WikiLeaks website again offline after company cuts DNS service

[LaoPo]

Caught in the crossfire and deleted my post didn't see the above post when I was writing

A crossfire indeed and it says something about how divided the world is about the discussion about Freedom of Press and Freedom of Speech, together with the transparency of our mutual governments, all over the world.

But, above all it says something about a phenomenon which didn't exist, 10 years ago, in such an enormous form: INTERNET.

We are all witnesses of the HUGE and ENORMOUS power war on and of Internet and the only way to gag the contestants is to cut off all cables (the real ones) around the world, cut off the access to Internet and cut off all MAJOR servers around the world.

What's more important, there's only one country in the world which could do so and realizing that is very scary...

I watched a debate amongst very skilled IT specialist who are following this Internet war from second to second and they confirmed that such a scenario (although higly unlikely) IS possible.

BTW Mark45y: I enjoy debating with you since you are a highly intelligent and reasonable Gentleman, not using any -virtual- weapons. I appreciate and value that very much, not withstanding that we do not (always) share the same visions, ...........children as we are from different worlds and systems.

:jap:

LaoPo

Thank you. Freedom of speech is a difficult topic. And of course I think there are two sides to every story.

Wiretaps show Italian PM Berlusconi's attempts to gag media

Read more: http://www.digitaljo...3#ixzz17d8uOGqh

Is the Foreign Office simply protecting its official secrets, or trying to save ministers from embarrassment?

UK diplomats 'face lifetime gag'

Official secrets are protected by the Official Secrets Act, which rightly binds officials for life, both as government employees and after retirement.

The new rules go much further, banning any unauthorised expression of opinion not just by serving officers but also by retired diplomats for the rest of their lives, if such an expression "draws on, or appears to draw on, official information or experience gained in the course of official duties".

In Germany, Switzerland,[2] and Poland it is illegal to insult foreign heads of state publicly.

Turkey

The law on "insulting the memory of Atatürk", the founder and first president of the Republic of Turkey is similar. Anyone found guilty of this crime serves one to three years' imprisonment.[9]

Netherlands

In October 2007 a 47-year-old man was fined €400 for, amongst other things, lèse majesté in the Netherlands. Netherlands: Wilders' Mohammed cartoon censored.

On May 13, 2008 Gregorius Nekschot was arrested at his home in Amsterdam. The cartoonist was taken into custody for interrogation, but released after 30 hours. He commented that it was the first time in 800 years of satire history in the Netherlands that an artist was put in jail.

A dispute over freedom of speech is raging in Sweden after an anti-immigration advert was rejected by broadcasters there.

If you look at the new EU countries and Eastern Europe censorship and corruption is rampant.

Lèse majesté violations and insulting heads of states is rather common place in the US and it seems odd to Americans it would bother anyone.

WOW....where to start?

1. I know Italy quite well and worked and visited (in) the country many many times. One has to be (almost) an Italian to understand the system and Italian way of adoration for corrupt politicians and Berlusconi is the Master of them all, trying to manipulate the Italians and media (which he possesses for the major part).

The Italians NEED a kind of Dictator and if one looks upon history one will find out what I mean.

2. I'm puzzled by your second part....?

3. I wouldn't worry or believe too much of the talks or laws about insulting Heads of State in Germany, Switzerland and Poland although the latter is a little more risky.

4. Turkey: a complicated issue in a complicated country since there's no real democracy -yet- in Turkey because of the immense power struggles behind the curtains between the army and government and the suppresion of the Kurd population. It's not over yet....

5 The Netherlands: the laws are changing very fast. Geert Wilders was in court for various reasons since people accused him for being racist but his lawyer asked for Substitution of the Judges in Court since they were biased; they were replaced and the trial has to be done all over from the start.

He will not being convicted. No way.

6. The Nekschot case got a lot of attention and was a follow up because of protests by Muslims about cartoons in Denmark. The Muslims are allowed to post and publish the most horrible cartoons about non-Islam-believers but the European countries are scared to death of publishing cartoons for something anti Muslim. The world upside down.

But, now there is a kind of -cowardly- self control amongst the media streams since Europe is afraid to death for protests by the Muslim population. Mosques and radical organisations in Europe are financed from.........Arabia, without naming any countries here. Radical Imams are sent over to preach in Mosques and call for jihad.

LaoPo

[Ulysses G.]

What a silly totally off-topic remark.

