Assange Tells Internet Generation 'Their Time Has Come' to Hit Back at Abuse (Melbourne Rally)

[Hissyspit]

Source: ANI

Assange tells internet generation 'their time has come' to hit back at abuse

February 4, 2011 - London

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has said that the 'hue and cry' caused by revelations of secret US diplomatic cables is a challenge for the internet generation, and added that he would continue to expose "abusive organisations".

Speaking in a recorded message to a public meeting in Melbourne on Friday, Assange said that he is desperately longing to go back to his hometown and urged his Australian supporters to take relevant action.

He further compared WikiLeaks' push for more transparent governance to the civil rights movement of the 1950s, the peace movement of the 1960s, feminism movements and the environmental movement, The Age reports.

"For the internet generation this is our challenge and this is our time. We support a cause that is no more radical a proposition than that the citizenry has a right to scrutinise the state," the paper quoted Assange, as saying.

Read more: http://www.andhranews.net/Intl/2011/Assange-tells-internet-generation-time-2010.htm

[bread_and_roses]

1. K & R (n/t)

[molly77]

2. It's beginning.

[wildbilln864]

3. k&r. nt

[pnwmom]

4. All diplomacy isn't "abuse."

But most of it doesn't benefit from transparency.

His releasing thousands of unrelated diplomatic cables is a completely different thing than releasing the helicopter video and other documents showing wrong-doing. The latter is justifed; the former is not.

[defendandprotect]

22. BUT all true "diplomacy" should be able to be carried out in public ...

what should be hidden?

The government is now in your underwear at airports -- and wiretapping you --

and you're arguing for government secrecy?

[CBHagman]

32. You're mixing up issues.

Passenger screening at airports is a ssecurity and privacy issue, and there are many coherent arguments to be made in one direction or the other -- for or against X-rays, etc. That's one thing.

Diplomacy is another matter. No, all negotiations do not take place with the cameras present. And not all secrecy is bad (i.e., concealing the names of human rights activists who are in danger from the regimes they oppose).

And it's not as though Julian Assange is Mr. Sunshine and Scrutiny. I haven't noticed that he's got to go to the same apartment or house every day the way most people, including vulnerable human rights activists, do. And it's not as though your average trade unionist or democracy advocate is going to be whisked from jail to a country estate either.

[defendandprotect]

57. You're arguing the intrusive screening at airports which came about by fakery?

Discussing connections between issues -- seeing the relationships isn't "mixing up issues" -- !

Catch up with the news -- which many suspected by the way from the first -- re the underwear

bomber and connections of these scanning machines to Chertoff -- and the contract he got over

a long period of trying -- via the stimulus program!


Let's not be extreme in our own conversations -- no one is suggesting that the names of

human rights activists be divulged -- only YOU are suggesting that!

And it's not as though Julian Assange is Mr. Sunshine and Scrutiny. I haven't noticed that he's got to go to the same apartment or house every day the way most people, including vulnerable human rights activists, do. And it's not as though your average trade unionist or democracy advocate is going to be whisked from jail to a country estate either.

Assange is under house arrest -- except it's someone else's home -- out of his native country --

which he is pleading to be permitted to return!

Rather than working your failing argument attacking Assange as an elitist, why don't you try

debating what Assange is actually talking about --

"We support a cause that is no more radical a proposition than that

the citizenry has a right to scrutinise the state"



That is -- America's LACK of a free press!

and the crimes and corruption hidden behind the dangerous concept of "national security state"

[CBHagman]

104. Sad business of revealing names...

Let's not be extreme in our own conversations -- no one is suggesting that the names of

human rights activists be divulged -- only YOU are suggesting that!

Actually, no. There has been months-long discussion about WikiLeaks and the publication of unredacted materials that put human rights activists and others at risk.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/30/magazine/30Wikileaks-t.html?pagewanted=7&_r=1&sq=assange&st=cse&scp=1

As for the risks posed by these releases, they are real. WikiLeaks’s first data dump, the publication of the Afghanistan War Logs, included the names of scores of Afghans that The Times and other news organizations had carefully purged from our own coverage. Several news organizations, including ours, reported this dangerous lapse, and months later a Taliban spokesman claimed that Afghan insurgents had been perusing the WikiLeaks site and making a list. I anticipate, with dread, the day we learn that someone identified in those documents has been killed.

WikiLeaks was roundly criticized for its seeming indifference to the safety of those informants, and in its subsequent postings it has largely followed the example of the news organizations and redacted material that could get people jailed or killed.

