Willkommen im Wikileaks-Tresor

by Florian Flade

Diese Diashow benötigt JavaScript.

Es sieht ein wenig nach James Bond aus. Eine Höhle, geschlagen in massiven Fels, 30m unter der Erde in den White Mountains, in der schwedischen Hauptstadt Stockholm, gilt als eine der sichersten elektronischen Datenbank-Tresore der Welt. Der ehemalige militärische Bunker mit dem Codenamen „Pionen“, aus der Ära des Kalten Krieges sollte im Ernstfall sogar Nuklearangriffe überstehen. Heute dient „Pionen“ Firmen, Privatpersonen und möglicherweise sogar Staaten als Lagerstätte wertvoller Daten – einer der jüngsten Kunden: Wikileaks.

Wie das Forbes Magazin und norwegische Medien übereinstimmend berichten, hat die Organisation Wikileaks vor kurzem ihre Datenbank auf einen Server in Pionen verlegt. Zuvor war der „Whistle-Blower“-Webseite vom US-Unternehmen Amazon die Lizenz für deren Server-Gebrauch entzogen worden. Wikileaks entschied sich nun die Internetseite aus dem schwedischen Felsbunker aus zu betreiben. Grund dafür, ist sicherlich die außergewöhnliche Sicherungsanlage von „Pionen“.

Nur ein einziger Eingang, geschützt von 50cm dicken Stahltüren, elektronischen Überwachungssystemen und Sicherheitspersonal, führt in die modern ausgebaute Höhle, in der etliche Server internationaler Webseiten betrieben werden. Zwei Diesel-Generatoren aus deutschen U-Booten versorgen das gesamte System mit Elektrizität, so dass die Anlage auch bei Stromausfällen im schwedischen Netz problemlos weiterläuft.

Betrieben wird dieses Science-Fiction anmutende Datenbank-Zentrum von der gleichnamigen Firma „Bahnhof“, die als einer der größten Server-Provider Skandinaviens gilt. Sie unterhält fünf Daten-Zentren in Schweden, weitere in Norwegen und Dänemark. In einem Werbevideo des Unternehmens heißt es, James Bonde-Filme seien die Inspiration für den Ausbau der Stockholmer Daten-Höhle gewesen. Modernes Design und Technik seien, wie es in Schweden üblich sei, kombiniert worden.

„Das Geschäft das wir betreiben braucht ein Höchstmaß an Sicherheit“, so „Bahnhof“-Chef Jon Karlung, „wir brauchen eine Hightech-Anlage um unsere Ausrüstung zu schützen und um das Material unserer Kunden sicher aufzubewahren.“

Highlight der Anlage, die seit kurzem neue Heimat der brisanten Wikileaks Daten sein soll, ist ein gläserner Konferenzraum, der wie ein Glas-Käfig an der Decke hängt und über den Server-Systemen schwegt. Der Boden dieses Besprechungszimmers ist ein riesiges Original-Foto des Mondes.
Außergewöhnlich ist zudem die Einrichtung der gesamten Tunnel- und Bunker-Anlage. Pflanzen schmücken die Korridore, Wasserfälle und UV-Lampen erhalten das Grün tief unter der Erde am Leben und erwecken den Eindruck einer Höhle eines Bösewichts der James-Bond Reihe. Auch Aquarien wurden installiert.

Die Bereitschaft ab sofort die WikiLeaks-Webseite zu hosten, dürfte sich als Herausforderung für das Unternehmen „Bahnhof“ erweisen. Die Internetseite ist seit Veröffentlichung der sogenannten Diplomaten-Depeschen am vergangenen Wochenende Ziel von Hacker-Angriffen und Versuchen von Staatsseiten ein Ende zu Wikileaks Internetpräsenz zu setzen. Heute erst entzog der amerikanische Domain-Name-Provider EveryDNS den Internet-Aktivisten ihre Internetadresse. Wikileaks.org sei eingestellt worden, so EveryDNS, da es wiederholt zu massiven Angriffen auf die Webseite gekommen sei. Wikileaks reagierte prompt und wechselte zur einer schweizerischen Web-Adresse und ist derzeit unter wikileaks.ch zu erreichen.

Is the US Drone Policy a War Crime? – Interview with Prof.Mary Ellen O’Connell

No body means no crime?  – For over a month German politicians are still silent about the death of a German citizen killed by a CIA operated drone in the Afghan-Pakistan border region on October 4th. Bünyamin E., a German national of Turkish origin from the Western German city of Wuppertal died alongside Iranian citizen Shahab Dashti from Hamburg, when the US drone fired missiles at a building in North Waziristan tribal area. Both Islamists are suspected of having joined „Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan“, a terror group operating in the Pakistani tribal areas.

The death of Bünyamin E. could turn out as the first case of a German citizen being killed the controversial US drone policy in Pakistan. German government officials have started a investigation into the incident but claim it did not conveyed any result. What the investigators are waiting for, the government says, is an official report by the Pakistani authorities on what happened on October 4th.

At first reports suggested up to eight German Jihadis died in the drone strike. Yet, this news turned out be false when a militant group confirmed two Islamists from German and several Tajik militants had died in the event – even publishing pictures of the dead bodies of Shahab Dashti and Bünyamin E.

Even though these images exist and indeed show the two men, German government still tells the media on request there is no credible information on the death of Bünyamin E. Two German parties, the „Bündnis 90/Grüne“ and the left-wing „Die Linke“ presented a formal request to the government including several questions about how the German political leaders will react to the killing of one of its citizens by the United States. The government´s answers, which I obtained, is a clear effort to buy some time for further investigation and it might even be the attempt to silent those questioning the legitimacy of US drone policy.

I contacted Mary Ellen O’Connell, Research Professor of International Dispute Resolution at University of Notre Dame and Vice President of the American Society of International Law. Prof.O’Connell is regarded as an expert on human rights issues and the question about legitimacy of the drone campaign staged by the United States intelligence agency in the Pakistani tribal region to hunt down terrorists.
Read the interview with Prof.O’Connell here

_______________________________________

1. Is the US drone policy in Pakistan regarded as an illegal military action under international law?

Almost every U.S. drone attack violates in Pakistan has violated some important principle of international law.  The most egregious violations have been attacks aimed at persons who are not engaged in any armed conflict hostilities.  Under international law, such persons are civilians and may not be intentionally killed by military force.  Even where the U.S. has cooperated with the Pakistani military and targeted persons engaged in hostilities, CIA personnel are the ones operating U.S. drones in Pakistan.  Under international law, the CIA has no right to engage in targeted killing.

2.  What is the legal basis under which the drone program is operated? (as far as my knowledge goes, the US congress never voted on going to war with Pakistan)

The Obama administration argues that Congress’s Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed after the 9/11 attacks gives the President authority to attack suspected terrorist anywhere in the world.  The AUMF, however, restricts the President to measures that are “necessary” and “appropriate.”  Because drone attacks are generally unlawful anywhere outside of Afghanistan, they are hardly “appropriate.”  In addition, as President Obama himself has acknowledged, drone attacks cannot be characterized as necessary.  Bob Woodward writes in his new book, Obama’s Wars, that “Despite the CIA’s love affair with unmanned aerial vehicles such as Predators, Obama understood with increasing clarity that the United States would not get a lasting, durable effect with drone attacks.” (p. 284, 2010)

3.  Is there a legal conflict created if US drones kill Western meaning for example European militants in the Afghan-Pakistan border region?

Nationality is not the most important factor.  More important factors are, where is the person and what is she doing?  Persons in Afghanistan directly participating in armed conflict hostilities may be targeted, regardless of nationality.  But state boundaries matter in international law, and there is no right to disregard the Afghanistan-Pakistan border in pursuing even persons engaged in hostilities.  Pakistan has made this abundantly clear with its closing of the border following NATO helicopter gunship incursions in September from Afghanistan into Pakistan.

4.  Is the US allowed to kill EU citizens on Pakistani territory if there is no proof they are engaged in fighting US forces in Afghanistan?

Please see my previous answer.

5.  What if the relatives of a EU citizen killed by a CIA operated drone in Waziristan decide to sue to United States Government for killing their son or daughter – is there a chance this case will be put in front of a court?

Most courts in the world will refuse to take jurisdiction of a case against the United States itself on the grounds of foreign sovereign immunity.  Even in the United States where the governments of Iran, Libya, and Iraq have been held to account for violating international human rights law, a foreign victim of a human rights or humanitarian law violation will have virtually no opportunity to bring a case against the U.S. government.

Germany, Italy, and some other European countries do provide for lawsuits against individual government officials who violate these laws. Italian prosecutors have successfully prosecuted in absentia CIA agents who kidnapped a Muslim cleric on the streets of Milan.  Such prosecutions of CIA agents for the death of an Italian, German or other EU national in Pakistan would be possible.

However, what is urgently required now is for Germany, Italy, France, the United Kingdom, all NATO countries, all of the EU, and all states that care about human rights and humanitarian law to call on the United States to stop its lawless drones attacks and other forms of targeted killing outside of the armed conflict hostilities occurring in Afghanistan.