WikiLeaks

[Dave Greer]

The United States government barrage against WikiLeaks has been so brutal that, according to ABC News/Washington Post surveys, two out of every three U.S. citizens want Assange to be taken before the U.S. courts for having disclosed the documents. On the other hand, nobody has dared to challenge the truths that they contain.

That's a frustrating, worrying, and not entirely unexpected direction for this whole saga to take. The entire media focus has switched from the leaks themselves, onto Assange. The US Government will be mightily relieved that in Sweden, the legal classification of "chatting up a bird" seems analagous to "demanding sex with menaces". As John has pointed out, it may well work in Assange's favour if he is deported and claims political asylum. He really should consider grasping the nettle and handing himself over voluntarily to the Swedish authorities.

[John Dolva]

The United States government barrage against WikiLeaks has been so brutal that, according to ABC News/Washington Post surveys, two out of every three U.S. citizens want Assange to be taken before the U.S. courts for having disclosed the documents. On the other hand, nobody has dared to challenge the truths that they contain.

That's a frustrating, worrying, and not entirely unexpected direction for this whole saga to take. The entire media focus has switched from the leaks themselves, onto Assange. The US Government will be mightily relieved that in Sweden, the legal classification of "chatting up a bird" seems analagous to "demanding sex with menaces". As John has pointed out, it may well work in Assange's favour if he is deported and claims political asylum. He really should consider grasping the nettle and handing himself over voluntarily to the Swedish authorities.

I agree. Dave.

I spoke briefly at a meeting on this a couple of days ago. The well meaning support that was the focus, I think, was correctly countered.

People are reacting, when they should be acting.. The forces they are trying to counter have enormous resources.

I don't think any decision was come to, but at least I got the point across. (Then left, quickly. ( ) . )

IMO we must be proactive. Strike preemptively. Zig Zag, don't let them get away with fluffing up the issue.

Now!

Not in a week.

I think the path for JA to take is to surrender to the Swedish embassy and seek asylum. With US politicians calling for his death I think Sweden would be duty bound before the eyes of the world to act properly. It doesn't matter that they have a rightwing government in place at the moment. (like I said in another post : when Swedes Strike (and I mean Wage Slaves) you'll know about it.

JA, while integral with WikiLeaks, must be recognised as a separate issue and the focus must be kept on that.

........

''seems analagous'' is absolutely correct. The truth is that it is all about protecting Womans right to say no. Much of the world does not adhere to those stringent standards. Humans are humans, social mores social mores. With Olaf Palme in the cast of I am Curiouus, Yellow one can hardly infer Swedes are prudes. This (eg) leads to misconcepions to the outside world.

It would be of interest to some that this is skewed.

[John Dolva]

http://socialistwork...assange-in-jail - S.W.P. FI

Why is Wikileaks head in Jail?

Assange.jpg

08/12/2010

Author:

Nicole Colson

''THE SUPPOSED "international manhunt" for Julian Assange ended December 7 when the WikiLeaks founder turned himself into police in London--and was promptly locked up by the British court system.

The day before, British authorities secured an arrest warrant for Assange, who is wanted for questioning in relation to allegations of sexual assaults in Sweden. Assange was denied bail at a British court hearing, despite the fact that several people, including left-wing filmmaker Ken Loach and journalist John Pilger, appeared in court on his behalf and offered to post more than $280,000 in bond for his release.

As a result of the judge's ruling, Assange will remain in jail until at least December 14. His lawyer Mark Stevens told Sky News after the hearing that he will ask the court for bail for Assange again. "I have described this Swedish process as a persecution and not a prosecution," he said.

The denial of bail for Assange seems designed to allow U.S. authorities time to find a way to eventually get the Australian citizen extradited to the U.S. for prosecution related to WikiLeaks releases, which have caused an uproar around the world, and nowhere more so than in the U.S. As Sky News foreign affairs editor Tim Marshall wrote, "The longer he is in [britain], the more possibility there is the Americans will find a law they can reasonably charge him with and get a prosecution."

In an interview with Salon.com, attorney Douglas McNabb, who specializes in federal criminal defense and international extradition cases, said that there is the possibility that the U.S. has not only a sealed indictment prepared against Assange, but also has an extradition request under seal.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

RAPE AND sexual assault are very serious charges that deserve investigation. But it's impossible to take the charges against Assange at face value given the nature of the attack on him by the world's superpowers.

Assange is wanted by Swedish authorities for questioning in connection with one count of unlawful coercion, two counts of sexual molestation and one count of rape, all alleged to have been committed in August 2010.

Although the details remain unclear, reports suggest that Assange is accused of entering into consensual sex acts with two different women. In one case, he reportedly failed to wear a condom against the wishes of his partner; in another, he allegedly failed to stop during sex after a condom broke. Another allegation claims that Assange initiated sex with one of the women while she was sleeping.

