Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
by wintler2 » Tue Feb 22, 2011 4:43 pm
by Plutonia » Tue Feb 22, 2011 6:01 pm
by Plutonia » Tue Feb 22, 2011 11:31 pm
Ellsberg: WikiLeaks Helped Topple Despots
Tuesday, 22 Feb 2011 09:18 AM
By Henry J. Reske and Kathleen Walter
WikiLeaks revelations helped topple despotic regimes in Tunisia and Egypt, Pentagon Papers leaker Daniel Ellsberg told Newsmax.TV. The former Marine and Pentagon employee also characterized WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange as principled, idealistic, and a friend.
Ellsberg, who faced espionage charges for his own revelation of classified documents in 1971, says WikiLeaks’ pivotal role in Tunisia centers on cables from American diplomats there showing that the United States was aware of the corrupt government and was not likely to back Tunisian President Ben Ali. The secret exchanges described Ali as an aging leader with a “sclerotic” regime.
[video at link]
“They revealed that our diplomats understood very well the corruption and dictatorial methods and dictatorship that we were supporting,” he said. “We understood that. In the course of supporting of giving those regimes, Tunisia and Egypt, major military aid, especially Egypt, and that the WikiLeaks cable . . . exposed was a major factor . . . that led people to say we’ve had enough.”
Ellsberg was charged under the Espionage Act with theft and unauthorized possession of classified documents for his role in copying and leaking the Pentagon Papers, which revealed lies that U.S. presidents had told about the Vietnam War. The charges were dropped when it was revealed that the Nixon administration had wiretapped him illegally and had broken into his psychiatrist’s office in an effort to discredit him.
Ellsberg said the WikiLeaks exposures of worldwide classified documents were analogous to his but on a lower level, noting they were classified secret rather than top secret.
Ellsberg also acknowledged that he met with Assange last year. “I wanted to find out what sort of person he was and I was very pleased that I met him,” he said. “I liked him, very intelligent, very committed, courageous, I believe, and principled, idealistic. I really am very impressed by him. So I liked him as a friend. I support him.”
Ellsberg and Assange agreed on the concept that there should be secrets, although Ellsberg noted that Assange would reveal more information than he would.
“We need a lot more transparency to keep us out of wars like Iraq or Vietnam,” he said.
Ellsberg once remarked that a president and his officers lie to the public every day, and President Barack Obama is no different. “President Obama has giving impression that he’ll have all us troops out of Iraq by the end of next year, I believe that’s untrue,” he said.
by wintler2 » Thu Feb 24, 2011 6:29 am
by lucky » Thu Feb 24, 2011 7:40 am
by JackRiddler » Thu Feb 24, 2011 1:18 pm
From http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/fe ... dict/print
Julian Assange attacks 'rubber-stamp' warrant as he loses extradition battle
WikiLeaks founder can be sent to Sweden, Belmarsh magistrates court rules
Follow reactions to the ruling on our live blog
Esther Addley and Alexandra Topping
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 24 February 2011 15.53 GMT
Julian Assange speaks to the media outside Belmarsh magistrates court after a judge ruled he can be extradited to Sweden. Photograph: Facundo Arrizabalaga/EPA
The WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is to be extradited to Sweden to face allegations of rape and sexual assault. Assange will appeal, his legal team has confirmed. If they lose he will be sent to Sweden in 10 days.
Speaking outside Belmarsh magistrates court in south-east London after the judgment, Assange attacked the European arrest warrant system.
He dismissed the decision to extradite him as a "rubber-stamping process". He said: "It comes as no surprise but is nevertheless wrong. It comes as the result of a European arrest warrant system amok."
There had been no consideration of the allegations against him, Assange said. His extradition would thrust him into a legal system he did not understand using a language he didn't not speak.
Assange said the US government by its own admission had been waiting to see the British court verdict before determining what action it could take against him.
"What does the US have to do with a Swedish extradition process?" he asked. "Why is it that I am subject, a non-profit free speech activist, to a $360,000 (£223,000) bail? Why is it that I am kept under electronic house arrest when I have not even been charged in any country, when I have never been a fugitive?" Assange had earlier heard the chief magistrate, Howard Riddle, dismiss each of the defence's arguments.
