Interpol issues 'red notice' for arrest of WikiLeaks' Julian Assange

[KhunAussie52]

It emerged on Wednesday that high-profile human rights lawyer Geoffrey Robertson QC will represent Assange in his fight against extradition from Britain to Sweden.

Robertson, a barrister who has dual British and Australian nationality, has appeared in some of the highest-profile freedom of speech trials in British history.

http://au.news.yahoo...-boss-revealed/

Edited December 9, 2010 by KhunAussie52

[LaoPo]

It emerged on Wednesday that high-profile human rights lawyer Geoffrey Robertson QC will represent Assange in his fight against extradition from Britain to Sweden.

Robertson, a barrister who has dual British and Australian nationality, has appeared in some of the highest-profile freedom of speech trials in British history.

http://au.news.yahoo...-boss-revealed/

A Heavy Weight Lawyer so it seems; exactly what Assange needs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffrey_Robertson

LaoPo

Edited December 9, 2010 by LaoPo

[KhunAussie52]

It emerged on Wednesday that high-profile human rights lawyer Geoffrey Robertson QC will represent Assange in his fight against extradition from Britain to Sweden.

Robertson, a barrister who has dual British and Australian nationality, has appeared in some of the highest-profile freedom of speech trials in British history.

http://au.news.yahoo...-boss-revealed/

A Heavy Weight Lawyer so it seems; exactly what Assange needs.

http://en.wikipedia....ffrey_Robertson

LaoPo

And one with a good track record..........!!!:jap:

[LaoPo]

Wikileaks: Australia FM blames US, not Julian Assange

8 December 2010 Last updated at 10:28 GMT

Australia's foreign minister has said the US is to blame for the release of thousands of diplomatic cables on Wikileaks, not its Australian founder, Julian Assange.

Kevin Rudd said the release raised questions about US security.

Mr Rudd said he did not "give a dam_n" about criticism of him in the cables.

Mr Assange, arrested in the UK over sex crime allegations in Sweden, has accused the Australian government of "disgraceful pandering" to the US.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard had earlier called Mr Assange's release of the cables "grossly irresponsible".

Over the past two weeks, Wikileaks has released thousands of classified messages from US envoys around the world, from more than 250,000 it has been given.

Washington has called their publication "irresponsible" and an "attack on the international community".

'First class job'

In an interview with Reuters news agency, Mr Rudd said: "Mr Assange is not himself responsible for the unauthorised release of 250,000 documents from the US diplomatic communications network. The Americans are responsible for that."

More:

http://www.bbc.co.uk...acific-11945558 WITH VIDEO

LaoPo

[LaoPo]

Main Leaks So Far

• Fears that terrorists may acquire Pakistani nuclear material
• Several Arab leaders urged attack on Iran over nuclear issue
• US instructs spying on key UN officials
• China's changing ties with North Korea
• Yemen approved US strikes on militants
• Personal and embarrassing comments on world leaders
• Afghan leader Hamid Karzai freed dangerous detainees
• Russia is a "virtual mafia state" with widespread corruption and bribery
• Afghan President Hamid Karzai is "paranoid and weak". Extent of corruption in Afghanistan
• Chinese leadership "hacked Google"
• A list of key global facilities the US says are vital to its national security
• UK fears over Lockerbie bomber

From:

http://www.bbc.co.uk...acific-11945558

LaoPo

[KhunAussie52]

AAP © Enlarge photo

http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/latest/8477231/arbib-not-a-spy-shorten/4/#comments

Federal government frontbencher Bill Shorten has rejected suggestions Labor powerbroker Mark Arbib is a spy for the US.

Secret embassy cables obtained by WikiLeaks and made available to Fairfax Media reveal that Senator Arbib has been in regular contact with US embassy officers.

His candid comments are incorporated in reports to Washington with requests that his identity as a "protected" source be guarded.

"I completely reject the idea that he is a spy," Mr Shorten told Sky News on Thursday.

"I just think that's nonsense."

