Hallams wrote on Wed, 08 December 2010 19:17 |
I certainly hope not.........that would be a futile endevour. The real issue for the keepers of the secrets is their inability to controll the internet. There would more than likely be another Assange to take up the Wikileaks model of information dissemination. |
Barry Hufker wrote on Wed, 08 December 2010 19:53 |
I see both sides of the argument but at the moment I am "pro-Assange" -- but who knows anyone's true motives, especially in this case. |
jetbase wrote on Wed, 08 December 2010 18:18 |
DarinK, from different comments I have seen from around the world (eg on Facebook) it seems to me that this is being reported by the media in a very different way in the US than it is in other parts of the world, or at least Australia. |
Paul Cavins wrote on Thu, 09 December 2010 03:16 | ||
Seems to me that the best way to get to the unfortunate time when the internet is "controlled" is for irresponsible fools like the Wilileaks bunch to screw it up for everyone. The thousands of documents leaked will certainly bear revelations that please all kinds of people, that meet their ends, but it is not worth it. As much as we may have issues with the way our leaders behave, at least they are elected. Nobody elected Assange, he doesn't answer to anyone or anything except for his punk-ass conscience or lack thereof. Wikileaks' actions only heighten the "need" for MORE control of the internet. He is a worthless prick.
|
Kris wrote on Thu, 09 December 2010 10:10 |
I'm going to assume that if the guy is proven to be a rapist you pro-Assange guys will change your tune. |
Kris wrote on Thu, 09 December 2010 17:10 |
I'm going to assume that if the guy is proven to be a rapist you pro-Assange guys will change your tune. |
jonathan jetter wrote on Thu, 09 December 2010 10:21 |
first of all, his personal conduct has no bearing either way on the rightness or wrongness of what Wikileaks is doing. |
Paul Cavins wrote on Thu, 09 December 2010 13:43 |
As far as controlling the internet goes, my point is that I want an open internet, but if the people of the cyber world don't exercise some SELF control, the great forces of the world will make the internet less open because they are threatened. |
Paul Cavins wrote on Thu, 09 December 2010 13:43 |
I find these cries for openness and transparency to be simplistic and naive (as well as shallow and pedantic*). Do you really think that diplomacy could actually happen in the real world without some bit of duplicity going on? |
Paul Cavins wrote on Thu, 09 December 2010 13:43 |
Is there any reason to believe that Wikileaks' dumping is at all measured in any way to make a specific point, or is it just vandalism? |
Paul Cavins wrote on Thu, 09 December 2010 13:43 |
We all enjoy the fruits of our advanced modern societies, we depend on the institutions and structures that make our modern life possible. I think we are spoiled by the comforts of this life so much that we lose sight of what holds it up. Our societies are made up of millions of people all with their own ideas and interests. None of this could be held together by we flawed people without some unsightly actions and secrets. It's a crappy aspect of life. There should be as much openness as there can be, but just throwing an info-bomb into the workings of the world community doesn't seem to serve a good cause. |
Paul Cavins wrote on Thu, 09 December 2010 14:55 |
No matter how shitty the government is, it is still run by people who need to get elected. |
Paul Cavins wrote on Fri, 10 December 2010 09:55 |
Jay, the whole system isn't based on duplicity, yet there is a certain amount in any human society. What alternative vision is there? What great path forward is revealed by the Wiki kids? One has to be unsatisfied with the system, but reckless tearing-down isn't the answer. There has to be better ways to fight for openness and accountability. |
Paul Cavins wrote on Thu, 09 December 2010 14:55 |
Jay, the whole system isn't based on duplicity, yet there is a certain amount in any human society. PC |
sui-city wrote on Thu, 09 December 2010 21:39 |
Kris, My apologies. You may be right with the charge. This may shed some light on it: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1336291/Wikileaks-Ju lian-Assanges-2-night-stands-spark-worldwide-hunt.html?ito=f eeds-newsxml I knew of the Sexual Molestation & Unlawful Coercion. |
sui-city wrote on Thu, 09 December 2010 16:39 |
Kris, My apologies. You may be right with the charge. This may shed some light on it: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1336291/Wikileaks-Ju lian-Assanges-2-night-stands-spark-worldwide-hunt.html?ito=f eeds-newsxml I knew of the Sexual Molestation & Unlawful Coercion. |
Paul Cavins wrote on Thu, 09 December 2010 21:43 |
We all enjoy the fruits of our advanced modern societies |
MagnetoSound wrote on Fri, 10 December 2010 11:20 | ||
This sort of thing is necessarily written from a privileged perspective, and is simply not true. |
Paul Cavins wrote on Sat, 11 December 2010 01:40 |
The poor people all around the world ... just have societies that are built around relatively crappy ideas. |
MagnetoSound wrote on Fri, 10 December 2010 20:52 |
Yes, I meant the people of the world. But I could also have meant that not everybody finds all of the 'fruits of modernity' particularly enjoyable. That kind of thing is highly subjective, after all. (I am not personally drawn to fast, thirsty cars for example, although I know that many on this forum are.) |
Paul Cavins wrote on Sat, 11 December 2010 04:17 |
I'm sorry, I missed the last part of your post. My assertion is not at all ridiculous. It is a shite idea that poorer countries are that way because of Western misbehavior. The reason they are disadvantaged is related to why they were so ripe to be colonized back in the the bad old days. They were and are behind in the race of human development. I know it's not all that simple and that it would be tragic for people all over to abandon the whole of their cultures to copy the West. I'm speaking generally. Look at India now. It was colonized, and got over it (which is nice), but would it be in it's present position without a shot of Western culture? It is about ideas, not big piles of resources being grabbed. PC |
