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

[LaoPo]

Digital McCarthyism

some excerpts:

Some politicians have made a jingoistic pitch and called for the execution of the source of the leaks. This is nothing but Digital McCarthyism.

<snip>

Earlier this year, President Barack Obama was 'troubled' by the cyber attacks on Google, which were said to originate in China, and wanted those responsible to face the consequences. The more freely information flows, the stronger society becomes, he had said during an earlier visit to China.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was also strongly critical of Internet restrictions in China. Now the boot is on the other foot. Concern for free speech is nowhere in evidence as extra-legal methods are deployed to deny Americans their First Amendment rights.

<snip>

What has followed is shockingly repressive and obscurantist. The Library of Congress blocked access to WikiLeaks across its computer systems, including reading rooms, and Columbia University students aspiring for diplomatic careers have been advised not to comment on, or link to, the whistleblower website's revelations.

It is doubly tragic that such concerted attacks are securing support from countries with a progressive legacy such as France.

The intolerant response to WikiLeaks is a potential threat to all media and must be fought. Senator Lieberman and other lawmakers have introduced legislation that proposes to make the publication of an intelligence source a federal crime. Already, U.S. law allows the shutting down of some Internet domains managed in that country on grounds of infringement of copyright. The threat to the publication of inconvenient material, even with responsible redactions, is all too real.

http://www.thehindu....ticle933915.ece

LaoPo

[KhunAussie52]

Digital McCarthyism

some excerpts:

Some politicians have made a jingoistic pitch and called for the execution of the source of the leaks. This is nothing but Digital McCarthyism.

<snip>

Earlier this year, President Barack Obama was 'troubled' by the cyber attacks on Google, which were said to originate in China, and wanted those responsible to face the consequences. The more freely information flows, the stronger society becomes, he had said during an earlier visit to China.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was also strongly critical of Internet restrictions in China. Now the boot is on the other foot. Concern for free speech is nowhere in evidence as extra-legal methods are deployed to deny Americans their First Amendment rights.

<snip>

What has followed is shockingly repressive and obscurantist. The Library of Congress blocked access to WikiLeaks across its computer systems, including reading rooms, and Columbia University students aspiring for diplomatic careers have been advised not to comment on, or link to, the whistleblower website's revelations.

It is doubly tragic that such concerted attacks are securing support from countries with a progressive legacy such as France.

The intolerant response to WikiLeaks is a potential threat to all media and must be fought. Senator Lieberman and other lawmakers have introduced legislation that proposes to make the publication of an intelligence source a federal crime. Already, U.S. law allows the shutting down of some Internet domains managed in that country on grounds of infringement of copyright. The threat to the publication of inconvenient material, even with responsible redactions, is all too real.

http://www.thehindu....ticle933915.ece

LaoPo

Bravo!!!!!!!:jap:

[Ulysses G.]

There is just a slight difference between censoring Google and spreading stolen, top secret government documents on the Internet.

[hammered]

He said that the WikiLeaks site - which was last week forced to move to a Swiss host after being dumped by US internet companies - had come under siege from ''a huge number of cyber-attacks''.

The organisation held further secret material which it regarded as a ''thermo-nuclear device'' to be released if it needs to protect itself, he said.

That's not a smart move. He's trying to blackmail the US, Sweden, other world governments and multi-national corporations and he thinks he'll just walk away? LOL

Incredibly foolish. He reminds me of the terrorists who keep threatening to do something really bad if legitimate governments do not leave them alone. Hey, guys you are already doing it!

It is looking more and more like what you describe as the legitmiate governments have been doing something bad and hiding it with the support of their corporate controlled media. Exposing such actions of governments to the people who elect them is a definite service to the people and democracy.

Editeed to add: should democratic governments be responsible to the people or not. If not there is no difference between a (sham) democracy and a totalitarian regime. Chomskys managed democracy is looking more and more a reasonable claim

Edited December 6, 2010 by hammered

[Ulysses G.]

