It is very likely now that a new word is entering our already extensive volcabulary.
Wikileaked, to mean essentially to have ones private and confidential (and perhaps secret) information exposed to the world.
Example, "The government of Dinatopia has been wikileaked! What they really think of foreign diplomats has been exposed."
This is not the first time a word has been created or changed to impart a new meaning. There are literaly thousands of examples.
For example, the Milk Board in Britain some years ago embarked on a campaign to introduce a new word into society as part of their promotion to drink more milk. The word "pinta' (pronounced 'pint a' or 'pynta') was introduced and this word, meaning a pint (roughly equiv to half a liter) of milk can now be found in the dictionary.
Ref: "VERBATIM: The Language Quarterly Vol VII No 3
The word gay used to mean happy or joyful. Now the word has been changed to mean Homosexual and is virtually never used to mean happy or joyous anymore. This gives new meaning to those songs of yesteryear with the word 'gay' in the lyrics.
There are many words that have been either, changed, invented or hijacked in order to portray something else or given measning to something that, did not have a word to describe it before.
Hence Wikileaked. I guess we can expect to see, wikileaking, wikileaker, wikileakish and even wikileaklike to enter the volcabulary soon and not just in relation to Wikileaks, but in the activitiy of others 'doing the same thing', as it were.
I can just imagine, a civil servant (a contradiction in terms some might say)sitting there ruminating about the latest cut in resources and extra work piled on his desk and thinking to himself, "I feel wikileakish today. What shall I leak?"
Julian Assange
Friday, December 31, 2010
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Double Standards in full play
Wikileaks has published material leaked to it on:
Extrajudicial killings in Kenya,
Toxic waste dumping in Africa,
Church of Scientology manuals,
Guantanamo Bay procedures,
Banks such as Kaupthing and Julius Baer.
During all of these the US government remained silent. Possibly even enjoying the exposure others had and regarding it as somewhat of a joke,.
The joke turned serious however, when leaks about the US governments activities in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were laid open. The video, Collateral Murder, cause the US government to sit up and take notice. Then, on 28 November 2010 when WikiLeaks and its five media partners began publishing secret US diplomatic cables, the White House and various US figures began calling for Assange's head on a pike.
It became a frantic case of, "don't expose how many people we have killed as that is a terrorist act." The US government is not known for picking the right target and, again, they have wonderfully missed ther right target and picked a target that is more a scapegoat to applease embarrasement and everyone knows it.
Charging Assange with terrorism will not change anything. There will still be leaks, not because of wikileaks, but because many people in governement are honest folk who get mighty sick of the two faced double standards employed by the US State Dept. The Media will still be accepting leaks as a source of material as they are interested in controversy and exposure. There is nothing so 'meaty' as a government exposed with their trousers down. Assanges only crime is that he participated in yanking the Us governments trousers down.
Others will do the same, and the more it is done the more others will come forth with material worth publishing. It was once said that there are 200 governments in the world and 300 of them are corrupt.
So the lesson for governments now is, not to deceive the public and use terrorism as an excuse to restrict freedom of the individual, but to be more open and honest.
What was it President Obama promised, more transparency? Well now is the time to deliver!
Extrajudicial killings in Kenya,
Toxic waste dumping in Africa,
Church of Scientology manuals,
Guantanamo Bay procedures,
Banks such as Kaupthing and Julius Baer.
During all of these the US government remained silent. Possibly even enjoying the exposure others had and regarding it as somewhat of a joke,.
The joke turned serious however, when leaks about the US governments activities in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were laid open. The video, Collateral Murder, cause the US government to sit up and take notice. Then, on 28 November 2010 when WikiLeaks and its five media partners began publishing secret US diplomatic cables, the White House and various US figures began calling for Assange's head on a pike.
It became a frantic case of, "don't expose how many people we have killed as that is a terrorist act." The US government is not known for picking the right target and, again, they have wonderfully missed ther right target and picked a target that is more a scapegoat to applease embarrasement and everyone knows it.
Charging Assange with terrorism will not change anything. There will still be leaks, not because of wikileaks, but because many people in governement are honest folk who get mighty sick of the two faced double standards employed by the US State Dept. The Media will still be accepting leaks as a source of material as they are interested in controversy and exposure. There is nothing so 'meaty' as a government exposed with their trousers down. Assanges only crime is that he participated in yanking the Us governments trousers down.
Others will do the same, and the more it is done the more others will come forth with material worth publishing. It was once said that there are 200 governments in the world and 300 of them are corrupt.
So the lesson for governments now is, not to deceive the public and use terrorism as an excuse to restrict freedom of the individual, but to be more open and honest.
What was it President Obama promised, more transparency? Well now is the time to deliver!
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
One Million Dollar Book Deal for Assange
Many authors dream of a million dollar book deal. Julian Assange has achieved just that.
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has reached a deal with a U.S. publisher to write a book about his life and his organization.
The New York publisher Alfred A. Knopf confirmed that they reached a deal with 39-year-old Assange, who is expected to deliver a manuscript in 2011.
Assange earlier told Britain's "Sunday Times" newspaper that he was agreeing to book deals worth some $1.3 million as a way to pay for the the costs of defending himself in legal cases as well as to keep WikiLeaks operating.
The publisher, Alfred A Knopf, New York publishing house, was founded by Alfred A. Knopf, Sr. in 1915. It was acquired by Random House in 1960 and is now part of the Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group at Random House.
Over 17 Nobel Prize and 47 Pulitzer Prize winning authors have been published by Knopf, and it is likely Assange's story could join these august ranks.
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has reached a deal with a U.S. publisher to write a book about his life and his organization.
The New York publisher Alfred A. Knopf confirmed that they reached a deal with 39-year-old Assange, who is expected to deliver a manuscript in 2011.
Assange earlier told Britain's "Sunday Times" newspaper that he was agreeing to book deals worth some $1.3 million as a way to pay for the the costs of defending himself in legal cases as well as to keep WikiLeaks operating.
The publisher, Alfred A Knopf, New York publishing house, was founded by Alfred A. Knopf, Sr. in 1915. It was acquired by Random House in 1960 and is now part of the Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group at Random House.
Over 17 Nobel Prize and 47 Pulitzer Prize winning authors have been published by Knopf, and it is likely Assange's story could join these august ranks.
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Hidden campaign to disparage Assange?
There appears to be a hidden campaign to disparage Assange through a miltitude of blogs that have been either just set up or existing being used.
Mostly they emphasis past comments by Assange and attempt to portray him as a either a Zionist pretender or a sex maniac or something equaly derogatory.
Example, mysteryworshipers.wordpress.com for one is 'quoting' Assange but does not give any time, place, event or any information other than heresay.
Now, I wonder who might have a vested interest in doing that?
Mostly they emphasis past comments by Assange and attempt to portray him as a either a Zionist pretender or a sex maniac or something equaly derogatory.
Example, mysteryworshipers.wordpress.com for one is 'quoting' Assange but does not give any time, place, event or any information other than heresay.
Now, I wonder who might have a vested interest in doing that?
Todays wikileaks events
Norway's largest newspaper, Aftenposten, now claims to have access to ALL the Wikileaks Diplomatic cables. Up to now not one news organisation or outlet has been able to lay claim to having all the cables, only dribs and drabs.
Aftenposten editor Ole Erik Almlid declined to say who had leaked the leaks but one could guess that it might have something to do with the cables being stored on a database in Norway?
If this is so it is going to complicate matters considerably. Wikileaks would no longer be in control of cables issued and how are Aftenposten going issue the cables they claim to have? There is apparently no agreement between Wikileaks and Aftenposten. so it is now becoming open slatter.
