Max Igan:Wikileaks and the Fall of America

Thank you Burgundia.I like Max Igan . He has a very sound viewpoint.
This is an excellent video that I completely agree with.
He is reflecting my own views on the matter of Julian Assange.
It has taken guts to do what he did and have it spread on mainstream
media . I think it is the first time in history we had someone doing this
with such a world wide impact .
And if the internet is censored and more laws are voted to counter his
work then more people will need to stand up as he is doing .
This is a life opportunity to have our basic rights brought back to us .
I think people should realize that if we hold everyone in suspicion telling
they are run by the CIA or the Zionists or else then nothing will ever get done.
I personnally do not need to know who stands behind JA or if he stands alone.
He did'nt build up any conspiracy theory . He just brought into the open compromising
documents . Some of which we , the human race , were entitled to know about .
As Max Igan justly points out this is about freedom of speech , a right , we all should
stand for.


Love Always
mudra

Well this is more then disconcerting.

Problems with the Espionage Act
by Benjamin Wittes

Amid the proliferating cries for prosecuting Julian Assange and shutting down Wikileaks–an undertaking for which, I should note, I harbor no small sympathy–a few people have noted that the Espionage Act has, well, some problems as a legal instrument for the project. As Josh Gerstein’s story in the Politico notes, the First Amendment would have something–nobody is quite sure what–to say about a prosecution of something kind of like a media organization for the dissemination of something kind of like news. What’s more, the law is very old–World War I era–and very vague.

The law also has two additional problems that receive relatively little attention but which are important in contemplating its use. The first is that it contains no limiting principle in its apparent criminalization of secondary transmissions of proscribed material. The relevant section, 18 U.S.C. 793 (e), reads:

Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it . . . shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

By its terms, it criminalizes not merely the disclosure of national defense information by organizations such as Wikileaks, but also the reporting on that information by countless news organizations. It also criminalizes all casual discussions of such disclosures by persons not authorized to receive them to other persons not authorized to receive them–in other words, all tweets sending around those countless news stories, all blogging on them, and all dinner party conversations about their contents. Taken at its word, the Espionage Act makes felons of us all. As long as this deficiency remains, it will be a poor instrument against an outlet like Wikileaks, precisely because there will be no way in principle to distinguish between the prosecution of Assange and the prosecution of just about anyone else–from the New York Times to the guy on the street who reads the newspaper and talks about it. That will make Espionage Act prosecutions seem like far more of a menace to legitimate speech than would a prosecution under a better-drawn law. There are ways to fix this problem–an intent element and a clear limitation to material not already made public would be a start–but as long as it goes unfixed, I oppose any prosecutions under it for secondary transmissions. (Contrast the Espionage Act on these points with the law protecting intelligence agents’ identities, 50 U.S.C. 421, and the law protecting cryptographic systems, 18 U.S.C. 798)

The second problem is that the statute, by its clear terms, does not cover the overwhelming bulk of the material that Wikileaks disclosed. The Espionage Act is not a general bar against leaking or publishing classified information. It covers only material “relating to the national defense.” There are, no doubt, some diplomatic cables that “relate to the national defense”–a term without a great deal of interpretive history of which I am aware–but most of them clearly do not. Qaddafi’s personal habits and buxom attendant? Not even close, in my opinion. Medvedev’s and Putin’s Batman and Robin routine? Simply not plausibly within the ambit of the statute’s language. Even the desire of Arab states to see the U.S. deal with Iran may be a bit of a stretch. After all, their point relates not to our national defense but to their own. I don’t doubt that there are any number of cables that prosecutors might contend fit under this statute, but it would be a contested question in any prosecution, and the universe of viable cases under the Espionage Act seems to me far narrower than those clamoring for a Wikileaks prosecution probably imagine. I also suspect that if a case does materialize, the earlier leaks of Defense Department material–which, as a group, relate to the national defense much less ambiguously than do State Department cables–probably provide more fertile opportunities than do the State Department cables.


http://www.lawfareblog.com/2010/12/problems-with-the-espionage-act/

Wikileaks and the Worldwide Information War
Power, Propaganda, and the Global Political Awakening

by Andrew Gavin Marshall

Introduction

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=22278

.....

Conceptualizing Wikileaks

I feel that Wikileaks must be conceptualized within our understanding of this geopolitical reality we find ourselves in today. While indeed it is necessary to be skeptical of such monumental events, we must allow ourselves to remember that there are always surprises – for everyone – and that the future is nothing if not unknown. Anything, truly, can happen. There is of course logic behind the automatic skepticism and suspicion about Wikileaks from the alternative media; however, they also risk losing an incredible opportunity presented by Wikileaks, to not only reach more people with important information, but to better inform that information itself.

For those who view Wikileaks as a conspiracy or plot, as a psy-op of some kind, while indeed these things have taken place in the past, there is simply no evidence for it thus far. Every examination of this concept is based upon speculation. Many nations around the world, particularly in the Middle East and South Asia, are pointing to the Western nations as engaging in a covert propaganda campaign aimed at creating disunity between states and allies. Iran, Turkey, Pakistan and Afghanistan have made such claims. It is no surprise that most of these are nations, particularly Iran, are targets of U.S. imperial policy. Since, however, the Wikileaks releases speak heavily and negatively about Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Russia, China, Venezuela, etc., one must remember that these are ‘diplomatic cables’, and represent the ‘opinions and beliefs’ of the diplomatic establishment, a social group which is historically and presently deeply enmeshed and submissive to elite ideology and methodology. In short, these are the foreign imperial envoys, and as such, they are ideological imperialists and represent imperial interests.

As has been the case both historically and presently, imperial objectives are hidden with political rhetoric. Since, politically, these are target nations of the American imperial elite, America’s diplomatic representatives will focus on these nations, and adopt the same ideas and beliefs. How many people have ever been given a raise by questioning and then disregarding their superior’s management technique? Thus, in their respective nations and operations, the diplomats will seek information that targets these nations or serve specific American imperial objectives. If all the information they come up with are rumours and conjectures and repeated talking points, that is what will be seen in the diplomatic cables. Indeed, that was exactly the case. The cables are full of rumours and unsupported allegations. So naturally, they would target these specific nations – deemed geopolitically significant by American imperial interests – and why there would be far less information on Israel and other allied nations. This is why it seems to me that these cables are authentic. They seem to represent the reality of the ‘diplomatic social group’, and thus they are a vivid exploration in the study of imperialism. We have been given the opportunity to see the ‘communications’ of imperial diplomacy. It is in this, that we are presented with an incredible opportunity.

Further, in regards to many Middle Eastern and Asian nations framing Wikileaks as a “Western plot,” as critical thinkers we must take note of the geopolitical reality of the ‘global political awakenng.’ All states are self-interested, that is the nature of a state. Elites all over the world are aware of the reality and potential political power of the ‘global political awakening’ and thus, seek to suppress or co-opt its potential. States which are often viewed by the critical press as ‘targets’ by Western imperial powers (such as Iran), may seek to use this power to its own advantage. They may attempt to steer the ‘global awakening’ and the ‘alternative media’ to their favour, which gives them political power. But the alternative media must not ‘pick sides’ in terms of global elites and power structures, we must remain critical of all sides and all actors.

Wikileaks is receiving an incredible readership and is reaching out to new audiences, globally, in the American homeland itself, and to the youth of the world. People’s perceptions are beginning to change on a variety of issues. The question is: will the alternative media ignore Wikileaks and isolate itself, or will they engage with Wikileaks, and prevent the mainstream corporate media from having a ‘monopoly of interpretation’, which becomes inherently propagandistic. Wikileaks is having global repercussions, and has been very good for the newspaper and mainstream news industries, which have been on a steady decline. This too, can be an issue to reach out to this new and growing audience, and to bring them to a new perspective. If we do not reach out, we are left talking to each other, further isolating ourselves, and ultimately becoming subverted and ineffective for change. We need to reach out to new audiences, and this is an incredible opportunity to do so. People are interested, people are curious, people are hungry for more.