These are disturbing charges. However, the idea that they should spark an "international manhunt," complete with an Interpol "red notice," should raise suspicions--especially concerning the timing of the Interpol notice so soon after the latest release of documents by WikiLeaks, to the fury of the U.S. government.

As Laura Flanders noted in TheNation.com:

ince when is Interpol [the investigative arm of the International Criminal Court at The Hague] so vigilant about violence against women? If women's security is suddenly Interpol's priority--that's big news!

Tell it to hundreds of women in U.S. jails and immigration detention centers--who charge that they can't get justice against accused rapists--or women in the U.S. military (two of out three of whom allege they've experienced assault.) In Haiti, hundreds of unprosecuted cases of rape in refugee camps could use some of Interpol's attention.

The same politicians and media pundits who have little to say about violence against women or women's rights in general are now suddenly very keen on bringing Assange to "justice." Meanwhile, as Assange sits in jail, the politicians and military officials who exposed by WikiLeaks for authorizing torture and massacres of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan will likely never face a day in court. All that shows how cynical and hypocritical this misuse of the legal system is.

One of the more striking aspects of the case is that Assange, according to his lawyer Mark Stephens, has not yet actually been charged with any crime. As Stephens noted in an interview with Sky News, Assange is still only wanted for questioning in Sweden--and that raises, he says, "a question of law" as to whether the Swedish prosecutor "is entitled to extradite him for the purpose of questioning."

Swedish prosecutors initially brought and then dropped charges against Assange in August. At the time, Chief Prosecutor Eva Finne said in a statement that Assange was "no longer wanted" and "is not suspected of rape." In September, however, the prosecutors revived the allegations. And the hunt for Assange began in earnest this month--not coincidentally timed with the latest release of diplomatic cables by WikiLeaks.

As Mark Stephens noted:

[W]hen you get a situation where the original charges were dropped by the senior-most prosecutor in Sweden, on the grounds that there was not one shred of evidence to even warrant an investigation, and then a politician intervenes a few weeks later and goes to another city and another prosecutor on the same facts, and she begins this kind of witch-hunt, then I think you really have got to worry about the impartiality of the system and the process.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

ASSANGE'S ARREST and especially the fact that he was denied bail seem to add weight to the belief that the charges against him are designed to shut down his work on WikiLeaks as well as keep him imprisoned until a reason can be found to extradite him to the U.S.

According to the Guardian's Afua Hirsch, any attempt to extradite Assange from Britain to the U.S. is likely to face a lengthy court battle. But if he is returned to Sweden, there is a good likelihood that he would eventually be sent to the U.S. for prosecution:

Even if Assange's case falls outside the remit of Sweden's treaty with the U.S., there is scope for the country to agree to his extradition to the U.S.

Swedish law permits extradition more generally to countries outside Europe, although the process is subject to safeguards, including a ban on extradition for "political offences" or where the suspect has reason to fear persecution on account of their membership of a social group or political beliefs.

Meanwhile, plenty of U.S. politicians--both Democrats and Republicans--are already rewriting the laws to make sure Assange can be prosecuted if the opportunity arises. (If, that is, he isn't assassinated beforehand, as several Republicans have called for.)

Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein has repeatedly claimed that Assange can be prosecuted under the 1917 Espionage Act, while Sens. Joe Lieberman, Scott Brown and Jon Ensign introduced legislation that would make it illegal to publish the names of informants serving the U.S. military and intelligence community. (This is despite the fact that WikiLeaks repeatedly asked U.S. officials for help in determining what needed to be redacted from the cables before they were publicly released--a request the U.S. government refused.)

Under the kind of law that Lieberman and friends are cooking up, other media outlets, such as the New York Times, could face criminal prosecution for publishing WikiLeaks documents or anything like them. As Salon.com's Glenn Greenwald noted:

Every line of pro-prosecution rationale cited by Feinstein applies equally to journalists--including especially the newspapers from around the world which are publishing all of the same diplomatic cables as WikiLeaks is, and which are publishing them before WikiLeaks even does. How can it possibly be that WikiLeaks should be prosecuted for espionage, but not The New York Times, or The Guardian, or any other newspaper that publishes these cables?

But Joe Lieberman, at least, doesn't mind that. Appearing on Fox News, the senator said that the New York Times was guilty of an "act of bad citizenship" at the least for publishing WikiLeaks documents. "Whether they've committed a crime," Lieberman added, "I think that bears very intensive inquiry by the Justice Department."

That such calls for shutting down the media and imprisoning (if not executing) Assange are occurring during the Barack Obama presidency, and with the support of most Democrats, should give lie to the idea that Democrats will stand up to protect our civil liberties. As Greenwald stated:

To recap "Obama justice": If you create an illegal worldwide torture regime, illegally spy on Americans without warrants, abduct people with no legal authority, or invade and destroy another country based on false claims, then you are fully protected.