Assange's legal team had contended that the Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny did not have the authority to issue a European arrest warrant. The magistrate ruled that she did possess this authority and the warrant was valid.
Ny's credibility had been questioned by the defence team but Riddle said those doubts amounted to "very little". A retired judge who had criticised her, Brita Sundberg-Weitman, had no firsthand knowledge or evidence to back up her opinion, he said.
The defence had argued that the allegations against Assange were not offences in English law and therefore not grounds for extradition. But Riddle said the alleged offences against Miss A of sexual assault and molestation met the criteria for extradition, and an allegation made by Miss B if proven "would amount to rape" in this country.
In his summary Riddle accused Assange's Swedish lawyer, Björn Hurtig, of making a deliberate attempt to mislead the court. Assange had clearly attempted to avoid the Swedish justice system before he left the country, Riddle said. "It would be a reasonable assumption from the facts that Mr Assange was deliberately avoiding interrogation before he left Sweden."
The judge was severely critical of Hurtig, who had said in his statement that it was "astonishing" Ny had made no effort to interview his client before he left Sweden. "In fact this is untrue," said Riddle. Hurtig had realised his mistake the night before he gave evidence and corrected his evidence in chief, said the judge. But it had been done in a manner that was "very low key". "Mr Hurtig must have realised the significance of ... his proof when he submitted it," Riddle said. "I do not accept that this was a genuine mistake. It cannot have slipped his mind. The statement was a deliberate attempt to mislead the court."
Riddle acknowledged there had been "considerable adverse publicity against Mr Assange in Sweden", including statements by the prime minister. But if there had been any irregularities in the Swedish system the best place to examine them was in a Swedish trial.
Outside the court Assange's lawyer, Mark Stephens, said the ruling had not come as a surprise and reaffirmed the Assange team's concerns that adhering to the European arrest warrant (EAW) amounted to "tick box justice".
"We are still hopeful that the matter can be resolved in this country," he said. "We remain optimistic of our chances on appeal."
The possibility of a secret trial – which Assange's lawyers argue he could face if extradited – was "anathema to this country and to most civilised countries in the world", Stephens said. During Assange's extradition hearing Clare Montgomery QC, for the Swedish authorities, said trial evidence would be heard in private but the arguments would be made in public. This did not amount to a secret trial.
Stephens suggested Riddle had been "hamstrung" by the EAW. "We're pretty sure the secrecy and the way [the case] has been conducted so far have registered with this judge. He's just hamstrung," he told reporters.
Assange had already paid large amounts to defend himself, with the cost of translating material alone amounting to more than £30,000, Stephens said. "That's a cost the prosecution should be bearing. The prosecution should be translating everything into a language he understands."
Assange has been fighting extradition since he was arrested and bailed in December. He has consistently denied the allegations, made by two women in August last year.
At a two-day hearing this month his legal team argued that Assange would not receive a fair trial in Sweden. They said the EAW issued by Sweden was invalid because the Australian had not been charged with any offence and the alleged assaults were not grounds for extradition.
Assange fears that being taken to Sweden will make it easier for Washington to extradite him to the US on possible charges relating to WikiLeaks's release of the US embassy cables.
Sweden would have to ask permission from the UK for any onward extradition. No charges have been laid by the US, though it is investigating the website's activities.
The most serious of the four allegations relates to an accusation that Assange, during a visit to Stockholm in August, had sex with a woman, Miss B, while she was sleeping, without a condom and without her consent. Three counts of sexual assault are alleged by another woman, Miss A. If found guilty of the rape charge he could face up to four years in prison.
Assange will be held in custody because there is no system of bail in Sweden until a possible trial or release.
The Australian ambassador to Sweden, Paul Stephens, wrote to the country's justice minister last week to insist that if extradited, any possible case against Assange must "proceed in accordance with due process and the provisions prescribed under Swedish law, as well as applicable European and international laws, including relevant human rights norms".