Senator Arbib was "a very conscientious minister", Mr Shorten said.

"He puts a lot of effort into his portfolios and any other proposition about him just isn't correct at all."

Mr Shorten played down reports that Mr Arbib forewarned US officials in October 2009 that then-prime minister Kevin Rudd may face a leadership challenge.

"I think that the commentary I've seen this morning in the newspapers is dinner party gossip masquerading as US intelligence.

"I think each week someone's got to send a report of to America. So they jot down gossip and conversation.

"I just don't think what I've seen today is any more than what any journalist in the press gallery would already know, indeed what half of Australia might already know."

[JUDAS]

It would be laughable if it wasn't so potentially serious. We have calls for Assange to be executed without out trial etc for publishing these documents. IF these docs are so sensitive, such a danger to life and national security, then why was access so d@mn easy for hundreds of thousands if not millions of govt employees. Those calling for drastic action against Assange should also be looking a lot closer to home, to the individuals responsible for allowing such widespread access to docs that threaten national security.

Because it is easy to steal something is hardly a defense for stealing. The Falang was drunk and asleep so I stole his watch, cell phone and 300,000 baht. I guess in your scenario we should shoot the Falang.

I guess in your scenario there is no need for security as everything should be safe from theft. You obviously leave all your cash and valuables in a place with easy access to anyone. Where did I state I was defending the theft? Do you really not accept that there must be a high level review of just how accessible "secret" documents are? that is, after all, quite clearly my point which to totally ignore.

Edited December 9, 2010 by JUDAS

[Ulysses G.]

The documents were made so easily available in order to promote inter-agency cooperation to fight terrorism, but no one was counting on a traitor making them public.

That oversight is no excuse for stealing and disseminating them.

Edited December 9, 2010 by Ulysses G.

[JUDAS]

The documents were so easily available to promote inter-agency cooperation to fight terrorism. That oversight is no excuse for stealing and disseminating them.

Again, I'm making no excuse for stealing them. Are you so defensive UG that you think I'm attacking the US? because you are deeply mistaken. A direct question: do you think, in light of the current leaks, that a security review should be ordered?

[KhunAussie52]

Prime Minister Julia Gillard has shown a "contempt for the rule of law" in her handling of the WikiLeaks issue, independent MP Andrew Wilkie says.

Ms Gillard had suggested WikiLeaks had acted illegally by releasing thousands of diplomatic cables, but was unable to name any laws it had actually broken.

Mr Wilkie, who first came to prominence as a whistleblower, said the government was doing a poor job of protecting one of its citizens following the arrest of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.

"I'm absolutely disgusted at the behaviour of the federal government and of the prime minister personally at the moment," he told reporters in Hobart on Thursday.

"The prime minister is showing a contempt for the rule of law the way she has ruled out the presumption of innocence.

"As a lawyer she should know that she has compromised any legal proceedings that could be brought against Mr Assange."

Mr Wilkie said the issue would not lead to him withdrawing his support for the government, which it needs to stay in power.

"This is not a dealbreaker as far as my support goes for the Gillard government," he said.

"It is a demonstration that although I am giving limited support in supply and confidence, that is the only support I am giving."

[metisdead]

Off topic posts have been removed.

Talking about the arrest of Julian Assange of WikiLeaks is on-topic to this thread, while US soldiers accused of war crimes has nothing to do with this thread but is another topic altogether.

[Ulysses G.]

The documents were so easily available to promote inter-agency cooperation to fight terrorism. That oversight is no excuse for stealing and disseminating them.

Again, I'm making no excuse for stealing them. Are you so defensive UG that you think I'm attacking the US? because you are deeply mistaken. A direct question: do you think, in light of the current leaks, that a security review should be ordered?

I am not saying that you are, but a lot of other people are and my comment was directed at anyone who is.

Yes, I think that security should be improved immensely.

[JUDAS]

The documents were so easily available to promote inter-agency cooperation to fight terrorism. That oversight is no excuse for stealing and disseminating them.