Scores of names, not just one or two, but scores of names. Note too that members of the press had to correct WikiLeaks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/30/magazine/30Wikileaks-t.html?pagewanted=5&_r=1&sq=assange&st=cse&scp=1

“We were all aware of dire stakes for some of the people named in the cables if we failed to obscure their identities,” Shane wrote to me later, recalling the nature of the meetings. Like many of us, Shane has worked in countries where dissent can mean prison or worse. “That sometimes meant not just removing the name but also references to institutions that might give a clue to an identity and sometimes even the dates of conversations, which might be compared with surveillance tapes of an American Embassy to reveal who was visiting the diplomats that day.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/30/magazine/30Wikileaks-t.html?pagewanted=8&_r=1&sq=assange&st=cse&scp=1

As for our relationship with WikiLeaks, Julian Assange has been heard to boast that he served as a kind of puppet master, recruiting several news organizations, forcing them to work in concert and choreographing their work. This is characteristic braggadocio — or, as my Guardian colleagues would say, bollocks. Throughout this experience we have treated Assange as a source. I will not say “a source, pure and simple,” because as any reporter or editor can attest, sources are rarely pure or simple, and Assange was no exception.

[defendandprotect]

115. "At risk" is entirely questionable ...but Valerie Plame/CIA disclosures did result in deaths --

due to Cheney/Bush/Rove/Libby fears over lies of 9/11 being challenged -- !!

[pnwmom]

39. That is NONSENSE. We should be able to have private talks

with China, for example, about how to handle the lunatic head of North Korea without the contents of the talks being spewed all over the internet.

I am most definitely arguing for the need for the secrecy of diplomatic efforts.

[molly77]

44. But when the private talks reveal say like Palestine

saying to Israel..you are going to come over and kill people , bomb some and you are doing it for a land grab..fine. We are ok with that. These communications being private is not good for SECRECY?

[decidedlyso]

47. Tough call. I agree with what you just said, but on the other hand

how about the diplomats who are trying to uncover or make-up info on other leaders to undermine their positions? Disclosure of that would come in handy. So where is the line drawn--for no disclosure that may damage some. Or full disclosure that damages some AND allows the identification of those doing the damaging? Hard to say.

[pnwmom]

96. Some doctors abuse their positions and take advantage

of patient confidentiality. But we don't say that -- because some doctors give bad care -- it's okay to splatter patient medical records all over the internet, do we? Even if the patient is a political figure?

Just because some diplomat may do something wrong doesn't mean we should make it harder for all diplomats to do their job -- to be diplomatic -- and that involves a lot of PRIVATE communications.

[Hissyspit]

61. Massive classification of documents does not equal private talks.

"Does not equal" equals "false equivalence."

[defendandprotect]

84. Excellent point, Hissy -- thank you!!

[pnwmom]

97. Many of those documents talked about what happened in private talks.

[liberation]

68. Why exactly should the talks about NK with China being carried out in secret?

That puts us at the same level of either NK or China, neither of which are known as beacons of freedom or democracy.

Transparency and access to information are two fundamental aspects of democracy. Because democracy is based around the concept of the government being directly accountable to its citizens. If the government keeps secrets from the citizens it supposedly serves, then the people do not have the ability to exercise those responsibilities properly. Therefore implying that the people are the ones working for the government, and not the other way around. That is why those who are always making cases for secrecy either think democracy is "too hard" and thus not worth the trouble, or they simply do not care much about the whole concept of a "democratic society" to begin with.

Enjoy.

[MilesColtrane]

72. Let's do a little "what if" thought experiment.

Let's say that the American public found out that Kennedy struck a deal with Khrushchev to remove the Jupiter missiles from Turkey and Italy in order to end the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Who do you think would have gone on to win the 1964 presidential election, Lyndon Johnson the Democratic Vice President of the man who had compromised with the evil Soviet empire, or Barry Goldwater the tough talking "extremism in defense of liberty is no vice" Republican candidate?

Bear in mind that the cold war mindset was still prevalent among many Americans during this time. The McCarran Internal Security Act, creating the Subversive Activities Control Board to investigate possible Communist-action, and requiring the registration of Communist organizations with the U.S. Attorney General wouldn't be struck down as unconstitutional until 1967.

The Democratic party and its presidential candidate would have been unfairly branded as dangerously weak on national security, perhaps to the extent that Barry Goldwater would have won the White House in 1964.

Diplomatic secrecy gives the President and Secretary of State the political cover to do the right thing in brokering a deal with a belligerent nation without destroying their political careers or their party's chances in subsequent elections.

[liberation]

78. "What ifs" are not "thought experiments" they are if anything tangential deflection mechanisms

via massive doses of projection. Which is why those "what ifs" tells us more about you, than they do about the subject at hand.

I can play the same card and argue that if the US government had been completely honest releasing information to its citizens from the get go, then the Missile Crisis would have never happened. Since the US public opinion would have not allowed the US to place nuclear warheads around the USSR (Turkey specially) which is what led Khruschev to put missiles in Cuba to begin with. You're basically using the initial cover up to justify the ensuing cover up. It is circular reasoning at its finest.

