“In his editorial [of today], Assange wrote that democracies require strong media to keep governments honest and that WikiLeaks helps fulfill that role. “WikiLeaks has revealed some hard truths about the Iraq and Afghan wars, and broken stories about corporate corruption.”
Even as WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is battling a Swedish extradition order on an obscure charge of rape, there is another battle being waged and the scene is on the virtual battleground of the Internet. Despite attempts by the ‘quote unquote’ authorities to shutdown WikiLeaks, empathizers of Julian Assange on the Internet are bragging that the WikiLeaks website has been duplicated in 500 locations so far. BU did a check before posting this blog and the WikiLeaks website is indeed up and running.
What is interesting about the WikiLeaks saga has been the debate suggesting that the authorities may seek to regulate the Internet. What is evident if we are to judge by the denial-of-service strikes on MasterCard International, PayPal, the Swiss Bank which has frozen the assets of Assange and others is the power which techno savvy individuals have to fight back from their bedrooms using the Internet. The proliferation of proxy servers which sit in onion networks makes searching for some of these guys like that of looking for the proverbial needle in the haystack.
The other dimension to the story is to observe the groundswell of support by those who believe freedom of expression is being threatened by the action of governments to shutdown WikiLeaks. At the risk of being accused of being idealistic, some people in the world continue to live with the belief that the clandestine behaviour which countries now engage is not required for humankind to exist. It is difficult to convince many who accept the current state of play as ‘normal’ but shouldn’t we aspire to live in a world of peace and harmony which would mean the current practices engaged by the MOSSAD, CIA, KGB, MI5 and the like must* be dismantled?
Also emerging from the WikiLeaks saga is the role of the Internet in our lifes; at every sphere (individual, corporate, country). Scary is the thought that technology is now responsible for moulding behaviours, a case of a cart before the horse. The technology industry represents billions of dollars, those who doubt the extent to which those with vested interest will go to protect it should recall the Y2K Project. We have developed an army of techno-literate citizens who if mobilized behind a cause which they believe is just can be responsible for ‘destabilizing’ the establishment. Did we write destabilizing or should we have commented on the possibility that arising from the WikiLeaks saga is an opportunity to achieve Internet Transparency. Whatever happens when the dust is settled on this battle which has morphed to control the information highway, surfing for many will never be the same.
Sources on the Internet are reporting WikiLeaks is sitting on explosive information about BP, Bank of America and Guantanamo Bay – “According to the Daily Mail, an encrypted file sent out to various fellow hackers contains the information, and can be disseminated all across the internet if he decides to give them the key — an uncrackable password consisting of 256 digits”
Is this the precursor of our demise as an independent state.. indeed world?
Is not this a sure sign of BT’s endtime scenario?
This ridiculous soap opera finale to the aspirations of nations great and small.
Superpowers carping about the injustice of leaked emails, but illegally developing programs to read yours and everyone else’s on a permanent basis for their own perceptions of security for their illegal protection of the status quo.
If you see mine, can I see yours too, you Dirty Doctor?
Sorry, no, that’s treason.
Let me get this straight, now I’m paying you, to spy on me, to save me from the threat which you created, with the money I gave you, to protect me, from the very people you recruited.
“Key FBI whistleblower: Had WikiLeaks existed, 9/11, Iraq war ‘could have been prevented’….”
“Assange is annoyed by truth(ers).”
The more I read ,the more I believe this is a disinformation exercise as a distraction for censorship legislation.
Having had great success in trashing the Constitution, these are the first steps in order to emasculate the internet’s free speech.
(google Cass Sunstein, a neo-fascist bookburner, recruited by Obama as Chief of Thought Police)
The higher the monkey climb …….
Loading…
Bush Tea
@ ST
…Is not this a sure sign of BT’s endtime scenario?
********************************************
You can bet your last dollar on it ST!!
…and you ain’t seen nothing yet!!
I know that these are just the beginnings and I “ain’t seen nothing yet!!”
But those of us with enough experience of trashy novels have predicted the ending of this before reaching Page 3, with the transparent plot and see-through characters far too evident.
Unfortunately life is not a rehearsal, and we are doomed to turn the depressing pages and witness the all too predictable denouement as rabbits in the headlights.
Loading…
Sargeant
Agree that it is the height of hypocrisy for Amazon to profit from information leaked by Wikileaks after kicking them off their server but hypocrisy rules the day
Loading…
Bush Tea
@ ST
Yours is an unfortunate perspective.
We are actually lucky enough to be alive at the climax of a fantastic developmental project whose scope and intent are beyond your wildest imagination.
