaware firearms purchase laws.[13][14] No charges were ever filed against Sarah Brady, however. A firearm purchased as a gift is not considered a straw purchase under U.S. federal law if the recipient may legally possess it. Critics pointed out, however, that private firearm transfers like the one made by Sarah Brady are a common concern of gun control advocates (although exemptions for family members have been allowed in past legislation to regulate such sales).[15]

[edit] Opposition by National Rifle Association

After the Brady Act was originally proposed in 1987, the National Rifle Association (NRA) mobilized to defeat the legislation, spending millions of dollars in the process. While the bill eventually did pass in both chambers of the United States Congress, the NRA was able to win an important concession: the final version of the legislation provided that, in 1998, the five-day waiting period for handgun sales would be replaced by an instant computerized background check that involved no waiting periods.[16]

The NRA then funded lawsuits in Arizona, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, New Mexico, North Carolina, Texas, Vermont and Wyoming that sought to strike down the Brady Act as unconstitutional. These cases wound their way through the courts, eventually leading the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Brady Act in the case of Printz v. United States.

In Printz, the NRA argued that the Brady Act was unconstitutional because its provisions requiring local law enforcement officers to conduct background checks was a violation of the 10th Amendment to the Constitution (Brief Amicus Curiae of the National Rifle Association of America in Support of Petitioners, Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 1997). Based on these grounds, the NRA told the Court “the whole Statute must be voided.”

In its 1997 decision in the case, the Supreme Court ruled that the provision of the Brady Act that compelled state and local law enforcement officials to perform the background checks was unconstitutional on 10th amendment grounds. The Court determined that this provision violated both the concept of federalism and that of the unitary executive. However, the overall Brady statute was upheld and state and local law enforcement officials remained free to conduct background checks if they so chose. The vast majority continued to do so.[17] In 1998, background checks for firearm purchases became mostly a federally run activity when NICS came online, although many states continue to mandate state run background checks before a gun dealer may transfer a firearm to a buyer.

[edit] The Brady Law today

From 1994 through 2009, over 107 million Brady background checks were conducted. During this period 1.9 million attempted firearm purchases were blocked by the Brady background check system, or 1.4 percent.[18] For checks done by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in 2008, felons accounted for 56 percent of denials and fugitives from justice accounted for 13 percent of denials.[19] In 2009, felons accounted for 48 percent of denials and fugitives from justice accounted for 16 percent of denials. Between 2000 and 2009, over 30,000 denials were reversed on appeal.[18] In April 2009, the FBI announced it had completed its 100 millionth NICS approval since its inception 10 years before.

Prosecution and conviction of violators of the Brady Act, however, is extremely rare. During the first 17 months of the Act, only 7 individuals were convicted. In the first year of the Act, 250 cases were referred for prosecution and 217 of them were rejected.[20]

[edit] References

  1. ^ http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=1997_register&docid=fr27jn97-16
  2. ^ http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/nics/ops_report2006/ops_report2006.htm#3
  3. ^ “Firearms: Curios/Relics”. United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. 1998-05-20. http://www.atf.treas.gov/firearms/relics/. Retrieved 2007-10-22. 
  4. ^ http://www.bradycampaign.org/about/bio/jim
  5. ^ http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=FEoVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=SuIDAAAAIBAJ&pg=2539,9171785&dq=hinckley+gun
  6. ^ http://www.amazon.com/Good-Fight-Sarah-Brady/dp/1586481053
  7. ^ http://books.google.com/books?id=X1LEQd2r1sYC&dq=under+fire+osha+gray+davidson&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=ozph6w4pbV&sig=H2wd5gwEFR9qRIlrogmeU2mxlPg&hl=en&ei=cmHoSrmjNdGnlAfP09SNCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CA0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=&f=false
  8. ^ Reagan, Ronald (March 29, 1991). “Why I’m for the Brady Bill”. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/29/opinion/why-i-m-for-the-brady-bill.html. Retrieved April 26, 2010. 
  9. ^ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJ9VRrfzIKo
  10. ^ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EHMwH8IMl0
  11. ^ http://www.bradycampaign.org/about/bio/sarah
  12. ^ Brady, Sarah; Merrill McLoughlin (2002). A Good Fight. USA: Public Affairs. ISBN 1-58648-105-3. , pages 223, 224
  13. ^ TIMOTHY J. BURGER (March 22, 2002). “BRADY SHADY ON GUN RULES Control backer got son rifle”. NEW YORK DAILY NEWS. http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/2002/03/22/2002-03-22_brady_shady_on_gun_rules_con.html
  14. ^ GOA (March 25, 2002). “Gun Owners Of America Awards Membership To Sarah Brady’s Son — After gun control mom buys sniper rifle in straw purchase for son”. http://www.gunowners.org/pr0203.htm. Retrieved 2007-08-29. 
  15. ^ “Comparison of Federal Law, 2000 Colorado and Oregon Initiatives, and Current Federal Proposals”. http://www.ridersforjustice.com/Alerts/SIDEBY.DOC
  16. ^ http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=71287393
  17. ^ http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/rr2157.htm
  18. ^ a b http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/html/bcft/2009/bcft09st.pdf
  19. ^ http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/html/bcft/2008/tables/bcft08stt4.pdf
  20. ^ Implementation of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act,” Report to the Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, and the Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives, GAO/GGD-96-22 Gun Control, January 1996, pp. 8, 45

[edit] External links

Wikisourcehas original text related to this article:

Retrieved from “http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brady_Handgun_Violence_Prevention_Act&oldid=504234028

View page ratings
Rate this page
Rate this page
Page ratings
Current average ratings.
 
Trustworthy
 
 
 
 
 
 
Objective
 
 
 
 
 
 
Complete
 
 
 
 
 
 
Well-written
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
I have a relevant college/university degree
It is part of my profession
It is a deep personal passion
The source of my knowledge is not listed here
I would like to help improve Wikipedia, send me an e-mail (optional)

We will send you a confirmation e-mail. We will not share your e-mail address with outside parties as per our feedback privacy statement.
 

Submit ratings

Saved successfully
Your ratings have not been submitted yet
 
Your ratings have expired
Please reevaluate this page and submit new ratings.
An error has occurred. Please try again later.
Thanks! Your ratings have been saved.
Please take a moment to complete a short survey.
 

Start surveyMaybe later

Thanks! Your ratings have been saved.
Do you want to create an account?
An account will help you track your edits, get involved in discussions, and be a part of the community.

Create an accountorLog inMaybe later

Thanks! Your ratings have been saved.
Did you know that you can edit this page?
 

Edit this pageMaybe later

 
 

 

Personal tools

Namespaces

 

Variants
 

Actions
 

 

August 16, 2012 Posted by | 1993, Timeline | , | Leave a comment

Oslo Accords

 
 

 

Oslo Accords

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Jump to: navigation, search

 
Part of a series on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict and Arab–Israeli conflict
Israeli–Palestinian peace process
Is-wb-gs-gh v3.png

Israel with the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Golan Heights:

  
Israel
  
West Bank · Gaza Strip, Golan Heights
Negotiating parties
Israel · Palestinians
History
Camp David Accords · Madrid Conference
Oslo Accords / Oslo II · Hebron Protocol
Wye River / Sharm el-Sheikh Memoranda
2000 Camp David Summit · Taba Summit
Road Map · Annapolis · State of Palestine
Primary negotiation concerns
Final borders · Israeli settlements · Refugees (Jewish · Palestinian Arab) · Security concerns
Status of Jerusalem · Water
Secondary negotiation concerns
Antisemitic incitements
Israeli West Bank barrier · Jewish state
Palestinian political violence
Places of worship
Current leaders
Palestine
Mahmoud Abbas · Salam Fayyad
Israel
Shimon Peres · Benjamin Netanyahu
International brokers
Diplomatic Quartet (United Nations · United States · European Union · Russia)
Arab League (Egypt · Jordan) · United Kingdom · France
Other proposals
One-state solution (Isratine) · Two-state solutions (Arab Peace Initiative · Geneva Accord · Allon Plan · Elon Peace Plan · Lieberman Plan) · Three-state solution

Israeli unilateral plans: Disengagement · Realignment

Peace-orientated projects: Peace Valley · Middle East economic integration
Major projects, groups and NGOs
Peace-oriented projects · Peace Valley · Alliance for Middle East Peace · Peres Center for Peace

Yitzhak Rabin, Bill Clinton, and Yasser Arafat at the Oslo Accords signing ceremony on 13 September 1993

See also: Israeli–Palestinian conflict

The Oslo Accords, officially called the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements[1] or Declaration of Principles (DOP), was an attempt to resolve the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict. One of the major continuing issues within the wider Arab–Israeli conflict, it was the first direct, face-to-face agreement between the government of Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). It was intended to be the one framework for future negotiations and relations between the Israeli government and Palestinians, within which all outstanding “final status issues” between the two sides would be addressed and resolved.

Negotiations concerning the agreements, an outgrowth of the Madrid Conference of 1991, were conducted secretly in Oslo, Norway, hosted by the Fafo institute, and completed on 20 August 1993; the Accords were subsequently officially signed at a public ceremony in Washington, D.C., on 13 September 1993[2], in the presence of PLO chairman Yasser Arafat, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and US President Bill Clinton. The documents themselves were signed by Mahmoud Abbas for the PLO, foreign Minister Shimon Peres for Israel, Secretary of State Warren Christopher for the United States and foreign minister Andrei Kozyrev for Russia.

The Oslo Accords were a framework for the future relations between the two parties. The Accords provided for the creation of a Palestinian National Authority (PNA). The Palestinian Authority would have responsibility for the administration of the territory under its control. The Accords also called for the withdrawal of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) from parts of the Gaza Strip and West Bank.

It was anticipated that this arrangement would last for a five-year interim period during which a permanent agreement would be negotiated (beginning no later than May 1996). Permanent issues such as positions on Jerusalem, Palestinian refugees, Israeli settlements, security and borders were deliberately left to be decided at a later stage. Interim Palestinian self-government was to be granted by Israel in phases.

Contents

 [hide

[edit] Background

From the first negotiations at the 1949 Armistice Agreements to the most recent at the Madrid Conference of 1991,[3] there were many failed attempts for a settlement to bring about a lasting end to the Arab–Israeli and Israeli–Palestinian conflicts. What made the Oslo Accord negotiations different however, was the new Israeli government’s decision to finally hold direct, face-to-face negotiations with the Palestinian Liberation Organization, as the representative of the Palestinian people.

A renewal of the Israeli–Palestinian quest for peace began at the end of the Cold War as the United States took the lead in international affairs. President George H. W. Bush, in a speech on September 11, 1990, spoke of a “rare opportunity” to move toward a “New world order” in which “the nations of the world, east and west, north and south, can prosper and live in harmony”, adding that “today the new world is struggling to be born”.[4]

The Gulf War (1990–1991) did much to persuade Israelis that the defensive value of territory had been overstated, and that the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait psychologically reduced their sense of security.[5] The Gulf War had also shown that a superior air force and technology was more important than territory in winning a war. The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) realized the loss of its most important diplomatic patron, due to the deterioration of the Soviet Union that started in 1989, and Arafat’s failing relationship with Moscow. Another factor that pushed the PLO to the accords was the fallout from the Gulf War; because Arafat took a pro-Iraqi stand during the war, the Arab Gulf states cut off financial assistance to the PLO. The PLO was not invited to the Madrid Conference of 1991 at which Israel discussed peace with Lebanon, Jordan, Syria and Palestinian groups that were not associated with the PLO, although the behind the scenes coordination of the Palestinian delegation at Madrid by the PLO was an open secret.

In December 1992, in the background of the official “Madrid negotiations” in London, Israeli vice-minister of foreign affairs Yossi Beilin and Norwegian researcher Terje Rød-Larsen set up a secret meeting for PLO representative Ahmed Qurei and Israeli history professor Yair Hirschfeld. Qurei and Hirschfeld made a connection and decided to meet again in what was going to be a series of 14 meetings in Oslo. During the first few meetings, a concept of an accord was discussed and agreed upon. The Foreign Affairs Minister of Israel, Shimon Peres, was interested and sent the highest-ranking non-political representative and a military lawyer to continue the negotiations. In contrast to the official negotiations in Madrid, where actual meetings between the delegations were often limited to a few hours a day, the Israeli and Palestinian delegations in Norway were usually accommodated in the same residence, they had breakfast, lunch and dinner at the same table, resulting in mutual respect and close friendships. The Norwegian government covered the expenses, provided security and kept the meetings away from the public eye, using the research institute Fafo as a front.[6]

In August 1993, the delegations had reached an agreement, which was signed in secrecy by Peres while visiting Oslo. Peres took the agreement to the United States to the surprise of US negotiator Dennis Ross. However, the Palestinians and Israelis had not yet agreed on the wording of the Letters of Mutual Recognition, which constituted an agreement in which the PLO would acknowledge the state of Israel and pledge to reject violence, and Israel would recognize the (unelected) PLO as the official Palestinian authority, allowing Yasser Arafat to return to the West Bank. Most of the negotiations for this agreement were carried out in a hotel in Paris, now in full view of the public and the press. An agreement was reached and signed by Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin, just in time for the official signing in Washington.[6]The Accords were officially signed on September 13, 1993 at a Washington ceremony hosted by US President Bill Clinton.[7]

[edit] Principles of the Accords

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (August 2010)

In essence, the accords called for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from parts of the Gaza Strip and West Bank, and affirmed a Palestinian right of self-government within those areas through the creation of a Palestinian Interim Self-Government Authority. Palestinian rule was to last for a five-year interim period during which “permanent status negotiations” would commence—no later than May 1996—in order to reach a final agreement. Major issues such as Jerusalem, Palestinian refugees, Israeli settlements, and security and borders were to be decided at these permanent status negotiations (Article V). Israel was to grant interim self-government to the Palestinians in phases.

Along with the principles, the two groups signed Letters of Mutual Recognition—the Israeli government recognized the PLO as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, while the PLO recognized the right of the state of Israel to exist and renounced terrorism as well as other violence, and its desire for the destruction of the Israeli state.

The aim of Israeli–Palestinian negotiations was to establish a Palestinian Interim Self-Government Authority, an elected Council, for the Palestinian people in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, for a transitional period not exceeding five years, leading to a permanent settlement based on United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, and 338, an integral part of the whole peace process.

In order that the Palestinians govern themselves according to democratic principles, free and general political elections would be held for the Council.

Jurisdiction of the Palestinian Council would cover the West Bank and Gaza Strip, except for issues that would be finalized in the permanent status negotiations. The two sides viewed the West Bank and Gaza as a single territorial unit.

The five-year transitional period would commence with Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and Jericho area. Permanent status negotiations would begin as soon as possible between Israel and the Palestinians. The negotiations would cover remaining issues, including: Jerusalem, Palestinian refugees, Israeli settlements, security arrangements, borders, relations and cooperation with other neighbors, and other issues of common interest.

Furthermore, the two sides agreed in the 1995 Interim Agreement, 18 signed and witnessed by the U.S., the EU, Egypt, Jordan, Russia, and Norway, on a division of their respective jurisdictions in the West Bank into areas A and B (Palestinian jurisdiction) and area C (Israeli jurisdiction). They defined the respective powers and responsibilities of each side in the areas they control. Israel’s powers and responsibilities in Area C include all aspects regarding its settlements—all this pending the outcome of the Permanent Status negotiations.

In fact, during the course of the negotiations with Israel, the Palestinian delegation requested that a “side letter” be attached to the agreement, the text of which would be agreed upon, whereby Israel would commit to restricting settlement construction in area C during the process of implementation of the agreement and the ensuing negotiations. Several drafts of this “side letter” passed between the negotiating teams until Israel indeed agreed to a formulation restricting construction activities on the basis of a government decision that would be adopted for that purpose. Ultimately, the Palestinian leadership withdrew its request for a side letter. [8]

There would be a transfer of authority from the Israel Defence Forces to the authorized Palestinians, concerning education and culture, health, social welfare, direct taxation, and tourism.

The Council would establish a strong police force, while Israel would continue to carry the responsibility for defending against external threats.

An Israeli–Palestinian Economic Cooperation Committee would be established in order to develop and implement in a cooperative manner the programs identified in the protocols.

A redeployment of Israeli military forces in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip would take place.

The Declaration of Principles would enter into force one month after its signing. All protocols annexed to the Declaration of Principles and the Agreed Minutes pertaining to it, were to be regarded as part of it.

[edit] Annexes of the accords

[edit] Annex 1: Conditions of Palestinian Elections

This annex covered election agreements, a system of elections, rules and regulations regarding election campaigns, including agreed arrangements for the organizing of mass media, and the possibility of licensing a TV station. (Source: Reference.com)

[edit] Annex 2: Withdrawal of Israeli forces

An agreement on the withdrawal of Israeli military forces from the Gaza Strip and Jericho area. This agreement will include comprehensive arrangements to apply in the Gaza Strip and the Jericho area subsequent to the Israeli withdrawal. Internal security and public order by the Palestinian police force consisting of police officers recruited locally and from abroad (holding Jordanian passports and Palestinian documents issued by Egypt). Those who will participate in the Palestinian police force coming from abroad should be trained as police and police officers.

  • A temporary international or foreign presence, as agreed upon.
  • Establishment of a joint Palestinian–Israeli Coordination and Cooperation Committee for mutual security purposes.
  • Arrangements for a safe passage for persons and transportation between the Gaza Strip and Jericho area.
  • Arrangements for coordination between both parties regarding passages: Gaza–Egypt; and Jericho–Jordan.

[edit] Annex 3: Economic cooperation

The two sides agree to establish an Israeli–Palestinian continuing Committee for economic cooperation, focusing, among other things, on the following:

  • Cooperation in the field of water
  • Cooperation in the field of electricity
  • Cooperation in the field of energy
  • Cooperation in the field of finance
  • Cooperation in the field of transport and communications
  • Cooperation in the field of trade and commerce
  • Cooperation in the field of industry
  • Cooperation in, and regulation of, labor relations
  • Cooperation in social welfare issues
  • An environmental protection plan
  • Cooperation in the field of communication and media

[edit] Annex 4: Regional development

The two sides will cooperate in the context of the multilateral peace efforts in promoting a Development Program for the region, including the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, to be initiated by the G7.

[edit] Agreed minutes of the accords

[edit] Minute A: General understandings

Any powers and responsibilities transferred to the Palestinians through the Declaration of Principles prior to the inauguration of the Council will be subject to the same principles pertaining to Article IV, as set out in the agreed minutes below.

[edit] Minute B: Specific understandings

[edit] Article IV: Council’s jurisdiction

It was to be understood that: Jurisdiction of the Council would cover West Bank and Gaza Strip territory, except for issues that would be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations.

[edit] Article VI (2): Transferring authority

It was agreed that the transfer of authority would be as follows: The Palestinians would inform the Israelis of the names of the authorized Palestinians who would assume the powers, authorities and responsibilities that would be transferred to the Palestinians according to the Declaration of Principles in the following fields: education and culture, health, social welfare, direct taxation, tourism, and any other authorities agreed upon.

[edit] Article VII (2): Cooperation

The Interim Agreement would also include arrangements for coordination and cooperation.

[edit] Article VII (5): Israel’s powers

The withdrawal of the military government would not prevent Israel from exercising the powers and responsibilities not transferred to the Council.

[edit] Article VIII: Police

It was understood that the Interim Agreement would include arrangements for cooperation and coordination. It was also agreed that the transfer of powers and responsibilities to the Palestinian police would be accomplished in a phased manner. The accord stipulated that Israeli and Palestinian police would do joint patrols.

[edit] Article X: Designating officials

It was agreed that the Israeli and Palestinian delegations would exchange the names of the individuals designated by them as members of the Joint Israeli–Palestinian Liaison Committee which would reach decisions by agreement.

[edit] Annex XI: Israel’s continuing responsibilities

It was understood that, subsequent to the Israeli withdrawal, Israel would continue to be responsible for external security, and for internal security and public order of settlements and Israelis. Israeli military forces and civilians would be allowed to continue using roads freely within the Gaza Strip and the Jericho area.

[edit] Administrative divisions of the Oslo Accords

Main article: Administrative divisions of the Oslo Accords
[icon] This section requires expansion. (September 2010)

[edit] Reaction

In Israel, a strong debate over the accords took place; the left wing supported them, while the right wing opposed them. After a two-day discussion in the Knesset on the government proclamation in the issue of the accord and the exchange of the letters, on 23 September 1993, a vote of confidence was held in which 61 Knesset members voted for the decision, 50 voted against and 8 abstained.

Palestinian reactions were also divided. Fatah, the group that represented the Palestinians in the negotiations, accepted the accords. But Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine objected to the accords because their own charters refuse to recognize Israel’s right to exist in Palestine.

On both sides, there were fears of the other side’s intentions. Israelis suspected that the Palestinians were entering into a tactical peace agreement, and that they were not sincere about wanting to reach peace and coexistence with Israel. They saw it as part of the Ten Point Program which calls for a national authority over any piece of liberated Palestinian land, and for a secular democratic bi-national state in Israel/Palestine with equal rights for all its citizens.[citation needed] For evidence they brought statements by Arafat in Palestinian forums, in which he compared the accord to the Hudaibiya agreement that Muhammad signed with the sons of the tribe of Quraish. They understood those statements as an attempt to justify the signing of the accords in accordance with historical-religious precedent, with step agreements to reach a final goal.

After the signing of the agreements, Israel continued expanding existing settlements although this fell far short of the Shamir government’s 1991–1992 level. Construction of Housing Units Before Oslo: 1991–1992 14,320 units. After Oslo: 1994–1995 3,850 units; 1996–1997 3,570 units [9] although the settler population in the West Bank continued growing by around 10,000 per year.[10] The Palestinians built throughout area C of the West Bank administered by Israel without permit.[11][unreliable source?] the acts had been named as Palestinian outposts or Palestinian settlements by the Israeli media.

