I've been waiting with fascination to see what Twitter does with the U.S. government's request to turn over Twitter direct messages (DMs) and other account information from its servers regarding the WikiLeaks case. Three people associated with WikiLeaks are asking a federal judge not to force Twitter to turn over their user data. (They are Birgitta Jonsdottir, as well as two computer programmers, Rop Gonggrijp and Jacob Appelbaum of Tor).
I've been waiting to see whether Twitter will swing in the direction of the anarchist geeks and the hacker culture that defined its founders Biz Stone and Jack Dorsey, or whether it will swing in the direction of more establishment mass media and commercial Internet technology companies like Amazon. My hunch is to bet the latter, because Twitter, to recoup its venture capitalist funding, has to remain on the continuum of mainstream social media businesses, and that this issue may even lead to splits within the company. I think like the disreputable Lamo, they may cooperate if they think the WikiLeaks leaders are as culpable as Manning. I don't think Twitter will be like the New York Times deciding to take a stand on the Pentagon Papers. These platforms like Twitter are about social more than they are about media.
The Twitter case takes place in a context where the U.S. government is portrayed as having trouble making its case against Assange. Maybe the FBI doesn't read the same chat logs on Wired that we do, as I note in the comments.
So maybe Twitter will stall and rebuff these challenges. But maybe not. We see what these epic cutting-edge cool new media companies like TechCrunch and Huffington Post are capable of. They are capable of being bought by AOL.
Loren Feldman of 1938 Media wasn't kidding when he said that the TechCrunch buyout was the beginning of the end of free blogging. AOL may have become more cool by these acquisitions, but if Attorney General Eric Holder asks AOL to turn over any and all records related to WikiLeaks in a national security letter or duces tecum subpoena, my bet is that AOL would do that.
Services like Twitter often meet the criticism of the general public about their anarchist geek roots with protests that they cooperate with law-enforcers. Craig Newmark, when facing severe criticism from the media and public of the involvement of his popular Craiglist in the enabling of the murder of prostitutes or others answering sexual personal ads, invokes his cooperation with law-enforcement and the "transparency" users of his service gain at least to his staff in their online pursuits, making it easy to cooperate with the law.
But if Craig Newmark were asked to turn over anything regarding WikiLeaks, the leftist funder of progressive causes wouldn't do that. Murder is one thing; taking part in the global transparency movement (transparency of other people, not geeks running services) is another.
Should the government have the right to obtain server records from social media in an investigation? Yes, they should -- and they do. There's nothing magical or special about social media or virtual worlds by contrast with telephone and mail, where the government's right to interfere against an otherwise robust system of privacy and individual civil rights when it has an overriding concern to pursuit a suspect in a crime, is well established.
Of course, this case hinges on whether or not you think stealing classified government documents is a crime, and whether the government has a reasonable basis for gathering information about that crime. I do. The overriding "whistleblower" matters of conscience aren't sufficiently manifest to me to warrant deliberate hacking and publication of the secret cables of a liberal democratic government.
Now comes the question as to whether media has the right to expect some protection from government stays of publication or seizures of documents or records when covering the news of others who have hacked and stolen classified documents. And the answer is they do, after the Pentagon Papers because we live in a legal system of precedents. This media right seems well established.
So the question, then is not only is WikiLeaks "media" (I don't believe the intermediary between hackers and the public is media; I believe it is a merely a source); the question is whether Twitter, the micro-blogging service which is social media, is more about social, like a telephone call, or more about media, like the New York Times. Journalism is defined as "gathering the news in the public interest". Twitter enables people to express their feelings about their breakfast or Justin Bieber, not only about Julian Assange, so arguably it is not manifestly in the public interest. We'll see!
This case feels to me like the story of the Rosenbergs, although I didn't live through that era. For a long time the left maintained that the Rosenbergs were framed. The belief was that they didn't really steal the plans for making an atomic bomb and pass it to the Soviet Union. They were the victims of anti-Communist hysteria for their views as Communists. In time, when the KGB files were opened and more historical research conducted, it turned out they weren't framed. They had deliberately helped the Soviets. You could argue that Communists shouldn't be arrested for their views, or even those Communists who help the Soviet Union shouldn't face the death penalty, without having to exonerate what it means to have helped the deadly, mass-murdering Soviet Communist government. It was very hard on the left -- or anywhere -- to keep insisting that the focus should be on the problematics of Soviet communism, when its innocent defenders (or so it seemed) were harmed by the U.S. government.