Editeed to add: should democratic governments be responsible to the people or not. If not there is no difference between a (sham) democracy and a totalitarian regime.

There is no difference between England or Australia and the USSR or communist China ? What a statement.

[powderpuff]

For good order Koheesti:

I didn't write that but it looks like it, the way you quoted; it is a part from an article, not my words.

Just for the record.

LaoPo

Strictly against the rules of the board.

Report it.

100% not allowed.

[powderpuff]

Can't speak for the rest of you but the U.S.A. is a REPUBLIC.

[powderpuff]

When you are fighting a war, such as the War on Terrorism, certain things are secret & will remain secret for maybe 50 years.

When I balance your "right to know" against the lives of my fellow fighting men & women on the battlefield it is no contest.

People releasing this type of information (classified military stuff) deserve life in prison without possibility of parole.

Now we are aware that we are fighting this war singlehanded with assistance from staunch allies such as Britian Australia Georgia & many others. A huge Thank You to them.

[hammered]

Editeed to add: should democratic governments be responsible to the people or not. If not there is no difference between a (sham) democracy and a totalitarian regime.

There is no difference between England or Australia and the USSR or communist China ? What a statement.

Why not awnswer the question

[hammered]

When you are fighting a war, such as the War on Terrorism, certain things are secret & will remain secret for maybe 50 years.

When I balance your "right to know" against the lives of my fellow fighting men & women on the battlefield it is no contest.

People releasing this type of information (classified military stuff) deserve life in prison without possibility of parole.

Now we are aware that we are fighting this war singlehanded with assistance from staunch allies such as Britian Australia Georgia & many others. A huge Thank You to them.

There is no declared war in the US or UK. The governments have not declared war on anyone, which is a tad disingenous to start with. That these governments by bypassing their norms put the lives of their militaries at risk is abhorent but it shouldnt ever be used as a reason to deny freedom of information especially when the governments have probably been sending people to their deaths in illegal ways and by their wars of choice putting the interests of their own country and people at heightened risks.

Edited December 6, 2010 by hammered

[powderpuff]

So you can not grasp the concept of "Military Secrets"? That would be your problem not ours.

We; The Americans ARE AT WAR.

Muslim Fundamental Whackos declared war on us Sept 11, 2001 at 8:45 AM Eastern Time.

EOS.

[koheesti]

He said that the WikiLeaks site - which was last week forced to move to a Swiss host after being dumped by US internet companies - had come under siege from ''a huge number of cyber-attacks''.

The organisation held further secret material which it regarded as a ''thermo-nuclear device'' to be released if it needs to protect itself, he said.

That's not a smart move. He's trying to blackmail the US, Sweden, other world governments and multi-national corporations and he thinks he'll just walk away? LOL

For good order Koheesti:

I didn't write that but it looks like it, the way you quoted; it is a part from an article, not my words.

Just for the record.

LaoPo

that is true. sloppy editing on my part late at night.

[hammered]

So you can not grasp the concept of "Military Secrets"? That would be your problem not ours.

We; The Americans ARE AT WAR.

Muslim Fundamental Whackos declared war on us Sept 11, 2001 at 8:45 AM Eastern Time.

EOS.

Congress never declared war ergo there is no war. 9/11 was a horrendous criminal action against the states. Howveer the USA is not at war unless disregrading its constitution and laws which I doubt anyone is arguing. The corporate medai and some polticians have created something called the war on terror, but it is a meaningless phrase outside newspseak.

Just because something is secret doesnt mean it should be. For example were wikileaks wrong to highlight the human rights abuses by the US military? They were there only highlighting illegalities, and illegalities that cause further hatred to the country and its people and hence ones we should think would be pursued with vigour to get to the bottom of rather than cover up or excuse.

[mark45y]

Editeed to add: should democratic governments be responsible to the people or not. If not there is no difference between a (sham) democracy and a totalitarian regime.

There is no difference between England or Australia and the USSR or communist China ? What a statement.

