Tag Archives: WikiLeaks

WikiLeaks – Intrebari despre Twitter si cenzurarea WikiLeaks?

Intr-un articol intitulat Still More Questions About Why Wikileaks Hasn’t Trended On Twitter apar o serie de grafice ce par sa contrazica declaratia oficiala a Twitter (official statement) legat de cenzurarea WikiLeaks pe Twitter.

Simplist si foarte pe scurt, oficialii Twitter spun ca nu cenzureaza nimic ( desi au tot  sers conturi ale Anonymous din nou) dar graficele arata altceva. Mai devreme fusese pe CNN parca (?? – am uitat) o discutie cu rep Twitter si discutau despre eliminerea conturilor WikiLeaks pe acelasi motiv ca si ceilalti care au executat ordinele guv SUA.

Au incept si suspendarile de conturi ale celor care fac re-tweet pe stirile legate de WikiLeaks, asa ca, daca raspanditi informatii despre WikiLeaks s-ar putea sa va treziti cu contul suspendat. Asa ca, ori abandonati lupta, ori va organizati. :)

Primul articole despre cenzura de pe Twitter este „Twitter is censoring the discussion of #Wikileaks”

Al doilea este How Twitter Kept Wikileaks From Trending, And Why


It’s safe to say, I think, that Twitter didn’t want Wikileaks to trend. There are many different sensible ways to approach the construction of a trending topics algorithm, and the vast majority of them would have pushed “Wikileaks” to the top of the charts. That didn’t happen, and it didn’t happen on purpose.

But I don’t think, at the end of the day, that it’s all that likely that Wikileaks was targeted specifically. I think it’s just more likely that Twitter isn’t interested in having any topic like Wikileaks — an ongoing discussion of a major social or political issue, going through peaks and lulls and times of broader and narrower resonance — make the list.[..]


Informatia este antidotul pentru frica: WikiLeaks, Legea si Tu

Information is the Antidote to Fear: Wikileaks, the Law, and You

Legal Analysis by Kevin Bankston

When it comes to Wikileaks, there’s a lot of fear out there on the Internet right now.

Between the federal criminal investigation into Wikileaks, Senator Joe Lieberman’s calls for companies to stop providing support for Wikileaks and his suggestion that the New York Times itself should be criminally investigated, Senator Dianne Feinstein’s recent Wall Street Journal op-ed calling for prosecution of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, and even the suggestion by some that he should be assassinated, a lot of people are scared and confused.

Will I break the law if I host or mirror the US diplomatic cables that have been published by Wikileaks? If I view or download them? If I write a news story based on them? These are just a few of the questions we’ve been getting here at EFF, particularly in light of many US companies’apparent fear to do any business with Wikileaks (with a few notable exceptions).

We unfortunately don’t have the capacity to offer individualized legal advice to everyone who contacts us. What we can do, however, is talk about EFF’s own policy position: we agree with other legal commentators who have warned that a prosecution of Assange, much less of other readers or publishers of the cables, would face serious First Amendment hurdles ([1], [2]) and would be „extremely dangerous” to free speech rights. Along with our friends at the ACLU, „We’re deeply skeptical that prosecuting WikiLeaks would be constitutional, or a good idea.”

Even better than commentary, we can also provide legal information on this complicated issue, and today we have for you some high quality legal information from an expert and objective source: Congress’ own research service, CRS. The job of this non-partisan legal office is to provide objective, balanced memos to Congress on important legal issues, free from the often hysteric hyperbole of other government officials. And thanks to Secrecy News, we have a copy ofCRS’ latest memo on the Wikileaks controversy, a report entitled „Criminal Prohibitions on the Publication of Classified Defense Information” and dated this Monday, December 6.

Like this blog post itself, the CRS memo isn’t legal advice. But it is a comprehensive discussion of the laws under which the Wikileaks publishers — or anyone else who obtains or publishes the documents, be it you or the New York Times — might be prosecuted and the First Amendment problems that such a prosecution would likely raise. Notably, the fine lawyers at CRS recognize a simple fact that statements from Attorney General Eric Holder, the Senators, the State Department and others have glossed over: a prosecution against someone who isn’t subject to the secrecy obligations of a federal employee or contractor, based only on that person’s publication of classified information that was received innocently, would be absolutely unprecedented and would likely pose serious First Amendment problems. As the summary page of the 21-page memo succinctly states,

This report identifies some criminal statutes that may apply [to dissemination of classified documents], but notes that these have been used almost exclusively to prosecute individuals with access to classified information (and a corresponding obligation to protect it) who make it available to foreign agents, or to foreign agents who obtain classified information unlawfully while present in the United States. Leaks of classified information to the press have only rarely been punished as crimes, and we are aware of no case in which a publisher of information obtained through unauthorized disclosure by a government employee has been prosecuted for publishing it. There may be First Amendment implications that would make such a prosecution difficult, not to mention political ramifications based on concerns about government censorship.

The report proceeds to discuss the Espionage Act of 1917 and a number of other potentially applicable statutes, followed by an extended discussion (at pp. 14-20) of how the Supreme Court’s First Amendment decisions — and in particular the Pentagon Papers case — could complicate such a prosecution. For anyone interested in or concerned about the legality of publishing the Wikileaks documents and the legal and political challenges to a successful prosecution, this CRS memo is an absolute must-read.

Hopefully, this information will help counter much of the fear that our government’s so-called „war” against Wikileaks has generated. Meanwhile, we will continue our effort to oppose online censorship and provide additional news and commentary on the ongoing WikiLeaks saga, which is shaping up to be the first great free speech battle of the 21st century. We hope you’ll join us in the fight.

