Team Do Nothing for the People - Warmonger Globalists: Biden, Obama, et. als.


7m  · 
Shared with Public
Team Do Nothing for the People - Warmonger Globalists share far and wide.......
Repost to Remind Everyone of the Biden, Obama, et. als. Team Do Nothing for the People from 2010+


Topic: Whistleblower's Haters Documented
  Sarah Palin Former US Vice Presidential Candidate Julian Assange should be targeted like the Taliban Thomas Flanagan former advisor to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper I think Assange should be assassinated, actually. (laughs) I think Obama should put out a contract or use a drone or something. I wouldn't feel happy, uh, unhappy, if Assange disappeared. Bob Beckel FOX News commentator A dead man can't leak stuff...This guy's a traitor, he's treasonous, and he has broken every law of the United States. And I'm not for the death penalty, so...there's only one way to do it: illegally shoot the son of a bitch. Eric Bolling FOX News commentator [Assange] should be underground -- six feet underground. ... He should be put in jail or worse, hanged in a public forum. Todd Schnitt Radio Host ASSANGE IS A TERRORIST, AN ENEMY COMBATANT, AND NEEDS TO BE TREATED AS SUCH, SCHNITT HAS SAID REPEATEDLY ON HIS PROGRAM WHICH AIRS WEEKDAYS FROM 3:00pm-6:00pm EST. Jeffrey Kuhner Washington Times columnist Headline: Assassinate Assange? Body: Julian Assange poses a clear and present danger to American national security ... The administration must take care of the problem - effectively and permanently. John Hawkins Far-right blogger Julian Assange is not an American citizen and he has no constitutional rights. So, there's no reason that the CIA can't kill him. Moreover, ask yourself a simple question: If Julian Assange is shot in the head tomorrow or if his car is blown up when he turns the key, what message do you think that would send about releasing sensitive American data? Ralph Peters U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel and author Julian Assange is a cyber terrorist in wartime, he's guilty of sabotage, espionage, crimes against humanity -- he should be killed, but we won't do that. Ralph Peters U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel and author I do not believe in leaks. I would execute leakers. They're betraying our country. Steve Gill Right-wing Nashville radio host Folks like Julian Assange should be targeted as terrorists. They should be captured and kept in Guantanamo Bay, or killed. Rush Limbaugh Right-wing radio talk show host Back in the old days when men were men and countries were countries, this guy would die of lead poisoning from a bullet in the brain. William Kristol Editor of the Weekly Standard Why can't we act forcefully against WikiLeaks? Why can't we use our various assets to harass, snatch or neutralize Julian Assange and his collaborators, wherever they are? G. Gordon Liddy Former White House Adviser, talk show host This fellow Anwar al-Awlaki - a joint U.S. citizen hiding out in Yemen - is on a 'kill list' [for inciting terrorism against the U.S.]. Mr. Assange should be put on the same list. Deroy Murdock Columnist for National Review If convicted, [Bradley Manning] should be placed against a wall and executed by firing squad. (If extradited here, Assange deserves the same sendoff.) Johan Goldberg Editor-at-large of National Review Online I'd like to ask a simple question: Why isn't Julian Assange dead? ...Why wasn't Assange garroted in his hotel room years ago? It's a serious question. Donald Douglas Blogger, Right Wing News I won't think twice if Julian Assange meets the cold blade of an assassin, and apparently a significant number of others don't care for the guy. Paul Holmes New Zealand Herald Columnist I suppose they'll kill him, [Assange]. I would if I were them. Mike Huckabee Former Governor of Arkansas and FOX News talk show host Whoever in our government leaked that information is guilty of treason, and I think anything less than execution is too kind a penalty. The CIA You Know Who They Are "If legal attacks on Assange fail, he'll simply be assassinated by the CIA." -Paul Craig Roberts Jason Lancaster President of Spork Marketing Assange is not a political figure... He represents a danger to the USA and he should be killed ASAP. *********************** aloha.  …
Added by Amelia Gora at 10:43pm on October 8, 2011
Topic: WikiLeaks is a Hokulea/Star of Gladness for Many In the World Today
d peace. Author of #OzWikiWatch - keeping pressure on politicians  Monday, March 19, 2012 03/19/12 WikiLeaks has been financially blockaded without process for 472 days. Julian Assange has been under house arrest without charge for 468 days.   Bradley Manning has been in jail without trial for 666 days.  WikiLeaks News: Polls show that the majority of Australians still support WikiLeaks and Julian Assange. An article in The Nation looks at "A New Age of Enemies" and how the U.S. is villainizing people like Julian Assange and Bradley Manning. WikiLeaks Press has released its coverage of WikiLeaks news from 23-29 February. Julian Assange News: WL Central has created a list of all planned rallies after Julian Assange's Supreme Court verdict is handed down. ABC is holding a poll asking if people would vote for Julian Assange if he ran for Senate in their state. Currently it stands that 65% would vote for him. An article in Crikey looks at the statistics needed for Julian Assange to win a Senate position. A new section at Justice 4 Assange discusses the obstruction of evidence by complainant AA. Julian Assange interviewed Tunisian president Moncef Marzouki for his upcoming television show "The World Tomorrow." The Drum has published a hit-piece against Julian Assange which previously falsely claimed he's been charged, but has been edited to fix the error. A guest on their TV show also described Assange as a "misogynist" and "conspiracy theorist." Bradley Manning News: Alexa O'Brien has posted a transcript of Day 2 of Bradley Manning's motion hearings. The Bradley Manning Support Network has issued news updates for March 18 and 19 which cover Bradley's motion hearings and commentary on them. ********************************
Added by Amelia Gora at 8:52am on March 20, 2012
ials2012-10-03  Press Statement: In this election, vote with your wallet, Vote WikiLeaks 2012-09-27  Transcript of Julian Assange Address to the UN 2012-09-26  US Military Refers to Julian Assange and WikiLeaks as the "enemy" with the "victims" being "society" 2012-09-26  Background for UN Talk - Ongoing Investigation into WikiLeaks 2012-09-11  Inside the secrets and lies behind ’Secrets and Lies’ 2012-09-10  The public relations state: full details of WikiLeaks & Assange Ofcom complaint over "WikiLeaks: Secrets & Lies" 2012-08-23  Statement on U.K. intentions and pressures prior to Ecuadorian embassy siege 2012-08-19  Official Statement by Julian Assange from the Ecuadorian Embassy 2012-08-16  Statement on UK threat to storm Ecuadorian embassy and arrest Julian Assange 2012-07-18  Press Release: WikiLeaks opens path through banking siege. Donations open. 2012-06-29  Press Statement: By Julian Assange Defense Fund Outside the Ecuadorian Embassy 2012-06-28  Press Release – WikiLeaks: Beat the Blockade CD 2012-06-21  Wikileaks has launched a case against Valitor hf. (formerly VISA Iceland) 2012-06-19  Effective Declaration of Abandonment from Australian Government 2012-04-18  Smear and Enjoy 2012-04-17  Press Release - 500 Days of the WikiLeaks Banking Blockade 2012-04-05  Assange Submissions to the Leveson Inquiry 2012-03-06  Kristinn Hrafnsson: The Great WikiLeaks War on Sweden? 2012-03-06  Press release: WikiLeaks on Recent Fabricated Stories in the Swedish Press 2012-02-15  WikiLeaks denounces UNESCO after WikiLeaks banned from UNESCO conference on WikiLeaks 2012-01-23  New Assange TV Series 2011-12-16  Statement on Bradley Manning Case 2011-11-30  Guardian’s "WikiLeaks: Secrets and Lies" Documentary: 2011-10-23  WikiLeaks Press Statement: WikiLeaks vs the Banks 2011-09-22  Julian Assange: Statement on the Unauthorised, Secret Publishing of the Julian Assange “autobiography” by Canongate 2011-09-19  WikiLeaks Launches the First of Four Fundraising Auctions 2011-08-24  US espionage investigation against WikiLeaks: PATRIOT Act order unsealed 2011-06-15  In Conversation with Julian Assange Part II 2011-05-24  "WikiSecrets" Julian Assange Full Interview Footage 2011-05-23  In Conversation with Julian Assange Part I  (on 2012-10-03) Press Statement: In this election, vote with your wallet, Vote WikiLeaks Wednesday 3rd October, 08:00 BST Translations[fr] Communiqué de presse : Dans cette élection, votez avec votre porte-monnaie, Votez WikiLeaks [vi] Bản phát Báo chí: trong cuộc tổng tuyển cử này, hãy bỏ phiếu dùng ví tiền, Bỏ phiếu cho Wikileaks nhé (Vietnamese) [zh] 新闻公报:在此次选举中,用你的钱包投票,支持维基解密。 [pt_br] Declaração à imprensa: Nestas eleições, vote com sua carteira – vote Wikileaks  “Help WikiLeaks run the United States over the next four years” WikiLeaks enters U.S. election campaign. Last Friday, on 28 September, the Pentagon again threatened WikiLeaks. Pentagon spokesman George Little demanded WikiLeaks destroy its publications, including the Iraq War logs which revealed the killings of more than 100,000 civilians. Little said: “continued possession by WikiLeaks of classified information belonging to the United States government represents a continuing violation of law”. The Pentagon also again “warned Mr Assange and WikiLeaks” against “soliciting” material from U.S. military whistleblowers. In response, WikiLeaks has decided to intervene in the U.S. election campaign. The United States government claims Mr Assange and the WikiLeaks organization are within its jurisdiction. In reply, we place the Obama administration within our jurisdiction. All American school children are taught that being subject to laws without representation is an injustice. This is the backbone of the American Revolution. We claim our representation and now initiate a campaign to transform Democratic and Republican votes into economic and political support for WikiLeaks and its First Amendment values. This election day, do not vote for the Republican or Democratic parties. Instead, cast the only vote that matters. Vote with your wallet – vote for WikiLeaks. The Democratic Party promised to open government. But instead it is building a state within a state, placing nearly five million Americans under the national security clearance system. It has classified more documents than any previous administration, classifying even the process used to decide who will live and who will be killed. The U.S. administration hurtles towards dystopia: secret laws, secret processes, secret budgets, secret bailouts, secret killings, secret mass spying, secret drones and secret detention without charge. The collapse of the Soviet Union could have led to the withdrawal of the U.S. security state, but without moral competition from another system it has grown unchecked to influence almost every American policy. Four more years in the same direction cannot be tolerated. The Obama administration continues to conduct a “whole of government” investigation of “unprecedented scale and nature” into WikiLeaks and its people. It has fuelled the extrajudicial banking blockade against the organization and has held an alleged WikiLeaks source, Bradley Manning, in conditions that the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture, Juan Mendez, found had amounted to torture. Mr Assange has been formally found to be a political refugee, but U.S. ambassadors warned countries such as Switzerland not to offer him asylum. President Obama has called Bradley Manning guilty before trial and Vice-President Biden has labelled Julian Assange a "hi-tech terrorist". The Obama-Biden campaign brags of having prosecuted twice as many national security whistleblowers as “all previous administrations combined”. This is not acceptable. Politicians always say your decision, come election-time, will determine the future. But, as has been seen with the Obama administration, deciding on who gets into formal office is not a meaningful choice, because when you vote your party into government you also vote the government, including all its agencies and friends, into your party. Thus, parties taking office are eliminated as the restraining voice of opposition. But there is another option. Government agencies and corporations know that knowledge is power. That is why they spend literally billions to keep their plans and actions secret from all of us. They know that together we can force them to act differently. It was WikiLeaks’ revelations – not the actions of President Obama – that forced the U.S. administration out of the Iraq War. By exposing the killing of Iraqi children, WikiLeaks directly motivated the Iraqi government to strip the U.S. military of legal immunity, which in turn forced the U.S. withdrawal. It was WikiLeaks’ revelations and pan-Arab activists, not the Obama administration, that helped to trigger the Arab Spring. While WikiLeaks was exposing dictators from Yemen to Cairo, Vice-President Joseph Biden was calling Hosni Mubarak a democrat, Hillary Clinton was calling his government “stable” and the U.S. administration was colluding with Yemeni dictator Saleh to bomb his own people. And it was WikiLeaks’ revelations, not the White House, that led to the reform of the largest children’s hospital network in the United States. Last year, the Pentagon got $662 billion for its 2012 war chest. For WikiLeaks to continue its work to bring transparency to powerful institutions through the mass publication of leaks with the greatest potential to lead to more just forms of governance, we need to build a bigger ’war chest’ too. In early December 2010, WikiLeaks was receiving $120,000 per day in donations from the general public. In response to pressure from Washington, and entirely outside the law, financial institutions including Visa, MasterCard, PayPal, Bank of America and Western Union, erected a banking blockade against WikiLeaks, stripping the organization of 95% of its funding. Although WikiLeaks has won every court case to date against the blockade, these Washington-linked institutions continue to appeal. So, for the next 34 days, beginning on 3 October 2012, we are launching a new fundraising campaign running up to Election Day, 6 November. You can still donate to WikiLeaks using a variety of easy methods, including workarounds for Visa, MasterCard and PayPal. These donations go to fund WikiLeaks’ publishing and infrastructure costs and our legal costs to fight the financial blockade. We are expecting an answer shortly on Visa’s appeal against the Icelandic court’s ruling that declared their blockade illegal, and decision-makers are expected to meet soon on our European anti-trust banking case. If you wish to contribute to Julian Assange’s legal defence costs, you can still use your credit card but you will need to make a separate donation to the Julian Assange and WikiLeaks Staff Defence Fund, administered and audited by Derek Rothera & Co. Full details are on our donate page. You can also donate to the Bradley Manning Defense Fund from our site. "The struggle of man against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting", Milan Kundera. Julian Assange The URL for this campaign is: Send to Friend Print      ******************************************* torsdagen den 4:e oktober 2012 The Constitutional State of Sweden is threatened by the Case of Assange This article was published in the biggest Newspaper in Sweden, Dagens Nyheter, on the 19th of August 2012.The legal circus surrounding the case of Julian Assange has now attained proportions uprecedented  in legal history. Julian Assange is the only man who has ever been hunted in this fashion across several continents for questioning over the alleged crimes of sexual molestation and rape. We have therefore reported the prosecutor, Marianne Ny, to the Swedish Parliamentary Ombudsman, JO, because of her handling of the case. The day after Assange was granted asylum by Ecuador, oddly enough, JO Hans Gunnar Axberger dismissed the complaint, citing the ongoing legal proceedings involving Assange. The facts of the matter are quite simple. Julian Assange had sex with two women on separate occasions during his stay in Sweden. The two women went together to a female police inspector, who was acquainted with one of the two, with the stated intent to compel Assange to undergo an HIV test. However,  the police inspector, instead of processing the case according to Swedish law, filed a police report of rape subject to public prosecution. It is unlikely either of the two women had any idea of the magnitude their visit to the police would take. Next, a prosecutor decided to order Assange arrested in absentia, although he was in the country. The next day, yet another prosecutor found that there was no basis for charges and dropped the matter. On August 30, 2010, Assange was interviewed, and he denied the allegations. The next day, lawyer Claes Borgström, who had offered to be plaintiffs’ counsel for the two women, contacted his old friend, the prosecutor Marianne Ny, who in turn decided to reopen the case. Julian Assange remained in Sweden in order to be available for interviews for five entire weeks, until 27 September, when he left the country after receiving permission from the Prosecutor's Office. This is the context in which Marianne Ny issued a European arrest