Zimbabwe mulls treason charges against former opposition politicians named in WikiLeaks cables

[Still a Democrat]

Source: Canadian Press

Zimbabwe's top lawyer may seek treason charges against former opposition politicians named in diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks, a move that has drawn criticism from a prominent legal rights group.

Attorney-general Johannes Tomana said he has formed an unnamed five-member expert panel to assess some 3,000 Zimbabwe-related U.S. cables for breaches of security laws.

But Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights chief Irene Petras said Thursday the constitution and terms of Tomana's official powers don't allow him to call in outside advisers. She called the investigation "an abuse of power."

...

Treason carries a possible death sentence in Zimbabwe.

...



Read more: http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5iGIwjMI4OCUHw8NDM5LkoJ8Lxfow?docId=5705204

[Luminous Animal]

1. FYI, The Guardian puplished the contents of the cables beford Wikileaks did.

A point of fact, Wikileaks partnered with traditional media in order to let them take the lead in what information was important to redact.

In this case, the Guardian made an editorial decision to publish names.

[davidinalameda]

2. did the Guardian publish the cables in question

in regards to Zimbabwe?

[Luminous Animal]

3. The one in which possible treason charges are based?

Yes, on December 8th.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/241595

[Still a Democrat]

4. You're suggesting the Guardian has some culpability as well?

n/t

[Luminous Animal]

6. I wasn't suggesting anything. I was aprising you of the facts.

By the way, what are your specific accusations against the Guardian?

[Still a Democrat]

10. I didn't make any accusations against the Guardian

Dueling hard headed literalism. :)

[Luminous Animal]

12. Then why did you use the word "culpability"?

[sabrina 1]

8. No one has culpability except those involved.

When a public official is advocating sanctions against his own people in private, sanctions that have devastated the people of Zimbabwe, for political reasons, while telling his own people he opposes them, it is not the fault of the messenger but HIS fault for being willing to sacrifice his own people for power and money.

A decent human being would have taken a different position. He would have demanded an end to the sanctions both publicly and privately.

Do you have anything to say about a man who would sacrifice his people like this while pretending he was on their side and condemning the sanctions?

Have you read the cables in question?

More diatribe meant to discredit a free and open press.

How about political leaders stop lying and victimizing their own people so that there will be no need for whistle-blowers to have to expose their lies?

But as long as they do lie, as long as they are willing to cause harm to their own people, then we need MORE WIKILEAKS!

Btw, this is an old story, at least two weeks old and was discussed already here and elsewhere, just FYI.

Edited to say that Mugabe needs to be stopped also but placing sanctions on a country which most of the time cause more harm to the people than the leaders, is not the way to deal with the situation.

[msanthrope]

11. When you find yourself on the same side as Robert Mugabe,

it's time to stop digging.

[sabrina 1]

28. When you find yourself supporting more devastating sanctions on

the already devastated people of Zimbabwe for political reasons, maybe you need to rethink exactly what it is you are supporting.

Do you have any idea what those sanctions have done to the people of Zimbabwe? Or have you just discovered this issue recently, because no one could possibly support a continuation of what the people themselves call a 'war without guns' on the people of Zimbabwe.

I could post link after link on the devastation those sanctions have caussed to the people of Zimbabwe and it is reprehensible to think that this man, who claimed to be BETTER THAN MUGABE and had fooled the people into maybe thinking he was, as he condemned publicly the 'War of Sanctions' being waged against them, while privately he was asking the Imperial Western Nations to continue destroying his own people.

You do realize you are supporting George Bush's cruel policies towards that country? George Bush's SANCTIONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION as they are known in that part of the world.

And, if you are so worried about Mugabe, you can thank the Bush Administration's policies of brutal sanctions for keeping him in power. Just one more stupid and brutal policy left over and apparently being continued, from the Bush Cabal's war on third world people. And it was never about Mugabe, it was as always, about Zimbabwe's resources.

Maybe it's time for Americans to educate themselves on these issues before slamming the messengers but I won't hold my breath waiting for that to happen.



It was the right thing to do to expose anyone who was proposing continuing those sanctions. At least the people know now that the man they hoped would be better than Mugabe, was perhaps, even worse.

And now they have a chance to choose someone else, someone who is not willing to let them starve or go without vital medicines in order to promote himself.

I really love how people a half a world away from Zimbabwe would have the gall to try to hide this vital information from the Zimbabwean people for their own petty political gamesmanship.

Maybe you should check with the people of Zimbabwe and other African nations who know what Colonialism has done and is still doing to their people.

[msanthrope]

31. Do you not get the inherent hypocrisy of your post?

You call for Zimbabweans to be asked about what 'colonialism' has done to them.

All the while conveniently forgetting that the Prime Minister is, in fact Zimbabwean, and might have a better idea of what his country needs than you.
What astounding first-world arrogance you display--you have a pre-set narrative where you have decided how an African PM should have acted, determined by a white Australian.