Why not awnswer the question

Lyndon Johnson did not run for a second term because the American people did not approve of his policy in Vietnam.

Dwight D. Eisenhower got elected because the American people approved of the way he prosecuted WW II.

The American government is held responsible for it's actions by the American people. Hillary Clinton will never again hold a public office in the US because it was on her watch that so many sensitive State documents were stolen.

I believe 3000 were shot by the Chinese government Tiananmen Square protests of 1989

[koheesti]

It is looking more and more like what you describe as the legitmiate governments have been doing something bad and hiding it with the support of their corporate controlled media. Exposing such actions of governments to the people who elect them is a definite service to the people and democracy.

Editeed to add: should democratic governments be responsible to the people or not. If not there is no difference between a (sham) democracy and a totalitarian regime. Chomskys managed democracy is looking more and more a reasonable claim

Bold red above is mine.

Yes and yes. But in today's world, exposing anything of this nature is not limited to "the people who elect them". Even if you were to release military or other secrets only to citizens, there is no guarantee that they won't turn traitor and release them to the enemy, or not secure them well enough so that the enemy can't get to them. That is why these things must be kept secret.

It's ironic that the same people on the Left in America who thought it was dangerous of Bush to say in a speech "Bring it on" with regards to the enemy in Iraq, thus giving them

"locker room bulletin board" material to motivate them to kill more of our soldiers, don't seem to think enemies around the world are reading any of these secrets they so desperately want to leak to the world. It just illustrates how disingenuous they really are.

BTW - governments answer to their own people, not to foreigners.

Edited December 6, 2010 by koheesti

[hammered]

It is looking more and more like what you describe as the legitmiate governments have been doing something bad and hiding it with the support of their corporate controlled media. Exposing such actions of governments to the people who elect them is a definite service to the people and democracy.

Editeed to add: should democratic governments be responsible to the people or not. If not there is no difference between a (sham) democracy and a totalitarian regime. Chomskys managed democracy is looking more and more a reasonable claim

Bold red above is mine.

Yes and yes. But in today's world, exposing anything of this nature is not limited to "the people who elect them". Even if you were to release military or other secrets only to citizens, there is no guarantee that they won't turn traitor and release them to the enemy, or not secure them well enough so that the enemy can't get to them. That is why these things must be kept secret.

It's ironic that the same people on the Left in America who thought it was dangerous of Bush to say in a speech "Bring it on" with regards to the enemy in Iraq, thus giving them

"locker room bulletin board" material to motivate them to kill more of our soldiers, don't seem to think the enemy is reading any of these secrets they so desperately want to leak to the world. It just illustrates how disingenuous they really are.

In the modern world there are just going tobe a lot less secrets and things governments would like kept quiet are just going to be less likely to reamina quiet. It is not about traitors and enemies (the nothion of the nation state is an old one) but that all humanity will have increasing access. Right now governments of all persuasion, state and corporate medias, propaganda apparatus have found no way to respond to this new reality. Even if they manage to drive wikileaks from the air and for example hideously torture Assange to death as a warning, there will be more. Wikileaks is the start of a new balance in the secret-open information continnuum. Right now the balance hasnt been found but the onous is on the governments to move to more openness or face being laid bare.

As the internet is a challenge to the music industry, book publishers, media and newws organs it is also a challenge to governments and right now western governments are falling over themselves to do what they pillory Russia, China and even Thailand for doing. The genie isnt going back into the box.

To my mind this a positive thing as I believe our governments do unneccessarily stupid and bad things in our names. Not everyone will agree with me but history shows that as time moves on openess only increases and that is without factoring in technological changes.

[koheesti]

It is looking more and more like what you describe as the legitmiate governments have been doing something bad and hiding it with the support of their corporate controlled media. Exposing such actions of governments to the people who elect them is a definite service to the people and democracy.

