Wikileaks discussion - Page 6

Jim Goose · 09-12-2010, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Maybe it's just me, but she seems to label him a threat. She does not compare him to an al-Qa'ida leader. From the Aussie article I thought she name a leader and compared Assange to him specifically. She does label him as dissiminating information to he enemy.

Show me where the USA has declared war .... and tell me who the enemy is.

Just like everyone else who keeps using the word "treason"...

And she is making a compareson..

74_XB_Ute · 09-12-2010, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

Show me where the USA has declared war .... and tell me who the enemy is.

"It has been noted that "developments in international law since 1945, notably the United Nations (UN) Charter, including its prohibition on the threat or use of force in international relations, may well have made the declaration of war redundant as a formal international legal instrument."

"In the United States, Congress which makes the rules for the military has the power under the Constitution to "declare War," however there is no prescribed legal format for what a War declaration will look like in the United States Constitution or by law. Declarations have the force of law and are intended to be executed by a Commander in Chief when called into actual service. The last time United States passed a bill with the title "Declaration of War" was in 1942, against Romania. Since then, the United States has used the term "Authorization to use Military Force" as in the case against Iraq in 2003."

Jim Goose · 09-12-2010, 03:14 PM

Then there can be no definition of enemy, treason, human rights under the geneva convention, torture, etc etc..... which we have seen is true.

why was it so important for the Japanese to make sure the declaration of war reached the USA before the bombing of Pearl Harbour?

One mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist....

As an example:
In WW2 the Nazis declared the French Resistance Terrorists in many propaganga materials and speaches... Yet how can someone who is fighting for his country against an invader be labelled as such?

Lets move forward:
The USSR went to Afganistan at the request of the leftist Afgan government because of civil uprising by the Mudjahideen. The USA called the Mudjahideen "freedom fighters" and provided them with weapons and money....

The USA invaded Afghanistan in search of "Osama". The Taliban was never "terrorist" organization or linked to any. It actually received humanitarian aide from the USA prior to the invasion.
In todays terms somehow the Taliban became terrorists... (people who are fighting an invader).

How about Kurdistan?
For decades the west has said how Saddam treated the Kurds badly and even gassed 1000s of them! ohhh the pooor Kurds... we must help them.
A few years back suddenly the Kurdistan rebals were labelled "terrorists" because they had killed some Turks after crossing the border into Turkey. Oddly enough no one mentions the fact that the Turks and Kurds have fought and hated each other for 100s of yrs...

A line which I once heard in an old cold war movie says it all......
"Define the enemy as animals, so that we can define ourselves as human."

Jim Goose · 09-12-2010, 03:25 PM

http://www.townsvillebulletin.com.au...0951_news.html

Quote:

JAILED WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange took some valuable lessons with him from his idyllic Townsville childhood - to distrust the government, and not be afraid to speak out.

Assange, being held in a London jail as prosecutors in Sweden attempt to have him extradited to face sexual assault charges, has incurred the wrath of global heavyweights, most notably the United States, for releasing hundreds of secret and politically embarrassing diplomatic cables via his whistleblowing website.

In his opinion piece in yesterday's Australian newspaper, headlined "Don't shoot the messenger for revealing uncomfortable truths", Assange attributed his distrust of 'big government' to political events during his childhood.

"I grew up in a Queensland country town where people spoke their minds bluntly," he wrote.

"They distrusted big government as something that could be corrupted if not watched carefully.

"The dark days of corruption in the Queensland government before the Fitzgerald inquiry are testimount to what happens when the politicians gag the media from reporting the truth.

"These things have stayed with me. WikiLeaks was created around these core values.

"The idea, conceived in Australia, was to use internet technologies in new ways to report the truth."

After a month undercover, Assange finally turned himself in to UK police on Tuesday night, and appeared in court on a European arrest warrant.

He was denied bail, with Judge Howard Riddle saying the money and resources available to him made him a flight risk.

Upon his surrender, he was refused bail and jailed for a week at Wandsworth Prison in London, the largest prison in the UK, pending an extradition hearing over alleged sex offences in Sweden.