But if you expose any of the evils secretly perpetrated as part of those lawless actions--by publishing the truth about what was done--then you are an Evil Criminal who deserves the harshest possible prosecution.''

edit format

Edited December 19, 2010 by John Dolva

[Dave Greer]

o recap "Obama justice": If you create an illegal worldwide torture regime, illegally spy on Americans without warrants, abduct people with no legal authority, or invade and destroy another country based on false claims, then you are fully protected.

But if you expose any of the evils secretly perpetrated as part of those lawless actions--by publishing the truth about what was done--then you are an Evil Criminal who deserves the harshest possible prosecution.''

Very succinctly put.

[John Dolva]

Rolling Stone: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/why-shouldn-t-freedom-of-the-press-apply-to-wikileaks-20101215

''Why Shouldn’t Freedom of the Press Apply to WikiLeaks?

You may not like Julian Assange, but the campaign to silence WikiLeaks should appall you

By Tim Dickinson December 15, 2010 5:07 PM EDT

Here’s a thought experiment: Imagine for a moment that the quarter of a million secret government cables from the State Department had been leaked, not to Julian Assange of WikiLeaks, but to Bill Keller, the executive editor of the New York Times.

First, let’s state the obvious: The Times would never have returned the confidential files to the Obama administration. Most likely, the newspaper would have attempted to engage with State to try to scrub life- and source- threatening details from the cables — as Assange and his lawyers did.

And if the administration had refused to participate in that effort -- as it did with WikiLeaks? The Times would have done what any serious news organization has the imperative to do: It would have published, at a pacing of its own choosing, any cable it deemed to be in the public interest. In this digital age, it’s likely the Times would have even created a massive searchable database of the cables.

The optics of the information dump would likely have been very different -- overlaid with the Times’ newspaper-of-record gravitas. But the effect would have been identical: Information that the U.S. government finds embarrassing, damning, and even damaging would have seen the light of day.

Now let’s extend the thought experiment:

How would you react if top American conservatives were today baying for Bill Keller’s blood? If Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell had called on Keller to be prosecuted as a “high-tech terrorist”? If Sarah Palin were demanding that Keller be hunted down like a member of Al Qaeda? If Newt Gingrich were calling for the Times editor to be assassinated as an “enemy combatant.”

What if Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, had successfully pressured the Times’ web hosting company to boot the newspaper off its servers? What if Visa, Mastercard, and PayPal suddenly stopped processing subscriptions for the paper?

Imagine that students at Columbia University’s graduate school of international affairs had been warned not to Tweet about the New York Times if they had any hopes of ever working at the State Department.

Imagine U.S. soldiers abroad being told that they’d be breaking the law if they read even other news outlets’ coverage of the Times’ exclusives.

Imagine that the Library of Congress had simply blocked all access to the New York Times site.

You can’t imagine this actually happening to the New York Times. Yet this has been has been exactly the federal and corporate response to Assange and WikiLeaks.

The behavior is outrageous on its face and totalitarian in its impulse. Indeed, we should all be alarmed at the Orwellian coloring of the Obama administration’s official response to the publishing of the cables:

“President Obama supports responsible, accountable, and open government at home and around the world, but this reckless and dangerous action runs counter to that goal.”

Secrecy is openness. What the [xxxx]?!

Listen: You don’t have to approve of Assange or his political views; you can even believe he’s a sex criminal. It doesn’t matter. What’s at stake here isn’t the right of one flouncy Australian expat to embarrass a superpower. It’s freedom of the press. And it’s a dark day for journalists everywhere when the imperatives of government secrecy begin to triumph over our First Amendment."

[John Dolva]

Larry Flynt:

Why I Am Donating $50,000 to WikiLeaks' Defense Fund

• Buzz up!
• Larry Flynt Larry Flynt – Fri Dec 17, 2:34 pm ET

Read Larry Flynt's other articles on HuffingtonPost.com

" Let's get something straight: Julian Assange is a journalist. You can argue that he is not practicing journalism the way you think it should be practiced -- releasing classified U.S. State Department documents -- but he's a journalist nonetheless. And for many of us he's a hero.

I'm sick and tired of the politicians and political pundits treating this man as if he were a criminal. If WikiLeaks had existed in 2003 when George W. Bush was ginning up the war in Iraq, America might not be in the horrendous situation it is today, with our troops fighting in three countries (counting Pakistan) and the consequent cost in blood and dollars.

Here's what I know about censorship: The free flow of information is ultimately less harmful than the impeded flow of information. A democracy cannot exist without total access to the facts.

What's wrong is that a concerned outsider -- an Australian publisher, not our own vaunted mainstream press -- exposed the secret documents. For that, Assange has been hit with dubious criminal charges because his condom failed during a sexual encounter. Give me a break.