Related Issues: Free Speech

Related Cases: Bank Julius Baer & Co v. Wikileaks


WikiLeaks – mirror pe .ro

Update: adrese de mirror –  http://wikileaks.20.rowikileaks.greva.rohttp://wikileaks.panthera.rohttp://wikileaks.alienclub.ro/

BRAVO! Toata stima! Vorba presedintelui Braziliei (traducerea Paulo Coelho): „Instead of blaming who leaked, blame those who wrote (the cables)”  – „In loc sa dati vina pe cei ce au facut cunoscute [informatiile], mai bine ati da vina pe cei ce le-au scris”

Sursa cu textul ref  http://wikileaks.20.ro : PR Wave

Astăzi, 08.12.2010, ROHOST a lansat primul mirror românesc al site-ului wikileaks.org, ce poate fi accesat la adresa http://wikileaks.20.ro.

După ce guvernele s-au coalizat împotriva wikileaks.org şi a fondatorului său, Julian Assange, accesul la site-ul wikileaks.org a fost restricţionat. Iritaţi de acest demers, militanţi pentru dreptul la liberă exprimare şi membri celebrului site de informaţii au creat mirror-uri (copii ale site-ului accesibile la diferite adrese) pentru a continua să-şi facă vocea auzită.[..]

UPDATE: In lista mai apare si wikileaks.bluewebdesign.ro dar nu functioneaza, au renuntat sau s-a intamplat ceva.

Amazon – GREATA!

Au dat afara WikiLeaks pen’ ca faceau nu’sh ce chestii ilegale, nu?

Nici o problema, pe Amazon poti sa cumperi documentele WikiLeaks  http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B004EEOLIU?ie=UTF8&force-full-site=1

WikiLeaks documents expose US foreign policy conspiracies. All cables with tags from 1- 5000 [Kindle Edition]

Heinz Duthel (Author)

Digital List Price: £7.37 What’s this? 
Kindle Price: £7.37 includes VAT* & free wireless delivery via Amazon Whispernet
* Unlike print books, digital books are subject to VAT.

FABRICA DE ARIPI: WikiLeaks – Scrisoare de la Anonymous

Pentru ca nu a mers cu prostirea multimii atat de bine cum s-au asteptat ( adica au existat mult mai multi oameni care au pus sub semnul intrebarii toata deghizarea cenzurarii WikiLeaks – de la povestea lui Assange la presiunile exercitate de guvernul americamn asupra Amazaon, PayPal, Visa, Mastercard etc -) si informatiile despre ceea ce  este real au inceput sa circule cu mare viteza pe internet, ei bine, s-a schimbat strategia de comunicare.

1. pe 7 dec apare pe VOANews.com un articol in care atacul asupra WikiLeaks este asumat de un personaj numit „The Jester”. Ok. Totul este „zugravit” ca fiind un razboi intre doua grupe de hackeri, iar idea strecurata este ca WikiLeaks ar trebui privita ca o organizatie terorista si lumea este prinsa intre razboiul hackerilor, adica „aia” de care se tem oamenii obisnuiti ca raman fara bani pe card, care nu respecta regulile guvernelor etc etc. Evident, este o construtcie de argumente pe care sa poti pune linistit eticheta „internetul trebuie cenzurat/ restrictionat”.

„The Jester” are un blog pornit, dupa cum am vazut, pe 26 iunie 2010. Subiectul urmarit este legat de urmarirea juhadului de pe internet. Probabil ca absolut intamplator :), pe 30 iunie 2010 The Jester este intervievat de un reporter de la Die Welt ( o publicatie infiintata in 1946 de armata britanica pentru propaganda aliatilor). Interviul este pueril si transparent rau de tot (asta este opinia mea personala si atat). Il gasiti aici. Daca ar fi sa incerc sa mi-l imaginez pe acest The Jester ajung rapid la imaginea unui pusti in corp de adult, cu o disonanta cognitiva de parca s-ar fi uitat la RTV si A3. Asa cum priveste povestea care ni se serveste cu terorismul si alte alea, cateva evenimente din istoria tarii noastre probabil ca sunt perfect normale pentru el iar romanii care au luptat pentru libertate au fost teroristi :)) Ganditi-va un pic: au venit turcii peste noi pentru ca asa le dadea lor bine la strategie si interesul lor spunea ca Tarile Romane tre’ sa fie controlate ca puterea otomana sa fie mai marefata de X tara/ imperiu. Nu a contat vointa poporului, interesele poporului roman. Asa ca si-au vazut de ocuparea lor. Cam asa si cum interesele guvernantilor SUA si a celor ce castiga din urma razboiului, pentru ca unii castiga extrem de mult. Interesele populatiei americane nu conteaza si NU SUNT servite de razboaiele pe care le declanseaza SUA; cea mai buna dovada este situatia americanului de rand, economia americana asa cum este ea acum.

2. pe 8 dec apare un articol ce ii acuza pe Anonymous de o agenda ascunsa, legandu-i de traznaia numita „razboiul asupra Craciunului” . Cam lipsiti de imaginatie, dar asta este tot ce au avut :)

Si continua sa apara articolele care incearca sa expuna totul ca fiind un razboi intre unii care actioneaza ca teroristii  (cei ce sustin libertatea accesului la informatie, libertatea presei, libertatea de exprimare, deci sunt periculosi si lumea trebuie sa se fereasca de ei si sa-i haituiasca ) si cei are „apara” SUA si valorile sale si pentru care cotropirea unei natiuni, dezmembrarea ei, omorarea de civili, exploatarea resurselor acelor tari in detrimentul populatiei native, castigarea unor sume enorme de bani de catre cei care vand arme si de-o parte si de alta, secretizarea si actiunile de incalcare a acordurilor internationale, manipularea membrilor unor organizatii internationale si a guvernelor, cenzura si opresiunile in numele intereselor lor (de casta) reprezinta normalitatea. Hmmm….. cand s-a deformat atat de tare normalitatea??

