In light of ongoing WikiLeaks bashing, the UN rapporteurs for freedom of expression call upon States whose signatories to U.N. treaties and laying claim to human rights, freedom of speech and information, to keep a number of international legal principles. Here are the key sentences of that important statement:
1. The right to access information held by public authorities is a fundamental human right subject to a strict regime of exceptions. The right to access to information protects the right of every person to access public information and to know what governments are doing on their behalf...
2. At the same time, the right of access to information should be subject to a narrowly tailored system of exceptions to protect overriding public and private interests such as national security and the rights and security of other persons. In accordance with international standards, information regarding human rights violations should not be considered secret or classified...
3. ...Other individuals, including journalists, media workers and civil society representatives, who receive and disseminate classified information because they believe it is in the public interest, should not be subject to liability unless they committed fraud or another crime to obtain the information. In addition, government "whistleblowers" releasing information on violations of the law, on wrongdoing by public bodies, on a serious threat to health, safety or the environment, or on a breach of human rights or humanitarian law should be protected against legal, administrative or employment-related sanctions if they act in good faith...
4. Direct or indirect government interference in or pressure exerted upon any expression or information transmitted through any means of oral, written, artistic, visual or electronic communication must be prohibited by law when it is aimed at influencing content...
5. Filtering systems which are not end-user controlled – whether imposed by a government or commercial service provider – are a form of prior censorship and cannot be justified...
6. Self-regulatory mechanisms for journalists have played an important role in fostering greater awareness about how to report on and address difficult and controversial subjects...
Read more, click here.
Friday 24 December 2010
Sunday 19 December 2010
CIA Chief Ducks Pakistan Supreme Court
The CIA station chief was pulled from Pakistan after his name was publicly exposed in Pakistan earlier this month by a Pakistani journalist whose relatives were killed in December 2009 CIA drone strike in North Waziristan. The CIA top spy in Islamabad runs the Predator drone program in the U.S. war against militant groups hidden along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.
AP story attempts to diffuse the focus on the real reason for the CIA top man on the run. A group of lawyers and citizen activists are probing the possibility of moving the Supreme Court of Pakistan against those responsible for the killing of innocent Pakistanis. AP version titled "Pakistan spy agency denies it exposed CIA chief" never mentions that CIA chief is facing a lawsuit for murder filed in the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Islamabad as exposed in Rupee News titled CIA Chief runs for cover. Instead, AP tries to raise suspicion by saying "the station chief's outing has spurred questions whether Pakistan's spy service might have leaked the information."
Why is this important? AP is supposedly be well-informed and has access to more sources and resources than any local newspaper. When AP "neglects" or omits certain facts, you tend to suspect its motives in publishing the story.
Here are the noticeably "omissions" in AP article.
AP doesn't mention the fact that "almost every Pakistani politician and military leader has accused the CIA for nefarious activities in Pakistan" or that there is a "CIA Army" existence in Pakistan.
AP leaves out the man's occupation in the lawsuit against the CIA. That man is not just an ordinary Pakistani civilian but a journalist.
AP willingly published the chief's name of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency but withheld the name of the outed CIA chief (Johnathan Banks) even though his name was revealed in Pakistani newspapers and television newscasts.
AP points to the lawsuit filed last month in the U.S. in connection with the 2008 terror attacks in Mumbai, India, that has "named Pakistan's intelligence chief as a defendant." This suggests ISI chief is somewhat involved in leaking information in retaliation even though a line was added: "The Pakistani intelligence official said the CIA has not directly accused the ISI of any wrongdoing in the revelation of the station chief's name."
What's the significance here? In any legal court battle, the defendant or defendants must be named. If the U.S. court could reveal the name of the ISI chief, why wouldn't it be the same in Pakistan's legal court system?
Conclusion? The fact that AP didn't even mention the lawsuit in the Supreme Court of Pakistan against the CIA shows the lack of truth and objectivity in mainstream news reporting. Although AP and other mainstream news agencies "appear objective" in reporting from both sides of the story with "witnesses", often key facts and points have been deliberately left out to hide the truth of the story. Readers need to dig deeper to know the truth.
AP story attempts to diffuse the focus on the real reason for the CIA top man on the run. A group of lawyers and citizen activists are probing the possibility of moving the Supreme Court of Pakistan against those responsible for the killing of innocent Pakistanis. AP version titled "Pakistan spy agency denies it exposed CIA chief" never mentions that CIA chief is facing a lawsuit for murder filed in the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Islamabad as exposed in Rupee News titled CIA Chief runs for cover. Instead, AP tries to raise suspicion by saying "the station chief's outing has spurred questions whether Pakistan's spy service might have leaked the information."
Why is this important? AP is supposedly be well-informed and has access to more sources and resources than any local newspaper. When AP "neglects" or omits certain facts, you tend to suspect its motives in publishing the story.
Here are the noticeably "omissions" in AP article.
AP doesn't mention the fact that "almost every Pakistani politician and military leader has accused the CIA for nefarious activities in Pakistan" or that there is a "CIA Army" existence in Pakistan.
AP leaves out the man's occupation in the lawsuit against the CIA. That man is not just an ordinary Pakistani civilian but a journalist.
AP willingly published the chief's name of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency but withheld the name of the outed CIA chief (Johnathan Banks) even though his name was revealed in Pakistani newspapers and television newscasts.
AP points to the lawsuit filed last month in the U.S. in connection with the 2008 terror attacks in Mumbai, India, that has "named Pakistan's intelligence chief as a defendant." This suggests ISI chief is somewhat involved in leaking information in retaliation even though a line was added: "The Pakistani intelligence official said the CIA has not directly accused the ISI of any wrongdoing in the revelation of the station chief's name."
What's the significance here? In any legal court battle, the defendant or defendants must be named. If the U.S. court could reveal the name of the ISI chief, why wouldn't it be the same in Pakistan's legal court system?
Conclusion? The fact that AP didn't even mention the lawsuit in the Supreme Court of Pakistan against the CIA shows the lack of truth and objectivity in mainstream news reporting. Although AP and other mainstream news agencies "appear objective" in reporting from both sides of the story with "witnesses", often key facts and points have been deliberately left out to hide the truth of the story. Readers need to dig deeper to know the truth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)