This phase of the project has run its course, the energy supplies provided are running out; the resources are depleted; the systems are failing and the elements are contaminated….. BUT the intended PRODUCTS – few though they are in number- are MORE than worth the efforts and costs of production.
….let’s face it! what is it that we are lamenting!!?? the end of a physical existence of pain, suffering, strife and then death…?
If you have chosen to focus on the physical developmental aspects of the project rather than its strategic spiritual intentions and purpose, then you are indeed “doomed to turn the depressing pages and witness the all too predictable denouement as rabbits in the headlights.”
For those of us whose expectations are focused on the next phase of the project, these represent exciting times. … the final darkness before the real dawn.
For those who are wondering what the Bushman is referring to you can get up to speed by reviewing an earlier blog…What Is The Purpose Of Our Existence?. Over 1000 comments so be patient!
@Chris. First of all, neither you nor I have seen all the evidence – and believe me, I have scoured the web for it. The only “evidence presented” I have seen has been subjective (one side or another) opinion press speculation. I may never see all the evidence, but am content to rely on the outcome of the court case in Sweden. Sweden actually does have an excellent court system, unlike Barbados, where I am confident all the evidence will be examined.
Second, I am not in any way trying to limit my liability. I am not a party to the action in Sweden, nor am I counsel to any of the parties and therefore have no liability to limit in the first place. I am a blogger and an individual exercising my free right to express an opinion. That opinion urges caution, while recognising and accepting the civil rights of individuals not to practice caution if they so choose. And, as I said, as I neither read or speak Swedish and have only cursory knowledge of Swedish law, I disclaim and deny any intention to appear authorotative. Authorotative in this case is something I prefer to leave to those who have not been to law school and who missed all their classes in history – they do it so well in the tabloid press – well, except for the Nation and the Advocate both of which do nothing at all.
I note that you did not address the matter of the need for Mr Assange and Wikileaks to come clean (transparency) and state catagorically whether the contributions made for the support and continuation of Wikileaks were to be diverted to Mr Assange’s personal defense against charges for sexually-based crimes. Not to put too fine a point on it, are we all being asked to contribute to the continuation of Wikileaks, or to the results and backlash of Mr Assange getting laid?
Thank you for your words about solicitors – there exists the good, the bad and the barely competent in ANY profession. Alas, poor Kiki has obviously chosen a bad one somewhere along the line and, as if she has eaten a bad mushroom, it has put her off for life. I would guess that in her case, instead of choosing a solicitor who told her the truth about her case, she opted for one who, at the expense of accuracy, was prepared to practice the old adage “he who pays the piper calls the tune” or “the customer is always right” and re-enforce Kiki’s very high opinion of herself. For this unusual service, he/she may have charged Kiki more than the norm, instead of telling her to take her business, handle it in propria personam and get the hell out of his/her office. Of course, she may also have chosen a lawyer whose social or political status she wished to associate herself with and been soundly ripped off. But why her bitterness and prohibition should extend to all lawyers and encompass those who are not only excellent, but who do a lot of work pro bono for poor people in the community, I do not know. Poor soul. Bless!
Assumed is making typical dumb assumptions out of his-her ass.
FYI, I raised issues in Court about KPMG fraud and they shat themselves and racked up £20,000 costs to write 3 Court statements denying and covering their dirty backside. I could not be bothered to talk it to trial (although I believed I was right I did not the financial resources) to c@nt them out in Court. I withdrew my case, the Judge congratulated me for putting so much effort and ordered KPMG to pay their own costs. Unfortunately I can’t go into further details by Order.
@Kiki. He, not she. Also, the amount you quote in pounds sterling is what most companies like the one you name would pay out for nuissance actions – the interest in the money they would have had to pay out in legal fees would have been far higher and if, as you imply, you were impecunious, their chances of recovery of that money and interest from you would have been low. So I speculate that this is what happened. Nonetheless, a good effort on your part. You see, unlike you, I try to be fair. Also, you had options that you could have exercised:
Although you say you could not afford legal counsel, you do have the right in English law (and also in Scottish law) to represent yourself. That is what “in propria personam” means. If they were prepared to pay out £20,000 at such an early stage, I would guess that you might have got many times that by pursuing your case further – and, given your assessment and the alleged assessment of the judge of your outstanding legal abilities, this ought to have posed no problems for you at all. Why did you not take it further and thus confirm your implied claim that you are better than any lawyer?