Anonymus au raspuns cu o scrisoare deschisa in care declara intentiile si motivatiile lor. Ramane de vazut daca oamenii vor pica in capcana intinsa de departamentul de psyops american si-si redefinesc nomalitatea dupa cum da bine intereselor americane si fricii semanate in fiecare secunda. Ar fi de-a dreptul extraordinar daca din atata frica semanata non-stop, oamenii s-ar trezi dintr-o data imuni si si-ar redefini normalitatea :) apoi ar actiona pentru a-si readuce guvernele, parlamentele, tarile inapoi in normalitatea pe care si-o doresc. Chiar se poate si nu-i atat de greu si nici nu se face cu razbel :) ci cu actiune, inteligenta, coerenta in comunitati si „unire-n ganduri si-n simtiri”. Chiar se poate face  si bine si repede.

Pe masura ce-mi permite timpul, voi reveni asupra textului scrisorii si o sa traduc in romana.

SURSA:  Anonops History

A Letter from Anonymous – O scrisoare de la Anonymous

Mesajul Nostru, Intentiile si Potentialele Tinte
Cei care neagă libertatea altora nu o merită pe-a lor”
– Abraham Lincoln
„Cel ce sacrifica libertatea pentru siguranta nu le merita pe niciuna”
– Benjamin Franklin
Salut Lume.
Noi suntem Anonymus.
Ceea ce stiti sau nu stiti despre noi nu este relevant.
Am decis sa va scriem voua, mass mediei si tuturor cetatenilor lumii libere pentru a va informa referitor la mesajul, intentiile noastre, potentialele tinte si despre pasnica noastra campanie pentru libertate.
„True, This! —
Beneath the rule of men entirely great,
The pen is mightier than the sword. Behold
The arch-enchanters wand! — itself a nothing! —
But taking sorcery from the master-hand
To paralyse the Cæsars, and to strike
The loud earth breathless! — Take away the sword —
States can be saved without it!”
– The Cardinal
Richelieu; Or the Conspiracy by: Edward Bulwer-Lytton
Mesajul este simplu: Libertatea de exprimare.
Anonymous promoveaza pasnic Libertatea de Expresie, oriunde si in orice forma. Libertatea de exprimare pentru: Internet, jurnalism si jurnalisti si cetatenii lumii in totalitatea lor.
In ciuda a ceea ce ganditi sau aveti de spus [despre noi], Anonymous promoveaza [Libertatea de exprimare] pentru voi.
Ultimele stiri despre campania noastra au fost, in cel mai bun caz, prost informate. Anonymous nu inseamna tot timpul acelasi grup de oameni.
Despre Constitutia Statelor Unite se spune ca este un document viu pentru ca poate fi modificata, amendata, schimbata conform vointei poporului si astfel incat sa corespunda necesitatilor poporului.
. In that same vein, Anonymous is a living idea. Anonymous is an idea that can be edited, updated, remanded, changed on a whim. We are living consciousness. We are not a terrorist organization as governments, demagogues, and the media would have you believe. At this time Anonymous is a consciousness focused on campaigning peacefully for Freedom of Speech.
We ask the world to support us, not for our sake, but for your own.
When governments control freedom they control you .The Internet is the last bastion of freedom in this evolving technical world. The Internet is capable of connecting us all.
When we are connected we are strong. When we are strong we have power. When we have power we are able to do the impossible. This is why the government is moving on Wikileaks. This is what they fear. They fear our power when we unite. Do not forget this.
„…Now, we must all fear evil men. But there is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men.”
– Monsignor, Boondock Saints
Anonymous’ intentions are very clear. We are not vigilantes, regardless of the sentiment of quoting Boondock Saints, we are people on a campaign for freedom.
Anonymous’ intentions are to change the current way the governments of the world and the people view true Freedom of Speech and The Internet. Anonymous is willing, ready, and able to campaign for the freedom for all. We are campaigning right now as you read the news, watch the television, fight with your significant other, love your children, hate your neighbor, criticize the man or woman next to you. We are campaigning.
The goal is simple: Win the right to keep the Internet free of any control from any entity, corporation, or government. We will do this until our, proverbial, dying breath. We do this not only for our selves, but for the world and its people at large.
„Truth is treason in the empire of lies.”
– Ron Paul
Pay attention citizens, governments, and the world. Anonymous’ peaceful campaign will focus on any organization, corporation, government, or entity until the Internet is truly free.
Anonymous is doing what many successful campaigns have done in the past; a sit-in. It may be hard to comprehend, but a digital sit-in is our most effective method to show that all of us deserve Freedom of Speech and a free Internet. Our methods may appear, on the outside, to be cruel to those the entities that we are campaigning against, but remember by supporting censorship they are denying everyone a basic human right. Any person, corporation, government, or miscellaneous entity that stops supporting censorship and starts promoting Freedom of Speech and a free Internet will become our allies.
Anonymous, at this time, wants to persuade our counterparts rather than hurt them. We are campaigning for freedom for everyone, even the opposing side.
Do not fear us. Anonymous’ campaign does not intend to harm the individual citizen, any organizations, any websites, or government, that supports true freedom of speech. Anonymous’ past is not our present. We are here for all of you; to campaign for all of you. Where others have made this promise and failed; we make this promise and aim to keep it for everyone.
Anything attributed, credited, or tagged to Anonymous is not always what we do. We arenot always the same consciousness on a yearly, monthly, or even hourly basis. Do not believe everything you hear or read on the news. Anonymous is often credited with actions that are not campaigned for by Anonymous. The true core of Anonymous is here to help the free world for now. Anonymous wishes to represent the truth and ask that you as a citizen, media organization, or government do the same.