Gio wrote on Sat, 11 December 2010 08:06 |
Is any of this stuff he exposed actually "news" to anyone? |
Hallams wrote on Fri, 10 December 2010 14:13 |
The calls by congressmen and people in positions of power in the USA to have Julian Assange killed are an indictment to their nation and a sad example of the morally corrupt attitude their comments represent. |
Gio wrote on Sat, 11 December 2010 18:06 |
Assange is no hero. Just another cyber brat who happened to illegally obtain information that did not belong to him, distribute it, then had his cronies mount cyber terrorist attacks against others for not kissing his ass. Is any of this stuff he exposed actually "news" to anyone? Who appointed him "Monitor of the World"? |
Paul Cavins wrote on Fri, 10 December 2010 21:17 |
It is about ideas, not big piles of resources being grabbed. PC |
Gio wrote on Sat, 11 December 2010 11:06 |
Assange is no hero. Just another cyber brat who happened to illegally obtain information that did not belong to him, distribute it, then had his cronies mount cyber terrorist attacks against others for not kissing his ass. |
Gio wrote on Sun, 12 December 2010 03:06 |
Assange is no hero. Just another cyber brat who happened to illegally obtain information that did not belong to him, distribute it, then had his cronies mount cyber terrorist attacks against others for not kissing his ass. Is any of this stuff he exposed actually "news" to anyone? Who appointed him "Monitor of the World"? |
Jay Kadis wrote on Sat, 11 December 2010 11:28 |
Yes, to many people it IS news. It exposes a pattern of duplicity that undermines our political standing in the world. |
Kassonica wrote on Sat, 11 December 2010 19:01 |
Your understanding of Julian Assange and wikileaks is quite underwhelming..... |
sui-city wrote on Sat, 11 December 2010 12:22 |
Gio, If you can watch this, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0, and not feel disgusted by it, then no matter your opinion of JA, I recommend you ask yourself why you are unmoved. And to accept that this is justified, by the people who lead our countries, not just the USA, but many countries, as a part of war, shows that there is something severely wrong in all of us. This needs to be exposed. It is what journalism was. Only now the tools have changed. |
Tidewater wrote on Sat, 11 December 2010 22:31 |
Humanity is foul. It's made of people. |
Gio wrote on Sat, 11 December 2010 16:04 | ||
If by that you mean exposing our current administration's lack of "transparency" they promised, then I agree. The U.S. is not, of course, the only country on the planet that practices this kind of duplicity, and I somehow doubt the world could survive with an "I'll take your word for it" policy between nations. |
Paul Cavins wrote on Thu, 09 December 2010 01:16 |
As much as we may have issues with the way our leaders behave, at least they are elected. Nobody elected Assange, he doesn't answer to anyone or anything except for his punk-ass conscience or lack thereof. Wikileaks' actions only heighten the "need" for MORE control of the internet. He is a worthless prick. |
Hallams wrote on Fri, 10 December 2010 22:13 |
The calls by congressmen and people in positions of power in the USA to have Julian Assange killed are an indictment to their nation and a sad example of the morally corrupt attitude their comments represent. Making a threat to murder is an offense in Australia and as these people are making a threat to murder an Australian citizen they should face extradition orders to face the charge in an Australian court of law. That Americans see as a legitimate exercise in the protection of its interests, the Murder of citizens from other countries not engaged in legitimate or illegitimate war (another story altogether) is the pits and i'm sure many decent Americans bear the shame of such an attitude with dismay and despair. |
Paul Cavins wrote on Sun, 12 December 2010 12:58 |
The point about people being elected is that they can be unelected. |
Bill_Urick wrote on Sun, 12 December 2010 06:48 |
If you guys are gonna start making out, I'm moving to another thread... |
Paul Cavins wrote on Sat, 11 December 2010 07:47 |
I'm sorry, I missed the last part of your post. My assertion is not at all ridiculous. It is a shite idea that poorer countries are that way because of Western misbehavior. The reason they are disadvantaged is related to why they were so ripe to be colonized back in the the bad old days. They were and are behind in the race of human development. I know it's not all that simple and that it would be tragic for people all over to abandon the whole of their cultures to copy the West. I'm speaking generally. Look at India now. It was colonized, and got over it (which is nice), but would it be in it's present position without a shot of Western culture? It is about ideas, not big piles of resources being grabbed. PC |
mukul wrote on Sun, 12 December 2010 18:35 | ||
I don't know if I should be angry at such a condescending opinion, or sad at self-proclaimed superiority of western culture. |
Bill_Urick wrote on Sun, 12 December 2010 19:11 |
Did India benefit from an influx of Western technology? Just an open question. I have no idea and no agenda. |
Paul Cavins wrote on Sun, 12 December 2010 17:58 |
Sam, I DO NOT WANT the gubmint in control of the internet!! How many times do I have to say it? Assange types are behaving in ways that force the issue about "needing" central powers to control the internet. I don't want that to happen. The point about people being elected is that they can be unelected. |
Samc wrote on Sun, 12 December 2010 16:57 | ||
This assumes that there was an influx of western technology into India during colonization... |
Paul Cavins wrote on Sun, 12 December 2010 09:58 |
Sam, I DO NOT WANT the gubmint in control of the internet!! How many times do I have to say it? Assange types are behaving in ways that force the issue about "needing" central powers to control the internet. I don't want that to happen. |
Samc wrote on Mon, 13 December 2010 09:00 |
Can you explain how and why Assange is the villain in this saga, why is he and not the politicians who are at the root of the situation? |
Bill_Urick wrote on Sun, 12 December 2010 22:52 | ||||
No Sam. No assumption at all. As I said-I have no idea whether or not there was an influx at that time or whether it was of any benefit. |