Wikileaks and the Media

Instead of deriding Wikileaks as “not telling us anything we didn’t know” before, perhaps the alternative media should use the popularity and momentum of Wikileaks to take from it the documentation and analysis that further strengthens our arguments and beliefs. This will allow for others, especially new audiences of interested people worldwide, to place the Wikileaks releases within a wider context and understanding. The reports from Wikileaks are ‘revelations’ only to those who largely adhere to the ‘illusions’ of the world: that we live in ‘democracies’ promoting ‘freedom’ around the world and at home, etc. The ‘revelations’ however, are not simply challenging American perceptions of America, but of all nations and their populations. The fact that these people are reading and discovering new things for which they are developing an interest is an incredible change. This is likely why the corporate media is so heavily involved in the dissemination of this information (which itself is a major source of suspicion for the alternative media): to control the interpretation of the message. It is the job of the alternative media and intellectuals and other thinking individuals to challenge that interpretation with factual analysis. The Wikileaks releases, in fact, give us more facts to place within and support our interpretations than they do for the corporate media.

We must ask why the Wikileaks releases were ‘revelations’ for most people? Well, it was surprising simply for the fact that the media itself has such a strong hold on the access, dissemination and interpretation of information. They are ‘revelations’ because people are indoctrinated with myths. They are not ‘revelations’ to the alternative media because we have been talking about these things for years. However, while they may not necessarily be ‘revelations’, they are in fact, ‘confirmations’ and ‘vindications’ and bring more information to the analysis. It is in this, that a great opportunity lies. For since the leaks support and better inform our perspectives, we can build on this concept and examine how Wikileaks adds to and supports critical analysis. For those who are newly interested and looking for information, or for those who are having their previous perceptions challenged, it is the alternative media and critical voices alone who can place that information in a wider context for everyone else. In this, more people will see how it is the alternative media and critical perspectives which were more reflective of reality than say, the mainstream media (for which Wikileaks is a ‘revelation’). Thus, more people may soon start turning to alternative media and ideas; after all, our perspectives were vindicated, not those of the mainstream media (though they attempt to spin it as such).

We are under a heavy propaganda offensive on the part of the global corporate and mainstream media to spin and manipulate these leaks to their own interests. We, as alternative media and voices, must use Wikileaks to our advantage. Ignoring it will only damage our cause and undermine our strength. The mainstream media understood that; so too, must we. Wikileaks presents in itself a further opportunity for the larger exposure of mainstream media as organized propaganda. By ‘surprising’ so many people with the ‘revelations’, the media has in effect exposed itself as deeply inadequate in their analysis of the world and the major issues within it. While currently it is giving the mainstream media a great boost, we are still immersed in the era of the ‘Technological Revolution’ and there is still (for now, anyway) Internet freedom, and thus, the tide can quickly turn.

Like the saying goes, ‘the rich man will sell you the rope to hang him with if he thinks he can make a buck on it.’ Perhaps the mainstream media has done the same. No other organized apparatus was as capable of disseminating as much material as quickly and with such global reach as the mainstream media. If the leaks initially only made it into alternative media, then the information would only reach those whom are already reading the alternative press. In that, they would not be such grand ‘revelations’ and would have had a muted effect. In the mainstream media’s global exposure of Wikileaks material (never mind their slanted and propagandistic interpretations), they have changed the dynamic and significance of the information. By reaching wider and new audiences, the alternative and critical voices can co-opt these new audiences; lead them away from the realm of information ‘control’ into the realm of information ‘access’. This is potentially one of the greatest opportunities presented for the alternative and critical voices of the world.

Wikileaks is a globally transformative event. Not simply in terms of awakening new people to ‘new’ information, but also in terms of the effect it is having upon global power structures, itself. With ambassadors resigning, diplomats being exposed as liars and tools, political rifts developing between Western imperial allies, and many careers and reputations of elites around the world at great risk, Wikileaks is creating the potential for an enormous deterioration in the effectiveness of imperialism and domination. That, in itself, is an admirable and worthy goal. That this is already a reality is representative of how truly transformative Wikileaks is and could be. People, globally, are starting to see their leaders through a lens not filtered by ‘public relations.’ Through mainstream media, it gets filtered through propaganda, which is why it is an essential duty of the alternative media and critical thinkers to place this information in a wider, comprehensive context. This would further erode the effectiveness of empire.

With the reaction of several states and policing organizations to issue arrest warrants for Julian Assange, or in calling for his assassination (as one Canadian adviser to the Prime Minister suggested on television), these organizations and individuals are exposing their own hatred of democracy, transparency and freedom of information. Their reactions can be used to discredit their legitimacy to ‘rule’. If policing agencies are supposed to “protect and serve,” why are they seeking instead to “punish and subvert” those who expose the truth? Again, this comes as no surprise to those who closely study the nature of the state, and especially the modern phenomenon of the militarization of domestic society and the dismantling of rights and freedoms. However, it is happening before the eyes of the whole world, and people are paying attention. This is new.

This is an incredible opportunity to criticize foreign policy (read: ‘imperial strategy’), and to disembowel many global power structures. More people, now, than ever before, will be willing to listen, learn and investigate for themselves. Wikileaks should be regarded as a ‘gift’, not a ‘distraction.’ Instead of focusing on the parts of the Wikileaks cables which do not reflect the perspectives of the alternative media (such as on Iran), we must use Wikileaks to better inform our own understanding not simply of the ‘policy’ itself, but of the complex social interactions and ideas that create the basis for the ‘policy’ to be carried out. In regards to the diplomatic cables themselves, we are better able to understand the nature of diplomats as ‘agents of empire,’ and so instead of discounting the cables as ‘propaganda’ we must use them against the apparatus of empire itself: to expose the empire for what it is. Wikileaks helps to unsheathe and strip away the rhetoric behind imperial policy, and expose diplomats not as ‘informed observers’, but as ‘agents of power.’ The reaction by nations, organizations and institutions around the world adds further fuel to this approach, as we are seeing the utter distaste political leaders have for ‘democracy’ and ‘freedom of information’, despite their rhetoric. Several institutions of power can be more widely exposed in this manner.

A recent addition to this analysis can be in the role played by universities not in ‘education’ but in ‘indoctrination’ and the production of new ‘agents of power.’ For example, Columbia University is one of the most “respected” and “revered” universities in the world, which has produced several individuals and significant sectors of the political elite (including diplomats). In reaction to the Wikileaks releases, Columbia University has warned “students they risk future job prospects if they download any of the material,” which followed “a government ban on employees, estimated at more than two-and-a-half million people, using work computers and other communication devices to look at diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks.” The University “emailed students at the university's school of international and public affairs, a recruiting ground for the state department.”[14] Good for Columbia! What do they think university is for, ‘education’ or something? How dare students take education into their own hands, especially students who will likely be future diplomats. This university reaction to Wikileaks helps call into attention the role of universities in our society, and specifically the role of universities in shaping the future ‘managers’ of the imperial apparatus.

Wikileaks as an Opportunity

If Wikileaks is a psy-op, it is either the stupidest or most intelligent psychological operation ever undertaken. But one thing is for sure: systems and structures of power are in the process of being exposed to a much wider audience than ever before. The question for the alternative media and critical researchers, alike, is what will they do with this information and this opportunity?

Julian Assange was recently interviewed by Time Magazine about Wikileaks, in which he explained to the inadequately informed editor of Time Magazine that organizations which are secretive need to be exposed:

If their behavior is revealed to the public, they have one of two choices: one is to reform in such a way that they can be proud of their endeavors, and proud to display them to the public. Or the other is to lock down internally and to balkanize, and as a result, of course, cease to be as efficient as they were. To me, that is a very good outcome, because organizations can either be efficient, open and honest, or they can be closed, conspiratorial and inefficient.[15]

Assange further explained some of his perspectives regarding the influence of and reactions to Wikileaks, stating that the Chinese:

appear to be terrified of free speech, and while one might say that means something awful is happening in the country, I actually think that is a very optimistic sign, because it means that speech can still cause reform and that the power structure is still inherently political, as opposed to fiscal. So journalism and writing are capable of achieving change, and that is why Chinese authorities are so scared of it. Whereas in the United States to a large degree, and in other Western countries, the basic elements of society have been so heavily fiscalized through contractual obligations that political change doesn't seem to result in economic change, which in other words means that political change doesn't result in change.[16]

In the interview, Assange turned to the issue of the Internet and community media:

For the rise of social media, it's quite interesting. When we first started [in 2006], we thought we would have the analytical work done by bloggers and people who wrote Wikipedia articles and so on. And we thought that was a natural, given that we had lots of quality, important content... The bulk of the heavy lifting - heavy analytical lifting - that is done with our materials is done by us, and is done by professional journalists we work with and by professional human-rights activists. It is not done by the broader community. However, once the initial lifting is done, once a story becomes a story, becomes a news article, then we start to see community involvement, which digs deeper and provides more perspective. So the social networks tend to be, for us, an amplifier of what we are doing. And also a supply of sources for us.[17]

As researchers, media, and critics, we must realize that our perspectives and beliefs must be open to change and evolution. Simply because something like this has never happened before does not mean that it isn’t happening now. We live in the era of the ‘Technological Revolution,’ and the Internet has changed economics, politics and society itself, on a global scale. This is where the true hope in furthering and better informing the ‘global political awakening’ will need to take speed and establish itself. True change in our world is not going to come from already-established or newly-created institutions of power, which is where all issues are currently being addressed, especially those of global significance. True change, instead, can only come not from global power structures, but from the global ‘community’ of people, interacting with one another via the power unleashed by the ‘Technological Revolution.’ Change must be globally understood and community organized.