That was a long time ago

Off topic? I answered your absurd claim and it was not so long ago. The Soviet Union only fell apart very recently. For someone who constantly throws out sins from the past to attack the United States, you certainly are sensitive when someone points out that Europe is not any more "democratic" than the U.S. unless one is very selective about how one looks at its history.

Edited December 9, 2010 by Ulysses G.

[LaoPo]

What a silly totally off-topic remark.

That was a long time ago

Off topic? I answered your absurd claim and it was not so long ago. The Soviet Union only fell apart very recently. For someone who constantly throws out sins from the past to attack the United States, you certainly are sensitive when someone points out that Europe is not any more "democratic" than the U.S. unless one is very selective about how one looks at its history.

Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin were indeed off topic but I better don't say anyhting anymore....

http://www.thaivisa....ost__p__4077500

edit: linking doesn't seem to work but I linked to post # 383

LaoPo

Edited December 9, 2010 by LaoPo

[LaoPo]

WikiLeaks cables: Saudi princes throw parties boasting drink, drugs and sex

Royals flout puritanical laws to throw parties for young elite while religious police are forced to turn a blind eye

Heather Brooke - guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 7 December 2010 21.30 GMT

In what may prove a particularly incendiary cable, US diplomats describe a world of sex, drugs and rock'n'roll behind the official pieties of Saudi Arabian royalty.

Jeddah consulate officials described an underground Halloween party, thrown last year by a member of the royal family, which broke all the country's Islamic taboos. Liquor and prostitutes were present in abundance, according to leaked dispatches, behind the heavily-guarded villa gates.

The party was thrown by a wealthy prince from the large Al-Thunayan family. The diplomats said his identity should be kept secret. A US energy drinks company also put up some of the finance.

"Alcohol, though strictly prohibited by Saudi law and custom, was plentiful at the party's well-stocked bar. The hired Filipino bartenders served a cocktail punch using sadiqi, a locally-made moonshine," the cable said. "It was also learned through word-of-mouth that a number of the guests were in fact 'working girls', not uncommon for such parties."

The dispatch from the US partygoers, signed off by the consul in Jeddah, Martin Quinn, added: "Though not witnessed directly at this event, cocaine and hashish use is common in these social circles."

The underground party scene is "thriving and throbbing" in Saudi Arabia thanks to the protection of Saudi royalty, the dispatch said. But it is only available behind closed doors and for the very rich.

More than 150 Saudi men and women, most in their 20s and 30s, were at the party. The patronage of royalty meant the feared religious police kept a distance. Admission was controlled through a strict guest list. "The scene resembled a nightclub anywhere outside the kingdom: plentiful alcohol, young couples dancing, a DJ at the turntables and everyone in costume."

More:

http://www.guardian....princes-parties

LaoPo

Edited December 10, 2010 by LaoPo

[beechguy]

I doubt -VERY much- you are a dumb old country boy from West Texas, Cuckd.

You're right that laws could have been rewritten, amended and altered since the PENTAGON PAPERS but the principle is still exactly the same.

There were/are Whistleblowers then and now with the only difference that Daniel Ellsberg single handedly copied 7.000 documents one-by-one on a Xerox machine and than handed by him personally to the New York Times and the documents from WikiLeaks were anonymously sent to them and than forwarded to exactly the same New York Times.

The principle is still the same but I am quite surprised by the enormous attention now, almost exclusively, to Assange and his WikiLeaks and NOT to the NYT and the other 4 major quality news papers, mainly in Europe.

Earlier this year President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called rightly so!- upon China for more transparency and applauded the Freedom on Internet in the Western world, contrary to the lack of Press Freedom in China.

And, what's happening now? They are trying to do their utmost to GAG and control the Internet and even forbid their civil servants to even have a glimpse on the WikiLeaks documents, even threatening them with: "you're fired because you had a look in the WikiLeaks documents!"

The only safe place civil servants can have a look, is (as a matter of speaking) in a newspaper in a dark alley.

What a sad development.

If ANY European Government would even try to gag their staff/civil servants, a total uproar would surface with such an immense power -also by the total media forces- that you wouldn't believe your eyes an ears.

NOBODY would accept such steps by any European Government!

I wonder which part of the world is more democratic...the US or Europe.

I know, but do you?

LaoPo

You are missing the point on the instructions for civil staff/servants to not access this information, especially those with a security clearance. From my understanding, these are all classified documents and remain so until the status is changed by proper authorities, only certain people were to have access. Even if a person has a security clearance of some type, that does not authorize them access to all documents within that categorey, just the documents that relate to their job. Part of the obtaining, maintaining a clearance status includes signing acknowledegements/agreements on proper use and handling of this type of information. The instructions not to access this material isn't to restrict their rights, it is to prevent them from violating laws and regulations that they agreed to as part of their employment, or potential employment.