I don't presume to know enough about Zimbabwe to tell its PM how he should get rid of Robert Mugabe. Obviously, you and Assange think you do.

Rape apologia and Robert Mugabe. All in one month. I hope Julian Assange is worth it.

[sabrina 1]

34. And you ignore the fact that the PM was willing to sacrifice

his people's lives in order to retain power.

I know a lot about Zimbabwe and I know that there would no Mugabe if it were not for Colonial Powers' destruction of that country for their resources.

I know that any policy put in place by George Bush, a policy YOU are supporting either wittningly or unwittingly, is going to be ominous for the people of third world countries, and it has been.

Assange knows a great deal about African nations considering the work he has done to try to shed light on that continent, work for which he has received awards from human rights groups.

What are YOUR credentials to speak for the people of Zimbabwe, speaking of arrogance?

The exposure of corrupt, lying politicians is necessary so that people can improve their status rather than blindly elect yet another leader who will betray them.

The cables show that the PM was prepared to betray his people.

Zimbabwe can do better than that. The people are smart, they just need the truth and now they have it.

[Ash_F]

32. That is a narrow view of the situation. That is like Saying you support Jesse Helms and apartheid

That is like saying being against Mugabe and the half of the country that supports him and his party is being for racism, apartheid and machine gunning native people for the gold buried under their feet. That is the rhetoric ZANU-PF uses against the pro-West parties. All of that was actually perpetrated by England so people tend associate the Pro-West parties with those past crimes. They consider pro westerners to be "Uncle Toms" and it is another narrow view of the situation. However it is hard to defend them when their leaders do stuff like this. The opposition needs new leadership and though what they have done is serious, certainly it would be overboard for them to be executed or jailed. I think it is unlikely, though possible they would be charged with a crime. This event will hurt them politically and hopefully make their parties take a hard look at who they have put in charge. I do not think some posters here fully realize how hot things are in that country. It is extremely divided. The best(and smartest IMO) thing that the opposition parties can do is drop both their leaders and re-unite against ZANU-PF.

The sanctions(which were sponsored by the pro apartheid Jesse Helms for one), for those who do not know, were part of the White elite's strategy of essentially salting the earth on their way out after loosing power. They basically bar farmers and businessmen from access to international credit and investment. For a country that was just coming out of the colonial era with no internal capital, this was devastating. They are basically starting up their country scratch. Of course there is turmoil. England should be paying to rebuild the region themselves for their crimes but instead they have done everything they could to make it more difficult for the Zimbabweans. And the US has stood with them on it. The problem is that the 'high society' types that left the country run in the same circles of 'high society' in the US and Europe. Many of these people are in powerful positions, know each other and are even related.


Wikileaks did the right thing in this case. I do not know enough about world history to know what all Wikileaks has done right or wrong but I do know a little bit about this country. It was noble and just to bring this info to light.

[sabrina 1]

35. Thank you, excellent post. This country has gone so far down the

into the gutter when it comes to the truth being reported, I really have to give up hope at this point. Especially when you see these kinds of positions being taken on a Democratic Board.

[JackRiddler]

36. When you find yourself relying entirely on platitudes for your argument...

you already stopped thinking a while ago. Whether or not you still dig is irrelevant.

[JDPriestly]

15. How do you know how this will turn out in the end?

Look what happened in Tunisia. You can't predict.

[EFerrari]

27. The Guardian itself has acknowledged that they chose and published

these cables.

Having said that, the man was conspiring against his own country.

[JackRiddler]

37. Certainly not -- the only culpable ones are the liars who opposed sanctions in public while...

working with their nation's enemies in secret to maintain the sanctions. If they had maintained a consistent position, if they had not lied to their own followers, they wouldn't have this problem.

Too bad for them that the secret came out.

If they are treated unjustly as a result, then that is on Mugabe, and not on the reporters who brought out the truth.

[msanthrope]

5. Well, as long as Wikileaks can help Mugabe....

Oh, I know, we are all supposed to blame the Guardian for failing to edit what Assange helped Manning steal---

as in, we can never hold Assange and Wikileaks accountable for the completely foreseeable.

[Luminous Animal]

7. You are misrepresenting the truth of the arrangement.

Wikileaks publishes the cables AFTER one of it's media partners vets them and writes an article about them.

The Guardian wrote an article about the cables and published them on December 8th.

If the Guardian had not published them, neither would have Wikileaks.

If the Guardian had redacted names, Wikileaks would have as well.

[msanthrope]

9. You are willfully ignoring who gave the unedited info to the Guardian in the first place--Wikileaks.

The Guardian wouldn't have had anything to publish, had not Wikileaks helped steal and then sent the cables to its 'media partners' without any editing.