According to the Israeli government, the Israeli’s trust in the accords was undermined by the fact that after the signing, the attacks against Israel intensified,[12] which some explained as an attempt by certain Palestinian organizations to thwart the peace process. Others believed that the Palestinian Authority had no interest in stopping these attacks and was instead endorsing them. As evidence, they showed that when violence flared up in September 1996, Palestinian police turned their guns on the Israelis in clashes which left 61 Palestinians and 15 Israeli soldiers dead.[13] Important sections of the Israeli public opposed the process; notably, the Jewish settlers feared that it would lead to them losing their homes.

Many Palestinians feared that Israel was not serious about dismantling their settlements in the West Bank, especially around Jerusalem. They feared they might even accelerate their settlement program in the long run, by building more settlements and expanding existing ones.[14]

[edit] Remarks from Benjamin Netanyahu

In a 2001 video, Netanyahu, reportedly unaware he was being recorded, said: “They asked me before the election if I’d honor [the Oslo accords]… I said I would, but [that] I’m going to interpret the accords in such a way that would allow me to put an end to this galloping forward to the ’67 borders. How did we do it? Nobody said what defined military zones were. Defined military zones are security zones; as far as I’m concerned, the entire Jordan Valley is a defined military zone. Go argue.”[15][16] Netanyahu then explained how he conditioned his signing of the 1997 Hebron agreement on American consent that there be no withdrawals from “specified military locations”, and insisted he be allowed to specify which areas constituted a “military location”—such as the whole of the Jordan Valley. “Why is that important? Because from that moment on I stopped the Oslo Accords,” Netanyahu affirmed.[17]

[edit] Criticisms

The Oslo Accords may appear not to have considered factors that would influence its interpretation. For example, the Cave of the Patriarchs massacre, in which 29 Palestinians were killed and 125 wounded,[18] is often blamed for undermining Palestinian trust in the process. Similarly, the expansion of Israeli settlements[19] and blockades caused the deterioration of economic conditions[citation needed], and much frustration for Palestinians. These factors caused a drop in support for the accord and for those who supported it.[citation needed]

There have been suggested alternatives to boundary setting and creating principles that divide Israelis and Palestinians. One alternative is to move a peace process towards the creation of a bi-national state, a “one-state solution“, that promotes co-existence rather than to continuing to divide. An argument for this as a possible way of reconciliation is that neither side can wholly justify a claim for homogeneity. Palestine has a varied history of occupancy, such as the Canaanites, Hittites and Ammonites in ancient times.[20] Also, some Israeli and Palestinian thinkers have previously argued for a bi-national state as a more attractive alternative to separatism.[21]

Norwegian academics, including Norway’s leading authority on the negotiations, Hilde Henriksen Waage, have focused on the flawed role of Norway during the Oslo process. In 2001, the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) commissioned Waage to produce an official, comprehensive history of the Norwegian-mediated back channel negotiations. In order to do the research, she was given privileged access to all relevant, classified files in the ministry’s archives. The MFA had been at the heart of the Oslo process. Waage was surprised to discover “not a single scrap of paper for the entire period from January to September 1993—precisely the period of the back channel talks”. Waage has written that, “Had the missing documents been accessible, there seems no doubt they would have shown the extent to which the Oslo process was conducted on Israel’s premises, with Norway acting as Israel’s helpful errand boy.”[22]

[edit] Subsequent negotiations

In addition to the first accord, namely the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government, other more specific accords are often informally also known as “Oslo”:

[edit] Oslo 2

[edit] Loss of credibility

Since the start of the al-Aqsa Intifada, the Oslo Accords are viewed with increasing disfavor by both the Palestinian and Israeli public. In May 2000, seven years after the Oslo Accords and five months before the start of the al-Aqsa Intifada, a survey by the Tami Steinmetz Center for Peace Research at the University of Tel Aviv found that 39% of all Israelis supported the Accords and that 32% believed that the Accords would result in peace in the next few years.[23] By contrast, the May 2004 survey found that 26% of all Israelis supported the Accords and 18% believed that the Accords would result in peace in the next few years.

In December 2010, a report in al-Quds al-Arabi asserted that the Palestinian Authority no longer regards itself as being bound by the Oslo Accords[citation needed]; however, as of June 2011 the PA has not made any official declaration to that effect.

[edit] Additional agreements

Additional Israeli-Palestinian documents related to the Oslo Accords are:

[edit] Arab–Israeli peace diplomacy and treaties

[edit] See also

[edit] Issues

[edit] People

[edit] References

  1. ^ “Text: 1993 Declaration of Principles”. Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements (BBC). 29 November 2001. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/middle_east/israel_and_the_palestinians/key_documents/1682727.stm
  2. ^ Encyclopedia of the Palestinians; p. 66; Phillip Mattar; Infobase Publishing, 2005
  3. ^ Israel-Egypt Armistice Agreement Jewish Virtual Library
  4. ^ President Bush’s speech to Congress al-bab.com
  5. ^ The Gulf Conflict 1990–1991: Diplomacy and war in the new world order, Lawrence Freedman and Efraim Karsh
  6. ^ a b Gaza First: the secret Norway channel to peace between Israel and the PLO, Jane Corbin
  7. ^ Encyclopedia of the Palestinians; by Phillip Matar; 2005
  8. ^ Alan Baker (January 5, 2011). “The Settlements Issue: Distorting the Geneva Convention and the Oslo Accords”. Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. http://jcpa.org/article/the-settlements-issue-distorting-the-geneva-convention-and-the-oslo-accords/. Retrieved July 10, 2012. 
  9. ^ Foundation for Middle East Peace
  10. ^ Foundation for Middle East Peace, statistics
  11. ^ http://imra.org.il/story.php3?id=1127 Independent Media Review Analysis
  12. ^ In 5 Years Since Oslo, More Israelis Have Been Killed by Palestinian Terrorists than in the 15 Years Prior to the Accord Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 10 September 1998
  13. ^ The Palestinian Army Christians for Israel
  14. ^ Existential Threats to Israel and Palestine: Suicides and Settlements Al-Ittihad, 26 May 2002 (republished on the Nixon Center website)
  15. ^ Wong, Curtis (16 July 2010). “Netanyahu In 2001: ‘America Is A Thing You Can Move Very Easily'”. The Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/16/netanyahu-in-2001-america_n_649427.html
  16. ^ Glenn Kessler (16 July 2010). “Netanyahu: ‘America is a thing you can move very easily'”. The Washington Post. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/checkpoint-washington/2010/07/netanyahu_america_is_a_thing_y.html
  17. ^ Gideon Levy (15 July 2010). “Tricky Bibi”. Haaretz. http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/tricky-bibi-1.302053. Retrieved 23 September 2011. 
  18. ^ Issacharoff, Avi (March 1, 2010). “Settlers remember gunman Goldstein; Hebron riots continue”. http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/settlers-remember-gunman-goldstein-hebron-riots-continue-1.263834. Retrieved July 10, 2012. 
  19. ^ Settlements information, Foundation for Middle East Peace. “Sources of Population Growth: Total Israeli Population and Settler Population, 1991–2003”. http://www.fmep.org/settlement_info/settlement-info-and-tables/stats-data/sources-of-population-growth-total-israeli-population-and-settler-population-1991-2003. Retrieved 2011-07-22. 
  20. ^ R. Garaudy The Case of Israel London, Shorouk International. p 32.
  21. ^ Truth and reconciliation Al-Ahram Weekly, Issue 412
  22. ^ Waage, Hilde Henriksen (Autumn 2008). “Postscript to Oslo: The Mystery of Norway’s Missing Files”. Journal of Palestine Studies (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press) XXXVIII (1): 54–65. http://www.palestine-studies.org/files/pdf/jps/10107.pdf
  23. ^ Statistics on Israeli support of the Oslo Accords by the Tami Steinmetz Center for Peace Research

[edit] Bibliography

  • Bregman, Ahron Elusive Peace: How the Holy Land Defeated America.
  • Clinton, Bill (2005). My Life. Vintage. ISBN 1-4000-3003-X.
  • Eran, Oded. “Arab–Israel Peacemaking”. The Continuum Political Encyclopedia of the Middle East. Ed. Avraham Sela. New York: Continuum, 2002.

[edit] External links

[show]

 
Participants
 
Israel
 
Palestine Palestinians
 
Influence
 
Individuals
 
Israelis
 
Palestinians
 
Violence
 
Diplomacy
 
 
United Nations involvement
[show]

 

Retrieved from “http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oslo_Accords&oldid=506288303

View page ratings
Rate this page
Rate this page
Page ratings
Current average ratings.
 
Trustworthy
 
 
 
 
 
 
Objective
 
 
 
 
 
 
Complete
 
 
 
 
 
 
Well-written
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
I have a relevant college/university degree
It is part of my profession
It is a deep personal passion
The source of my knowledge is not listed here
I would like to help improve Wikipedia, send me an e-mail (optional)

We will send you a confirmation e-mail. We will not share your e-mail address with outside parties as per our feedback privacy statement.
 

Submit ratings

Saved successfully
Your ratings have not been submitted yet
 
Your ratings have expired
Please reevaluate this page and submit new ratings.
An error has occurred. Please try again later.
Thanks! Your ratings have been saved.
Please take a moment to complete a short survey.
 

Start surveyMaybe later

Thanks! Your ratings have been saved.
Do you want to create an account?
An account will help you track your edits, get involved in discussions, and be a part of the community.

Create an accountorLog inMaybe later

Thanks! Your ratings have been saved.
Did you know that you can edit this page?
 

Edit this pageMaybe later

 
 

 

Personal tools

Namespaces

 

Variants
 

Actions
 

Navigation

Interaction

Toolbox

Print/export

Languages

 

August 16, 2012 Posted by | 1993, Covenants and treaties, Israel, Timeline | , , , | Leave a comment

WikiLeaks (declassification and illegal reclassification)

 
 

 

WikiLeaks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Jump to: navigation, search

 
Page move-protected
WikiLeaks is not affiliated with Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation.
WikiLeaks
Graphic of hourglass, coloured in blue and gray; a circular map of the eastern hemisphere of the world drips from the top to bottom chamber of the hourglass
URL www.wikileaks.org[1]a
Commercial? No[2]
Type of site Document archive and disclosure
Created by Julian Assange
Launched 4 October 2006 (2006-10-04)[3]
Alexa rank negative increase 15,988 (August 2012[update])[4]
Current status Active

WikiLeaks is an international, online, self-described not-for-profit[2] organisation publishing submissions of private, secret, and classified media from anonymous news sources, news leaks, and whistleblowers. Its website, launched in 2006 under the Sunshine Press organisation,[5] claimed a database of more than 1.2 million documents within a year of its launch.[6] Julian Assange, an Australian Internet activist, is generally described as its founder, editor-in-chief, and director.[7] Kristinn Hrafnsson, Joseph Farrell and Sarah Harrison are the only other publicly known and acknowledged associates of Julian Assange.[8] Hrafnsson is also a member of the company Sunshine Press Productions along with Assange, Ingi Ragnar Ingason and Gavin MacFadyen.[9][10]

The group has released a number of significant documents which have become front-page news items. Early releases included documentation of equipment expenditures and holdings in the Afghanistan war and corruption in Kenya.[11] In April 2010, WikiLeaks published gunsight footage from the 12 July 2007 Baghdad airstrike in which Iraqi journalists were among those killed by an Apache helicopter, known as the Collateral Murder video. In July of the same year, WikiLeaks released Afghan War Diary, a compilation of more than 76,900 documents about the War in Afghanistan not previously available to the public.[12] In October 2010, the group released a package of almost 400,000 documents called the Iraq War Logs in coordination with major commercial media organisations. This allowed the mapping of 109,032 deaths in “significant” attacks by insurgents in Iraq that had been reported to Multi-National Force – Iraq, including around 15,000 that had not been previously published.[13][14] In April 2011, WikiLeaks began publishing 779 secret files relating to prisoners detained in the Guantanamo Bay detention camp.[15]

In November 2010, WikiLeaks collaborated with major global media organisations to release U.S. State department diplomatic cables in redacted format. On 1 September 2011, it became public that an encrypted version of WikiLeaks’ huge archive of unredacted U.S. State Department cables had been available via Bittorrent for months, and that the decryption key (similar to a password) was available to those who knew where to look. WikiLeaks blamed the breach on its former partner, The Guardian, and that newspaper’s journalist David Leigh, who revealed the key in a book published in February 2011;[16] The Guardian argued that WikiLeaks was to blame since they gave the impression that the decryption key was temporary (something not possible for a file decryption key).[17] Der Spiegel reported a more complex story[18] involving errors on both sides. The incident lead to widely expressed fears that the information released could endanger innocent lives[19][20].

Contents

 [hide

[edit] History

[edit] Founding

The wikileaks.org domain name was registered on 4 October 2006.[3] The website was unveiled, and published its first document, in December 2006.[21][22] WikiLeaks has been predominantly represented in public since January 2007 by Julian Assange, who is now generally recognised as the “founder of WikiLeaks.”[23] According to Wired magazine, a volunteer said that Assange described himself in a private conversation as “the heart and soul of this organisation, its founder, philosopher, spokesperson, original coder, organizer, financier, and all the rest.”[24]

WikiLeaks relies to some degree on volunteers and previously described its founders as a mix of Asian dissidents, journalists, mathematicians, and start-up company technologists from the United States, Taiwan, Europe, Australia, and South Africa.[25] The site was originally launched as a user-editable wiki (hence its name), but has progressively moved toward a more traditional publication model and no longer accepts either user comments or edits. As of June 2009[update], the site had over 1,200 registered volunteers[25] and listed an advisory board comprising Assange, his deputy Jash Vora and seven other people, some of which denied any association with the organisation.[26][27]

Despite using the name “WikiLeaks”, the website is no longer wiki-based as of May 2010.[28] Also, despite some popular confusion[29] due to both having the term “wiki” in their names, WikiLeaks and Wikipedia have no affiliation with each other (“wiki” is not a brand name);[30][31] Wikia, a for-profit corporation loosely affiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation, did purchase several WikiLeaks-related domain names (including wikileaks.com and wikileaks.net) as a “protective brand measure” in 2007.[32]

[edit] Purpose

The WikiLeaks website says their goal is “to bring important news and information to the public… One of our most important activities is to publish original source material alongside our news stories so readers and historians alike can see evidence of the truth.”

Another of the organisation’s goals is to ensure that whistleblowers and journalists are not jailed for emailing sensitive or classified documents. The online “drop box” (currently not functioning) was designed to “provide an innovative, secure and anonymous way for sources to leak information to our journalists.”

In an interview on The Colbert Report, Assange discussed the limit to the freedom of speech, saying, “[it is] not an ultimate freedom, however free speech is what regulates government and regulates law. That is why in the US Constitution the Bill of Rights says that Congress is to make no such law abridging the freedom of the press. It is to take the rights of the press outside the rights of the law because those rights are superior to the law because in fact they create the law. Every constitution, every bit of legislation is derived from the flow of information. Similarly every government is elected as a result of people understanding things”.[33]

The project has drawn comparisons to Daniel Ellsberg‘s leaking of the Pentagon Papers in 1971.[34] In the United States, the leaking of some documents may be legally protected. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution guarantees anonymity, at least in the area of political discourse.[34] Author and journalist Whitley Strieber has spoken about the benefits of the WikiLeaks project, noting that “Leaking a government document can mean jail, but jail sentences for this can be fairly short. However, there are many places where it means long incarceration or even death, such as China and parts of Africa and the Middle East.”[35]

[edit] Administration

According to a January 2010 interview, the WikiLeaks team then consisted of five people working full-time and about 800 people who worked occasionally, none of whom were compensated.[36] WikiLeaks has no official headquarters.

[edit] Hosting

WikiLeaks describes itself as “an uncensorable system for untraceable mass document leaking”.[37] The site is available on multiple servers and different domain names following a number of denial-of-service attacks and its severance from different Domain Name System (DNS) providers.[38][39]

Until August 2010, WikiLeaks was hosted by PRQ, a Sweden-based company providing “highly secure, no-questions-asked hosting services”. PRQ is said to have “almost no information about its clientele and maintains few if any of its own logs“.[40] Currently, WikiLeaks is mainly hosted by Bahnhof in a facility that used to be a nuclear bunker.[41][42] Other servers are spread around the world with the central server located in Sweden.[43] Julian Assange has said that the servers are located in Sweden (and the other countries) “specifically because those nations offer legal protection to the disclosures made on the site”. He talks about the Swedish constitution, which gives the information providers total legal protection.[43] It is forbidden according to Swedish law for any administrative authority to make inquiries about the sources of any type of newspaper.[44] These laws, and the hosting by PRQ, make it difficult for any authorities to take WikiLeaks offline; they place an onus of proof upon any complainant whose suit would circumscribe WikiLeaks’ liberty, e.g. its rights to exercise free speech online. Furthermore, “WikiLeaks maintains its own servers at undisclosed locations, keeps no logs and uses military-grade encryption to protect sources and other confidential information.” Such arrangements have been called “bulletproof hosting.”[40][45]

On 17 August 2010, it was announced that the Swedish Pirate Party would be hosting and managing many of WikiLeaks’ new servers. The party donates servers and bandwidth to WikiLeaks without charge. Technicians of the party would make sure that the servers are maintained and working.[46][47]

After the site became the target of a denial-of-service attack on its old servers, WikiLeaks moved its site to Amazon‘s servers.[48] Later, however, the website was “ousted” from the Amazon servers.[48] In a public statement, Amazon said that WikiLeaks was not following its terms of service. The company further explained, “There were several parts they were violating. For example, our terms of service state that ‘you represent and warrant that you own or otherwise control all of the rights to the content… that use of the content you supply does not violate this policy and will not cause injury to any person or entity.’ It’s clear that WikiLeaks doesn’t own or otherwise control all the rights to this classified content.”[49] WikiLeaks then decided to install itself on the servers of OVH in France.[50] After criticism from the French government, the company sought two court rulings about the legality of hosting WikiLeaks. While the court in Lille immediately declined to force OVH to shut down the WikiLeaks site, the court in Paris stated it would need more time to examine the highly technical issue.[51][52]

WikiLeaks is based on several software packages, including Tor[53] and PGP.[citation needed] WikiLeaks was implemented on MediaWiki software between 2006 and October 2010.[54] WikiLeaks strongly encouraged postings via Tor because of the strong privacy needs of its users.[55]

On 4 November 2010, Julian Assange told Swiss public television TSR that he is seriously considering seeking political asylum in neutral Switzerland and setting up a WikiLeaks foundation to move the operation there.[56][57] According to Assange, Switzerland and Iceland are the only countries where WikiLeaks would feel safe to operate.[58][59]

[edit] Name servers

WikiLeaks had been using EveryDNS’s services, which led to DDoS attacks on the host.[clarification needed] The attacks affected the quality of service at EveryDNS, so the company withdrew its service from WikiLeaks. Pro-WikiLeaks supporters retaliated by launching a DDoS attack against EveryDNS. Because of mistakes in the blogosphere, some supporters accidentally mistook EasyDNS for EveryDNS and a sizable internet backlash against EasyDNS ensued. Afterwards EasyDNS decided to provide WikiLeaks its name server service.[60]

[edit] Verification of submissions

WikiLeaks states that it has never released a misattributed document. Documents are assessed before release. In response to concerns about the possibility of misleading or fraudulent leaks, WikiLeaks has stated that misleading leaks “are already well-placed in the mainstream media. WikiLeaks is of no additional assistance.”[61] The FAQ states that: “The simplest and most effective countermeasure is a worldwide community of informed users and editors who can scrutinise and discuss leaked documents.”[62]

According to statements by Assange in 2010, submitted documents are vetted by a group of five reviewers, with expertise in different fields such as language or programming, who also investigate the background of the leaker if his or her identity is known.[63] In that group, Assange has the final decision about the assessment of a document.[63]

[edit] Legal status

[edit] Legal background

The legal status of WikiLeaks is complex. Assange considers WikiLeaks a whistleblower protection intermediary. Rather than leaking directly to the press, and fearing exposure and retribution, whistleblowers can leak to WikiLeaks, which then leaks to the press for them.[64] Its servers are located throughout Europe and are accessible from any uncensored web connection. The group located its headquarters in Sweden because it has one of the world’s strongest shield laws to protect confidential source-journalist relationships.[65][66] WikiLeaks has stated it does not solicit any information.[65] However, Assange used his speech during the Hack In The Box conference in Malaysia to ask the crowd of hackers and security researchers to help find documents on its “Most Wanted Leaks of 2009” list.[67]

[edit] Potential criminal prosecution

The U.S. Justice Department opened a criminal probe of WikiLeaks and founder Julian Assange shortly after the leak of diplomatic cables began.[68][69] Attorney General Eric Holder affirmed the probe was “not sabre-rattling”, but was “an active, ongoing criminal investigation.”[69] The Washington Post reported that the department was considering charges under the Espionage Act, a move which former prosecutors characterised as “difficult” because of First Amendment protections for the press.[68][70] Several Supreme Court cases have previously established that the American constitution protects the re-publication of illegally gained information provided the publishers did not themselves break any laws in acquiring it.[71] Federal prosecutors have also considered prosecuting Assange for trafficking in stolen government property, but since the diplomatic cables are intellectual rather than physical property, that approach also faces hurdles.[72] Any prosecution of Assange would require extraditing him to the United States, a step made more complicated and potentially delayed by any preceding extradition to Sweden.[73] One of Assange’s lawyers, however, says they are fighting extradition to Sweden because it might lead to his extradition to the United States.[74] Assange’s attorney, Mark Stephens, has “heard from Swedish authorities there has been a secretly empanelled grand jury in Alexandria [Virginia]” meeting to consider criminal charges in the WikiLeaks case.[75]

In Australia, the government and the Australian Federal Police have not stated what Australian laws may have been broken by WikiLeaks, but Prime Minister Julia Gillard has stated that the foundation of WikiLeaks and the stealing of classified documents from the US administration is illegal in foreign countries.[76] Gillard later clarified her statement as referring to “the original theft of the material by a junior US serviceman rather than any action by Mr Assange.”[77] Spencer Zifcak, President of Liberty Victoria, an Australian civil liberties group, notes that with no charge, and no trial completed, it is inappropriate to state that WikiLeaks is guilty of illegal activities.[78]

On threats by various governments toward Assange, legal expert Ben Saul argues that founder Julian Assange is the target of a global smear campaign to demonise him as a criminal or as a terrorist, without any legal basis.[79] The U.S. Center for Constitutional Rights has issued a statement highlighting its alarm at the “multiple examples of legal overreach and irregularities” in his arrest.[80]

[edit] Insurance file

On 29 July 2010, WikiLeaks added a 1.4 GB “Insurance file” to the Afghan War Diary page. The file is AES encrypted and has a SHA1 checksum of “cce54d3a8af370213d23fcbfe8cddc8619a0734c”.[81] There has been speculation that it was intended to serve as insurance in case the WikiLeaks website or its spokesman Julian Assange are incapacitated, upon which the passphrase could be published, similar to the concept of a dead man’s switch.[82][83] Following the first few days’ release of the US diplomatic cables starting 28 November 2010, the US television broadcaster CBS predicted that “If anything happens to Assange or the website, a key will go out to unlock the files. There would then be no way to stop the information from spreading like wildfire because so many people already have copies.”[84] CBS correspondent Declan McCullagh stated, “What most folks are speculating is that the insurance file contains unreleased information that would be especially embarrassing to the US government if it were released.”[84]

The insurance file is not to be confused with another encrypted file containing diplomatic cables, whose password has been compromised. The insurance file’s password has not been compromised and its contents are still unknown.