The sexual allegations relate to a trip he took to Sweden in August this year, after which a woman claimed sexual molestation, saying he had sex with her without using a condom when it was her express wish that he do so.

He also had sex with another woman who is claiming coercion.

In all, the WikiLeaks founder is wanted on four counts, including rape.

However, Swedish media outlets have reported that at least one of the women said she had voluntary sex with him, and that she had not wanted to pursue a rape charge.

Several public figures supported Assange in the Westminster court on Tuesday, calling the legal proceedings politically motivated.

However, his imprisonment is not stopping the flow of cables from his website, yesterday publishing US embassy cables revealing that the Lockerbie bomber was freed from a Scottish jail last year after Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi made "explicit and thuggish threats" to halt all trade deals with Britain and harass embassy staff if Abdelbaset al-Megrahi remained in jail.

It is sure to embarrass politicians in the UK who spent months denying that the Lockerbie bomber was released on anything but compassionate grounds, with just three months to live. However, 16 months later, the man responsible for the deaths of 270 people in the 1988 bombing is said to be living with his family in a luxury villa in Libya.

It is clear that Assange has made some powerful enemies, with Visa now joining Mastercard, Paypal, Amazon and the Swiss Post Office Bank in closing links to WikiLeaks accounts.

- ANDY TOULSON with AAP

So exposing the truth about the British Government lieing to the people as to why they released the "accused" Libyian isn't in the public interest?
Of course it had nothing to do with trade and money....... remember the corporations interests are more important then standing on your moral ground and serving the people.

XESP351 · 09-12-2010, 03:30 PM

The man is F%^&$ing idiot imo, as someone here said, you mess with big boys you're gonna be hit with the big stick. Did he expect to provide the means to expose all these Pollies/governments and get a pat on the back in return? Of course they will want him and his family killed, if he didn't think that would happen then he's dellusional.

Also if wikileaks had some kind of vetting policy in terms of 'filtering' what to 'leak' i would be all for it. I have never had a look at the site and don't know what they leaked and haven't leaked but it does seem that they did leak critical military/intelligence info which should remain top secret, that's not right, that stuff is top secret for a reason, Loose lips sinks ships as they said. I bet if anyone of the people on here that want to live in 'utopia' have a friend in relative serving in Afghanistan and was killed due to info leaked by wikileaks, they would want the site closed and JA locked up for life.

Having said all that and if the material on the site is vetted and limited to info on what pollies said, and expose's such as speed camera revenue raising for example, i would have absolutely no problem with it.

It's when people lives are at stake because some idiot decided he would stir the pot that it becomes wrong, very wrong.

74_XB_Ute · 09-12-2010, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

The USA invaded Afghanistan in search of "Osama". The Taliban was never "terrorist" organization or linked to any."

"non-state or terrorist organisations may claim to or be described as "declaring war" when engaging in violent acts. These declarations may have no legal standing in themselves, but may still act as a call to arms for supporters of these organisations."

World Trade Centre Attacks may be considered a violent act.

"The al Qaeda training camps are an integral part of the terrorist organization. All 19 of the 9/11 hijackers, as well as the operatives in the Cole attacks and the African Embassy bombing attended Afghan training camps. The reciprocal relationship between al Qaeda and the camps was essential for the preservation of the organizatison: the camps provided the manpower for the terrorist activities, and the successfully executed attacks increased camp recruitment and enrollment numbers."

So the USA decided....righto...lets go to Afganistan...we dont want a repeat of 9/11

"According to the Commission on Terrorist Attacks, as many as 20,000 individuals trained at Bin-Ladin supported camps throughout Afghanistan from May 1996 to September 11, 2001"

Ah so Bin-Ladin is finacial backer of terrorist activity.

"In the 1990s bin Laden's al-Qaeda assisted jihadis financially and sometimes militarily in Algeria, Egypt and Afghanistan."
"A later effort that did succeed was an attack on the city of Mazar-e-Sharif in Afghanistan. Bin Laden helped cement his alliance with his hosts the Taliban by sending several hundred of his Afghan Arab fighters along to help the Taliban kill between five and six thousand Hazaras overrunning the city".