If you need "alternative reality" scenarios to make your point, chances are that the point was not that complying with our actual reality to begin with. As I said, democracy depends on transparency. And for it to work citizens must have free access to all sorts of information regarding their government, so they can make an educated request for responsibilities when required. If you can't compute that simple fact, chances are you are not willing to have a true democracy to begin with. In fact, the example you provided had more to do with preserving an empire than with defending an actual democracy.


What I find it ironic is that governments feel more and more inclined to erode the right to privacy for their citizens, while they keep increasing the level of entitlement to secrecy to keep informations from the citizens they supposedly serve.

[defendandprotect]

87. ... and in that case, mainly based in FEAR from what I read ... !!

And, just realized, we pretty much said the same things in our posts!

:)

[ronnie624]

99. Excellent. n/t

:thumbsup:

[pnwmom]

100. Our diplomats conducted a great deal of confidential negotiations

with allies within Hitler's Germany. I suppose you think those negotiations could have been carried out transparently, too.

Your naivete knows no bounds.

[MilesColtrane]

119. "What ifs" are not "thought experiments"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_experiment#Uses

Thought experiments, which are well-structured, well-defined hypothetical questions that employ subjunctive reasoning (irrealis moods) -- "What might happen (or, what might have happened) if . . . "

[defendandprotect]

86. ... because those missiles were pointed at Russia ... "boys will be boys" ... ????

Let's say that the American public found out that Kennedy struck a deal with Khrushchev to remove the Jupiter missiles from Turkey and Italy in order to end the Cuban Missile Crisis.

How about Kennedy also found out when he took office that the "missile gap" crisis he had

been told about by the CIA was garbage!?

And how about if the Cuban Missile discussions in the White House had been aired LIVE at the

time, let's say via radio?

Rather, the American public would have probably been calling for the Joint Chiefs to either

be thrown in the booby hatch, or arrested -- !!

[MilesColtrane]

106. the American public would have probably been calling for the Joint Chiefs to either be thrown.."

I doubt it.

Were you around during the 60s?

Fear of the USSR was very real. Most Americans didn't even begin to have neutral feelings about the Soviets until after the SALT I accords were signed in '72.

[defendandprotect]

110. Evidently you don't know that TAPES exist of those discussions?

Wow!!

Yes -- the public would have been calling for the Joint Chiefs to be thrown

out --

Fear of the USSR was real until JFK came on the scene and made the Cold War laughable --

You may have been "around" but you were at the same time ... "out of it" -- !!

[MilesColtrane]

118. "JFK came on the scene and made the Cold War laughable"

Bay of Pigs Invasion, Kennedy's request for a 25% increase in military spending in 1961, The Berlin Wall is constructed, The Space Race begins...

All under Kennedy.

These little bogus tangential statements you keep tossing out are tiresome.

Have a nice day.

:hi:

[defendandprotect]

121. Berlin Wall came as a response to Bay of Pigs -- more "boys will be boys" --

Bay of Pigs was originally "Operation 40" -- CIA/Dulles and Nixon --

Nixon worked on it while Ike was in the hospital recovering from his heart attack.

And, actually JFK called for US and Russia to work together on the venture into space!

You didn't know that, either?

Wow!

[bread_and_roses]

80. +++!!! (n/t)

[DonCoquixote]

94. Not a what if, but a how

If we were entirely open with all secrets, how would we get any intelligence information? Truth is, while the CIA is a joke, we do need people who can tell us just what is going on in foreign lands, and with all due props to Julian Assange, you still can't do that from a PC all the time. How would intelligence agencies function in your scenario?

[pnwmom]

98. Because the diplomatic people in China are one group

and the Communist Party is another group -- and they don't always agree. The Communist Party group could not be trusted not to share whatever they knew with the Communist Party in North Korea. If you don't understand why North Korea is such a threat, then I can't help you.

[defendandprotect]

116. But US can be trusted ... ?? rofl

[defendandprotect]

83. If there's a "lunatic head of North Korea" think it may be better if it was openly discussed...

Some may think we have "lunatics" in control of America --

and I wouldn't necessarily disagree with them!!


:eyes:

[JDPriestly]

30. The release of the diplomatic cables reveal that the US has knowledge of rampant corruption

in a number of governments that the US supports. It also revealed the fact that Hillary Clinton was requesting that US diplomatic personnel spy on their counterparts in the UN. Pretty troubling stuff.

How many Mubaraks are we arming?

[defendandprotect]

49. +1

[truedelphi]

75. We will support as many Mubareks as needed for our

Renditions' programs.

[defendandprotect]

88. Not totally appropos to this discussion... but today at Obama/Harper presser ...

during Q&A -- someone asked Obama a VERY pertinent question about US need for OIL --

and the AJ/English anchor jumped in immediately to cut it off.

Did you hear any of this -- I'd like to know what the response was.