warrant. Thereafter, Assange offered on several occassions to be questioned in London either in person or via video link. Oddly, Prosecutor Ny categorically rejected these offers, even though such interview methods have been used in other cases. We are, like Julian Assange's international lawyer, the famous Baltasar Garzón of Spain, deeply concerned about the lack of guarantee of security and transparency, and on what legal grounds action has been taken against Julian Assange. The harassment he has suffered has wrought havoc on his physical and mental health.The threat against his person is further complicated by the complex behavior of Marianne Ny, representing the Swedish government, towards him. The result is that Julian Assange's basic rights and freedoms under the United Nations, and his human rights under the European Convention, have been declared irrelevant.When people seek political asylum, it usually involves seeking protection from a rogue state and, in this case, it appears that Sweden is just such a rogue. It is enough to refer to the cases of Thomas Quick / Sture Bergwall or Catrine da Costa for devastating comparisons. We two journalists with many decades of experience in press, radio and television both in Sweden and abroad view with increasing horror how uncritical and biased in favor of the political establishment the journalism is in the case Assange.Everything seems to be aimed to getting Assange extradited to Sweden at any cost, rather than critically examining the prosecutor, Marianne Ny’s, actions that are perfectly coordinated with those of her friend, the lawyer Claes Borgström. Prosecutor Ny has for example said in her inner circle "even if I am wrong, I won’t change my mind."In the arrest memo from 2010, available online for all to see and spanning over 100 pages, it is clear that both of the two women themselves sought out contact with Assange.The leaked arrest memo was a legal bomb which has now been mostly forgotten and buried in all the legal twists and turns of the extradition hearings in London, the flight to Ecuador's Embassy and the question of how Assange might be able to get away, away from the once prestigious Swedish machinery of justice.The case of Julian Assange has revealed the State feminism and its propaganda machinery that are at present in power in this country. It is a machinery in which  men-hating radical feminists without historical roots conspire with journalists who do not understand journalism’s critical task and members of the judiciary who pursue a career under the equal rights and opportunities doctrine. This machinery views the ordinary Swedish man as a potential rapist and already condemned Julian Assange of sex crimes before being proven guilty or innocent. This is the fashion in which the man with the status of a rock star became one of the world's most hunted men.Liberation feminism was hijacked in the late 1980s when it was disarmed and renamed 'Jämställdhet' (the equal rights and opportunities doctrine) and co-opted into the power apparatus. “Jämställdhet” became the state norm and an ideology in Sweden. And it became a career ladder, especially in politics, civil service and in the judicial system. Many liberation feminists disappeared into Swedish universities, where they transformed our struggle into 'scientific knowledge', and became elite feminists. They got money from the State, as universities in Sweden are publicly funded. Instead of talking about 'the sexes' they started talking about 'genders', and the struggle no longer focused on transforming the state apparatus: it switched to targeting the male sex and men as sexual creatures. The present totalitarian gender ideology was also promoted by the Swedish media, which does what is required from it by the State. In another turn, and especially in the tabloids, selling sex like never before has turned the concept of cynicism to an "understatement". The Assange case tickles the fancy of journalists who in turn are seducing their readers, listeners and viewers with an exceptionally biased account. In addition, moralistic editorial writers across the country scream for justice for the demeaned women without any reflection on what really happened those days in August 2010, between Julian Assange and the two women.How the case ends may well be decisive to whether Sweden should continue to be called a state governed by law, in which civil rights are not violated and the European Convention on Human Rights is worth more than the ink it was written with. Helene Bergman, journalist Anders Carlgren, journalist Translated  by Traci Birge Upplagd av Helene Bergman kl. 06:50Skicka med e-postBlogThis!Dela på TwitterDela på Facebook 6 kommentarer: Unknown4 oktober 2012 23:58 OK I kind of agree with the above, but did Mr Assange take an HIV test and send its result to the two women concerned? Because it seems obvious to me that their worry and insecurity was the main reason for the whole story. Did he put their worries to rest? Great if he did, but if he did not, why? And this has nothing to do with feminism, law and hacking, just a human dimension.Janus Avivson, Svara Helene Bergman5 oktober 2012 00:49 Hi, Janus! A very good question, who has totally disappeared! I think he said yes to take an HIV-test, but then I don`t know what happen. I think the discussion has gone like this:IF the two women were afraid, they could take their own HIV-test. One of the women did a rape investigation in a hospital. Then of course they also took an HIV-test. And if that have been proved positive I am sure JA have also been accused of that as it is illegal in Sweden to have sex with anyone if you know you are HIV-positive. Svara Humunculus Flannel5 oktober 2012 01:17 I'm an assange supporter but need to point out that you can't reliably have an HIV test straight after the sex you think may have exposed you to the virus:This is from an HIV info site ( HIV tests diagnose HIV infection by detecting antibodies produced by an individual's immune system when they are exposed to HIV. However, it does take some time for enough of those antibodies to be present to be detected by the antibody HIV test. The time it takes for people to have produced enough antibodies varies; anywhere from 2 to 8 weeks or longer, with the average being about 25 days. But this can vary from person to person so a good rule of thumb to follow is if your negative test was done less than 3 months after your potential exposure, you should get another test after 3 months time. While about 97% of people will develop HIV antibodies after an infection, it may take 6 months to produce antibodies in some cases. In our clinic we recommend HIV testing after a potential exposure at 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months after exposure. Svara Humunculus Flannel5 oktober 2012 02:01 It appears as though Assange has taken a test which came back as negative:This from Naomi Wolf's article :"Sources close to the investigation confirm that indeed Assange was asked by police to take an HIV test, which came back negative."Also this section corroborates your assertion that the women should get testing done for themselves. (However I still question how soon a reliable test could be done) :"Rape victims usually fear STD’s or AIDS infection, naturally enough, and the normal police and prosecutorial guidance is for them to take their own battery of tests – you don’t need the man’s test results to know if you have contracted a disease. Normal rape kit processing–in Sweden as elsewhere–includes such tests for the alleged victim as a matter of course, partly to help prevent any contact between the victim and the assailant outside legal channels." Svara Helene Bergman5 oktober 2012 02:12 Thank you @Humunculus Flanell Svara Amelia Gora5 oktober 2012 04:00 It appears that the rape charges were set up to be a diversion and yet a maneuver to prosecute Assange, then take the opportunity to prosecute for other charges.Assange needs to pick out a better partner, someone who's truly interested in him, has respect, etc.Funny how the background of the women weren't shown in the news.....they could've been two barmaids/barflies who operate as a team, etc. who knows?.....did they want to get pregnant? if they were insecure about sexually transmitted disease, why didn't they provide the condoms? it just may be that they were there to set Assange up because there are people hired by government(s) to do that kind of work.....heard about it when I worked for the IRS/Internal Revenue Service - training in San Francisco, California. SvaraRadera Lägg till kommentar        Reference:
Added by Amelia Gora at 1:18am on October 5, 2012
Comment on: Topic 'U.S. President WANNABE Huckabee vs. Whistleblower WikiLeaks ...