One might assume that Mr Bin-Laden (a confirmed terrorist supporter) has links in both Al Qaeda and the Taliban. No wonder the Taliban were cranky when the USA were in Afganistan looking for Bin-Laden.

Fev · 09-12-2010, 04:33 PM

Too many uneducated posts in this thread from people who have gleaned tidbits from certain news channels and taken it as the gospel truth..

(Not pointed at the post above FYI)

fmc351 · 09-12-2010, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 74_XB_Ute

"non-state or terrorist organisations may claim to or be described as "declaring war" when engaging in violent acts. These declarations may have no legal standing in themselves, but may still act as a call to arms for supporters of these organisations."

World Trade Centre Attacks may be considered a violent act.

"The al Qaeda training camps are an integral part of the terrorist organization. All 19 of the 9/11 hijackers, as well as the operatives in the Cole attacks and the African Embassy bombing attended Afghan training camps. The reciprocal relationship between al Qaeda and the camps was essential for the preservation of the organizatison: the camps provided the manpower for the terrorist activities, and the successfully executed attacks increased camp recruitment and enrollment numbers."

So the USA decided....righto...lets go to Afganistan...we dont want a repeat of 9/11

"According to the Commission on Terrorist Attacks, as many as 20,000 individuals trained at Bin-Ladin supported camps throughout Afghanistan from May 1996 to September 11, 2001"

Ah so Bin-Ladin is finacial backer of terrorist activity.

"In the 1990s bin Laden's al-Qaeda assisted jihadis financially and sometimes militarily in Algeria, Egypt and Afghanistan."
"A later effort that did succeed was an attack on the city of Mazar-e-Sharif in Afghanistan. Bin Laden helped cement his alliance with his hosts the Taliban by sending several hundred of his Afghan Arab fighters along to help the Taliban kill between five and six thousand Hazaras overrunning the city".

One might assume that Mr Bin-Laden (a confirmed terrorist supporter) has links in both Al Qaeda and the Taliban. No wonder the Taliban were cranky when the USA were in Afganistan looking for Bin-Laden.

I dont think the point raised is whether the Taliban support terrorism or not. Its what they were doing prior to an invasion, and who funded them.

Apparently OBL was at one time a freedom fighter in the Mujahadeen, he is now a terrorist with AlQ. Im not saying he isnt a terrorist, but it does give another meaning to the phrase, 'one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist'. Id say when he was a freedom fighter, there were people who saw him as a terrorist.

Its all fun when youre team is also the umpire, and shifts the goal posts when ever your team needs it.

Bobman · 09-12-2010, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XESP351

It's when people lives are at stake because some idiot decided he would stir the pot that it becomes wrong, very wrong.

So how is it acceptable when Governments hide things about waiting lists and so on but people continue dying at our over crowded hospitals?

No such thing as "big boys" when it comes to pollies - it's the nutters behind the scenes you have to worry about.

fmc351 · 09-12-2010, 06:33 PM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...nigeria-spying

I have no doubt lives are in danger here, as are the citizens of Nigeria all while its raped by a company. Seems the powers that be have been fully aware (they had the documents) and done zip about it.

Quote:

The oil giant Shell claimed it had inserted staff into all the main ministries of the Nigerian government, giving it access to politicians' every move in the oil-rich Niger Delta, according to a leaked US diplomatic cable.

The company's top executive in Nigeria told US diplomats that Shell had seconded employees to every relevant department and so knew "everything that was being done in those ministries". She boasted that the Nigerian government had "forgotten" about the extent of Shell's infiltration and was unaware of how much the company knew about its deliberations.

The cache of secret dispatches from Washington's embassies in Africa also revealed that the Anglo-Dutch oil firm swapped intelligence with the US, in one case providing US diplomats with the names of Nigerian politicians it suspected of supporting militant activity, and requesting information from the US on whether the militants had acquired anti-aircraft missiles.