Editeed to add: should democratic governments be responsible to the people or not. If not there is no difference between a (sham) democracy and a totalitarian regime. Chomskys managed democracy is looking more and more a reasonable claim

Bold red above is mine.

Yes and yes. But in today's world, exposing anything of this nature is not limited to "the people who elect them". Even if you were to release military or other secrets only to citizens, there is no guarantee that they won't turn traitor and release them to the enemy, or not secure them well enough so that the enemy can't get to them. That is why these things must be kept secret.

It's ironic that the same people on the Left in America who thought it was dangerous of Bush to say in a speech "Bring it on" with regards to the enemy in Iraq, thus giving them

"locker room bulletin board" material to motivate them to kill more of our soldiers, don't seem to think the enemy is reading any of these secrets they so desperately want to leak to the world. It just illustrates how disingenuous they really are.

In the modern world there are just going tobe a lot less secrets and things governments would like kept quiet are just going to be less likely to reamina quiet. It is not about traitors and enemies (the nothion of the nation state is an old one) but that all humanity will have increasing access. Right now governments of all persuasion, state and corporate medias, propaganda apparatus have found no way to respond to this new reality. Even if they manage to drive wikileaks from the air and for example hideously torture Assange to death as a warning, there will be more. Wikileaks is the start of a new balance in the secret-open information continnuum. Right now the balance hasnt been found but the onous is on the governments to move to more openness or face being laid bare.

As the internet is a challenge to the music industry, book publishers, media and newws organs it is also a challenge to governments and right now western governments are falling over themselves to do what they pillory Russia, China and even Thailand for doing. The genie isnt going back into the box.

To my mind this a positive thing as I believe our governments do unneccessarily stupid and bad things in our names. Not everyone will agree with me but history shows that as time moves on openess only increases and that is without factoring in technological changes.

I don't necessarily disagree with the above, BUT, what do you think the results will be?

Governments will be more open and honest now? Or will they keep the secrets even tighter? I think everyone here knows which one is more likely.

What will the future of the Internet be now? A lot less open and free is my guess. Look at what is happening now. Download sites have been shut down. Attacks are happening on websites (wikileaks) by governments. New laws are being written to regulate the Internet. Like you say, the genie can't be put back into the bottle.

Just like those terrorist-wannabes in London with the liquid explosives, or the underwear bomber who have made it more difficult for the rest of the world to fly, Assange & Wikileaks will have put the Internet on the path of being less free.

At least those who think Assange is a hero will have to suffer with the rest of us.

Edited December 6, 2010 by koheesti

[hammered]

It is looking more and more like what you describe as the legitmiate governments have been doing something bad and hiding it with the support of their corporate controlled media. Exposing such actions of governments to the people who elect them is a definite service to the people and democracy.

Editeed to add: should democratic governments be responsible to the people or not. If not there is no difference between a (sham) democracy and a totalitarian regime. Chomskys managed democracy is looking more and more a reasonable claim

Bold red above is mine.

Yes and yes. But in today's world, exposing anything of this nature is not limited to "the people who elect them". Even if you were to release military or other secrets only to citizens, there is no guarantee that they won't turn traitor and release them to the enemy, or not secure them well enough so that the enemy can't get to them. That is why these things must be kept secret.

It's ironic that the same people on the Left in America who thought it was dangerous of Bush to say in a speech "Bring it on" with regards to the enemy in Iraq, thus giving them

"locker room bulletin board" material to motivate them to kill more of our soldiers, don't seem to think the enemy is reading any of these secrets they so desperately want to leak to the world. It just illustrates how disingenuous they really are.

In the modern world there are just going tobe a lot less secrets and things governments would like kept quiet are just going to be less likely to reamina quiet. It is not about traitors and enemies (the nothion of the nation state is an old one) but that all humanity will have increasing access. Right now governments of all persuasion, state and corporate medias, propaganda apparatus have found no way to respond to this new reality. Even if they manage to drive wikileaks from the air and for example hideously torture Assange to death as a warning, there will be more. Wikileaks is the start of a new balance in the secret-open information continnuum. Right now the balance hasnt been found but the onous is on the governments to move to more openness or face being laid bare.