European arrest warrants were introduced in 2003 with the aim of making the process swifter and easier between European member states. But campaigners have raised concerns about their application, arguing they are sometimes used before a case is ready to prosecute and have been extended far beyond their original purpose of fighting terrorism. Last year 700 people were extradited from the UK under the system.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2011
by Bruce Dazzling » Thu Feb 24, 2011 4:15 pm
by Bruce Dazzling » Fri Feb 25, 2011 12:18 pm
by hava1 » Fri Feb 25, 2011 3:54 pm
by chump » Fri Feb 25, 2011 9:37 pm
by Nordic » Fri Feb 25, 2011 11:35 pm
Bush doesn't want to share a forum with someone who has "willfully and repeatedly done great harm to the interests of the United States."
by Plutonia » Sat Feb 26, 2011 1:11 pm
There's more to the story... the group organizing the event are Scientologists - see this thread.chump wrote:Bush Nixes Denver Visit, Citing Invite to Assange
http://www.9news.com/news/article/18352 ... to-Assange
...
by Maddy » Sat Feb 26, 2011 3:14 pm
by dbcooper41 » Thu Mar 03, 2011 4:43 pm
Posted: 12:25 p.m. today
Report: DreamWorks buys rights to WikiLeaks books
News Alerts to your Email & Cell Phone
Headlines Lottery Quizzes Contests Horoscopes
LONDON — A British newspaper says Steven Spielberg's DreamWorks
Studio has bought screen rights to its book about WikiLeaks and its founder,
Julian Assange.
The Guardian says DreamWorks has optioned "WikiLeaks: Inside Julian
Assange's War on Secrecy" by Guardian journalists David Leigh and Luke Harding, as well as "Inside WikiLeaks" by site defector Daniel Domscheit-Berg.
Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger described the proposed film Thursday
as "Woodward and Bernstein meets Stieg Larsson meets Jason Bourne. Plus
the odd moment of sheer farce."No writer, director or cast have been lined up.
The Guardian worked with WikiLeaks to publish thousands of U.S.
military documents and diplomatic cables, but later fell out with the
secret-spilling site.
Copyright 2011 by The Associated Press.
by Bruce Dazzling » Thu Mar 03, 2011 5:05 pm
dbcooper41 wrote:http://www.wral.com/entertainment/story/9209538/Posted: 12:25 p.m. today
Report: DreamWorks buys rights to WikiLeaks books
News Alerts to your Email & Cell Phone
Headlines Lottery Quizzes Contests Horoscopes
LONDON — A British newspaper says Steven Spielberg's DreamWorks
Studio has bought screen rights to its book about WikiLeaks and its founder,
Julian Assange.
The Guardian says DreamWorks has optioned "WikiLeaks: Inside Julian
Assange's War on Secrecy" by Guardian journalists David Leigh and Luke Harding, as well as "Inside WikiLeaks" by site defector Daniel Domscheit-Berg.
Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger described the proposed film Thursday
as "Woodward and Bernstein meets Stieg Larsson meets Jason Bourne. Plus
the odd moment of sheer farce."No writer, director or cast have been lined up.
The Guardian worked with WikiLeaks to publish thousands of U.S.
military documents and diplomatic cables, but later fell out with the
secret-spilling site.
Copyright 2011 by The Associated Press.
What Is It?
(An essay concerning the subtext of the film by the same title)
by Crispin Hellion Glover
Is this culture content? Is it happy? Are the smiles broadcast by this culture's media the smiles that reflect the collective mind? Does the self-professed compassion of the media for the unfortunate seem sincere?
Is this culture a Judeo-Christian culture? Is forgiveness a quality of Christian ethos? Didn't Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold of Columbine high school pose with a caption that stated, "Stay alive, stay different, stay crazy"? Didn't they target Christians? Weren't they accused of being "Nazis"? Wasn't one of them Jewish? Wasn't one of them an honor student? If these fellows were staying "crazy" and staying "different," and thinking on their own, were they perhaps manifesting a counter-cultural ideal?