We are on the verge of a period of global social transformation, the question is: will we do anything about it? Will we seek to inform and partake in this transition, or will we sit and watch it be misled, criticizing it as it falters and falls? Just as Martin Luther King commented in his 1967 speech, Beyond Vietnam, that it seemed as if America was “on the wrong side of a world revolution,” now there is an opportunity to remedy that sad reality, and not simply on a national scale, but global.

Despite all the means and methods of power and domination in this world, for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. As things progressively get worse and worse, as any independent observer of the world has noticed, life has a way of creating means and methods to counter these regressions. As ‘globalization’ has facilitated the emergence of a global elite, and several global institutions and ideologies of global power, so too has this process facilitated the ‘globalization of opposition.’ So while elites, globally, actively work to integrate and expand global power structures, they are inadvertently integrating and expanding global opposition to those very same power structures. This is the great paradox of our time, and one which we must recognize, for it is not simply a factual observation, but it is a hopeful situation.

Hope should not be underestimated, and it is something that I have personally struggled with in my views of the world. It is hard to see ‘hope’ when you study so much ‘horror’ in the world, and see how little is being done about it. But activism and change need hope. This is very evident from the Obama campaign, which was splashed with rhetoric of ‘hope’ and ‘change’, something that all people rightfully want and need. However, Obama’s ‘hope’ and ‘change’ were Wall Street brands and patents, it was a glorious practice in the art of propaganda, and a horrific blow to true notions of ‘hope’ and ‘change’. There is a reason why the Obama campaign took the top prizes in public relations industry awards.[18]

Hope is needed, but it cannot be misplaced hope, as it was with Obama. It must be a hope grounded not in ‘blind faith’ but in ‘honest analysis.’ While indeed on most fronts in the world, things are getting progressively worse, the alternative media has focused almost exclusively on these issues that they have blinded themselves to the positive geopolitical developments in the world, namely the ‘global political awakening’ and the role of the Internet in reshaping global society. While these issues are acknowledged, they are not fully understood or explained within the wider context: that these are in fact, hopeful developments; that there is hope. Wikileaks strengthens this notion, if it is to be taken as an opportunity. A critique without hope falls on deaf ears. No one wants to hear that things are ‘hopeless’, so while an examination of what is wrong in the world is integral to moving forward, so too is an examination of what is hopeful and positive. This spreads the message and builds its supporters. The Internet as a medium facilitates the spread of this message, and after all, as one of the foremost media theorists, Marshall McLuhan, noted, “The medium is the message.”

Appendix of ‘Revelations’ and ‘Vindications’: A Call to Action for Alternative Media

So what are some of the supposed ‘revelations’ which can be used as ‘vindications’ by the alternative media? Well, for one, the role of royalty as a relevant and powerful economic and political actor in the world today. And by this I do not simply refer to states where monarchs remain as official rulers, such as in Saudi Arabia, but more specifically to West European and notably the British monarchs. For those who have studied institutions like the Bilderberg Group and the Trilateral Commission, the relevance of European royalty in international affairs is not a new concept. For the majority of people (who haven’t even heard of the Bilderberg Group or Trilateral Commission), these monarchs are largely viewed as symbolic figures as opposed to political actors. This is, of course, naïve, as all monarchs have always been political actors, however, it is a naivety that has now been challenged on a much wider scale and to a much wider audience. There was a time when I would discuss the relevance of monarchs in the modern world, and it would be a subject that would be treated by many others as an absurd notion: “but the Queen has no real power, she’s a figurehead,” etc. Wikileaks has exposed that notion as a falsity, and it should be an issue that is expanded upon.

For example, within the Wikileaks cables, take the British Prince Andrew, Queen Elizabeth’s second son, who has been subject to many cable ‘revelations.’ The U.S. Ambassador to Kyrgyzstan wrote a cable regarding a meeting she attended with several British and Canadian businessmen and Prince Andrew, who is a special U.K. trade representative to the Middle East and Central Asia. At the meeting, Prince Andrew ranted against “those [expletive] journalists ... who poke their noses everywhere,” and he “railed at British anticorruption investigators, who had had the 'idiocy' of almost scuttling the al-Yamama deal with Saudi Arabia,” particularly “referencing an investigation, subsequently closed, into alleged kickbacks a senior Saudi royal had received in exchange for the multi-year, lucrative BAE Systems contract to provide equipment and training to Saudi security forces.” When he ranted against the media – specifically the Guardian paper – for making it harder to do business abroad, the U.S. Ambassador noted that the businessmen in attendance “roared their approval” and “practically clapped.”[19] Again, evidence for how elites despise true representations of democracy and freedom.

At that same meeting, Prince Andrew made another startling claim, and one which had not been as widely publicized in the media to date. He stated that to the U.S. Ambassador that: “the United Kingdom, Western Europe (and by extension you Americans too) were now back in the thick of playing the Great Game,” and, “this time we aim to win!” Further, Prince Andrew – the ‘Duke of York’ – “then stated that he was very worried about Russia's resurgence in the region,” and referred to Chinese economic and political expansion in the region as “probably inevitable, but a menace.” On the way out of the meeting, one British businessman said to the U.S. Ambassador, “What a wonderful representative for the British people! We could not be prouder of our royal family!”[20] Well, there you have it, a rich prince running around the world with rich businessmen promoting their economic interests in foreign countries and referring to it as the age-old imperial competition between Britain and Russia in the “Great Game” for dominance over Central Asia. And we call our countries ‘democracies’ and exporters of ‘freedom’?

This is quite typical behaviour of the royal family, however, as a former South African MP and anti-corruption campaigner, Andrew Feinstein, explained, “the royal family has actively supported Britain's arms sales, even when corruption and malfeasance has been suspected,” and that, “the royal family was involved in trying to persuade South Africa to buy BAE's Hawk jets, despite the air force not wanting the planes that cost two and a half times the price of their preferred aircraft. As an ANC MP at the time, I was told that £116m in bribes had been paid to key decision-makers and the ANC itself. The royal family's attitude is part of the reason that BAE will never face justice in the UK for its corrupt practices.”[21]

The British royals are also very close with Arab monarchs, which makes sense, considering it was the British Empire (and the ‘Crown’ behind it) that created the Arab monarchs and gave them power in the first place. Prince Andrew went on hunting trips with the King of Jordan and the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the UAE.[22] Further, Prince Charles is considered a strategic diplomatic figure in regards to Saudi Arabia, as the cables reveal. The British media headlined with the ‘revelation’ that Prince Charles is not as “respected” as Queen Elizabeth, but the real story was buried in the same article beneath the royal gossip, as cables revealed that Prince Charles and his wife “have helped to overcome ‘severe strains’ following Saudi Arabia's imprisonment and torture of five Britons from December 2001 to August 2003 and the UK's official fraud investigations of British Aerospace operations in Saudi Arabia in 2004.” As one U.S. diplomatic cable explained, the British royals “helped re-build UK-Saudi ties” as “the House of Saud and the House of Windsor build upon their royal commonality.” In other words, they both represent unelected and unaccountable elite dynastic power, and so they should naturally work together in ‘their’ own interests. How ‘democratic’ of them. Further, a Saudi royal threw a lavish party for Prince Charles in Saudi Arabia with the help of an unnamed British businessman.[23]

It looks, however, like the British royals will have to again move in to “smooth out” ties with Saudi Arabia, as ‘revelations’ about the country and its monarch paint a picture of a not-so-helpful Western ally. In short, Saudi Arabia and its monarch have received one of the largest public relations disasters in recent history. The British monarch may be too busy cleaning up their own mess, or have too much light on them at the moment, to be able to ‘gracefully’ maneuver through yet another ‘imperious’ royal visit. What am I referring to here in terms of bad PR for the Saudis? It’s quite simple, the Saudi royals, good friends of the British monarch, are incidentally the principle financiers of Sunni terrorists (which includes what we commonly refer to as ‘al-Qaeda’) worldwide.