Even so, while Jacob Appelbaum is well on his way to becoming a First-Amendment hero now, described by Huffpo as a Seattle-based volunteer hacker for WikiLeaks, he needs to be criticized because his views and his activities, his networks and his culture, represent a threat to other people's freedom of expression and liberal democratic government in general.
Part of the argumentation in defense of Communists back in the 1930s and 1940s was that they merely believed in a just system for a better world, were sincere in their beliefs, and in any event, didn't have the power or intention to put into place in the United States anything that resembled the Soviet government, which oppressed millions, torturing and killing them for their free speech and association. The harmless nature of American communism and its devotion to the purported justice features of communism were always and everywhere invoked against the overreach of Sen. McCarthy.
By contrast, the anarchists of today, whom I regard as a modern form of sectarianism that I call "technocommunism," *do* have the power to suppress the speech and association of other people they don't like (Amazon, Paypal), to disrupt the economy and government (WikiLeaks), to harass people that criticize their activities or even merely report on them accurately (gawker.com). WikiLeaks has demonstrated that power, if a Second Life server crash didn't demonstrate it. WikiLeaks didn't bring down the U.S. government, but it might make it impossible for President Obama to be elected for a second term due to the backlash, and it certainly shook the foreign policy and diplomatic corps to its core.
So it's in that context that far from seeing Appelbaum as a victim, I see him as a perpetrator, someone quite capable, in the name of his extremist views, of using his skills to take away the freedoms of people he doesn't like -- arbitrarily and with force. He does this not only by his debating techniques of dismissing criticism as "trolling" or standing by approvingly while his thug friends from Anonymous harass and bully a critic, or by engaging in secret software and circumvention projects without any accountability, but by his approval and sanctioning of the DDOS as a form of "civil disobedience". (If you think this sly dog's failure to make an actual public statement approving the DDOS as a method, the way New York State Senate innovation coder (!) Neil Hilalgo (@noneck) has made, then read his tweets -- he doesn't believe the DDOS is "like" violence (of course it is).
When people are extremists of this nature, I'm not willing to uncriticially defend their First Amendment rights. There will be plenty of people who will do that, including likely fashionable pro-bono lawyers, so I don't have to. Meanwhile, likely almost nobody will raise the problem of his morality and his threat to the liberal democratic order, and indeed, will feel the subject is off-limits, as it is for many regarding Assange.
I disagree, as the nature of the kind of revolution we're getting matters, and whether we all arive intact with all our rights intact on the other side of it matters, too. I don't fear challenging even well-established human rights groups with this concern about the ultimate fate of our human rights.
I've been a long-time critic of Tor, although it can be hard to find my article criticizing Tor in Google because I think it got Google-bombed. Tor has fierce fans (Shava Suntzu from Second Life who also worked with Tor) and is viewed as bathed in the halo effect as helping dissidents circumvent surveillance from oppressive governments.
In Second Life, as I pointed out, Tor is more about the use of circumvention by people stalking, harassing, and griefing others, stealing their intellectual property, and even evading prosecution for child pornography, and isn't demonstrably used for, oh, Iranian or Tunisian dissidents to get around government watchers by proxies.
The dark side of Tor is something that geeks dismiss flippantly as a concern of the religious right that need not affect their gorgeous behaviour -- but there are two dark sides. One is the copyright theft/harassment/child pornography side, and the other is its association with the U.S. military. *That* side of Tor is never viewed by these muscular geeks as a negative, as it would be for a feminist peace group. Indeed, they view themselves as a power outside the law, and a law unto themselves (code-as-law), so they, as a tribal force with warlord bravado, view dealing with the U.S. military like dealing with Egyptian dissidents or dealing with Anonymous DDOS attackers as all part of the fabulous coloured texture of their anarchic rule.
I take a different view.
Of course, for someone like Appelbaum, the "internal contradictions" of dealing with the U.S. military coders collegially even as he ruthlessly attacks the role of the U.S. in Iraq, or demanding maximum and extreme freedom of expression for himself and his brothers (and a few sisters) even while his script kiddie pals take it away from others when they attack their servers (Amazon, Paypal, gawker.com), or telling someone in a debate to shut up, and that they are a "world-class troll" to try to discredit them and silence their criticism -- these are all part of that fabulous gorgeous mosaic and wonderfulness of being a hacker in our era, accountable to none.