n Assange, if a descendant of Royals.... Wikileaks Head Julian Assange would need to utilize his Royal person status, which means immunities......... Alternately, he could request for immediate citizenship with other true democratic nations, who could try to help, including the Hawaiian Kingdom/Kou Hawaii Pae Aina, etc.......... aloha. Acting Liaison of Foreign Affairs Amelia Gora P.O. Box 861781 Wahiawa, Oahu, Hawaii 96786 e-mail: by Amelia Gora (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 7, 2010 at 10:09:29 AM ****************************************"/> …
Added by Amelia Gora at 6:18am on December 7, 2010
Comment on: Topic 'WikiLeaks Supporters - including Amelia Gora - Continue to F...
g to pressure Manning into implicating Julian Assange so that he too can be charged and extradited to US The Real News needs your support. Make a $10 donation by texting realnews to 85944 from your mobile phone. Works in US only The Real News team is doing a tremendous job with analytical content - Srinivasan R Tell us why you support TRNN Context: As yet there are no context links for this item. → Suggest Context Links Here Bio Michael Ratner is President Emeritus of the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) in New York and Chair of the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights in Berlin. He is currently a legal adviser to Wikileaks and Julian Assange. He and CCR brought the first case challenging the Guantanamo detentions and continue in their efforts to close Guantanamo. He taught at Yale Law School, and Columbia Law School, and was President of the National Lawyers Guild. His current books include "Hell No: Your Right to Dissent in the Twenty-First Century America," and “ Who Killed Che? How the CIA Got Away With Murder.” NOTE: Mr. Ratner speaks on his own behalf and not for any organization with which he is affiliated. Transcript PAUL JAY, SENIOR EDITOR, TRNN: Welcome to The Real News Network. I'm Paul Jay in Washington. And now joining us from New York City is Michael Ratner. Michael is the president—I should say president emeritus of Center for Constitutional Rights; also a regular contributor and on-the-board member of The Real News Network. Thanks for joining us, Michael. MICHAEL RATNER, PRESIDENT EMERITUS, CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS: Good to be with you, Paul.JAY: So you represent Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, and you were just at the arraignment of Bradley Manning. What happened at the arraignment? And what's going on with that process?RATNER: Well, I'm sure, as most of your listeners—well, viewers know, Bradley Manning is accused of being the source for much of the material that WikiLeaks put out with regard to the "Collateral Murder" video, the video about murders that took place in Iraq from a helicopter; hundreds of thousands of war documents about Afghanistan, as well as Iraq; as well as the so-called quarter million diplomatic cables. And he's accused of doing that as a 22-year-old in the military. He's now 24. He was treated very, very harshly, actually under torture conditions for a long time. And now he's being referred to a court-martial, which is the military trial. He's been given 22 charges, including a most serious charge, which is called aiding the enemy, which carries a death penalty. But at this point, they've only—they're saying, the government's saying, we're not going to charge him with death penalty; we're going to, you know, try and get a conviction for life.So the arraignment is the process in which Manning appears before the judge and is asked to plead guilty or not guilty or defer his plea. And I went down to the hearing. It was a short hearing, about an hour, at Fort Meade, which is, of course, somewhat near where you're broadcasting from these days, Paul, somewhat near Baltimore, an hour or so outside—maybe 40 minutes—at Fort Meade. It's a huge, sprawling military fort. Very hard to get access to it. The car I drove in was inspected. You had to have insurance for the car, all kinds of other things. You then have to get in line.You can't bring any materials into the courtroom at all, other than a pencil and paper. I couldn't do any Blackberry Twitters or anything else. And I'm in this very antiseptic looking courtroom. It's hard to describe how antiseptic. It has cheap industrial carpeting, celotex ceilings with the little holes in them, and it only holds about 20 people. There are about ten of us spectators, ten people from press. And then Bradley Manning, a very short 5'2", thin, slight soldier in a green uniform, walks in with his civilian lawyer—who was formerly a military lawyer—walks in, sits at the table. And you just had this amazing feeling in this antiseptic courtroom.And here's this man, accused of really revealing massive war crimes, alleged war crimes by the United States, I mean, sitting in this place in Fort Meade. And I had this feeling when I'm sitting here: the real people who should be sitting there are all the victims of what the U.S. has been doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. But, of course, that's not who was there. Who's there are the prosecutors with more brass on their chest that you can't even stand up. And of course he's accused, as I said, of these very serious crimes.So the judge is a new judge that's been appointed, and Bradley Manning was asked to plead. His answers were always—the only thing he said in court was, yes, Your Honor, or no, Your Honor. His lawyer spoke for him when it came time to plead, and he said he's deferring the plea. And they set a date for the next hearing, which is going to be in March.The trial date: they're asking for a date in August—at least, the military's asking for a date in August. And that means by the time he's tried—and I don't think it's going to be tried in August—Bradley Manning will have been in pretrial confinement for 800 days. And, of course, while in that confinement, he was subject to what many of us believe was torture, stripped completely, put into solitary confinement a period of nine months, until there was incredible international outcry and he was finally moved to general population at Fort Leavenworth in Kansas in the United States.He also is being, as I said, heavily charged—22 counts. And at the last hearing, his lawyer, a man named David Coombs, said he was being so heavily charged and treated so badly because to the extent the government thinks he might know something about WikiLeaks and Julian Assange, because he was the alleged source for WikiLeaks, they're trying to get him to speak out, and to not just confess, but to really implicate Julian Assange and WikiLeaks.JAY: Because the point here is if it's a leak, then Manning's responsible, and he somehow just handed it over; but if Julian somehow assisted, advised, or was involved in the original gathering of the material, then they could charge Julian. That's what's at stake here?RATNER: You know, it's a very important point you're making. That's exactly what's at stake. I mean, I wouldn't characterize it the way you did, but it's roughly that. If—it's roughly what you said. What they're trying to say is that somehow—or the government wants to be able to prove that Julian Assange was in a conspiracy or aiding and abetting Bradley Manning to get these documents. It's as if the two were working together, not that Bradley Manning simply furnished the documents to Julian Assange.And when I say it's not as—not the way I would say it, exactly—. But let's take a case. New York Times reporter James Risen, who's the one who disclosed the warrantless wiretapping that Bush was running, he got those documents from somebody in the national security agency or some agency of the United States government. They didn't—I presumed—I don't know this, but I presume the documents were not just dropped on James Risen's desk at The New York Times or that they simply were mailed to him. I presume there was constant contact. I don't know this. There may have been contact with Risen and the source. There may have been more.So the point is that at some point it perhaps crosses into conspiracy. But if I say to my source, well, meet me at the corner of, you know, Hollywood and Vine and there's a restaurant there and would you drop off the documents, that doesn't make me a conspirator. If I tell him—you know, hide him under a rock, it doesn't make me a conspirator.So the United States is reaching for straws here, because they realize they have a problem. If they can't get Julian Assange and WikiLeaks in a conspiracy where he actually is aiding and abetting Bradley Manning, they have no case, because then what's the difference between Julian Assange and The New York Times or WikiLeaks and The New York Times? Every day you pick up your newspapers, they're filled with classified material that's been leaked. And so the government has to try—as you said, the key point is for them to turn Bradley Manning on the expectation that he—which may not be true at all—that he, Bradley Manning, can somehow implicate Julian Assange.JAY: Right. Now—.RATNER: That's what the lawyer himself for Bradley Manning said. That's why Manning is being treated so badly.  