Samc wrote on Mon, 13 December 2010 03:23 | ||||
I'm just personally amazed at the level of ignorance and presumption displayed in the above post. Claiming that people are "behind in the race of human development." is not just condescending, it's racist... Hey Paul, did the people of India tell you that they "got over" hundred's of years of colonization when their country was raped of it's natural resources? What facts or study did you use to arrive at the conclusion that India got to where it is because it was colonized rather than in spite of it? |
Paul Cavins wrote on Mon, 13 December 2010 05:51 |
My post is not at all racist. The charge of racism is the first refuge of poopy-heads. |
Quote: |
You people need to get past this whole resentment mentality and get on with life. No one is defending what happened centuries ago. We are past that, just like we are past slavery and other past behaviors we see as sins today. |
Quote: |
It is a plain fact that different parts of the world have developed at different rates. Is Afghanistan as far along as Sweden? Do they even have a Starbucks? |
Quote: |
Save the racism bilge for someone else. It bores me. |
Paul Cavins wrote on Mon, 13 December 2010 05:51 |
It is a plain fact that different parts of the world have developed at different rates. Is Afghanistan as far along as Sweden? Do they even have a Starbucks? |
Samc wrote on Mon, 13 December 2010 06:50 | ||||||
I'm going to TRY and answer this, albeit in a very general way because the answer is a little more complicated than a simple yes or no. The aim of colonization (generally speaking) was always very simple, the colonizers used the resources of the colony to enrich themselves. Any benefit that the colony reaps from this is incidental; modern transportation systems had to be built to take merchandise to the ports for export and hospitals had to be built to maintain a healthy workforce for example but there was no wholesale importation of education and technology into colonies. Education was on a limited need to know basis, which means that a very small percentage of the population get educated, and even then they only get what's necessary to keep the wheel turning. The British colonization of India did not bring the advanced tools and education necessary to bring India to where it is today... |
Samc wrote on Mon, 13 December 2010 08:00 |
By the way Paul, you have not answered my question as to why you consider julian Assange the bad guy in all this, when all the politicians and governments at the root of this scandal and those yahoos who are calling for his murder get a free ride? Didn't the NY Times and the Guardian among others also published some of this information? Why aren't those publishers being assassinated in the streets of NY, London or wherever they are? |
Kris wrote on Mon, 13 December 2010 10:16 | ||
I'm not Paul but I'd wager a guess that there's a possibility that he may have broken U.S. law and some people consider law breakers to be bad guys. (I'm no lawyer though, thank God!) Lucky for him he's innocent until proven guilty, and no one is getting assassinated over this gossip (so far)! |
DarinK wrote on Mon, 13 December 2010 14:16 |
Innocent until proven guilty but the big corporations (Amazon, PayPal, Visa, etc.) have cut off his access without even a court order. There's no longer even any attempt to pretend that there's actual rule of law - if the government says "jump," businesses say "how high" without any regard for what the law actually says. |
jonathan jetter wrote on Mon, 13 December 2010 11:20 | ||
almost. when *business* says "jump," (only certain mega-corporations, though), *government* says "how high?" what you're seeing now from amazon, visa, paypal, etc., is just the quid pro quo in order to maintain the current situation. |
Kris wrote on Mon, 13 December 2010 18:16 | ||
I'm not Paul but I'd wager a guess that there's a possibility that he may have broken U.S. law and some people consider law breakers to be bad guys. (I'm no lawyer though, thank God!) Lucky for him he's innocent until proven guilty, and no one is getting assassinated over this gossip (so far)! |
Samc wrote on Mon, 13 December 2010 15:59 |
What US law did he break? Has he been charged with a crime? How come the NY Times and the Guardian etc aren't also being persecuted? Why are the people who are calling for him to be murdered aren't being charged with a crime, and more importantly, why are the politicians who are at the root of this not guilty of anything? |
Kris wrote on Mon, 13 December 2010 21:16 |
1) Possibly the Espionage Act of 1917 and several other unnamed 'charges' |
Quote: |
2) Not yet |
Quote: |
3) Probably because they are 'the Press' |
Quote: |
4) Free Speech issues |
Kris wrote on Mon, 13 December 2010 16:16 |
(a few Google searches later...) 1) Possibly the Espionage Act of 1917 and several other unnamed 'charges' 2) Not yet 3) Probably because they are 'the Press' 4) Free Speech issues 5) ? Name some names and what they are guilty of? |
Paul Cavins wrote on Mon, 13 December 2010 23:18 |
Sam, I can see where the phrase "behind in the race of human development" could be taken as racist, but amidst all of the other stuff I wrote about it all being about ideas and such, I think one doesn't have to bend over backwards in generosity to conclude it is innocent. My version of "the race of human development" is about culture and technology and such, not about DNA or the evolution of the human species. |
Quote: |
As for Assange, I fear a future where we have all of these tech vigilantes running around with their own agendas. With the advance of technology, it will be possible for a small number of people to cause a lot of disruption and damage. |
Quote: |
He has no standing to do what he is doing, compounding Manning's crime by zapping all of this data everywhere. |
jonathan jetter wrote on Mon, 13 December 2010 18:59 |
Barack Obama - for endorsing the extrajudicial killing of American citizens. |
Bill_Urick wrote on Mon, 13 December 2010 19:05 | ||
Huh? Please elucidate... |
Samc wrote on Mon, 13 December 2010 19:00 | ||||||
It's not about their evolution as humans, they are just behind in their cultural development... Dude, I think you should stop.