Aftenposten stated, "We have worked long to get the documents, but it would be wrong of me to tell who is the source. We have not paid for the material, which we have gained access to (with) no conditions. It is we who decide what to publish and how we should handle it."
So, in essence, all bets are off. If control is now out of the hands of Wikileaks they can hardly be blamed for future issuances.
And, as reported on ReadWriteWeb:
1. How many more leaks (of these leaks and others) will happen?
2. How will they effect what Wikileaks does in the future?
3. How will it complicate the relationships, both partnerships and antagonisms, that have flowered around these leaks?
Seems the world could be in for a bumpy ride with no one at the controls!
Aftenposten editor Ole Erik Almlid declined to say who had leaked the leaks but one could guess that it might have something to do with the cables being stored on a database in Norway?
If this is so it is going to complicate matters considerably. Wikileaks would no longer be in control of cables issued and how are Aftenposten going issue the cables they claim to have? There is apparently no agreement between Wikileaks and Aftenposten. so it is now becoming open slatter.
Aftenposten stated, "We have worked long to get the documents, but it would be wrong of me to tell who is the source. We have not paid for the material, which we have gained access to (with) no conditions. It is we who decide what to publish and how we should handle it."
So, in essence, all bets are off. If control is now out of the hands of Wikileaks they can hardly be blamed for future issuances.
And, as reported on ReadWriteWeb:
1. How many more leaks (of these leaks and others) will happen?
2. How will they effect what Wikileaks does in the future?
3. How will it complicate the relationships, both partnerships and antagonisms, that have flowered around these leaks?
Seems the world could be in for a bumpy ride with no one at the controls!
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
According to a survey re wikileaks, most Australians agree
ZDNet Australia readers do not support retaliatory hacking or distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks on companies which have cut off Wikileaks, according to a global ZDNet survey.
The surveys show some interesting results. For example 83 percent of Australians agree with the publication of documents by wikileaks and 83 percent conssider the information published is useful.
Surveys on wikileaks
Meanwhile, back at the ranch a cloud of suspense surrounds Bank of America over the propsed leaking of documents about their executive activities. According to the Chalotte Observer, "Analysts say it's possible WikiLeaks could stir up new trouble for the nation's biggest bank, perhaps exposing more problems in the mortgage arena or reviving questions about its Merrill Lynch acquisition. It's also possible the revelations cause little harm or that WikiLeaks bypasses the bank altogether."
Bert Ely, a Virginia-based banking consultant, said he suspects all major financial institutions are girding for the group's next move.
"We don't know it's Bank of America," he said. "It could be one of a number of banks."
Read more at "Analysts say it's possible WikiLeaks could stir up new trouble for the nation's biggest bank, perhaps exposing more problems in the mortgage arena or reviving questions about its Merrill Lynch acquisition. It's also possible the revelations cause little harm or that WikiLeaks bypasses the bank altogether. Bert Ely, a Virginia-based banking consultant, said he suspects all major financial institutions are girding for the group's next move. "We don't know it's Bank of America," he said. "It could be one of a number of banks."
Read more at Charlotte Observer.
The Chinese got it right. We DO live in interesting times.
The surveys show some interesting results. For example 83 percent of Australians agree with the publication of documents by wikileaks and 83 percent conssider the information published is useful.
Surveys on wikileaks
Meanwhile, back at the ranch a cloud of suspense surrounds Bank of America over the propsed leaking of documents about their executive activities. According to the Chalotte Observer, "Analysts say it's possible WikiLeaks could stir up new trouble for the nation's biggest bank, perhaps exposing more problems in the mortgage arena or reviving questions about its Merrill Lynch acquisition. It's also possible the revelations cause little harm or that WikiLeaks bypasses the bank altogether."
Bert Ely, a Virginia-based banking consultant, said he suspects all major financial institutions are girding for the group's next move.
"We don't know it's Bank of America," he said. "It could be one of a number of banks."
Read more at "Analysts say it's possible WikiLeaks could stir up new trouble for the nation's biggest bank, perhaps exposing more problems in the mortgage arena or reviving questions about its Merrill Lynch acquisition. It's also possible the revelations cause little harm or that WikiLeaks bypasses the bank altogether. Bert Ely, a Virginia-based banking consultant, said he suspects all major financial institutions are girding for the group's next move. "We don't know it's Bank of America," he said. "It could be one of a number of banks."
Read more at Charlotte Observer.
The Chinese got it right. We DO live in interesting times.
Monday, December 20, 2010
Wikileaks Mirrors now almost 1500
Wikileaks continues to be mirrored around the globe with more and more people putting their server where their belief about freedom is and work to ensure that Wikileaks is not shut down or suppressed.
Here is a list of the current mirrors: http://wikileaks.axdf.net/Mirrors.html
In addition here are some other interesting ways of looking at the Wikileaks Mirrors spanning the globe:
A facinating pictorial Watch as the lights representing each mirror flick on. Very appropriate for this time fo the year. A sort of Christmas Tree of Freedom you might say.
Wikileaks Mirros spanning the Globe through the eyes of Googlemaps
Here is a list of the current mirrors: http://wikileaks.axdf.net/Mirrors.html
In addition here are some other interesting ways of looking at the Wikileaks Mirrors spanning the globe:
A facinating pictorial Watch as the lights representing each mirror flick on. Very appropriate for this time fo the year. A sort of Christmas Tree of Freedom you might say.
Wikileaks Mirros spanning the Globe through the eyes of Googlemaps
4 Reasons to Close Your Bank of America Account
There is substantial speculation that Bank of America will be WikiLeaks next target. At the Hack in the Box Conference in 2009, Julian Assange claimed to be in possession of a top executive’s hard drive.
But there is little reason to wait for the contents to be leaked. Bank of America's history of fraud and ethical misconduct are already well documented in the news.
Here are four reasons why leaving Bank of America should be your New Year's resolution.
1. WikiLeaks:
On Friday, Bank of America joined PayPal, Visa, and Mastercard in blocking donations to WikiLeaks, reports David Murphy of PC Mag. This should come as no surprise.
In a November 11th interview with Forbes journalist Andy Greenberg Assange announced his plans for a "megaleak" early in 2011 that will target a "major American bank."
He stated, "It will give a true and representative insight into how banks behave at the executive level in a way that will stimulate investigations and reforms, I presume," adding, "For this, there's only one similar example. It's like the Enron emails."
A self-proclaimed fan of American Libertarianism, Assange commented that WikiLeaks can potentially impact executive behavior in the private sector. "WikiLeaks means it's easier to run a good business and harder to run a bad business, and all CEOs should be encouraged by this," he stated.
This may be true, but it provides a terrifying scenario for companies guilty of illegal or unethical business practices.
A spokesperson from Bank of America stated, "The decision [to block WikiLeaks' transactions] is based upon our reasonable belief that WikiLeaks may be engaged in activities that are, among other things, inconsistent with our internal policies for processing payments."
2. Blackwater:
Apparently financing the sale of the mercenary army, Blackwater (now Xe) is consistent with "internal policies for processing payments."
Blackwater's founder Erik Prince is selling the company to a group of Los Angeles financiers, reported the "New York Times," and sources say that Bank of America will be bankrolling the deal.
Blackwater’s crimes include the murder of 17 Iraqi civilians in Nisour Square, Baghdad in 2007, allegations of falsifying paperwork to give a firearms gift to the king of Jordan, purportedly paying a businessman in Iraq to buy black-market steroids for Blackwater operatives, and trying to bill the U.S. government for prostitutes for hard-partying operatives in Afghanistan, as well as strippers in New Orleans in Katrina’s aftermath.
Jeremy Scahill’s blog for “The Nation,” documents all of this and much more, including testimony of Blackwater operatives spraying buildings that housed Iraqi civilians with AK-47s from the windows of drug-fueled parties.