[edit] Financing

WikiLeaks is a non-profit organisation, largely supported by volunteers, and it is dependent on public donations. Its main financing methods include conventional bank transfers and online payment systems. Annual expenses have been estimated at about €200,000, mainly for servers and bureaucracy, but might reportedly reach €600,000 if work currently done by volunteers were paid for.[36]

WikiLeaks’ lawyers often work pro bono, and in some cases legal support has been donated by media organisations such as the Associated Press, Los Angeles Times, and the National Newspaper Publishers Association.[36] WikiLeaks only revenue stream is donations, but it has considered other options including an auction model to sell early access to documents.[36] In September 2011, Wikileaks began auctioning items on eBay to raise funds, and Assange told an audience at Sydney’s Festival of Dangerous Ideas that the organisation might not be able to survive.

[edit] Funding model

The Wau Holland Foundation helps to process donations to WikiLeaks. In July 2010, the Foundation stated that WikiLeaks was receiving no money for personnel costs, only for hardware, travelling and bandwidth.[85] An article in TechEye stated:

As a charity accountable under German law, donations for WikiLeaks can be made to the foundation. Funds are held in escrow and are given to WikiLeaks after the whistleblower website files an application containing a statement with proof of payment. The foundation does not pay any sort of salary nor give any renumeration [sic] to WikiLeaks’ personnel, corroborating the statement of the site’s former German representative Daniel Schmitt [real name Daniel Domscheit-Berg][86] on national television that all personnel works voluntarily, even its speakers.[85]

However, in December 2010 the Wau Holland Foundation stated that 4 permanent employees, including Julian Assange, had begun to receive salaries.[87]

On 24 December 2009, WikiLeaks announced that it was experiencing a shortage of funds[88] and suspended all access to its website except for a form to submit new material.[89] Material that was previously published was no longer available, although some could still be accessed on unofficial mirrors.[90] WikiLeaks stated on its website that it would resume full operation once the operational costs were covered.[89] WikiLeaks saw this as a kind of strike “to ensure that everyone who is involved stops normal work and actually spends time raising revenue”.[36] While the organisation initially planned for funds to be secured by 6 January 2010,[91] it was not until 3 February 2010 that WikiLeaks announced that its minimum fundraising goal had been achieved.[92]

On 22 January 2010, PayPal suspended WikiLeaks’ donation account and froze its assets. WikiLeaks said that this had happened before, and was done for “no obvious reason”.[93] The account was restored on 25 January 2010.[94] On 18 May 2010, WikiLeaks announced that its website and archive were back up.[95]

In June 2010, WikiLeaks was a finalist for a grant of more than half a million dollars from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation,[22] but did not make the cut.[96] WikiLeaks commented via Twitter, “WikiLeaks was highest rated project in the Knight challenge, strongly recommended to the board but gets no funding. Go figure.”[97] WikiLeaks said that the Knight foundation announced the award to “’12 Grantees who will impact future of news’ – but not WikiLeaks” and questioned whether Knight foundation was “really looking for impact”.[96] A spokesman of the Knight Foundation disputed parts of WikiLeaks’ statement, saying “WikiLeaks was not recommended by Knight staff to the board.”[97] However, he declined to say whether WikiLeaks was the project rated highest by the Knight advisory panel, which consists of non-staffers, among them journalist Jennifer 8. Lee, who has done PR work for WikiLeaks with the press and on social networking sites.[97]

In 2010, WikiLeaks received €635,772.73 in PayPal donations, less €30,000 in PayPal fees, and €695,925.46 in bank transfers. €500,988.89 of the sum was received in the month of December, primarily as bank transfers as PayPal suspended payments December 4. €298,057.38 of the remainder was received in April.[98]

The Wau Holland Foundation, one of the WikiLeaks’ main funding channels, stated that they received more than €900,000 in public donations between October 2009 and December 2010, out of which €370,000 has been passed on to WikiLeaks. Hendrik Fulda, vice president of the Wau Holland Foundation, mentioned that the Foundation had been receiving twice as many donations through PayPal as through normal banks, before PayPal’s decision to suspend WikiLeaks’ account. He also noted that every new WikiLeaks publication brought “a wave of support”, and that donations were strongest in the weeks after WikiLeaks started publishing leaked diplomatic cables.[99][100]

On 15 June 2011, WikiLeaks began accepting donations in Bitcoin.[101][102][103]

[edit] Leaks

Main article: Information published by WikiLeaks

[edit] 2006–08

WikiLeaks posted its first document in December 2006, a decision to assassinate government officials signed by Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys.”[22] In August 2007, The Guardian published a story about corruption by the family of the former Kenyan leader Daniel arap Moi based on information provided via WikiLeaks.[104] In November 2007, a March 2003 copy of Standard Operating Procedures for Camp Delta detailing the protocol of the U.S. Army at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp was released.[105] The document revealed that some prisoners were off-limits to the International Committee of the Red Cross, something that the U.S. military had in the past repeatedly denied.[106] In February 2008, WikiLeaks released allegations of illegal activities at the Cayman Islands branch of the Swiss Bank Julius Baer, which led to the bank suing WikiLeaks and obtaining an injunction which temporarily shut down wikileaks.org.[107] The California judge had the service provider of WikiLeaks block the site’s domain (wikileaks.org) on 18 February 2008, although the bank only wanted the documents to be removed but WikiLeaks had failed to name a contact. The site was instantly mirrored by supporters, and later that month the judge overturned his previous decision citing First Amendment concerns and questions about legal jurisdiction.[108][109] In March 2008, WikiLeaks published what they referred to as “the collected secret ‘bibles’ of Scientology,” and three days later received letters threatening to sue them for breach of copyright.[110] In September 2008, during the 2008 United States presidential election campaigns, the contents of a Yahoo account belonging to Sarah Palin (the running mate of Republican presidential nominee John McCain) were posted on WikiLeaks after being hacked into by members of Anonymous.[111] In November 2008, the membership list of the far-right British National Party was posted to WikiLeaks, after briefly appearing on a blog.[112] A year later, on October 2009, another list of BNP members was leaked.[113]

[edit] 2009

In January 2009, WikiLeaks released 86 telephone intercept recordings of Peruvian politicians and businessmen involved in the 2008 Peru oil scandal.[114] In February, WikiLeaks released 6,780 Congressional Research Service reports[115] followed in March, by a list of contributors to the Norm Coleman senatorial campaign[116][117] and a set of documents belonging to Barclays Bank that had been ordered removed from the website of The Guardian.[118] In July, it released a report relating to a serious nuclear accident that had occurred at the Iranian Natanz nuclear facility in 2009.[119] Later media reports have suggested that the accident was related to the Stuxnet computer worm.[120][121] In September, internal documents from Kaupthing Bank were leaked, from shortly before the collapse of Iceland’s banking sector, which led to the 2008–2012 Icelandic financial crisis. The document shows that suspiciously large sums of money were loaned to various owners of the bank, and large debts written off.[122] In October, Joint Services Protocol 440, a British document advising the security services on how to avoid documents being leaked was published by WikiLeaks.[123] Later that month, it announced that a super-injunction was being used by the commodities company Trafigura to gag The Guardian (London) from reporting on a leaked internal document regarding a toxic dumping incident in the Ivory Coast.[124][125] In November, it hosted copies of e-mail correspondence between climate scientists, although they were not originally leaked to WikiLeaks.[126][127] It also released 570,000 intercepts of pager messages sent on the day of the 11 September attacks.[128] During 2008 and 2009, WikiLeaks published the alleged lists of forbidden or illegal web addresses for Australia, Denmark and Thailand. These were originally created to prevent access to child pornography and terrorism, but the leaks revealed that other sites covering unrelated subjects were also listed.[129][130][131]

[edit] 2010

In mid-February 2010, WikiLeaks received a diplomatic cable from the US Embassy in Reykjavik relating to the Icesave scandal, which they published on 18 February.[132] The cable, known as Reykjavik 13 was the first of the classified documents WikiLeaks published among those allegedly provided to them by US Army Private Bradley Manning. In March 2010, WikiLeaks released a secret 32-page U.S. Department of Defense Counterintelligence Analysis Report written in March 2008 discussing the leaking of material by WikiLeaks and how it could be deterred.[133][134][135] In April, a classified video of the 12 July 2007 Baghdad airstrike was released, showing two Reuters employees being fired at, after the pilots mistakenly thought the men were carrying weapons, which were in fact cameras.[136] In the week following the release, “wikileaks” was the search term with the most significant growth worldwide in the last seven days as measured by Google Insights.[137] In June 2010, Manning was arrested after alleged chat logs were turned in to the authorities by former hacker Adrian Lamo, in whom he had confided. Manning reportedly told Lamo he had leaked the “Collateral Murder” video, in addition to a video of the Granai airstrike and around 260,000 diplomatic cables, to WikiLeaks.[138] In July, WikiLeaks released 92,000 documents related to the war in Afghanistan between 2004 and the end of 2009 to The Guardian, The New York Times and Der Spiegel. The documents detail individual incidents including friendly fire and civilian casualties.[139] At the end of July, a 1.4 GB “insurance file” was added to the Afghan War Diary page, whose decryption details would be released if WikiLeaks or Assange were harmed.[82] About 15,000 of the 92,000 documents have not yet been released on WikiLeaks, as the group is currently reviewing the documents to remove some of the sources of the information. WikiLeaks asked the Pentagon and human-rights groups to help remove names from the documents to reduce the potential harm caused by their release, but did not receive assistance.[140] Following the Love Parade stampede in Duisburg, Germany, on 24 July 2010, a local resident published internal documents of the city administration regarding the planning of Love Parade. The city government reacted by securing a court order on 16 August forcing the removal of the documents from the site on which it was hosted.[141] On 20 August 2010, WikiLeaks released a publication entitled Loveparade 2010 Duisburg planning documents, 2007–2010, which comprised 43 internal documents regarding the Love Parade 2010.[142][143] Following on from the leak of information from the Afghan War, in October 2010, around 400,000 documents relating to the Iraq War were released. The BBC quoted The Pentagon referring to the Iraq War Logs as “the largest leak of classified documents in its history.” Media coverage of the leaked documents focused on claims that the U.S. government had ignored reports of torture by the Iraqi authorities during the period after the 2003 war.[144]

[edit] Diplomatic cables release

Main articles: United States diplomatic cables leak, contents, and reactions

On 28 November 2010, WikiLeaks and five major newspapers from Spain (El País), France (Le Monde), Germany (Der Spiegel), the United Kingdom (The Guardian), and the United States (The New York Times) started to simultaneously publish the first 220 of 251,287 leaked confidential—but not top-secret—diplomatic cables from 274 US embassies around the world, dated from 28 December 1966 to 28 February 2010.[145][146] WikiLeaks plans to release the entirety of the cables in phases over several months.[146]

The contents of the diplomatic cables include numerous unguarded comments and revelations regarding: critiques and praises about the host countries of various US embassies; political manoeuvring regarding climate change; discussion and resolutions towards ending ongoing tension in the Middle East; efforts and resistance towards nuclear disarmament; actions in the War on Terror; assessments of other threats around the world; dealings between various countries; US intelligence and counterintelligence efforts; and other diplomatic actions. Reactions to the United States diplomatic cables leak include stark criticism, anticipation, commendation, and quiescence. Consequent reactions to the US government include ridicule, sympathy, bewilderment and dismay. On 14 December 2010 the United States Department of Justice issued a subpoena directing Twitter to provide information for accounts registered to or associated with WikiLeaks.[147] Twitter decided to notify its users.[148] The overthrow of the presidency in Tunisia has been attributed in part to reaction against the corruption revealed by leaked cables.[149][150][151]

[edit] 2011–12

Main articles: Guantanamo Bay files leak, Global Intelligence Files leak, and Syria Files

In late April 2011, files related to the Guantanamo prison were released.[152] In December 2011, WikiLeaks started to release the Spy Files.[153] On 27 February 2012, WikiLeaks began publishing more than five million emails from the Texas-headquartered “global intelligence” company Stratfor.[154]

On 5 July 2012, WikiLeaks began publishing the Syria Files, more than two million emails from Syrian political figures, ministries and associated companies, dating from August 2006 to March 2012.[155]

[edit] Announcements of upcoming leaks

In May 2010, WikiLeaks said it had video footage of a massacre of civilians in Afghanistan by the US military which they were preparing to release.[156][157]

In an interview with Chris Anderson on 19 July 2010, Assange showed a document WikiLeaks had on an Albanian oil-well blowout, and said they also had material from inside BP,[158] and that they were “getting enormous quantity of whistle-blower disclosures of a very high calibre” but added that they had not been able to verify and release the material because they did not have enough volunteer journalists.[159]

In October 2010, Assange told a leading Moscow newspaper that “The Kremlin had better brace itself for a coming wave of WikiLeaks disclosures about Russia”.[160][161] Assange later clarified: “we have material on many businesses and governments, including in Russia. It’s not right to say there’s going to be a particular focus on Russia”.[162]

In a 2009 Computerworld interview, Assange claimed to be in possession of “5GB from Bank of America“. In 2010 he told Forbes magazine that WikiLeaks was planning another “megaleak” early in 2011, from inside the private sector, involving “a big U.S. bank” and revealing an “ecosystem of corruption”. Bank of America’s stock price fell by 3% as a result of this announcement.[163][164] Assange commented on the possible impact of the release that “it could take down a bank or two.”[165][166]

In December 2010, Assange’s lawyer, Mark Stephens, told The Andrew Marr Show on BBC Television that WikiLeaks had information it considered to be a “thermo-nuclear device” which it would release if the organisation needs to defend itself against the authorities.[167]

In January 2011, Rudolf Elmer, a former Swiss banker, passed on data containing account details of 2,000 prominent people to Assange, who stated that the information will be vetted before being made publicly available at a later date.[168]

[edit] Backlash and pressure

A truck bearing a slogan and WikiLeaks logo as a prop at the Occupy Wall Street protest in New York on 25 September 2011

[edit] Operational challenges

Assange has acknowledged that the practice of posting largely unfiltered classified information online could one day lead the website to have “blood on our hands.”[22][169] He expressed the view that the potential to save lives, however, outweighs the danger to innocents.[170] Furthermore, WikiLeaks has highlighted independent investigations which have failed to find any evidence of civilians harmed as a result of WikiLeaks’ activities.[171][172] A surveillance-resistant social network, FoWL (Friends of WikiLeaks), was launched by the organization in June 2012[173] by way of advocacy.

[edit] Response from media

Chinese journalist Shi Tao was sentenced to 10 years in 2005 after publicising an email from Chinese officials about the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre.[174] An article in The New Yorker said:

One of the WikiLeaks activists owned a server that was being used as a node for the Tor network. Millions of secret transmissions passed through it. The activist noticed that hackers from China were using the network to gather foreign governments’ information, and began to record this traffic. Only a small fraction has ever been posted on WikiLeaks, but the initial tranche served as the site’s foundation, and Assange was able to say, “[w]e have received over one million documents from thirteen countries.”[22][175]

Assange responded to the suggestion that eavesdropping on Chinese hackers played a crucial part in the early days of WikiLeaks by saying “the imputation is incorrect. The facts concern a 2006 investigation into Chinese espionage one of our contacts was involved in. Somewhere between none and handful of those documents were ever released on WikiLeaks. Non-government targets of the Chinese espionage, such as Tibetan associations were informed (by us)”.[176]

[edit] Response from governments

[edit] Australia

On 16 March 2009, the Australian Communications and Media Authority added WikiLeaks to their proposed blacklist of sites that will be blocked for all Australians if the mandatory internet filtering censorship scheme is implemented as planned.[177][178] The blacklisting had been removed by 29 November 2010.[179]

[edit] People’s Republic of China

The WikiLeaks website claims that the government of the People’s Republic of China has attempted to block all traffic to web sites with “wikileaks” in the URL since 2007, but that this can be bypassed through encrypted connections or by using one of WikiLeaks’ many covert URLs.[180]

[edit] Germany

The home of Theodor Reppe, registrant of the German WikiLeaks domain name, wikileaks.de, was raided on 24 March 2009 after WikiLeaks released the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) censorship blacklist.[181] The site was not affected.[182][183]

[edit] Iceland

After the release of the 2007 airstrikes video and as they prepared to release film of the Granai airstrike, Julian Assange has said that his group of volunteers came under intense surveillance. In an interview and Twitter posts he said that a restaurant in Reykjavík where his group of volunteers met came under surveillance in March; that there was “covert following and hidden photography” by police and foreign intelligence services; that an apparent British intelligence agent made thinly veiled threats in a Luxembourg car park; and that one of the volunteers was detained by police for 21 hours. Another volunteer posted that computers were seized, saying “If anything happens to us, you know why … and you know who is responsible.”[184] According to the Columbia Journalism Review, “the Icelandic press took a look at Assange’s charges of being surveilled in Iceland […] and, at best, have found nothing to substantiate them.”[185]

In August 2009, Kaupthing Bank secured a court order preventing Iceland’s national broadcaster, RÚV, from broadcasting a risk analysis report showing the bank’s substantial exposure to debt default risk. This information had been leaked by a whistleblower to WikiLeaks and remained available on the WikiLeaks site; faced with an injunction minutes before broadcast, the channel ran with a screen grab of the WikiLeaks site instead of the scheduled piece on the bank. Citizens of Iceland were reported to be outraged that RÚV was prevented from broadcasting news of relevance.[186] Therefore, WikiLeaks has been credited with inspiring the Icelandic Modern Media Initiative, a bill meant to reclaim Iceland’s 2007 Reporters Without Borders (Reporters sans frontières) ranking as first in the world for free speech. It aims to enact a range of protections for sources, journalists, and publishers.[187][188] Birgitta Jónsdóttir, a former WikiLeaks volunteer and member of the Icelandic parliament, is the chief sponsor of the proposal.