Julian Assange should not face a prison sentence. We should have a ticker-tape parade for this brave man."

[Steven Gaal]

Lets call it what it is ..... disinfo links

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=22437

Edited December 20, 2010 by Steven Gaal

[John Dolva]

Steven, I'm always interested in your posts. I mean that. I've asked you in the past to include some synopsis. I have a reason for this. Purely selfish.

During the time I've been a member on this forum on a number of occasions I've followed links that intrigue me and are relevant and suddenly I had a bug of some sort loaded.

I even found one on a gif on the US Gov Mil site which I alerted them to and got a nice reply, : so, I seldom follow links. That's just a choice I make. So, I wait till someone posts something of it or ask for an elaboration I sometimes get.

edit add something dfferent. since this started apparently paypal has opened an account for me (stick it) and pfizer are floooding me with discount offers (ditto)

edit typo

Edited December 20, 2010 by John Dolva

[Steven Gaal]

Steven, I'm always interested in your posts. I mean that. I've asked you in the past to include some synopsis. I have a reason for this. Purely selfish.

During the time I've been a member on this forum on a number of occasions I've followed links that intrigue me and are relevant and suddenly I had a bug of some sort loaded.

I even found one on a gif on the US Gov Mil site which I alerted them to and got a nice reply, : so, I seldom follow links. That's just a choice I make. So, I wait till someone posts something of it or ask for an elaboration I sometimes get.

edit add something dfferent. since this started apparently paypal has opened an account for me (stick it) and pfizer are floooding me with discount offers (ditto)

edit typo

######################################################################################################################################################################################

Dear John, I commented (in this Wikilinks thread) that maybe Assange was MI6 in a two part post == no one responded to the post at all. If no one responds , you wish I comment to a link ???? Wikilinks is being used as a method to stop the flow of information by the elites. Mr. Chossudousky has expressed my views. (from first link below)

Manufacturing Dissent

Wikileaks has the essential features of a process of "manufactured dissent". It seeks to expose government lies. It has released important information on US war crimes. But once the project becomes embedded in the mould of mainstream journalism, it is used as an instrument of media disinformation:

"It is in the interest of the corporate elites to accept dissent and protest as a feature of the system inasmuch as they do not threaten the established social order. The purpose is not to repress dissent, but, on the contrary, to shape and mould the protest movement, to set the outer limits of dissent. To maintain their legitimacy, the economic elites favor limited and controlled forms of opposition... To be effective, however, the process of "manufacturing dissent" must be carefully regulated and monitored by those who are the object of the protest movement " (See Michel Chossudovsky, "Manufacturing Dissent": the Anti-globalization Movement is Funded by the Corporate Elites, September 2010

BTW Levesque (second link below) doent say Mark Stephens ( a Assange lawyer) is a Rothschild attorney -as I showed in my uncommented upon post. BTW2 How funny for if this whole Wikilinks thing is a psyops, for ange is old French for angle,thus you have ASS ANGLE. SG see

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=22389

then below, then I hope you rethink Wikilinks as really Trickylinks

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=22437

These two links are not much to read and I think they are very worthwhile. THANKS Steve Gaal

Edited December 20, 2010 by Steven Gaal

[John Dolva]

Ok, Thank you Steven.

I'm not surprised someone would get around to putting such a spin on it. I guess it is inevitable. The leaks have caused such an uproar that elements have been scrambling to muddy the matter. That is one reason I think it is important to separate JA from the idea of whistleblowing and reporting of the same. There's definitely been a campaign to make JA the focus and cables have been selectively reported by the MSM and there have been false ones circulated. The bulk still exists and will probably show the why of the massive attempt to shut WL down. At least we have now seen the enormous hypocrisy of the so called free world at work.

[Steven Gaal]

Dear John,Yes JA is the main focus,but to many as victim.If as I contend this is all a PSY-OPS play,he will feel safe. I would beware of the double cross. TO REPEAT in the same vein.

Is the End Game of Wikileaks Internet Censorship?

F. William Engdahls first book, A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order, discussed the roles of Zbigniew Brzezinski and George Ball and of the USA in the 1979 overthrow of the Shah of Iran. Engdahl claims that Brzezinski and Ball used the Islamic Balkanization model proposed by Bernard Lewis to accomplish US policy goals in Iran. Not coincidentally, Brzezinski was a key figure in US President Barack Obamas 2008 election campaign and played a key role in helping former US President Jimmy Carter get elected. In 2007, he released a book that exposed the massive dangers of GMO foods called, Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of GMO.

One of F. William Engdahls latest articles is titled Wikileaks, a Big Dangerous US Government Con Job. In this article, Engdahl implies that Wikileaks is a US government-run propaganda and disinformation operation with an end goal of restricting freedoms on the internet. Here are some of the key excerpts from this article.