Just realizing there is probably TEXT on that somewhere on internet --

I'll try to find it later --


:)

[truedelphi]

122. Was this on C Span?

If so, I can find it for you if you know the date you saw it occur.

[defendandprotect]

123. Found it here ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=preIE7u3nsY

and Q&A begins at 16:00 minutes in -- HOWEVER, in relistening I don't find the question

re oil as pointed as I thought it was -- scanned it to end, and didn't find that question,

so think I was mistaken.

But Harper does talk about American need for oil which is far beyond our ability to

supply it -- and he's encouraging a secure, friendly, stable source in Canada!

Lots of other PR stuff on it by Obama re protesters in Egypt -- people will get to decide

in the new future of Egypt! Not very believable given what we now are learning about

back dealings of US with Wisner and Biden with military --

Thanks for your help!

:)



PS: However, think the new border issues/security need more attention from citizens --

evidently in DC they've also begun some "random" checking of bags?

[Hissyspit]

55. You, it seems, have not paid attention to what has been revealed by the cables.

Automatically buying into the MSM and governments lines is not healthy.

[liberation]

69. Specially after Tunisia went up in flames

your would think that talking point about wikileaks was put to rest. But here it is again, like a real life "Weekend at Bernie's"

[sudopod]

107. The fact that he makes you mad just by talking

gives me a warm fuzzy feeling, lol.

but seriously though, why u mad?

[me b zola]

5. K&R

[GiveMeFreedom]

6. All the media

attention for wikileaks is becoming dull. I was waiting for the big bank release, but not holding my breath any longer. Maybe Julian is wanting a payday from the big players to NOT publish damaging records? Just a W.A.G.

[defendandprotect]

24. If you don't know that our economic system and our BANKS are corrupt and criminal...

without WikiLeaks telling you that then you'll probably always be waiting to

find that out. And maybe the "big players" have put Assange under threat for

life?

[demwing]

27. This is dull?

Wikileaks could be generating a peaceful revolution across the world, and you find that dull? What would be exciting, in your opinion?

[GiveMeFreedom]

33. a cure for cancer n/t

[demwing]

42. Exciting, yes, but that's setting the bar pretty damn high

Still, I think freedom ranks pretty high

[defendandprotect]

50. End capitalism and its exploitation of nature/pollution = cure cancer --

[Hissyspit]

60. Oh, good grief.

Assange needs to cure cancer in order for you to not engage in the marginalization tactics.

:eyes:

[GiveMeFreedom]

64. Dear Hissyspit,

look, to be honest, I have cancer. A large lesion on my ilium, part of my hip and some soft tissue as well. So a cure from anyone would be something for me to get excited about. Most of what is happening, freedom movements, revolutions, wikileaks, etc. are all good and I am not far from where most DU'ers on bringing down the rich. Waiting for Julian to shake the powers that be into coming clean with their wrong doings by releasing information is a slow process that is aggravating for me personally. I do not understand why Julian does not release it all right now and get the revolutions started right now. What is he waiting for? Most of us are ready to back him.

[Hissyspit]

70. A much more honest and valid response than your original posts.

This thread is full of ludicrous ad hominum attacks. WikiLeaks is under massive attacks from multiple fronts. This revolution will continue no matter what happens to the organization or to Asssange, or what missteps they may make strategically. I hope for the best for you. My best friend has battled cancer since childhood, but is currently clean. Best wishes to you.

[defendandprotect]

89. Good to have a bit more insight ...

(and very sorry to hear that you are ill -- )

but looking at this as though Assange/WikiLeaks ALONE are going to deliver us from

evil would be very naive.

And, sadly, imo, in the matters of cancer we have great corruption --

[snot]

40. The bank leak publication has been delayed bec. WL is being illegally, financially strangled.

There's no need to speculate about the answer; it's already known.

VISA, Mastercard, PayPal, Bank of America and other big corps have been refusing to process donations to Wikileaks for months -- even though WL has yet to be charged with breaking any law of any nation, and VISA's own internal study concluded that WL has broken no laws.

"We have been losing more than 600,000 francs a week since the start of the publication of the diplomatic cables," Assange has told a Swiss newspaper. "To continue our business, we would need to find a way to get this money back." See http://www.news.com.au/features/wikileaks/wikileaks-is-desperate-for-cash-says-founder-julian-assange/story-fn79cf6x-1225985902794 .

Once again, I have to express dismay that so many DU'er's seem to have read the corp. media smears, but not the facts.

The basic case for Wikileaks: http://www.c-cyte.com/The_Case_for_Wikileaks.html

Good source of updated info: http://www.thenation.com/blogs/media-fix

[defendandprotect]

51. Thanks -- Banksters and corrupt government should be our concern ... not attacking whistleblowers!

[Hissyspit]

58. New cables released in Telegraph today.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8303489/WikiLeaks-cables-FCO-refused-to-speak-with-doomed-British-hostage.html

But, oh no, it's all so dull.