Normally I don't have a reason to cross the street to pick a fight with these people, unless I see them obviously mitigating against general civil rights for us all (their blessing of the DDOS attack is something I totally oppose), but occasionally their hubris calls out for a tweet.
Such was the tweet of Appelbaum (look him up on Twitter as @ioerror) a few days ago to the effect that some people in the State Department are decent, and some aren't -- the typical arrogant braggadocchio of these syndicated anarchists that lets us know that he, Appelbaum, a trendy lefty, is so cool that he has friends in the State Department that he thinks are "decent" and can also pass judgement on those he thinks are "indecent". One arm of the U.S. government may be trying to grab his Twitter DMs, but there are wise people in the State Department that appreciate his talents.
I responded that I feel that way about the open source movement, too. (Generally I find its proponents indecent; I have occasionally found some honest and decent folks among the collectives).
An argument ensued (see some of the tweets pasted below) that covered the "Collateral Murder" video.
I view this video as tendentious and ultimately a failure in helping to stop the war in Iraq because like U.S. government officials, *it lies*.
It lies because it makes it seem as if U.S. soldiers deliberately hunted down journalists and deliberately killed civilians, including children, in an act of cold-blooded murder, in which they even took glee, laughing at a vehicle running over a body.
In my view of this video, I'm no different than the New York Times reporters or the New Yorker reporter who covered how mendacious this video was in the hands of WikiLeaks. Indeed, in Raffi Khatchadourian's interview, Assange is shown *admitting* that it looks like the man near the journalist is carrying an RPG! When I pointed that out to one of Appelbaum's Anonymous heckler friends, he immediately disowned Assange -- "What does he know"? LOL.
One doesn't have to support the war in Iraq (I don't) or be somehow a follower or excuser of George Bush (I'm not) to question how this video was framed in a supposed anti-war movement action (I view it as really not about ending a war, but more about using a gimmick to embarrass and discredit the United States -- more in the realm of a juvenile and provocative prank than a noble act of conscience). And I think its after-effects -- millions of people becoming indignant and having something provocative to link to forever more in their Internet-limited outrage -- but no actual impact on the prosecution of the war -- is an obvious outcome of its insincerity.
One doesn't have to be for murder of civilians (I raise such issues continually in my activism) or murder of journalists (I've spent many years of my life fighting against this) or again, some uncritical supporter of American wars abroad (I'm definitely not) to raise some very legitimate questions about how tendentiously this video was framed. The chief issues any reasonable, liberal, open thinker would have about this video (indeed, the reasonal, open, liberal questions that the New York Times or the New Yorker had) are as follows:
o the journalists were with men carrying weapons -- that may have attracted fire. Why were they walking around with men with an RPG (or an AK47)?
o a van pulled up to the scene and immediately picked up one of the wounded men. That seemed to indicate it was part of a group of supporters of militants and attracted the U.S. soldiers' fire.
o the soldiers did not know that their were children in the van they shot -- they were not visible. They had no way of knowing. The parent of the children in the van opted to get himself and his children involved in a combat incident by stopping to pick up a wounded man (I don't know if this aspect has been investigated, i.e. whether he was a relative of the wounded man, whether he was just a good Samaritan, or what the story was).
o when one of the men was wounded, the soldiers didn't shoot at him to kill him; they let him crawl away, indicating that perhaps, even in the heat of war, they had some notion of the laws of war
o when a vehicle ran over a body, yes, they laughed nervously and possibly cynically, yet that seems to fit in with the male culture of war to be expected in combat, and doesn't necessarily fit into some malevolent desire to hunt down and kill civilians wantonly.
o perhaps upon investigation it might be found that the U.S. used "disproportionate force". Did they have to gun down a van that picked up a wounded man? Did they even have to shoot at a group of men with arms that weren't firing at anything? Perhaps not. But their was a context to their actions: this squad of U.S. fighters had been under fire from militants for an extended time, and were pursuing what they saw as fighters in a war.