Fabrica de Aripi: WikiLeaks, Assange si cat de repede se misca unii

Unii chiar se misca repede si actioneaza. Ca mai jos; oameni din publishing, juridic si politic au publicat o scrisoare deschisa , unindu-se in jurul unui principiu: orice om are dreptul la un tratament corect. In text se atrage atentia ca „metode extrajudiciare” ( presiunile politice ce declanseaza alte actiuni si nu pe cele juridice) „care erau considerate demult ca fiind de neconceput – rapirea si tortura, de exemplu” au ajuns sa devina normalitate.

Ar fi interesant de retinut faptul ca, in ciuda dezvaluirilor de pana acum, cele legate de banci, Afganistan, etc, nici o parte „vatamata” nu a deschis vreun proces catre WikiLeaks, oricat de tare i-a durut! Si stiti de ce? Pentru ca este legal ceea ce fac, este vorba despre libertatea de exprimare si liberul aces la informatiile de interes public, iar cei expusi au o problema: documentele publicate arata ca „munca”, actiunile lor dauneaza rau de tot interesului public. In SUA exista legea whistle-blowers conceputa exact pentru a crea acel anonimat necesar ca miscarile, actiunile ce aduc prejudicii masei largi de populatie sa ajunga la lumina. Mai multe detalii  pe pagina Reporteri fara Frontiere.

Daca PayPal, Visa, Mastercard, Facebook (care a inchis acum cateva minute pagina grupului Operation Payback ) ar fi coerente ca si politica (asta ca sa nu spun ca doar au executat cumintele ordinele stapanirii din SUA) si daca ceea ce a facut WikiLeaks si Assange ar fi pe bune ilegal (si nu doar incomod intereselor celor care se cred stapani de sclavi), atunci respectivele companii ar trebui sa opreasca procesarea platilor pentru New York Time, Time si TOTI ceilalti publisheri care au publicat Cablegate si au aratat si ilustrat actiunile SUA impotriva libertatii de exprimare si a accesului la informare. Ce parere aveti despre coperta Time? Sugestiv, nu?

Inainte  sa ne intoarcem la scrisoarea deschisa publicata pe ABC Australia, ar merita mentionat ca dupa inchiderea paginii pe Facebook, Twitter a trecut la restrictionarea informatiilor. In randurile de mai jos apare un aspect interesant: cine spune adevarul, cine ajuta adevarul sa iasa la lumina, poate fi clasificat ca terorist. Deci am ajuns in era in care adevarul este terorist si minciuna normalitate?

Open letter: To Julia Gillard, re Julian Assange

(Editor’s note: There’s no doubt that WikiLeaks and its figurehead-on-the-run Julian Assange are among the hottest items for discussion on the planet right now. Feelings are running high, and many in this country take the view that the Australian Government ought do more to assist its vilified, beleaguered citizen. Assange has become a cause celebre, as evidenced by the signatories to this open letter, a who’s who of sorts, from Noam Chomsky to Helen Garner…)

The authors write: We wrote the letter below because we believe that Julian Assange is entitled to all the protections enshrined in the rule of law – and that the Australian Government has an obligation to ensure he receives them. The signatures here have been collected in the course of a day-and-a-half, primarily from people in publishing, law and politics. The signatories hold divergent views about WikiLeaks and its operations. But they are united in a determination to see Mr Assange treated fairly. We know that many others would have liked to sign. But given the urgency of the situation, we though it expedient to publish now rather than collect more names. If, however, you agree with the sentiments expressed, we encourage you to leave your name in the comments section.

Dear Prime Minister,

We note with concern the increasingly violent rhetoric directed towards Julian Assange of WikiLeaks.

“We should treat Mr Assange the same way as other high-value terrorist targets: Kill him,” writes conservative columnist Jeffrey T Kuhner in the Washington Times.

William Kristol, former chief of staff to vice president Dan Quayle, asks, “Why can’t we use our various assets to harass, snatch or neutralize Julian Assange and his collaborators, wherever they are?”

“Why isn’t Julian Assange dead?” writes the prominent US pundit Jonah Goldberg. “The CIA should have already killed Julian Assange,” says John Hawkins on the Right Wing News site.

Sarah Palin, a likely presidential candidate, compares Assange to an Al Qaeda leader; Rick Santorum, former Pennsylvania senator and potential presidential contender, accuses Assange of “terrorism”.

And so on and so forth. Such calls cannot be dismissed as bluster. Over the last decade, we have seen the normalisation of extrajudicial measures once unthinkable, from ‘extraordinary rendition’ (kidnapping) to ‘enhanced interrogation’ (torture).

In that context, we now have grave concerns for Mr Assange’s wellbeing. Irrespective of the political controversies surrounding WikiLeaks, Mr Assange remains entitled to conduct his affairs in safety, and to receive procedural fairness in any legal proceedings against him.

As is well known, Mr Assange is an Australian citizen. We therefore call upon you to condemn, on behalf of the Australian Government, calls for physical harm to be inflicted upon Mr Assange, and to state publicly that you will ensure Mr Assange receives the rights and protections to which he is entitled, irrespective of whether the unlawful threats against him come from individuals or states.