While this comes as no surprise to those who have critically analyzed al-Qaeda or the “war on terror,” it is indeed a ‘revelation’ to the majority of people. While Western governments and media propaganda machines have for years blamed terrorist financing and support on ‘target’ nations like Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and more recently, Pakistan and Yemen, the Wikileaks cables ‘vindicated’ the historical and present reality that it is in fact the main Western allies in the region, especially Saudi Arabia, but also the other major Gulf Arab states (and their monarchs), who are the main financiers and supporters of terrorism, and most notably, al-Qaeda. A memo signed by Hillary Clinton confirmed that Saudi Arabia is understood to be “the world's largest source of funds for Islamist militant groups such as the Afghan Taliban and Lashkar-e-Taiba,” as well as al-Qaeda itself. Further, three other Arab states, Qatar, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates are listed as other chief terrorist financiers. As the Guardian put it, “the cables highlight an often ignored factor in the Pakistani and Afghan conflicts: that the violence is partly bankrolled by rich, conservative donors across the Arabian Sea.” While Pakistan is largely blamed for aiding the Taliban in Afghanistan, it is in fact Saudi Arabia as well as UAE-based businesses which are its chief financiers. Kuwait, another staunch U.S. ally, is a “source of funds and a key transit point” for al-Qaeda.[24]

While the New York Times was busy declaring Wikileaks as providing a “new consensus” on Iran, with the Saudi King urging America to attack and “cut the head off the snake,” they mentioned only in passing, how “Saudi donors remain the chief financiers of Sunni militant groups like Al Qaeda.”[25] Now, while these are indeed ‘revelations’ to many, we must place these facts in their proper context. This is not simply to be taken as Saudi Arabia and Arab states being responsible, alone, for support of terrorism and al-Qaeda, but that they are simply playing the role they have always played, and that diplomacy is sidelined and kept in the dark on this issue as it always has been.

What I mean by this is that the contextualization of these facts must be placed in a comprehensive historical analysis. Looking at the history of al-Qaeda, arising out of the Soviet-Afghan War, with major covert support from America and other Western allies, the center of this operation was in the ‘Safari Club,’ which constituted a secret network of Western intelligence agencies (such as those of France, Britain and America) and regional intelligence agencies (such as those of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan), in carrying out the financing, training, arming and operational support of the Mujahideen, and subsequently the Taliban and al-Qaeda. The ‘Safari Club’ was established in 1976 (with the help of CIA director at the time, George H.W. Bush, another close friend of the Saudi royals), and was designed to respond to increasing political oversight of intelligence operations in America (as a result of the Church Committee investigations on CIA operations), and so the Safari Club was created to allow for a more covert and discreet network of intelligence operations, with no oversight. Diplomats were kept in the dark about its operations and indeed its existence, while the quiet covert relationships continued behind the scenes. This network, in some form or another, exists up to the present day, as I recently documented in my three-part series on “The Imperial Anatomy of al-Qaeda.”

[See: The Imperial Anatomy of Al-Qaeda. The CIA’s Drug-Running Terrorists and the “Arc of Crisis”; Empire, Energy and Al-Qaeda: The Anglo-American Terror Network; 9/11 and America’s Secret Terror Campaign]

In short, there is a reason that while diplomats complain quietly about Saudi and Arab financing and support for al-Qaeda, nothing is actually done: because through other avenues, the American imperial structure and apparatus supports and facilitates this process. Diplomacy is more overt in its imperial ambitions, thus the reality of the cables reflecting a focus on Iran and Pakistan, yet intelligence operations are a much more covert means of establishing and maintaining particular imperial relationships. This information again should not be taken “at face value,” but rather placed within its broader geopolitical context. In this sense, the information is not ‘disinformation’ or ‘propaganda’, but rather additional factual ‘vindication’ and information.

While Western governments and media publicly scorn Iran and accuse it of “meddling” in the affairs of Iraq, and of supporting terrorism and destabilization of the country, the reality is that while Iran certainly exerts influence in Iraq, (after all, they are neighbours), Saudi Arabia is a far greater source of destabilization than Iran is accused of being, and this is from the mouths of Iraqi leaders themselves. Iraqi government officials, reported the Guardian, “see Saudi Arabia, not Iran, as the biggest threat to the integrity and cohesion of their fledgling democratic state.” In a cable written by the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, it was explained that, “Iraq views relations with Saudi Arabia as among its most challenging given Riyadh's money, deeply ingrained anti-Shia attitudes and [Saudi] suspicions that a Shia-led Iraq will inevitably further Iranian regional influence.” Further, “Iraqi contacts assess that the Saudi goal (and that of most other Sunni Arab states, to varying degrees) is to enhance Sunni influence, dilute Shia dominance and promote the formation of a weak and fractured Iraqi government.” In short, that would mean that Saudi Arabia is actually doing what the West accuses Iran of doing in Iraq. So while Iran certainly has been promoting its own interests in Iraq, it is more interested in a stable Shi’a government, while Saudi Arabia is more interested in a weak and fractured government, and thus promotes sectarian conflict. One interesting fact to note that came out of the cables, is the increasing perspective among Iraqi youth rejecting foreign interference from any government, with diplomatic cables articulating that, “a 'mental revolution' was under way among Iraqi youth against foreign agendas seeking to undermine the country's stability.”[26]

It should come as no surprise, then, that one top Saudi royal (in fact the former head of Saudi Arabia’s intelligence agency and thus the man responsible for handling Saudi Arabia’s relationship with terrorists), Prince Turki al-Faisal, said that the source of the diplomatic leaks should be “vigorously punished.” Turki, who has also been the Saudi Ambassador to the U.K. and America, said, “the WikiLeaks furor underscored that cyber security was an increasing international concern.”[27]

What other areas can Wikileaks be used to further inform and ‘vindicate’ the critical media? Well, start with Saudi Arabia’s neighbour to the south, Yemen. Whether or not most Americans (or for that matter, most people in general) are aware that America is waging a war in Yemen, just across the water from where America is waging another war against Somalia (since 2006/07). This past October, I wrote an article about the imperial war in Yemen as a war being fought under the auspices of the “War on Terror” and fighting al-Qaeda (financed by the Saudi elite); but which in reality is about America and other Western imperial powers (such as the U.K.) propping up a despotic leaders who has been in power since 1978, by supporting him in his campaign to eliminate a rebel movement in the North and a massive secessionist movement in the South. Saudi Arabia entered the conflict in August of 2009 by bombing rebel holdouts in the North along the Saudi border, as the Saudi elite are afraid of the movement spreading to disaffected groups within Saudi Arabia itself.

America inserted itself into the war by increasing the amount of money and military aid given to Yemen (in effect, subsidizing their military, as they do heavily with Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Israel, all the Arab states, and dozens of other states around the world), as well as providing direct special forces training and assistance, not to mention carrying out missile strikes within Yemen against “al-Qaeda training camps” which American intelligence officials claimed killed 60 ‘militants’. In reality, 52 innocent people died, with over half of them being women and children. At the time, both Yemen and America claimed it was an al-Qaeda training camp and that the cruise missile was fired by the Yemeni government, despite the fact that it had no such weapons in its arsenal, unlike the U.S. Navy patrolling the coastline. The missile strike was carried out by America “on direct presidential orders.”

Several days later, there was the bizarre “attempted terrorist attack” in which a young Nigerian man was arrested attempting to blow up his underwear (who was helped onto the plane by a mysterious Indian man in a suit who claimed he was a diplomat, according to witnesses), and who was subsequently linked to “al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula” (an organization which started up not much earlier when a Guantanamo inmate returned to Saudi Arabia only to ‘escape’ Saudi custody, and flee to Yemen to start a new al-Qaeda branch). This provided the justification for America to dramatically increase its military aid to Yemen, which more than doubled from $67 million to $150 million, and came with increased special forces training and assistance, as well as increased CIA activity, discussing using drone attacks to kill innocent people (as they do in Pakistan), and more missile strikes.