"A closer look at the details of what has so far been carefully leaked by the most ultra-establishment of international media such as the New York Times reveals a clear agenda. That agenda coincidentally serves to buttress the agenda of US geopolitics around the world from Iran to North Korea. It is almost too perfectly scripted to be true. A discontented 22-year old US Army soldier on duty in Baghdad, Bradley Manning, a low-grade US Army intelligence analyst, described as a loner, a gay in the military, a disgruntled computer geek, sifts through classified information at Forward Operating Base Hammer. He decides to secretly download US State Department email communications from the entire world over a period of eight months for hours a day, onto his blank CDs while pretending to be listening to Lady Gaga. In addition to diplomatic cables, Manning is believed to have provided WikiLeaks with helicopter gun camera video of an errant US attack in Baghdad on unarmed journalists, and with war logs from Iraq and Afghanistan. It is almost too perfectly scripted to be true. A discontented 22-year old US Army soldier on duty in Baghdad, Bradley Manning, a low-grade US Army intelligence analyst, described as a loner, a gay in the military, a disgruntled computer geek, sifts through classified information at Forward Operating Base Hammer. He decides to secretly download US State Department email communications from the entire world over a period of eight months for hours a day, onto his blank CDs while pretending to be listening to Lady Gaga. In addition to diplomatic cables, Manning is believed to have provided WikiLeaks with helicopter gun camera video of an errant US attack in Baghdad on unarmed journalists, and with war logs from Iraq and Afghanistan.

"Manning then is supposed to have tracked down a notorious former US computer hacker to get his 250,000 pages of classified US State Department cables out in the Internet for the whole world to see. He allegedly told the US hacker that the documents he had contained "incredible, awful things that belonged in the public domain and not on some server stored in a dark room in Washington, DC." The hacker turned him in to US authorities so the story goes. Manning is now incommunicado since months in US military confinement so we cannot ask him, conveniently. The Pentagon routinely hires the best hackers to design their security systems. [Assange] selects as exclusive newspapers to decide what is to be leaked the New York Times which did such service in promoting faked propaganda against Saddam that led to the Iraqi war, the London Guardian and Der Spiegel. Assange claims he had no time to sift through so many pages so handed them to the trusted editors of the establishment media for them to decide what should be released. Very anti-establishment that. The New York Times even assigned one of its top people, David E. Sanger, to control the release of the Wikileaks material. Sanger is no establishment outsider. He sits as a member of the elite Council on Foreign Relations as well as the Aspen Institute Strategy Group together with the likes of Condi Rice, former Defense Secretary William Perry, former CIA head John Deutch, former State Department Deputy Secretary and now World Bank head Robert Zoellick among others. Indeed a strange choice of media for a person who claims to be anti-establishment. But then Assange also says he believes the US Government version of 9/11 and calls the Bilderberg Group a normal meeting of people, a very establishment view. Most important, the 250,000 cables are not "top secret" as we might have thought. Between two and three million US Government employees are cleared to see this level of "secret" document, [1] and some 500,000 people around the world have access to the Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRnet) where the cables were stored. SIPRnet is not recommended for distribution of top-secret information. Only 6% or 15,000 pages of the documents have been classified as even secret, a level below top-secret. Another 40% were the lowest level, "confidential", while the rest were unclassified. In brief, it was not all that secret. What is emerging from all the sound and Wikileaks fury in Washington is that the entire scandal is serving to advance a long-standing Obama and Bush agenda of policing the until-now free Internet. Already the US Government has shut the Wikileaks server in the United States though no identifiable US law has been broken."

"The process of policing the Web was well underway before the current leaks scandal. In 2009 Democratic Senator Jay Rockefeller and Republican Olympia Snowe introduced the Cybersecurity Act of 2009 (S.773). It would give the President unlimited power to disconnect private-sector computers from the internet. The bill "would allow the president to declare a cyber-security emergency relating to non-governmental computer networks and do whats necessary to respond to the threat." We can expect that now this controversial piece of legislation will get top priority when a new Republican House and the Senate convene in January. US Department of Homeland Security, an agency created in the political hysteria following 9/11 2001 that has been compared to the Gestapo, has already begun policing the Internet. They are quietly seizing and shutting down internet websites (web domains) without due process or a proper trial. DHS simply seizes web domains that it wants to and posts an ominous "Department of Justice" logo on the web site. See an example at http://torrent-finder.com (My note: Do click on this link. It's worth checking out.)"