The company, which generates 90% of its revenues from the U.S. government, has over ten years of documented illegal activity hanging over its head and is bearing numerous civil lawsuits.
Bank of America’s involvement in the $200 million sale of Blackwater is shameful, although not surprising, and should provide a reason to move your funds to another bank.
3. Fraud:
On December 7th, Ronald D. Orlo of MarketWatch reported that Bank of America admitted to fraud in the municipal bond derivatives market and will pay $137.3 million in damages. This story was covered in business sections, but made surprisingly few headlines.
"The conduct was egregious — in return for business, the company repeatedly paid undisclosed gratuitous payments and kickbacks and affirmatively misrepresented that the bidding process was proper," said SEC director of enforcement Robert Khuzami.
"According to the agency, in some cases these bidding agents gave Bank of America Securities information on competing bids, helping the financial institution win the transactions. The agency charged that Bank of America rewarded these bidding agents with payments and kickbacks.
The SEC reports that the bidding process generally was not competitive because it was 'tainted by undisclosed consultations, agreements or payments.'"
The Department of Justice stated that Bank of America "self-reported" the fraud, an act which usually results in a more lenient settlement.
4. Arizona/Nevada Lawsuit:
Arizona and Nevada are suing Bank of America on charges of misleading customers in loan-modification, reports the "Los Angeles Times."
On Friday, Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard filed a lawsuit against Bank of America for "failing to implement anti-foreclosure measurements it promised in 2009."
"Bank of America has been the slowest of all the servicers to ramp up loss mitigation efforts in response to the housing crisis," he said. "It has shown callous disregard for the devastating effects its servicing practices have had on individual borrowers and on the economy as a whole."
Within hours of Goddard's complaint, Nevada’s Attorney General, Catherine Cortez Masto filed a similar complaint, stating the bank lied to customers.
"We are holding Bank of America accountable for misleading and deceiving consumers,' said Masto. "Nevadans who were trying desperately to save their homes were unable to get truthful information in order to make critical life decisions."
"Goddard said Bank of America failed to provide justifications for denials of modifications, misled borrowers into thinking they had to miss payments to obtain modifications, and initiated foreclosure proceedings while trial loan modifications were in place — all in violation of its settlement with the state last year."
There is often little that individual citizens can do to protest bad behavior of giant corporations. But seeing as how Bank of America received $45 billion in taxpayer-supported government bailout funds over the past two years, their recent conduct involving WikiLeaks transactions, financing the sale of Blackwater, fraud in the municipal bond market, and abuse of loan-holders in Nevada and Arizona is enough reason to exercise your dollar votes by choosing a different bank.
Source: Death & Taxes
But there is little reason to wait for the contents to be leaked. Bank of America's history of fraud and ethical misconduct are already well documented in the news.
Here are four reasons why leaving Bank of America should be your New Year's resolution.
1. WikiLeaks:
On Friday, Bank of America joined PayPal, Visa, and Mastercard in blocking donations to WikiLeaks, reports David Murphy of PC Mag. This should come as no surprise.
In a November 11th interview with Forbes journalist Andy Greenberg Assange announced his plans for a "megaleak" early in 2011 that will target a "major American bank."
He stated, "It will give a true and representative insight into how banks behave at the executive level in a way that will stimulate investigations and reforms, I presume," adding, "For this, there's only one similar example. It's like the Enron emails."
A self-proclaimed fan of American Libertarianism, Assange commented that WikiLeaks can potentially impact executive behavior in the private sector. "WikiLeaks means it's easier to run a good business and harder to run a bad business, and all CEOs should be encouraged by this," he stated.
This may be true, but it provides a terrifying scenario for companies guilty of illegal or unethical business practices.
A spokesperson from Bank of America stated, "The decision [to block WikiLeaks' transactions] is based upon our reasonable belief that WikiLeaks may be engaged in activities that are, among other things, inconsistent with our internal policies for processing payments."
2. Blackwater:
Apparently financing the sale of the mercenary army, Blackwater (now Xe) is consistent with "internal policies for processing payments."
Blackwater's founder Erik Prince is selling the company to a group of Los Angeles financiers, reported the "New York Times," and sources say that Bank of America will be bankrolling the deal.
Blackwater’s crimes include the murder of 17 Iraqi civilians in Nisour Square, Baghdad in 2007, allegations of falsifying paperwork to give a firearms gift to the king of Jordan, purportedly paying a businessman in Iraq to buy black-market steroids for Blackwater operatives, and trying to bill the U.S. government for prostitutes for hard-partying operatives in Afghanistan, as well as strippers in New Orleans in Katrina’s aftermath.
Jeremy Scahill’s blog for “The Nation,” documents all of this and much more, including testimony of Blackwater operatives spraying buildings that housed Iraqi civilians with AK-47s from the windows of drug-fueled parties.
The company, which generates 90% of its revenues from the U.S. government, has over ten years of documented illegal activity hanging over its head and is bearing numerous civil lawsuits.
Bank of America’s involvement in the $200 million sale of Blackwater is shameful, although not surprising, and should provide a reason to move your funds to another bank.
3. Fraud:
On December 7th, Ronald D. Orlo of MarketWatch reported that Bank of America admitted to fraud in the municipal bond derivatives market and will pay $137.3 million in damages. This story was covered in business sections, but made surprisingly few headlines.
"The conduct was egregious — in return for business, the company repeatedly paid undisclosed gratuitous payments and kickbacks and affirmatively misrepresented that the bidding process was proper," said SEC director of enforcement Robert Khuzami.
"According to the agency, in some cases these bidding agents gave Bank of America Securities information on competing bids, helping the financial institution win the transactions. The agency charged that Bank of America rewarded these bidding agents with payments and kickbacks.
The SEC reports that the bidding process generally was not competitive because it was 'tainted by undisclosed consultations, agreements or payments.'"
The Department of Justice stated that Bank of America "self-reported" the fraud, an act which usually results in a more lenient settlement.
4. Arizona/Nevada Lawsuit:
Arizona and Nevada are suing Bank of America on charges of misleading customers in loan-modification, reports the "Los Angeles Times."
On Friday, Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard filed a lawsuit against Bank of America for "failing to implement anti-foreclosure measurements it promised in 2009."
"Bank of America has been the slowest of all the servicers to ramp up loss mitigation efforts in response to the housing crisis," he said. "It has shown callous disregard for the devastating effects its servicing practices have had on individual borrowers and on the economy as a whole."
Within hours of Goddard's complaint, Nevada’s Attorney General, Catherine Cortez Masto filed a similar complaint, stating the bank lied to customers.
"We are holding Bank of America accountable for misleading and deceiving consumers,' said Masto. "Nevadans who were trying desperately to save their homes were unable to get truthful information in order to make critical life decisions."
"Goddard said Bank of America failed to provide justifications for denials of modifications, misled borrowers into thinking they had to miss payments to obtain modifications, and initiated foreclosure proceedings while trial loan modifications were in place — all in violation of its settlement with the state last year."
There is often little that individual citizens can do to protest bad behavior of giant corporations. But seeing as how Bank of America received $45 billion in taxpayer-supported government bailout funds over the past two years, their recent conduct involving WikiLeaks transactions, financing the sale of Blackwater, fraud in the municipal bond market, and abuse of loan-holders in Nevada and Arizona is enough reason to exercise your dollar votes by choosing a different bank.
Source: Death & Taxes
AFP: WikiLeaks, Julian Assange broke no Aussie laws
WikiLeaks and its head honcho Julian Assange broke no Australian laws when it leaked sensitive diplomatic cables, at least according to an evaluation by the Australian Federal Police.
