WikiLeaks

[rabid]

I was taking the piss.

[Peter Dow]

December 3, 2010. Condoleezza Rice replies to a question by Katie Couric and one from a member of a studio audience about WikiLeaks.

I think what has happened is a crime. It is up to the Justice Department to figure out exactly what crime it is but it's got to be prosecuted and punished or it's going to keep happening and I hope the penalty is really severe because maybe that will deter this kind of behaviour.

The United States cannot exist in a world where we can't share information within the government with the expectation that is somehow going to end up on the front pages of newspapers. You can't do business that way. So I hope it is prosecuted and prosecuted severely.

[Uncle Liam]

I've just had a mad day. I needed a laugh. Thanks peter. Double thumbs up for you.

[Alcatraz]

That has to be the weirdest Peter Dow post I've ever seen

[Uncle Liam]

Yup.

Anyway, always worth posting

http://aberdeentramps.blogspot.com/2005/01/local-hero-1-peter-dow_10.html

I dont think i can find the video of some kids setting off the various alarms he has attached to his house.

[jump]

December 3, 2010. Condoleezza Rice replies to a question by Katie Couric and one from a member of a studio audience about WikiLeaks.

The event was organised by the Council on Foreign Relation for their HBO History Makers Series.

Wikileaks - Heroes, Villains, Other?

My answer "Villains", right now, primarily because Condoleezza Rice as my choice for world leader says so.

The Independent: WikiLeaks vs The Machine

If, as the Independent says, this is a fight between WikiLeaks and "The Machine", I, for one, am siding with the machine.

I, at least, know the value of discipline and loyalty to the leaders of the free world, whereas it seems Assange and WikiLeaks want to make the headlines irrespective of outcome - sometimes doing good, sometimes risking danger to others.

WikiLeaks is too anarchic right now and Condi should be supported as and when she decides to crack the whip on them.

As Condoleezza Rice, who is, in my opinion anyway, the leader of the free world, precisely promotes freedom and human dignity for all the people in the world therefore WikiLeaks should be more careful to take their lead from her.

I think WikiLeaks needs a new management ethos and organisation hierarchy which works with Condi and her staff at the US State Department (or ex-staff but you know what I mean).

If Assange and WikiLeaks come to order, give an undertaking to toe the line and generally work with "the machine" then maybe Condi will be less severe in the punishments she is looking for.

Generally it is the best advice to appease Condi and give her what she is asking for, most times anyway. The "New World Order" is not an Imperial dictatorship but the world does need a president and it should be Condi, not Assange.

Edited December 9, 2010 by jump

[eFestivals]

... but the world does need a president and it should be Condi, not Assange.

Why do you think Assange is trying to be 'president' you nutter?

He's not trying to lead events, he's merely telling you what events there have been.

If access to the information that has previously been denied to you makes you or anyone else want to try lead events in a different direction, that's something else entirely, and is only the result of the US govt's denial to us of the information of their actions.

After all, if they don't want us to know this stuff then it means they would rather that we believed something else. That pans out as them lying to their citizens as a deliberate part of their policy.

How can there be any real democracy when the govt has a policy of wanting us to believe things different to the truth? That means that citizens do not have the right information via which they're able to cast a meaningful vote.

If there's a path to a perfect world, then perfect information is surely a pre-requisite.

[philipsteak]

i f**king love you peter, ya mad bastard you!

[Purple Monkey]

Oh Peter, you cheeky simpleton.

[grumpyhack]

William Randolph Hearst, US publishing magnate and the model for Citizen Kane, still had the best definition of news:

"News is what somebody, somewhere, doesn't want published. All the rest is advertising."

Edited December 10, 2010 by grumpyhack

[MrZigster]

William Randolph Hearst, US publishing magnate and the model for Citizen Kane, still had the best definition of news:

"News is what somebody, somewhere, doesn't want published. All the rest is advertising."

[Peter Dow]

How is Condoleezza Rice the "leader of the free world"?

Edited December 11, 2010 by Peter Dow

[Peter Dow]

Why do you think Assange is trying to be 'president' you nutter?

Edited December 11, 2010 by Peter Dow

[Peter Dow]

December 3, 2010. Condoleezza Rice replies to a question by Katie Couric and one from a member of a studio audience about WikiLeaks.