To all these VALID concerns that come from a desire not to exonerate the U.S. but to raise right and proper questions about THE TRUTH of the situation -- and most importantly, its policy implication, Jacob Appelbaum brings only the extreme black/white 0/1 binary thinking for which is geek tribe is infamous. He proceeds to maintain the following:
o that the journalists weren't carrying guns, so it didn't matter if they were next to people that were
o that those people weren't carrying an RPG, but an AK47
o that I must be ignorant about conditions in Iraq and "should go there" and he, Jacob Appelbaum *had* gone there and moreover, had carried an AK47 himself! (see what I mean about muscular geeks!)
o that that's no controversy about journalists or geek new media practioners carrying arms in a war zone -- that's what you have to do
o that there's no concern -- in a debate of hundreds of years -- whether non-combatants should be armed and what that means if they attract fire
o that the U.S. wantonly murdered journalists, civilians, and finally children
None of Appelbaum's contentions are valid -- and I'm surely not alone in reasoning so:
o journalists walking around with men with guns cannot expect not to be shot at by other men with guns
o the U.S. did not wantonly murder journalists, and while one could argue they should have "given a pass" to this unclear situation (although one can't expect that in a war zone), one certainly can't argue that they wantonly murdered children, as they did not know there were children in the van. If we are to manfully argue, as Jacob does, that people are "expected" to be able to have the right to carry weapons in a war zone (Second Amendment solutions?), then we have to manfully take our lumps when we get shot at, no? Doesn't it work all ways? Other people will get to have guns, too, and get to use them -- on you, with a gun. Or is a gun a magic form of protection like a spell or potion in World of Warcraft meaning the coded system "can't" let you die?
o whether or not journalists should carry weapons is a *debate*. Most news organizations don't manifestly call for journalists to carry weapons. In fact, they don't have them do this. In fact, while they *might* take armed protection, they take it in certain situations, i.e. with a car and driver or a bodyguard in a manifest area of combat, not casually walking around the streets of a town. If I say, in this debate, "show me a news organization that openly calls for arming reporters," and all that one of the 4channers siding with Appelbaum can come up with is a CNN article describing the controversy about this matter itself (some argue they need to have reporters travel with armed guards; others don't) -- then I'm hardly bested in this dispute.
Yet, true to the shrill, narrow, limited mind that these kinds of torrent kiddies inevitably bring to their "noble" task of circumventing the Internet's safeguards to express themselves, Jacob Appelbaum can only call me "a world class troll" for raising these LEGITIMATE objections to the tendentious "Collateral Murder" -- and post it on Huffington Post as a public opprobrium (apparently he's one of those 6,000 unpaid bloggers admitted to this august bastion of lefty correctitude).
That's all to be expected. But what happens next is a very good example of the close, intimate, and bound relationship between WikiLeaks, where Appelbaum is a leading figure, and Anonymous, the thuggish storm-troopers the geeks unleash on people they don't like.
Disagreeing with their beloved Jacob, I got a torrent of hate, invective, misogyny and personal attack -- that sort of "ad hominem attack" or "attacks on people" that Rebecca McKinnon can become so indignant about if *I* appear to make them LOL (but whose missing in action for onslaughts like these, supporting a liberal position about the video which she may even concede.)
I'm accused of "suffering from PMS"; I'm told to "shut up"; I'm told to "get a life"; I'm told I'm a "troll" (i.e. merely cynically disrupting the conversation for the sake of getting a reaction, as they do, not sincerely defending a belief). Dozens of anonymous people with Guy Fawkes masks in their profile (the icon of Anonymous) or other hints and memes in their profiles and Twitter trails that let you know they are from 4chan.org or other b-tard hangouts, bully and harry me and accuse me of supporting murder, supporting U.S. wars, etc. etc. If you go read my Twitter feed @catfitz and can pull up conversations from last week, you will find endless retorts of this sort. Ugly. Nasty. And good documentation to show the intimate relationship between someone like Appelbaum, who tells me "I'm a world class troll" and ceases replying, and dog-whistles to all his followers to come harass me. Indeed, he doesn't have to dog-whistle (that's why I call it "dog-whistling" that only dogs hear) -- they "just know" that "the Motherland calls" and race to her defense.
A creepy facet of online life -- one that we will all face more and more as the power equation tilts more and more toward people like this, and not toward those nice people in the State Department.
Normally, an online spat like that with some anonymous fucktards and their public inciter wouldn't garner further attention from me -- I face it constantly for my criticism of the open source movement or indeed, anything about the awful oppressive hacker culture and its relentless abuse of others' right to speech and its relentless obscenity and mysogeny.Indeed, not long after this Twitter fight, I got the usual Second Life attack -- spamming of textures with the phrase BIG NIGGER DICK and AIDS so rapidly that it forced me to crash, and then be unable to log on as the textures continued barraging.