10 days ago, after the fallout from the diplomatic cables revealed to the world by WikiLeaks had begun, the Attorney-General Robert McClelland stated that it was his belief, and the position of the Federal Government, that the leaking of these potentially damaging diplomatic cables was illegal. Furthermore, Prime Minister Julia Gillard believed that the "foundation stone of it is an illegal act," even though she couldn’t fathom which laws the leaking had specifically broken.
This led to the AFP launching an investigation, evaluating the material that had been released to determine whether any laws had indeed been broken. It also saw several Australian communities reacting badly to this assumption that WikiLeaks and Assange were guilty of breaking the law, without any trial having taken place. But that’s another story altogether.
According to The Australian, the Australian Federal Police have ended their investigation, determining that no Australian laws were broken. This only refers to the 1,618 of the 251,287 U.S. diplomatic cables that were actually published. The AFP has stated that it will have to evaluate any more that are published as and when that happens:
Dec 20th, 2010 | By Dave Parrack | Category: Internet, Lead article, Technology news
10 days ago, after the fallout from the diplomatic cables revealed to the world by WikiLeaks had begun, the Attorney-General Robert McClelland stated that it was his belief, and the position of the Federal Government, that the leaking of these potentially damaging diplomatic cables was illegal. Furthermore, Prime Minister Julia Gillard believed that the "foundation stone of it is an illegal act," even though she couldn’t fathom which laws the leaking had specifically broken.
This led to the AFP launching an investigation, evaluating the material that had been released to determine whether any laws had indeed been broken. It also saw several Australian communities reacting badly to this assumption that WikiLeaks and Assange were guilty of breaking the law, without any trial having taken place. But that’s another story altogether.
According to The Australian, the Australian Federal Police have ended their investigation, determining that no Australian laws were broken. This only refers to the 1,618 of the 251,287 U.S. diplomatic cables that were actually published. The AFP has stated that it will have to evaluate any more that are published as and when that happens:
"The AFP has completed its evaluation of the material available and has not established the existence of any criminal offenses where Australia would have jurisdiction."Gillard has immediately backed away from the comments she previously made, but insists that the theft of the material from the U.S. military was "a criminal act." What’s more, she still considers the publication of this material on the Web is a "grossly irresponsible thing to do." In other words, she’s against Wikileaks and is no fan of Assange, but has had to concede that there’s little that can be done through official legal channels.
Dec 20th, 2010 | By Dave Parrack | Category: Internet, Lead article, Technology news
Sunday, December 19, 2010
Letter to the Washington Post, Dec 16th 2010
"The US now has two successive administrations (those of Bush and Obama) acting badly by behaving vindictively towards those people who meet with its disapproval.
Under Bush, the US rounded up anyone who was handed over to the US in Afghanistan with the accusation that they were terrorists. The war lords received $10,000 for each person that they delivered to the CIA and/or military.
Subsequently, the detainees were locked up, held without charge, their families were not notified and the military was unconcerned with whether or not the detainees had injured or not injured the US in any way. Although hundreds were subsequently released years later because they had not harmed the US and did not constitute a threat to the US the US did not offer them compensation or an apology.
Similarly, the US resents the release of the wikileaks documents (all of which are low level) because they expose deceit and cruelty on the part of the US government along with puerile and questionable statements about foreign politicians. The result is to characterise Assange and Wikileaks as dangerous and evil.
Evidence has not been offered by the Obama Administration to support its claims of dangerous wrongdoing. We are asked to accept the government's proclamations without challenge. Many Americans have done so and the most irrational behave like a vigilante mob because they want Assange lynched without a trial being held.
The behaviour of the US indicts the US as a vindictive and punitive nation whose decisions are determined by their violent emotions and not by their fundamental principles.
It doesn't matter how the US dresses up its case against Assange because the fact is it has one rule for American citizens and another for Assange. It ignores the Pentagon Papers precedent and the notions of free speech, freedom of the press and the right of the public to know what has gone on.
Although the US lectures the world on human rights it ignores its own lectures and seeks unimpeded freedom to abuse individuals. For instance, it kidnapped el-Masri, a German tourist in Macedonia, took him to Afghanistan, tortured him and sodomised him until it accepted that it had detained the wrong person as a consequence of a mix-up. This fellow was left by the side of the road in Armenia.
Obama has described Assange's actions as deplorable and that justifies 'getting him'. Apparently, however, the US does not want its own people put on trial when, as agents of the US government, they engage in deplorable behaviour.
Double Standards are abhorrent but the US doesn't care. It lurches from one abuse to another and its rate of acting badly is accelerating and increasing. Shame on the US and goodwill and thanks to Assange and his colleagues at Wikileaks."
Posted by: robertjames1 | December 16, 2010 8:08 PM
More at: Washington Post
Under Bush, the US rounded up anyone who was handed over to the US in Afghanistan with the accusation that they were terrorists. The war lords received $10,000 for each person that they delivered to the CIA and/or military.
Subsequently, the detainees were locked up, held without charge, their families were not notified and the military was unconcerned with whether or not the detainees had injured or not injured the US in any way. Although hundreds were subsequently released years later because they had not harmed the US and did not constitute a threat to the US the US did not offer them compensation or an apology.
Similarly, the US resents the release of the wikileaks documents (all of which are low level) because they expose deceit and cruelty on the part of the US government along with puerile and questionable statements about foreign politicians. The result is to characterise Assange and Wikileaks as dangerous and evil.
Evidence has not been offered by the Obama Administration to support its claims of dangerous wrongdoing. We are asked to accept the government's proclamations without challenge. Many Americans have done so and the most irrational behave like a vigilante mob because they want Assange lynched without a trial being held.
The behaviour of the US indicts the US as a vindictive and punitive nation whose decisions are determined by their violent emotions and not by their fundamental principles.
It doesn't matter how the US dresses up its case against Assange because the fact is it has one rule for American citizens and another for Assange. It ignores the Pentagon Papers precedent and the notions of free speech, freedom of the press and the right of the public to know what has gone on.
Although the US lectures the world on human rights it ignores its own lectures and seeks unimpeded freedom to abuse individuals. For instance, it kidnapped el-Masri, a German tourist in Macedonia, took him to Afghanistan, tortured him and sodomised him until it accepted that it had detained the wrong person as a consequence of a mix-up. This fellow was left by the side of the road in Armenia.
Obama has described Assange's actions as deplorable and that justifies 'getting him'. Apparently, however, the US does not want its own people put on trial when, as agents of the US government, they engage in deplorable behaviour.
Double Standards are abhorrent but the US doesn't care. It lurches from one abuse to another and its rate of acting badly is accelerating and increasing. Shame on the US and goodwill and thanks to Assange and his colleagues at Wikileaks."
Posted by: robertjames1 | December 16, 2010 8:08 PM
More at: Washington Post
Julian Assange bail decision made by UK authorities, not Sweden
Julian Assange bail decision made by UK authorities, not Sweden
Some other Wikileak sites are starting up. here are six so far:
Balkan Leaks Concerned with transparency in the Balkans
Brussels Leaks the European Capital
Indonesian Leaks In Bahasa Indonesian of course
Open Leaks Direct spin off from disaffected wikileaks supporters
Russian Leaks started by Alexei Navalny. It is in Russian of course
Tunisia Leaks Primarily concerned with Tunisia and Tunisian leaks.
---------
Swedish prosecutor's office says it has 'not got a view at all on bail' and that Britain made decision to oppose it The decision to have Julian Assange sent to a London jail and kept there was taken by the British authorities and not by prosecutors in Sweden, as previously thought, the Guardian has learned.
The Crown Prosecution Service will go to the high court tomorrow to seek the reversal of a decision to free the WikiLeaks founder on bail, made yesterday by a judge at City of Westminster magistrates court.