It's already possible for a small group to cause a lot of damage; the US and it's allies invaded Iraq based on the lies of a small powerful group....
What about the NY Times!?! |
Samc wrote on Mon, 13 December 2010 18:27 | ||
You mean he hasn't even been charged with a crime but he's guilty??? |
Hallams wrote on Tue, 14 December 2010 01:02 |
While the thread derailment continues on it's boring, mundane meanderings, here is a bit of reading, an overview from a Britt's perspective. |
Gio wrote on Tue, 14 December 2010 01:37 |
Yeah, "hacktivists". Operation Payback are the same jackwads who we as musicians and artists are at odds with re: illegal downloading. |
Samc wrote on Mon, 13 December 2010 20:51 | ||
Stop waving the red herring around dude, most illegal downloading is done by regular people, you don't need to be a hacker to to do that. |
Quote: |
Before WikiLeaks, Operation Payback's initial target was America's recording industry, chosen for its prosecutions of music file downloaders. From those humble origins, Payback's anti-censorship, anti-copyright, freedom of speech manifesto would go viral, last week pitting an amorphous army of online hackers against the US government and some of the biggest corporations in the world. |
Kris wrote on Tue, 14 December 2010 01:40 | ||||
(Trying my hardest not to give you another 'gotcha' moment ...) Not yet, meaning there are lots of reports from news organizations (I Googled) stating that charges are being seriously considered. (period) |
jonathan jetter wrote on Mon, 13 December 2010 19:08 | ||||
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/07 /assassinations |
Bill_Urick wrote on Mon, 13 December 2010 21:29 | ||||||
Oh. That. |
jonathan jetter wrote on Mon, 13 December 2010 22:22 |
Hi Bill, serious question here- in the real world, when you are in heated discussion and strongly disagreeing with a group of people whom you mostly respect as decent, intelligent human beings, do you normally choose interact with responses like that? i have gone out of my way to debate ideas without belittling anyone else. Jon |
Samc wrote on Tue, 14 December 2010 12:46 | ||
My apologies for the part I've played in the boring, mundane derailment of the thread and I promise to only discuss the points that interest, entertain and amuse you from now on.... I'll get onto that link you posted right away. |
Hallams wrote on Tue, 14 December 2010 11:55 | ||||
Ok ...... |
Paul Cavins wrote on Tue, 14 December 2010 00:28 |
Yes I should stop. I should stop attempting to have reasonable discourse with you |
Hallams wrote on Wed, 15 December 2010 01:48 |
Another link to Crickey....if you feel so inclined....enjoy. http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/12/15/rundle-cue-the-circus-an d-the-end-of-wikileaks-as-we-know-it/ |
Gio wrote on Wed, 15 December 2010 22:12 | ||
Why do you need to register to access the article? |
Hallams wrote on Wed, 15 December 2010 07:21 |
All three have in the last week ceased enabling donations to WikiLeaks. Neither Mastercard nor Visa have explained the basis for their decision to do so. PayPal has backed away from its initial claim that the US State Department told PayPal WikiLeaks had broken the law after the claim was discredited. This is the third occasion on which PayPal has suspended payment services for WikiLeaks. |
Bill_Urick wrote on Wed, 15 December 2010 11:53 |
Would it be safe to say that Assange is a free-lance propagandist? If so, whose interests is he serving? |
Hallams wrote on Wed, 15 December 2010 07:14 |
Crikey is an independent Australian electronic magazine comprising an open access website. From what i gather the registration gives you free trial access to the media content for 21 days or there about. After there is a small fee for subscription. Here is some background info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crikey |
Bill_Urick wrote on Wed, 15 December 2010 22:53 |
Would it be safe to say that Assange is a free-lance propagandist? If so, whose interests is he serving? |
Hallams wrote on Wed, 15 December 2010 01:21 |
Something a bit smelly here: ...Israel subsidises over 100 settlements in the West Bank in defiance of international law. |
Quote: |
Preamble: The Council of the League of Nations: Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country; and ...confirming the said Mandate, defines its terms as follows: ...ART. 6. The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes. |
Lovely wrote on Wed, 15 December 2010 08:07 | ||||
Smelly indeed, because according to international law the West Bank is part of the Jewish national home. The right to settle in the West Bank was granted by the League of Nations specifically to the Jews, and thus can never be revoked. Short history: The area known as "Palestine" was part of the Turkish Empire until its capitulation in WW1, then sovereignty was passed to the League of Nations, which appointed Britain to establish a Jewish National Home in Palestine. The Arabs rebelled against the British Mandate and attacked the Jews. The British gave up and left, leaving Palestine as 'no man's land' with no sovereignty. In Response the state of Israel was established and immediately attacked by the local Arabs and the neighboring states. In this conflict the West Bank was invaded and illegally occupied by Jordan (according to international law land cannot be acquired by war) for 19 years, until 1967 when Israel was attacked (again) by its neighboring states, and (again) defeated them. ...So when Israel "subsidises over 100 settlements in the West Bank", it's not "in defiance of international law", quite the opposite, because according to the League of Nations' resolution it has a right to settle Jews in the West Bank. THIS is the (international) legal status of the West Bank, FYI. Here a quote from the League of Nations' document:
|
DarinK wrote on Wed, 15 December 2010 13:02 |
One could disagree with the idea that something granted by the League of Nations must last for all eternity, never to be revoked. |
Quote: |
Consequences of the termination of a treaty 1. Unless the treaty otherwise provides or the parties otherwise agree, the termination of a treaty under its provisions or in accordance with the present Convention: (a) ... ...(b) does not affect any right, obligation or legal situation of the parties created through the execution of the treaty prior to its termination. |
Quote: |
...nothing in this Chapter shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties. |
Lovely wrote on Thu, 16 December 2010 00:07 | ||||
Smelly indeed, because according to international law the West Bank is part of the Jewish national home. The right to settle in the West Bank was granted by the League of Nations specifically to the Jews, and thus can never be revoked. Short history: The area known as "Palestine" was part of the Turkish Empire until its capitulation in WW1, then sovereignty was passed to the League of Nations, which appointed Britain to establish a Jewish National Home in Palestine. The Arabs rebelled against the British Mandate and attacked the Jews. The British gave up and left, leaving Palestine as 'no man's land' with no sovereignty. In Response the state of Israel was established and immediately attacked by the local Arabs and the neighboring states. In this conflict the West Bank was invaded and illegally occupied by Jordan (according to international law land cannot be acquired by war) for 19 years, until 1967 when Israel was attacked (again) by its neighboring states, and (again) defeated them. ...So when Israel "subsidises over 100 settlements in the West Bank", it's not "in defiance of international law", quite the opposite, because according to the League of Nations' resolution it has a right to settle Jews in the West Bank. THIS is the (international) legal status of the West Bank, FYI. Here a quote from the League of Nations' document:
|
Lovely wrote on Wed, 15 December 2010 12:35 | ||||||
"One" could disagree with any idea he chooses to disagree with, but not according to international law: Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969), article 70:
Charter of the United Nations, article 80:
|
Hallams wrote on Wed, 15 December 2010 14:49 |
Re your selective quote of my post and the Crikey article: The west bank settlement might be a contentious issue and the one you take acception to in the Crikey article. |
Quote: |
The point i was referring to in the article was the withholding of funds from Wickileaks by Visa, Mastercard while funds have never been stoped to the groups mentioned in the article..... here is the rest of the article that should illistrate my point: |
Quote: |
Quote From the Crikey Article The Shuva Israel group, an evangelical Christian group based in Texas, is accused by Israeli group Gush Shalom of channelling money to fund the illegal West Bank settlement of Revava. You can donate to it, says the Shuva Israel website, via Mastercard, Visa and Paypal. |
Quote: |
Quote from Wikipedia: The history of the settlement on the ground began in the spring of 1991 when 14 trailers were installed on land purchased by "The Fund for Redeeming the Land", with the assistance of Amana, and with permission from the Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir and Minister of Defense Moshe Arens. ...Doubts to the real ownership of the land of the village was dispelled when Peace Now and related activists were convicted by an Israeli court of smearing the village by publishing a false report which claimed that 71% of Revava was built on "stolen" Arab land. The writers of the report tried to compromise and revised that that number down to 22%, but the court sentenced them to pay compensation of NIS 20,000 and print advertisements in two mass market newspapers. The Fund owns 100% of the land that Revava is built on. |
Quote: |
* The One Israel Fund, used as an example in the International Crisis Group report, boasts of being “the largest North American charity whose efforts are dedicated solely to the citizens and communities of Yesha”. You can donate to the One Israel Fund, according to its website, via Mastercard, Visa and Amex. |
Quote: |
* The website of another right-wing Christian group, the Christian Friends of Israeli Communities describes support for settlements like Argaman, which are illegal under international law. You can donate, their website says, via Mastercard, Visa and PayPal. |
Quote: |
* One of the highest-profile groups is the Hebron Fund, the centre of a 2009 row when the New York Mets were criticised for hosting a fundraising dinner for the group. It provides extensive support for the extraordinarily aggressive Hebron settlement, described by one Israeli group as “an ongoing war crime”, while the Fund itself has been linked to praise for an Israeli mass murderer. According to its website, it receives donations via all maj1or credit cards. |
Quote: |
* Worst of all is the extremist SOS Israel group, which has incurred even the wrath of the Israeli Defence Force by rewarding Israeli soldiers who disobey orders to evict settlers from illegal outposts (i.e. inciting mutiny), and which has offered a bounty for Palestinians shot by IDF soldiers. The SOS Israel website describes a number of ways you can make your “generous donation” to it, including credit cards. Crikey’s token $2 donation via a Visa card was successful last night. |
Quote: |
At this stage WikiLeaks has breached no international law and no laws of any country, but Mastercard, Visa and PayPal have all blacklisted it. All three continue to enable the support of settlements that are in breach of international law, in some cases of Israeli law, and in defiance of US policy on settlements under successive Republican and Democrat administrations. Crikey invited Visa, Paypal and Mastercard to comment but none had responded by deadline. [end Quote] |