Jim Goose · 09-12-2010, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 74_XB_Ute

"non-state or terrorist organisations may claim to or be described as "declaring war" when engaging in violent acts. These declarations may have no legal standing in themselves, but may still act as a call to arms for supporters of these organisations."

World Trade Centre Attacks may be considered a violent act.

"The al Qaeda training camps are an integral part of the terrorist organization. All 19 of the 9/11 hijackers, as well as the operatives in the Cole attacks and the African Embassy bombing attended Afghan training camps. The reciprocal relationship between al Qaeda and the camps was essential for the preservation of the organizatison: the camps provided the manpower for the terrorist activities, and the successfully executed attacks increased camp recruitment and enrollment numbers."

So the USA decided....righto...lets go to Afganistan...we dont want a repeat of 9/11

"According to the Commission on Terrorist Attacks, as many as 20,000 individuals trained at Bin-Ladin supported camps throughout Afghanistan from May 1996 to September 11, 2001"

Ah so Bin-Ladin is finacial backer of terrorist activity.

"In the 1990s bin Laden's al-Qaeda assisted jihadis financially and sometimes militarily in Algeria, Egypt and Afghanistan."
"A later effort that did succeed was an attack on the city of Mazar-e-Sharif in Afghanistan. Bin Laden helped cement his alliance with his hosts the Taliban by sending several hundred of his Afghan Arab fighters along to help the Taliban kill between five and six thousand Hazaras overrunning the city".

One might assume that Mr Bin-Laden (a confirmed terrorist supporter) has links in both Al Qaeda and the Taliban. No wonder the Taliban were cranky when the USA were in Afganistan looking for Bin-Laden.

Its never been proven that "Osama bin hiding" was the master mind....

They invaded a poor country, killed 10s of thousands, removed the government of the day, destroyed infrastructure, allowed the drug trade to flourish on a whim?
To find one man?

Oddly enough 9yrs later they still cant find this man... much like the WMDs in Iraq.... yes I see no pattern here...

Jim Goose · 09-12-2010, 06:49 PM

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2...09/3089114.htm

Quote:

WikiLeaks cyber war heats up

By Simon Lauder and staff

Updated 2 hours 45 minutes ago
Front page of the Wikileaks homepage

The attack came after the firms began blocking payments to WikiLeaks. (wikileaks.org)

* Audio: Hacktivists target major companies over Wikileaks scandal (The World Today)
* Related Story: Visa attacked in WikiLeaks protest

There are warnings today that a cyber war over the WikiLeaks cable dump could intensify, after hackers targeted the websites of credit giants Visa and Mastercard.

The visa.com website went down this morning as members of a hackers' group, called Anonymous, launched a coordinated cyber attack announced on their Twitter feed @Anon_Operation.

The attack, and a similar denial-of-service attack targeting Mastercard, came after the firms began blocking payments to WikiLeaks.

And the battle moved into the commercial sphere overnight with allegations the US government is pressuring companies to stop dealing with WikiLeaks.

Online payment service Paypal is the first to admit it froze the WikiLeaks account based on the US government's stance against WikiLeaks.

The Paypal move, as well as Visa and Mastercard's withdrawal of services, are a problem for WikiLeaks because it relies on many small donations to keep going.

WikiLeaks spokesman Kristinn Hrafnsson called the block on payments "despicable" and accused the three companies of bowing to US government pressure.......

So companies like VISA, MASTERCARD and PAYPAL simply bow down to US pressure?
What about the Swiss bank freezing his bank account?

Or could it be because he has files on major banks which he threatened to release soon...

74_XB_Ute · 09-12-2010, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

Its never been proven that "Osama bin hiding" was the master mind....

I never said he was......but being a financial benefactor kinda ties you into it.

Jim Goose · 09-12-2010, 06:59 PM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010...mes?intcmp=239

Quote:

WikiLeaks cables: Consult us before using intelligence to commit war crimes, US tells Uganda

US sought assurances that intelligence was being used 'in compliance with the law of armed conflict' during long-running Ugandan battle against Joseph Kony's rebel movement.......