As the internet is a challenge to the music industry, book publishers, media and newws organs it is also a challenge to governments and right now western governments are falling over themselves to do what they pillory Russia, China and even Thailand for doing. The genie isnt going back into the box.

To my mind this a positive thing as I believe our governments do unneccessarily stupid and bad things in our names. Not everyone will agree with me but history shows that as time moves on openess only increases and that is without factoring in technological changes.

I don't necessarily disagree with the above, BUT, what do you think the results will be?

Governments will be more open and honest now? Or will they keep the secrets even tighter? I think everyone here knows which one is more likely.

What will the future of the Internet be now? A lot less open and free is my guess. Look at what is happening now. Download sites have been shut down. Attacks are happening on websites (wikileaks) by governments. New laws are being written to regulate the Internet. Like you say, the genie can't be put back into the bottle.

Just like those terrorist-wannabes in London with the liquid explosives, or the underwear bomber who have made it more difficult for the rest of the world to fly, Assange & Wikileaks will have put the Internet on the path of being less free.

At least those who think Assange is a hero will have to suffer with the rest of us.

You may have a point in the short term, but reality is that for democratic government to function trust is needed and that trust cnat just be gauged in terms of the nationalistic ultra-conservatives and allies. Democratic countries also need the trust of liberals and lefties, so imho a new balance will be found where a few more previous secrets will be out but the other stuff still secret. It is also hard to regualte something that covers so many different countries and routes so by negotiation and consensus makes more sense. I think the days of getting the NY Times ot cheerlead a war on extremely dubious evidence are over though. Those with power never like giving it up but to maintain a lot a little is often needed to be relinquished. Sounds like the deabte on Thai poltics there

[Wallaby]

The US govt stated they weren't officially 'at war' so they could get around the Geneva Convention and thus term any prisoners of war 'enemy combatants' and deny them the rights associated with being prisoners of war.

You can't now say that there is a war just to suit a different agenda. Either there is or there isn't. Can't have it both ways.

[chuckd]

Talking about state secrets, I offer the following thought:

_____________________________________________________________

"If we want to keep our Nation's secrets really 'SECRET'... store them where President Obama stores his college transcripts and birth certificate."

Former Gov. Mike Huckabee

_____________________________________________________________

[Ulysses G.]

The US govt stated they weren't officially 'at war' so they could get around the Geneva Convention and thus term any prisoners of war 'enemy combatants' and deny them the rights associated with being prisoners of war.

Nonsense. The terrorists do not wear uniforms, so would not be entitled to the rights of POWS anyway.

[hammered]

The US govt stated they weren't officially 'at war' so they could get around the Geneva Convention and thus term any prisoners of war 'enemy combatants' and deny them the rights associated with being prisoners of war.

Nonsense. The terrorists do not wear uniforms, so would not be entitled to the rights of POWS anyway.

The Geneva conventions protect civilians

[EnSvenskTiger]

The US govt stated they weren't officially 'at war' so they could get around the Geneva Convention and thus term any prisoners of war 'enemy combatants' and deny them the rights associated with being prisoners of war.

Nonsense. The terrorists do not wear uniforms, so would not be entitled to the rights of POWS anyway.

Not so fast!

I'm not familiar with the Yankee "legal" system but Geneva Convention does not mention anything about uniforms.

Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, 75 U.N.T.S. 135, entered into force Oct. 21, 1950.

Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

( That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

© That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

Tiger

[hammered]

The US govt stated they weren't officially 'at war' so they could get around the Geneva Convention and thus term any prisoners of war 'enemy combatants' and deny them the rights associated with being prisoners of war.

Nonsense. The terrorists do not wear uniforms, so would not be entitled to the rights of POWS anyway.

I hope you were never in uniform or bearing arms in the name of a military with that attitude. If you were that country would clearly need to look to better educating its troops in the rights that stem from the Geneva Conventions. Still I am sure you wouldnever have been with that lack of understanding.