It had been widely thought Sweden had made the decision to oppose bail, with the CPS acting merely as its representative. But today the Swedish prosecutor's office told the Guardian it had "not got a view at all on bail" and that Britain had made the decision to oppose bail.
Lawyers for Assange reacted to the news with shock and said CPS officials had told them this week it was Sweden which had asked them to ensure he was kept in prison.
Karin Rosander, director of communications for Sweden's prosecutor's office, told the Guardian: "The decision was made by the British prosecutor. I got it confirmed by the CPS this morning that the decision to appeal the granting of bail was entirely a matter for the CPS. The Swedish prosecutors are not entitled to make decisions within Britain. It is entirely up to the British authorities to handle it."
As a result, she said, Sweden will not be submitting any new evidence or arguments to the high court hearing tomorrow morning. "The Swedish authorities are not involved in these proceedings. We have not got a view at all on bail."
After the Swedish statement was put to the CPS, it confirmed that all decisions concerning the opposing of bail being granted to Assange had been taken by its lawyers. It said: "In all extradition cases, decisions on bail issues are always taken by the domestic prosecuting authority. It would not be practical for prosecutors in a foreign jurisdiction ... to make such decisions."
Last week Sweden issued a warrant for Assange's arrest and extradition over sexual assault allegations. On 7 December the British prosecutor, Gemma Lindfield, convinced the senior district court judge Howard Riddle that Assange must be kept in custody because he was a flight risk.
Yesterday the judge accepted that Assange could be released on bail, but he was kept in Wandsworth prison after the CPS said it wanted to appeal against the decision to grant bail to a higher court.
The CPS's formal grounds of appeal for the hearing tomorrow morning, seen by the Guardian, will say that Assange must be kept in prison until a decision is made whether to extradite him, which could take months.
Source: Guardian.com.uk
Some other Wikileak sites are starting up. here are six so far:
Balkan Leaks Concerned with transparency in the Balkans
Brussels Leaks the European Capital
Indonesian Leaks In Bahasa Indonesian of course
Open Leaks Direct spin off from disaffected wikileaks supporters
Russian Leaks started by Alexei Navalny. It is in Russian of course
Tunisia Leaks Primarily concerned with Tunisia and Tunisian leaks.
---------
Swedish prosecutor's office says it has 'not got a view at all on bail' and that Britain made decision to oppose it The decision to have Julian Assange sent to a London jail and kept there was taken by the British authorities and not by prosecutors in Sweden, as previously thought, the Guardian has learned.
The Crown Prosecution Service will go to the high court tomorrow to seek the reversal of a decision to free the WikiLeaks founder on bail, made yesterday by a judge at City of Westminster magistrates court.
It had been widely thought Sweden had made the decision to oppose bail, with the CPS acting merely as its representative. But today the Swedish prosecutor's office told the Guardian it had "not got a view at all on bail" and that Britain had made the decision to oppose bail.
Lawyers for Assange reacted to the news with shock and said CPS officials had told them this week it was Sweden which had asked them to ensure he was kept in prison.
Karin Rosander, director of communications for Sweden's prosecutor's office, told the Guardian: "The decision was made by the British prosecutor. I got it confirmed by the CPS this morning that the decision to appeal the granting of bail was entirely a matter for the CPS. The Swedish prosecutors are not entitled to make decisions within Britain. It is entirely up to the British authorities to handle it."
As a result, she said, Sweden will not be submitting any new evidence or arguments to the high court hearing tomorrow morning. "The Swedish authorities are not involved in these proceedings. We have not got a view at all on bail."
After the Swedish statement was put to the CPS, it confirmed that all decisions concerning the opposing of bail being granted to Assange had been taken by its lawyers. It said: "In all extradition cases, decisions on bail issues are always taken by the domestic prosecuting authority. It would not be practical for prosecutors in a foreign jurisdiction ... to make such decisions."
Last week Sweden issued a warrant for Assange's arrest and extradition over sexual assault allegations. On 7 December the British prosecutor, Gemma Lindfield, convinced the senior district court judge Howard Riddle that Assange must be kept in custody because he was a flight risk.
Yesterday the judge accepted that Assange could be released on bail, but he was kept in Wandsworth prison after the CPS said it wanted to appeal against the decision to grant bail to a higher court.
The CPS's formal grounds of appeal for the hearing tomorrow morning, seen by the Guardian, will say that Assange must be kept in prison until a decision is made whether to extradite him, which could take months.
Source: Guardian.com.uk
Another Letter to the Prime Minister of Australia, Julia Gillard
Mr Assange has become a cause celebre, as evidenced by the signatories to this open letter, a who's who of sorts, from Noam Chomsky to Helen Garner...
The authors write: We wrote the letter below because we believe that Julian Assange is entitled to all the protections enshrined in the rule of law - and that the Australian Government has an obligation to ensure he receives them.
The signatures here have been collected in the course of a day-and-a-half, primarily from people in publishing, law and politics. The signatories hold divergent views about WikiLeaks and its operations. But they are united in a determination to see Mr Assange treated fairly.
Dear Prime Minister,
We note with concern the increasingly violent rhetoric directed towards Julian Assange of WikiLeaks.
"We should treat Mr Assange the same way as other high-value terrorist targets: Kill him," writes conservative columnist Jeffrey T Kuhner in the Washington Times.
William Kristol, former chief of staff to vice president Dan Quayle, asks, "Why can't we use our various assets to harass, snatch or neutralize Julian Assange and his collaborators, wherever they are?"
"Why isn't Julian Assange dead?" writes the prominent US pundit Jonah Goldberg.
"The CIA should have already killed Julian Assange," says John Hawkins on the Right Wing News site.
Sarah Palin, a likely presidential candidate, compares Assange to an Al Qaeda leader; Rick Santorum, former Pennsylvania senator and potential presidential contender, accuses Assange of "terrorism".
And so on and so forth.
Such calls cannot be dismissed as bluster. Over the last decade, we have seen the normalisation of extrajudicial measures once unthinkable, from 'extraordinary rendition' (kidnapping) to 'enhanced interrogation' (torture).
In that context, we now have grave concerns for Mr Assange's wellbeing.
Irrespective of the political controversies surrounding WikiLeaks, Mr Assange remains entitled to conduct his affairs in safety, and to receive procedural fairness in any legal proceedings against him.
As is well known, Mr Assange is an Australian citizen.
We therefore call upon you to condemn, on behalf of the Australian Government, calls for physical harm to be inflicted upon Mr Assange, and to state publicly that you will ensure Mr Assange receives the rights and protections to which he is entitled, irrespective of whether the unlawful threats against him come from individuals or states.
We urge you to confirm publicly Australia's commitment to freedom of political communication; to refrain from cancelling Mr Assange's passport, in the absence of clear proof that such a step is warranted; to provide assistance and advocacy to Mr Assange; and do everything in your power to ensure that any legal proceedings taken against him comply fully with the principles of law and procedural fairness.
A statement by you to this effect should not be controversial - it is a simple commitment to democratic principles and the rule of law.
We believe this case represents something of a watershed, with implications that extend beyond Mr Assange and WikiLeaks. In many parts of the globe, death threats routinely silence those who would publish or disseminate controversial material. If these incitements to violence against Mr Assange, a recipient of Amnesty International's Media Award, are allowed to stand, a disturbing new precedent will have been established in the English-speaking world.
In this crucial time, a strong statement by you and your Government can make an important difference.
We look forward to your response.