What else in this culture were the Columbine killers attacking? Aren't "jocks," whom they killed, generally considered common "good guys" buy our culture? Don't jocks represent pro-cultural values? Do those who hold values that counter the culture see jocks as boorish, vapid, brute, conceited and condescending, who willfully insult and violate those who refuse to gang with the masses?
Were Harris and Klebold reacting to the media itself? Did they give their own lives and take others to make a point about the media at large? Can it be true that the media-at-large is so neurotic that it is unable to truthfully describe the Columbine event? Is it true that a videotape they produced just before the killings is now being withheld so the public can not determine their own thoughts about Harris's and Klebold's statements?
In Civilization and Its Discontents, did Sigmund Freud define a neurotic as an individual holding thoughts that clash with those held by the prevailing culture, an individual who subverts those clashing thoughts to the subconscious that later manifest in the form of anxiety and unnecessary behavior? If this is so, what does one consider a culture whose prevailing ideas express hypocrisy, sham and double-standard? Does this somehow define a neurotic culture? Does Steven Spielberg hold the same values I wish upon myself? Does the mind of this grinning, bespectacled, baseball-capped man entirely reflect this culture?
Is it true that in his waning years, Orson Welles asked Steven Spielberg for a small amount of money with which he could make a final film? Is it true Steven Spielberg refused? Is it true that Steven Spielberg bought a sled used in Citizen Kane for an extremely large sum of money?
Do Steven Spielberg's passions burn? Do passions burn in the man now imprisoned who wished to anally rape Steven Spielberg? Do our cultural mouthpieces confidently inform us that the wish to anally rape Steven Spielberg is a bad thought? Could anal rape of Steven Spielberg be simply the manifestation of a cultural mandate? Do you believe Steven Spielberg is an ideal guide and influence for our culture? Do Steven Spielberg's films question our culture? What do Steven Spielberg's films question? Does Steven Spielberg focus much of his fantasy life on young people? Did he portray children wallowing in sewers filled with fecal matter in Schindler's List? Did he use children to finger paint an adult in Hook? Does he collect the illustrations of Norman Rockwell, such as the one showing a young boy in his underwear examined by a doctor? Are the inclinations of Steven Spielberg above suspicion by the media-fed culture? Was Steven Spielberg very friendly with Michael Jackson? Wasn't Michael Jackson supposed to play Peter Pan in Steven Spielberg's version of the story? Now that Michael Jackson is no longer held in favor by the mass media, does Spielberg associate with him? Do Michael Jackson and Steven Spielberg share similar opinions about the sexuality of young boys?
Did Joseph Goebbels popularize certain ideals to the mass culture? Does Steven Spielberg attempt to do the same thing? Is celebrity more special than actual truth in art?
When you join in a conversation with strangers, do you openly discuss any idea whatsoever without fear of conflict? Or do you restrain yourself from discussing certain things for fear of offending people and then becoming an outcast? Are there laws that deem certain forms of thought as bad and wrong? Is what is now termed "hate" a form of thought?
Does our culture consider it acceptable to have a minstrel represent a black person on film? Does our culture consider it acceptable to have a person of average intelligence represent a retarded person on film? Why is one thing questionable, and one thing acceptable? Did Adolf Hitler entertain any good thoughts? Was Shirley Temple sexy as a young girl?
What if you wish to express these ideas? Can people sue you for expressing ideas, particularly if they're blamed for inspiring behavior considered antithetical to cultural norms?
Would the cultural mainstream ever silence or suppress Steven Spielberg? Has the United States government given the immensely wealthy Steven Spielberg millions of dollars to fund a media project that reflects his religious heritage, and his cultural beliefs? Does The Talmud speak of the superiority of the Jews and the inferiority of other cultures and beliefs? Does Steven Spielberg reflect this religious imperative? Is Steve Spielberg neurotic? Is this belief hidden and suppressed?
If one discovers that everything one has been taught to be good is actually false, what then? At what point is one neurotic?
Did Vincent Van Gogh, Diane Arbus and Rainer Werner Fassbinder die for the sings of their culture? Did Joseph Goebbels? Are we fed massive cultural propaganda? Are we infused with the belief that we act as we wish and do what we want? Are we not simply believing what cultural propaganda suggests us to think?