Knowing of how Appelbaum was facing a Twitter chat confiscation, however, I went to see how Tor was doing and what their positions were.
To my surprise, I found a faintly critical article in a Washington state online newspaper, Jacob Appelbaum, WikiLeaks Enabler and New University of Washington Employee, Is Working on . . . Who Knows?" -- questioning the secrecy around the work that Appelbaum is now doing at Washington State University, where he has been hired -- by people who are clearly supporters of Tor, WikiLeaks, and all things geek.
A mainstream journalist was less ecstatic about these tribal rituals and asked some normal questions. What is this secret work this guy is doing at this publicly-funded university? You know, the kind of questions that geeks feel only *they* should get to ask about governments, but never *about themselves*.
The evasive answers from his supervisor and himself were astonishing, and the demands for privacy that WikiLeaks doesn't give to a democratically-elected government were hypocritical. The secret work might be secret because its a commercial secret (er, what about that lovely open source ethos, guys?) or it might be secret because arrogant geeks feel civilians don't have a "right to know" what they are doing in creating "smart parking meters" or "researching holes in car security" (say, will that involve them scraping personal data and harvesting it for their own commercial or personal benefit?).
In any event, once again we have a swinging dick telling us that we can't ask about secret software projects, we don't have a right to know, and if we ask, we are playing into the hands of the oppressive U.S. government chilling speech. Appelbaum himself shows up later to apologize that he didn't answer a reporter's calls because it was the anniversary of his father's death -- distracting the hard question with a bid for personal sympathy (which public figures like him really cannot expect when they take public positions affecting the public).
So, that's why I call Jacob Appelbaum "unaccountable". He believes he is above the law, above scrutiny and able to do WTF he wants (no surprise there). Tor can do no wrong; neither can he. WikiLeaks is warranted; shut up if you don't think its a moral and valid operation. Your critiques will be smothered; you will be told you "have PMS" or "are a world-class troll" -- or worse. You don't have the right to ask about the projects and behaviour and beliefs and activities of geeks -- they are a law unto themselvse as code-is-law.
As David Rieff has said in The New Republic (read the whole article, especially toward the end for a good exegis of how "thinking out of the box" led to this war:
At first glance, Wikileaks would seem to be far from this world of business innovation. And yet it isn’t. To the contrary, what Wikileaks does is exactly what a disruptive product does: As with nanotechnology, it supersedes the way information is made available to the general public; and, as with open source software, it challenges the idea of what the public can know and how it can know it.
In the former case, Wikileaks breaks the established transmission network of office holders and diplomats leaking some information to trusted journalists and pundits, who then transmit it to the public. And, in the latter, it insists that there is simply no such thing as proprietary information, which in the context of diplomacy means it does not acknowledge the state’s right to keep secrets. Here, the state is like Microsoft, with its closed-source technology, while Wikileaks is the open-source alternative.
And, again as with open-source software, there is no going back. Julian Assange may go to prison in Sweden, or even be extradited to the United States, and, though it is far less likely, Wikileaks itself may be shut down. But, for better or worse, the Wikileaks model is here to stay. For, as it turns out, the web is not just a place for shopping, or searching for pornographic images, or finding virtual communities of like-minded people, it is the new bloody crossroads of our politics.
If anything, I would reprimand the author for coming years late to the debate about open source software (despite my admonitions), and I don't believe technology is deterministic and cannot be controlled by civilians merely because it's "open" or its practitioners hack and copy stuff with abandon. I also don't think hackers are better than liberal democratically-elected governments. As is often the case with Rieff, it's hard to tell whether this is a report from the battlefield that is merely intended to be accurate and grim and incite thought, or whether it contains any hint of celebration of this "inevitability" and a call to "embrace" it.
As I keep saying, wait til the Internet of Things. Wait until everything in your house is run by *these people* because everything has an Internet address (the web is moving to a new system where there will be capacity for these addresses, which have run out).
Everything depends on whether the syndicated anarchists (they aren't anarcho-syndicalists!) of social media are overthrown by their more mature fellow geeks commercializing major platforms and going mainstream -- and cooperating with elected governments -- or whether anarchists, who inevitably turn into totalitarians if unrestrained -- will prevail. They seem noble and trendy now, as they crash against the cynical diplomats who presided over two unjust wars, but the unacknowledge assumption is often that they will correct without destroying the institutions they attack.