Dr Jeff Sparrow, author and editor
Lizzie O'Shea, Social Justice Lawyer, Maurice Blackburn
Professor Noam Chomsky, writer and academic
Antony Loewenstein, journalist and author
Mungo MacCallum, journalist and writer
Professor Peter Singer, author and academic
Adam Bandt, MP
Senator Bob Brown
Senator Scott Ludlam
Julian Burnside QC, barrister
Jeff Lawrence, Secretary, Australian Council of Trade Unions
Professor Raimond Gaita, author and academic
Rob Stary, lawyer
Lieutenant Colonel (ret) Lance Collins, Australian Intelligence Corps, writer
The Hon Alastair Nicholson AO RFD QC
Brian Walters SC, barrister
Professor Larissa Behrendt, academic
Emeritus Professor Stuart Rees, academic, Sydney Peace Foundation
Mary Kostakidis, Chair, Sydney Peace Foundation
Professor Wendy Bacon, journalist
Christos Tsiolkas, author
James Bradley, author and journalist
Julian Morrow, comedian and television producer
Louise Swinn, publisher
Helen Garner, novelist
Professor Dennis Altman, writer and academic
Dr Leslie Cannold, author, ethicist, commentator
John Birmingham, writer
Guy Rundle, writer
Alex Miller, writer
Sophie Cunningham, editor and author
Castan Centre for Human Rights Law
Professor Judith Brett, author and academic
Stephen Keim SC, President of Australian Lawyers for Human Rights
Phil Lynch, Executive Director, Human Rights Law Resource Centre
Sylvia Hale, MLC
Sophie Black, editor
David Ritter, lawyer and historian
Dr Scott Burchill, writer and academic
Dr Mark Davis, author and academic
Henry Rosenbloom, publisher
Ben Naparstek, editor
Chris Feik, editor
Louise Swinn, publisher
Stephen Warne, barrister
Dr John Dwyer QC
Hilary McPhee, writer, publisher
Joan Dwyer OAM
Greg Barns, barrister
James Button, journalist
Owen Richardson, critic
Michelle Griffin, editor
John Timlin, literary Agent & producer
Ann Cunningham, lawyer and publisher
Alison Croggon, author, critic
Daniel Keene, playwright
Dr Nick Shimmin, editor/writer
Bill O'Shea, lawyer, former President, Law Institute of Victoria
Dianne Otto, Professor of Law, Melbourne Law School
Professor Frank Hutchinson,Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies (CPACS), University of Sydney
Anthony Georgeff, editor
Max Gillies, actor
Shane Maloney, writer
Louis Armand, author and publisher
Jenna Price, academic and journalist
Tanja Kovac, National Cooordinator EMILY's List Australia
Dr Russell Grigg, academic
Dr Justin Clemens, writer and academic
Susan Morairty, Lawyer
David Hirsch, Barrister
Cr Anne O'Shea
Kathryn Crosby, Candidates Online
Dr Robert Sparrow, academic
Jennifer Mills, author
Foong Ling Kong, editor
Tim Norton, Online Campaigns Co-ordinator, Oxfam Australia
Elisabeth Wynhausen, writer
Ben Slade, Lawyer
Nikki Anderson, publisher
Dan Cass
Professor Diane Bell, author and academic
Dr Philipa Rothfield, academic
Gary Cazalet, academic
Dr David Coady, academic
Dr Matthew Sharpe, writer and academic
Dr Tamas Pataki, writer and academic
Miska Mandic
Associate Professor Jake Lynch, academic
Professor Simon During, academic
Michael Brull, writer
Dr Geoff Boucher, academic
Jacinda Woodhead, writer and editor
Dr Rjurik Davidson, writer and editor
Mic Looby, writer
Jane Gleeson-White, writer and editor
Alex Skutenko, editor
Associate Professor John Collins, academic
Professor Philip Pettit, academic
Dr Christopher Scanlon, writer and academic
Dr Lawrie Zion, journalist
Johannes Jakob, editor
Sunili Govinnage, lawyer
Michael Bates, lawyer
Bridget Maidment, editor
Bryce Ives, theatre director
Sarah Darmody, writer
Jill Sparrow, writer
Lyn Bender, psychologist
Meredith Rose, editor
Dr Ellie Rennie, President, Engage Media
Ryan Paine, editor
Simon Cooper, editor
Chris Haan, lawyer
Carmela Baranowska, journalist.
Clinton Ellicott, publisher
Dr Charles Richardson, writer and academic
Phillip Frazer, publisher
Geoff Lemon, journalist
Jaya Savige, poet and editor
Johannes Jakob, editor
Kate Bree Geyer; journalist
Chay-Ya Clancy, performer
Lisa Greenaway, editor, writer
Chris Kennett - screenwriter, journalist
Kasey Edwards, author
Dr. Janine Little, academic
Dr Andrew Milner, writer and academic
Patricia Cornelius, writer
Elisa Berg, publisher
Lily Keil, editor
Jenny Sinclair
Roselina Rose
Stephen Luntz
PM Newton
Bryan Cooke
Kristen Obaid
Ryan Haldane-Underwood
Patrick Gardner
Robert Sinnerbrink
Kathryn Millist
Anne Coombs
Karen Pickering
Sarah Mizrahi
Suzanne Ingleton
Jessica Crouch
Michael Ingleton
Matt Griffin
Jane Allen
Tom Curtis
John Connell
David Garland
Stuart Hall
Meredith Tucker-Evans
Phil Perkins
Alexandra Adsett
Tom Doig, editor
Beth Jackson
Peter Mattessi
Robert Sinnerbrink
Greg Black
Paul Ashton
Sigi Jottkandt
Kym Connell, lawyer
Silma Ihram
Nicole Papaleo, lawyer
Melissa Forbes
Matthew Ryan
Ben Gook
Daniel East
Bridget Ikin
Lisa O'Connell
Melissa Cranenburgh
John Bryson
Michael Farrell
Melissa Reeves
Dr Emma Cox
Michael Green
Margherita Tracanelli
David Carlin, writer
Bridget McDonnell
Geoff Page, writer
Rebecca Interdonato
Roxane Ludbrook-Ingleton
Stefan Caramia
Ash Plummer
The authors write: We wrote the letter below because we believe that Julian Assange is entitled to all the protections enshrined in the rule of law - and that the Australian Government has an obligation to ensure he receives them.
The signatures here have been collected in the course of a day-and-a-half, primarily from people in publishing, law and politics. The signatories hold divergent views about WikiLeaks and its operations. But they are united in a determination to see Mr Assange treated fairly.
Dear Prime Minister,
We note with concern the increasingly violent rhetoric directed towards Julian Assange of WikiLeaks.
"We should treat Mr Assange the same way as other high-value terrorist targets: Kill him," writes conservative columnist Jeffrey T Kuhner in the Washington Times.
William Kristol, former chief of staff to vice president Dan Quayle, asks, "Why can't we use our various assets to harass, snatch or neutralize Julian Assange and his collaborators, wherever they are?"
"Why isn't Julian Assange dead?" writes the prominent US pundit Jonah Goldberg.
"The CIA should have already killed Julian Assange," says John Hawkins on the Right Wing News site.
Sarah Palin, a likely presidential candidate, compares Assange to an Al Qaeda leader; Rick Santorum, former Pennsylvania senator and potential presidential contender, accuses Assange of "terrorism".
And so on and so forth.
Such calls cannot be dismissed as bluster. Over the last decade, we have seen the normalisation of extrajudicial measures once unthinkable, from 'extraordinary rendition' (kidnapping) to 'enhanced interrogation' (torture).
In that context, we now have grave concerns for Mr Assange's wellbeing.
Irrespective of the political controversies surrounding WikiLeaks, Mr Assange remains entitled to conduct his affairs in safety, and to receive procedural fairness in any legal proceedings against him.
As is well known, Mr Assange is an Australian citizen.
We therefore call upon you to condemn, on behalf of the Australian Government, calls for physical harm to be inflicted upon Mr Assange, and to state publicly that you will ensure Mr Assange receives the rights and protections to which he is entitled, irrespective of whether the unlawful threats against him come from individuals or states.