[edit] Thailand

The Centre for the Resolution of the Emergency Situation (CRES) is currently censoring the WikiLeaks website in Thailand[189] and more than 40,000 other webpages[190] because of the emergency decree declared in Thailand at the beginning of April 2010 as a result of political instabilities.[191]

[edit] United States

On 17 July 2010, Jacob Appelbaum spoke on behalf of WikiLeaks at the Hackers on Planet Earth conference in New York City, replacing Assange because of the presence of federal agents at the conference.[192][193] He announced that the WikiLeaks submission system was again up and running, after it had been temporarily suspended.[192][194][195] Assange was a surprise speaker at a TED conference on 19 July 2010 in Oxford, and confirmed that the site had begun accepting submissions again.[158]

Upon returning to the US from the Netherlands, on 29 July, Appelbaum was detained for three hours at the airport by US agents, according to anonymous sources.[196] The sources told Cnet that Appelbaum’s bag was searched, receipts from his bag were photocopied, and his laptop was inspected, although in what manner was unclear.[196] Appelbaum reportedly refused to answer questions without a lawyer present, and was not allowed to make a phone call. His three mobile phones were reportedly taken and not returned.[196] On 31 July, he spoke at a Defcon conference and mentioned his phone being “seized”. After speaking, he was approached by two FBI agents and questioned.[196]

Access to WikiLeaks is currently blocked in the United States Library of Congress.[197] On 3 December 2010 the White House Office of Management and Budget sent a memo forbidding all unauthorised federal government employees and contractors from accessing classified documents publicly available on WikiLeaks and other websites.[198] The U.S. Army, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Justice Department are considering criminally prosecuting WikiLeaks and Assange “on grounds they encouraged the theft of government property”,[199] although former prosecutors say doing so would be difficult.[70] According to a report on the Daily Beast website, the Obama administration asked Britain, Germany, and Australia among others to also consider bringing criminal charges against Assange for the Afghan war leaks and to help limit Assange’s travels across international borders.[200] Columbia University students have been warned by their Office of Career Services that the U.S. State Department had contacted the office in an email saying that the diplomatic cables which were released by WikiLeaks were “still considered classified” and that “online discourse about the documents ‘would call into question your ability to deal with confidential information.'”[201]

All U.S. federal government staff have been blocked from viewing WikiLeaks.[202]

As in individual responses, government officials had mixed feelings. Although Hillary Clinton refused to comment on specific reports, she claimed that the leaks “put people’s lives in danger” and “threatens national security.”[21] Former United States Secretary of Defense Robert Gates commented, “Is this embarrassing? Yes. Is it awkward? Yes. Consequences for U.S. foreign policy? I think fairly modest.”[21]

[edit] Response from corporations

[edit] Facebook

WikiLeaks claimed in April 2010 that Facebook deleted its fan page, which had 30,000 fans.[203][204][205] However, as of 7 December 2010 the group’s Facebook fan page was available and had grown by 100,000 fans daily since 1 December,[206] to more than 1.6 million fans. It was also the largest growth of the week.[207] Regarding the presence of WikiLeaks on Facebook, Andrew Noyes, the company’s D.C.-based Manager of Public Policy Communications, has stated “the Wikileaks Facebook Page does not violate our content standards nor have we encountered any material posted on the page that violates our policies.”[208]

[edit] U.S. diplomatic cables leak responses

According to The Times (London), WikiLeaks and its members have complained about continuing harassment and surveillance by law enforcement and intelligence organisations, including extended detention, seizure of computers, veiled threats, “covert following and hidden photography.”[156] Two lawyers for Julian Assange in the United Kingdom told The Guardian that they believed they were being watched by the security services after the U.S. cables leak, which started on 28 November 2010.[209]

Furthermore, several companies severed ties with WikiLeaks. After providing 24-hour notification, American-owned EveryDNS dropped WikiLeaks from its entries on 2 December 2010, citing DDoS attacks that “threatened the stability of its infrastructure”.[38][210] The site’s ‘info’ DNS lookup remained operational at alternative addresses for direct access respectively to the WikiLeaks and Cablegate websites.[211] On the same day, Amazon.com severed its ties with WikiLeaks, to which it was providing infrastructure services, after an intervention by an aide of U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman.[212][213][214] Amazon denied acting under political pressure, citing a violation of its terms of service.[215] Citing indirect pressure from the U.S. Government, Tableau Software also dropped WikiLeaks’ data from its site for people to use for data visualisation.[216][217]

In the days following, hundreds of (and eventually more than a thousand)[218] mirrors of the WikiLeaks site appeared, and the Anonymous group of Internet activists called on supporters to attack the websites of companies which opposed WikiLeaks,[219] under the banner of Operation Payback, previously aimed at anti-piracy organisations.[220] AFP reported that attempts to shut down the wikileaks.org address had led to the site surviving via the so-called Streisand effect, whereby attempts to censor information online leads to it being replicated in many places.[221]

On 3 December, PayPal, the payment processor owned by eBay, permanently cut off the account of the Wau Holland Foundation that had been redirecting donations to WikiLeaks. PayPal alleged that the account violated its “Acceptable Use Policy”, specifically that the account was used for “activities that encourage, promote, facilitate or instruct others to engage in illegal activity.”[222][223] The Vice President of PayPal later stated that they stopped accepting payments after the “State Department told us these were illegal activities. It was straightforward.” Later the same day, he said that his previous statement was incorrect, and that it was in fact based on a letter from the State Department to WikiLeaks.[224] On 8 December 2010, the Wau Holland Foundation released a press statement, saying it has filed a legal action against PayPal for blocking its account used for WikiLeaks payments and for libel due to PayPal’s allegations of “illegal activity”.[225]

On 6 December, the Swiss bank PostFinance announced that it had frozen the assets of Assange that it holds, totalling €31,000. In a statement on its website, it stated that this was because Assange “provided false information regarding his place of residence” when opening the account.[226] WikiLeaks released a statement saying this was because Assange, “as a homeless refugee attempting to gain residency in Switzerland, had used his lawyer’s address in Geneva for the bank’s correspondence”.[227]

On the same day, MasterCard announced that it was “taking action to ensure that WikiLeaks can no longer accept MasterCard-branded products”, adding “MasterCard rules prohibit customers from directly or indirectly engaging in or facilitating any action that is illegal.”[228] The next day, Visa Inc. announced it was suspending payments to WikiLeaks, pending “further investigations”.[229] In a move of support for WikiLeaks, XIPWIRE established a way to donate to WikiLeaks, and waived their fees.[230] Datacell, the Swiss-based IT company that enabled WikiLeaks to accept credit card donations, announced that it would take legal action against Visa Europe and Mastercard, in order to resume allowing payments to the website.[231]

On 7 December 2010, The Guardian stated that people could donate to WikiLeaks via Commerzbank in Kassel, Germany, or Landsbanki in Iceland, or by post to a post office box at the University of Melbourne or at the wikileaks.ch domain.[232]

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay stated that Visa, Mastercard, and Amazon may be “violating WikiLeaks’ right to freedom of expression” by withdrawing their services.[233]

On 21 December, media reported that Apple had removed an application from its App Store, which provided access to the embassy cable leaks.[234]

As part of its ‘Initial Assessments Pursuant to … WikiLeaks’, the US Presidential Executive Office has issued a memorandum to the heads of Executive Departments and Agencies asking whether they have an ‘insider threat program’.[235][236]

On 14 July 2011 WikiLeaks and DataCell Ltd. of Iceland filed a complaint against the international card companies, VISA Europe and MasterCard Europe, for infringement of the antitrust rules of the EU, in response to their withdrawal of financial services to the organisation. In a joint press release, the organisations stated: “The closure by VISA Europe and MasterCard of Datcell‘s access to the payment card networks in order to stop donations to WikiLeaks violates the competition rules of the European Community.”[237]

[edit] Response from the financial industry

Since the publications of CableGate, WikiLeaks has faced an unprecedented global financial blockade by major finance companies including Mastercard, Visa and PayPal although there has been no legal accusation of any wrongdoing.

In October 2010, it was reported that Moneybookers, which collected donations for WikiLeaks, had ended its relationship with the site. Moneybookers stated that its decision had been made “to comply with money laundering or other investigations conducted by government authorities, agencies or commissions.”[238]

On 18 December 2010, Bank of America announced it would “not process transactions of any type that we have reason to believe are intended for Wikileaks,” citing “Wikileaks might be engaged in activities … inconsistent with our internal policies for processing payments”. WikiLeaks responded in a tweet by encouraging their supporters who were BoA customers to close their accounts. Bank of America has long been believed to be the target of WikiLeaks’ next major release.[239]

Late in 2010, Bank of America approached the law firm of Hunton & Williams to put a stop to WikiLeaks. Hunton & Williams assembled a group of security specialists, HBGary Federal, Palantir Technologies, and Berico Technologies.

During 5 and 6 February 2011, Anonymous hacked HBGary’s web site, copied tens of thousands of documents from HBGary, posted tens of thousands of company emails online, and usurped Barr’s Twitter account in revenge. Some of the documents taken by Anonymous show HBGary Federal was working on behalf of Bank of America to respond to WikiLeaks’ planned release of the bank’s internal documents. Emails detailed a supposed business proposal by HBGary to assist Bank of America’s law firm, Hunton & Williams, and revealed that the companies were willing to break the law to bring down WikiLeaks and Anonymous.

“CEO Aaron Barr thought he’d uncovered the hackers’ identities and like rats, they’d scurry for cover. If he could nail them, he could cover up the crimes H&W, HBGary, and BoA planned, bring down WikiLeaks, decapitate Anonymous, and place his opponents in prison while collecting a cool fee. He thought he was 88% right; he was 88% wrong.”[240]

In October 2011 Julian Assange said the financial blockade had destroyed 95% of WikiLeaks’ revenues and announced that it was suspending publishing operations in order to focus on fighting the blockade and raising new funds.[241]

On 18 July 2012 Wikileaks, shunned by the financial industry and almost broke, announced that it had found a new way to accept donations again. Accordingly, the Fund for the Defense of Net Neutrality (FDNN) had agreed to channel contributions via Carte Bleue, and WikiLeaks claimed that contractual obligation would prevent Visa and MasterCard to block participation in such transactions.[242]

[edit] Internal conflicts

[edit] Restructuring

Some supporters were unhappy[citation needed] when WikiLeaks moved from a community-based Wiki model to a more centralised organisational structure. The “about” page originally read:[243]

To the user, WikiLeaks will look very much like Wikipedia. Anybody can post to it, anybody can edit it. No technical knowledge is required. Leakers can post documents anonymously and untraceably. Users can publicly discuss documents and analyze their credibility and veracity. Users can discuss interpretations and context and collaboratively formulate collective publications. Users can read and write explanatory articles on leaks along with background material and context. The political relevance of documents and their verisimilitude will be revealed by a cast of thousands.

However, WikiLeaks established an editorial policy that accepted only documents that were “of political, diplomatic, historical or ethical interest” (and excluded “material that is already publicly available”).[244] This coincided with early criticism that having no editorial policy would drive out good material with spam and promote “automated or indiscriminate publication of confidential records.”[245] It is no longer possible for anybody to post to it or edit it, in any country, as the original FAQ promised. Instead, submissions are regulated by an internal review process and some are published, while documents not fitting the editorial criteria are rejected by anonymous WikiLeaks reviewers. By 2008, the revised FAQ stated that “Anybody can post comments to it. […] Users can publicly discuss documents and analyse their credibility and veracity.”[246] After the 2010 relaunch, posting new comments on leaks was no longer possible.[28]

[edit] Defections

Within WikiLeaks, there has been public disagreement between founder and spokesperson Julian Assange and Daniel Domscheit-Berg, the site’s former German representative who was suspended by Assange. Domscheit-Berg announced on 28 September 2010 that he was leaving the organisation due to internal conflicts over management of the site.[86][247][248]

Julian Assange (left) with Daniel Domscheit-Berg. Domscheit-Berg was ejected from WikiLeaks and started a rival whistleblower organisation named OpenLeaks.

On 25 September 2010, after being suspended by Assange for “disloyalty, insubordination and destabilization”, Daniel Domscheit-Berg, the German spokesman for WikiLeaks, told Der Spiegel that he was resigning, saying “WikiLeaks has a structural problem. I no longer want to take responsibility for it, and that’s why I am leaving the project”.[249][250][251] Assange accused Domscheit-Berg of leaking information to Newsweek, claiming the WikiLeaks team was unhappy with Assange’s leadership and handling of the Afghan war document releases.[251] Domscheit-Berg left with a small group to start OpenLeaks.com, a new leak organisation and website with a different management and distribution philosophy.[249][252]

While leaving, Daniel Domscheit-Berg copied and then deleted roughly 3,500 unpublished documents from the WikiLeaks servers,[253] including information on the US government’s ‘no-fly list’ and inside information from 20 right wing organizations, and accordingly to a WikiLeaks statement, 5 gigabytes of data relating to Bank of America, the internal communications of 20 neo-Nazi organisations and US intercept information for “over a hundred internet companies.”[254] In Domscheit-Berg’s book he wrote: “To this day, we are waiting for Julian to restore security, so that we can return the material to him, which was on the submission platform”.[255] In August 2011, Domscheit-Berg permanently deleted the files for which he claimed “in order to ensure that the sources are not compromised”.[256]

Herbert Snorrason, a 25-year old Icelandic university student, resigned after he challenged Assange on his decision to suspend Domscheit-Berg and was bluntly rebuked.[251] Iceland MP Birgitta Jónsdóttir also left WikiLeaks, citing lack of transparency, lack of structure, and poor communication flow in the organisation.[257] According to The Independent (London), at least a dozen key supporters of WikiLeaks left the website in 2010.[258]

[edit] Reception

Main article: Reception of WikiLeaks

WikiLeaks has received praise as well as criticism. The organisation has won a number of awards, including The Economist‘s New Media Award in 2008 at the Index on Censorship Awards[259] and Amnesty International‘s UK Media Award in 2009.[260][261] In 2010, the New York Daily News listed WikiLeaks first among websites “that could totally change the news”,[262] and Julian Assange received the Sam Adams Award[263] and was named the Readers’ Choice for TIME’s Person of the Year in 2010.[264] The UK Information Commissioner has stated that “WikiLeaks is part of the phenomenon of the online, empowered citizen”.[265] In its first days, an Internet petition calling for the cessation of extra-judicial intimidation of WikiLeaks attracted over six hundred thousand signatures.[266] Supporters of WikiLeaks in the media and academia have commended it for exposing state and corporate secrets, increasing transparency, supporting freedom of the press, and enhancing democratic discourse while challenging powerful institutions.[267][268][269][270][271][272][273]

At the same time, several U.S. government officials have criticized WikiLeaks for exposing classified information and claimed that the leaks harm national security and compromise international diplomacy.[274][275][276][277][278] Several human rights organisations requested with respect to earlier document releases that WikiLeaks adequately redact the names of civilians working with international forces, in order to prevent repercussions.[279] Some journalists have likewise criticised a perceived lack of editorial discretion when releasing thousands of documents at once and without sufficient analysis.[280] In response to some of the negative reaction, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has expressed her concern over the “cyber war” against WikiLeaks,[281] and in a joint statement with the Organization of American States the UN Special Rapporteur has called on states and other actors to keep international legal principles in mind.[282] According to journalist Catherine A. Fitzpatrick, WikiLeaks is motivated by “a theory of anarchy,” not a theory of journalism or social activism.[283]

[edit] Spin-offs

Releases of US diplomatic cables inspired the creation of a number of other organisations based on the WikiLeaks model.[284]

  • OpenLeaks was created by a former WikiLeaks spokesperson. Daniel Domscheit-Berg said the intention was to be more transparent than WikiLeaks. OpenLeaks was supposed to start public operations in early 2011 but despite much media coverage it is still not functioning.
  • In December 2011, Wikileaks launched Friends of Wikileaks, a social network for supporters and founders of the platform.[285]
  • Brussels Leaks was focused on the European Union as a collaborative effort of media professionals and activists that sought to “pull the shady inner workings of the EU system out into the public domain. This is about getting important information out there, not about Brusselsleaks [or any other ‘leaks’ for that matter].”
  • TradeLeaks was created to “do to trade and commerce what WikiLeaks has done to politics.” It was founded by Australian Ruslan Kogan. Its goal is to ensure “individuals and businesses should attain values from others through mutually beneficial and fully consensual trade, rather than force, fraud or deception.” Unfortunately the site itself appears to have become discounted by its users, as evidenced by the highest rated article being “Tradeleaks tampering with leak vote count mechanism”.
  • Balkan Leaks was founded by Bulgarian Atanas Chobanov in order to make the Balkans more transparent and to fight corruption as “There are plenty of people out there that want to change the Balkans for good and are ready to take on the challenge. We’re offering them a hand.”
  • Indoleaks is an Indonesian site that seeks to publish classified documents primarily from the Indonesian government.
  • RuLeaks is aimed at being a Russian equivalent to WikiLeaks. It was originally launched to provide translated versions of the WikiLeaks cables but the Moscow Times reports it has started to publish its own content as well.[286]
  • PPLeaks and PSOELeaks are related to the Spanish Partido Popular and PSOE leaks and scandals.
  • Leakymails is a project designed to obtain and publish relevant documents exposing corruption of the political class and the powerful in Argentina.[287][288][289]
  • Honest Appalachia,[290] launched in January 2012, is a website based in the United States which hopes to reach out to potential whistleblowers in West Virginia, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee and North Carolina, and serve as a replicable model for similar projects elsewhere.[291][292]

[edit] See also

Portal icon Freedom of speech portal
Portal icon Internet portal
Portal icon Politics portal

[edit] Notes

  1. ^a As of 15 March 2011 (2011 -03-15)[update], the wikileaks.org domain redirected to mirror.wikileaks.info, a domain which is not included in the official list of mirrors. As of 10 June 2011 (2011 -06-10)[update], until wikileaks.org became accessible once again, wikileaks.ch[293][294] served as the official website.