[Enthusiast]

7. K&R nt

[Honeycombe8]

8. Oh, gee, what a surprise. "Hey, what I do to make millions is great for YOU! I have no...

I have no self-interest in saying that at all! Really. Super really! Really really really."

What a silly little jerk. He should go hide back in his hole. That's about his speed. Hide, little fella, hide. "Bravery, I know ye not."

[liberation]

11. Projection, being what it is...

... posts that put words on other people's mouths tend to tell us more about the poster himself/herself, than they do about the target of their smear.

[femrap]

16. +1 nt

[florida08]

36. ditto..and well put

[reggie the dog]

20. what is wrong with whistleblowers?

[defendandprotect]

25. IMO, some simply FEAR ...

others FEAR that something may be uncovered which would make their

favorite politician look bad? Or, perhaps force them to acknowledge

things like corruption and crime that they don't want to have to do?

[defendandprotect]

23. How much have our politicians been making IN OFFICE -- Bill Clinton? Obama?

We have a Congress now which is 44% millionaires and multi-millionaires and

you trust them to do what's right?

I don't think you could find anyone who doesn't recognize that we have a

corporate-press and you trust them to do what's right?

But when someone is finally pulling the mask off of our "national security secrets"

then they have have to be attacked. Ignore the message, attack the messenger!

[KurtNYC]

35. you know what will really F--k with these people's minds is when

they figure out that Assange is only the front guy. The idea that killing Assange will stop Wikileaks is completely false.

The genie is out of the bottle, and the genie is not Assange...it's the leaks.

Similar organizations are forming around the world to process local secrets and lies. It's a new era for democracy and not everyone is ready for it.

[defendandprotect]

45. Agree -- and it's rofl that emphasis doesn't remain on our LACK of a free press -- !!

[rhett o rick]

29. Interesting how the right wing and corporatist Ruling Class hate whistle blowers. nm

[defendandprotect]

46. Exactly -- and that's tied in with attacks on journalists by right wing ... all the same...

suppress coverage of what's really going on!



PS: If you haven't seen the video GASLAND highly rec it !

[Hissyspit]

59. Worthless comment.

[Uncle Joe]

9. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Hissyspit.

[Wait Wut]

10. What a great guy.

Arrogance is unattractive no matter what side you're on. He's seriously comparing himself to the civil rights leaders of the 50s and 60s? Wow.

And, what is this "relevant action" he's requesting from his Australian supporters? He wouldn't be condoning violence or illegal acts, would he? No. Of course not. He's totally against those things.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[defendandprotect]

26. No -- Assange is comparing our lack of a free press to any other lack of civil liberties -- !!

[Uncle Joe]

28. 1. He didn't' compare himself to the civil rights leaders of the 50s and 60s,

get your facts straight and quit spreading fiction.

"He further compared WikiLeaks' push for more transparent governance to the civil rights movement of the 1950s, the peace movement of the 1960s, feminism movements and the environmental movement, The Age reports."

2. Do you have any evidence that Assange is calling for violence or is that total speculation on your part? Of course you don't have any evidence because there isn't any, except in your own mind.

[Wait Wut]

34. Ya caught me...

1. He's comparing Wikileaks to the civil rights, peace, feminist and environmental movements??? Seriously? Isn't Julian Assange a major player at Wikileaks?

2. I was asking a real question and did not say he was calling for violence. What is "relevent action"? What do you think it means? I know that when I hear the words "relevent action", because of current dialogue, I hear calls for illegal or violent action (yes, I'm a bit jumpy on the word "action". I live in Arizona and am surrounded by tea people calling for "action"...and they're all armed). If this is not what he meant, he may want to clarify. If he means peaceful protests, that's fine. Although, to ask citizens to protest for your own benefit is a little odd.

[Uncle Joe]

38. Well lest you think I'm arrogant, I wasn't the only one, defendandprotect did as well on post #26

just above mine.

No -- Assange is comparing our lack of a free press to any other lack of civil liberties -- !!

Furthermore the sentence I bolded on the post to which you just replied spells that out, but I will narrow down the keywords in the bolding for your reading convenience.

He further compared WikiLeaks' push for more transparent governance to the civil rights movement of the 1950s, the peace movement of the 1960s, feminism movements and the environmental movement, The Age reports.

Without a free press and transparency in government, the American People can't make wise decisions when it comes to voting for their best representation or on the critical issues of the day, and our nation would be at risk of sliding backward, so I see the comparisons as most appropriate.

You may be jumpy at the word action but without it there would've been and would be no no civil rights, feminist, environmental and peace movements to speak of and some of them were considered illegal in their day at least by the local powers that be, however being illegal and being violent are two drastically different things as the protests; in Egypt demonstrate.

If you were coming from Assange's point of view as I do, that most if not all the corporate media is pure propaganda aimed at deceiving the masses and that excessive governmental secrecy only serves to empower mega-corporations and their controlled governments over the will of the people, there is nothing strange at all about his call, for its' not so much to his benefit as it is to the people.