Again, I'm making no excuse for stealing them. Are you so defensive UG that you think I'm attacking the US? because you are deeply mistaken. A direct question: do you think, in light of the current leaks, that a security review should be ordered?

I am not saying that you are, but a lot of other people are and my comment was directed at anyone who is.

Yes, I think that security should be improved immensely.

Thank you for the clarification UG. The US and Uk Govt's have indeed ordered security reviews as I'm sure many others have.

[hammered]

The documents were so easily available to promote inter-agency cooperation to fight terrorism. That oversight is no excuse for stealing and disseminating them.

Again, I'm making no excuse for stealing them. Are you so defensive UG that you think I'm attacking the US? because you are deeply mistaken. A direct question: do you think, in light of the current leaks, that a security review should be ordered?

I am not saying that you are, but a lot of other people are and my comment was directed at anyone who is.

Yes, I think that security should be improved immensely.

Attacking the US government or any government for that matter is not necessarily an attack on the people of a country, and shouldnt be assumed so.

If the government, for example, believes the biggest funder of terrorism against its own country is say "state A", and yet the government keeps this informnation secret from its people while maintianing that state as a close ally and arming them very heavily, are the government protecting or representing the interests of their people? If they are not is it legitmate to blow the whistle on this? Of course I am refering to something that has become public through the wikileaks media organization.

[JUDAS]

The documents were so easily available to promote inter-agency cooperation to fight terrorism. That oversight is no excuse for stealing and disseminating them.

Again, I'm making no excuse for stealing them. Are you so defensive UG that you think I'm attacking the US? because you are deeply mistaken. A direct question: do you think, in light of the current leaks, that a security review should be ordered?

I am not saying that you are, but a lot of other people are and my comment was directed at anyone who is.

Yes, I think that security should be improved immensely.

Attacking the US government or any government for that matter is not necessarily an attack on the people of a country, and shouldnt be assumed so.

If the government, for example, believes the biggest funder of terrorism against its own country is say "state A", and yet the government keeps this informnation secret from its people while maintianing that state as a close ally and arming them very heavily, are the government protecting or representing the interests of their people? If they are not is it legitmate to blow the whistle on this? Of course I am refering to something that has become public through the wikileaks media organization.

Off topic, but perhaps it needs stating. If I was American and voiced my strong disagreement with a specific govt policy I would probably be seen as exercising my democratic right and not likely to be labeled anti American. The USA is in a unique position globally as the wealthiest, most influential and powerful nation. It's a simple fact that the actions of the US govt can quite often have an affect on the lives of us all, so it's only to be expected that many non Americans have strong views. IMO these views quite often misinterpreted as anti American whereas they are nothing more than disagreement on a specific policy or action.

Sorry, but thought it should be said.

[hammered]

Main Leaks So Far

• Fears that terrorists may acquire Pakistani nuclear material
• Several Arab leaders urged attack on Iran over nuclear issue
• US instructs spying on key UN officials
• China's changing ties with North Korea
• Yemen approved US strikes on militants
• Personal and embarrassing comments on world leaders
• Afghan leader Hamid Karzai freed dangerous detainees
• Russia is a "virtual mafia state" with widespread corruption and bribery
• Afghan President Hamid Karzai is "paranoid and weak". Extent of corruption in Afghanistan
• Chinese leadership "hacked Google"
• A list of key global facilities the US says are vital to its national security
• UK fears over Lockerbie bomber

From:

http://www.bbc.co.uk...acific-11945558

LaoPo

Interesting that the Saudis funding most terrorism leak is left out as is the high ranking Saudi suspected of links to terrorism.

[mark45y]

Bob Beckel is a well known liberal, but he feels there will be many deaths because of Assange and he makes a case for his position that is not to be easily dismissed. Watch the video.

Liberal you say? A man who calls for an illegal assasination on National Television (in front of many children) is considered a Liberal in your eyes....in your country?

Watch the video?

Who do you think I am and stand for?

"..he feels there will be many deaths because of Assange..."