Anyway, no need to stop posting because of ignorance, it apparently isn't hindering many of these other guys either.

Edited December 10, 2010 by beechguy

[Ulysses G.]

Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin were indeed off topic but I better don't say anyhting anymore....

Did you not claim that Europe is more democratic than the U.S.? My answer was not an attack on Europe, but just some simple facts about their recent history.

I guess I could have brought up Bosnia too, but, anyway, your premise is flawed.

Edited December 10, 2010 by Ulysses G.

[beechguy]

WikiLeaks cables: Saudi princes throw parties boasting drink, drugs and sex

Royals flout puritanical laws to throw parties for young elite while religious police are forced to turn a blind eye

Heather Brooke - guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 7 December 2010 21.30 GMT

In what may prove a particularly incendiary cable, US diplomats describe a world of sex, drugs and rock'n'roll behind the official pieties of Saudi Arabian royalty.

Jeddah consulate officials described an underground Halloween party, thrown last year by a member of the royal family, which broke all the country's Islamic taboos. Liquor and prostitutes were present in abundance, according to leaked dispatches, behind the heavily-guarded villa gates.

The party was thrown by a wealthy prince from the large Al-Thunayan family. The diplomats said his identity should be kept secret. A US energy drinks company also put up some of the finance.

"Alcohol, though strictly prohibited by Saudi law and custom, was plentiful at the party's well-stocked bar. The hired Filipino bartenders served a cocktail punch using sadiqi, a locally-made moonshine," the cable said. "It was also learned through word-of-mouth that a number of the guests were in fact 'working girls', not uncommon for such parties."

The dispatch from the US partygoers, signed off by the consul in Jeddah, Martin Quinn, added: "Though not witnessed directly at this event, cocaine and hashish use is common in these social circles."

The underground party scene is "thriving and throbbing" in Saudi Arabia thanks to the protection of Saudi royalty, the dispatch said. But it is only available behind closed doors and for the very rich.

More than 150 Saudi men and women, most in their 20s and 30s, were at the party. The patronage of royalty meant the feared religious police kept a distance. Admission was controlled through a strict guest list. "The scene resembled a nightclub anywhere outside the kingdom: plentiful alcohol, young couples dancing, a DJ at the turntables and everyone in costume."

More:

http://www.guardian....princes-parties

LaoPo

Only surprising news to people who haven't worked or lived in that area of the world.

[hammered]

You are missing the point on the instructions for civil staff/servants to not access this information, especially those with a security clearance. From my understanding, these are all classified documents and remain so until the status is changed by proper authorities, only certain people were to have access. Even if a person has a security clearance of some type, that does not authorize them access to all documents within that categorey, just the documents that relate to their job. Part of the obtaining, maintaining a clearance status includes signing acknowledegements/agreements on proper use and handling of this type of information. The instructions not to access this material isn't to restrict their rights, it is to prevent them from violating laws and regulations that they agreed to as part of their employment, or potential employment.

Anyway, no need to stop posting because of ignorance, it apparently isn't hindering many of these other guys either.

Were civil servants in the US banned from reading the NY Times in the Ellsberg days? That would be the equivalent measure. I dont know if they were or not.

It is highly amusing polical speak to claim something is secret because that si the way it is classified when it is on the public record. How it came to be there is one thing, but when on public record it really is silly to claim it is still classified. Anyway I await someone to enlighten me on the above question

[hammered]

Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin were indeed off topic but I better don't say anyhting anymore....

Did you not claim that Europe is more democratic than the U.S.? My answer was not an attack on Europe, but just some simple facts about their recent history.

I guess I could have brought up Bosnia too, but, anyway, your premise is flawed.

In reality it is not a matter of where is more democratic as there is nowhere on the planet where democracy and freedom could not be improved. Wikileaks is an advnace in making information available across the planet. Nobody can dispute that. It is just a measure of where people want to draw the line on the secrets/freedom continuum that people disagree on. The other point of course is that the internet has moved beyond nationalism and nation state whihc if course is abhorent to nationalists and governments but welcomed by libertarians, many idealists and those in general suspicious of governments

[mark45y]

Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin were indeed off topic but I better don't say anyhting anymore....

Did you not claim that Europe is more democratic than the U.S.? My answer was not an attack on Europe, but just some simple facts about their recent history.

I guess I could have brought up Bosnia too, but, anyway, your premise is flawed.