Having said that if Assange should benefit in some way from the world having a free press and more transparency in governments, I don't have a problem with that, the trade-off seems more than fair.

[defendandprotect]

112. +1000% -- and k/r --

Hi Uncle Joe -- :hi:

[Uncle Joe]

120. Hi, defendandprotect.

:hi:

[florida08]

43. Wait wut?

Love your s/n. There is another way to look at this. My summation was he equating the importance of government transparency (whether it by the PTB or by a WB)is as important as the civil and women's rights movements. Not that Wiki or Assange is in that important.

He has done a bit more than just embarrassed the PTB. I would say the video of US military shooting dow Iraq civilians was pretty powerful. It's why Bradley Manning is being kept in solitary in Quantico.

[defendandprotect]

52. And that video is why 60 minutes/Kroft EDITED OUT MOST OF THE VIDEO -- !!

[defendandprotect]

113. ... and it's why Kroft/60 Minutes wouldn't show that entire VIDEO ... CUT most of it -- !!!

:hi:

[defendandprotect]

48. If you live in Arizona, you should recognize the violence of the right wing ....

as you can see in Tahrir Square, not all calls to action are calls to violence!



We have a corporate press -- not a free press --

that's what Assange is drawing attention to --

the Founders very clear understanding that without a free press is necessary

to a free nation --

A free press is a CIVIL RIGHT --

[LiberalLovinLug]

53. Some education for you

I've read most of what's posted here from Wikileaks. Most of it is fluff and useless information intended to embarrass and does nothing to improve any situation...national or global.

Again, all of you Assange/Wikileaks supporters, give me a real argument. Say something that could possibly change my mind.

WikiLeaks cables: Shell's grip on Nigerian state revealed

US embassy cables reveal top executive's claims that company 'knows everything' about key decisions in government ministries
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/dec/08/wikileaks-cables-shell-nigeria-spying

WikiLeaks revealed how Trafigura, an African oil company, caused widespread illness through a toxic gas dump.

October 16th, 2009

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/6350262/Secret-Trafigura-report-said-likely-cause-of-illness-was-release-of-toxic-gas-from-dumped-waste.html

WikiLeaks revealed more than 15,000 civilian deaths in Iraq that had previously been concealed by the U.S. government.

October 23rd, 2010

http://www.iraqwarlogs.com/2010/10/23/iraqs-bloodbath/

WikiLeaks exposed 217 cases of UN peace-keepers being accused of sexually abusing and impregnating girls in eastern Congo.

January 14th, 2009

http://mirror.wikileaks.info/wiki/UN_finds_217_sex_abuse_claims_against_blue_helmets/index.html

WikiLeaks released Thailand's classified Internet censorship list.

December 21st, 2008

http://wikileaks.info/wiki/1,203_new_websites_censored_by_Thailand/index.html

WikiLeaks exposed a U.S. chopper that slaughtered surrendering Iraqis after ruling that surrendering to a helicopter was "illegal".

October 23rd, 2010

http://www.iraqwarlogs.com/2010/10/23/us-commits-%E2%80%9Cwar-crime%E2%80%9D-as-apache-helicopter-cleared-to-gun-surrendering-insurgents/

WikiLeaks has revealed how U.S. soldiers used Iraqi civilians as human bomb detectors.

October 23rd, 2010

http://www.iraqwarlogs.com/2010/10/23/human-bomb-detectors/

WikiLeaks exposed how the U.S. pressured Spain to drop the case of a cameraman that was killed in a 2003 attack on journalists in Baghdad.

December 1st, 2010

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/12/1/us_pressured_spain_to_drop_case

WikiLeaks has revealed the National Socialist Movement's neo-nazi internal workings.

August 21st, 2009

http://boingboing.net/2009/08/21/wikileaks-publishes-1.html

WikiLeaks has released the most comprehensive and detailed account of any war ever to have entered the public record.

October 26th, 2010

http://blog.amnestyusa.org/us/failed-accountability-wikileaks-show-true-cost-of-war/

WikiLeaks has shown how U.S. troops repeatedly failed to detail civilian deaths in Iraq, even in large-scale seiges.

October 22nd, 2010

http://www.iraqwarlogs.com/2010/10/22/us-troops-fail-to-record-civilian-deaths-in-one-of-iraqs-biggest-battles/

WikiLeaks has demonstrated how Australia, Finland and Denmark are using child pornography as an excuse to censor legitimate websites.

June 29th, 2009

http://cyberlaw.org.uk/2009/06/29/wikileaks-italian-secret-internet-censorship-list-287-site-subset-21-jun-2009/

WikiLeaks has revealed how scientists manipulated global warming research data in order to make it seem more consequential.