............But Lanier continued: "Uganda understands the need to consult with the US in advance if the [Ugandan army] intends to use US-supplied intelligence to engage in operations not government [sic] by the law of armed conflict. Uganda understands and acknowledges that misuse of this intelligence could cause the US to end this intelligence sharing relationship."

Nowhere, though, does it appear that the ambassador directly told the Ugandans to observe the rules of war.

My poor XF · 09-12-2010, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2...09/3089114.htm

So companies like VISA, MASTERCARD and PAYPAL simply bow down to US pressure?
What about the Swiss bank freezing his bank account?

Or could it be because he has files on major banks which he threatened to release soon...

Jim agree with absolutely everything you have said. To many people tearing strips of JA and wikileaks without even having visited the site or reading the material.

Far too many people believing everything they see on sunrise and ACA.

Jim Goose · 09-12-2010, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 74_XB_Ute

I never said he was......but being a financial benefactor kinda ties you into it.

Kinda? So he was kinda guilty?
Again... nothing has been proven to tie him in with 911..
Osama's ties financially are/were with various members of the Royal Saudi Family....

74_XB_Ute · 09-12-2010, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

Osama's ties financially are/were with various members of the Royal Saudi Family....

Yep....would be nice to have a bit of royalty in the family. But every venture requires finance. Kinda like wikileaks really...thru donations...which seems to be drying up with recent reports...paypal, card services etc...
Terrorism is no different...they need finance too for their venture. Just so happens that Bin Laden has a wad full of cash and likes the idea of sticking it to the USA....he liked it so much actually that he is founding member of Al Qaeda.
Hahaha...wonder if Bin Laden slipped a few cool green backs to wikileaks....afterall...as far as he's concerned...its for a good cause. But thats way off topic

Jim Goose · 09-12-2010, 07:28 PM

We now have a reason why VISA and MASTERCARD quickly bowed down to US pressure to stop receiving funding for Wikileaks....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010...isa-mastercard

Quote:

WikiLeaks cables: US 'lobbied Russia on behalf of Visa and MasterCard'

US diplomats intervened to try to amend draft law so that it would not 'disadvantage' US credit card firms, cable says

The US lobbied Russia this year on behalf of Visa and MasterCard to try to ensure the payment card companies were not "adversely affected" by new legislation, according to American diplomats in Moscow.

A state department cable released this afternoon by WikiLeaks reveals that US diplomats intervened to try to amend a draft law going through Russia's duma, or lower house of parliament. Their explicit aim was to ensure the new law did not "disadvantage" the two US companies, the cable states.

The revelation comes a day after Visa – apparently acting under intense pressure from Washington – announced it was suspending all payments to WikiLeaks, the whistle-blowing website. Visa was following MasterCard, PayPal and Amazon, all of which have severed ties with the site and its founder, Julian Assange, in the past few days........

**Falcon Coupe** · 09-12-2010, 07:30 PM

Jim this thread has merit and deserves discussion, you are pushing the boundaries of the T&C which may see this closed.

Lets tone it down a notch please.

Franco Cozzo · 09-12-2010, 07:33 PM

This just keeps getting more interesting, I look forward to watching the news in the next few coming days.

I've noticed the media was having a go at him in the first place, then when all this stuff about Kevin Rudd and Australia came out, they are using his sources...

Jim Goose · 09-12-2010, 07:37 PM

Quote:

'Jim this thread has merit and deserves discussion, you are pushing the boundaries of the T&C which may see this closed.

Lets tone it down a notch please.

And without sounding sarcastic... I am only providing links in responces to what other people have posted in order to show whats been actually shown on Wikileaks... and news services on the discussion.

People are responding and I am answering.... The whole wikileaks thing is very broad in what it reaches and reaveals.

fmc351 · 09-12-2010, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Damo

This just keeps getting more interesting, I look forward to watching the news in the next few coming days.

I've noticed the media was having a go at him in the first place, then when all this stuff about Kevin Rudd and Australia came out, they are using his sources...

Just another day for mainstream media.

**Falcon Coupe** · 09-12-2010, 07:47 PM

I always have to spell it out *sigh*

Asking directly why country A. has not invaded country X. is off topic and inflammatory.