We urge you to confirm publicly Australia’s commitment to freedom of political communication; to refrain from cancelling Mr Assange’s passport, in the absence of clear proof that such a step is warranted; to provide assistance and advocacy to Mr Assange; and do everything in your power to ensure that any legal proceedings taken against him comply fully with the principles of law and procedural fairness.

A statement by you to this effect should not be controversial – it is a simple commitment to democratic principles and the rule of law. We believe this case represents something of a watershed, with implications that extend beyond Mr Assange and WikiLeaks. In many parts of the globe, death threats routinely silence those who would publish or disseminate controversial material. If these incitements to violence against Mr Assange, a recipient of Amnesty International’s Media Award, are allowed to stand, a disturbing new precedent will have been established in the English-speaking world.

In this crucial time, a strong statement by you and your Government can make an important difference.

We look forward to your response.

Dr Jeff Sparrow, author and editor Lizzie O’Shea, Social Justice Lawyer, Maurice Blackburn Professor Noam Chomsky, writer and academic Antony Loewenstein, journalist and author Mungo MacCallum, journalist and writer Professor Peter Singer, author and academic Adam Bandt, MP Senator Bob Brown Senator Scott Ludlam Julian Burnside QC, barrister Jeff Lawrence, Secretary, Australian Council of Trade Unions Professor Raimond Gaita, author and academic Rob Stary, lawyer Lieutenant Colonel (ret) Lance Collins, Australian Intelligence Corps, writer The Hon Alastair Nicholson AO RFD QC Brian Walters SC, barrister Professor Larissa Behrendt, academic Emeritus Professor Stuart Rees, academic, Sydney Peace Foundation Mary Kostakidis, Chair, Sydney Peace Foundation Professor Wendy Bacon, journalist Christos Tsiolkas, author James Bradley, author and journalist Julian Morrow, comedian and television producer Louise Swinn, publisher Helen Garner, novelist Professor Dennis Altman, writer and academic Dr Leslie Cannold, author, ethicist, commentator John Birmingham, writer Guy Rundle, writer Alex Miller, writer Sophie Cunningham, editor and author Castan Centre for Human Rights Law Professor Judith Brett, author and academic Stephen Keim SC, President of Australian Lawyers for Human Rights Phil Lynch, Executive Director, Human Rights Law Resource Centre Sylvia Hale, MLC Sophie Black, editor David Ritter, lawyer and historian Dr Scott Burchill, writer and academic Dr Mark Davis, author and academic Henry Rosenbloom, publisher Ben Naparstek, editor Chris Feik, editor Louise Swinn, publisher Stephen Warne, barrister Dr John Dwyer QC Hilary McPhee, writer, publisher Joan Dwyer OAM Greg Barns, barrister James Button, journalist Owen Richardson, critic Michelle Griffin, editor John Timlin, literary Agent & producer Ann Cunningham, lawyer and publisher Alison Croggon, author, critic Daniel Keene, playwright Dr Nick Shimmin, editor/writer Bill O’Shea, lawyer, former President, Law Institute of Victoria Dianne Otto, Professor of Law, Melbourne Law School Professor Frank Hutchinson,Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies (CPACS), University of Sydney Anthony Georgeff, editor Max Gillies, actor Shane Maloney, writer Louis Armand, author and publisher Jenna Price, academic and journalist Tanja Kovac, National Cooordinator EMILY’s List Australia Dr Russell Grigg, academic Dr Justin Clemens, writer and academic Susan Morairty, Lawyer David Hirsch, Barrister Cr Anne O’Shea Kathryn Crosby, Candidates Online Dr Robert Sparrow, academic Jennifer Mills, author Foong Ling Kong, editor Tim Norton,  Online Campaigns Co-ordinator,  Oxfam Australia Elisabeth Wynhausen, writer Ben Slade, Lawyer Nikki Anderson, publisher Dan Cass Professor Diane Bell, author and academic Dr Philipa Rothfield, academic Gary Cazalet, academic Dr David Coady, academic Dr Matthew Sharpe, writer and academic Dr Tamas Pataki, writer and academic Miska Mandic Associate Professor Jake Lynch, academic Professor Simon During, academic Michael Brull, writer Dr Geoff Boucher, academic Jacinda Woodhead, writer and editor Dr Rjurik Davidson, writer and editor Mic Looby, writer Jane Gleeson-White, writer and editor Alex Skutenko, editor Associate Professor John Collins, academic Professor Philip Pettit, academic Dr Christopher Scanlon, writer and academic Dr Lawrie Zion, journalist Johannes Jakob, editor Sunili Govinnage, lawyer Michael Bates, lawyer Bridget Maidment, editor Bryce Ives, theatre director Sarah Darmody, writer Jill Sparrow, writer Lyn Bender, psychologist Meredith Rose, editor Dr Ellie Rennie, President, Engage Media Ryan Paine, editor Simon Cooper, editor Chris Haan, lawyer Carmela Baranowska, journalist. Clinton Ellicott, publisher Dr Charles Richardson, writer and academic Phillip Frazer, publisher Geoff Lemon, journalist Jaya Savige, poet and editor Johannes Jakob, editor Kate Bree Geyer; journalist Chay-Ya Clancy, performer Lisa Greenaway, editor, writer Chris Kennett – screenwriter, journalist Kasey Edwards, author Dr. Janine Little, academic Dr Andrew Milner, writer and academic Patricia Cornelius, writer Elisa Berg, publisher Lily Keil, editor Jenny Sinclair Roselina Rose Stephen Luntz PM Newton Bryan Cooke Kristen Obaid Ryan Haldane-Underwood Patrick Gardner Robert Sinnerbrink Kathryn Millist Anne Coombs Karen Pickering Sarah Mizrahi Suzanne Ingleton Jessica Crouch Michael Ingleton Matt Griffin Jane Allen Tom Curtis John Connell David Garland Stuart Hall Meredith Tucker-Evans Phil Perkins Alexandra Adsett Tom Doig, editor Beth Jackson Peter Mattessi Robert Sinnerbrink Greg Black Paul Ashton Sigi Jottkandt Kym Connell, lawyer Silma Ihram Nicole Papaleo, lawyer Melissa Forbes Matthew Ryan Ben Gook Daniel East Bridget Ikin Lisa O’Connell Melissa Cranenburgh John Bryson Michael Farrell Melissa Reeves Dr Emma Cox Michael Green Margherita Tracanelli David Carlin, writer Bridget McDonnell Geoff Page, writer Rebecca Interdonato Roxane Ludbrook-Ingleton Stefan Caramia Ash Plummer