Views: 9

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Sure, he downloaded all these documents and they want to punish him because he did that as a soldier, but they really want—their big fish here is WikiLeaks and Julian Assange.JAY: Now, in the press they've been talking about the defense strategy, and it seems mostly about that the psychological state of Bradley Manning was such that he shouldn't have had access to secrets in the first place. There doesn't seem to be a case being made that if a soldier comes upon evidence of war crimes and there's no other way than to go public to expose it, there's some right, or even duty, to do such a thing. They don't seem to be going on that tack. They seem to be simply saying that there's something psychologically, you know, weak, or problems with Bradley, and so he should be excused.RATNER: You know, at the end of the court hearing last week, I was there with, I said, ten spectators, and one of them was a person who's, you know, in—was actually in prison—in Baltimore, no less—with Father Berrigan during the—he was the first person to help, I think, pour blood on the draft files in the '70s and was eventually released from prison. And he was—you know, he's resister type, you know, plowshares, whatever he—you know, the pacifist resisters. At the end of the court hearing, he—and this is relevant to your question—at the end of the court hearing, he yells out: isn't it the obligation of a soldier to reveal war crimes when he sees them? And I think that's exactly the point. It's the obligation of a soldier to reveal war crimes when he sees them. And that's, in my view, what Bradley Manning was doing. And so he's a very sympathetic character for, certainly, people like me who believe that the U.S. has been committing war crimes all over the place without any accountability for them. And Manning has played—obviously, assuming he did what the government says—a crucial role in exposing them.Now, as you said, the defense has been much more narrow. The defense, at least at the—what they call the Article 32 hearing, which is a preliminary hearing to see if there's enough evidence to stand trial, he took a sort of psychological defense. He took a twofold defense, really, one that, look it, you would—the government was just allowing millions of documents to be seen by some 3.5 million people who have the same level of security clearance that Bradley Manning had. And so what did they really expect [crosstalk]JAY: Yeah. Just to remind people, the security system that Bradley Manning had access to, just to reinforce what you just said, was—something like 3.5 million people had access to it. It does seem completely crazy that anyone would've put anything in that system that was sensitive anyway, knowing so many people had access. But, anyway, go on.RATNER: Yeah. I mean, the material was all level secret or lower. There was nothing top secret in there. So that's why you get all this stuff in the diplomatic cables. You did get the "Collateral Murder" video, which was quite important. But it is secret. But it was—3.5 million people had access, and they were—and even though Manning and others had no reason for their work, I think, to have access to all those diplomatic cables, somehow they were given access. So a very sloppy security system. But I'm less concerned by the sloppiness of the security system than I am by the fact that, yes, there's crimes that were revealed even within that low-level security system.So one of the defenses here is, look it, this stuff was secret, yes, but it was accessed to everybody. And then they get into Bradley Manning's psychology. He was gay when he went in, apparently, was harassed very heavily in the military for being gay, for being 5'2", you know, for just not fitting in. And then they found some—then there were complaints made to his upper people that he shouldn't be sent to Iraq, to the upper command. But he was sent anyway, and he was sent into this computer room where he worked. And then there were some emails found about him being—looking at gender issues and being very, you know, worried about his gender and thinking about a gender change operation. And there were times when he was—apparently, crawled on the floor in a fetal position, etc.The point is that the lawyer's taking not a political defense, not a defense that there's a right, if not an obligation (which there is), to reveal war crimes and if you can't get anywhere with your commanding officer you have to reveal them somehow. The lawyer's not taking that. He's taking what he thinks is going to do Bradley Manning the best, which is to try and get him—assuming they can prove that he did it—the lowest possible sentence he can. At least that's my perspective without [crosstalk]JAY: And I suppose from the narrow point of view of Manning's well-being, maybe he's right, 'cause I suppose it's hard to imagine a military court is going to agree soldiers can reveal secrets if they think it's a war crime.RATNER: You know, this—of course, this is a decision the lawyer is making, and it may very well be in Bradley Manning's best interest. One could make the argument, which if he ran a completely political defense, yes, you're right, he's going to get killed in the court-martial, but in the end he would have growing support, and eventually he might force the government into some kind of a pardon for him or to not try him or not treating him as severely. But that's somewhat speculative. I admit that might be a position I might take. But he has a lawyer who is taking—who is experienced lawyer, who's a good lawyer, who's actually trying, I think, to do the best possible thing he can for Bradley Manning.Now, obviously, it's relevant to my client, to WikiLeaks and Julian Assange, for a couple of big reasons. One is because, as I said, as Bradley Manning's lawyer himself has said, they are trying to compel Bradley Manning to testify against Julian Assange. And that's why he was tortured. That's why he's being charged like this. That's why they're going ahead with a full court-martial. That's why he's being treated the way he is. So it's relevant to WikiLeaks for that.The second reason it's relevant is the United States is actively trying to indict Julian Assange. There's a grand jury sitting in Alexandria, Virginia. It's been sitting for a year. I haven't heard much about it lately. But they have an investigation into WikiLeaks. And pursuant to that, we think ultimately that the United States' goal will be to extradite Julian Assange from either England if he remains there, or Sweden if he winds up in Sweden as a result of the ongoing sex issue with Julian Assange, sexual harassment and rape issue that's going on in Sweden. So the goal of United States is to get him extradited.JAY: And is there any reason why he'd be more likely to be extradited from Sweden than England?RATNER: I want to go to that in one second. That's a very, very important point.But the second point about Bradley Manning's treatment that's interesting and important with Julian Assange is, if they attempt to extradite Julian Assange, one question will be in the European Court how will he be treated in the United States. Well, if he's—can he be treated as an enemy combatant? That's possible—I mean, unlikely, but possible. Will he be put into solitaire like Bradley Manning was, stripped, not allowed access to people? That certainly seems much—you know, very, very likely. Will he be facing a death penalty charge under the Espionage Act? All of that is out there. So when you compare Bradley Manning's treatment, one of the defenses for Julian Assange, wherever he's extradited from, would be look at how they treat people in the United States.Now, your question of will it be easier to extradite him from Sweden than from England, you know, the answer is—I think—my personal opinion I think's yes, it will be. And I think one of the reasons that I think we see what's going on, the extradition to Sweden and the fight about that, is the United States would like him in Sweden. I only know that in England (and I know the lawyers well who are—Julian Assange's lawyers; I know the extradition situation in London), that it is not so easy to get people out of London. It's a very—it's a legal system that has very strong defense lawyers. There's one case of a hacker who went into the Pentagon computer as a young man. He has—the U.S. has been trying to extradite him for eight years. And I'm not saying it's going to take that long. I don't know. But he has a lot of support in England, Assange does. I think it's a much harder case for the U.S. Sweden's a much smaller country. It's—even