We urge you to confirm publicly Australia's commitment to freedom of political communication; to refrain from cancelling Mr Assange's passport, in the absence of clear proof that such a step is warranted; to provide assistance and advocacy to Mr Assange; and do everything in your power to ensure that any legal proceedings taken against him comply fully with the principles of law and procedural fairness.
A statement by you to this effect should not be controversial - it is a simple commitment to democratic principles and the rule of law.
We believe this case represents something of a watershed, with implications that extend beyond Mr Assange and WikiLeaks. In many parts of the globe, death threats routinely silence those who would publish or disseminate controversial material. If these incitements to violence against Mr Assange, a recipient of Amnesty International's Media Award, are allowed to stand, a disturbing new precedent will have been established in the English-speaking world.
In this crucial time, a strong statement by you and your Government can make an important difference.
We look forward to your response.
Dr Jeff Sparrow, author and editor
Lizzie O'Shea, Social Justice Lawyer, Maurice Blackburn
Professor Noam Chomsky, writer and academic
Antony Loewenstein, journalist and author
Mungo MacCallum, journalist and writer
Professor Peter Singer, author and academic
Adam Bandt, MP
Senator Bob Brown
Senator Scott Ludlam
Julian Burnside QC, barrister
Jeff Lawrence, Secretary, Australian Council of Trade Unions
Professor Raimond Gaita, author and academic
Rob Stary, lawyer
Lieutenant Colonel (ret) Lance Collins, Australian Intelligence Corps, writer
The Hon Alastair Nicholson AO RFD QC
Brian Walters SC, barrister
Professor Larissa Behrendt, academic
Emeritus Professor Stuart Rees, academic, Sydney Peace Foundation
Mary Kostakidis, Chair, Sydney Peace Foundation
Professor Wendy Bacon, journalist
Christos Tsiolkas, author
James Bradley, author and journalist
Julian Morrow, comedian and television producer
Louise Swinn, publisher
Helen Garner, novelist
Professor Dennis Altman, writer and academic
Dr Leslie Cannold, author, ethicist, commentator
John Birmingham, writer
Guy Rundle, writer
Alex Miller, writer
Sophie Cunningham, editor and author
Castan Centre for Human Rights Law
Professor Judith Brett, author and academic
Stephen Keim SC, President of Australian Lawyers for Human Rights
Phil Lynch, Executive Director, Human Rights Law Resource Centre
Sylvia Hale, MLC
Sophie Black, editor
David Ritter, lawyer and historian
Dr Scott Burchill, writer and academic
Dr Mark Davis, author and academic
Henry Rosenbloom, publisher
Ben Naparstek, editor
Chris Feik, editor
Louise Swinn, publisher
Stephen Warne, barrister
Dr John Dwyer QC
Hilary McPhee, writer, publisher
Joan Dwyer OAM
Greg Barns, barrister
James Button, journalist
Owen Richardson, critic
Michelle Griffin, editor
John Timlin, literary Agent & producer
Ann Cunningham, lawyer and publisher
Alison Croggon, author, critic
Daniel Keene, playwright
Dr Nick Shimmin, editor/writer
Bill O'Shea, lawyer, former President, Law Institute of Victoria
Dianne Otto, Professor of Law, Melbourne Law School
Professor Frank Hutchinson,Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies (CPACS), University of Sydney
Anthony Georgeff, editor
Max Gillies, actor
Shane Maloney, writer
Louis Armand, author and publisher
Jenna Price, academic and journalist
Tanja Kovac, National Cooordinator EMILY's List Australia
Dr Russell Grigg, academic
Dr Justin Clemens, writer and academic
Susan Morairty, Lawyer
David Hirsch, Barrister
Cr Anne O'Shea
Kathryn Crosby, Candidates Online
Dr Robert Sparrow, academic
Jennifer Mills, author
Foong Ling Kong, editor
Tim Norton, Online Campaigns Co-ordinator, Oxfam Australia
Elisabeth Wynhausen, writer
Ben Slade, Lawyer
Nikki Anderson, publisher
Dan Cass
Professor Diane Bell, author and academic
Dr Philipa Rothfield, academic
Gary Cazalet, academic
Dr David Coady, academic
Dr Matthew Sharpe, writer and academic
Dr Tamas Pataki, writer and academic
Miska Mandic
Associate Professor Jake Lynch, academic
Professor Simon During, academic
Michael Brull, writer
Dr Geoff Boucher, academic
Jacinda Woodhead, writer and editor
Dr Rjurik Davidson, writer and editor
Mic Looby, writer
Jane Gleeson-White, writer and editor
Alex Skutenko, editor
Associate Professor John Collins, academic
Professor Philip Pettit, academic
Dr Christopher Scanlon, writer and academic
Dr Lawrie Zion, journalist
Johannes Jakob, editor
Sunili Govinnage, lawyer
Michael Bates, lawyer
Bridget Maidment, editor
Bryce Ives, theatre director
Sarah Darmody, writer
Jill Sparrow, writer
Lyn Bender, psychologist
Meredith Rose, editor
Dr Ellie Rennie, President, Engage Media
Ryan Paine, editor
Simon Cooper, editor
Chris Haan, lawyer
Carmela Baranowska, journalist.
Clinton Ellicott, publisher
Dr Charles Richardson, writer and academic
Phillip Frazer, publisher
Geoff Lemon, journalist
Jaya Savige, poet and editor
Johannes Jakob, editor
Kate Bree Geyer; journalist
Chay-Ya Clancy, performer
Lisa Greenaway, editor, writer
Chris Kennett - screenwriter, journalist
Kasey Edwards, author
Dr. Janine Little, academic
Dr Andrew Milner, writer and academic
Patricia Cornelius, writer
Elisa Berg, publisher
Lily Keil, editor
Jenny Sinclair
Roselina Rose
Stephen Luntz
PM Newton
Bryan Cooke
Kristen Obaid
Ryan Haldane-Underwood
Patrick Gardner
Robert Sinnerbrink
Kathryn Millist
Anne Coombs
Karen Pickering
Sarah Mizrahi
Suzanne Ingleton
Jessica Crouch
Michael Ingleton
Matt Griffin
Jane Allen
Tom Curtis
John Connell
David Garland
Stuart Hall
Meredith Tucker-Evans
Phil Perkins
Alexandra Adsett
Tom Doig, editor
Beth Jackson
Peter Mattessi
Robert Sinnerbrink
Greg Black
Paul Ashton
Sigi Jottkandt
Kym Connell, lawyer
Silma Ihram
Nicole Papaleo, lawyer
Melissa Forbes
Matthew Ryan
Ben Gook
Daniel East
Bridget Ikin
Lisa O'Connell
Melissa Cranenburgh
John Bryson
Michael Farrell
Melissa Reeves
Dr Emma Cox
Michael Green
Margherita Tracanelli
David Carlin, writer
Bridget McDonnell
Geoff Page, writer
Rebecca Interdonato
Roxane Ludbrook-Ingleton
Stefan Caramia
Ash Plummer
Wikileaks and the Australian Government
It seems the Australian Government would rather stand behind the bully with his trousers down than stand up for the rights of the lone battler who is standing up to the bully everyone else is losing their integrity over. The fact that the lone battler has not actually done anything illegal in Australia is overlooked in the enthusiasm to side with the bully.
Breaching international Laws against torture and killing innocent civilians. Holding unconvicted personnel in prisons outside their own territory so they can be tortured against the Geneva Convention. Illegal spying on UN personnel and disparaging other leading heads of state are all glossed over and 'ok' while a lone aussie battler dares to point to the king and say he is wearing no cloths and recommendations are made that he should be 'assassinated' for being a 'terrorist'. What definition of terrorism is being used here. Standing up for ones rights? Exposing terrorist activities of the big bully in the playground?