In reality it is not a matter of where is more democratic as there is nowhere on the planet where democracy and freedom could not be improved. Wikileaks is an advnace in making information available across the planet. Nobody can dispute that. It is just a measure of where people want to draw the line on the secrets/freedom continuum that people disagree on. The other point of course is that the internet has moved beyond nationalism and nation state whihc if course is abhorent to nationalists and governments but welcomed by libertarians, many idealists and those in general suspicious of governments

I guess the US should be very thankful for the leg up in democratic reform since 99% of the WikiLeaks are from America. Although some may say since 99% of the leaks are aimed at the USA perhaps it is an attack instead of a help for democracy.

[hammered]

Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin were indeed off topic but I better don't say anyhting anymore....

Did you not claim that Europe is more democratic than the U.S.? My answer was not an attack on Europe, but just some simple facts about their recent history.

I guess I could have brought up Bosnia too, but, anyway, your premise is flawed.

In reality it is not a matter of where is more democratic as there is nowhere on the planet where democracy and freedom could not be improved. Wikileaks is an advnace in making information available across the planet. Nobody can dispute that. It is just a measure of where people want to draw the line on the secrets/freedom continuum that people disagree on. The other point of course is that the internet has moved beyond nationalism and nation state whihc if course is abhorent to nationalists and governments but welcomed by libertarians, many idealists and those in general suspicious of governments

I guess the US should be very thankful for the leg up in democratic reform since 99% of the WikiLeaks are from America. Although some may say since 99% of the leaks are aimed at the USA perhaps it is an attack instead of a help for democracy.

Why would anyone not want to know what their government were doing unless of course they had total faith in them and maybe there are people in every country that have faith in the government and never want to question it or know what it is doing in their name

[beechguy]

You are missing the point on the instructions for civil staff/servants to not access this information, especially those with a security clearance. From my understanding, these are all classified documents and remain so until the status is changed by proper authorities, only certain people were to have access. Even if a person has a security clearance of some type, that does not authorize them access to all documents within that categorey, just the documents that relate to their job. Part of the obtaining, maintaining a clearance status includes signing acknowledegements/agreements on proper use and handling of this type of information. The instructions not to access this material isn't to restrict their rights, it is to prevent them from violating laws and regulations that they agreed to as part of their employment, or potential employment.

Anyway, no need to stop posting because of ignorance, it apparently isn't hindering many of these other guys either.

Were civil servants in the US banned from reading the NY Times in the Ellsberg days? That would be the equivalent measure. I dont know if they were or not.

It is highly amusing polical speak to claim something is secret because that si the way it is classified when it is on the public record. How it came to be there is one thing, but when on public record it really is silly to claim it is still classified. Anyway I await someone to enlighten me on the above question

I don't know how those people were instructed then, and just like laws, I'm sure policies and procedures have changed since then, so may not apply today.

The problem is, the information is not legally on the public record. As I explained, someone has the authority to determine the status of information and materials, and it remains that way legally until someone or some department authorizes a change. Anyone holding a security clearance under goes some type of training, background investigations, etc. and they sign agreements and conditions for their employment, be they military, civilians, and even government contractors. It's not a matter of personal rights, they are well aware that under those circumstances they are not entitled to know every bit of information their government posses. Just because someone else broke a law or regulation doesn't release them from their obligations.

Edited December 10, 2010 by beechguy

[hammered]

You are missing the point on the instructions for civil staff/servants to not access this information, especially those with a security clearance. From my understanding, these are all classified documents and remain so until the status is changed by proper authorities, only certain people were to have access. Even if a person has a security clearance of some type, that does not authorize them access to all documents within that categorey, just the documents that relate to their job. Part of the obtaining, maintaining a clearance status includes signing acknowledegements/agreements on proper use and handling of this type of information. The instructions not to access this material isn't to restrict their rights, it is to prevent them from violating laws and regulations that they agreed to as part of their employment, or potential employment.

Anyway, no need to stop posting because of ignorance, it apparently isn't hindering many of these other guys either.

Were civil servants in the US banned from reading the NY Times in the Ellsberg days? That would be the equivalent measure. I dont know if they were or not.

It is highly amusing polical speak to claim something is secret because that si the way it is classified when it is on the public record. How it came to be there is one thing, but when on public record it really is silly to claim it is still classified. Anyway I await someone to enlighten me on the above question

I don't know how those people were instructed then, and just like laws, I'm sure policies and procedures have changed since then, so may not apply today.