WikiLeaks – sau mica lectie despre cat de sclavi sunt cei ce ne reprezinta prin guverne si parlamente nationale

ceea ce este mai jos este pornit de la un mesaj pe care l-am postat aici plus diverse completari.

Idiot sau nu, Julian Asange este arestat pentru cu totul altceva decat WikiLeaks. Acuzatia nu este pentru viol ci pentru „sex by surprise” ,  pentru ca a cedat prezervativul. :)) , pentru ca cele doua femei si-au dat seama ca au fost ‘incurcate’ cu acelasi barbat  si-au propus si reusit sa starneasca scandal in mass media, desi la politie nu au facut nici o plangere ci au cerut un sfat! In acelasi articol apare intrebarea „de ce Interpolul a acceptat urmarirea lui Assange”, in conditiile in care „crima” de care se facea vinovat are o pedeapsa maxima de 715 dolari SUA ca amenda penala si nu se exista pedeapsa cu inchisoarea?  Cu atat mai mult cu cat la momentul respectiv, august 2010, Assange a dat declaratii la politia suedeza si permisiunea de a parasi Suedia a fost acordata de procuror, nu exista mandat de arestare in Suedia, iar JA s-a declarat disponibil pentru noi declaratii in UK, la ambasada Suediei in UK.

So why exactly is there a red notice lodged with Interpol over this? In the 188 countries that are part of Interpol, there are a bit over five thousand notices given each year for murderers, fraudsters, actual rapists, and other serious crimes. A crime that has a maximum penalty of USD715 and no potential jail time is a minor offense, and appears to be more a case of social ineptitude on both sides than anything else.

Why did Interpol accept it? There isn’t even an arrest warrant against Assange in Sweden. Apparently because Sweden’s director of public prosecutions, Marianne Ny claimed that Julian Assange had ‘fled’ to avoid answering questions. However  the facts that have not been disputed by the Swedish prosecutor or her staff is that Julian Assange has made statements to both the police and the prosecutors after staying in Sweden to do so, was given permission to leave the country by the prosecutors, and has offered to answer questions in Britian including at the Swedish embassy.

Partea cea mai interesanta este cea care apare in conditiile atasate la „notificarea rosie” trimisa Interpolului si anume: Julian Assange sa fie prins fara sa comunice, fara acces la avocati, vizitatori sau alti prizonieri

Of even more concern is the conditions attached to the red notice. When it was issued on November 18th it requested that Assange would be

…held incommunicado without access to lawyers, visitors or other prisoners..

Quite simply this looks like a politically motivated legal move to grab Julian Assange on a legal pretext, to shut him up, and to get moved to a country with a sympathetic prosecutor for extradition. I’d be extremely interested in finding out what communication has been going on between theconservative government in Sweden  before and after the election on September 19th with the government in the US.

But it is pretty clear that Marianne Ny is not acting for the law in Sweden – she is using the law and the Interpol process on the flimsiest pretext. It is clear that you can’t call this rape despite what the prosecutors in Sweden say and has been blasted all over the US media.

Unde am mai vazut asta? In legile UE care permit asa ceva! Pentru simplul motiv ca pentru UE si guvernele sale, articolul 11 din Declaratia Universala A Drepturilor Omului NU CONTEAZA! Pentru cine nu a priceput, repetam: drepturile omului nu sunt considerate importante in legislatia si procedurile UE.

Inchiderea WikiLeaks s-a facut prin presiuni  si NU legal! In SUA nici macar nu aveau cum sa o inchida, pentru ca sunt sub legea whistleblowers.

Problema care se pune cred ca tine de alt aspect: daca Wikileaks ca miscare este invinsa / inchisa / dispare, atunci inchiderea /filtrarea la sange a internetului este doar o problema de cateva luni, pana voteaza parlamentele “nationale” sau “comunitare” sau “federale” legislatia necesara.

In cinismul ei, SUA isi pregateste deja iesirea din aceasta situatie; in 2011 va gazdui manifestarile legate de … libertatea presei! Ironie, cinism sau …?

Daca WikiLeaks ramane in picioare, indiferent cum (fie si prin mirroring ) si-si continua activitatea peste toate aceste abuzuri asupra lui J.A. (momentan sunt doar abuzuri, omul a fost acuzat de ceva dar nu si condamnat; cel putin in teorie exista INCA prezumtia de nevinovatie), atunci se va schimba ceva esential in mintea oamenilor: guvernele, parlamentele cu toti servitorii lor pot fi invinse daca oamenii sunt uniti si tin cu dintii de libertatea lor, de accesul la informatie si de libertatea de exprimare.