Do you like MTV? Do you like Steven Spielberg? Do you like post-punk rock? Do you like trip hop? Do you like rap? Do you define yourself according to the music you listen to? Do you consider yourself a true lover of music because you are in a rock band, or because your boyfriend is in a rock band? Do you like tattoos? Do you like body piercing? Do you believe that love, kindness, compassion, recycling and equality will save this culture from all its woes? Do you? Do you? Is it considered "career suicide" to question Steven Spielberg if one is involved in the entertainment business? If one is not involved in the entertainment business is it considered a social suicide to question Steven Spielberg? If these things are so, what does that point to? Does this mean freedom of expression is actually curtailed in our culture by certain social pressures? Is calling someone a "fascist" in American culture today the counterpart to saying someone was a "communist" during the Joseph McCarthy era of the 1950s?
Does our culture congratulate itself for taking interest in the lack of original ideas personified by the name of Steven Spielberg? Do his films take chances or take risks in order to amplify, change or challenge the cultural though process? Dose Steven Spielberg take risks, or does he simulate the idea of taking risks? What risk was involved in making Saving Private Ryan or Schindler's List, or adopting a black child? Was there any risk at all? Would Steven Spielberg have adopted that same child in the deep South of the 1950s where there would have been risk of being called a "nigger lover"? Were the adoption of a black child and the subject matter of his movies actually business decisions for which he knew he would be congratulated?
When Steven Spielberg clutched his Academy Award for Schindler's List, saying it's for the "six million," was he speaking of a quantity of people killed, or the quantity of dollars poured into his bank account? Did Steven Spielberg truly help the culture understand Stanley Kubrick's ideas at an Academy Awards eulogy? Or did he accuse Kurbrick's films of being "hopeful" to make them seem as if they sell the same ideas as Steven Spielberg's movies? Was A Clockwork Orange about hope? Was Barry Lyndon about hope? Was Dr. Strangelove about hope? Was Lolita about hope? Was Full Metal Jacket about hope? Was The Killing about hope?
Was Steven Spielberg's company sued by an African-American woman who claimed that Amistad was based on her writing? Was this African-American woman suddenly happy with Steven Spielberg after he deposited a lot of money into her bank account?
Does the amount of money taken in by people determine happiness in this culture? Is the earth an unlimited resource, or is there a definitive quantity for people to exploit for gross amounts of money? When a capitalist invokes the word "hope," does he speak about the continued escalation of his earning power, without being stopped? Could this hope be an illusion?
Are the ice sheets of the Arctic and Antarctic melting and shearing off? Could negative population growth possibly help solve this problem? Isn't one child per two people negative population growth? Would Steven Spielberg ever support the idea of negative population growth within the medium? Have the goals of Freemasonry, as encapsulated by the back half of the dollar bill, succeeded? Has a megastate of greed been created?
Did DreamWorks, the megacorporate entity co-owned by Steven Spielberg, consider paving over the last remaining wetland in Southern California to create a studio? Does Steven Spielberg feel comfortable emasculating the natural? Is climbing the Alps, or is riding the Matterhorn rollercoaster in Disneyland, more attractive to Steven Spielberg? Is the theme park mentality of our culture, which is made to feel "right" and "moral" by the propagandizing movies of Steven Spielberg, helping to destroy individual thought processes and emasculate what remains of the earth?
Is it possible that the Columbine shootings would have not occurred if Steven Spielberg had never wafted his putrid stench upon our culture, a culture he helped homogenize and propagandize?
Would the culture benefit from Steven Spielberg's murder, or would it be lessened by making him a martyr? Or would people then begin to realize their lives had become less banal and more interesting due to his departure? Because I think it is possible a beautiful piece of non-lingual music could well be written by an angry victim once Steven Spielberg becomes a corpse. It could be that this angry victim of banal and ruinous propaganda will have written an anthem signaling a new era, a new thought process, a new music, and a new culture that is desperately needed in the coming days, and forevermore.
The one question lingering before this new utopian culture may very well be:
What is it?
Users browsing this forum: Grizzly and 161 guests