That's the general consensus your Government want the Americans and rest of the world believe that indeed. Some still believe the lies of their Governments and it shows how indoctrinated they are.

Tell me, the deaths they fear, are those soldiers fighting in countries where the war was forced upon those countries...? Unneccessary wars, started by lies of the same Government ?

How many fine young soldiers died already because of those lies by your government UG ?

I'm sure you kow how to handle Google to find out but et me help you: 58.000 plus/minus.....in Iraq alone; because of lies + 2 million soldiers and civilians in Iraq and I'm not counting Afghanistan yet.

Where's the outcry from the American parents, brothers and sisters, friends about the loss of their loved ones in wars they didn't ask for but were lied upon ?

Tell me.

LaoPo

Are you that ill informed about American public opinion? A couple of years ago 63% of Americans thought it a mistake to send troops there. Bob Beckel is a liberal as opposed to conservative politician. Google it. He has a long history of being a liberal and working for liberal/Democratic administrations. The American public is also well informed about WikiLeaks harming America and our Armed Forces.

See graph.

The word Liberal comes from Latin: Liberalis (of Freedom) and Liberalism stands for the believes and importance of freedom, liberty and equal rights of individual people.

I suggest some people need re-scholing about the meaning of Liberal and Liberalism and in my eyes Mr. Bob Beckel belongs to that group.

In the eyes of hundreds of millions, if not billions, Liberal/Liberalism doesn't mean you have the right of calling for an "Illegal" assassination of another individual.

That, in my eyes, is barbaric and not Liberal.

LaoPo

Like I said before, you have little understanding of the American political scene. I am not doubting your ability with Latin or English. . Bob Beckel is a liberal political commentator and that has nothing to do with his morals or ethics. It means he is a liberal as opposed to a conservative. Fox news is conservative and Beket was hired to present the other view, Liberal.

[koheesti]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703989004575653113548361870.html

Whatever else WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has accomplished, he's ended the era of innocent optimism about the Web. As wiki innovator Larry Sanger put it in a message to WikiLeaks, "Speaking as Wikipedia's co-founder, I consider you enemies of the U.S.—not just the government, but the people."

The irony is that WikiLeaks' use of technology to post confidential U.S. government documents will certainly result in a less free flow of information. The outrage is that this is Mr. Assange's express intention.

This batch includes 250,000 U.S. diplomatic cables, the kind of confidential assessments diplomats have written since the era of wax seals. These include Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah urging the U.S. to end Iran's nuclear ambitions—to "cut the head off the snake." This alignment with the Israeli-U.S. position is not for public consumption in the Arab world, which is why leaks will curtail honest discussions.

Leaks will also restrict information flows within the U.S. A major cause of the 9/11 intelligence failures was that agencies were barred from sharing information. Since then, intelligence data have been shared more widely. The Obama administration now plans to tighten information flows, which could limit leaks but would be a step back to the pre-9/11 period.

Mr. Assange is misunderstood in the media and among digirati as an advocate of transparency. Instead, this battening down of the information hatches by the U.S. is precisely his goal. The reason he launched WikiLeaks is not that he's a whistleblower—there's no wrongdoing inherent in diplomatic cables—but because he hopes to hobble the U.S., which according to his underreported philosophy can best be done if officials lose access to a free flow of information.

In 2006, Mr. Assange wrote a pair of essays, "State and Terrorist Conspiracies" and "Conspiracy as Governance." He sees the U.S. as an authoritarian conspiracy. "To radically shift regime behavior we must think clearly and boldly for if we have learned anything, it is that regimes do not want to be changed," he writes. "Conspiracies take information about the world in which they operate," he writes, and "pass it around the conspirators and then act on the result."

His central plan is that leaks will restrict the flow of information among officials—"conspirators" in his view—making government less effective. Or, as Mr. Assange puts it, "We can marginalize a conspiracy's ability to act by decreasing total conspiratorial power until it is no longer able to understand, and hence respond effectively to its environment. . . . An authoritarian conspiracy that cannot think efficiently cannot act to preserve itself."