Quote: |
None of these groups have had funding with held. The issue i really find interesting is what is wickileaks and the surrounding reactions by interested or affected interest groups and power brokers....... hysteria is an appropriate word.....I am not wanting to single out the US or the Israeli cause..... I am equally dismayed at the reaction of Julia Gillard our PM although our EX PM the current foreign minister,Kevin Rudd, has had a more well thought out response. |
Barkley McKay wrote on Thu, 16 December 2010 08:34 |
Julian Assange bail decision made by UK authorities, not Sweden |
Edvaard wrote on Fri, 17 December 2010 04:36 |
Hang the bastard, today. OK, I'm just ignoring for the moment that somebody said "shoot him," but I didn't have a gun. Some Marine twink spills what somebody intentionally, obviously, tossed his way. We need to bring back the traditional treatment for such as these sorts. Valarie Plame: Case in hand; significant penetration into al Qaeda cell, major operation, through years-long investment into the operation. Blown in one day by Karl Rove. Those who say for shooting them are woosies. Garroting by your own hand provides the greatest satisfaction. (as long as we are on the subject of unhung heroes. just sayin' ... ) |
Edvaard wrote on Fri, 17 December 2010 04:14 |
Someone has finally recognized that the US has invented international arm-twisting, and that the rest of the world, France and Britain most especially, have been entirely devoid and unaware of this most useful tactic here prior. All that endearing outreach to Algeria and South Africa and Vietnam and India with nothing of resemblance to arm-twisting, has been proven to be of the greatest benefit to all concerned, just ask the Algerians and Vietnamese. |
Bill_Urick wrote on Fri, 17 December 2010 01:40 |
? |
Edvaard wrote on Thu, 16 December 2010 20:14 |
It is encouraging to see things being said, what needs to be said. Someone has finally recognized that the US has invented international arm-twisting, and that the rest of the world, France and Britain most especially, have been entirely devoid and unaware of this most useful tactic here prior. All that endearing outreach to Algeria and South Africa and Vietnam and India with nothing of resemblance to arm-twisting, has been proven to be of the greatest benefit to all concerned, just ask the Algerians and Vietnamese. But oldies politics and history is just so oldies. I hate oldies stations. It's quite clear that some Europeans hate oldies too, in the political sense, as it takes away from the new and hot trend of "super power bashing," the likes of which were not available in Rome or Paris, when it mattered. |
jonathan jetter wrote on Fri, 17 December 2010 10:50 |
hi nick- mostly agree with a lot of what you say. but in terms of the specifics about the "28th admendment:" http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/28thamendment.asp i think that our elected officials are criminals for the most part, and should be taken to task for any number of reasons. but it's important to make sure that we have our information correct, or it can de-legitimize the cause. jon |
Nick Sevilla wrote on Fri, 17 December 2010 13:53 |
Hi, I just pasted what my friend sent. It probably is a fake number, or one from a while back. It is not a real amendment... but would be funny to see on there. It would never pass. Cheers |
Nick Sevilla wrote on Fri, 17 December 2010 10:28 |
Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution: "Congress shall make no law |
Jay Kadis wrote on Fri, 17 December 2010 15:28 | ||
Personally, I think we have enough laws and if they want a new one, they should have to do away with an old one to make room. |
Nick Sevilla wrote on Fri, 17 December 2010 13:28 |
I think that short of a revolution, we need to take control of the gov't, and change some laws back to a more brutal form, which will discourage some of these people in power from abusing the citizens. Cheers |
Nick Sevilla wrote on Fri, 17 December 2010 13:28 |
Who made those changes to the law? Most of the changes were done by people in power not wanting these laws to be applied to them. And guess what? The same mentality occurs now in the States. |
Nick Sevilla wrote on Fri, 17 December 2010 13:28 |
I think that short of a revolution, we need to take control of the gov't, and change some laws back to a more brutal form, which will discourage some of these people in power from abusing the citizens. Cheers |
Jay Kadis wrote on Fri, 17 December 2010 15:28 |
Personally, I think we have enough laws and if they want a new one, they should have to do away with an old one to make room. |
Tidewater wrote on Fri, 17 December 2010 18:30 | ||
Are you seeing anybody? Married? Call me! |
Samc wrote on Fri, 17 December 2010 08:28 | ||
The various and cruel machinations that were used by colonizers and slavers were, and are another matter all together and were not international in scope and reach...like this is. But this shouldn't need to be explained... If your comprehension skills don't allow you to see the difference between the dastardly acts of colonization and what's happening in this particular 'incident' it's probably a waste of time to debate this with you... |
Nick Sevilla wrote on Fri, 17 December 2010 13:19 | ||
Hi Edvaard. The US has not invented this at all. This is just typical human behavior, taken into country VS country. Please go back and read some history, especially early history of man. If you want a good primer on "natural human behavior" and what it has been for thousands of years, all you need to do is read the Code of Hammurabi. Here: http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/CODE.HTM Enjoy. |