November 21st, 2009

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/6619796/Climate-scientists-accused-of-manipulating-global-warming-data.html

WikiLeaks released Thailand's classified Internet censorship list.

December 21st, 2008

http://wikileaks.info/wiki/1,203_new_websites_censored_by_Thailand/index.html

WikiLeaks clarified the terms of operation at Guantanamo Bay, one of the most controversial detention centers in the world.

November 14th, 2007

http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2007/11/gitmo

WikiLeaks revealed how Trafigura, an African oil company, caused widespread illness through a toxic gas dump.

October 16th, 2009

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/6350262/Secret-Trafigura-report-said-likely-cause-of-illness-was-release-of-toxic-gas-from-dumped-waste.html

WikiLeaks ended the corrupt rule of the Arap-Moi family in Kenya.

July 26th, 2010

http://habarizanyumbani.jambonewspot.com/2010/07/26/wikileaks-founder-on-kenya-corruption-and-more/

WikiLeaks has shown how US-funded Iraqi militias switched their allegiance to Al-Qaeda.

October 22nd, 2010

http://www.iraqwarlogs.com/2010/10/22/sons-of-iraq/

WikiLeaks revealed Al-Qaeda's deadly exploitation of children in Iraq.

October 23rd, 2010

http://www.iraqwarlogs.com/2010/10/23/al-qaeda%E2%80%99s-deadly-exploitation-of-children/

WikiLeaks released a video showing a U.S. army helicopter slaughtering Reuters journalists and Iraqi children in cold blood.

April 3rd, 2010

http://youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0

WikiLeaks showed how the Obama administration handed over Iraqi detainees despite reports of torture.

October 23rd, 2010

http://www.iraqwarlogs.com/2010/10/23/obama-administration-handed-over-detainees/

WikiLeaks detailed Al-Qaeda's use of chemical weapons in Iraq.

October 27th, 2010

http://www.iraqwarlogs.com/2010/09/27/al-qaedas-use-of-chemical-weapons/

And, what is this "relevant action" he's requesting from his Australian supporters? He wouldn't be condoning violence or illegal acts, would he? No. Of course not. He's totally against those things.

Well...you answered that one yourself saved me some time thanks.

I do not get your charges of arrogance on Assanges part. It seems like you tag him as arrogant because he is what? in the news?, popular with a large segment around the world?, writing a book? defending himself from attacks?

Has he ever claimed to be more than what he is? The face and frontman for Wikileaks. Someone has to be the one that gets to take all the abuse, criticism and from folks like yourself...ignorant and fear-based accusations and insults.

Speaking of civil rights, it seems like you would be one who would have called Martin Luther King arrogant as well. Putting himself on stage like that, thinking he knows a better way for America. Look at his family, cashing in on all the books, movies etc.. that have been made as a result of their patriarch's arrogance. That's the real reason he forced the news media to pay attention to him right?

[NorthCarolina]

67. Oh, Touché.....

:applause: :applause: Great post :applause: :applause:

[boppers]

91. Nice list.

Of course, there's a lot more, but this is a starting point.

[Hissyspit]

56. Oh, no! He's arrogant!!

Please...

We've heard the ad hominum stuff a billion times.

[djp2]

77. Isn't that what they said about that uppity

Mr. Dr. Martin Luther King, Junior?? That he was ARROGANT!?

[socialist_n_TN]

125. Yes they did. I was a white kid in the south...........

during that time and arrogance was the LEAST of what they said about Dr. King.

[Threedifferentones]

101. CIvil rights protests were illegal too.

I guess since it was illegal for those brave souls to sit in those restaurants and march on those streets, they should have just given up....

Obviously not.

And who is to say that people who rule by violence don't deserve to die from it?

[disndat]

12. To WikiLeaks naysayers:

Too bad! The genie's out of the bottle.

[krabigirl]

13. Good for him, especially nowadays, when people seem to have no problem being scrutinized.

By the state, constantly, so they can be kept "safe."

[defendandprotect]

21. Excellent point -- government is now in our underwear and wiretapping us ... but ...

we must have no idea of what they're doing -- !!!

[Robb]

14. Great. Now release the Granai video you said would end the war in Afghanistan.

What a peacock.

[decidedlyso]

15. Sadly, I am starting to agree with you. It appears to be an egoist

attempting to gain riches and self-aggrandizement rather than an altruist wanting to help his fellow man.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hissyspit]

62. Ignore what WikiLeaks has done and emphasize your subjective intererpretation of his personality.

[decidedlyso]

63. Facts not in evidence.

[liberation]

81. Dude, your adhominem is up there two slots up.

This forum is public, you know...

[decidedlyso]

85. My adhominem as you put it, showed no evidence of my not

agreeing with Assange's earlier work, which I have posted about many times on this board, including on this original OP before it was deleted as part of a sub-thread. With the absence of facts in the accuser's post of the charge against me, my contention stands...dude.