On the political front, I agree with Engdahls assessment of Assanges leaked government cables. In the cables I have seen discussed in various newspaper articles thus far, there is nothing more than the occasional embarrassing quote, nothing top-secret, and nothing remotely damaging to any US allies revealed in any of these supposedly top-secret government cables. And regarding Assanges threat of leaking thousands of confidential documents contained in a 5 gigabyte drive regarding a big US bank believed to be Bank of America as an anti-establishment act, Im not buying it. According to a Forbes interview, Assange stated that his leak would give a true and representative insight into how banks behave at the executive level in a way that will stimulate investigations and reforms, I presume. I say, so what if this big leak Assange is in possession of pertains to Bank of America and if it reveals documents that result in the demise of BofA? If this is how this drama plays out, this event would ultimately be more pro-establishment and pro-elite than anti-establishment. The demise of BofA would only mean that JP Morgan, as they have already done with Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual, would have yet another opportunity to stamp out their competition, swoop in like vultures, and pick up BofAs carcass for pennies on the dollar. Or perhaps Goldman Sachs will be given this carcass to pick clean. Either way, if this happens, it consolidates power for the elites at the top and could not have worked out any better if Assange was a paid employee of Goldman Sachs or JP Morgan. Remember that BofA bought up Merrill Lynch when Merrill Lynch failed, so an acquisition of BofA would translate into a delayed acquisition of Merrill Lynch.

In the book, The Great Depression of the XXI Century, Tanya Cariina Hsu wrote:

In 1907, J.P. Morgan, a private New York banker, published a rumor that a competing unnamed large bank was about to fail. It was a false charge but customers nonetheless raced to their banks to withdraw their money, in case it was their bank. As they pulled out their funds, the banks lost their cash deposits and were forced to call in their loans. People therefore had to pay back their mortgages to fill the banks with income, going bankrupt in the process. The 1907 panic resulted in a crash that prompted the creation of the Federal Reserve, a private banking cartel with the veneer of an independent government organization. Effectively, it was a coup by elite bankers in order to control the industry."

"When signed into law in 1913, the Federal Reserve would loan and supply the nations money, but with interest. The more money it was able to print, the more "income" it generated for itself. By its very nature, the Federal Reserve would forever keep producing debt to stay alive. It was able to print Americas monetary supply at will, regulating its value. To control valuation, however, inflation had to be kept in check. The Federal Reserve then doubled Americas money supply within five years, and in 1920, it called in a mass percentage of loans. Over five thousand banks collapsed overnight. One year later, the Federal Reserve again increased the money supply by 62 percent, but in 1929, it again called the loans back in, en masse. This time, the crash of 1929 caused over sixteen thousand banks to fail and an 89 percent plunge on the stock market. The private and well-protected banks within the Federal Reserve system were able to snap up the failed banks at pennies on the dollar."

If this sounds familiar, it should. This seems to be the blueprint by today's banking elites for todays banking industry as well. During the Bank Panic of 1907 and the Great Depression, JP Morgan was one of the biggest beneficiaries of a panic that many historians claimed they, along with the Federal Reserve, helped to manufacture (JP Morgan is alleged to have helped engineer both the Panic of 1907 and the Great Depression while the Federal Reserve helped engineer the Great Depression). If the future scenario regarding Wikileaks's release of incriminating big bank documents plays out anywhere close to the one I presented above, Julian Assange would, in essence, be performing a massive favor for the most favored private banks of the Federal Reserve system. One must remember that during this manufactured global monetary crisis, not all banks are created equal and a handful of banks are hand picked for survival and prosperity at the expense of hundreds of others. Just because Wikileaks threatens to release incriminating documents on a big bank that could make it look bad, this should not be naively or blindly interpreted as an anti-establishment act.

Admittedly, like millions of others, I was fooled by Wikileaks's intent in the beginning. But the more and more I research them, the more it seems as though Wikileaks is cooperating with governments and banks rather than serving as their adversary or as their watchdog to increase transparency. Now, if Mr. Assange releases cables that expose detailed correspondences between the US Federal Reserve and JP Morgan regarding silver price suppression schemes or how Goldman Sachs deliberately releases misinformation about gold prices, or if he releases diplomatic cables exposing secrets between the US and Israel that have been concealed from the public, I might start once again believing that the goal of Wikileaks is to provide greater transparency about government and banker actions. One thing I have learned over the years about the shadowy world of banking and politics is that if something appears to be a great coincidence, it usually is not, and that things rarely are what they seem to be on the surface.

##############################################################**************************########################

and also in same vein

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=22467

Edited December 21, 2010 by Steven Gaal

[John Dolva]

''hings rarely are what they seem to be on the surface.'' - so true. However for a while the perception of the world has changed dramatically. The truth is out there. The adversaries have shown themselves who/what they are and the influence they wield and how they do it. Buiild a room of mirrors and start pumping in the smoke.. They were caught with their pants down. They're in damage control. They are showing what sort of world we truly live in. Not bad I reckon.

Of course the bits chosen as choice are used as described. I would never have expected anything else. Profit before truth.

[John Dolva]

Support us

http://wikileaks.se/support.html

Support

Donate

WikiLeaks brings truth to the world by publishing fact-based stories without fear or favour. You can help support our independent media by donating financially.