Wiki is overflowing with sensitive and controversial articles, pulling them out for individual discussion is not what this is about.

You seem to be enjoying the thread but that type of post will see it close.

pulpist · 09-12-2010, 08:22 PM

First off, apologies to the Mod for the facetious deleted post

Now, I used to be a supporter of Wikileaks, I thought it was an exciting and interesting site which released information for the sake of releasing information. People dedicated to more transparency. Pretty cool all told. Only when the obvious bias came into play along with the rather odd scrabble for the limelight by Mr Assange did I move away from supporting them and settled simply for watching. I still believe that you owe a debt of impartiality to people whenever you handle anything of a sensitive nature. I also believe some things should remain classified because they simply aren't in the public interest. Confidentiality is often the grease for the wheels of diplomacy, thinking otherwise is naive. I might not agree in the least with some of the sensationalism and self promotion but I don't wish harm on the man. Why would I?

Everyone bangs on that they cherish the freedom afforded by the internet yet all to often it becomes more a case of cherishing freedom only to hear what you like. Freedom means hearing things you don't like, freedom means people doing things you personally don't approve of. Freedom is having your say but not denying others the opportunity to have theirs.

Many detractors of WikiLeaks will have some form of moral argument regarding the chance innocent people could die as a result from the releases but I would imagine in any other circumstances they would probably view those deaths as collateral damage in an ongoing campaign. Morals are terrifically flexible in these situations, don't you find?

So now we have a concerted attempt to take down a website, hosts are kicking it left right and centre, PayPal have cut off funding (though doubtless some other payment provider will take a less political view), there's every chance any form of credit card funding could be cut if the big two (VISA and Mastercard) decide Wikileaks isn't good for business, and they very well might, and to top it all the guy who thrust himself into the spotlight is most likely going to be shipped back to Sweden at some point to face charges related to sexual crimes.

In short, those who oppose Wikileaks are watching censorship in action and may yet get a chance to see their nemesis behind bars. Isn't that enough without hanging him?

XESP351 · 09-12-2010, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobman

So how is it acceptable when Governments hide things about waiting lists and so on but people continue dying at our over crowded hospitals?

No such thing as "big boys" when it comes to pollies - it's the nutters behind the scenes you have to worry about.

Mate, i wouldn't have a problem with a 'leak' about a topic such as the above. I think i made it pretty clear what i have a problem with.

Oh and it's those 'nutters' that are the big boys...

Bad Bird · 09-12-2010, 10:14 PM

Quote:

have never had a look at the site and don't know what they leaked and haven't leaked but it does seem that they did leak critical military/intelligence info which should remain top secret, that's not right, that stuff is top secret for a reason, Loose lips sinks ships as they said. I bet if anyone of the people on here that want to live in 'utopia' have a friend in relative serving in Afghanistan and was killed due to info leaked by wikileaks, they would want the site closed and JA locked up for life.

It is pretty obvious that you haven't read the site. I haven't really seen much there that would put anyone's lives at risk. Just stuff that puts egg on their faces.

XESP351 · 09-12-2010, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bad Bird

It is pretty obvious that you haven't read the site. I haven't really seen much there that would put anyone's lives at risk. Just stuff that puts egg on their faces.

Well done for stating the 'obvious' champ.

I think you need to read the whole thread, you will find there are posts on here from people who i believe have read the site which led me to say that 'it seems' they published info which can put lives at risk.

Jim Goose · 09-12-2010, 10:51 PM

The documents were not secret.... how often does it need to be said?

If there was a concern about secrecy then the cables/ documents wouldve been given a higher rating. If the person sending the email wasnt concerned about the lives in the email, why should anyone else?

XESP351 · 09-12-2010, 10:54 PM

Because it could easily have been my or one of my mates lives we're taking about.....hopefully now you get it.....

Edit: You edited your post Jim.....i was replying to the part you edited.....that read 'why should you?' at the end there....

Jim Goose · 09-12-2010, 10:57 PM

So the USA is talking about your mate personally in emails back and forth?