[edit] References

  1. ^ WikiLeaks mirrors
  2. ^ a b About. Wikileaks.org. Retrieved on 22 November 2011.
  3. ^ a b “Whois Search Results: wikileaks.org”. GoDaddy.com. http://who.godaddy.com/WhoIs.aspx?domain=wikileaks.org&isc=ALEXADOM. Retrieved 10 December 2010. 
  4. ^ “Wikileaks.org Site Info”. Alexa Internet. http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/wikileaks.org. Retrieved 2012-08-13. 
  5. ^ Chatriwala, Omar (5 April 2010). “WikiLeaks vs the Pentagon”. Al Jazeera blog. http://blogs.aljazeera.net/category/company/sunshine-press. Retrieved 27 January 2011. 
  6. ^ “Wikileaks has 1.2 million documents?”. WikiLeaks. Archived from the original on 16 February 2008. http://web.archive.org/web/20080216000537/http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Wikileaks:About#Wikileaks_has_1.2_million_documents.3F. Retrieved 28 February 2008. 
  7. ^ McGreal, Chris (5 April 2010). “Wikileaks reveals video showing US air crew shooting down Iraqi civilians”. The Guardian (London). http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/05/wikileaks-us-army-iraq-attack. Retrieved 15 December 2010. 
  8. ^ http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/life/article3114254.ece
  9. ^ Wikileaks sets up shop in Iceland – Heated pavements far nicer than Gitmo | TechEye. News.techeye.net (15 November 2010). Retrieved on 22 November 2011.
  10. ^ Wikileaks starts company in Icelandic apartment | IceNews – Daily News. Icenews.is (13 November 2010). Retrieved on 22 November 2011.
  11. ^ Channing, Joseph (9 September 2007). “Wikileaks Releases Secret Report on Military Equipment”. The New York Sun. http://www.nysun.com/foreign/wikileaks-releases-secret-report-on-military/62236/. Retrieved 28 February 2008. 
  12. ^ “WikiLeaks to publish new documents”. MSNBC. Associated Press. 7 August 2010. Archived from the original on 5 December 2010. http://www.webcitation.org/5ukvPaEhj. Retrieved 5 December 2010. 
  13. ^ Rogers, Simon (23 October 2010). “Wikileaks Iraq: data journalism maps every death”. The Guardian (London). http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/oct/23/wikileaks-iraq-data-journalism. Retrieved 26 July 2012. 
  14. ^ Rogers, Simon (25 October 2010). “Wikileaks Iraq: what’s wrong with the data?”. The Guardian (London). http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/oct/25/wikileaks-iraq-data. Retrieved 26 July 2012. 
  15. ^ Leigh, David; Ball, James; Burke, Jason (25 April 2011). “Guantánamo files lift lid on world’s most controversial prison”. The Guardian (London). http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/25/guantanamo-files-lift-lid-prison. Retrieved 25 April 2011. 
  16. ^ Guardian journalist negligently disclosed Cablegate passwords. Wikileaks.org. Retrieved on 5 September 2011.
  17. ^ WikiLeaks prepares to release unredacted US cables|Media|guardian.co.uk. Guardian. Retrieved on 5 September 2011.
  18. ^ Leak at WikiLeaks: A Dispatch Disaster in Six Acts – SPIEGEL ONLINE – News – International. Spiegel.de. Retrieved on 5 September 2011.
  19. ^ Exposed: Uncensored WikiLeaks cables posted to Web Raphael G. Satter, Associated Press, 1 September 2011, At Physorg.com
  20. ^ WikiLeaks Blames Newspaper for Uncensored Cable Leak Voice of America, 1 September 2011
  21. ^ a b c Calabresi, Massimo (2 December 2010). “WikiLeaks’ War on Secrecy: Truth’s Consequences”. Time (New York). http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2034276-3,00.html. Retrieved 19 December 2010. “Reportedly spurred by the leak of the Pentagon papers, Assange unveiled WikiLeaks in December 2006.” 
  22. ^ a b c d e Khatchadourian, Raffi (7 June 2010). “No Secrets: Julian Assange’s Mission for total transparency”. The New Yorker. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/06/07/100607fa_fact_khatchadourian?printable=true. Retrieved 8 June 2010. 
  23. ^ Guilliatt, Richard (30 May 2009). “Rudd Government blacklist hacker monitors police”. The Australian (Sydney). http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/rudd-government-blacklist-hacker-monitors-police/story-e6frg8yx-1225718288350. Retrieved 17 June 2010. 
  24. ^ Burns, John F.; Somaiya, Ravi (23 October 2010). “WikiLeaks Founder on the Run, Trailed by Notoriety”. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/24/world/24assange.html. Retrieved 19 December 2010. 
  25. ^ a b “Wikileaks:About”. WikiLeaks. Archived from the original on 14 March 2008. http://web.archive.org/web/20080314204422/http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Wikileaks:About. Retrieved 3 June 2009. 
  26. ^ Rintoul, Stuart (9 December 2010). “WikiLeaks advisory board ‘pretty clearly window-dressing'”. The Australian (Sydney). http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/wikileaks-advisory-board-pretty-clearly-window-dressing/story-e6frg6nf-1225967895242. Retrieved 18 December 2010. 
  27. ^ Inside WikiLeaks’ Leak Factory. Mother Jones (6 April 2010). Retrieved on 22 November 2011.
  28. ^ a b Gilson, Dave (19 May 2010). “WikiLeaks Gets A Facelift”. Mother Jones (San Francisco). http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/05/wikileaks-assange-returns. Retrieved 17 June 2010. 
  29. ^ “Difficult relationship between WikiLeaks and Wikipedia”. The Signpost (Wikipedia). 6 September 2010. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-09-06/In_the_news. Retrieved 1 December 2010. 
  30. ^ “Wikipedia:WikiLeaks is not part of Wikipedia”. Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiLeaks_is_not_part_of_Wikipedia. Retrieved 1 December 2010. 
  31. ^ Rawlinson, Kevin; Peck, Tom (30 August 2010). “Wiki giants on a collision course over shared name”. The Independent (London). http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/online/wiki-giants-on-a-collision-course-over-shared-name-2065561.html. Retrieved 1 December 2010. 
  32. ^ “Press:Wikia Does Not Own Wikileaks Domain Names”. Wikia. Wikia. http://www.wikia.com/Press:Wikia_Does_Not_Own_Wikileaks_Domain_Names. Retrieved 13 December 2010. 
  33. ^ “Exclusive – Julian Assange Extended Interview”. Colbert Nation. 12 April 2010. http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/260785/april-12-2010/exclusive—julian-assange-extended-interview
  34. ^ a b Bradner, Scott (17 January 2007). “Wikileaks: a site for exposure”. Network World (Framingham, MA). http://www.networkworld.com/columnists/2007/011706bradner.html?page=1. Retrieved 19 December 2010. 
  35. ^ “How to be a Whistle Blower”. Unknowncountry.com. 17 January 2007. http://www.unknowncountry.com/news/how-be-whistle-blower. Retrieved 17 December 2010. 
  36. ^ a b c d e Mey, Stefan (4 January 2010). “Leak-o-nomy: The Economy of Wikileaks (Interview with Julian Assange)”. Medien-Ökonomie-Blog. http://stefanmey.wordpress.com/2010/01/04/leak-o-nomy-the-economy-of-wikileaks/. Retrieved 19 December 2010. 
  37. ^ Moss, Stephen (14 July 2010). “Julian Assange: the whistleblower”. The Guardian (London). http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/jul/14/julian-assange-whistleblower-wikileaks. Retrieved 7 December 2010. 
  38. ^ a b Satter, Raphael G.; Peter Svensson (3 December 2010). “WikiLeaks fights to stay online amid attacks”. Bloomberg BusinessWeek (Bloomberg Businessweek). Archived from the original on 4 December 2010. http://web.archive.org/web/20101204043730/http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9JSHKUG0.htm. Retrieved 14 March 2012. 
  39. ^ Randall, David; Cooper, Charlie (5 December 2010). “WikiLeaks hit by new online onslaught”. The Independent (London). http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/wikileaks-hit-by-new-online-onslaught-2151570.html. Retrieved 4 December 2010. 
  40. ^ a b Goodwin, Dan (21 February 2008). “Wikileaks judge gets Pirate Bay treatment”. The Register (London). http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/21/wikileaks_bulletproof_hosting/. Retrieved 7 December 2010. 
  41. ^ “Pentagon-papirer sikret i atom-bunker” (in Norwegian). VG Nett (Oslo). 27 August 2010. http://www.vg.no/nyheter/utenriks/artikkel.php?artid=10018210. Retrieved 6 December 2010. 
  42. ^ Greenberg, Andy (30 August 2010). “Wikileaks Servers Move To Underground Nuclear Bunker”. Forbes (blog). http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenberg/2010/08/30/wikileaks-servers-move-to-underground-nuclear-bunker/?boxes=businesschanneltopstories. Retrieved 6 December 2010. 
  43. ^ a b Fredén, Jonas (14 August 2010). “Jagad och hatad – men han vägrar vika sig [Chased and hated – but he refuses to give way]” (in Swedish). Dagens Nyheter (Stockholm). http://www.dn.se/nyheter/varlden/jagad-och-hatad-men-han-vagrar-vika-sig-1.1153725
  44. ^ Helin, Jan (14 August 2010). “Därför blir Julian Assange kolumnist i Aftonbladet” (in Swedish). Aftonbladet (blog) (Stockholm). http://blogg.aftonbladet.se/janhelin/2010/08/darfor-blir-julian-assange-kolumnist-i-aftonbladet. Retrieved 15 August 2010. 
  45. ^ “What is WikiLeaks?”. This Just In (CNN blog). 25 July 2010. http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/25/what-is-wikileaks/?iref=storysearch. Retrieved 6 August 2010. 
  46. ^ TT (17 August 2010). “Piratpartiet sköter Wikileak-servrar [Pirate Party manages Wikileaks Servers]” (in Swedish). Dagens Nyheter (Stockholm). http://www.dn.se/nyheter/sverige/piratpartiet-skoter-wikileak-servrar-1.1155285. Retrieved 22 October 2010. 
  47. ^ “Swedish Pirate Party to host WikiLeaks servers”. CNN. 18 August 2010. http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/08/18/sweden.wikileaks/#fbid=zfd5Igi2Lea&wom=false. Retrieved 21 August 2010. 
  48. ^ a b Gross, Doug (2 December 2010). “WikiLeaks cut off from Amazon servers”. CNN. http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/12/01/wikileaks.amazon/index.html?eref=edition. Retrieved 2 December 2010. 
  49. ^ Hennigan, W.J. (2 December 2010). “Amazon says it dumped WikiLeaks because it put innocent people in jeopardy”. Technology blog, Los Angeles Times. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2010/12/amazon-wikileaks-servers.html. Retrieved 23 December 2010. 
  50. ^ Poncet, Guerric (3 December 2010). “Expulsé d’Amazon, WikiLeaks trouve refuge en France” (in French). Le Point (Paris). http://www.lepoint.fr/high-tech-internet/expulse-d-amazon-wikileaks-s-installe-en-france-02-12-2010-1270137_47.php
  51. ^ “French company allowed to keep hosting WikiLeaks”. Bloomberg BusinessWeek (Bloomberg L.P.). 8 December 2010. http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9JVNO8O0.htm. Retrieved 14 March 2012. 
  52. ^ “French web host need not shut down WikiLeaks site: judge”. France 24. AFP. 6 December 2010. http://www.france24.com/en/20101206-french-web-host-need-not-shut-down-wikileaks-site-judge. Retrieved 8 December 2010. 
  53. ^ “Submissions”. WikiLeaks. http://wikileaks.org/Submissions.html. Retrieved 14 March 2012. “You can also use secure TOR network (secure, anonymous, distributed network for maximum security)” 
  54. ^ “Wikileaks / WL Central”. WL Central. http://wlcentral.org/node/1572. Retrieved 14 March 2012. “Between 2006 and October 2010, Wikileaks site was based on an implementation of the Mediawiki software (hence the name, Wikileaks). In October the site was taken down, and when Wikileaks returned, the new site (above) replaced the Mediawiki site.” 
  55. ^ McLachlan, John; Hopper, Nicholas (2009). “On the risks of serving whenever you surf”. freehaven.net. http://www.freehaven.net/anonbib/cache/wpes09-bridge-attack.pdf. Retrieved 17 June 2010. 
  56. ^ “Julian Assange compte demander l’asile en Suisse” (in French). TSR (Geneva). 4 November 2010. http://www.tsr.ch/info/suisse/2657308-julian-assange-compte-demander-l-asile-en-suisse.html
  57. ^ Nebehay, Stephanie (4 November 2010). “WikiLeaks founder says may seek Swiss asylum”. Reuters. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6A369920101104
  58. ^ “WikiLeaks-Gründer erwägt Umzug in die Schweiz” (in German). ORF (Vienna). 5 November 2010. http://news.orf.at/stories/2023751/
  59. ^ “WikiLeaks Founder to Release Thousands of Documents on Lebanon”. Al-Manar TV (Al-Manar). 5 November 2010. Archived from the original on 13 November 2010. http://web.archive.org/web/20101113051102/http://www.almanar.com.lb/NewsSite/NewsDetails.aspx?id=161016&language=en. Retrieved 14 March 2012. 
  60. ^ Ladurantaye, Steve (8 December 2010). “Canadian firm caught up in Wiki wars”. The Globe and Mail (Toronto). http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/canadian-firm-caught-up-in-wiki-wars/article1830732/. Retrieved 9 December 2010. 
  61. ^ Trapido, Michael (1 December 2010). “Wikileaks: Is Julian Assange a hero, villain or simply dangerously naïve?”. NewsTime (Johannesburg). http://www.newstime.co.za/WorldNews/Wikileaks_:_Is_Julian_Assange_a_hero_villain_or_simply_dangerously_na%C3%AFve/16065/. Retrieved 18 December 2010. 
  62. ^ “Frequently Asked Questions”. WikiLeaks. Archived from the original on 1 July 2007. http://web.archive.org/web/20070701115958/http://wikileaks.org/faq-en. Retrieved 17 June 2010. 
  63. ^ a b Kushner, David (6 April 2010). “Inside WikiLeaks’ Leak Factory”. Mother Jones (San Francisco). http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/04/wikileaks-julian-assange-iraq-video?page=3. Retrieved 30 April 2010. 
  64. ^ Light, Gilead (26 August 2010). “The WikiLeaks story and criminal liability under the espionage laws”. The Great Debate (blog) (Reuters). http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2010/08/26/the-wikileaks-story-and-criminal-liability-under-the-espionage-laws/. Retrieved 6 December 2010. 
  65. ^ a b Woolner, Ann (28 July 2010). “WikiLeaks Secret Records Dump Stays in Legal Clear”. Bloomberg (New York). http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-28/wikileaks-secret-records-dump-stays-in-legal-clear-ann-woolner.html
  66. ^ Hennigan, W. J. (2 December 2010). “WikiLeaks’ new home is in a former bomb shelter”. Los Angeles Times technology blog. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2010/12/wikileaks-bahnhof-amazon.html. Retrieved 11 December 2010. 
  67. ^ Nystedt, Dan (28 October 2009). “Wikileaks leader talks of courage and wrestling pigs”. PC World Australia (Sydney). http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/article/323998/wikileaks_leader_talks_courage_wrestling_pigs/. Retrieved 5 December 2010. 
  68. ^ a b Savage, Charlie (1 December 2010). “U.S. Weighs Prosecution of WikiLeaks Founder, but Legal Scholars Warn of Steep Hurdles”. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/02/world/02legal.html. Retrieved 5 December 2010. 
  69. ^ a b Yost, Pete (29 November 2010). “Holder says WikiLeaks under criminal investigation”. Fox News. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/11/29/holder-says-wikileaks-criminal-investigation/. Retrieved 5 December 2010. 
  70. ^ a b Nakashima, Ellen; Markon, Jerry (30 November 2010). “WikiLeaks founder could be charged under Espionage Act”. The Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/29/AR2010112905973.html. Retrieved 5 December 2010. 
  71. ^ Jones, Ashby (26 July 2010). “Pentagon Papers II? On WikiLeaks and the First Amendment”. The Wall Street Journal (blog). http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/07/26/pentagon-papers-ii-on-wikileaks-and-the-first-amendment/. Retrieved 6 December 2010. 
  72. ^ Savage, Charlie (7 December 2010). “U.S. Prosecutors Study WikiLeaks Prosecution”. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/08/world/08leak.html?partner=rss&emc=rss. Retrieved 9 December 2010. 
  73. ^ Faiola, Anthony; Markon, Jerry (7 December 2010). “WikiLeaks founder’s arrest in Britain complicates efforts to extradite him”. The Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/07/AR2010120700721.html. Retrieved 9 December 2010. 
  74. ^ Jones, Sam (5 December 2010). “Julian Assange’s lawyers say they are being watched”. The Guardian (London). http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/05/julian-assange-lawyers-being-watched. Retrieved 5 December 2010. 
  75. ^ “Assange attorney: Secret grand jury meeting in Virginia on WikiLeaks”. CNN International. 13 December 2010. http://edition.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/12/13/wikileaks.investigation/index.html. Retrieved 13 December 2010. 
  76. ^ Gillard, Julia (7 December 2010). Gillard refines verdict on Assange. Interview with Lyndal Curtis. The World Today. ABC Radio (Australia). http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2010/s3086783.htm. Retrieved 12 December 2010. 
  77. ^ Karvelas, Patricia (14 December 2010). “Party revolt growing over Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s WikiLeaks stance”. The Australian (Sydney). http://www.news.com.au/features/wikileaks/party-revolt-at-pms-wiki-stance/story-fn79cf6x-1225970594165. Retrieved 14 December 2010. 
  78. ^ Robinson, Jennifer; Zifcak, Spencer; Saul, Ben (7 December 2010). Law experts say WikiLeaks in the clear. Interview with Simon Lauder. The World Today. ABC Radio (Australia). http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2010/s3086781.htm. Retrieved 12 December 2010. “”There is no charge and there has been no trial and even given all of those things the Prime Minister had the confidence to say that Mr Assange was guilty of illegality. Now that seems to me to be completely inappropriate.””. 
  79. ^ Lauder 2010: statement by Dr Ben Saul, director of the Centre for International Law at the University of Sydney.
  80. ^ “Statement on Arrest of WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange”. New York: Center for Constitutional Rights. 7 December 2010. http://ccrjustice.org/newsroom/press-releases/ccr-statement-arrest-of-wikileaks-founder-julian-assange. Retrieved 21 December 2010. 
  81. ^ “Afghan War Diary, 2004-2010”. WikiLeaks. Archived from the original on 23 July 2011. http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Afghan_War_Diary,_2004-2010. Retrieved 28 February 2012. 
  82. ^ a b Zetter, Kim (30 July 2010). “WikiLeaks Posts Mysterious ‘Insurance’ File”. Wired (New York). http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/07/wikileaks-insurance-file/. Retrieved 31 July 2010. 
  83. ^ Ward, Victoria (3 December 2010). “WikiLeaks website disconnected as US company withdraws support”. The Daily Telegraph (London). Archived from the original on 3 December 2010. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8178457/WikiLeaks-website-disconnected-as-US-company-withdraws-support.html. Retrieved 3 December 2010. 
  84. ^ a b Palmer, Elizabeth (2 December 2010). “WikiLeaks Backup Plan Could Drop Diplomatic Bomb”. CBS News. Archived from the original on 3 December 2010. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/12/02/eveningnews/main7111845.shtml. Retrieved 3 December 2010. 
  85. ^ a b Daly, John W. (13 July 2010). “Wau Holland Foundation sheds light on WikiLeaks donations – Hardware, ISP, travelling costs”. TechEye.net. http://www.techeye.net/internet/wau-holland-foundation-sheds-light-on-wikileaks-donations#ixzz0td0dXhBx. Retrieved 1 August 2010. 
  86. ^ a b Bates, Theunis (28 September 2010). “WikiLeaks’ Woes Grow as Spokesman Quits Site”. AOL News. http://www.aolnews.com/2010/09/28/wikileaks-woes-grow-as-spokesman-quits-site/. Retrieved 22 October 2010. 
  87. ^ “Wikileaks donations still flowing, but not to Assange legal fund”. The Local (Berlin). http://m.thelocal.de/sci-tech/20101223-31975.html. Retrieved 23 December 2010. 
  88. ^ “Twitter / WikiLeaks: To deal with a shortage of…”. Twitter. 24 December 2009. http://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/6995068005. Retrieved 30 April 2010. 
  89. ^ a b Butselaar, Emily (29 January 2010). “Dig deep for WikiLeaks”. The Guardian (London). http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/jan/29/wikileaks-shut-down. Retrieved 30 January 2010. 
  90. ^ “WikiLeaks – Mirrors”. WikiLeaks. http://wikileaks.ch/Mirrors.html. Retrieved 18 December 2010. 
  91. ^ WikiLeaks. “at 7:42 am 5 Jan 2010”. Twitter. http://twitter.com/wikiLeaks. Retrieved 30 April 2010. 
  92. ^ “Twitter / Wikileaks: Achieved min. funraising g…”. Twitter. http://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/8613426708. Retrieved 30 April 2010. 
  93. ^ “WikiLeaks: Paypal has again locked our…”. Twitter. http://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/8101847372. Retrieved 26 January 2010. 
  94. ^ “WikiLeaks: Paypal has freed up our…”. Twitter. http://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/8192453527. Retrieved 26 January 2010. 
  95. ^ “Wikileaks: Next milestone completed:…”. Twitter. 18 May 2010. https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/14270362566. Retrieved 18 December 2010. 
  96. ^ a b Cohen, Noam (17 June 2010). “Knight Foundation Hands Out Grants to 12 Groups, but Not WikiLeaks”. Media Decoder Blog (The New York Times). http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/17/knight-foundation-hands-out-grants-to-12-groups-but-not-wikileaks/. Retrieved 1 August 2010. 
  97. ^ a b c Cook, John (17 June 2010). “WikiLeaks questions why it was rejected for Knight grant”. Yahoo! News. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100617/ts_ynews/ynews_ts2677_3. Retrieved 19 December 2010. 
  98. ^ “”Project 04: Enduring freedom of information” Preliminary transparency report 2010″. Wau-Holland-Stiftung (WHS) via Cryptome. 26 April 2011. http://cryptome.org/0003/wl-finance-en.pdf
  99. ^ “‘Donations Were Never as Strong as Now'”. Spiegel International (Hamburg). 13 December 2010. http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,734318,00.html. Retrieved 15 December 2010. 
  100. ^ Horton, Scott (6 August 2010). “Financing WikiLeaks”. Harper’s Magazine (New York). http://www.harpers.org/archive/2010/08/hbc-90007485. Retrieved 15 December 2010. 
  101. ^ Donate. Wikileaks.org (8 July 2011). Retrieved on 5 September 2011.
  102. ^ http://twitter.com/#!/wikileaks/status/80774521350668288
  103. ^ WikiLeaks Asks For Anonymous Bitcoin Donations – Andy Greenberg – The Firewall – Forbes. Blogs.forbes.com (14 June 2011). Retrieved on 5 September 2011.
  104. ^ Rice, Xan (31 August 2007). “The looting of Kenya”. The Guardian (London). http://www.guardian.co.uk/kenya/story/0,,2159757,00.html. Retrieved 28 February 2008. 
  105. ^ Singel, Ryan (14 November 2007). “Sensitive Guantánamo Bay Manual Leaked Through Wiki Site”. Wired (New York). http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2007/11/gitmo
  106. ^ “Guantanamo operating manual posted on Internet”. Reuters. 15 November 2007. http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN1424207020071114?pageNumber=1. Retrieved 15 November 2007. 
  107. ^ “Wikileaks.org under injunction” (Press release). WikiLeaks. 18 February 2008. Archived from the original on 6 March 2008. http://web.archive.org/web/20080306005837/http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Wikileaks.org_under_injunction. Retrieved 28 February 2008. 
  108. ^ Orion, Egan (2 March 2008). “Judge reverses Wikileaks injunction”. The Inquirer (London). http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1039527/judge-rethinks-wikileaks. Retrieved 23 September 2009. 
  109. ^ Gollner, Philipp (29 February 2008). “Judge reverses ruling in Julius Baer leak case”. Reuters. http://www.reuters.com/article/internetNews/idUSN2927431720080229. Retrieved 1 March 2008. 
  110. ^ “Scientology threatens Wikileaks with injunction”. The Register (London). 8 April 2008. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04/08/church_of_scientology_contacts_wikileaks/. Retrieved 7 December 2010. 
  111. ^ Zetter, Kim (17 September 2008). “Group Posts E-Mail Hacked From Palin Account – Update”. Threat Level (Wired blog). http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/09/group-posts-e-m.html
  112. ^ “‘BNP membership’ officer sacked”. BBC News. 21 March 2009. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/7956824.stm. Retrieved 23 March 2009. 
  113. ^ Booth, Robert (20 October 2009). “BNP membership list leaked”. Guardian (London). http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/oct/20/bnp-membership-list-wikileaks. Retrieved 20 October 2009. 
  114. ^ “Aparecen 86 nuevos petroaudios de Rómulo León” (in Spanish). Terra Peru (Lima). 28 January 2009. http://www.terra.com.pe/noticias/noticias/act1609692/aparecen-86-nuevos-petroaudios-romulo-leon.html. Retrieved 8 December 2010. 
  115. ^ Krebs, Brian (11 February 2009). “Thousands of Congressional Reports Now Available Online”. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/11/AR2009021101388.html. Retrieved 7 December 2010. 
  116. ^ Mills, Elinor (12 March 2009). “Coleman Senate campaign in donor data leak mess”. CNET News. http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-10195434-83.html. Retrieved 7 December 2010. 
  117. ^ “The Big Bad Database of Senator Norm Coleman”. Mirror.wikileaks.info. 11 March 2009. http://mirror.wikileaks.info/wiki/The_Big_Bad_Database_of_Senator_Norm_Coleman/index.html. Retrieved 17 December 2010. 
  118. ^ Luft, Oliver (6 July 2009). “Read all about it”. The Guardian (London). http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/jul/06/wikileaks-wikipedia-indiana-jones. Retrieved 7 December 2010. 
  119. ^ “Serious nuclear accident may lay behind Iranian nuke chief’s mystery resignation”. WikiLeaks. 16 July 2009. http://mirror.wikileaks.info/wiki/Serious_nuclear_accident_may_lay_behind_Iranian_nuke_chief%27s_mystery_resignation/. Retrieved 16 October 2010. 
  120. ^ Hounshell, Blake (27 September 2010). “6 mysteries about Stuxnet”. Passport (blog). Washington DC: Foreign Policy. http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/09/27/6_mysteries_about_stuxnet. Retrieved 28 September 2010. 
  121. ^ Woodward, Paul (22 February 1999). “Iran confirms Stuxnet found at Bushehr nuclear power plant”. Warincontext.org. http://warincontext.org/2010/09/26/iran-confirms-stuxnet-found-at-bushehr-nuclear-power-plant/. Retrieved 28 September 2010. 
  122. ^ “Miklar hreyfingar rétt fyrir hrun [Large movements just before crash]” (in Icelandic). Ríkisútvarpið (RÚV). Reykjavik. 31 July 2009. http://www.ruv.is/frett/miklar-hreyfingar-rett-fyrir-hrun. Retrieved 22 September 2009. 
  123. ^ Chivers, Tom (5 October 2009). “MoD ‘how to stop leaks’ document is leaked”. The Daily Telegraph (London). http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/6261756/MoD-how-to-stop-leaks-document-is-leaked.html. Retrieved 6 October 2009. 
  124. ^ Margaronis, Maria (October 2009). “A gag too far”. Index On Censorship. http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2009/10/a-gag-too-far/. Retrieved 14 October 2009. 
  125. ^ “Minton report secret injunction gagging The Guardian on Trafigura”. WikiLeaks. Archived from the original on 11 September 2009. http://mirror.wikileaks.info/wiki/Minton_report_secret_injunction_gagging_The_Guardian_on_Trafigura,_11_Sep_2009/. Retrieved 15 October 2009. 
  126. ^ “WikiLeaks.org aims to expose lies, topple governments”. New York Post. 29 November 2009. http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/wikileaks_org_aims_to_expose_lies_flsLqNMO3B0LEtxL5bNaKL
  127. ^ Stewart, Will; Delgado, Martin (6 December 2009). “Were Russian security services behind the leak of ‘Climategate’ emails?”. Daily Mail (London). http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1233562/Emails-rocked-climate-change-campaign-leaked-Siberian-closed-city-university-built-KGB.html
  128. ^ McCullagh, Declan (25 November 2009). “Egads! Confidential 9/11 Pager Messages Disclosed;November 2009”. CBS News. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504383_162-5770280-504383.html?tag=mncol%3btxt/. Retrieved 31 December 2010. 
  129. ^ Oates, John (18 March 2009). “Aussie firewall blocks Wikileaks”. The Register (London). http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/03/18/aussie_firewall_wikileaks/. Retrieved 17 December 2010. 
  130. ^ Moses, Asher (19 March 2009). “Leaked Australian blacklist reveals banned sites”. Sydney Morning Herald. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2009/03/19/1237054961100.html. Retrieved 19 March 2009. 
  131. ^ “Internet Censorship in Thailand”. wikileaks.org. Archived from the original on 16 January 2008. http://web.archive.org/web/20080116070133/http://secure.wikileaks.org/wiki/Internet_Censorship_in_Thailand. Retrieved 17 June 2010. 
  132. ^ Classified cable from US Embassy Reykjavik on Icesave, 13 Jan 2010. WikiLeaks. Retrieved on 22 November 2011.
  133. ^ Mccullagh, Declan (15 March 2010). “U.S. Army worried about Wikileaks in secret report”. CNET News. http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20000469-38.html. Retrieved 15 March 2010. 
  134. ^ “U.S. Intelligence planned to destroy WikiLeaks”. WikiLeaks. 15 March 2010. Archived from the original on March 2010. http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2010/03/wikithreat.pdf
  135. ^ Stephanie Strom, Pentagon Sees a Threat From Online Muckrakers, New York Times, March 17, 2010.
  136. ^ Bumiller, Elisabeth; Stelter, Brian (6 April 2009). “Video Shows U.S. Killing of Reuters Employees”. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/06/world/middleeast/06baghdad.html. Retrieved 7 April 2010. 
  137. ^ “Current Google Insights trends: Wikileaks posts classified military video, Masters”. The Independent. Relaxnews (London). 12 April 2010. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/current-google-insights-trends-wikileaks-posts-clasified-military-video-masters-1942629.html
  138. ^ Poulsen, Kevin; Zetter, Kim (6 June 2010). “U.S. Intelligence Analyst Arrested in Wikileaks Video Probe”. Wired (New York). http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/leak/. Retrieved 15 June 2010. 
  139. ^ “Afghanistan war logs: the unvarnished picture”. The Guardian (London). 26 July 2010. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/25/afghanistan-war-logs-guardian-editorial?intcmp=239. Retrieved 26 July 2010. 
  140. ^ Barnes, Julian E.; Whalen, Jeanne (12 August 2010). “Pentagon Slams WikiLeaks’ Plan to Post More War Logs”. The Wall Street Journal (New York). http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704407804575425900461793766.html?mod=WSJ_article_LatestHeadlines#articleTabs%3Darticle. Retrieved 13 August 2010. 
  141. ^ Lischka, Konrad (18 August 2010). “Einstweilige Verfügung – Duisburg verbietet Blogger-Veröffentlichung zur Love Parade” (in German). Der Spiegel (Hamburg). http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/netzpolitik/0,1518,712408,00.html
  142. ^ “Loveparade 2010 Duisburg planning documents, 2007–2010”. Mirror.wikileaks.info. 20 August 2010. http://mirror.wikileaks.info/wiki/Loveparade_2010_Duisburg_planning_documents,_2007-2010/. Retrieved 17 December 2010. 
  143. ^ “WikiLeaks releases documents on Love Parade tragedy”. news.com.au Technology. NewsCore (Sydney). 21 August 2010. http://www.news.com.au/technology/wikileaks-releases-documents-on-love-parade-tragedy/story-e6frfrnr-1225908260011
  144. ^ “Huge Wikileaks release shows US ‘ignored Iraq torture'”. BBC News. 23 October 2010. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11611319. Retrieved 23 October 2010. 
  145. ^ Shane, Scott; Lehren, Andrew W. (28 November 2010). “Leaked Cables Offer Raw Look at U.S. Diplomacy”. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/world/29cables.html. Retrieved 19 December 2010. 
  146. ^ a b Suarez, Kris Danielle (Updated 30 November 2010). “1,796 Memos from US Embassy in Manila in WikiLeaks ‘Cablegate'”. ABS-CBN News (Manila). http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/11/29/10/1796-memos-us-embassy-manila-wikileaks-cablegate. Retrieved 19 December 2010. 
  147. ^ “Twitter Subpoena”. Salon. http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/01/07/twitter/subpoena.pdf. Retrieved 10 January 2011. 
  148. ^ Rushe, Dominic (8 January 2011). “Icelandic MP fights US demand for her Twitter account details”. The Guardian (London). http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jan/08/us-twitter-hand-icelandic-wikileaks-messages. Retrieved 10 January 2011. 
  149. ^ “Sam” (13 January 2011). “Tunisia’s youth finally has revolution on its mind”. ‘Comment is Free’ blog (The Guardian) (London). http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/13/tunisia-youth-revolution. Retrieved 20 January 2011. 
  150. ^ “‘First Wikileaks Revolution’: Tunisia descends into anarchy as president flees after cables reveal country’s corruption”. Daily Mail (London). 15 January 2011. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1347336/Tunisia-riots-blamed-cables-revealed-countrys-corruption-dubbed-First-Wikileaks-Revolution.html?ito=feeds-newsxml. Retrieved 20 January 2011. 