And who is going to castigate the Swedish prosecutor Ms My for abusing the human rights of the lone aussie battler by serving a warrant for his arrest in contravention of Article Six of the European Covenant on Human Rights to which Sweden is a signatory by the way.
And does the Australian Government really condone proposals that their citizen be 'assassinated' for pulling down the trousers of the biggest bully in the playground?
Truly the king wears no clothes and it is time we had the integrity to point this out and not pretend it is ok for the bully to go on killing and maiming in the name of 'freedom'.
Breaching international Laws against torture and killing innocent civilians. Holding unconvicted personnel in prisons outside their own territory so they can be tortured against the Geneva Convention. Illegal spying on UN personnel and disparaging other leading heads of state are all glossed over and 'ok' while a lone aussie battler dares to point to the king and say he is wearing no cloths and recommendations are made that he should be 'assassinated' for being a 'terrorist'. What definition of terrorism is being used here. Standing up for ones rights? Exposing terrorist activities of the big bully in the playground?
And who is going to castigate the Swedish prosecutor Ms My for abusing the human rights of the lone aussie battler by serving a warrant for his arrest in contravention of Article Six of the European Covenant on Human Rights to which Sweden is a signatory by the way.
And does the Australian Government really condone proposals that their citizen be 'assassinated' for pulling down the trousers of the biggest bully in the playground?
Truly the king wears no clothes and it is time we had the integrity to point this out and not pretend it is ok for the bully to go on killing and maiming in the name of 'freedom'.
Open letter to the Prime Minister of Australia
Here is a copy of a letter sent to the Australian Prime Minister from Peter Kemp, Solicitor of the Supreme Court of NSW, Australia.
PubliusCitizen 20102010-12-04:
NSW Supreme Court solicitor:
Letter to Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard
Submitted by admin on Sat, 4th of December /2010 - 04:09
By Peter Kemp, Solicitor of the Supreme Court of NSW, on 2010-12-04
Dear Prime Minister
From the Sydney Morning Herald I note you made a comment of "illegal" on the matter of Mr Assange in relation to the ongoing leaks of US diplomatic cables.
Previously your colleague and Attorney General the Honourable McClelland announced an investigation of possible criminality by Mr Assange.
As a lawyer and citizen I find this most disturbing, particularly so when a brief perusal of the Commonwealth Criminal Code shows that liability arises under the Espionage provisions, for example, only when it is the Commonwealth's "secrets" that are disclosed and that there must be intent to damage the Commonwealth. Likewise under Treason law, there must be an intent to assist an enemy. Clearly, and reinforced by publicly available material such as Professor Saul's excellent article:
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/dont-cry-over-wikileaks-20101201-18glc.html
...Julian Assange has almost certainly committed no crime under Australian law in relation to his involvement in Wikileaks.
I join with Professor Saul also in asking you Prime Minister why has there been no public complaint to the US about both Secretaries of State Condaleeza Rice and Hillary Clinton being in major breach of International law ie UN Covenants, by making orders to spy on UN personnel, including the Secretary General, to include theft of their credit card details and communication passwords. Perhaps the Attorney General should investigate this clear prima facie evidence of crime (likely against Australian diplomats as well), rather than he attempts to prosecute the messenger of those crimes.
It is also disturbing that no Australian official has castigated Sweden for the shameful treatment Mr Assange has received ie his human rights abused, in that he has not been charged and served with papers in the English language regarding the evidence against him of alleged sexual offences. This is contrary to Article 6 of the European Covenant on Human Rights to which Sweden is a signatory nation.
Those offences remain unclear and the Swedish prosecutor Ms Ny appears to be making up the law as she wants. It appears now, by Ms Ny's interpretation that when consensual sex occurs but if a condom breaks, the male party is liable to 2 years imprisonment for sexual assault. All this information is publicly available.
An Australian citizen is apparently being singled out for "special treatment" Prime Minister. There are legitimate concerns among citizens here that his treatment by the Swedes is connected to US interests which are against the activities of Wikileaks, and you will note the strident, outrageous (and illegal) calls inciting violence against him in the US in demands for his assassination, by senior influential US politicians.
Granted that in western political circles, Mr Assange is not flavour of the month, but what he is doing in my opinion, and in the opinion of many here and abroad, is vitally necessary to expose American foreign policy failures and potential war crimes and crimes against humanity--not for the purpose of damaging US interests but to make them accountable.
While we have close and a good relationship with the US, there is no doubt that US influence and power is declining. That we appear to be still posturing, (given that declining power and a new paradigm of privately enforced accountability) to the US on the issue of Wikileaks is, Prime Minister, deeply disappointing.
Yours Faithfully
Peter Kemp.
PubliusCitizen 20102010-12-04:
NSW Supreme Court solicitor:
Letter to Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard
Submitted by admin on Sat, 4th of December /2010 - 04:09
By Peter Kemp, Solicitor of the Supreme Court of NSW, on 2010-12-04
Dear Prime Minister
From the Sydney Morning Herald I note you made a comment of "illegal" on the matter of Mr Assange in relation to the ongoing leaks of US diplomatic cables.
Previously your colleague and Attorney General the Honourable McClelland announced an investigation of possible criminality by Mr Assange.
As a lawyer and citizen I find this most disturbing, particularly so when a brief perusal of the Commonwealth Criminal Code shows that liability arises under the Espionage provisions, for example, only when it is the Commonwealth's "secrets" that are disclosed and that there must be intent to damage the Commonwealth. Likewise under Treason law, there must be an intent to assist an enemy. Clearly, and reinforced by publicly available material such as Professor Saul's excellent article:
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/dont-cry-over-wikileaks-20101201-18glc.html
...Julian Assange has almost certainly committed no crime under Australian law in relation to his involvement in Wikileaks.
I join with Professor Saul also in asking you Prime Minister why has there been no public complaint to the US about both Secretaries of State Condaleeza Rice and Hillary Clinton being in major breach of International law ie UN Covenants, by making orders to spy on UN personnel, including the Secretary General, to include theft of their credit card details and communication passwords. Perhaps the Attorney General should investigate this clear prima facie evidence of crime (likely against Australian diplomats as well), rather than he attempts to prosecute the messenger of those crimes.
It is also disturbing that no Australian official has castigated Sweden for the shameful treatment Mr Assange has received ie his human rights abused, in that he has not been charged and served with papers in the English language regarding the evidence against him of alleged sexual offences. This is contrary to Article 6 of the European Covenant on Human Rights to which Sweden is a signatory nation.
Those offences remain unclear and the Swedish prosecutor Ms Ny appears to be making up the law as she wants. It appears now, by Ms Ny's interpretation that when consensual sex occurs but if a condom breaks, the male party is liable to 2 years imprisonment for sexual assault. All this information is publicly available.
An Australian citizen is apparently being singled out for "special treatment" Prime Minister. There are legitimate concerns among citizens here that his treatment by the Swedes is connected to US interests which are against the activities of Wikileaks, and you will note the strident, outrageous (and illegal) calls inciting violence against him in the US in demands for his assassination, by senior influential US politicians.
Granted that in western political circles, Mr Assange is not flavour of the month, but what he is doing in my opinion, and in the opinion of many here and abroad, is vitally necessary to expose American foreign policy failures and potential war crimes and crimes against humanity--not for the purpose of damaging US interests but to make them accountable.
While we have close and a good relationship with the US, there is no doubt that US influence and power is declining. That we appear to be still posturing, (given that declining power and a new paradigm of privately enforced accountability) to the US on the issue of Wikileaks is, Prime Minister, deeply disappointing.
Yours Faithfully
Peter Kemp.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)