...

Or as Mr. Assange told Time magazine last week, "It is not our goal to achieve a more transparent society; it's our goal to achieve a more just society." If leaks cause U.S. officials to "lock down internally and to balkanize," they will "cease to be as efficient as they were."

[canuckamuck]

Thank you for that Koheesti

Edited December 9, 2010 by canuckamuck

[beechguy]

Main Leaks So Far

• Fears that terrorists may acquire Pakistani nuclear material
• Several Arab leaders urged attack on Iran over nuclear issue
• US instructs spying on key UN officials
• China's changing ties with North Korea
• Yemen approved US strikes on militants
• Personal and embarrassing comments on world leaders
• Afghan leader Hamid Karzai freed dangerous detainees
• Russia is a "virtual mafia state" with widespread corruption and bribery
• Afghan President Hamid Karzai is "paranoid and weak". Extent of corruption in Afghanistan
• Chinese leadership "hacked Google"
• A list of key global facilities the US says are vital to its national security
• UK fears over Lockerbie bomber

From:

http://www.bbc.co.uk...acific-11945558

LaoPo

Interesting that the Saudis funding most terrorism leak is left out as is the high ranking Saudi suspected of links to terrorism.

Did it mention which Saudi's, individual citizens or government officials?

[hammered]

Main Leaks So Far

• Fears that terrorists may acquire Pakistani nuclear material
• Several Arab leaders urged attack on Iran over nuclear issue
• US instructs spying on key UN officials
• China's changing ties with North Korea
• Yemen approved US strikes on militants
• Personal and embarrassing comments on world leaders
• Afghan leader Hamid Karzai freed dangerous detainees
• Russia is a "virtual mafia state" with widespread corruption and bribery
• Afghan President Hamid Karzai is "paranoid and weak". Extent of corruption in Afghanistan
• Chinese leadership "hacked Google"
• A list of key global facilities the US says are vital to its national security
• UK fears over Lockerbie bomber

From:

http://www.bbc.co.uk...acific-11945558

LaoPo

Interesting that the Saudis funding most terrorism leak is left out as is the high ranking Saudi suspected of links to terrorism.

Did it mention which Saudi's, individual citizens or government officials?

Including the latter in their assessment. Imagine if a finding of even a fraction of that was about Iran instead of Saudi

[hammered]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703989004575653113548361870.html

Whatever else WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has accomplished, he's ended the era of innocent optimism about the Web. As wiki innovator Larry Sanger put it in a message to WikiLeaks, "Speaking as Wikipedia's co-founder, I consider you enemies of the U.S.—not just the government, but the people."

The irony is that WikiLeaks' use of technology to post confidential U.S. government documents will certainly result in a less free flow of information. The outrage is that this is Mr. Assange's express intention.

This batch includes 250,000 U.S. diplomatic cables, the kind of confidential assessments diplomats have written since the era of wax seals. These include Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah urging the U.S. to end Iran's nuclear ambitions—to "cut the head off the snake." This alignment with the Israeli-U.S. position is not for public consumption in the Arab world, which is why leaks will curtail honest discussions.

Leaks will also restrict information flows within the U.S. A major cause of the 9/11 intelligence failures was that agencies were barred from sharing information. Since then, intelligence data have been shared more widely. The Obama administration now plans to tighten information flows, which could limit leaks but would be a step back to the pre-9/11 period.

Mr. Assange is misunderstood in the media and among digirati as an advocate of transparency. Instead, this battening down of the information hatches by the U.S. is precisely his goal. The reason he launched WikiLeaks is not that he's a whistleblower—there's no wrongdoing inherent in diplomatic cables—but because he hopes to hobble the U.S., which according to his underreported philosophy can best be done if officials lose access to a free flow of information.

In 2006, Mr. Assange wrote a pair of essays, "State and Terrorist Conspiracies" and "Conspiracy as Governance." He sees the U.S. as an authoritarian conspiracy. "To radically shift regime behavior we must think clearly and boldly for if we have learned anything, it is that regimes do not want to be changed," he writes. "Conspiracies take information about the world in which they operate," he writes, and "pass it around the conspirators and then act on the result."