Our organisation exists because of the work of many volunteers who have contributed thousands of hours to building WikiLeaks from the ground up. You choose how much you can donate; we don’t recommend any particular amount. Just do what you think is right.

Your donations are vital to pay for Wikileaks’ servers and infrastructure, staff and travel expenses, and for the legal protections and advice Wikileaks needs to operate.

There are two ways to donate to the WikiLeaks Defence Fund and four ways to donate to WikiLeaks the organisation:

WikiLeaks Defence Fund

1. Bank Transfer
2. Postal Mail

WikiLeaks

1. Online Transfer from selected European and UK banks
2. Bank Transfer [option 1: everyone]
3. Bank Transfer [option 2: tax deductible in Germany]
4. Postal Mail

Julian Assange and WikiLeaks Defence Fund

Bank Transfer - via Julian Assange and WikiLeaks Defence Fund:

“FSI - Julian Assange Defence Fund”

Sort code: 20-77-67

Account number: 93842452

BIC/Swift code: BARC GB22

IBAN: GB86 BARC 2077 6793 8424 52

Via Postal Mail

You can post a donation or send a cheque via good old fashion postal mail made payable to:

“FSI - Julian Assange Defence Fund”

c/o Finers Stephens Innocent LLP

179 Great Portland Street

London

W1W 5LS

For the terms of the fund please visit http://www.fsilaw.com/

WikiLeaks

Online Transfer via selected European and UK banks

Using our friendly credit card processing partner Datacell Switzerland.

Bank Transfer - Option 1: via Sunshine Press Productions ehf:

Skulagötu 19, 101 Reykjavik, Iceland

Landsbanki Islands Account number 0111-26-611010

BANK/SWIFT:NBIIISRE

ACCOUNT/IBAN:IS97 0111 2661 1010 6110 1002 80

Bank Transfer - Option 2: via the not-for-profit Wau Holland Stiftung Foundation:

This support is tax deductible in Germany

Bank Account: 2772812-04

IBAN: DE46 5204 0021 0277 2812 04

BIC Code: COBADEFF520

Bank: Commerzbank Kassel

German BLZ: 52040021

Subject: WIKILEAKS / WHS Projekt 04

Via Postal Mail

You can post a donation via good old fashion postal mail to:

WikiLeaks (or any suitable name likely to avoid interception in your country)

BOX 4080

Australia Post Office - University of Melbourne Branch

Victoria 3052

Australia

We cannot accept PayPal donations anymore.

And here is why

Nor can we accept online transfers via credit cards via Visa and MasterCard any more either.

And here is why

Wallpapers

[John Dolva]

http://www.huffingto..._medium=twitter

Follow Michael Moore on Twitter: www.twitter.com/MMFlint

Another WikiLeaks Cable from the Bush Administration About My Movies

Twice within four days, my name has popped up in the Bush-era secret cables uncovered by WikiLeaks. Lucky me. Though nowhere near as earth-shattering as the uncovering of American misdeeds in Iraq and Afghanistan, these classified cables provide a stunning and bizarre peek into the paranoid minds of the Bush White House when it came to the subject of one Michael Francis Moore.

And considering how WikiLeaks has released only 1,826 cables of its planned drop of 251,287 -- and I've already played a starring role twice -- I can only say I await with bemused anticipation how the moi-storyline will play itself out.

The most recent secret cable revelation is in today's Guardian newspaper of London. It's entitled, "US Intervened in Michael Moore NZ Screening." Oh yeah, baby! New Zealand! That's where we'll stop Moore and his band of evildoers!

The date was July 30, 2004. 'Fahrenheit 9/11' was already a huge hit in the United States. Just to give you an idea how huge, it had hit #1 at the box office, the only documentary to have ever accomplished this feat, and had made more on its opening weekend than 'Star Wars: Return of the Jedi.'

But it was no easy path to get there. Disney (which owned Miramax) was apoplectic when they saw the final cut. So they pulled the film from its theatrical schedule. Then they put a permanent block on its release, insuring no one would see it. But then the New York Times, in a front page story, reported that the real reason Disney hated 'Fahrenheit' was they were worried about the tax breaks it got in Jeb Bush's Florida for Disney World. This caused some embarrassment, so Disney then sold 'Fahrenheit' to the Weinstein Bros., who said they'd spend their own money to distribute it.

The release of the film caused concern at the White House, as this was the re-election year. They hired a pollster who told them the film might tip the election. That was enough for them to swing into action. Much of July was a nonstop barrage of attacks on me and the movie. But that just resulted in more tickets being sold.

Which brings us to Wellington, the capital of New Zealand. There are few nations on earth further away from us. A local chapter of the ruling Labor Party apparently had decided to do a fundraising screening of 'Fahrenheit 9/11.' It was to be hosted by the Prime Minister's Cabinet Secretary for the Environment.