[Wallaby]

The US govt stated they weren't officially 'at war' so they could get around the Geneva Convention and thus term any prisoners of war 'enemy combatants' and deny them the rights associated with being prisoners of war.

Nonsense. The terrorists do not wear uniforms, so would not be entitled to the rights of POWS anyway.

The Geneva conventions protect civilians

Are you implying Hogan's Heroes is wrong?

[JUDAS]

The US govt stated they weren't officially 'at war' so they could get around the Geneva Convention and thus term any prisoners of war 'enemy combatants' and deny them the rights associated with being prisoners of war.

Nonsense. The terrorists do not wear uniforms, so would not be entitled to the rights of POWS anyway.

Not so fast!

I'm not familiar with the Yankee "legal" system but Geneva Convention does not mention anything about uniforms.

Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, 75 U.N.T.S. 135, entered into force Oct. 21, 1950.

Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

( That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

© That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

Tiger

I actually thought UG was mistaken and google lead me to the same page as you Tiger. A distinctive sign recognizable at a distance would IMO meet the definition of a uniform. Items of clothing, markings or signs uniformly worn by members of the same force. As an example, there are many national air forces using the same aircraft with visible sign or marking making the only distinguishable difference.

[TAWP]

When you are fighting a war, such as the War on Terrorism, certain things are secret & will remain secret for maybe 50 years.

When I balance your "right to know" against the lives of my fellow fighting men & women on the battlefield it is no contest.

People releasing this type of information (classified military stuff) deserve life in prison without possibility of parole.

You speak like a true fascist. Are you proud over selling out the American Republic's soul? You are one of the true traitors.

Now we are aware that we are fighting this war singlehanded with assistance from staunch allies such as Britian Australia Georgia & many others. A huge Thank You to them.

Make up your mind, are you fighting it single-handed or with assistance of other nations?

[TAWP]

So you can not grasp the concept of "Military Secrets"? That would be your problem not ours.

We; The Americans ARE AT WAR.

Muslim Fundamental Whackos declared war on us Sept 11, 2001 at 8:45 AM Eastern Time.

EOS.

Please tell med you are not this ignorant...or should we be pleased that you don't remember the attack against the WTC in 1993? Or what has preceded the attacks [from both sides] over the last 40 years?

[Ulysses G.]

The US govt stated they weren't officially 'at war' so they could get around the Geneva Convention and thus term any prisoners of war 'enemy combatants' and deny them the rights associated with being prisoners of war.

Nonsense. The terrorists do not wear uniforms, so would not be entitled to the rights of POWS anyway.

I hope you were never in uniform or bearing arms in the name of a military with that attitude. If you were that country would clearly need to look to better educating its troops in the rights that stem from the Geneva Conventions.

More nonsense (as I am sure that you know) :

Qualifications To be entitled to prisoner-of-war status, captured service members must be lawful combatants entitled to combatant's privilege—which gives them immunity from punishment for crimes constituting lawful acts of war, e.g., killing enemy troops. To qualify under the Third Geneva Convention, a combatant must have conducted military operations according to the laws and customs of war, be part of a chain of command, wear a "fixed distinctive marking, visible from a distance" and bear arms openly. Thus, uniforms and/or badges are important in determining prisoner-of-war status; and francs-tireurs, terrorists, saboteurs, mercenaries and spies do not qualify.

http://en.wikipedia....Prisoner_of_war

ALL soldiers have to wear uniforms according to the Geneva Convention.

Edited December 6, 2010 by Ulysses G.

[KhunAussie52]

So you can not grasp the concept of "Military Secrets"? That would be your problem not ours.

We; The Americans ARE AT WAR.

Muslim Fundamental Whackos declared war on us Sept 11, 2001 at 8:45 AM Eastern Time.

EOS.

Then if the USA is at war.Why don't they adhere to the Geneva convention.?