His central plan is that leaks will restrict the flow of information among officials—"conspirators" in his view—making government less effective. Or, as Mr. Assange puts it, "We can marginalize a conspiracy's ability to act by decreasing total conspiratorial power until it is no longer able to understand, and hence respond effectively to its environment. . . . An authoritarian conspiracy that cannot think efficiently cannot act to preserve itself."

...

Or as Mr. Assange told Time magazine last week, "It is not our goal to achieve a more transparent society; it's our goal to achieve a more just society." If leaks cause U.S. officials to "lock down internally and to balkanize," they will "cease to be as efficient as they were."

That is one opinion. Not everyuone would agree with it though.

Of course WSJ is owned by....?

Larry Sanger once argued controversialy that Wikipedia's problem was it didnt respect the elite and "experts".

Just to provide a little context for those who want to assess the article

[Ulysses G.]

The USA is in a unique position globally as the wealthiest, most influential and powerful nation. It's a simple fact that the actions of the US govt can quite often have an affect on the lives of us all, so it's only to be expected that many non Americans have strong views. IMO these views quite often misinterpreted as anti American whereas they are nothing more than disagreement on a specific policy or action.

Sorry, but thought it should be said.

While I agree with your statement, let us not forget that a huge percentage of the posters on these forums making frequent negative statements about the U.S. are the same posters that make negative, hateful replies to almost every subject that they "contribute" to on Thai Visa.

There are a few members here that I constantly disagree with, but still realize that they believe what they are saying. However, they are definitely in the minority.

[LaoPo]

The documents were so easily available to promote inter-agency cooperation to fight terrorism. That oversight is no excuse for stealing and disseminating them.

Again, I'm making no excuse for stealing them. Are you so defensive UG that you think I'm attacking the US? because you are deeply mistaken. A direct question: do you think, in light of the current leaks, that a security review should be ordered?

I am not saying that you are, but a lot of other people are and my comment was directed at anyone who is.

Yes, I think that security should be improved immensely.

Good to hear; also if a Government keeps lying and cheating to their people?

LaoPo

[LaoPo]

Attacking the US government or any government for that matter is not necessarily an attack on the people of a country, and shouldnt be assumed so.

If the government, for example, believes the biggest funder of terrorism against its own country is say "state A", and yet the government keeps this informnation secret from its people while maintianing that state as a close ally and arming them very heavily, are the government protecting or representing the interests of their people? If they are not is it legitmate to blow the whistle on this? Of course I am refering to something that has become public through the wikileaks media organization.

Off topic, but perhaps it needs stating. If I was American and voiced my strong disagreement with a specific govt policy I would probably be seen as exercising my democratic right and not likely to be labeled anti American. The USA is in a unique position globally as the wealthiest, most influential and powerful nation. It's a simple fact that the actions of the US govt can quite often have an affect on the lives of us all, so it's only to be expected that many non Americans have strong views. IMO these views quite often misinterpreted as anti American whereas they are nothing more than disagreement on a specific policy or action.

Sorry, but thought it should be said.

I second the views of both Hammered and JUDAS.

The silly name-calling of someone being anti-American (me for instance) should stop but if some posters don't believe me I am more than willing to make a (very long list) of things/people/systems etc I like very much in/from America

PLUS...a small list of what I dislike !

LaoPo

[LaoPo]

Main Leaks So Far

• Fears that terrorists may acquire Pakistani nuclear material
• Several Arab leaders urged attack on Iran over nuclear issue
• US instructs spying on key UN officials
• China's changing ties with North Korea
• Yemen approved US strikes on militants
• Personal and embarrassing comments on world leaders
• Afghan leader Hamid Karzai freed dangerous detainees
• Russia is a "virtual mafia state" with widespread corruption and bribery
• Afghan President Hamid Karzai is "paranoid and weak". Extent of corruption in Afghanistan
• Chinese leadership "hacked Google"
• A list of key global facilities the US says are vital to its national security
• UK fears over Lockerbie bomber

From:

http://www.bbc.co.uk...acific-11945558

LaoPo

Interesting that the Saudis funding most terrorism leak is left out as is the high ranking Saudi suspected of links to terrorism.