though it has this nice image in the United States, it's a much more cooperative government with the United States than most people might expect. And it's the belief of many people that it will be easier for the United States to get Julian Assange out of Sweden.Now, that brings us to where is Julian Assange's case. Interestingly, we expected, because it's within the European context, that a European-wide extradition warrant or an extradition warrant from Sweden to England would be honored quickly. And then, you know, like going from Maryland to New York, you know, interstate, that's practically what the European system is. And we didn't expect there to be much difficulty with that extradition. But his lawyers have actually fought hard, and the case was recently argued in the highest court in England, which only takes cases (like the U.S. Supreme Court) when it wants to—it doesn't have to take them. And the argument was before seven judges who heard this case—I think it was seven; it might've been five—five—five judges who heard this case—and it was a vigorous argument. And the issue is an important one that's being raised, and it sort of implicates what's wrong with the Swedish system. The Swedish asked for his extradition. A prosecutor in Sweden asked for the extradition from England. And under the arrest warrant system, it has to be a judicial authority. Obviously, a judicial authority is neutral. Prosecutor wants the first case. And so the argument is: is a prosecutor in Sweden a judicial authority? And I thought the court went—you know, took it—they obviously took it seriously. And I'm somewhat hopeful for Julian that he will not have to—for Julian Assange that he will not have to wind up in Sweden. But, you know, it is a European arrest warrant—I mean, a European extradition warrant, so we don't know. JAY: Okay. Just quickly, what is the legal basis or precedent, if any, for Manning to take a position that a soldier who comes across evidence of war crimes has some obligation or right to go public?RATNER: You know, well, it comes out of—it goes back many years, but it certainly goes to Nuremberg. There's—the legal liability under Geneva Conventions, under our own laws, is that you can't commit war crimes and you can't tolerate them being committed; or if you find out information, there's a legal obligation to actually report it. Now, we would say in the United States, in a narrow way, you have to report it up the chain of command. But, of course, up the chain of command in the United States military is essentially a useless act. It's useless even if—you know, I've seen issues around rape in the military and women who report it. They get totally harassed, essentially drummed out. Much less war crimes. This is—it's like a wall. There's no way.So I don't think there was any way for Bradley Manning to do anything but what he did. And, you know, the first video, apparently, according to—you know, which we don't know (again, these are all allegations)—but according to what we read was—that really got him was, you know, there were these two Reuters journalists killed in Iraq, and from a helicopter, and there were a couple of kids wounded. And that's the video, apparently, he saw and said, this has to come out. And if you look at why it didn't come out, why are these documents secret, a majority of those documents are secret because the United States wants to hide what its own crimes and problems and issues are. And that was certainly true of the "Collateral" war video.JAY: Thanks for joining us, Michael.RATNER: Thank you for having me, Paul.JAY: Thank you for joining us on The Real News Network. End DISCLAIMER: Please note that transcripts for The Real News Network are typed from a recording of the program. TRNN cannot guarantee their complete accuracy. …
Added by Amelia Gora at 2:18am on March 1, 2012
Comment on: Topic 'WIKILEAKS Goodies In the NEWS..................'
bin bags Child protection begins at home‎ » Open justice: Admission to Assange hearing ‘by ticket only’ 24Jun11 – 10:52 am by Index on Censorship Up to 100 journalists will be allowed access to the extradition appeal of Wikileaks editor Julian Assange at the Royal Courts of Justice on 12 July — “by ticket only”. Media companies will be informed whether they have been allocated tickets after the application deadline on Monday 4 July. The press has been given 75 seats in the courtroom and a further 25 seats in the public gallery. Media organisations, rather than individual journalists, will be allocated the spaces and proof of identity must be provided on the day. Assange has been living in Norfolk under bail conditions for the past six months. His supporters last week claimed that he is being detained “under house arrest” in “excessive and dehumanising” conditions. His earlier appearances in court attracted widespread press interest, with the judge giving specific permission for journalists to live-tweet from court. Assange versus the Swedish Judicial Authority will be heard in Court 4 at the Royal Courts of Justice on Tuesday 12 July 2011 at 10.30 before Lord Justice Thomas and Mr Justice Ouseley.   TwitThis This entry was posted by Index on Censorship, on at 10:52 am, filed under Uncategorized and tagged court, julian assange.Bookmark the permalink.Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL. Print This Post « The Met and the bin bags Child protection begins at home‎ » 10 Comments Posted 24Jun11 at 12:05 pm | Permalink Francis Sedgemore Media organisations only, so no sole-trading freelance journalists need apply. That seems like a discriminatory practice on the part of the court. Is it legal? Posted 24Jun11 at 8:48 pm | Permalink barry laughton I’d say a bona fide freelance journalist should go for a judicial review on the decision. Posted 24Jun11 at 9:25 pm | Permalink lucy I wonder why journalists would want to participate at an event where the outcome is supposedly already clear? Were is the suspense? Posted 24Jun11 at 10:09 pm | Permalink Francis Sedgemore “I’d say a bona fide freelance journalist should go for a judicial review on the decision.” Good idea, but I’m reluctant to proceed without NUJ backing. I shall make enquiries. Posted 25Jun11 at 3:11 pm | Permalink Christie schaefer Lucy – It’s not a matter of suspense; it’s a matter of documenting the events. Posted 25Jun11 at 3:34 pm | Permalink lucy A Free speech blog that doesn`t allow free speach by deleting non offensive posts? Ha u must be kidding! PS: and this was my comment and a very justified if u ask me: I wonder why journalists would want to participate at an event were the outcome is clear from the start? Posted 25Jun11 at 3:37 pm | Permalink lucy BTW If this hearing was really public then cameras and a webstream could do a better job than the subjective reportng of a few mainstream journalists! Posted 25Jun11 at 5:02 pm | Permalink Franklin Sounds like getting into see the Olympics to me Posted 25Jun11 at 5:30 pm | Permalink Phil So how much are tickets to the show? Posted 25Jun11 at 6:24 pm | Permalink Amelia Gora Media bias once again promoted and limited to only CIA supporters….Greg Wongham of Corruption in Hawaii stated: “the number-one purveyor of broadcast news in this country– NBC, with both MSNBC and CNBC under its wing, as well as NBC news and a variety of “news magazines”– is now owned and controlled by General Electric, one of the nation’s largest defense contractors. Is it not significant that as GE’s various media subsidiaries predictably lined up to cheerlead the use of U.S. military force in Kosovo, it was at the same time posting substantial profits from the sale of the high tech of modern warfare it so shamelessly glorifies?.. ~ ~ “You know the one thing that is wrong with this country? Everyone gets a chance to have their fair say.” — President William J. Clinton ~ ~ ~ “The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media.” — Former CIA Director William Colby 2 Trackbacks By Francis Sedgemore - The Wikileaks saga continues – get your tickets... on 24Jun11 at 1:19 pm [...] be allowed access to this spectacle of judicial theatre. The catch is that the Assange hearing is a ticket-only event, and likely to be heavily oversubscribed. So get in there now! Unless, that is, you are a [...] By Media law mop up: Early Resolution launch; Bahraini activists jaile... on 24Jun11 at 3:36 pm [...] Index on Censorship>> Open justice: Admission to Assange hearing ‘by ticket only’ [...] ********************************************************
Added by Amelia Gora at 8:40am on June 25, 2011
Comment on: Topic 'CELEBRATING "ADMISSION OF CRIMES DAY" ---Through Public Law ...