This previous September, the Yemen government “laid siege” to a town in the South while the Obama administrations top counter-terrorism official, John Brennan, was in Yemen for ‘talks’ with President Saleh. The town was claimed to be a “sanctuary for al-Qaeda,” but it has key strategic significance as well. It is just south of a major new liquid natural gas pipeline, and the town happened to be home to many people involved in the Southern secessionist movement. The Yemeni government “barred” any outside or independent observers from witnessing the siege, which lasted days. However, for the many who fled the conflict and “siege,” they were claiming that the Islamic militants were working with the government against the rebel movement in the North and secessionist movement in the South, and according to one NPR reporter, “this is more about fighting or subduing the secessionist movement than it is about al-Qaida.”

[See: Andrew Gavin Marshall, “Yemen: The Covert Apparatus of the American Empire,” Global Research, 5 October 2010]

The Wikileaks ‘revelations’ further inform and confirm much of this analysis. In regards to the missile strike that killed innocent women and children on Obama’s orders, Wikileaks cables revealed that Yemeni President Saleh “secretly offered US forces unrestricted access to his territory to conduct unilateral strikes against al-Qaida terrorist targets.” As Saleh told John Breannan in September of 2009, “I have given you an open door on terrorism. So I am not responsible.” Regarding the December 21 strike that killed the innocent civilians, a cable explained, “Yemen insisted it must 'maintain the status quo' regarding the official denial of US involvement. Saleh wanted operations to continue 'non-stop until we eradicate this disease,” and days later in a meeting with U.S. Central Command head, General David Patraeus, “Saleh admitted lying to his population about the strikes.” He told the General, “We'll continue saying the bombs are ours, not yours.”[28]

In regards to Pakistan, while it is important to be highly critical of the validity of the ‘perspectives’ within the cables in regards to Pakistan and the Taliban, since Pakistan is a current and escalating target in the “War [OF] Terror,” there are things to keep in mind: historically, the Pakistani ISI has funded, armed and trained the Taliban, but always with U.S. assistance and support. Thus, we must examine the situation presently and so historically. Wikileaks revealed (as I mentioned previously), that Arab Gulf states help fund the Taliban in Afghanistan, so the common claim that it is Pakistan ‘alone’ is immediately made to be erroneous. Is it possible that Pakistan is still working with the Taliban? Of course. They have historically through their intelligence services, the ISI, and while they have never done it without U.S. support (mostly through the CIA), the ISI still receives most of its outside funding from the CIA.[29] The CIA funding of the ISI, a reality since the late 70s, picked up dramatically following 9/11, the operations of which the ISI has been itself complicit in financing.[30] Thus, the CIA rewarded the financiers of 9/11 by increasing their funds.

The trouble with discounting information that does not fit in with your previously conceived ideas is that it does not allow for evolution or progress in thinking. This should never be done in regards to any subject, yet it is commonly done for all subjects, by official and critical voices alike. With Pakistan, we must understand that while historically it has been a staunch U.S. ally in the region, propping up every government, supporting every coup, American geopolitical ambitions have changed as a result of the changing geopolitical reality of the world. Pakistan has drawn increasingly close to China, which built a major seaport on Pakistan’s coast, giving China access to the Indian Ocean. This is a strategic threat to India and the United States more broadly, which seeks to subdue and control China’s growing influence (while simultaneously attempting to engage in efforts of international integration with China, specifically economically). India and Pakistan are historical enemies, and wars have been fought between them before. India and America are in a strategic alliance, and America helped India with its nuclear program, much to the distaste of the Pakistanis, who drew closer to China. Pakistan occupies an area of the utmost strategic importance: with its neighbours being Afghanistan, China, India and Iran.

American policy has changed to support a civilian government, kept weak and subservient to U.S. interests, while America covertly expands its wars inside Pakistan. This is creating an incredible potential for absolute destabilization and fragmentation, potentially resulting in total civil war. America appears to be undertaking a similar policy in Pakistan that it undertook in fracturing Yugoslavia throughout the 1990s. Only that Pakistan has a population of 170 million people and nuclear weapons. As America expands its destabilization of Pakistan, the risk of a nuclear war between Pakistan and India dramatically increases, as does the risk of destabilization spreading regionally to its neighbours of India, China, Afghanistan and Iran. The American-urged separation of the Pakistani military from official power in Pakistan (as in, it’s not a military dictatorships), was designed to impose a completely U.S. dependent civilian government and isolate an increasingly frustrated and antagonized Pakistani military.

As the Wikileaks cables revealed, General Kayani, head of the Pakistani military, threatened to depose the Pakistani government in a coup in March of 2009, and he discussed this in meetings with the U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan, Anne Patterson. The cables revealed that the Pakistani Army Chief disliked the civilian government, but that they disliked the opposition even more, which was rallying people in the streets.[31] This reveals the intimate nature the U.S. has with the Pakistani military, as it always has. The U.S. did not support this proposal, as it currently favours a weak civilian government, and therefore a strong military dictatorship is not in America’s (or India’s) interest. Thus, there was no coup. Hence, Wikileaks can be used to further inform and vindicate analysis of Pakistan. For those who have been speaking about the destabilization of Pakistan for years, and there have been many, Wikileaks provides more resources to a critical analysis, and suddenly more people around the world might be interested in new ideas and perspectives, as Wikileaks has challenged so many of their previously held beliefs.

The list of examples surfacing from the Wikileaks cables is endless in the amount of additional information it can add in the alternative media’s dissemination of information and analysis. These were but a few examples among many. Make no mistake, this is an opportunity for the spread of truth, not a distraction from it. Treat it accordingly.


Love Always
mudra

" By its terms, it criminalizes not merely the disclosure of national defense information by organizations such as Wikileaks, but also the reporting on that information by countless news organizations. It also criminalizes all casual discussions of such disclosures by persons not authorized to receive them to other persons not authorized to receive them–in other words, all tweets sending around those countless news stories, all blogging on them, and all dinner party conversations about their contents "

I agree with that . However , there is a tendency by the secret services HALFWITS to stamp everything they handle " Top secret " even the hearsay overheard by some nincompoop in some cocktail party . I am against the secrecy that allows crimes to be committed with the excuse of national security . I am against secret societies , secret government , secret services . So , leaving aside the fact that Wikileaks is an operation , the fact that the Swedish government had to invent some BS story to arrest him just makes the Swedish government look like idiots ! So in my view Mr Assange should be free to peddle his poisoned data , isn't this what the mass media does every day ? What's so different from some of the garbage printed by Wikileaks and the garbage printed by the Washington post and News Corp ?
There are a few different aspects to this saga and the most important is the freedom of information and freedom to speak . I am for the freedom of information and publishing every thing that can be obtained by hacking , stealing and so on . We citizen pay the taxes and the government keep from us important information under the false label of " secret of state " , " state security " and other worn out poppycock . I am an admirer of any individual or organization that steals secret of state of the US or any other state. The governments have no right to keep secrets from us .
They have no right to keep from us secrets like : Zero point energy , UFO , ALiens , money spent of undermining other countries , money spent to rig the Stock market , transfers of military officers to " space fleet " , Technology advances that could change the world but are instead locked up so the world can continue to go ahead to destroy this planet of finite resources . How is it possible that in a planet of finite resources , the government and ignorant economists still pretend infinite growth ?
I know that the documents published by Wikileaks were given to some corporate media organizations that informed and got approval to publish by the US government .
So in practice those "great revelations " are just controlled outing of information ...... not the real McCoy , therefore those revelations should be considered as declassified material.

i found this quite intriguing and telling about the elusive "Scarlet Pimpernel of Cyberspace"



Wikileaks
Julian Assange wined and dined at US Embassy
Julian Assange was a guest at a US Embassy cocktail party less than a year ago.

By Andrew Gilligan 6:30AM GMT 13 Dec 2010

To the United States, Julian Assange may now be Public Enemy Number One. Some American politicians have even called for his execution.

But less than a year ago, the founder of WikiLeaks was officially entertained at a US Embassy cocktail party by one of the very diplomats whose secrets he would soon spill to the world.


At the reception, held at the US ambassador's residence in Reykjavik, Iceland, Mr Assange chatted with Sam Watson, the embassy's deputy chief of mission.

He was already sitting on dozens of Mr Watson's classified cables at the time of the December party, including embarrassing details about America's and Britain's role following the collapse of Iceland's banks which were later published to widespread outrage in the local media.

"He certainly had fun at the party," said Birgitta Jonsdottir, an Icelandic MP and former activist in WikiLeaks. "He went as my guest. I said it would be a bit of a prank to take him and see if they knew who he was. I don't think they had any idea."