The problem is, the information is not legally on the public record. As I explained, someone has the authority to determine the status of information and materials, and it remains that way legally until someone or some department authorizes a change. Anyone holding a security clearance under goes some type of training, background investigations, etc. and they sign agreements and conditions for their employment, be they military, civilians, and even government contractors. It's not a matter of personal rights, they are well aware that under those circumstances they are not entitled to know every bit of information their government posses. Just because someone else broke a law or regulation doesn't release them from their obligations.

I just think it makes them look silly to say people cant look at something when it not just on a single website but in lots of other medai sources. People cant but look at it. Millions know about it. It is the same with other non-wikileak leaks. Someone may legally have a right to decide what is public record and what isnt but once something has been published by the media it is irrelevent in terms of continuing secrecy of what was published. Some countries can even ban their own media from mentioning something (eg UK) but they cant stop it being seen from a froeign source. The interent has made many old secrecy laws totally redundant in their ability to keep things secret. The laws just dont work anymore leaving only punishment as a possibility but with no way of stopping anything. Globalization and internet have changed a lot of things and governments are behind the curve

[mark45y]

In reality it is not a matter of where is more democratic as there is nowhere on the planet where democracy and freedom could not be improved. Wikileaks is an advnace in making information available across the planet. Nobody can dispute that. It is just a measure of where people want to draw the line on the secrets/freedom continuum that people disagree on. The other point of course is that the internet has moved beyond nationalism and nation state whihc if course is abhorent to nationalists and governments but welcomed by libertarians, many idealists and those in general suspicious of governments

I guess the US should be very thankful for the leg up in democratic reform since 99% of the WikiLeaks are from America. Although some may say since 99% of the leaks are aimed at the USA perhaps it is an attack instead of a help for democracy.

Why would anyone not want to know what their government were doing unless of course they had total faith in them and maybe there are people in every country that have faith in the government and never want to question it or know what it is doing in their name

What is that game of global conquest? Risk.

Lets say we are playing a game of Risk with four players.

One player has to make a full disclosure of his plans and ideas and the other three can keep secret all of their ideas.

Do you think that is fair?

[chuckd]

WikiLeaks cables: Saudi princes throw parties boasting drink, drugs and sex

Royals flout puritanical laws to throw parties for young elite while religious police are forced to turn a blind eye

The party was thrown by a wealthy prince from the large Al-Thunayan family. The diplomats said his identity should be kept secret. A US energy drinks company also put up some of the finance.The hired Filipino bartenders served a cocktail punch using sadiqi, a locally-made moonshine," the cable said. "

"Alcohol, though strictly prohibited by Saudi law and custom, was plentiful at the party's well-stocked bar. It was also learned through word-of-mouth that a number of the guests were in fact 'working girls', not uncommon for such parties."

The dispatch from the US partygoers, signed off by the consul in Jeddah, Martin Quinn, added: "Though not witnessed directly at this event, cocaine and hashish use is common in these social circles."

LaoPo

Only surprising news to people who haven't worked or lived in that area of the world.

I've been to quite a few Royal sponsored parties in Saudi. The only thing that surprised me was the cable claims a cocktail made from sadiqi was used.

We always had only Johnny Walker Black. No sadiqi allowed.

Never attended one with drugs and hookers, though.

[beechguy]

You are missing the point on the instructions for civil staff/servants to not access this information, especially those with a security clearance. From my understanding, these are all classified documents and remain so until the status is changed by proper authorities, only certain people were to have access. Even if a person has a security clearance of some type, that does not authorize them access to all documents within that categorey, just the documents that relate to their job. Part of the obtaining, maintaining a clearance status includes signing acknowledegements/agreements on proper use and handling of this type of information. The instructions not to access this material isn't to restrict their rights, it is to prevent them from violating laws and regulations that they agreed to as part of their employment, or potential employment.

Anyway, no need to stop posting because of ignorance, it apparently isn't hindering many of these other guys either.

Were civil servants in the US banned from reading the NY Times in the Ellsberg days? That would be the equivalent measure. I dont know if they were or not.

It is highly amusing polical speak to claim something is secret because that si the way it is classified when it is on the public record. How it came to be there is one thing, but when on public record it really is silly to claim it is still classified. Anyway I await someone to enlighten me on the above question

I don't know how those people were instructed then, and just like laws, I'm sure policies and procedures have changed since then, so may not apply today.