Existenta evenimentului prin care oamenii si-au aparat libertatea de exprimare si accesul la informatii si au resusit, in ciuda presiunii guvernelor, va fi ACEL CEVA care va declansa un nou nivel de constientizare in randul masei largi de populatie. Si cei care lucreaza la strategiile ce implica masa de populatie sunt constienti de acest aspect.

Problema nu este legata de continutul documentelor in sine ci de ceea ce reprezinta Wikileaks si anume libertatea de exprimare, accesul la informatii si dezvaluirea abuzurilor indivizilor ajunsi in functii de conducere in diverse structuri, abuzuri comise in numele unui popor. WikiLeaks NU este Julian Assange ci o intreaga echipa cu N conexiuni. Nu statea Assange sa puna pe net

Daca Libertatea de Exprimare dispare pentru ca indivizi ajunsi la putere in USA, Franta,  Suedia etc nu vor sa se stie despre manarelile pe care le fac IN NUMELE popoarelor lor, un regim a la Coreea de Nord ni se va parea raiul pe pamant.

Oricum, merita mentionat faptul ca Visa, Mastercard, PayPal, banca elvetiana nu s-au sinchisit si nu au nici o greata sa permita accesul la serviciile lor pentru organizatii de genul KKK , site-urile de pornografie etc si nici nu au blocat conturile si cardurile  violatorilor dovediti din lume, nici macar ale preotilor Vaticanului dovediti molestatori. Dar s-au unit toti impotriva unei persoane care inca beneficiaza de prezumtia de nevinovatie ( nu ca ar conta prea mult asta pentru MasterCard, Visa, PayPal .. dupa cum s-a vazut) si impotriva unui web site care mai aduce ceva transparenta si care a aratat chestii interesante chiar si pentru cei care mai stiu cate ceva.

Un ziar australian “zice” ca au aparut chestii foarte interesante in “docomentele” cu pricina:

But our publications have been far from unimportant. The US diplomatic cables reveal some startling facts:

► The US asked its diplomats to steal personal human material and information from UN officials and human rights groups, including DNA, fingerprints, iris scans, credit card numbers, internet passwords and ID photos, in violation of international treaties. Presumably Australian UN diplomats may be targeted, too.

► King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia asked the US to attack Iran.

► Officials in Jordan and Bahrain want Iran’s nuclear program stopped by any means available.

► Britain’s Iraq inquiry was fixed to protect “US interests”.

► Sweden is a covert member of NATO and US intelligence sharing is kept from parliament.

► The US is playing hardball to get other countries to take freed detainees from Guantanamo Bay. Barack Obama agreed to meet the Slovenian President only if Slovenia took a prisoner. Our Pacific neighbour Kiribati was offered millions of dollars to accept detainees.

In its landmark ruling in the Pentagon Papers case, the US Supreme Court said “only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government”. The swirling storm around WikiLeaks today reinforces the need to defend the right of all media to reveal the truth.

Nu poti sa nu te intrebi cum de au fost americanii atat de eficienti in a (incerca) sa blocheze WikiLeaks, sa-l prinda pe Assange si sa-i blocheze banii, dar nu-i nimeresc pe cei din Al-Queda nici dupa un deceniu, desi au strambat legislatia in fel si chip.

Sarah Palin cerea ca Assange sa fie vanat precum Osama bin Laden; hmm… asta ar  insemna ca Assange ar trebui sa mai fie liber un deceniu :) Dar deja senatorul Mitch McConnell a anuntat ca daca se constata ca Assange nu a incalcat legea cu documentele vestite, atunci legea va trebui schimbata (NBC’s Meet the Press Sunday)

Este interesant si faptul ca o banca elvetiana a facut sluj imediat in fata americanilor, in conditiile in care abia ieri procurorul general american anunta ca a autorizat “significant” actions ca sa opreasca scurgerea de informatii. Procurorul a spus frumos povestea despre vietile americanilor puse in pericol ( nu ca vietile civililor din alte tari ar conta fata de cele ale americanilor, ne aducem aminte povestile de la noi ) apoi declara senin ca nu vrea sa intre in detalii legat de ceea ce sunt ei [americanii] capabili:

He refused to say whether the Obama administration would try to shut down WikiLeaks. “I don’t want to get into what our capabilities are,” Holder said. “We are looking at all the things we can do to try to stem the flow of this information.”

Well, doamnelor si domnilor, taman ce avem o proba la ce inseamna aceste “capabilities”, aka nici un stat nu misca in fata SUA si nici un om nu poate vorbi daca asta expune aberatiile guvernelor. Nu ca ar fi fost o noutate in sine, dar sa constati ca indivizii ajunsi in guvernele si parlamentele nationale actioneaza sa-si acopere interesele personale mari si grase si deghizeaza totul ca fiind arestarea celui mai periculos violator din lume, fiind siguri ca nimeni nu va misca in front si nu va indrazni sa le dea una peste bot, ei bine, asta este de speriat! Adica se bazeaza pe o pasivitate a populatiei care, DACA este atat de mare precum considera ei, inseamna ca ca avem o foarte mare problema: am murit demult dar inca nu ne-am dat seama.

Ar mai fi interesant de mentionat ca arestarea (predarea) si refuzul de bail-out s-au petrecut azi, 7 dec, adica ziua atacului de la Pearl Harbor, daca nu ma insel.