So now, we get to watch the Assange apologists try to blame someone else--yet again--for the mistakes and hubris of Assange.

And this time, you get to stand on the same side as Robert Mugabe.

[Luminous Animal]

16. Wikileaks did not help anyone steal anything. In this case, the Guardian is the responsible party.

They published the information. They own the consequences.

No doubt if Wikileaks had edited 1st, people would be whining that Assange was controlling our access to information.

Wikileaks detractors can't have both ways... they can't shriek "blood on their hands" and accuse Wikileaks of not being a "genuine responsible" media organization (with the presumption that "genuine responsible" media organizations take care to protect the innocent) and them blame them when a "genuine responsible" media organization drops the ball.

[msanthrope]

23. Oh, I think they did help Manning steal the cables, and I think

in the coming months, there will be appropriate charges.

I blame Wikileaks for stealing the cables in concert with Manning, and providing them, unedited to the world.

And this won't be the only death.

[Luminous Animal]

24. Good luck with your eliminiationist fantacies.

[davidinalameda]

39. amen to that!

because of crap like this, I doubt anyone will ever trust the US again with any information that could be used against them

we need to have people like members of the Zimbabwean opposition provide us with information so we can possibly help them against the government

[davidinalameda]

13. you have no idea what Wikileaks would have done or not have done

they gave The Guardian the cables; if The Guardian didn't have the cables, they could have published them and couldn't have named any names

now Wikileaks and those behind it are going to be responsible for whatever happens in Zimbabwe which will probably be the deaths of those named

but I guess tweaking the nose of the American government is worth it

[Luminous Animal]

18. Actually, I do know. It is the agreement between the Guardian and other media partners.

This has been explained time and time again...

Unlike earlier disclosures by WikiLeaks of tens of thousands of secret government records, the group is releasing only a trickle of documents at a time from a trove of a quarter-million, and only after considering advice from five news organizations with which it chose to share all of the material.

"They are releasing the documents we selected," Le Monde's managing editor, Sylvie Kauffmann, said in an interview at the newspaper's Paris headquarters.

WikiLeaks turned over all of the classified State Department cables it obtained to Le Monde, El Pais in Spain, The Guardian in Britain and Der Spiegel in Germany. The Guardian shared the material with the New York Times, and the five news organizations have been working together to plan the timing of their reports.

They also have been advising WikiLeaks on which documents to release publicly and what redactions to make to those documents, Kauffmann and others involved in the arrangement said.

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9JSC3P00.htm

[Riftaxe]

19. Your own quote affirms that wikileaks propagated

the information in question.

[Luminous Animal]

20. Yes, they provided the means that allows the Guardian, the New York Times, La Monde,

El Pais, and Der Spiegel, and with guidance from the aforementioned, to make the information widely known.

So?

[daleo]

14. A free press can be like that

Telling the truth can be complicated. Covering up the truth and keeping secrets is certainly much simpler.

[davidinalameda]

21. what truth?

these were private conversations

what good is going to come about by releasing these cables?

the only thing that is going to happen is people will probably die

are their deaths complicated?

disgusting

[Luminous Animal]

26. Government, unlike persons, has no Constitutional right to privacy.

They may claim secrecy, but freedom of the press trumps that secrecy.

The right to publish has been affirmed time and time again.

Currently, the sanctions, supported by the U.S. in Zimbabwe result in horrible hardship and deaths.

So what good are these diplomatic conversations?

As a result, sanctions will continue and the one of the things that is going to happen is that people will die.

Are their deaths complicated?

Disgusting.

[Matthea]

17. Glenn Greenwald has documented very well...

the misinformation that wikileaks dumped that information and was blamed for it. Please read http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/01/12/propaganda/index.html

Later on the Guardian apologized.

[davidinalameda]

22. who gave the cables to The Guardian

[Luminous Animal]

25. Another media organization. The Guardian published them. Yes the well-respected Guardian

published, unredacted, info that may cause a man his liberty.

That would be The Guardian, a world-wide respected media organization who took the lead in conference with other world-wide respected media organizations in deciding what to redact and what not to redact.

[davidinalameda]

29. and who provided that other media organization with these cables?

[Luminous Animal]

30. Are you suggesting that one media organization should have kept them secret from all the others?

Should they have maintained authoritarian control? This is an unprecedented collaboration between 5 media organizations. It is akin to the NY Times receiving massive amount of info and working with the Washington Post.

[davidinalameda]

33. I want to know Wikileaks' role in all of this

did they give SOMEONE these cables or not

[Luminous Animal]

38. You know their role. As a news media organization, they shared the cables

with other news media organizations thus being able to access far greater investigative capabilities. El Pais explained that the cables required months of research and thousands of people hours to convert to a readable format, to research, and to organize.

The Guardian, in turn, shared the cables with the New York Times which declined (as did the U.S. State Department) Wikileak's direct offer to view and redact the cables.