I don't think that's happening. I think we are already seeing what it's like when they are in power, and will only grow worse. I'm not kidding when I tweet that I believe the greatest threat to freedom on the Internet now isn't governments, and isn't corporations, but the coders themselves, and their hacker culture. While it may seem as if something like the Egyptian-military backed state of Egypt, closing down the Internet, is all-powerful, that's no longer the case when a Google engineer leads a revolution in Egypt; while it may seem as if Russia, creating a system of Internet spies, is all-powerful, that's no longer the case when the coders are in every office, every institution, every highway and byway of society, East and West, North and soon to be South.
Reading about the federative anarchist alternatives like lorea.org (untrusted site) reviving ol' Gramps' notion of "sovereignty" outside the commercial Internet, you can only wonder: how will these geeks behave with people they don't like? People whose views aren't in the mold of anarchism and "progressive" politics? Sarah Palin-type views? etc. We won't have to wait long to find out.
ioerror Jacob Appelbaum
The ultimate Twitter troll of the day: @catfitz
31 Jan Favorite Retweet Reply
»
Jacob Appelbaum
ioerror Jacob Appelbaum
@
@catfitz You're a world class troll. Bravo!
31 Jan Favorite Retweet Reply
ioerror Jacob Appelbaum
@
@catfitz You mistake something - the military has no right to simply kill at random.
31 Jan Favorite Retweet Reply
ioerror Jacob Appelbaum
@
@catfitz Sorry. Read again - they were shot at because of supposed AK47s; not an RPG: http://www.collateralmurder.com/en/timeline.html
31 Jan Favorite Retweet Reply
»
Jacob Appelbaum
ioerror Jacob Appelbaum
@
@catfitz The law of the land allows for it and the security situation often requires it.
31 Jan Favorite Retweet Reply
ioerror Jacob Appelbaum
@
@catfitz Bogus again. No journalist had a gun in that video.
31 Jan Favorite Retweet Reply
»
Jacob Appelbaum
ioerror Jacob Appelbaum
@
@catfitz And yet that is just what you're doing; intentionally or not.
31 Jan Favorite Retweet Reply
»
Jacob Appelbaum
ioerror Jacob Appelbaum
@
@catfitz Progressive? What does this have to do with "progressive" anything?
31 Jan Favorite Retweet Reply
»
Jacob Appelbaum
ioerror Jacob Appelbaum
@
@jpcelmira The real glory is the people in the streets, no question.
31 Jan Favorite Retweet Reply
»
Jacob Appelbaum
ioerror Jacob Appelbaum
@
@catfitz Bogus.
31 Jan Favorite Retweet Reply
»
Jacob Appelbaum
ioerror Jacob Appelbaum
@
@catfitz You speak of norms of guns that do not fit in Iraq. That is why you should go to Iraq or learn about the norms. You do not know.
31 Jan Favorite Retweet Reply
ioerror Jacob Appelbaum
@
@catfitz You're exactly the kind of American that makes me ashamed. You can't even admit the action taken was flawed at all. Disgusting.
31 Jan Favorite Retweet Reply
»
Jacob Appelbaum
ioerror Jacob Appelbaum
@
@catfitz Ah. My mistake. You're an idiot. You know nothing about Iraq. The gunman shot unarmed kids in a car. Cut and dry murder.
31 Jan Favorite Retweet Reply
»
Jacob Appelbaum
ioerror Jacob Appelbaum
@
@catfitz People in Iraq carry weapons. Have you been to Iraq? I guess no? This is normal in many areas. In any case, unclear it was a gun.
31 Jan Favorite Retweet Reply
»
Jacob Appelbaum
ioerror Jacob Appelbaum
@
@catfitz Up for debate. In any case: The children in the car were not.
31 Jan Favorite Retweet Reply
oerror Jacob Appelbaum
@
@catfitz Those journalists had no guns. Neither did those dead kids.
31 Jan Favorite Retweet Reply
»
Jacob Appelbaum
ioerror Jacob Appelbaum
@
@catfitz People carry guns in warzones all the time; many journalists in Iraq hire private security. That does not allow for military kills.
31 Jan Favorite Retweet Reply
Recent Comments