Mr Assange's site had already published dozens of leaks embarrassing to the US, including secret Guantanamo Bay detainee handling manuals and the full emails of Sarah Palin, the 2008 Republican vice-presidential candidate. The US State Department condemned the manuals' publication as "a criminal act."

Mr Assange went straight to the party from WikiLeaks' Icelandic base, known as "the bunker," where he was working on the release of a top-secret US Army video showing an attack on civilians in Iraq.

By the time of the party WikiLeaks had also already taken delivery of around 600,000 classified US Army logs from the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, released earlier this year, plus the 250,000 secret US embassy cables which it is releasing now.

"I thought it would be a bit boring to go on my own," said Ms Jonsdottir. "But the irony was that I went to collect him from his guesthouse and couldn't find him, so just went back to work and didn't even go myself. I found out later he'd just decided to go on his own and got in by saying he was my guest. He said he'd spent a long time talking to Mr Watson."

A confidential cable written by Mr Watson, published by WikiLeaks, detailed discussions between him and Ian Whiting, the British ambassador to Reykjavik.

Mr Whiting wanted to block a proposed to hold a referendum on whether Iceland should repay the British Government after many Britons lost money in the collapse of the Reykjavik bank Icesave.

After the collapse, the British government refunded individual savers in Icesave from its own deposit protection scheme. However, institutional savers, including many local authorities, have not been repaid, and Britain continues to seek full repayment from Iceland for them and for its own expenditure on individual savers.

The US embassy in Reykjavik declined to comment on Mr Assange's invitation.

Source;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8197890/Julian-Assange-wined-and-dined-at-US-Embassy.html

An endorsement

Sarah Palin has called for Assange to be hunted down

We have posted many videos on the Wikileaks threads where we heard
people's views and critiques of Julian Assange.
I can't remember having seen any where videos where we saw him speaking.

I choose this thread where freedom of speech is raised to post videos
where we can hear Julian Assange expressing himself about Wikileaks.
Last video is a documentary on the background of Wikileaks .

Tea with Julian Assange

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_HPLHIBTtA&feature=player_embedded


Julian Assange on the Afghanistan war logs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-E5nrTRHSck&feature=player_embedded


Face to Face -Julian Assange -04-11-2010 Wikileaks(part 1)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UeJy001sweM&feature=player_embedded#!


World Wikileaks: The Movie (Rough Cut)

At long last, the exclusive rough cut of the first in-depth documentary chronicling the rise, the fall and the continued efforts of Wikileaks and the people behind it.

http://www.thebigwobble.com/2010/12/must-see-truth-behind-wikileaks-as.html

Love Always
mudra

Children Of Tomorrow

Children of tomorrow
I apologize to you
On behalf of those in my time
For the things we didn't do
We didn't stop the tyrants
So your fate could be prevented
We watched them steal our freedom
By our silence we consented
We didn't choose to circumvent
The doom you've not escaped
While the Bill of Rights was murdered
And the Constitution raped
Some of us were lazy
Others too afraid
To think about our children
The ones we have betrayed
I guess we were too busy
To be concerned or care
To try to ease the burden
Of the chains we made you wear
We could have been good shepherds
When the wolf got in the fold
But we watched the flame of freedom die instead
And left you cold

I'm sorry we were timid
My selfish generation
We left you but a remnant
Of a free and prosperous nation
I'm sorry for our actions
Like cowards we behaved
We could have left you freedom
Instead you are enslaved
Children of tomorrow
Descendants of our land
I'm sorry we allowed this
The fate you now with stand

- Anonymous

Love Always
mudra

Double Standards: Nobel Prize and Julian Assange

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJWgUNpJf10&feature=player_embedded


Love Always
mudra

December 14th, 2010 6:23 AM
Why I'm Posting Bail Money for Julian Assange

By Michael Moore


http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mike-friends-blog/why-im-posting-bail-money

Yesterday, in the Westminster Magistrates Court in London, the lawyers for WikiLeaks co-founder Julian Assange presented to the judge a document from me stating that I have put up $20,000 of my own money to help bail Mr. Assange out of jail.

Furthermore, I am publicly offering the assistance of my website, my servers, my domain names and anything else I can do to keep WikiLeaks alive and thriving as it continues its work to expose the crimes that were concocted in secret and carried out in our name and with our tax dollars.

We were taken to war in Iraq on a lie. Hundreds of thousands are now dead. Just imagine if the men who planned this war crime back in 2002 had had a WikiLeaks to deal with. They might not have been able to pull it off. The only reason they thought they could get away with it was because they had a guaranteed cloak of secrecy. That guarantee has now been ripped from them, and I hope they are never able to operate in secret again.

So why is WikiLeaks, after performing such an important public service, under such vicious attack? Because they have outed and embarrassed those who have covered up the truth. The assault on them has been over the top:

**Sen. Joe Lieberman says WikiLeaks "has violated the Espionage Act."

**The New Yorker's George Packer calls Assange "super-secretive, thin-skinned, [and] megalomaniacal."

**Sarah Palin claims he's "an anti-American operative with blood on his hands" whom we should pursue "with the same urgency we pursue al Qaeda and Taliban leaders."

**Democrat Bob Beckel (Walter Mondale's 1984 campaign manager) said about Assange on Fox: "A dead man can't leak stuff ... there's only one way to do it: illegally shoot the son of a bitch."

**Republican Mary Matalin says "he's a psychopath, a sociopath ... He's a terrorist."

**Rep. Peter A. King calls WikiLeaks a "terrorist organization."

And indeed they are! They exist to terrorize the liars and warmongers who have brought ruin to our nation and to others. Perhaps the next war won't be so easy because the tables have been turned -- and now it's Big Brother who's being watched ... by us!

WikiLeaks deserves our thanks for shining a huge spotlight on all this. But some in the corporate-owned press have dismissed the importance of WikiLeaks ("they've released little that's new!") or have painted them as simple anarchists ("WikiLeaks just releases everything without any editorial control!"). WikiLeaks exists, in part, because the mainstream media has failed to live up to its responsibility. The corporate owners have decimated newsrooms, making it impossible for good journalists to do their job. There's no time or money anymore for investigative journalism. Simply put, investors don't want those stories exposed. They like their secrets kept ... as secrets.

I ask you to imagine how much different our world would be if WikiLeaks had existed 10 years ago. Take a look at this photo. That's Mr. Bush about to be handed a "secret" document on August 6th, 2001. Its heading read: "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US." And on those pages it said the FBI had discovered "patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings." Mr. Bush decided to ignore it and went fishing for the next four weeks.

But if that document had been leaked, how would you or I have reacted? What would Congress or the FAA have done? Was there not a greater chance that someone, somewhere would have done something if all of us knew about bin Laden's impending attack using hijacked planes?

But back then only a few people had access to that document. Because the secret was kept, a flight school instructor in San Diego who noticed that two Saudi students took no interest in takeoffs or landings, did nothing. Had he read about the bin Laden threat in the paper, might he have called the FBI? (Please read this essay by former FBI Agent Coleen Rowley, Time's 2002 co-Person of the Year, about her belief that had WikiLeaks been around in 2001, 9/11 might have been prevented.)

Or what if the public in 2003 had been able to read "secret" memos from Dick Cheney as he pressured the CIA to give him the "facts" he wanted in order to build his false case for war? If a WikiLeaks had revealed at that time that there were, in fact, no weapons of mass destruction, do you think that the war would have been launched -- or rather, wouldn't there have been calls for Cheney's arrest?

Openness, transparency -- these are among the few weapons the citizenry has to protect itself from the powerful and the corrupt. What if within days of August 4th, 1964 -- after the Pentagon had made up the lie that our ship was attacked by the North Vietnamese in the Gulf of Tonkin -- there had been a WikiLeaks to tell the American people that the whole thing was made up? I guess 58,000 of our soldiers (and 2 million Vietnamese) might be alive today.

Instead, secrets killed them.

For those of you who think it's wrong to support Julian Assange because of the sexual assault allegations he's being held for, all I ask is that you not be naive about how the government works when it decides to go after its prey. Please -- never, ever believe the "official story." And regardless of Assange's guilt or innocence (see the strange nature of the allegations here), this man has the right to have bail posted and to defend himself. I have joined with filmmakers Ken Loach and John Pilger and writer Jemima Khan in putting up the bail money -- and we hope the judge will accept this and grant his release today.