Poate ca al treilea razboi mondial nu va fi intre tari pentru ca, asa cum arata situatia acum (inclusiv cu WikiLeaks), nici nu poate fi vorba de asta; guvernantii se inteleg intre ei si-si apara jocurile lor. Se mai zgandare precum tzancii si fiecare se da mai mare si mai fioros si vrea mai multi bani si mai multa putere.

Poate ca al treilea razboi va fi  SAU ESTE DEJA doar intre guverne si populatie. Si probabil ca a inceput deja si suntem la runda 2. Ar fi tragic sa pierdem pentru ca ne este lene sa ne aparam propriile drepturi si propria libertate. Si probabil ca ar fi hilar sa pierdem un razboi despre care nu ne-a anuntat nimeni, asa ca nu ne-am prezentat pe campul de lupta, asa ca … o venit dusmanul si o luat TOT: libertatea, informatiile, sanatatea etc. Dar stati .. a lasat ceva: telenovelele. Wow .. deci putem putrezi fericiti :) )

inca ceva: in orice joc sau lupta exista momente in care poti sa intorci situatia la 180 de grade, chiar daca totul a pornit cu o diversiune. Oricate conexiuni  ar exista sau sunt presupuse intre Julian Assange si N bosorogi gen Rockefeller &compania, despartirea problemei WikiLeaks de J.A. si apararea WikiLeaks ca miscarea sa continue (implicit mentinerea publicarii si accesibilitatii documentelor) ar aduce o sansa de a dejuca (din nou ?!) planurile bosorogilor. Tot ce este necesar este despartirea WikiLeaks de JA si tranformarea WL “in steag” ce trece de la unul la altul.

Daca s-ar aborda problema asa, atunci este posibil ca perceptia la nivel de masa sa se schimbe si sa treaca de la “ce mari si puternici sunt ei si ce mici , nenorociti si neputinciosi suntem noi” ( adica perceptia soldatilor ce nu aveau curaj sa lupte cu Goliat) la perceptia pe care a avut-o David despre Goliat.  Si da, atunci Rockfeller & compania plus planurile lor se vor narui. Tot ce ne trebuie este prastia si sufletul lui David, cu tot cu Dumnezeu din el :)

Daca nu … runda 2 devine pierduta deja ( cred ca prima runda s-a vrut a fi povestea cu pandemia AH1N1). Sa speram ca nu este si ultima. Si ce bine ca suntem multi in lumea asta mare si poate unii au deja perceptia si curajul lui David.

Mai bine am face concurs de inventat prastii anti-Rockfeller si pro-WikiLeaks, poate rezolvam problema mai repede :D Unii lucreaza deja, ii cheama Anonymous. Si lucreaza bine; in cateva ore azi, au ajuns de la 508 mirror sites in jurul orei 19.00 la 1008 site-uri acum.

„As an organisation we have always taken a strong stance on censorship and freedom of expression on the internet and come out against those who seek to destroy it by any means.”

„We feel that Wikileaks has become more than just about leaking of documents, it has become a war ground, the people vs. the government,” he said.

Alte surse:


The idea that this is the first real battleground between the political establishment and the open web is very arresting. It also forces journalists and news organisations to demonstrate to what extent they are now part of an establishment it is their duty to report. Some like the Guardian, which has a long tradition of free speech attached to it, has been at the heart of disseminating Wikileaks cablegate information.

WikiLeaks: World Leaders Are Real People, Too

Arabia Saudita spune SUA pe cine anume sa atace in lumea araba?

Saudi Arabia proposed creating an Arab force backed by US and Nato air and sea power to intervene in Lebanon two years ago and destroy Iranian-backed Hezbollah, according to a US diplomatic cable released by WikiLeaks.

Parerea unor fosti ofiteri de informatiiEx-Intelligence Officers, Others See Plusses in WikiLeaks Disclosures

WASHINGTON – December 7 – The following statement was released today, signed by Daniel Ellsberg, Frank Grevil, Katharine Gun, David MacMichael, Ray McGovern, Craig Murray, Coleen Rowley and Larry Wilkerson; all are associated with Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence.

WikiLeaks has teased the genie of transparency out of a very opaque bottle, and powerful forces in America, who thrive on secrecy, are trying desperately to stuff the genie back in. The people listed below this release would be pleased to shed light on these exciting new developments.

How far down the U.S. has slid can be seen, ironically enough, in a recent commentary in Pravda (that’s right, Russia’s Pravda): „What WikiLeaks has done is make people understand why so many Americans are politically apathetic … After all, the evils committed by those in power can be suffocating, and the sense of powerlessness that erupts can be paralyzing, especially when … government evildoers almost always get away with their crimes. …” […]

Odd, isn’t it, that it takes a Pravda commentator to drive home the point that the Obama administration is on the wrong side of history. Most of our own media are demanding that WikiLeaks leader Julian Assange be hunted down – with some of the more bloodthirsty politicians calling for his murder. The corporate-and-government dominated media are apprehensive over the challenge that WikiLeaks presents. Perhaps deep down they know, as Dickens put it, „There is nothing so strong … as the simple truth.”

Wikileaks: Power shifts from secrecy to transparency

Government should be transparent by default, secret by necessity. Of course, it is not. Too much of government is secret. Why? Because those who hold secrets hold power.

Now Wikileaks has punctured that power. Whether or not it ever reveals another document—and we can be certain that it will—Wikileaks has made us all aware that no secret is safe. If something is known by one person, it can be known by the world.

But that has always been the case. The internet did not kill secrecy. It only makes copying and spreading information easier and faster. It weakens secrecy. Or as a friend of mine says, the internet democratizes leaking. It used to be, only the powerful could hold and uncover knowledge. Now many can.