The problem is, the information is not legally on the public record. As I explained, someone has the authority to determine the status of information and materials, and it remains that way legally until someone or some department authorizes a change. Anyone holding a security clearance under goes some type of training, background investigations, etc. and they sign agreements and conditions for their employment, be they military, civilians, and even government contractors. It's not a matter of personal rights, they are well aware that under those circumstances they are not entitled to know every bit of information their government posses. Just because someone else broke a law or regulation doesn't release them from their obligations.

I just think it makes them look silly to say people cant look at something when it not just on a single website but in lots of other medai sources. People cant but look at it. Millions know about it. It is the same with other non-wikileak leaks. Someone may legally have a right to decide what is public record and what isnt but once something has been published by the media it is irrelevent in terms of continuing secrecy of what was published. Some countries can even ban their own media from mentioning something (eg UK) but they cant stop it being seen from a froeign source. The interent has made many old secrecy laws totally redundant in their ability to keep things secret. The laws just dont work anymore leaving only punishment as a possibility but with no way of stopping anything. Globalization and internet have changed a lot of things and governments are behind the curve

Practically speaking it doesn't make a lot of sense in this instance, I'm just explaining the way things work. So far as punishment, one would have to decide if it was worth losing their job, paying a fine, or going to prison for not following regulations.

[chuckd]

I might add simply losing your security clearance is no small problem either.

[LaoPo]

Wikileaks is currently mirrored on 1559 sites (updated 2010-12-10 08:50 GMT)

http://213.251.145.96/mirrors.html

LaoPo

[philw]

I might add simply losing your security clearance is no small problem either.

Doesn't matter if you haven't got one, does it ??

John Lennon for ever.

[beechguy]

I might add simply losing your security clearance is no small problem either.

Doesn't matter if you haven't got one, does it ??

John Lennon for ever.

It does if you are trying keep or get a job on U.S. Government projects that require it.

[beechguy]

I might add simply losing your security clearance is no small problem either.

Doesn't matter if you haven't got one, does it ??

John Lennon for ever.

It does if you are trying keep or get a job on U.S. Government projects that require it.

Well yes, that's the point isn't it.

Most of the world does not need a US security clearance.

It also is starting to look like a USA security clearance is a licence to disseminate.

By the way, the U.K. Official Secrets Acts have real penalties and are binding for life rather than the the next Gerry Springer show.

Well actually it's not just important for the U.S. I'm sure the U.K. and other countries have plenty of jobs that require a clearance of some type. Is it important? Ask the tens, if not hundreds of thousands of people working on defense related projects.

And no argument from me that there should be more strict punishment for people that leak information.

Edited December 10, 2010 by beechguy

[mark45y]

I might add simply losing your security clearance is no small problem either.

Doesn't matter if you haven't got one, does it ??

John Lennon for ever.

It does if you are trying keep or get a job on U.S. Government projects that require it.

Well yes, that's the point isn't it.

Most of the world does not need a US security clearance.

It also is starting to look like a USA security clearance is a licence to disseminate.

By the way, the U.K. Official Secrets Acts have real penalties and are binding for life rather than the the next Gerry Springer show.

The charge that the soldier who stole the documents is facing is between 50 and 70 years. How long would he get in the UK?

[flying]

I might add simply losing your security clearance is no small problem either.

Doesn't matter if you haven't got one, does it ??

John Lennon for ever.

It does if you are trying keep or get a job on U.S. Government projects that require it.

They dont call them civil servants for nothing

Now, hey you Mister! can't you read, you got to have a shirt and tie to get a seat

You can't even watch, no you can't eat, you ain't suppose to be here

Sign said you got to have a membership card to get inside Uh!

[flying]

The New McCarthyism, The Real Terrorists—The Case of Wikileaks

The New McCarthyism, The Real Terrorism

What is a terrorist?

Someone who uses violence and intimidation in order to achieve a political goal.

What is a criminal?

Someone who, whether by action or omission, carries out an offense proscribed by the law, an offense which is therefore punishable by the State.

It’s important to know what these words mean, because both of them—criminal and terrorist—have been liberally applied to Julian Assange and Wikileaks, since it posted its very first batch of documents.

Now, with the State Department cable leaks, those calls have become a collective roar of condemnation, in America:

“Terrorist!”

“Criminal!”

Of course, Assange is neither a terrorist nor a criminal: He simply published some leaked documents that embarrassed some people.

He’s not a terrorist, because he did not commit a single act of violence or intimidation, in order to achieve his political goal.

He’s not a criminal, at least not in the United States, because he has not broken any law in America, and he is not an American citizen, subject to U.S. jurisdiction.