Might WikiLeaks cause some unintended harm to diplomatic negotiations and U.S. interests around the world? Perhaps. But that's the price you pay when you and your government take us into a war based on a lie. Your punishment for misbehaving is that someone has to turn on all the lights in the room so that we can see what you're up to. You simply can't be trusted. So every cable, every email you write is now fair game. Sorry, but you brought this upon yourself. No one can hide from the truth now. No one can plot the next Big Lie if they know that they might be exposed.

And that is the best thing that WikiLeaks has done. WikiLeaks, God bless them, will save lives as a result of their actions. And any of you who join me in supporting them are committing a true act of patriotism. Period.

I stand today in absentia with Julian Assange in London and I ask the judge to grant him his release. I am willing to guarantee his return to court with the bail money I have wired to said court. I will not allow this injustice to continue unchallenged.

P.S. You can read the statement I filed today in the London court here.

P.P.S. If you're reading this in London, please go support Julian Assange and WikiLeaks at a demonstration at 1 PM today, Tuesday the 14th, in front of the Westminster court.

Love Always
mudra

to Michael Moore!


14 December 2010 Last updated at 14:11 ET


Wikileaks founder Assange bailed, but release delayed

The founder of whistle-blowing website Wikileaks, Julian Assange, has been granted bail in London on conditions including cash guarantees of £240,000.
But he will remain in prison pending an appeal against the bail decision lodged by Swedish prosecutors...
story here;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11989216


People demonstrated in support of Mr Assange outside City of Westminster Magistrates' Court

Media says government's reaction to WikiLeaks 'troubling'
December 14, 2010

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/media-says-governments-reaction-to-wikileaks-troubling-20101214-18vrb.html

Australia's main media players say the federal government's reaction to the release of diplomatic correspondence by the WikiLeaks website is "deeply troubling".

The country's newspaper editors, along with television and radio directors, have written an open letter to Prime Minister Julia Gillard in support of WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange. The letter is supported by the editor-in-chief of The Sydney Morning Herald and Sun Herald, Peter Fray, whose newspapers have reported on the secret US embassy cables provided exclusively to Fairfax newspapers.

"The volume of the leaks is unprecedented, yet the leaking and publication of diplomatic correspondence is not new," the letter, initiated by the Walkley Foundation, states.

Advertisement: Story continues below
"We ... believe the reaction of the US and Australian governments to date has been deeply troubling.

"We will strongly resist any attempts to make the publication of these or similar documents illegal."

The editors and directors say any attempt to shut down WikiLeaks, prosecute those who publish official leaks, or pressure companies to cease working with the whistle-blower website "is a serious threat to democracy which relies on a free and fearless press".

Ms Gillard has declared the actions of WikiLeaks and Mr Assange "illegal".

Attorney-General Robert McClelland has said the initial leaking of classified documents and their subsequent distribution by WikiLeaks are likely to be illegal.

But the media's open letter notes that so far the government "has been able to point to no Australian law that has been breached".

The editors and directors state that WikiLeaks is simply doing what the media has always done - expose official secrets that governments would prefer to keep in the dark.

"WikiLeaks, just four years old, is part of the media and deserves our support."

Almost 600,000 people have signed a separate online petition in support of WikiLeaks ahead of a second appearance in court in London by Mr Assange.

The petition on campaigning website Avaaz calls on the US and other nations to "stop the crackdown on WikiLeaks and its partners immediately" and to respect "the laws of freedom of expression and freedom of the press".

Link to the petition: http://www.avaaz.org/en/wikileaks_petition?fp


Love Always
mudra

DECEMBER 16TH, 2010
Human Rights Organizations Worldwide Decry Attacks on Freedom of Expression

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/12/human-rights-organizations-freedom-expression

Call To Action by Katitza Rodriguez
It has been almost two weeks since cablegate.wikileaks.org, the website hosting leaked US diplomatic cables, was taken down, and the right of Wikileaks to publish truthful information was immediately besieged. Since then, human rights organizations around the world have condemned the attacks on WikiLeaks and have raised their voices to protect freedom of expression online.

EFF has noted that Wikileaks has suffered as a result of corporate policies that suppress free expression on matters of intense public importance. In such cases, readers lose their right to read the information that Wikileaks published, and online publishers lose trust in those companies that have demonstrated a willingness to bow to political pressure to remove unpopular or controversial content. EFF has also launched the Say No to Online Censorship campaign, drawing public attention to the fact that shutting down publishers like Wikileaks is a very serious attack on freedom of expression.

To help illustrate what human rights and other organizations are saying internationally, we have highlighted some excerpts from their own institutional statements over this David-Goliath style battle.

International human rights law recognizes freedom of expression

• On December 10, International Human Rights Day, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights addressed this issue in her statement: “While it is unclear whether these individual measures taken by private actors directly infringe on states' human rights obligations to ensure respect of the right to freedom of expression, taken as a whole they could be interpreted as an attempt to censure the publication of information thus potentially violating Wikileaks' right to freedom of expression.”

• Amnesty International ~ “Freedom of expression is an internationally recognized human right that limits the power of the state to prohibit the receipt and publication of information. The burden is on the state to demonstrate that any restriction is both necessary and proportionate, and does not jeopardize the right to freedom of expression itself.”

• Human Rights First ~ “This issue transcends the particulars of the Wikileaks case. No matter what you think of Julian Assange, anyone who cares about Internet freedom should be concerned that in its zeal to cripple Wikileaks, governments and companies are taking steps in this case that pose a threat to fundamental rights.”

• Reporter without Borders ~ “We stress that any restriction on the freedom to disseminate this body of documents will affect the entire press, which has given detailed coverage to the information made available by Wikileaks, with five leading international newspapers actively cooperating in preparing it for publication.”

Several organizations have also commented on the behavior of companies that took down domain names and have denied hosting, financial and Internet services to Wikileaks.

• Internet Society ~ “Removal of a domain is an ineffective tool to suppress communication, merely serving to undermine the integrity of the global Internet and its operation.”

• ARTICLE 19 ~ “Blocking or removing information from sites, restricting domain names, limiting donations and other restrictions on access to information should be based only on a court order approved by a judge taking into account domestic and international laws on freedom of expression. Such action should not be based on extra-legal government pressure.”

Several NGOs have also called attention to the worldwide impact of Internet censorship.

• Human Rights Watch ~ “This is a signature moment for freedom of expression and information in both the US and abroad. Prosecuting Wikileaks for publishing leaked documents would set a terrible precedent that will be eagerly grasped by other governments, particularly those with a record of trying to muzzle legitimate political reporting.”

• Reporters Without Borders ~ “This is the first time we have seen an attempt at the international community level to censor a website dedicated to the principle of transparency. We are shocked to find countries such as France and the United States suddenly bringing their policies on freedom of expression into line with those of China. We point out that in France and the United States, it is up to the courts, not politicians, to decide whether or not a website should be closed.”

• The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) has warned about the harassment of Lebanese news websites after they published U.S diplomatic cables that were first disclosed by Wikileaks. CPJ has also called attention to the fact that the Tunisian government blocked domestic access to the site, while Saudi officials blocked access to the independent website Elaph, which also published some of the cables.

EFF joins human rights organizations worldwide in opposing attempts to suppress freedom of expression. EFF and activists around the world are calling on Internet users to stand up to defend free expression. With the help of volunteer translators and colleagues, our campaign against online censorship has been translated into several languages, including French, Finnish, German, Italian, Portuguese, Serbian, Spanish – with more languages planned.

We must stand up for the right to publish, read and discuss truthful information. Democracy depends on the right of people to know the truth. Let governments and corporations know that free expression is a human right that they should not suppress. We are all involved. Join the campaign now!

This article has also been published in Global Voices Advocacy


Love Always
mudra

Compassion, Patriotism, & Julian Assange: We Shall Persevere

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYGtuW32BlU&feature=player_embedded#!


Love Always
mudra

whoah, fear not, nothing is going to happen to precious Julian, the whiter than white trojan horse will be well looked after, they need him well fed and very much alive to suit the latter parts of the mission. Oh noooo it's not over by a long shot.

Do people here honestly think Michael Moore supporting him is a good character recommendation? For either of them? remember Michael Moore was well sanctioned for every film he made to suit a particular purpose in each of them. I am pleased to see he has lost some weight though.

I'd like to take Julian out of the picture entirely, but this is NOT possible as it is very much about the personality and people's projections. So many want to make him into something he is CLEARLY not. Julian ? a patriot? Oh pleeeeeeze, he is most likely a well trained manchurian candidate. Has to be, his leaks support everything the NWO govt wants to achieve. He is a one man walking and FREE falseflag event. I see the wheels here, cmon, look and see , how long did he spend in jail? He had internet access , complained about the food and daytime TV? I guess this could be construed as torture for such a rarefied being...