Edvaard wrote on Sat, 18 December 2010 04:52 | ||||
My comprehension skills have thus far not allowed me to see where colonization in the historical sense could ever exist today. Nor that I have caught up with your completely outdated comparison thereby. Colonization, in the traditional sense, could not exist today, and so other methods are required to achieve the same end. |
Edvaard wrote on Sat, 18 December 2010 07:03 |
The whole issue, as it turns out, was to identify who stood where, and an exercise in identifying perceptional capacity. I left it to others to show themselves in whatever manner they chose. So much commentary prior to my initial post demonstrated significant ignorance of history, so I made facetious commentary as from that standpoint. No one commented on any posts that flouted history in every way, but then my silly commentary thencefrom was greeted with "are you OK?" It's not me that needs be questioned here. The question was directed to you to begin with, however much the intent was missed. People were calling for Assange to be shot. Followed by typical political BS as response. Nobody had anything of original precept to add. Nobody asked if such poster "was OK." All I said was, "shoot Assange? OK, sounds good, let's shoot Karl Rove as a starting point, however many years after the fact, and proceed from there." So now everybody asks me if I am OK or not. Apparently and in fact belligerently in opposition to facts as have played out. You most definitely are not "OK", and you have no business asking anything of others under any pretense. |
sui-city wrote on Sat, 18 December 2010 07:06 |
And i guess it's just hard for us, and for me, to understand why there is so little focus on how much manipulation and lying goes on within your government, and how the outrage is focused on the people who expose it, and not on those who perpetuate it. And let me add one disclaimer: I am aware that this doesn't only happen in the USA. It happens the world over. I am just stunned by your acceptance of it. |
Samc wrote on Sat, 18 December 2010 09:00 |
You do realize that Algeria, Vietnam and South Africa were former colonies of either France or Britain? |
Samc wrote on Sat, 18 December 2010 09:00 |
Why haven't you corrected or commented on any of the numerous post which display historical inaccuracy as observed by you? |
Edvaard wrote on Sat, 18 December 2010 08:34 | ||
As observed by historians. In any case, because at least 70% of posts in any forum display either historical inaccuracy or just plain ignorance of history at all. And that's even without getting to the lack of comprehension by some regarding what history they might trouble themselves with in the first place. Someone here trying to claim that Ho Chi Minh was not really a communist and never believed in communism at all would be one example. Hilarious? Certainly. Historically accurate? ~ sigh ... ~ A waste of time venturing into others' belief systems which they perceive as "history." And this case is no different, I just wanted some fingertip massage is all. Sorry to have troubled. |
Tidewater wrote on Sat, 18 December 2010 16:56 |
It's called allegiance. A duty of fidelity. That is what makes people chase down those who would spill their state secrets. The topic of whether a government deserves respect or does the right thing is a seperate issue, and we would be committing 90 logical fallacies to try to prove one with the other. I see this all the time. Scientist must be baffled again. |
Tidewater wrote on Sun, 19 December 2010 12:21 |
The criminality of espionage is really moot. This should have been handled in 24 hours. There are much more pertinant problems at hand. |
Tidewater wrote on Sun, 19 December 2010 13:12 |
My problem is having to care about what they want most, and try to deny them that very thing. I'd rather have pie! |
Samc wrote on Sun, 19 December 2010 07:43 | ||
Couldn't agree wit you more...but the distraction of keeping this thing going serves to keep people from thinking about those "more pertinent problems" that need attention. I would bet that the folks in the American government don't give a rat's ass that some other country reads what they already know or suspect what the US state Dept. think about them. This however is a good chance to flex muscle and influence, anything they get away with now can always be used again in the future, and so far they've gotten away with a lot. |
Paul Cavins wrote on Tue, 21 December 2010 23:39 |
Heck yes! Assange is all about gaming the system in rogue fasion to achieve his aims. He's now being played by people using the same tactics. Eat it, you little punk! He has the audacity to complain about his privacy being violated. Funny as hell. |
Samc wrote on Tue, 21 December 2010 16:28 | ||
Er...please explain "gaming the system" and while you're at it could you also tell us whose privacy he violated... Are you in fact comfortable with governments doing everything they can to rig the system in order to put someone in jail for a crime everybody knows he didn't commit out of spite? Are you really in favor of this type of 'justice'? |
Tomas Danko wrote on Tue, 21 December 2010 16:46 |
It's probably good time to start learning telepathy so that we won't get accused of rape in the future... |
DarinK wrote on Wed, 22 December 2010 00:35 |
"When we study what's being revealed rather than get mislead into joining a lynch mob, hell-bent on stringing up those who would enlighten us, we'll do our duty as an informed electorate..." |
Samc wrote on Tue, 21 December 2010 19:28 |
Are you in fact comfortable with governments doing everything they can to rig the system in order to put someone in jail for a crime everybody knows he didn't commit out of spite? Are you really in favor of this type of 'justice'? |
Paul Cavins wrote on Tue, 21 December 2010 18:13 |