obe Flash Player to view this content.   Madonna - Angel (Album Version) Lyrics: Why am I standing on a cloud Everytime you're around And my sadness disappears Everytime you are near You must be an angel I can see it in your eyes ...   7 minutes ago· Amelia Gora  Julian Assange Granted Asylum   WikiLeaks chief Julian Assange was granted political asylum by Ecuador on Thursd...See More 4 minutes ago · · Amelia Gora Julian Assange is welcomed in the Hawaiian Kingdom too. Yes folks, the Kamehameha family(ies) exists........and we're an occupied nation recognized in the International arena since 1844. Conspiracies, piracy(ies) in the Hawaiian Islands continues with documented evidence that the U.S./U.S.A., England and the Morgan bankers (includes the Bank of England) conspiring against our Queen Liliuokalani, et. als. We have the evidence and you're welcome to view some by googling my name as well. Assange is a kool whistleblower. email: aloha from Amelia Gora, Acting Liaison of Foreign Affairs/Department, one of Kamehameha's descendants/heirs, a Royal Person p.s. Thank you Ecuador, we support you.     *****************************************
Added by Amelia Gora at 8:50am on August 17, 2012
Topic: WikiLeaks Supporters - including Amelia Gora - Continue to Fight fo...
001 : Bradley Manning and Julian Assange should be allowed Whistleblowers immunities.  They have basically reported criminal activities affecting innocents.  As a former Federal Government employee with a Top Secret clearance, it became known that one agency alone does not have the complete picture of anything....they have but a piece of a puzzle ....while other arms of the Federal Government has other therefore Bradley Manning and Julian Assange did not have the complete information of the entire puzzle, the entire truth which is guarded by many agencies or other military personnel such as the Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard, FEMA, etc. Therefore, with that little bit of information, Bradley Manning and Julian Assange cannot be charged based on that......however, it is those with the positions of the President, former Presidents and their cabinets who had access to the ENTIRE, complete puzzle and oversee all the branches of government activities are those who can be charged with all the charges given to Manning, Assange. Charges for War Crimes, treason etc. should be set against the current President as well as the past President Bush and the focus should be on them and their Cabinet members.....not on the Fall guys (Manning and Assange) who haven't ever had the entire truth disclosed to them..........unless they received info from the Executives/President, VPresident, and their Cabinet members. Immunities for the two, Bradley Manning and Julian Assange, should be given, supported by Neutral, friendly nations such as Sweden, Kuala Lumpur, Ko Hawaii Pae Aina/Hawaiian Kingdom, etc. aloha. ...     Campaign ends torturous treatment of Bradley Manning! 500 supporters of Bradley Manning march on Quantico, VA, March 20, 2011. Video: President Obama's comments on Bradley Manning = Unlawful Command Influence   Supporters of accused WikiLeaks source vow to fight on for open trial and freedom By the Bradley Manning Support Network. May 5, 2011 Hundreds of thousands of individuals globally celebrate today the confirmation that their efforts to end the torturous pre-trial confinement conditions inflicted upon US Army PFC Bradley Manning have been successful. Manning’s lead defense attorney, David E. Coombs of Rhode Island, has personally verified that Manning is indeed being held in Medium Custody confinement at the Joint Regional Corrections Facility (JRCF) at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, as claimed by the Army last week. “We won this battle because 600,000 individuals took the time to write letters and sign petitions, because thousands called the White House switchboard, because 300 of America's top legal scholars decried Bradley's pre-trial conditions as a clear violation of our Constitution’s 5th and 8th Amendments,” declared Jeff Paterson of Courage to Resist and the Bradley Manning Support Network. “We won this battle because over a hundred concerned citizens engaged in civil disobedience at the White House and at Quantico, and because our grassroots campaign shows no sign of slowing.” These new conditions reflect a dramatic improvement for Manning following his transfer to Fort Leavenworth on April 20, 2011, after having suffered extreme solitary-like confinement at US Marine Corps Base Quantico, Virginia. During the nine months at Quantico, Manning was denied meaningful exercise, social interaction, sunlight, and was at times kept completely naked. These conditions were unique to Manning and were illegal under US military law as they clearly amounted to pre-trial punishment. “I was able to tour the [Fort Leavenworth] facility and meet with PFC Manning last week. PFC Manning is now being held in Medium Custody. He is no longer under…harsh pretrial confinement conditions. Unlike at Quantico, PFC Manning’s cell has a large window that provides adequate natural light....PFC Manning is able to have all of his personal items in his cell, which include his clothing, his legal materials, books and letters from family and friends....Each pre-trial area (including PFC Manning’s) has four cells, and each pre-trial detainee is assigned to his own cell. The cells are connected to a shared common area, with a table, a treadmill, a television and a shower area....PFC Manning and his group are taken to the outdoor recreation area [for approximately two hours daily],” explained Coombs on his blog at   hours ago. “President Obama’s recent pronouncement that Bradley Manning ‘broke the law’ amounts to Unlawful Command Influence, something clearly prohibited because it’s devastating to the military justice system. Manning will eventually be judged by a jury of career military officers and noncommissioned officers. Will they be able to set aside the declaration of their commander in chief?” explains attorney Kevin Zeese, a member of the Bradley Manning Support Network. “Along with the illegal pre-trial punishment already inflicted upon Bradley, the government has more than enough legal basis to drop the prosecution. Instead, the death penalty or life in prison hangs over Manning’s head.” After nearly a year in confinement, the Army is expected to soon announce Manning’s first public hearing, an Article 32 pre-trial proceeding, which will be held in the Washington DC area. Scores of international solidarity events are already being planned. US Army intelligence analyst Private First Class Bradley E. Manning, 23-years-old, was arrested in Iraq on May 26, 2010. He still awaits his first public court hearing, now expected to begin in June 2011. Over 4,300 individuals have contributed over $333,000 towards PFC Manning's legal fees and related public education efforts. The Bradley Manning Support Network is dedicated to thwarting the military’s attempts to hold a secret court martial, and to eventually winning the freedom of PFC Manning.   …
Added by Amelia Gora at 9:43pm on May 5, 2011
Comment on: Topic 'Updated 05/04/2016: IMPEACH OBAMA NOW! Afri-Con Man Info For...