This really disturbs me. everything lately reminds me of the end times biblical lines about the truth shall appear as lies, even to people who I thought might see through this glaring FF event.

I will say I agree with part two of Max Igan's you tube in that America needs to wake the hellup and start taking care of things or the knock on effect will be simply ghastly and spreading.

There is much in Mr Assange's personal background worth examining and though I have compasssion for him and his obvious training, my feeling is support the right of wikileaks to exist, but for god's sake, most of it is what they WANT you to "know" and most of it is lies, or half truths to lead you right where they want you.

I see so much emotionalism leading people astray at this crucial time.

Whenever things become too emotional in matters of praise or condemmation I tend to remind myself that leaning too much on either side will make me tip over and as I loose my balance I may well loose sight of the entire view.
As I said on another thread giving our power away to anyone or anything is exactly that .
It makes us forgetfull to go within and look for our own truth which is really what we should be looking for.It is an everyday challenge to remain balanced in this spinning world and yet I believe the only thing worth working at.

Love Always
mudra

Assange calls for criminal charges against ‘shock jock’ Fox hosts

By David Edwards and Daniel Tencer
Wednesday, December 22nd, 2010

assangeinred Assange calls for criminal charges against shock jock Fox hosts

WikiLeaks founder calls Bradley Manning 'political prisoner'; says Fox hosts, politicians committing 'terrorism'

Julian Assange has accused Fox personalities Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin, among others, of committing terrorism through their calls to hunt down and kill the WikiLeaks founder.

In an interview with MSNBC's Cenk Uygur, Assange referred to the politicians-turned-Fox-personalities as "shock jocks" who should be charged for inciting violence against him and his organization.

He also referred to Huckabee as "just another idiot trying to make a name for himself."

Asked what he thought of the accusation -- made by Vice President Joe Biden and others -- that he is a "high-tech terrorist," Assange said his organization's actions didn't meet the definition of terrorism -- but those of Fox personalities and other TV pundits did.

"We see constant threats from people, the Republican Senate trying to make a name for themselves, people like Sarah Palin to shock jocks on Fox and, unfortunately, some members also of the Democratic Party, calling for my assassination, calling for the illegal kidnapping of my staff," Assange said.

"What sort of message does that send about the rule of law in the United States? That is conducing violence in order to achieve a political end. The elimination of this organization or the threat of violence to achieve a political end, the elimination of a publisher. And that is the definition of terrorism."

Of Huckabee's call to have Assange executed, and Palin's demand that he be hunted down like al Qaeda, Assange said: "If we are to have a civil society, you cannot have senior people making calls on national TV to go around the judiciary and illegally murder people. That is incitement to commit murder. That is an offense."

He added: "When people call for illegal, deliberate assassination and kidnapping of others, they should be held to account. They should be charged for incitement to commit murder."

MANNING A 'POLITICAL PRISONER'

Assange went on to address the question of Bradley Manning, the Army private held in solitary confinement for the past seven months over allegations he was the source for WikiLeaks' release of 260,000 State Department cables.

"If we are to believe the allegations, then this man acted for political reasons. He's a political prisoner in the United States. He has not gone to trial. ... Human rights organizations should be investigating the conditions under which he is held and, really, is there due process there?" Assange said.

The United Nations office that deals with torture issues on Wednesday said that it is investigating a complaint over Manning's detention.

Assange said he believes there was "a bit of shift" in public opinion in his favor when he was jailed last week on an Interpol warrant.

"Once I was put in prison, this really focused the minds of people intently into what was happening. So we have seen a turnaround," he said.

Assange is wanted for questioning in Sweden in relation to allegations of sexual impropriety with two women. He has not been formally charged in the investigation that has been ongoing since August.

The attempt to cast WikiLeaks as being a non-journalistic organization, Assange said, is a "quite deliberate attempt to split us off in the mind of the public from those good traditions of the United States -- protecting the rights of the press to publish," Assange said.

"Some of those journalists have fallen for that, and why? Because they are worried that they are going to be next," he continued. "But I have a message to them -- they are gonna be next. ... So us journalists and publishers and writers, we all have to stick together to resist this sort of reinterpretation of the First Amendment."

See video here : http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/assange-charges-shock-jock-fox-hosts/

Love Always
mudra

Assange and Wikileaks are Hegelian Dialectic in practise.

What large revelations have We had from Wikileaks ? Nothing big just small Truth I'd say and much of It was already speculated. The Truths being released - While uncomfortable for the Governments involved - Have been planned to be released all along.

This is Problem - Reaction - Solution and Its CLASSIC for Them...

The Problem - Lone Wolf Terrorists and Hackers (The Anonymous Group) are creating Chaos with the System or so We are being told.

- Hacks and DOS Attacks of Commecial Enterprises.

The Reaction - People are in some cases being inconvenienced or outright harmed by the Anonymous Group's efforts.

- Getting in front of lawful Protesters and causing Riots and destruction when It was never intended by the Organizers. Bomb Attacks at Banks and Embassies...

The Solution - Draconian Control and Suppression to restore Order...

- Net Neutrality plus many other Initiatives created to take away Our right to Free Speech in telling Truth to Power...

Seriously People - This is CLASSIC and We had better be prepared for the other Shoe to drop.

Simply put. Yesterday when I heard in the Morning about the Bombs in Rome at the Swiss and Chilean Embassies - I said to Hadriel (My Wife and Twin Flame) that They would be Linked to Anarchists - Then through that - To the Truther movement and then to Assange as a Catalyst for stirring It All up.

Twenty minutes later - My Hunch turned out to be correct as the Authorities began to say that the Bombings had links to Anarchists (Yeah right- Their Anarchists)...

"All Roads lead to Rome..."



Arrrggghhh - I go away for a bit and They ramp It up. Ei Yei Yei...

It's been ramped up so much since the end of November that we area being squeezed out of the tooth paste tube into the fire. Comfort zone gone. Terror zone - everywhere. I just heard TSA Big Sis made a pact/treaty with Mexico to let 84 million Mexicans into the US with the swipe of a card. This is fricken insane. Illegals pouring into the country while citizens are being sexually molested just to travel in their own country. What the frick is that? Unless to prepare US citizens for the biometric card or chip???? No? Yes? Why not just give them travel bracelets (based on pre-screening). Something like the hotels do for guests swimming in their pools. The hotels do a better job then TSA any day of the week.

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/12/23/gordon-duff-julian-assange-wikileaks-a-fraud-run-by-press-for-israel/

Today, Julian Assange admitted that Wikileak material had been chosen by the press, not an independent organization after all. Wikileaks, in effect, admitted that it has always been a front for what Helen Thomas refers to as the Zionist controlled media. Assange, in a childish attempt at “spin” blamed the press for having too many “sensitivities ” to Israel and making Wikileaks look bad.

By “media sensitivities” we are simply saying that Israel controls Wikileaks and uses it to bash their enemies, the United States and their neighbors, some we now learn have been their friends all along.

Bam - I knew It or I should say Creator did and showed Me as much...

Here is the Link to the Jerusalem Post Article upon which Mr. Duff draws His conclusions about Assange and Wikileaks...

http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=200775

Architect John Young: WikiLeaks Fog of Infowar and its Ties to The Elite - Alex Jones Tv 1/3

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lTBJAkNyBk&feature=related


A link to the cypherpunk page John Young is mentioning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cypherpunk

Love Always
mudra

GLENN GREENWALD vs FRAN TOWNSEND WIKILEAKS DEBATE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XInz4i6AV8M&feature=player_embedded#!


Love Always
mudra

The actions of the governments of Sweden , UK, The USA in regards to the Assange caper illustrate how fragile the Freedom to publish is . We live in a make believe democratic western world , where this word "democracy " has no meaning at all . People can be bankrupted by bogus charges and litigation in Courts of law . Assange , even though I believe he is an operation , has the right to publish documents even though some of them can endanger the life of government criminals doing undercover operation where they should not . After all we are bombarded every day by the controlled media with leaked bogus secrets and other garbage artfully disclosed to derail , sidetrack and change the viewers opinions . If the controlled media can do that , I don't see why Assange can't do the same !
Merc is right with his reminder of : Problem , Reaction , Solution .
The Assange problem might be artfully created in order to control the Internet . ( The solution )