  151. ^ Dickinson, Elizabeth (13 January 2011). “The First WikiLeaks Revolution?”. Foreign Policy (Washington DC). http://wikileaks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/01/13/wikileaks_and_the_tunisia_protests?sms_ss=twitter&at_xt=4d2ffe4d9c2649d7,1. Retrieved 20 January 2011. 
  152. ^ “The Guantanamo Files”. WikiLeaks. http://wikileaks.org/gitmo/. Retrieved 2 December 2011. 
  153. ^ “The Spy Files”. WikiLeaks. http://wikileaks.org/the-spyfiles.html. Retrieved 2 December 2011. 
  154. ^ “The Global Intelligence Files”. WikiLeaks. http://wikileaks.org/the-gifiles.html. Retrieved 28 February 2012. 
  155. ^ “Syria Files”. WikiLeaks. Archived from the original on 2012-07-05. http://www.wikileaks.org/syria-files/. Retrieved 5 July 2012. 
  156. ^ a b Campbell, Matthew (11 April 2010). “Whistleblowers on US ‘massacre’ fear CIA stalkers”. The Sunday Times (London). http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7094234.ece. Retrieved 12 December 2010. 
  157. ^ Warrick, Joby (19 May 2010). “WikiLeaks works to expose government secrets, but Web site’s sources are a mystery”. The Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/19/AR2010051905333.html. Retrieved 21 May 2010. 
  158. ^ a b Anderson, Chris (July 2010). Julian Assange: Why the world needs WikiLeaks (Videotape). TED. Event occurs at 11:28. http://www.ted.com/talks/julian_assange_why_the_world_needs_wikileaks.html. Retrieved 2 August 2010. “November last year … well blowouts in Albania … Have you had information from inside BP? Yeah, we have a lot …” 
  159. ^ Galant, Richard (16 July 2010). “WikiLeaks founder: Site getting tons of ‘high caliber’ disclosures”. CNN. http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TECH/web/07/16/wikileaks.disclosures/. Retrieved 1 August 2010. 
  160. ^ Owen, Glen; Stewart, Will (14 November 2010). “Bank raid could have been warning against planned WikiLeaks Russian corruption expose says Alexander Lebedev”. Mail on Sunday (London). http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1329561/Wikileaks-Russian-corruption-expose-plan-linked-Alexander-Lebedev-bank-raid.html. Retrieved 28 November 2010. 
  161. ^ Weir, Fred (26 October 2010). “WikiLeaks ready to drop a bombshell on Russia. But will Russians get to read about it?”. The Christian Science Monitor (Boston). http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2010/1026/WikiLeaks-ready-to-drop-a-bombshell-on-Russia.-But-will-Russians-get-to-read-about-it. Retrieved 29 November 2010. 
  162. ^ Greenberg, Andy (29 November 2010). “An Interview With WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange”. Forbes (New York). http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenberg/2010/11/29/an-interview-with-wikileaks-julian-assange/2/. Retrieved 1 December 2010. 
  163. ^ Rothacker, Rick (1 December 2010). “Bank of America rumored to be in WikiLeaks’ crosshairs”. The China Post. McClatchy Newspapers (Taipei). http://www.chinapost.com.tw/international/americas/2010/12/02/282108/p1/Bank-of.htm. Retrieved 1 December 2010. 
  164. ^ Memmott, Mark (1 December 2010). “Bank Of America Stock Steadies After WikiLeaks-Related Drop”. The Two-way (NPR news blog) (Washington DC: National Public Radio). http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/12/01/131727190/bank-of-america-stock-steadies-after-wikileaks-related-drop. Retrieved 2 December 2010. 
  165. ^ De La Merced, Michael J. (30 November 2010). “WikiLeaks’ Next Target: Bank of America?”. DealBook (New York Times blog). http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2010/11/30/wikileaks-next-target-bank-of-america/. Retrieved 2 December 2010. 
  166. ^ Carney, John (2 December 2010). “Bank of America’s Risky WikiLeaks Strategy”. CNBC. http://www.cnbc.com/id/40471184/. Retrieved 5 December 2010. 
  167. ^ “Wikileaks’ Julian Assange to fight Swedish allegations”. BBC News. 5 December 2010. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11921080. Retrieved 5 December 2010. 
  168. ^ “Wikileaks given data on Swiss bank accounts”. BBC News. 17 January 2011. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12205690. Retrieved 17 January 2011. 
  169. ^ “The Justice Department weighs a criminal case against WikiLeaks”. The Washington Post. 18 August 2010. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/17/AR2010081705225.html. Retrieved 10 December 2010. 
  170. ^ WikiRebels the Documentary (Television production). Stockholm: Sveriges Television. December 2010. http://svtplay.se/v/2316825/dokument_inifran/wikirebels_-_the_documentary.  (35:45 to 36:03)
  171. ^ “Read closely: NATO tells CNN not a single case of Afghans needing protection or moving due to leak http://bit.ly/dk5NZi”. Twitter. 17 October 2010. http://twitter.com/#!/wikileaks/status/27627822775. Retrieved 20 December 2010. 
  172. ^ “Outcomes of WikiLeaks investigation” (Press release). Australian Department of Defence. 26 October 2010. http://www.defence.gov.au/media/DepartmentalTpl.cfm?CurrentId=10997. Retrieved 20 December 2010. 
  173. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FoWL
  174. ^ Marks, Paul (12 January 2007). “How to leak a secret and not get caught”. New Scientist (London). Archived from the original on 11 January 2007. http://www.huliq.com/5711/how-to-leak-a-secret-and-not-get-caught. Retrieved 28 February 2008. 
  175. ^ “Wiktionary definition of tranche”. En.wiktionary.org. 13 October 2010. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tranche#Noun. Retrieved 22 October 2010. 
  176. ^ Leyden, John (2 June 2010). “Wikileaks denies Tor hacker eavesdropping gave site its start”. The Register. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/02/wikileaks_tor_snooping_denial/. Retrieved 10 July 2010. 
  177. ^ Moses, Asher (16 March 2009). “Banned hyperlinks could cost you $11,000 a day”. The Age (Melbourne). http://www.theage.com.au/news/home/technology/banned-hyperlinks-could-cost-you-11000-a-day/2009/03/17/1237054787635.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1&page=-1/. Retrieved 16 March 2009. 
  178. ^ “Australia secretly censors Wikileaks press release and Danish Internet censorship list, 16 Mar 2009”. Mirror.wikileaks.info. 16 March 2009. http://mirror.wikileaks.info/wiki/Australia_secretly_censors_Wikileaks_press_release_and_Danish_Internet_censorship_list%2C_16_Mar_2009/index.html. Retrieved 17 December 2010. 
  179. ^ Taylor, Josh (29 November 2010). “Wikileaks removed from ACMA blacklist”. ZDNet Australia. http://www.zdnet.com.au/wikileaks-removed-from-acma-blacklist-339307604.htm. Retrieved 1 December 2010. 
  180. ^ “Is Wikileaks blocked by the Chinese government?”. WikiLeaks. 2008. Archived from the original on 16 February 2008. http://web.archive.org/web/20080216000537/http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Wikileaks:About#Is_Wikileaks_blocked_by_the_Chinese_government.3F. Retrieved 28 February 2008. 
  181. ^ Kuri, Jürgen (25 March 2009). “Hausdurchsuchung bei Inhaber der Domain wikileaks.de [Search of owner of the domain wikileaks.de]” (in German). Heise Online (Hannover). http://www.heise.de/newsticker/Hausdurchsuchung-bei-Inhaber-der-Domain-wikileaks-de-Update–/meldung/135147. Retrieved 21 September 2009. 
  182. ^ Pauli, Darren (25 March 2009). “Wikileaks raided by German police”. Network World. Framingham, MA. http://www.networkworld.com/news/2009/032509-wikileaks-raided-by-german.html. Retrieved 30 April 2010. 
  183. ^ “Police raid home of Wikileaks.de domain owner over censorship lists”. WikiLeaks. 24 March 2009. Archived from the original on 24 March 2009. http://mirror.wikileaks.info/wiki/Police_raid_home_of_Wikileaks.de_domain_owner_over_censorship_lists/
  184. ^ Campbell, Matthew (11 April 2010). “Whistleblowers on US ‘massacre’ fear CIA stalkers”. The Sunday Times (London). http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7094234.ece
  185. ^ Hendler, Clint (1 April 2010). “Thin ice: The man behind WikiLeaks has some allegations”. Columbia Journalism Review (New York). http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/thin_ice.php. Retrieved 1 August 2010. 
  186. ^ Sigurgrimsdottir, Herdis (4 August 2009). “Iceland court lifts gag order after public outrage”. The San Diego Union-Tribune. Associated Press. http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2009/aug/04/eu-iceland-bank-outrage-080409/. Retrieved 19 May 2011. 
  187. ^ “Iceland’s journalism freedom dream prompted by Wikileaks”. BBC News. 13 February 2010. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8510927.stm
  188. ^ “Icelandic Modern Media Initiative”. Reykjavik: International Modern Media Institute. http://immi.is/Home. Retrieved 19 May 2011. 
  189. ^ “Thailand blocks access to WikiLeaks website”. Thai Visa Forum. Agence France-Presse (Bangkok). 18 August 2010. http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/391577-thailand-blocks-access-to-wikileaks-website/. Retrieved 25 August 2010. 
  190. ^ Barta, Patrick (17 August 2010). “Thai Groups Denounce Website Censorship”. The Wall Street Journal (New York). http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703824304575435170175485654.html?mod=googlenews_wsj. Retrieved 25 August 2010. 
  191. ^ Fuller, Thomas (6 July 2010). “Citing Instability, Thailand Extends Emergency Decree”. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/07/world/asia/07thailand.html. Retrieved 25 August 2010. 
  192. ^ a b Singel, Ryan (19 July 2010). “Wikileaks Reopens for Leakers”. Wired (New York). http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/07/wikileaks_repair/. Retrieved 1 August 2010. 
  193. ^ McCullagh, Declan (16 July 2010). “Feds look for WikiLeaks founder at NYC hacker event | Security”. CNET News. http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-20010861-83.html. Retrieved 1 August 2010. 
  194. ^ “Jacob Appelbaum WikiLeaks Next HOPE Keynote Transcript”. “Hackers on Planet Earth” conference. 17 July 2010. https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1ebTGiyaQQ2HSCOpqsD8GD7x_7IBqkeYZ4jfEJ_rYeFQ. Retrieved 18 December 2010. 
  195. ^ WikiLeaks (16–18 July 2010) (MP3). Saturday Keynote at The Next HOPE (Audio). http://c2047862.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/Saturday%20Keynote%20-%20Wikileaks.mp3. Retrieved 18 December 2010. 
  196. ^ a b c d Mills, Elinor (28 July 2010). “Researcher detained at U.S. border, questioned about WikiLeaks”. CNET. http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-20012253-245.html. Retrieved 1 August 2010. 
  197. ^ Raymond, Matt (3 December 2010). “Why the Library of Congress Is Blocking Wikileaks”. Library of Congress blog. http://blogs.loc.gov/loc/2010/12/why-the-library-of-congress-is-blocking-wikileaks/. Retrieved 3 December 2010. 
  198. ^ de Sola, David (4 December 2010). “U.S. agencies warn unauthorized employees not to look at WikiLeaks”. CNN. http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/12/03/wikileaks.access.warning/index.html. Retrieved 4 December 2010. 
  199. ^ Entous, Adam; Perez, Evan (21 August 2010). “Prosecutors Eye WikiLeaks Charges”. The Wall Street Journal (New York). http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB10001424052748704488404575441673460880204.html. Retrieved 21 August 2010. 
  200. ^ Shenon, Philip (10 August 2010). “U.S. Urges Allies to Crack Down on WikiLeaks”. The Daily Beast. http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-08-10/a-western-crackdown-on-wikileaks/
  201. ^ “Columbia U diplomacy students warned about cables”. Newsday (Newsday). 4 December 2010. http://www.newsday.com/news/new-york/columbia-u-diplomacy-students-warned-about-cables-1.2517588. Retrieved 14 March 2012. 
  202. ^ MacAskill, Ewen (3 December 2010). “US blocks access to WikiLeaks for federal workers”. The Guardian (London). http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-cables-blocks-access-federal. Retrieved 18 December 2010. 
  203. ^ “WikiLeaks claims Facebook deleted its page, 30000 fans”. News.com.au Technology blog. 21 April 2010. http://www.news.com.au/technology/wikileaks-claims-facebook-deleted-its-page-30000-fans/story-e6frfro0-1225856489723. Retrieved 23 April 2010. 
  204. ^ “Wikileaks Claims Facebook Deleted Their Fan Page Because They “Promote Illegal Acts””. Gawker. 20 April 2010. http://gawker.com/5520933/wikileaks-claims-facebook-deleted-their-fan-page-because-they-promote-illegal-acts. Retrieved 21 April 2010. 
  205. ^ “Wikileaks Fan Page Pulled Down for Being “Inauthentic,” Says Facebook”. TechPresident. 21 April 2010. http://techpresident.com/blog-entry/wikileaks-fan-page-pulled-down-being-inauthentic-says-facebook. Retrieved 22 April 2010. 
  206. ^ Glanfield, Tim (2 December 2010). “WikiLeaks supporters embrace Twitter & Facebook accounts”. Beehive City. http://www.beehivecity.com/hightech/wikileaks-supporters-embrace-twitter-facebook-as-accounts-boom114012132/
  207. ^ “search for ‘Wikileaks'”. Famecount.com. http://www.famecount.com/all-platforms/Worldwide. Retrieved 5 December 2010. 
  208. ^ Kirkpatrick, Marshall (6 December 2010). “Facebook: We’re Not Kicking Wikileaks Off Our Site”. ReadWriteWeb. http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/facebook_were_not_kicking_wikileaks_off_our_site.php. Retrieved 7 December 2010. 
  209. ^ Jones, Sam (5 December 2010). “Julian Assange’s lawyers say they are being watched”. The Guardian (London). http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/05/julian-assange-lawyers-being-watched. Retrieved 5 December 2010. 
  210. ^ Palsule, Mahendra (3 December 2010). “EveryDNS.net Terminates Wikileaks.org DNS Services, Wikileaks.ch Back Up in Switzerland”. Skeptic Geek. http://www.skepticgeek.com/miscellaneous/everydns-net-terminates-wikileaks-dns-services/. Retrieved 11 December 2010. 
  211. ^ Pauli, Darren (2 December 2010). “WikiLeaks loses domain name after DoS attacks”. ZDNet UK (London). http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/security/2010/12/03/wikileaks-loses-domain-name-after-dos-attacks-40091046/. Retrieved 11 December 2010. 
  212. ^ Vance, Ashlee (3 December 2010). “WikiLeaks Struggles to Stay Online After Attacks”. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/04/world/europe/04domain.html?_r=1&hp. Retrieved 5 December 2010. 
  213. ^ Welch, Dylan (4 December 2010). “Attacks shut down WikiLeaks”. The Age (Melbourne). http://www.theage.com.au/world/attacks-shut-down-wikileaks-20101203-18jqt.html. Retrieved 11 December 2010. 
  214. ^ MacAskill, Ewen (2 December 2010). “WikiLeaks website pulled by Amazon after U.S. political pressure”. The Guardian (London). http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/01/wikileaks-website-cables-servers-amazon. Retrieved 11 December 2010. 
  215. ^ “Amazon Web Services Message”. Amazon Web Services. http://aws.amazon.com/message/65348/. Retrieved 4 December 2010. 
  216. ^ Klint, Finley (2 December 2010). “Another Falls: Tableau Software Drops WikiLeaks Data Visualizations”. ReadWriteCloud. http://www.readwriteweb.com/cloud/2010/12/tableau-software-drops-wikileaks.php. Retrieved 10 December 2010. 
  217. ^ Fink, Elissa (2 December 2010). “Why We Removed the WikiLeaks Visualizations”. Seattle: Tableau Software blog. https://www.tableausoftware.com/blog/why-we-removed-wikileaks-visualizations. Retrieved 10 December 2010. 
  218. ^ “Pro-Wikileaks activists abandon Amazon cyber attack”. BBC News. 9 December 2010. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11957367. Retrieved 10 December 2010. 
  219. ^ Somaiya, Ravi (5 December 2010). “Hundreds of WikiLeaks Mirror Sites Appear”. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/06/world/europe/06wiki.html. Retrieved 6 December 2010. 
  220. ^ Bradley, Tony (7 December 2010). “Operation Payback: WikiLeaks Avenged by Hacktivists”. PC World (San Francisco). http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/212701/operation_payback_wikileaks_avenged_by_hacktivists.html. Retrieved 8 December 2010. 
  221. ^ “How the Barbra Streisand Effect keeps WikiLeaks online”. The New Zealand Herald. Agence France-Presse (Auckland). 6 December 2010. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/internet/news/article.cfm?c_id=137&objectid=10692467. Retrieved 19 May 2011. 
  222. ^ “PayPal Turns Off Tap for WikiLeaks Donations”. CBS News. Associated Press. 4 December 2010. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/12/04/world/main7117213.shtml. Retrieved 5 December 2010. 
  223. ^ Galante, Joseph (4 December 2010). “PayPal Restricts WikiLeaks Account as Website Comes Under Global Scrutity”. Bloomberg (New York). http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-04/paypal-restricts-wikileaks-account-as-website-comes-under-global-scrutity.html. Retrieved 4 December 2010. 
  224. ^ Tsotsis, Alexia (8 December 2010). “PayPal VP On Blocking WikiLeaks: “State Department Told Us It Was Illegal””. TechCrunch. http://techcrunch.com/2010/12/08/paypal-vp-on-blocking-wikileaks-state-department-told-us-it-was-illegal/. Retrieved 8 December 2010. 
  225. ^ “Presseerklärung der Wau Holland Stiftung zur Sperrung ihres Account bei PayPal” (in German) (Press release). Hamburg: Wau Holland Stiftung. 7 December 2010. http://wauland.de/news.html. Retrieved 8 December 2010. 
  226. ^ “WikiLeaks: Swiss bank freezes Julian Assange’s account”. BBC News. 6 December 2010. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-11929034. Retrieved 6 December 2010. 
  227. ^ Weaver, Matthew; Adams, Richard (6 December 2010). “WikiLeaks US embassy cables: As it happened”. guardian.co.uk News Blog (London). http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2010/dec/06/wikileaks-us-embassy-cables-live-updates. Retrieved 6 December 2010. 
  228. ^ McCullagh, Declan (6 December 2010). “MasterCard pulls plug on WikiLeaks payments”. CNET News. http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20024776-281.html#ixzz17OXwWn1N. Retrieved 6 December 2010. 
  229. ^ “Visa says it has suspended all payments to WikiLeaks ‘pending further investigation'”. Newsday (Newsday). 7 December 2010. http://www.newsday.com/visa-says-it-has-suspended-all-payments-to-wikileaks-pending-further-investigation-1.2522833. Retrieved 14 March 2012. “Visa says it has suspended all payments to WikiLeaks ‘pending further investigation.'” 
  230. ^ Webster, Stephen C. (7 December 2010). “MasterCard, Visa shut down electronic donations to WikiLeaks”. The Raw Story. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/mastercard-shuts-donations-wikileaks-calling-site-illegal/. Retrieved 10 December 2010. 
  231. ^ “Wikileaks’ IT firm says it will sue Visa and Mastercard”. BBC News. 8 December 2010. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11945875. Retrieved 8 December 2010. 
  232. ^ Arthur, Charles (7 December 2010). “WikiLeaks under attack: the definitive timeline”. The Guardian (London). http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/07/wikileaks-under-attack-definitive-timeline?intcmp=239. Retrieved 9 December 2010. 
  233. ^ “UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay voices concern at reports of pressure being exerted on private companies to halt financial or internet services for WikiLeaks”. United Nations. 9 December 2010. http://www.unmultimedia.org/tv/unifeed/d/16541.html
  234. ^ Mitchell, Stewart (21 December 2010). “Apple pulls WikiLeaks app”. PC Pro (London). http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/363877/apple-pulls-wikileaks-app. Retrieved 21 December 2010. 
  235. ^ “Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies (M-11-08)”. Executive Office of the [U.S.] President. 3 January 2011. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/OMB_Wiki_memo.pdf. Retrieved 5 January 2011. 
  236. ^ “US urges action to prevent insider leaks”. BBC News. 5 January 2011. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12117113. Retrieved 5 January 2011. 
  237. ^ Press release, 14/07/2011 ‘DataCell files a complaint with the European Commission July 14th 2011’
  238. ^ Leigh, David; Evans, Rob (14 October 2010). “WikiLeaks says funding has been blocked after government blacklisting”. The Guardian (London). http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/oct/14/wikileaks-says-funding-is-blocked. Retrieved 4 December 2010. 
  239. ^ “Bank of America stops handling Wikileaks payments”. BBC News. 18 December 2010. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12028084. Retrieved 18 December 2010. 
  240. ^ Lundin, Leigh (20 February 2011). “WikiLicks”. Crime. Orlando: Criminal Brief. http://criminalbrief.com/?p=15747
  241. ^ “WikiLeaks suspends publishing to fight financial blockade”, Esther Addley and Jason Deans, The Guardian, 24 October 2011
  242. ^ Greenberg, Andy (18 July 2012). “WikiLeaks Reopens Channel For Credit Card Donations, Dares Visa And MasterCard To Block Them Again”. Forbes. Archived from the original on 20 July 2012. http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2012/07/18/wikileaks-reopens-channel-for-credit-card-donations-dares-visa-and-mastercard-to-block-it-again/. Retrieved 20 July 2012. 
  243. ^ “What is WikiLeaks? How does WikiLeaks operate?”. WikiLeaks. 2008. Archived from the original on 16 February 2008. http://web.archive.org/web/20080216000537/http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Wikileaks:About#What_is_WikiLeaks.3F_How_does_WikiLeaks_operate.3F. Retrieved 28 February 2008. 
  244. ^ “WikiLeaks’ submissions page”. WikiLeaks. Archived from the original on 19 April 2008. http://web.archive.org/web/20080419013425/http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Wikileaks:Submissions. Retrieved 17 June 2010. 
  245. ^ Aftergood, Steven (3 January 2007). “Wikileaks and untracable document disclosure”. Secrecy News (Federation of American Scientists). http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2007/01/wikileaks_and_untraceable_docu.html. Retrieved 21 August 2008. 
  246. ^ “What is Wikileaks? How does Wikileaks operate?”. WikiLeaks. 2008. Archived from the original on 4 May 2008. http://web.archive.org/web/20080504122032/http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Wikileaks:About#What_is_Wikileaks.3F_How_does_Wikileaks_operate.3F
  247. ^ Satter, Raphael G. (30 September 2010). “WikiLeaks chief lashes out at media during debate”. PhysOrg.com. Associated Press. http://www.physorg.com/news205093515.html. Retrieved 22 October 2010. 
  248. ^ Blodget, Henry (28 September 2010). “WikiLeaks Spokesman Quits, Blasts Founder Julian Assange As Paranoid Control Freak, Admits To Using Fake Name”. San Francisco Chronicle. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2010/09/28/businessinsider-wikileaks-spokesman-quits.DTL. Retrieved 12 December 2010. 
  249. ^ a b “WikiLeaks Spokesman Quits”. Spiegel International (Hamburg). 27 September 2010. http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,719619,00.html
  250. ^ Brown, Craig (12 February 2011). “War of the WikiFreaks: Inside WikiLeaks by Daniel Domscheit-Berg (book review)”. Daily Mail (London). http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/books/article-1356330/Julian-Assange-book-Inside-WikiLeaks-Daniel-Domscheit-Berg.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
  251. ^ a b c Poulsen, Kevin; Zetter, Kim (27 September 2010). “Unpublished Iraq War Logs Trigger Internal WikiLeaks Revolt”. Wired (New York). http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/09/wikileaks-revolt/. Retrieved 14 February 2011. 
  252. ^ Nordstrom, Louise (10 December 2010). “Former WikiLeaks worker: Rival site under way”. The Washington Times. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/10/former-wikileaks-worker-rival-site-under-way/. Retrieved 13 December 2010. 
  253. ^ WikiLeaks defector blasts Assange in book – CNN.com. Edition.cnn.com. Retrieved on 22 November 2011.
  254. ^ “Ex-Wikileaks man ‘deleted files'”. BBC News. 22 August 2011. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14616899. Retrieved 3 December 2011. 
  255. ^ WikiLeaks Defector Slams Assange In Tell-All Book | Threat Level. Wired.com (10 February 2011). Retrieved on 22 November 2011.
  256. ^ Assange Battle Escalates: Ex-Wikileaks Spokesman Destroyed Unpublished Files – SPIEGEL ONLINE – News – International. Spiegel.de. Retrieved on 22 November 2011.
  257. ^ McMahon, Tamsin (17 January 2011). “Q&A: Former WikiLeaks spokeswoman Birgitta Jonsdottir”. National Post (Toronto). http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/01/15/qa-former-wikileaks-spokeswoman-birgitta-jonsdottir/. Retrieved 14 February 2011. 
  258. ^ Taylor, Jerome (25 October 2010). “Secret war at the heart of Wikileaks”. The Independent (London). http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/online/secret-war-at-the-heart-of-wikileaks-2115637.html
  259. ^ “Winners of Index on Censorship Freedom of Expression Awards Announced”. Index on Censorship. 22 April 2008. http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2008/04/winners-of-index-on-censorship-freedom-of-expression-award-announced/. Retrieved 15 December 2010. 
  260. ^ “The Cry of Blood. Report on Extra-Judicial Killings and Disappearances”. Kenya National Commission on Human Rights. 2008. http://www.ediec.org/library/item/id/402/. Retrieved 15 December 2010. 
  261. ^ “Amnesty announces Media Awards 2009 winners” (Press release). Amnesty International UK. 2 June 2009. http://amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=18227. Retrieved 15 December 2010. 
  262. ^ Reso, Paulina (20 May 2010). “5 pioneering Web sites that could totally change the news”. Daily News (New York). http://www.nydailynews.com/money/2010/05/20/2010-05-20_5_pioneering_web_sites_that_could_totally_change_the_news.html. Retrieved 8 June 2010. 
  263. ^ Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence. “WikiLeaks and Assange Honored”. Consortium News. http://www.consortiumnews.com/2010/102410a.html. Retrieved 22 February 2011. 
  264. ^ Friedman, Megan (13 December 2010). “Julian Assange: Readers’ Choice for TIME’s Person of the Year 2010”. Time (New York). http://newsfeed.time.com/2010/12/13/julian-assange-readers-choice-for-times-person-of-the-year-2010/. Retrieved 15 December 2010. 
  265. ^ Curtis, Polly (30 December 2010). “Ministers must ‘wise up not clam up’ after WikiLeaks disclosures”. The Guardian (London). http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/dec/30/wikileaks-freedom-information-ministers-government. Retrieved 1 January 2011. 
  266. ^ “Media says government’s reaction to WikiLeaks ‘troubling'”. The Sydney Morning Herald. 14 December 2010. http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/media-says-governments-reaction-to-wikileaks-troubling-20101214-18vrb.html. Retrieved 28 December 2010. 
  267. ^ Kampfner, John (29 November 2010). “Wikileaks shows up our media for their docility at the feet of authority”. The Independent (London). http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/john-kampfner-wikileaks-shows-up-our-media-for-their-docility-at-the-feet-of-authority-2146211.html. Retrieved 19 December 2010. 
  268. ^ Shafer, Jack (30 November 2010). “Why I Love WikiLeaks”. Slate. http://www.slate.com/id/2276312/. Retrieved 19 December 2010. 
  269. ^ Greenwald, Glenn (30 November 2010). “WikiLeaks reveals more than just government secrets”. Salon.com. http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/11/30/wikileaks/index.html. Retrieved 19 December 2010. 
  270. ^ Gilmore, Dan (6 December 2010). “Defend WikiLeaks or lose free speech”. Salon.com. http://www.salon.com/technology/dan_gillmor/2010/12/06/war_on_speech. Retrieved 19 December 2010. 
  271. ^ “First, They Came for WikiLeaks. Then…”. The Nation (New York). 27 December 2010. http://www.thenation.com/article/157017/first-they-came-wikileaks-then. Retrieved 19 May 2011. 
  272. ^ Ruane, Medb (11 December 2010). “Where’s the democracy in hunting Wikileaks off the Net?”. Irish Independent (Dublin). http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/medb-ruane/medb-ruane-wheres-the-democracy-in-hunting-wikileaks-off-the-net-2456960.html. Retrieved 19 December 2010. 
  273. ^ Nayar, Pramod K. (25 December 2010). “WikiLeaks, the New Information Cultures and Digital Parrhesia”. Economic & Political Weekly (Mumbai). http://epw.in/epw/uploads/articles/15542.pdf. Retrieved 8 January 2011. 
  274. ^ “Congress Mulls How to Stop WikiLeaks in Its Tracks”. Fox News. Associated Press. 7 April 2010. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/16/congress-mulls-stop-wikileaks-tracks/. Retrieved 17 December 2010. 
  275. ^ Richter, Paul (19 November 2010). “U.S. tries to contain damage from WikiLeaks disclosures”. Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 29 November 2010. http://web.archive.org/web/20101129222358/http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/sc-dc-1130-wikileaks-20101129,0,2557036.story. Retrieved 14 March 20124. 
  276. ^ Epstein, Jennifer (1 December 2010). “Bill Clinton: WikiLeaks will cost lives”. Politico. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/45791.html. Retrieved 17 December 2010. 
  277. ^ “Clinton blasts ‘deeply distressing’ leak of US sites”. AFP. 6 December 2010. http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5g6IJsJmC5_Ud2cLLJ2n0AJ9FZRcg?docId=CNG.3c86e1065eee2cfd740284f4a84f3555.361. Retrieved 14 March 2012. 
  278. ^ “Outrage and Apologies: Washington Fights to Rebuild Battered Reputation”. Spiegel International (Hamburg). 6 December 2010. http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,733088,00.html. Retrieved 17 December 2010. 
  279. ^ “WikiLeaks asked to censor secret files”. Herald Sun. Associated Press (Melbourne). 11 August 2010. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/wikileaks-asked-to-censor-secret-files/story-e6frf7jx-1225903715328. Retrieved 17 December 2010. 
  280. ^ “Open letter to Wikileaks founder Julian Assange: “A bad precedent for the Internet’s future””. Reporters Sans Frontières. 12 August 2010. http://en.rsf.org/united-states-open-letter-to-wikileaks-founder-12-08-2010,38130.html. Retrieved 17 December 2010. 
  281. ^ “UN human rights chief voices concern at reported ‘cyber war’ against WikiLeaks” (Press release). United Nations. 9 December 2010. http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=37009&Cr=leaked&Cr1. Retrieved 28 December 2010. 
  282. ^ “Joint Statement on WikiLeaks”. Organization of American States. http://www.cidh.oas.org/relatoria/showarticle.asp?artID=829&lID=1. Retrieved 28 December 2010. 
  283. ^ “Video Debate: Is WikiLeaks Good For The World?”. Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. http://www.rferl.org/content/video_debate_is_wikileaks_good_for_the_world/2251158.html. Retrieved October 21, 2011. 
  284. ^ Piven, Ben (17 December 2010). “Copycat WikiLeaks sites make waves – Features”. Al Jazeera English. http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2010/12/20101216194828514847.html. Retrieved 18 December 2010. 
  285. ^ Wikileaks launches Social Network
  286. ^ Razumovskaya, Olga (21 January 2011). “Russia’s Own WikiLeaks Takes Off”. The Moscow Times. http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/russias-own-wikileaks-takes-off/429370.html. Retrieved 21 January 2011. 
  287. ^ “Argentina: Judge orders all ISPs to block corruption reporting website”. 11 August 2011. http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2011/08/argentina-judge-orders-all-isps-to-block-corruption-reporting-website/. Retrieved 11 August 2011. 
  288. ^ “Argentina: Judge orders all ISPs to block the sites LeakyMails.com and Leakymails.blogspot.com”. 11 August 2011. http://opennet.net/blog/2011/08/argentina-judge-orders-all-isps-block-sites-leakymailscom-and-leakymailsblogspotcom/. Retrieved 11 August 2011. 
  289. ^ “Argentine ISPs Use Bazooka to Kill Fly”. 19 August 2011. http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/08/argentina-isps-ip-overblocking. Retrieved 19 August 2011. 
  290. ^ honestappalachia.org
  291. ^ [1], Ove, Torsten. Honest Appalachia website aims to be localized WikiLeaks operation. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. 15 January 2012. Retrieved 15 January 2012.
  292. ^ [2]. honestappalachia.org. Retrieved on 15 January 2012.
  293. ^ “WikiLeaks.org is dead; long live WikiLeaks.ch”. The National Business Review (Auckland, NZ). 4 December 2010. http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/wikileaks-offline-faces-triple-threat-134238. Retrieved 15 December 2010. 
  294. ^ “Twitter / WikiLeaks: Cablegate”. Twitter. 10 December 2010. http://twitter.com/wikileaks/statuses/13275437891321856#. Retrieved 15 December 2010. 