DarrinK- I think in this world that one's form and aims do matter quite a bit. I celebrate the democratization of information in this modern world, but I think that Assange abuses the situation. We have to weigh the benefit of having the dealings of our governments broadcast for all to see verses respecting the secret nature of their work. The US State Department, and many other entities need to have an expectation of secrecy in order to do business with governments all over the world. To believe otherwise is CHILDISH and NAIVE. |
Samc wrote on Wed, 22 December 2010 00:28 | ||
Er...please explain "gaming the system" and while you're at it could you also tell us whose privacy he violated... Are you in fact comfortable with governments doing everything they can to rig the system in order to put someone in jail for a crime everybody knows he didn't commit out of spite? Are you really in favor of this type of 'justice'? |
Paul Cavins wrote on Wed, 22 December 2010 01:57 |
"Gaming the system"--In saying that I mean breaking the "rules", or using all means necessary. He facilitated in violating the "privacy" of the State Department of the USA, among other entities. (Thanks to Mr. Manning). "Rigging the system" is the game that Assange is all about. That's why I laugh at him for lamenting those tactics being used against him. Do you get it? He is acting outside of the rules, so then those who act against him also act outside the rules. I know you sympathize with his aims. Can you suspend your feelings about him to get the concept? He has no expectation of fair play from his adversaries, as he does not believe in fair play. GET IT? |
Tomas Danko wrote on Wed, 22 December 2010 11:34 |
Regardless of what Julian Assange has done or not done, this whole debacle shows a disgusting abuse of the legal system here in Sweden. I'd be pissed as well should I ever get a similar treatment. |
Samc wrote on Wed, 22 December 2010 15:16 | ||
The one thing I get is that the US and several other governments (with all the resources available to them) have not been able to even charge this man with a single crime or infraction! Any vaguely intelligent and rational person would come to the reasonable and logical conclusion that this is so because he has not committed a crime or infraction, and yet, here you are declaring him guilty of committing several crimes and breaking all kinds of rules...."He facilitated in violating the "privacy" of the State Department of the USA, among other entities"...This is incredible!!! Declaring that anyone should not expect fair play from the governments of progressive, democratic countries is ridiculous, the law and constitution of every progressive country that I know, specifically forbid the government from acting outside the law... I am really amazed that someone would not immediately see the danger in allowing the government to behave in this manner. |
Gio wrote on Wed, 22 December 2010 19:29 |
Now hold on there..... Did he or did he not obtain private communications between government personnel and distribute them worldwide? Can I hack your email, or read my wife's diary then? People scream for privacy yet want an all access pass too. Which is it? |
Gio wrote on Thu, 23 December 2010 01:40 |
How did he get it? If I give you a car that I stole, do you have the right to drive it? |
Gio wrote on Thu, 23 December 2010 01:29 |
People scream for privacy yet want an all access pass too. Which is it? |
Gio wrote on Wed, 22 December 2010 19:40 |
How did he get it? If I give you a car that I stole, do you have the right to drive it? |
bblackwood wrote on Wed, 22 December 2010 22:43 | ||
What if you give me a picture of the car you stole? What am I guilty of then? |
bblackwood wrote on Wed, 22 December 2010 22:43 |
C'mon, man up - what law has Assange broken? Personally, I think he's a douche, but that's not illegal in and of itself where I'm from... |
Gio wrote on Wed, 22 December 2010 22:03 | ||||||
Now we're treading the same waters piracy advocates swim in.
Well, if he was a US citizen, treason comes to mind, but I guess because he's an international "journalist" it's OK. If we're going to "out" people, then do it across the board, private citizens included. The possible interpretation of this is where I see danger. Maybe I'm a douche too.... |
bblackwood wrote on Thu, 23 December 2010 04:40 |
Look, it's simple - if he's guilty of a crime, tell me what it is. Equating his actions with piracy is a stretch at best, so tell me, specifically, what he did that broke the law. Keep in mind the SCOTUS rulings regarding this exact sort of thing... |
bblackwood wrote on Thu, 23 December 2010 23:33 |
Worth reading for those not familiar: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_St ates |
MDM, wrote on Fri, 24 December 2010 07:11 |
The government has a right to restrict 'sharing' of information if it causes a danger to the state's population or army, primarily during a War. |
MDM, wrote on Fri, 24 December 2010 08:11 |
if you have substantially large and corrupt entities within the government, who are committing all sorts of acts of treason, fraud etc. then it's logical that a huge amount of resources will be spent on keeping the war alive and kicking... and restricting free press. |
bblackwood wrote on Fri, 24 December 2010 08:44 | ||
Not in the US, not according to the SCOTUS. |
Bill_Urick wrote on Fri, 24 December 2010 06:31 |
WTF? http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2374683,00.asp |
MDM, wrote on Sat, 25 December 2010 20:32 |
I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy .. in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry and music. John Adams (1735-1826) 2nd President, United States |
Quote: |
but it's an enemy that is likely fabricated by the military anyway so it's not really a war of any kind anyway if that's true. |