The event was organised by the Council on Foreign Relation for their HBO History Makers Series.

Wikileaks - Heroes, Villains, Other?

My answer "Villains", right now, primarily because Condoleezza Rice as my choice for world leader says so.

The Independent: WikiLeaks vs The Machine

If, as the Independent says, this is a fight between WikiLeaks and "The Machine", I, for one, am siding with the machine.

I, at least, know the value of discipline and loyalty to the leaders of the free world, whereas it seems Assange and WikiLeaks want to make the headlines irrespective of outcome - sometimes doing good, sometimes risking danger to others.

WikiLeaks is too anarchic right now and Condi should be supported as and when she decides to crack the whip on them.

As Condoleezza Rice, who is, in my opinion anyway, the leader of the free world, precisely promotes freedom and human dignity for all the people in the world therefore WikiLeaks should be more careful to take their lead from her.

I think WikiLeaks needs a new management ethos and organisation hierarchy which works with Condi and her staff at the US State Department (or ex-staff but you know what I mean).

If Assange and WikiLeaks come to order, give an undertaking to toe the line and generally work with "the machine" then maybe Condi will be less severe in the punishments she is looking for.

Generally it is the best advice to appease Condi and give her what she is asking for, most times anyway. The "New World Order" is not an Imperial dictatorship but the world does need a president and it should be Condi, not Assange.

[Cardboard Box City]

I don't but he is defying the secrecy classifications of the US President. So he is over-ruling the US President. Who does he think he is to do that?

[grumpyhack]

That bastard (according to certain theories).

Advertising or self serving propoganda?

[sifi]

Peter Dow, you know Condi is pre-op?

[funkymp]

seems anon just took down fasthosts, took out companies main website and the ones I wast just working on, annoying bastards

[eFestivals]

seems anon just took down fasthosts, took out companies main website and the ones I wast just working on, annoying bastards

paypal was very slow this morning on its front page - but all the secure server stuff (which is just about everything except the front page) was the same speed as normal. It looks like they haven't actually thought of attacking that.

This arvo even the front page of PayPal was loading as normal.

I'm guessing that PayPal have simply blocked the incoming IPs of the people who were attacking it. As it's less than 20,000 people that have been involved in the attacks, it's not going to have been too much of a chore to have them all blocked.

[funkymp]

paypal was very slow this morning on its front page - but all the secure server stuff (which is just about everything except the front page) was the same speed as normal. It looks like they haven't actually thought of attacking that.

This arvo even the front page of PayPal was loading as normal.

I'm guessing that PayPal have simply blocked the incoming IPs of the people who were attacking it. As it's less than 20,000 people that have been involved in the attacks, it's not going to have been too much of a chore to have them all blocked.

Edited December 13, 2010 by funkymp

[eFestivals]

I don't but he is defying the secrecy classifications of the US President. So he is over-ruling the US President. Who does he think he is to do that?

Someone who has been able to expose that President (any president) as continually lying to the people who elect him - which makes that President a fraud, and ultimately not democratically elected.

There are such a thing as state or military secrets which if they are revealed make it easier for the enemy in war to do kill your soldiers or your people. Admittedly, not all the stuff WikiLeaks has leaked falls into that category but some of it does.

any enemy capable of carrying out such attacks would have been easily capable of having this info prior to anything that wikileaks has done. The info that wikileaks is currently leaking has been freely available to 3,000,000 people since the year dot, and still is today.

As for wanting people to believe things different from the truth. Right now, those responsible for that, more than anyone in the world, are those running internet forums who ban people whose interpretation of the truth doesn't accord with their own.

You don't get the idea of free speech, do you?

Free speech means that you have the freedom to speak, not that others have to give you the platform on which to speak.

That aside, this website tries its hardest to never censor, to the extent that a nutter like you hasn't been banned. Still, you're always good for a laugh.

Real democracy means "government by all the people". The USA government has provided us, the people of the world, with the technology of the internet, the biggest pro-democracy force in history, the potential is for a real democracy.

So no-one has done more for democracy than Uncle Sam and to try to paint the US government defending its secrets as "anti-democratic" is 100% wrong.