[edit] Further reading

[edit] External links

Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: WikiLeaks
Wikimedia Commons has media related to: WikiLeaks

IRC server: irc://sunshinepress.org:9999/ (SSL required)

[hide]

WikiLeaks
 
2006–2010 leaks
 
Cables leak
 
Overview
 
By region
 
By country
 
By topic
 
2011–present leaks
 
Related people
 
Legal
 
Related topics

Retrieved from “http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WikiLeaks&oldid=507763592

 

 

Personal tools

Namespaces

 

Variants
 

Actions
 

 

August 16, 2012 Posted by | Timeline, Uncategorized | , | Leave a comment

United States Department of Health and Human Services

 
 

 

United States Department of Health and Human Services

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Jump to: navigation, search

 
“HEW” redirects here. For the Hanford Engineer Works, see Hanford site.
“DHHS” redirects here. For Druid Hills High School, see Druid Hills High School.
Department of Health and Human Services
US-DeptOfHHS-Seal.svg
Official seal
US-DeptOfHHS-Logo.svg
HHS Logo
DHHS2 by Matthew Bisanz.JPG
DHHS headquarters in Washington, D.C. an example of Brutalist architecture
Department overview
Formed April 11, 1953
May 4, 1980
Preceding Department United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
Jurisdiction Federal government of the United States
Headquarters Hubert H. Humphrey Building
Washington, D.C.38°53′12″N 77°00′52″W / 38.88667°N 77.01444°W / 38.88667; -77.01444Coordinates: 38°53′12″N 77°00′52″W / 38.88667°N 77.01444°W / 38.88667; -77.01444
Employees 67,000 (2004)
Annual budget $78.4 billion (2011)[1]
Department executives Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary
Bill Corr, Deputy Secretary
Child Department HHS agencies
Website
Official Website

The United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is a Cabinet department of the United States government with the goal of protecting the health of all Americans and providing essential human services. Its motto is “Improving the health, safety, and well-being of America”. Before the separate federal Department of Education was created in 1979, it was called the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW).

Contents

 [hide

[edit] History

President Harding proposed a Department of Education and Welfare as early as 1923, and similar proposals were also recommended by subsequent presidents, but for various reasons were not implemented.[2] The Department was only created thirty years later under Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1953 pursuant to authority granted in the Reorganization Act of 1949, in which the president was allowed to create or reorganize executive branch departments as long as neither house of Congress passed a legislative veto. This power to create new departments was removed after 1962, and in the early 1980s the Supreme Court declared legislative vetoes unconstitutional.

Unlike statutes authorizing the creation of other executive departments, the contents of Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1953 were never properly codified within the United States Code, although Congress did codify a later statute ratifying the Plan. Today, the Plan is included an appendix to Title 5 of the United States Code. The result is that HHS as the only executive department whose statutory foundation today rests on a confusing combination of several codified and uncodified statutes.

The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare was renamed the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in 1979,[3] when its education functions were transferred to the newly created United States Department of Education under the Department of Education Organization Act.[4] HHS was left in charge of the Social Security Administration, agencies constituting the Public Health Service, and Family Support Administration.

In 1995, the Social Security Administration was removed from the Department of Health and Human Services, and established as an independent agency of the executive branch of the United States Government.

HHS is administered by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, who is appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. The United States Public Health Service (PHS) is the main division of the HHS and is led by the Assistant Secretary for Health. The current Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius is the Vice-Chair of the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness, and the Department of Health and Human Services is a member of the Council, which is dedicated to preventing and ending homelessness in America.

The United States Public Health Service Commissioned Corps, the uniformed service of the PHS, is led by the Surgeon General who is responsible for addressing matters concerning public health as authorized by the Secretary or by the Assistant Secretary of Health in addition to his or her primary mission of administering the Commissioned Corps. The Office of Inspector General (OIG) investigates criminal activity for HHS. The special agents who work for OIG have the same title series “1811”, training and authority as other federal criminal investigators, such as the FBI, ATF, DEA and Secret Service. However, OIG Special Agents have special skills in investigating white collar crime related to Medicare and Medicaid fraud and abuse. Organized crime has dominated the criminal activity relative to this type of fraud.

HHS-OIG investigates tens of millions of dollars in Medicare fraud each year. In addition, OIG will continue its coverage of all 50 States and the District of Columbia by its multi-agency task forces (PSOC Task Forces) that identify, investigate, and prosecute individuals who willfully avoid payment of their child support obligations under the Child Support Recovery Act.