rings the Russian view on global news. WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange says Obama 'audaciously ...‎ Sep 27, 2012 – Julian Assange accused Obama of seeking to exploit the Arab uprisings for personal political gain, as he addressed a sideline meeting of the ... Revealed By WikiLeaks: Obama Team Stole Election, Bribed Jesse ... › Blogs › Coachisright‎ Apr 23, 2012 – According to internal Emails circulated among the staff at Stratfor, an Austin Texas based private intelligence gathering firm, John McCain was ... Obama and the DNC - WikiLeaks‎ Oct 12, 2012 – On Monday February 27th, 2012, WikiLeaks began publishing The Global ... List of documents > Release Obama and the DNC; 38475 emails ... Will release of new Wikileaks secrets blow Obama's nice guy image ... › Comment‎ Nov 27, 2010 – He is the US president many Europeans thought they always wanted, but leaks of US diplomatic cables may show him rather differently, says ... Obama on WikiLeaks: 'Documents Don't Reveal Any Issues that ... › ABC News Blogs › Politics › Political Punch‎ Jul 27, 2010 – ABC News' Yunji de Nies and Sunlen Miller Report: President BarackObama spoke publicly about the WikiLeaks incident for the first time ... Stratfor, WikiLeaks and the Obama administration's war against truth ...‎ by Amy Goodman Mar 1, 2012 – Amy Goodman: Thanks to WikiLeaks and its media partners, we have a disturbingly vivid picture of the intelligence-industrial complex. What WikiLeaks Mean for Obama's Agenda - Esquire › Blogs › The Politics Blog‎ Nov 30, 2010 – What really screams out from the WikiLeaks cables is how littleObama ever really broke from the Bush doctrine, argues Thomas P.M. Barnett. In U.N. Address, WikiLeaks' Julian Assange Urges Obama Admin to ... ►►‎ Sep 27, 2012 Speaking via videolink from the Ecuadorean embassy in London,WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange ... Noam Chomsky on WikiLeaks, Obama's Targeted Assassinations ... ►►‎ May 14, 2012 As the United States carries out another deadly drone strike in Yemen, Noam Chomsky compares the ... More videos for wikileaks on obama » Searches related to wikileaks on obama wikileaks obama birth certificate wikileaks osama obama wiki clinton wikileaks wikileaks bush wikileaks obama kill list obama wikipedia 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next …
Added by Amelia Gora at 1:53am on May 3, 2013
Comment on: Topic 'Empower Yourselves With the FACTS: OBAMA WAS BORN IN A-F-R-I...
conomic strategies that shape national trends, the power elite are able to not only tighten their stranglehold on this nation's economic structure, but can extend that control world wide. Those possessing such power would logically want to remain in the background, invisible to the average citizen." (Aldous Huxley) Wikleaks is upheld as a breakthrough in the battle against media disinformation and the lies of the US government. Unquestionably, the released documents constitute an important and valuable data bank. The documents have been used by critical researchers since the outset of the Wikileaks project. Wikileaks earlier revelations have focussed on US war crimes in Afghanistan (July 2010) as well as issues pertaining to civil liberties and the "militarization of the Homeland" (see Tom Burghardt, Militarizing the "Homeland" in Response to the Economic and Political Crisis, Global Research, October 11, 2008) In October 2010, WikiLeaks was reported to have released some 400,000 classified Iraq war documents, covering events from 2004 to 2009 (Tom Burghardt, The WikiLeaks Release: U.S. Complicity and Cover-Up of Iraq Torture Exposed, Global Research, October 24, 2010). These revelations contained in the Wikileaks Iraq War Logs provide "further evidence of the Pentagon's role in the systematic torture of Iraqi citizens by the U.S.-installed post-Saddam regime." (Ibid) Progressive organizations have praised the Wikileaks endeavor. Our own website Global Research has provided extensive coverage of the Wikileaks project.  The leaks are heralded as an immeasurable victory against corporate media censorship. But there is more than meets the eye. Even prior to the launching of the project, the mainstream media had contacted Wikileaks. There are also reports from published email exchanges (unconfirmed) that Wikileaks had, at the outset of the project in January 2007, contacted and sought the advice of Freedom House. This included an invitation to Freedom House (FH) to participate in the Wikileaks advisory board:  "We are looking for one or two initial advisory board member from FH who may advise on the following:  1. the needs of FH as consumer of leaks exposing business and political corruption2. the needs for sources of leaks as experienced by FH3. FH recommendations for other advisory board members4. general advice on funding, coallition [sic] building and decentralised operations and political framing" (Wikileaks Leak email exchanges, January 2007). There is no evidence of FH followup support to the Wikileaks project. Freedom House is a Washington based "watchdog organization that supports the expansion of freedom around the world". It is chaired by William H. Taft IV who was legal adviser to the State Department under G. W. Bush and Deputy Secretary of Defense under the Reagan administration. Wikileaks had also entered into negotiations with several corporate foundations with a view to securing funding. (Wikileaks Leak email exchanges, January 2007): The linchpin of WikiLeaks's financial network is Germany's Wau Holland Foundation. ... "We're registered as a library in Australia, we're registered as a foundation in France, we're registered as a newspaper in Sweden," Mr. Assange said. WikiLeaks has two tax-exempt charitable organizations in the U.S., known as 501C3s, that "act as a front" for the website, he said. He declined to give their names, saying they could "lose some of their grant money because of political sensitivities." Mr. Assange said WikiLeaks gets about half its money from modest donations processed by its website, and the other half from "personal contacts," including "people with some millions who approach us...." (WikiLeaks Keeps Funding Secret,, August 23, 2010) Acquiring covert funding from intelligence agencies was, according to the email exchanges, also contemplated. (See Wikileaks Leak email exchanges, January 2007) At the outset in early 2007, Wikileaks acknowledged that the project had been "founded by Chinese dissidents, mathematicians and startup company technologists, from the US, Taiwan, Europe, Australia and South Africa.... [Its advisory board]  includes representatives from expat Russian and Tibetan refugee communities, reporters, a former US intelligence analyst and cryptographers." (Wikileaks Leak email exchanges, January 2007). Wikileaks formulated its mandate on its website as follows: "[Wikileaks will be] an uncensorable version of Wikipedia for untraceable mass document leaking and analysis. Our primary interests are oppressive regimes in Asia, the former Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, but we also expect to be of assistance to those in the west who wish to reveal unethical behavior in their own governments and corporations," CBC News - Website wants to take whistleblowing online, January 11, 2007, emphasis added). This mandate was confirmed by Julian Assange in a June 2010 interview in The New Yorker: "Our primary targets are those highly oppressive regimes in China, Russia and Central Eurasia, but we also expect to be of assistance to those in the West who wish to reveal illegal or immoral behavior in their own governments and corporations. (quoted in  WikiLeaks and Julian Paul Assange : The New Yorker, June 7, 2010, emphasis added) Assange also intimated that "exposing secrets" "could potentially bring down many administrations that rely on concealing reality—including the US administration." (Ibid)  From the outset, Wikileaks' geopolitical focus on "oppressive regimes" in Eurasia and the Middle East was "appealing" to America's elites, i.e. it seemingly matched stated US foreign policy objectives. Moreover, the composition of the Wikileaks team (which included Chinese dissidents), not to mention the methodology of "exposing secrets" of foreign governments, were in tune with the practices of US covert operations geared towards triggering "regime change" and fostering "color revolutions" in different parts of the World. …
Added by Amelia Gora at 12:30am on April 4, 2012

google queries:

"Send In The Clowns" ~ Judy Collins ~ Muppet Show
"Send In The Clowns" ~ Judy Collins ~ Muppet Show
"Send In The Clowns" ~ Judy Collins ~ Muppet Show
  • Like
  •  · 
  •  · 
    Remove Preview
  •  · 1m


© 2020   Created by Ikaika Hussey.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service