[reggie the dog]

18. this song explains how i feel about all this pretty well

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Me4GR2cze_U an old song from pennywise

[xchrom]

31. ...

:applause:

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[girl gone mad]

41. k & r

Time for change.

[defendandprotect]

54. Let's get this thread back to discussions of our LACK OF A FREE PRESS ... !!

And how essential that is to democracy, freedom --

It's something we discuss here every day on DU -- over and over again --

it is central to our loss of control over our government --

What Assange is saying is that we have a Constitutional right to a free press ....

that it is a CIVIL RIGHT as essential as any other human right!

"We support a cause that is no more radical a proposition than that the citizenry

has a right to scrutinise the state"

[micraphone]

74. Well said d&p

There are WAY too many instances of corruption uncovered by Wikileaks (a fraction mentioned upthread) to dismiss them as anything other than, perhaps, THE most significant weapon in the war against corruption by the PTB.

Personal attacks on Assange are merely a way for trolls to detract from what is really important - the 'leaks'. Repigs do this all the time as it is an effective methodology. We must not be distracted either.

[defendandprotect]

82. Agree -- and when we consider what was actually said ALOUD ...

in the attack video -- and what Clinton has actually put in writing to others to

spy on a UN officials/"get some DNA" -- did we figure out yet what the hell that's

about? And Bush and Rummy now pretty much bragging about their support for

TORTURE -- imagine what the actual SECRETS of the administration might be!!!???


:)

[Vidar]

65. K&R.

[Hissyspit]

66. "Julian Assange is a jerk!" Meanwhile:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4721990&mesg_id=4721990

[JDPriestly]

71. I seriously doubt that the UK government was unaware of this.

[truedelphi]

73. K & R to read Assange later. Thanks

For Posting this.

[vim876]

76. Thank Maude for Wikileaks...

Even if Assange is an @$$. Institutions can be cool even when the people running them are not.

[Lint Head]

79. He is absolutely correct. The constitutional 'check' on power includes

the "check" and oversight of the people. The people are protected and informed by the "Freedom of the Press" clause.
We cannot be informed if the press is lying about the government that the people are suppose to KEEP IN CHECK.

[defendandprotect]

90. Plus, our Congress has also surrendered all right to supervise these "secrets" ---

First the CIA began suggesting that things were so "secret" that not ALL of Congress

should be hearing what they had to say even in closed sessions.

They after a while, they began to demand that those who were "in the know" in Congress

should be limtied further --

And, then they moved to limit that number ever more -- so now we're down to like two

or three members of Congress who have any idea of what's going on -- and for all I know

they've already surrendered that right!!????


:eyes:

[Gregorian]

92. Great observation. I wish you would post this as a new thread.

This is so basic it doesn't seem to be more than implied throughout the discussions. I think many people need to hear it. Even if it's just a brief statement, I wish you would post it.

[EFerrari]

93. There are people who'd side with authority even while it was hauling them away. n/t

[M155Y_A1CH]

95. Kick

:kick: +

[lonestarnot]

102. Too late to recommend.

[lonestarnot]

103. .

[treestar]

105. What a pathetic moron

Let's let the nuclear codes be opened for inspection too!

[sudopod]

108. lol

your anger is delicious.

[treestar]

109. What anger?

I just think this guy is an idiot and an attention seeker on the order of Sarah Palin.

He's pathetic trying to pretend he is important.

[sudopod]

111. You wouldn't fill every wikileaks thread with your angst

if you weren't mad. Who spends vast quantities of time railing about things that they aren't emotionally involved with?

Or do you just normally follow people around and tell them how awful you think they are?

QED

[treestar]

114. That's rich. Do you say the same to those who obsessively post on the subject

and try to make a hero out of this leaker? Who make ludicrous comparisons to great men and want him to be free of the rule of law due to his greatness? :rofl:

Don't project too much. I just find it fun to laugh at Julian. To you everything is anger. That doesn't make it so for everyone else.

Julian trying to make himself important, when he's done nothing but leak classified information and people falling for it is not the stuff of anger, but of amusement, so long as the leaks don't hurt anyone. And bringing in him mummy, too, did you hear? :rofl: Now we know her name! It's Christine. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

And the suggestions that he get the Nobel Prize. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: Does the person who made such a ridiculous suggestion post less than I do on the subject? And who are you to judge people for just posting on a subject? it's no worse than your side.

[sudopod]

117. 9 rolling smiley post!

you're totally not mad angry.

[socialist_n_TN]

126. What it boils down to is that EVERYBODY who has...........

posted AGAINST the IDEA of Wikileaks has ALSO posted attacks on Assange. Basically, if you can't get any traction with people on the MERITS of the ACTION, you attack the PERSON. That's what the WCCs AND the FBI did with Dr. King in the 60s. In addition to the disinformation.

[Hissyspit]

124. Has he released any nuclear codes?