But you wouldn’t know it, from the uproar over the Wikileaks’ case.

The examples are too numerous to list—so let’s go to the highlight reel:

Full Article At Link

[LaoPo]

Recommended Read!

Internet Press Vulnarable after WikiLeaks

Posted: December 10, 2010 10:07 AM

Excerpts:

"With the Internet, many of us believed that the power of the publisher had spread to everyone, that we lived in a time of press freedom that would have been unimaginable just a few decades ago. But the WikiLeaks case exposes the vulnerability of any publisher on the Internet. What's happened to Assange and his website has deeply troubling implications for our society. And, no, we're not talking about the damage some believe he's doing to our national security by publishing classified records.

We're talking about how democracy can be diminished when government uses its power to silence a voice it disagrees with. Even more worrisome is how this case has exposed how foreign governments may be able to use their own criminal investigations to hurt and potentially silence journalists beyond their own borders."

<snip>

"Consider what the WikiLeaks case might mean for a local publisher. Even a news organization as young as Civil Beat has already received leaked documents from would-be whistleblowers. We've published articles based on those documents and could very well feel it's the right thing to do to post them on the Internet, as is our practice with many stories.

What would happen if a prosecutor or government official went to the service that was hosting our news service and said we were the subject of a criminal investigation? Civil Beat, like other publishers, relies on payment services provided by a third party, be it PayPal or Visa and MasterCard. Without them, we don't receive revenue. We also depend on third parties to host our website. Yet we've seen in the past week that those ties can easily be severed just by raising the specter of an investigation.

These threats are new tools to hurt publishers, not all of whom have the resources or resourcefulness of WikiLeaks but many of whom may have government secrets to share even more valuable, and potentially disturbing, to anybody in power.

It's important that we not let anger against someone we may disagree with, even revile, blind us to how the very democracy we treasure can be diminished more by the actions of aroused government officials than by a news service that many believe is irresponsible.

Victory in punishing WikiLeaks could be hollow at best. A critical lesson we should take from what has happened is that the Internet is vulnerable to abuse by governments who want to silence those who expose them."

From:

http://www.huffingto...5_b_794912.html

LaoPo

[LaoPo]

Finally: a RUSSIAN Whistleblowing "WikiLeaks" by Popular Russian journalist and blogger Alexei Navalny:

Russian Blogger Creates WikiLeaks-style Anticorruption Site

Aleksej Navalny

Popular Russian journalist and blogger Alexei Navalny has created a whistleblowing website to document corruption in Russia.

The site, which is currently only operating in testing mode at rospil.info, allows users to publish any information they have detailing corrupt practices in Russia, and discuss the material online.

The site is modeled on the WikiLeaks website, which hit the headlines last week after if began releasing more than 250,000 confidential U.S. diplomatic cables.

Experts said the Russian whistleblowing website may prove to be a good resource for tackling corruption, especially since Navalny is already a popular public figure.

Navalny, who is a minority shareholder in a number of large Russian companies, has made consistent calls for greater transparency in Russian business practices.

He caused a stir in November when he accused the former management of Russian pipeline company Transneft of embezzling at least $4 billion during the construction of the East Siberia-Pacific Ocean (ESPO) pipeline.

The Berlin-based non-governmental anti-corruption organization Transparency International has persistently rated Russia one of the most corrupt nations in the world. In the 2009 Corruption Perception Index, Russia was ranked 146th of 180, below countries like Togo, Pakistan and Libya.

MOSCOW, December 5 (RIA Novosti)

From:

http://en.rian.ru/ru.../161658196.html

Note: Last night, Thursday Evening, a famous Dutch Publisher -Derk Sauer- who built his business publishing many magazines and newspapers in Russia and The Netherlands (and sold later to a Finnish Conglomerate) told the audience on television that Alexei Navalny is operating his website from the USA.

Link to TIME/CNN:

"That is, until the moderator called for questions and Alexei Navalny took the stage. In front of some 300 stunned shareholders, Navalny, who owned about $2,000 worth of stock in the company, grilled senior management for several minutes about the company's minuscule dividends and opaque ownership. When he finished, there was a brief silence and then an unexpected burst of applause from a small group of shareholders in the back of the hall."