HHS-OIG agents also provide protective services to the Secretary of HHS, and other department executives as necessary.

In 2002, the department released Healthy People 2010, a national strategic initiative for improving the health of Americans.

[edit] Strengthening Communities Fund

In June 2010 the Department of Health and Human Services created the strengthening communities fund as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment act. The fund was appropriated $50 million to be given as grants to organizations in the United States who were engaged in Capacity Building programs. The grants were given to two different types of capacity builders:[5]*State, Local and Tribal governments engaged in capacity building- grants will go to state local and tribal governments to equip them with the capacity to more effectively partner with faith-based or non-faith based nonprofit organizations. [6]

Capacity building in this program will involve education and outreach that catalyzes more involvement of nonprofit organizations in economic recovery

and building up nonprofit organization’s abilities to tackle economic problems. State, Local and Tribal governments can receive up to $250,000 in 2-year-grants

  • Nonprofit Social Service Providers engaged in capacity building- they will make grants available to nonprofit organizations who can assist other nonprofit organizations in organizational development, program development, leadership, and evaluations. Nonprofits can receive up to $1 million in 2-year-grants

[edit] Agencies[7]

[edit] Office of the Secretary (OS)

[edit] Operating divisions

HHS business areas.jpg

(Several agencies within HHS are components of the Public Health Service (PHS), including AHRQ, ASPR, ATSDR, CDC, FDA, HRSA, IHS, NIH, SAMHSA, OGHA, and OPHS).[9]

[edit] Former operating divisions and agencies

[edit] Budget

The Department of Health and Human Services’ budget includes more than 300 programs, covering a wide spectrum of activities. Some highlights include:

  • Health and social science research
  • Preventing disease, including immunization services
  • Assuring food and drug safety
  • Medicare (health insurance for elderly and disabled Americans) and Medicaid (health insurance for low-income people)
  • Health information technology
  • Financial assistance and services for low-income families
  • Improving maternal and infant health, including a Nurse Home Visitation to support first-time mothers.
  • Head Start (pre-school education and services)
  • Faith-based and community initiatives
  • Preventing child abuse and domestic violence
  • Substance abuse treatment and prevention
  • Services for older Americans, including home-delivered meals
  • Comprehensive health services for Native Americans
  • Medical preparedness for emergencies, including potential terrorism.

[edit] Health care reform

The 2010 United States federal budget establishes a reserve fund of more than $630 billion over 10 years to finance fundamental reform of the health care system. [10]

[edit] Related legislation

[edit] See also

Portal icon Government of the United States portal
Portal icon Health and fitness portal
Portal icon Medicine portal

[edit] External links

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: United States Department of Health and Human Services

[edit] References

  1. ^ whitehouse.gov
  2. ^ Eisenhower, Dwight (1953-03-12). “Special Message to the Congress Transmitting Reorganization Plan of 1953 Creating the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare”. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=9794. Retrieved 2012-01-06. 
  3. ^ Office of the Law Revision Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives, Title 20, Section 3508
  4. ^ Full text of the Department of Education Organization Act, P.L. 96-88
  5. ^ “Strengthening communities fund”. http://www.hhs.gov/recovery/programs/scf/index.html
  6. ^ “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act”. HHS. http://www.hhs.gov/recovery/reports/plans/pdf20100610/ACF%20SCF%20June%202010.pdf
  7. ^ HHS.gov
  8. ^ HHS.gov
  9. ^ HHS.gov
  10. ^ WhiteHouse.gov
[show]

 
 

 
Past departments:  Commerce and LaborHealth, Education, and WelfareNavyPost OfficeWar
[show]

Agencies of the United States Department of Health and Human Services
 
 
Secretariate staff offices

Office of the Secretary of Health and Human Services

  • Office of the Deputy Secretary of Health and Human Services
  • Office of Inspector General
United States Department of Health and Human Services Seal
 
Organizations under the
Assistant Secretary for Health
 
Programs

Retrieved from “http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_Department_of_Health_and_Human_Services&oldid=507145926

View page ratings
Rate this page
Rate this page
Page ratings
Current average ratings.
 
Trustworthy
 
 
 
 
 
 
Objective
 
 
 
 
 
 
Complete
 
 
 
 
 
 
Well-written
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
I have a relevant college/university degree
It is part of my profession
It is a deep personal passion
The source of my knowledge is not listed here
I would like to help improve Wikipedia, send me an e-mail (optional)

We will send you a confirmation e-mail. We will not share your e-mail address with outside parties as per our feedback privacy statement.
 

Submit ratings

Saved successfully
Your ratings have not been submitted yet
 
Your ratings have expired
Please reevaluate this page and submit new ratings.
An error has occurred. Please try again later.
Thanks! Your ratings have been saved.
Please take a moment to complete a short survey.
 

Start surveyMaybe later

Thanks! Your ratings have been saved.
Do you want to create an account?
An account will help you track your edits, get involved in discussions, and be a part of the community.

Create an accountorLog inMaybe later

Thanks! Your ratings have been saved.
Did you know that you can edit this page?
 

Edit this pageMaybe later

 
 

 

Personal tools

Namespaces

 

Variants
 

Actions
 

Navigation

Interaction

Toolbox

Print/export

Languages

 

August 16, 2012 Posted by | Military, Military Tribunal Action, Murderers, War and Militarization, War crimes | | Leave a comment

United States Public Health Service Commissioned Corps

 
 

 

United States Public Health Service Commissioned Corps

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Jump to: navigation, search

 
United States Public Health Service
Commissioned Corps
USPHS Commissioned Corps insignia.png

United States Public Health Service
Commissioned Corps

Active 16 July 1889[1][2] – present
Country  United States of America
Type Uniformed service
Size 6,500+ officers[3]
Part of Department of Health and Human Services
United States Public Health Service
Headquarters Washington, D.C.
Colors Blue & Gold         
Engagements
Commanders
Surgeon General VADM Regina Benjamin
Deputy Surgeon General RADM Boris D. Lushniak
Chief of Staff RADM Christopher G. Halliday
Notable
commanders
VADM Julius B. Richmond
VADM C. Everett Koop
ADM James O. Mason
ADM David Satcher
ADM John O. Agwunobi
ADM Joxel García

The United States Public Health Service Commissioned Corps (PHSCC) is the federal uniformed service of the United States Public Health Service (PHS) and is one of the seven uniformed services of the United States.

The Public Health Service Commissioned Corps is one of two uniformed services that only consist of commissioned officers and has no enlisted or warrant officer ranks, although warrant officers have been authorized for use within the service.[5] Officers of the PHS are classified as noncombatants, unless directed to serve as part of the armed forces by the President or detailed to a service branch of the armed forces.[6] Members of the PHSCC wear the same uniforms as the United States Navy with special corps insignia, and hold ranks equivalent to those of naval officers. Officers of the PHSCC receive their commissions through the PHSCC’s direct commissioning program.

As with its parent division, the PHS, the PHSCC is under the direction of the United States Department of Health and Human Services. The PHSCC is led by the Surgeon General who holds grade of vice admiral.[7] The Surgeon General reports directly to the Assistant Secretary for Health who may hold the rank of admiral if he or she is a serving member of the PHSCC.[7]

Contents

 [hide

[edit] History

The Public Health Service Commissioned Corps had its beginnings with the creation of the Marine Hospital Fund in 1798, which later was reorganized in 1871 as the Marine Hospital Service. The Marine Hospital Service was charged with the care and maintenance of merchant sailors, but as the country grew, so did the ever-expanding mission of the service. The Marine Hospital Service soon began taking on new expanding health roles that included such health initiatives that protected the commerce and health of America. One such role was quarantine.

Dr. John Maynard Woodworth, a famous surgeon of the Union Army who fought under General William Tecumseh Sherman, was appointed in 1871 as the Supervising Surgeon. Dr. Woodworth’s title was later changed to “Supervising Surgeon General,” which later became the Surgeon General of the United States. Dr. Woodworth is credited with the formal creation of the Commissioned Corps. Dr. Woodworth organized the Marine Hospital Service medical personnel along Army military structure, to facilitate a mobile force of health professionals that could be moved for the needs of the service and country. He also established appointment standards and designed the Marine Hospital Service herald of a fouled anchor and caduceus. Later that year, President Grover Cleveland signed an Act into law that formally established the modern Public Health Service Commissioned Corps (then the Marine Hospital Service under the Supervising Surgeon (later Surgeon General). At first open only to physicians, over the course of the twentieth century, the Corps expanded to include dentists, engineers, pharmacists, nurses, environmental health specialists, scientists, and other health professionals.

Today, the PHSCC is under the United States Public Health Service (PHS), the main division of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and is still led by the Surgeon General. The PHSCC allocate officers to all seven uniformed services depending on the health and/or medical needs of the other uniformed services. The Corps also recently initiated a transformation to enlarge the size of the Corps.

[edit] Purpose

The stated mission of the Commissioned Corps of the U.S. Public Health Service is “Protecting, promoting, and advancing the health and safety of the Nation” in accordance with the Corps four Core Values: Leadership, Excellence, Integrity, and Service. Officers execute the mission of the Corps in the following ways:

  • Help provide healthcare and related services to medically underserved populations: to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and to other population groups with special needs;
  • Prevent and control disease, identify health hazards in the environment and help correct them, and promote healthy lifestyles for the nation’s citizens;
  • Improve the nation’s mental health;
  • Ensure that drugs and medical devices are safe and effective, food is safe and wholesome, cosmetics are harmless, and that electronic products do not expose users to dangerous amounts of radiation;
  • Conduct and support biomedical, behavioral, and health services research and communicate research results to health professionals and the public; and
  • Work with other nations and international agencies on global health problems and their solutions.

In addition, the Corps provides officers (Medical Officers, Dental Officers, Therapists, Environmental Health Officers, etc.) to other uniformed services, primarily the United States Coast Guard and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Commissioned Corps. Corps officers may also be detailed to other federal agencies including the Department of Defense, TRICARE, Department of Justice (BOP), State Department, Department of Homeland Security, Department of the Interior (National Park Service), and even the Central Intelligence Agency. Corps officers may also develop individual memoranda of understanding (MOUs) with other organizations, including state and local health agencies, and even non-governmental organizations (NGOs).

The Commissioned Corps is also often called upon by other federal, state, and local agencies to aid and augment in times when their resources are overwhelmed. These responses are considered deployments, and may be for technical needs in standard settings, or in the event of disasters, in austere environments.

[edit] Deployments

The corps is often deployed as part of ESF-8 in the national emergency response plan, but can also be deployed on an individual basis for various needs to other federal agencies, states, local governments, or even to aid foreign governments. Like all other federal-level responses, officers are deployed only upon request, and upon the recommendation of the Surgeon General and permission of the Assistant Secretary for Health. During deployments, officers may report to regular office spaces, such as coordinating responses at state-of-the-art emergency operations centers, or into the field in extremely austere environments, such as when responding to a natural disaster. In addition, deployments may either be on an individual basis, such as when specific skill sets are needed, or as part of a team, when large-scale responses are needed.

The corps recently introduced a tiered system of response, with Tier 1 response teams ready and able to respond to an event within 12 hours, and Tier 2 teams ready and able to respond within 36 hours. Officers not on Tier 1 or 2 teams are Tier 3 responders, ready and able to respond to an event in 72 hours. Tier 1 teams are primarily made up of Rapid Deployment Force (RDF) teams that are made up of over 100 officers with multiple specialties, and are focused on providing acute clinical care of disaster-exacerbated chronic conditions. Officers who do not work as a clinical care provider on one of these teams are often in support roles, such as logistics, administration/finance, or planning. Tier 2 teams are composed of a smaller, more specialized workforce. Current Tier 2 teams include the Applied Public Health Team (APHT), the Mental Health Team (MHT), and the Services Access Team (SAT). Officers not already assigned to one of the Tier 1 and Tier 2 teams are Tier 3, and are used to augment these teams in the event of staffing shortages due to availability, or the need to scale up a response.

Some notable recent deployments involving the Public Health Service Commissioned Corps:

  • 1989 – Hurricane Hugo, Loma Prieta, California earthquake.[citation needed]
  • 1992 – More than 1000 PHS officers were deployed to South Dade County, Florida following Hurricane Andrew
  • early 1990s – flooding throughout the United States and Alaska
  • 1994 – Northridge, California earthquake
  • 1995 – bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
  • 1995 – Hundreds of PHS officers were deployed to the U.S. Virgin Islands following Hurricane Marilyn
  • 2001 – More than 1,000 PHS officers were deployed to New York City after the attacks on September 11, 2001 to aid victims and provide medical and mental health services to responders and rescue workers.
  • 2004 – Hurricane Ivan
  • 2005 – more than 2,000 PHS officers deployed to set up field hospitals and render aid and assistance to evacuees and responders in the wakes of Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Rita, and Hurricane Wilma[8]
  • 2008 – PHS-2 Rapid Deployment Force deployed pre-landfall to Louisiana in advance of Hurricane Gustav. It became the first standing PHS team to set up and run a Federal Medical Station. The team and 200 patients rode out the hurricane in Alexandria’s Riverfront Center. RDF-1 and RDF-3 deployed pre-landfall in advance of Hurricane Ike to set up Federal Medical Stations in College Station, TX and Baton Rouge, LA respectively.
  • 2010 – Haiti earthquake; oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico

In addition to disaster response, the Public Health Service Commissioned Corps has been partnering with the United States Navy on their health diplomacy missions. Corps officers have been part of the Navy’s Pacific Partnership (in the Pacific basin) and Continuing Promise (in the Caribbean/west Atlantic) since 2007. Such missions are often carried out on either the USNS Mercy (T-AH-19) or USNS Comfort (T-AH-20), though other ships, such as the USS Bataan (LHD-5) have also been used. The command staff of the corps are deployed for the entire mission duration (often three months), while operational personnel serve one month aboard, meeting and departing the ships at the ports of call during the mission.

The corps, as a uniformed service, may also be militarized and considered a branch of the armed forces by an act of Congress, or by executive order by the President of the United States, not only in time of war, but also in “an emergency involving the national defense proclaimed by the President.” One such major militarization of the corps occurred during World War II, in which the corps was militarized for WWII and the Korean War.[9]

[edit] Commissioned officers

The members of the Commissioned Corps number over 6,600 officers in 11 professional categories:

The Health Services Officer (HSO) category comprises over 50 specialties, including audiology, social workers, physician assistants, optometrists, statisticians, computer scientists, dental hygienists, medical records administrators, medical technologists and others.

The Corps uses the same commissioned officer ranks as the United States Navy and Coast Guard from ensign to admiral, uniformed services pay grades O-1 through O-10 respectively. USPHS Commissioned Corps officers are appointed via direct commission and receive the same pay as other members of the uniformed services. They cannot hold a dual commission with another service but inter-service transfers are permitted.

Commissioned officer ranks, titles and abbreviations of the United States Public Health Service Commissioned Corps
Admiral Vice Admiral Rear Admiral Rear Admiral
(lower half)
O-10 O-9 O-8 O-7
US PHS O10 insignia.svg US PHS O9 insignia.svg US PHS O8 insignia.svg US PHS O7 insignia.svg
Assistant Secretary for Health Surgeon General Deputy Surgeon General or
Assistant Surgeon General
Assistant Surgeon General
ADM VADM RADM RADM[10]
Captain Commander Lieutenant
Commander
Lieutenant Lieutenant
(junior grade)
Ensign
O-6 O-5 O-4 O-3 O-2 O-1
US PHS O6 insignia.svg US PHS O5 insignia.svg US PHS O4 insignia.svg US PHS O3 insignia.svg US PHS O2 insignia.svg US PHS O1 insignia.svg
Director Senior Full Senior Assistant Assistant Junior Assistant
CAPT CDR LCDR LT LTJG ENS

Before reforms in the 1960s, the ranks of the service with their naval equivalents were as follows:

[edit] Uniforms

Service Dress Blues
Service Dress Blues
Summer Whites
Summer Whites
Summer Khakis
Summer Khakis
PHSCC Uniforms
PHSCC Combination Cap Device
PHSCC Combination Cap Device
PHSCC Cap, Collar, & Sleeve Device
PHSCC Cap, Collar, and Sleeve Device
PHSCC Lapel Pin
PHSCC Lapel Pin (for civilian dress)
PHSCC Insignia

Corps officers wear uniforms similar to those of the United States Navy with special PHSCC insignia. In certain duty situations, a PHSCC officer can be allocated to another uniformed service. For example, the NOAA Corps do not commission medical officers on board ship so the PHSCC allocates officers to them. The PHSCC also allocates and details a number of officers to the United States Coast Guard. Because of this close relationship, if a PHSCC officer is on assignment with the Coast Guard, the officer is required to wear the same service uniforms as regular Coast Guard officers, but still bearing PHSCC insignia to identify them. The PHSCC officer is also subject to grooming standards of the service to which attached for uniform appearance.

[edit] March of the United States Public Health Service

Like the other U.S. uniformed services, the U.S. Public Health Service has a march and accompanying lyrics. Composed by retired U.S. Coast Guard Senior Chief Musician George King III, the lyrics are as follows:

The mission of our service is known the world around
In research and in treatment no equal can be found
In the silent war against disease no truce is ever seen
We serve on the land and the sea for humanity
The Public Health Service Team

[edit] See also

[edit] References

  1. ^ Public Health Service Bicentennial
  2. ^ About the Commissioned Corps History
  3. ^ What is the Commissioned Corps?
  4. ^ a b c History of the PHS Commissioned Corps
  5. ^ 42 USC 204 Notes: 1979 – Pub. L. 96–76 inserted provisions relating to appointment and status of warrant officers
  6. ^ UCMJ S 802. Art. 2. Subs. (a). Para. (8)
  7. ^ a b “U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps”. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. http://www.usphs.gov/AboutUs/uniforms.aspx. Retrieved 24 June 2008. 
  8. ^ DCP.PSC.gov
  9. ^ DCP.PSC.gov
  10. ^ About the Commissioned Corps Uniforms The PHSCC uses the abbreviation RADM for both grades of rear admirals.

[edit] Further reading

[edit] External links

[show]

 
 
Leadership
 
Organization
 
 
Branches
 
 
 
 
 
Structure
 
Operations and history
 
Personnel
 
Training
 
 
 
Other
 
Equipment
Land
 
Sea
 
Air
 
Other
 
[show]

 
 
Secretariate staff offices

Office of the Secretary of Health and Human Services

  • Office of the Deputy Secretary of Health and Human Services
  • Office of Inspector General
United States Department of Health and Human Services Seal
 
Organizations under the
Assistant Secretary for Health
 
Programs

Retrieved from “http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_Public_Health_Service_Commissioned_Corps&oldid=503014939

View page ratings
Rate this page
Rate this page
Page ratings
Current average ratings.
 
Trustworthy
 
 
 
 
 
 
Objective
 
 
 
 
 
 
Complete
 
 
 
 
 
 
Well-written
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
I have a relevant college/university degree
It is part of my profession
It is a deep personal passion
The source of my knowledge is not listed here
I would like to help improve Wikipedia, send me an e-mail (optional)

We will send you a confirmation e-mail. We will not share your e-mail address with outside parties as per our feedback privacy statement.
 

Submit ratings

Saved successfully
Your ratings have not been submitted yet
 
Your ratings have expired
Please reevaluate this page and submit new ratings.
An error has occurred. Please try again later.
Thanks! Your ratings have been saved.
Please take a moment to complete a short survey.
 

Start surveyMaybe later

Thanks! Your ratings have been saved.
Do you want to create an account?
An account will help you track your edits, get involved in discussions, and be a part of the community.

Create an accountorLog inMaybe later

Thanks! Your ratings have been saved.
Did you know that you can edit this page?
 

Edit this pageMaybe later

 
 

 

Personal tools

Namespaces

 

Variants
 

Actions
 

Navigation

Interaction

Toolbox

Print/export

Languages

 

August 16, 2012 Posted by | Crimes, Crimes against humanity, HIV, medicine, Military Tribunal Action, Murderers, National Emergency, War and Militarization, War crimes | , | Leave a comment

Non-combatant

Non-combatant

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Non-combatant is a term in the law of war describing civilians who are not taking a direct part in hostilities,[1] persons such as medical personnel and military chaplains who are member of the armed forces, but are protected because of their specific duties (as described in Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions, adopted in June 1977), and combatants who are hors de combat (“outside the fight”); that is, sick, wounded, detained, or otherwise disabled.

Article 50 Protocol I defines a civilian as a person who is not a privileged combatant. Article 51 describes the protection that must be given to civilians (unless they are unprivileged combatants) and civilian populations. Chapter III of Protocol I regulates the targeting of civilian objects. Article 8(2)(b)(i) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court also prohibits attacks directed against civilians. Not all states have ratified Protocol I or the Rome Statute, but it is an accepted principle of international humanitarian law that the direct targeting of civilians is a breach of the customary laws of war and is binding on all belligerents.

Article 3 in the general section of the Geneva Conventions states that in the case of armed conflict not of an international character (occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties) that each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions to non-combatants: They shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, with the following prohibitions:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

[edit] Notes and references

  1. ^ Article 51.3 of Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions explains that “Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities”.
See also: Rule of Law in Armed Conflicts Project

Retrieved from “http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Non-combatant&oldid=496975137


August 16, 2012 Posted by | Civil Rights, conspiracy, Conspiratorial deprivation of constitutional rights, Cover story, Crimes, Crimes against humanity, Crimes against humanity, Defense Production Act, Diseases, Diseases?, Executive Office of the President, Executive Orders, Health and human Services, HIV, human rights, Manufacturer complicity, Military, Military Tribunal Action, National Emergency orders, non-combatants, prisoners, reparations and compensation, Science and medicine, Timeline, War crimes | , , , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries