The Stranger (1946) – Full Movie – Edward G. Robinson – Orson Welles

In 1946, Mr. Wilson (Edward G. Robinson) of the United Nations War Crimes Commission is hunting for Nazi fugitive Franz Kindler (Orson Welles). Kindler has effectively concealed his Nazi activities prior to his escape to the United States. He assumes a new identity, Charles Rankin, lands a job as a university professor and marries Mary Longstreet (Loretta Young), who is the daughter of Supreme Court justice Judge Adam Longstreet.

Wilson releases Kindler’s former associate Meinike (Konstantin Shayne) and follows him to Harper, Connecticut, but Meinike is strangled before he can identify Kindler. Wilson must convince Mrs. Rankin, the only person who knows for certain that Meinike came to meet her husband, that her Charles is a war criminal.

The Stranger is a 1946 American film noir/drama film starring Orson Welles, Edward G. Robinson, and Loretta Young. Welles also directed the film, which was based on an Oscar-nominated screenplay written by Victor Trivas. Sam Spiegel was the film’s producer, and the film’s musical score is by Bronisław Kaper. It is believed that this is the first film released after World War II that showed footage of concentration camps. The Stranger was the only film made by Welles to have been a bona fide box office success on the first release (Citizen Kane had made back its budget and marketing, but not enough to make a profit). The copyright was by “The Haig Corporation” and it has been in the public domain for several years.

The Stranger is in the public domain and can be downloaded here for free:


Executive branch decisions to classify national security information are
subject to judicial review in Freedom of Information Act cases, government
attorneys acknowledged in a brief filed yesterday.

That potentially explosive question arose following an extraordinary
ruling by a federal judge ordering the U.S. Trade Representative to release
a one-page classified document that had been requested under the FOIA by
the Center for International Environmental Law.  The document's
classification was not "logical," said DC District Judge Richard W. Roberts
last March, and therefore it was not exempt from public disclosure.

The government appealed that ruling in September, but stopped short of
asserting that the court had no authority to order release of the
classified document.

Yesterday, in response to arguments presented in an amicus brief from
media organizations, government attorneys made their acceptance of judicial
review explicit in a final reply brief.

"We agree that district courts (and courts of appeals) play an important
role in evaluating the government's compliance with its obligations under
FOIA, in Exemption 1 cases [involving national security classification] as
well as others...."

"We have not sought to diminish the role of courts in FOIA Exemption 1
cases, nor have we suggested that the Executive's determination that a
document is classified should be conclusive or unreviewable," attorneys
wrote in the November 27 brief (at p. 8).

In other words, the government did not assert that the executive has some
kind of transcendent Article II classification power, nor did government
attorneys contend (a la Egyptian President Morsy) that the judicial review
provisions of FOIA are an unconstitutional infringement on executive

This was the crucial information policy question that was raised by the
move to appeal Judge Roberts' highly unusual disclosure order, and the
government has more or less resolved it by submitting to the discipline of
judicial review.

What remains is a bona fide dispute:  Was the decision to classify the
USTR document well-founded and plausible, as the government insists, and
therefore entitled to judicial deference?  Or was it illogical, as the
lower court ruled, nullifying the document's exemption from FOIA?

Oral arguments in the case are scheduled for February of next year.


New and newly updated reports from the Congressional Research Service
obtained by Secrecy News that have not been made publicly available include
the following.

Does Foreign Aid Work? Efforts to Evaluate U.S. Foreign Assistance,
November 19, 2012:

Congressional Redistricting: An Overview, November 21, 2012:

Update on Controlling Greenhouse Gases from International Aviation,
November 19, 2012:

The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR): Answers to Frequently Asked
Questions, November 16, 2012:

Gangs in Central America, November 26, 2012:

The Federal Food Safety System: A Primer, November 26, 2012:

The President's Office of Science and Technology Policy: Issues for
Congress, November 26, 2012:

Secrecy News is written by Steven Aftergood and published by the
Federation of American Scientists.

The Secrecy News Blog is at:

To SUBSCRIBE to Secrecy News, go to:


OR email your request to

Secrecy News is archived at:

Support the FAS Project on Government Secrecy with a donation:

Steven Aftergood
Project on Government Secrecy
Federation of American Scientists
voice:  (202) 454-4691
twitter: @saftergood

New – WikiLeaks donations now tax deductible EU wide

Wau-Holland-Stiftung (WHS), named in memory of the German philosopher and net
activist Wau Holland, has been collecting donations for WikiLeaks since 2009. In the
immediate aftermath of WikiLeaks publication of the US diplomatic cables in 2010,
not only did PayPal arbitrarily shut down the WHS donations account, but the
tax-exempt status of the Foundation was challenged as well.

It took almost two years of negotiations with German tax authorities to strike a
deal: Tax exemption (charitable status) will be granted again going forward and
going back to 2011, but not for 2010. (See: "Taxing Transparency", Der Spiegel, 13
Nov 2012).

Therefore, citizens of EU member states will be able to donate to WikiLeaks
operations through WHS and in addition, write the donation off from their income
tax. This is because of a ruling of the European Court in 2009 (Decision C-318_07),
which mandates that every member state must honour the tax exemption decision of any
other member state.

And this is how you make a money transfer to support WikiLeaks:

Recipient: Wau Holland Stiftung
  Bank: Commerzbank Kassel, Königsplatz 32-34, 34117 Kassel, Germany
  IBAN: DE46 5204 0021 0277 2812 04
  Reference: WikiLeaks or Project 04 if you prefer
  add your e-mail or postal address to receive a tax-deductible donation receipt.

Hamburg, 26. Nov 2012 Wau-Holland-Stiftung

Other methods of donation:

Unveiled – European Commission enabling blockade of WikiLeaks by U.S. hard-right Lieberman/King, contrary to European Parliament’s wishes

European Commission documents released today by WikiLeaks show that hard-right U.S.
politicians were directly behind the extrajudicial banking blockade against
WikiLeaks. In the heavily redacted documents, MasterCard Europe admits that Senator
Joseph Lieberman and Congressman Peter T. King both "had conversations" with
MasterCard in the United States. Lieberman, the then-chair of the Senate
Intelligence Committee, boasted of instigating Amazon's cutting of service to
WikiLeaks - an action condemned by the Council of Europe's Committee of Ministers on
7 December 2011.

Senator Lieberman tried to introduce the SHIELD Act into the Senate and advocated
for prosecuting the New York Times for espionage in connection with WikiLeaks'
releases. Rep. Peter King, chair of the House Homeland Security Committee, tried to
formally designate WikiLeaks as a foreign terrorist organization, have its staff
listed as 'enemy combatants', and have WikiLeaks put on a U.S. Treasury blacklist.
On 13 January 2011 the U.S. Treasury announced it would not do so because there was
no evidence that WikiLeaks should be on such a list. While Lieberman and King were
unsuccessful in these methods of legally cutting WikiLeaks from its popular donor
base, they were successful in doing so extra-legally via VISA and MasterCard, which
together hold a monopoly of 97 per cent of the market of EU card payments.

VISA Europe is registered in London and is owned by a consortium of European banks.
MasterCard Europe is registered in Belgium and has similar ownership, but the
Commission papers show that European control of VISA Europe and MasterCard Europe is
a fiction. The papers reveal that the instructions to blockade WikiLeaks' operations
in Europe came directly from VISA and MasterCard in the United States. Ownership
would normally imply control, but VISA and MasterCard Europe are essentially
controlled by confidential contracts with their U.S. counterparts, a hidden
organizational structure that the Commission calls an "association of undertakings".

On Tuesday, 19 November 2012, the European Parliament took an important step towards
safeguarding the economic sovereignty of all Europeans. In Article 32 of its
resolution, the European Parliament expressed the will that the Commission should
prevent the arbitrary refusal of payments by credit card companies, which
economically strangles businesses and organizations, notably ours. The resolution is
an important step to putting an end to the Lieberman/King blockade, which has wiped
out 95 per cent of WikiLeaks' revenues. The Lieberman/King blockade has been
directly condemned by, among others, the UN Special Rapporteur of Freedom of Speech
and the New York Times Editorial Board. The blockade is a direct infringement of the
Article 19 right to receive and impart information, and threatens all donor-funded
organizations and the freedom of the press.

It comes as a surprise, then, that the European Commission is taking the contrary
view in its preliminary decision, of not opening a formal investigation into VISA,
MasterCard and AmEx's violations against DataCell, the company that collected
donations to the WikiLeaks project until the imposition of the blockade in 2010. The
Commission's 16-page preliminary decision has been announced after 15 months of
deliberations. The 'normal' waiting time is four months. Yesterday, DataCell and
WikiLeaks submitted detailed counter-arguments to the Commission's preliminary

Through the leaked documents we learn that VISA and MasterCard have used a false
statement by the Australian Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, to mislead the European
Commission. The Prime Minister's statement, which she later claimed was made in her
"private capacity", was that the WikiLeaks publication of diplomatic cables was
"illegal". This was declared to be false by a subsequent investigation by the
Australian Federal Police, which declared that WikiLeaks had not broken any
Australian law. Earlier this year, the Australian Senate passed a resolution
demanding the retraction of the Prime Minister's false statement.

The leaked documents reveal MasterCard's political stance to our exposure of the
crimes and horrors of military campaigns: "It is evident that any affiliation with
an organisation causing damage to the national interests of several nations involved
in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq... will be extremely damaging for the public
perception of MasterCard".

Julian Assange said: 
> There is no sovereignty without economic sovereignty. It is concerning that
hard-right elements in the United States have been able to pressure VISA and
MasterCard, who together hold monopoly over the European market, into introducing
a blockade that the U.S. Treasury has rightly rejected. These unaccountable
elements are directly interfering in the political and economic freedoms of EU
consumers and are setting a precedent for political censorship of the world's

WikiLeaks will continue to fight the blockade, despite its limited resources,
because it is fighting for its survival. Already there have been victories. In June
2012 WikiLeaks won its first court victory in Iceland against the Lieberman-King
blockade. Last month WikiLeaks opened a new battle front by filing, together with
its partner DataCell, a case against Teller A/S (VISA Denmark).


The movement in Parliament and in the rest of Europe is to support WikiLeaks'
publishing rights. The German foundation Wau Holland Stiftung (WHS), which collected
donations for WikiLeaks via PayPal had their donations account arbitrarily shut
down. The tax-exempt status of the Foundation was challenged as well, as a result of
political interference which was exposed this month in Der Spiegel ("Taxing
Transparency"). Yesterday, WHS announced that, after almost two years of
negotiations with German tax authorities, its tax exemption (charitable status) has
been reinstated. Citizens of all EU Member States will now be able to donate to
WikiLeaks' operations through WHS and deduct the donation from their income tax.

*Additional information*:
UN Special Rapporteur on Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression:
Council of Europe - Declaration on online service providers:
The Guardian Comment is Free (23 November 2012) by Glenn Greewald:
Video: U.S. demands to assassinate Assange -

*Quote from Visa and MasterCard Submissions to the European Commission*

Visa's response to the European Central Bank:

> As you will no doubt be aware, in some jurisdictions, various stakeholders have
questioned whether WikiLeaks is, in respect of some of the material it publishes,
committing criminal acts. Our Operating Regulations prohibit the use of the Visa
system for illegal purposes either in the jurisdiction of the merchant (in this
case Iceland) or the jurisdiction of the cardholder (which could be anywhere in
the world). It is possible that activities that are permitted in one jurisdiction
may be illegal in others. Accordingly, the application of the relevant position
under the Operating Regulations does not necessarily depend solely on Icelandic

> This position is appropriate and proportionate in light of the alleged unlawful
conduct of WikiLeaks, which, among other sensitive material, in 2010 published and
refuses to return large amounts of material stolen from classified US military
databases. Further, according to recent press coverage, it appears that the
leaking of sensitive information is continuing.

MasterCard's arguments to the European Commission:

> MasterCard does not hold a collective dominant position with Visa... It is also
worth mentioning here that MasterCard does not constitute an 'essential facility',
and therefore is under no obligation to provide its services to any particular

> It is evident that any affiliation with an organisation causing damage to the
national interests of several nations involved in the wars in Afghanistan and
Iraq, and possibly putting lives needlessly at risk, will be damaging for the
public perception of MasterCard and consequently damage MasterCard's goodwill or
its [trade]Marks.

> By way of example, in 2004 MasterCard requested the Dutch acquirer, then 'Interpay
Nederlands B.V.' (now 'Paysquare') to suspend the provision of acquiring services
to merchants operating websites offering access to pornographic material including
showing sexual acts with animals ('bestiality content').

> ...before taking its decision, MasterCard Incorporated did not have any contacts
with public authorities, and therefore did not act upon request from any public

> MasterCard Incorporated had several conversations with the FBI, US Treasury and
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) about the possibility of such DDoS

> MasterCard Incorporated had conversations with certain Congressional staff (i.e.
Chairman Lieberman and Chairman King's [Senate and House Homeland Security Chairs]

*European Parliament - on Card, Internet and mobile payments*

  Towards an integrated European market for card, internet and mobile payments - 20
November 2012

The European Parliament voted that the Commission introduce legislation to determine
when credit card companies can deny payments:

> 32. Considers it likely that there will be a growing number of European companies
whose activities are effectively dependent on being able to accept payments by
card; considers it to be in the public interest to define objective rules
describing the circumstances and procedures under which card payment schemes may
unilaterally refuse acceptance;

In his intervention, Swedish MEP Christian Engstrom explained:

> Another example is when Visa, Mastercard and Paypal blocked payments to WikiLeaks.
There was no legal basis and [it] should be seen as the three companies helped the
US government to silence an inconvenient voice. It is not acceptable that private
corporations have the power of [controlling] free speech.