Well, when the U.S. Embassy in Wellington got word of this, it was like all heck broke loose. America was offended! Phone calls were made to the Prime Minister! Then to the Cabinet Secretary! We ... are ... not ... happy!

Apparently, the Kiwis backed down and the Cabinet Secretary withdrew as the host. A sigh of relief whiffed its way through the American embassy. Moore stopped! The cable back to Washington showed the embassy had no problem taking credit for putting the kabosh on yours truly:

"... it is probable that this potential fiasco may only have been averted because of our phone calls -- it is apparent to us that neither the Minister nor anyone else in the Labour government seems to have thought there was anything wrong with a senior Minister hosting such an event."

So here's my question:

Really?

I mean, seriously -- really? This is how the Bush State Department was spending its time -- on a single screening of 'Fahrenheit 9/11' in freakin' New Zealand? Or maybe ... was this kind of interference happening just to New Zealand? Call me crazy, but I gotta feelin' it doesn't stop there. Just as a health insurance executive has now come forward as a whistleblower to reveal the millions spent to smear 'Sicko,' I can't help wait for that day when the whistleblower from the Bush White House comes forward to tell the fascinating tale of how the Bush team believed they had to do something -- anything -- to stop 'Fahrenheit.' Or worse (like the "Plan B" the health insurance companies discussed -- to "push Michael Moore off a cliff."). I didn't want to think about what the Bush Plan B would be. Just wasn't worth the crazy-making. So I ignored the things I'd hear, kept my head down and motored on.

But, it does make you wonder. And I ask you, is it fair to pose the question: If they were this focused on some insignificant screening in New Zealand, what else were they up to? And I don't mean in regards to me. I mean anyone who was on their enemies list ...

I can't wait to read more classified cables.

P.S. Of course, given the false claims the State Department made in the other "secret" cable about my movie 'Sicko,' I guess anything was possible.

P.P.S. Don't miss the REAL revelations from just the first batch of WikiLeaks cables. For instance, the Obama administration worked together with Republicans to kill an investigation by Spain into Bush's torture. Pfizer hired a private investigator to dig up dirt on the Attorney General of Nigeria. Bush's ambassador to France planned to "retaliate" against the country for standing up to Monsanto. And we're less than 1% of the way through ...

edit format

Edited December 23, 2010 by John Dolva

[John Dolva]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12072504

4 December 2010 Last updated at 01:38 GMT

Share this page

• Facebook
• Twitter
• Share
• Email
• Print

Assange dismisses threat of extradition to US

''Julian Assange says he could be killed if he was sent to jail in America Continue reading the main story

Wikileaks Revelations

• Q&A: Arrest of Wikileaks' founder
• Cables at a glance
• Wikileaks activists go analogue
• A world after Wikileaks

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has said it would be "politically impossible" for Britain to extradite him to the United States for espionage.

Mr Assange told the Guardian newspaper there was a "high chance" he would be killed if he was jailed in America.

US authorities are thought to be considering whether they could extradite him on espionage charges.

He is currently on bail facing extradition proceedings to Sweden on sexual assault allegations.

Mr Assange denies the claims and says the case is politically motivated.

His Wikileaks website has published tens of thousands of leaked US diplomatic cables.

Mr Assange said strong public support for him in the UK would make it difficult for the British to hand him over to the Americans.

"It's all a matter of politics. We can presume there will be an attempt to influence UK political opinion, and to influence the perception of our standing as a moral actor," he said.

"Legally the UK has the right to not extradite for political crimes. Espionage is the classic case of political crimes. It is at the discretion of the UK government as to whether to apply to that exception."

He also said that if was extradited to the US, there was a "high chance" of him being killed "Jack Ruby-style".

This is a reference to the man who killed Lee Harvey Oswald before he was brought to trial for the murder of President John F Kennedy.''

________________

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/12/23/cuban-media-publishing-translated-wikileaks-cables/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+foxnews%2Fworld+%28Internal+-+World+Latest+-+Text%29&utm_content=Google+International

Cuban media publishing translated Wikileaks cables

Published December 23, 2010

| Associated Press

HAVANA – Cuba's state-run media is reporting that the government will publish Spanish translations of diplomatic cables about the communist-run island, leaked by Wikileaks.

Cubadebate website says the "Razones de Cuba" site has already posted literal translations of seven of the cables.

It says the posted cables originated in the U.S. Interests Section in Havana and "prove the links between the so-called 'internal dissidence' and the United States government ... and the attempts to organize youth networks to subvert the Cuban revolution."

The U.S. has no formal diplomatic relations with Cuba and maintains the Interest Section instead of an embassy.

Cubadebate said Thursday Wikileaks has 2,080 cables on Cuba, of which only 62 have been published.''