PMSL.

If the freedom to debate that the internet offers is the biggest pro-democracy force in history, then when Uncle Satan tries to shuit down that debate as it is over wikileaks then that is very definitely anti-democratic.

Join up the frigging dots you numptie!!

That aside, the US is not the bringer of all that is good in the world, at least, not exclusively. Everyone's voice deserves to be heard, while the USA has a very deliberate policy of stiffling debate on the basis of it's self-belief in its messianic status of its civilising mission from God; ultimately that pans out as a racist belief that others who don't 'get' what they say must be somehow subnormal or wicked.

[windy_miller]

Ron Paul Defends WikiLeaks On House Floor

Questions to consider:

Number 1: Do the America People deserve know the truth regarding the ongoing wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen?

Number 2: Could a larger question be how can an army private access so much secret information?

Number 3: Why is the hostility mostly directed at Assange, the publisher, and not at our governments failure to protect classified information?

Number 4: Are we getting our moneys worth of the 80 Billion dollars per year spent on intelligence gathering?

Number 5: Which has resulted in the greatest number of deaths: lying us into war or Wikileaks revelations or the release of the Pentagon Papers?

Number 6: If Assange can be convicted of a crime for publishing information that he did not steal, what does this say about the future of the first amendment and the independence of the internet?

Number 7: Could it be that the real reason for the near universal attacks on Wikileaks is more about secretly maintaining a seriously flawed foreign policy of empire than it is about national security?

Number 8: Is there not a huge difference between releasing secret information to help the enemy in a time of declared war, which is treason, and the releasing of information to expose our government lies that promote secret wars, death and corruption?

Number 9: Was it not once considered patriotic to stand up to our government when it is wrong?

Thomas Jefferson had it right when he advised 'Let the eyes of vigilance never be closed.' I yield back the balance of my time.

[windy_miller]

One of the more vile and disgusting leaks I've heard about.

Texas Company Helped Pimp Little Boys To Stoned Afghan Cops

Foreign contractors hired Afghan 'dancing boys'

[eFestivals]

Ron Paul Defends WikiLeaks On House Floor

they're all questions addressed and answered in the very excellent 'America right or wrong' by Anatol Lieven.

[Peter Dow]

We should not ignore the possibility that the bogus Swedish "sex" charge could actually be a rescue-Assange bid which WikiLeaks supporters in Sweden have concocted to try to rescue Assange from a pending US extradition to a much worse fate.

Admittedly, my theory doesn't explain why Assange didn't jump at the chance to be extradited to Sweden especially if he is expecting a US extradition attempt.

Maybe he told the UK court he was opposing extradition to Sweden before they denied him bail. Maybe he thought he was going to make bail and would not need his Swedish-extradition escape route?

Maybe once they refused him bail, the chance to accept extradition to Sweden was lost?

Even if they let him out on bail he still won't be able to escape a US extradition attempt, least ways it will be Mission Impossible.

The BBC have addressed themselves to the legal theory if the USA apply to extradite Assange as well.

BBC: Q&A: Arrest of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange

What would happen if the United States made a request to extradite Mr Assange from the UK?

When there are two competing claims to extradite someone, the home secretary has to decide which takes precedence. In making that decision, he or she will take into account the relative seriousness of the offences for which the person's extradition is sought, where the offences were committed, and the timing of the two requests.

Extradition to the United States is governed by the Extradition Act 2003. This provisions governing extradition between the two countries has been criticised for creating a lop-sided relationship under which the United States no longer has to provide prima facie evidence - normally in the form of witness statements - that an offence has been committed.

That criticism was voiced in relation to the case of the so called 'Nat West Three'.

If Mr Assange is extradited to Sweden and the United States wanted to extradite him from there, they would need the consent of the United Kingdom.

Such an extradition would be conducted in accordance with Swedish law and the extradition arrangements agreed between Sweden and the United States.

It has been suggested that it would be easier for the United States to extradite Mr Assange from Sweden than from the United Kingdom.

This does not appear to be the case as the United States would have to show that there were reasonable grounds for the extradition from Sweden. This is arguably a higher test than the test which applies when an extradition is sought from the United Kingdom.

Edited December 15, 2010 by Peter Dow