Read more:

http://www.time.com/...l#ixzz17k5p9gFq

Aleksej Navalny1

AND:

Russia's 'one-man Wikileaks' uncovers massive gas company fraud

In Russia, the findings of a young whistleblower lawyer concerning the rampant corruption of major state-affiliated companies have made much bigger waves than the recent tsunami of Wikileaks revelations. 34-year-old Moscow lawyer Alexey Navalny could be nicknamed the "one-man Wikileaks". His website *** is dedicated to uncovering and publishing incidents of high-level corporate corruption, with revelations concerning Russian natural gas monopoly Gazprom, leading Russian oil company Rosneft and Russian bank VTP, among others.

http://observers.fra...navalny-website

*** http://www.navalny.ru/ Aleksej Navalny's WEBSITE

LaoPo

[SweeneyAgonistes]

Why would anyone not want to know what their government were doing

Because they have no awareness that the policeman inside their head is simply....themselves.

[hammered]

In reality it is not a matter of where is more democratic as there is nowhere on the planet where democracy and freedom could not be improved. Wikileaks is an advnace in making information available across the planet. Nobody can dispute that. It is just a measure of where people want to draw the line on the secrets/freedom continuum that people disagree on. The other point of course is that the internet has moved beyond nationalism and nation state whihc if course is abhorent to nationalists and governments but welcomed by libertarians, many idealists and those in general suspicious of governments

I guess the US should be very thankful for the leg up in democratic reform since 99% of the WikiLeaks are from America. Although some may say since 99% of the leaks are aimed at the USA perhaps it is an attack instead of a help for democracy.

Why would anyone not want to know what their government were doing unless of course they had total faith in them and maybe there are people in every country that have faith in the government and never want to question it or know what it is doing in their name

What is that game of global conquest? Risk.

Lets say we are playing a game of Risk with four players.

One player has to make a full disclosure of his plans and ideas and the other three can keep secret all of their ideas.

Do you think that is fair?

This isnt about a game of global conquest or world domination, it is about people and rights of freedom of speech and information. It is also something that goes beyond notion states and their elites agendas.

[Spee]

From:

http://www.huffingto...5_b_794912.html

Anything from HuffPo is an instant trigger for most rational peoples' bullshit detector, and of course mine is spot on as usual.

You elected to opt out from posting this excerpt, so allow me:

"It's hard to believe that the founding fathers could have ever imagined the possibilities of ... a journalist like Julian Assange ...."

On the latter phrase, Assange is hardly a journalist. He is a disseminator of stolen property. He is the cyber-world version of a fence (and don't kid yourself that there isn't money involved).

You may remember the scene from "Carlito's Way" when lawyer Dave crossed the line and murdered a mobster client. Carlito said to Dave, you're not a lawyer any more, you're a gangster now.

Assange is no different. Whatever he may have been to himself and others at one point, he has crossed the line and there is no going back. He is a criminal and should expect to be treated as such for the rest of his life.

On the former, the 1st Amendment applies to US citizens of which Assange is not. Regardless, the 1st Amendment offers no individual protection from consequences of illegal activities, and Assange possession and dissemination of stolen property is clearly an illegal activity.

This guy is making enemies faster that he is making friends, which is never a good thing, especially along the road he chose. As I said before, this guy is looking to go down hard and several nations are in the process of trying to accommodate him.

Edited December 11, 2010 by Spee

[hammered]

From:

http://www.huffingto...5_b_794912.html

Anything from HuffPo is an instant trigger for most rational peoples' bullshit detector, and of course mine is spot on as usual.

You elected to opt out from posting this excerpt, so allow me:

"It's hard to believe that the founding fathers could have ever imagined the possibilities of ... a journalist like Julian Assange ...."

On the latter phrase, Assange is hardly a journalist. He is a disseminator of stolen property. He is the cyber-world version of a fence (and don't kid yourself that there isn't money involved).

You may remember the scene from "Carlito's Way" when lawyer Dave crossed the line and murdered a mobster client. Carlito said to Dave, you're not a lawyer any more, you're a gangster now.

Assange is no different. Whatever he may have been to himself and others at one point, he has crossed the line and there is no going back. He is a criminal and should expect to be treated as such for the rest of his life.

On the former, the 1st Amendment applies to US citizens of which Assange is not. Regardless, the 1st Amendment offers no individual protection from consequences of illegal activities, and Assange possession and dissemination of stolen property is clearly an illegal activity.

This guy is making enemies faster that he is making friends, which is never a good thing, especially along the road he chose. As I said before, this guy is looking to go down hard and several nations are in the process of trying to accommodate him.

We can all claim sources we dont like are BS;) That is the beauty of debate. Nobody ever beleives they are wrong because their sources are credible and others sources arent. Really there is little point in getting into a one source versus another source row and inreality it is probably better to just say what you think and not bother with sources on a webboard.