That surprised me too but maybe the BBC drafted that list before it was published about the Saudis; to be fair: te Saudis are known to host the highest funders but the other states on the peninsula know their funding-boys too....funding Alqueda and Taliban and other terrorist organasations.

LaoPo

[LaoPo]

Like I said before, you have little understanding of the American political scene. I am not doubting your ability with Latin or English. . Bob Beckel is a liberal political commentator and that has nothing to do with his morals or ethics. It means he is a liberal as opposed to a conservative. Fox news is conservative and Beket was hired to present the other view, Liberal.

And I said that some people need re-scholing about the meaning of Liberal/Liberalism.

If America calls a man Liberal, or even if he calls himself liberal but calls for an assassination on National Television at the same time, he would not be called a liberal in the European hemisphere where the word liberal comes from.

Calling for an assassination is not liberal; it's barbaric and "not done" in European politics. Unheard of and not civilized.

LaoPo

Edited December 9, 2010 by LaoPo

[LaoPo]

Main Leaks So Far

• Fears that terrorists may acquire Pakistani nuclear material
• Several Arab leaders urged attack on Iran over nuclear issue
• US instructs spying on key UN officials
• China's changing ties with North Korea
• Yemen approved US strikes on militants
• Personal and embarrassing comments on world leaders
• Afghan leader Hamid Karzai freed dangerous detainees
• Russia is a "virtual mafia state" with widespread corruption and bribery
• Afghan President Hamid Karzai is "paranoid and weak". Extent of corruption in Afghanistan
• Chinese leadership "hacked Google"
• A list of key global facilities the US says are vital to its national security
• UK fears over Lockerbie bomber

From:

http://www.bbc.co.uk...acific-11945558

LaoPo

Interesting that the Saudis funding most terrorism leak is left out as is the high ranking Saudi suspected of links to terrorism.

Did it mention which Saudi's, individual citizens or government officials?

Including the latter in their assessment. Imagine if a finding of even a fraction of that was about Iran instead of Saudi

Indeed; and I have little doubts that the Saudi Government/Intelligence, together with the US Intelligence, know EXACTLY which wealthy Saudis/Arab states' wealthy, are funding the terrorist organisations.

We can only wonder why those wealthy individuals, families and groups aren't taken into custody........

LaoPo

[mark45y]

Like I said before, you have little understanding of the American political scene. I am not doubting your ability with Latin or English. . Bob Beckel is a liberal political commentator and that has nothing to do with his morals or ethics. It means he is a liberal as opposed to a conservative. Fox news is conservative and Beket was hired to present the other view, Liberal.

And I said that some people need re-scholing about the meaning of Liberal/Liberalism.

If America calls a man Liberal, or even if he calls himself liberal but calls for an assassination on National Television at the same time, he would not be called a liberal in the European hemisphere where the word liberal comes from.

Calling for an assassination is not liberal; it's barbaric and "not done" in European politics. Unheard of and not civilized.

LaoPo

It is semantic LaoPo. In America the country you were talking about it is a political designation not a moral statement. If you wish to understand American politics you need to understand the titles both parties use. Conservative Republican and Liberal Democrat.

Republican has an altogether different meaning also, as does publican. But you were not talking about politics in Europe.

Your insistence to use an incorrect term when discussing an American political commentator only shows your Eurocentric behavior and lack of understanding of American politics at a most basic and elemental level.

Liberal Democrat

n

(Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a member or supporter of the Liberal Democrats

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

To repeat one more time. It is not, in terms of American politics, a moral definition it is a party designation.

[Wallaby]

Mark45y thank you for enlightening at least me. I too was under that misaprehension.

Cheers