Your other option is that, although contingency (no win no fee) is not allowed officially by the UK courts, many lawyers, particularly those dealing with personal injury, not only practice it, but advertise on TV that they practice it. So, with your vast legal know-how, as allegedly confirmed by a UK judge, how does it happen that you did not avail yourself of this alternative option?
Finally, and you may view this as me blowing hot air out of whatever orifice of mine that you like, I earnestly advise you in future not to give so many details away. Believe me, I am well familiar with non-disclosure agreements on settlements. You will have signed a full release and indemnity, so you cannot bring the case again, but you can open yourself to an action from the other side. But why am I bothering to tell this to such a great jurist as yourself?
NIGERIA: DRUG COMPANY PFIZER REACHES PRELIMINARY AGREEMENT FOR MILLIONS ACCORDING TO WIKILEAKS AFTER CLINICAL TRIAL MALPRACTICE AND THE DUPLICITOUS CORRUPTION INVOLVED….
Maybe with a new PM – there will be political as well as a moral will to finally settle with SOUTHERN FARMERS* and compensate the government of B’dos for the damage done to the environment…
It is still not even clear whether an environmental impact assessment has created a transparent proviso for the 1000’s of people affected by seepage of fossil fuel toxicity entering the water-table and the long-term effect that will have on the health of those who drink tap already given the high levels of fluoridation we are forced to consume…
SHELL should still be made to settle this matter at a national level given the environmental destruction caused, and BU believes there is still scope for it to happen.
Loading…
anthony
Oh ok you talking about national scope. understood.
The NATION NEWS piece on the SOUTHERN FARMERS settlement is such arthritic journalism that it boggles my mind that in this day and age (given 21st century technological know how & educational meritocracy) that a leading broad sheet reports are so impotent and lacks even the basics in terms of clarity and understanding…
For one – did not the NATION* reporter responsible for the piece including editorial proofing and oversite recognize that there were actually [33] farmers in the original “suit” which came down to [30] AS* of 2006/7 and that there was an ideological split between the farmers based on misinformation, gerrymandering, corruption and hypocrisy on the part of certain well-know LAWYERS* (bastards whose self-interests outweighed those farmers who were frankly “catchin’ their arses” to eat, pay bills and send to school their kids)…
One faction (THE PRINCIPAL PLAYERS) were citing their losses over the decade + and wanted compensation NOT* only for loss of earning, loss of livelihood but the accrued anguish they suffered as a result of SHELL’s recalcitrance, disdain and myopia in dealing with the literal lives of human beings…(These guys were aggrieved)!!!
Figures brandished about in 2006/7 (conservatively) given test cases of others who has suffered at the hands of SHELL including the OGONI* people in the Niger Delta was somewhere in the vicinity of US$$$300 million to US$$$500 million…
For there to be some paltry settlement by SHELL and some “jackass” named H. Benn shouting “EUREKA” is frankly a pathetic joke of the worst kind, an insult to the intelligence of idiots and a slap in the face of the innocent…
If these guys did settle for whatsoever sum was offered it was because SHELL wore them down to the bone!!!
But that is BAJAN* corporate and social politics for ya’…
@Amused: “First of all, neither you nor I have seen all the evidence – and believe me, I have scoured the web for it.
Agreed and acknowledged.
@Amused: “Second, I am not in any way trying to limit my liability. I am not a party to the action in Sweden, nor am I counsel to any of the parties and therefore have no liability to limit in the first place. I am a blogger and an individual exercising my free right to express an opinion. That opinion urges caution, while recognising and accepting the civil rights of individuals not to practice caution if they so choose.
Acknowledged. My apologies for being flippant in my above.
@Amused: “I note that you did not address the matter of the need for Mr Assange and Wikileaks to come clean (transparency) and state catagorically whether the contributions made for the support and continuation of Wikileaks were to be diverted to Mr Assange’s personal defense against charges for sexually-based crimes.
On this point I would agree with you — Mr. Assange and WikiLeaks must “come clean” on this matter.
Although I would argue it can easily be assumed that these (unrelated) charges have suddenly been brought forward against Assange with such urgency because of the WikiLeaks “affair” (no joke intended).
But, again, I agree with you — there must be transparency from an individual and an organization who claim to fundamentally stand for same.
@Amused: “But why [kiki’s] bitterness and prohibition should extend to all lawyers and encompass those who are not only excellent, but who do a lot of work pro bono for poor people in the community, I do not know.
All I can say on this particular point is that many people have had some very bad experiences with lawyers. And in this day and age “the system” and those involved with same are generally distrusted out-of-hand.
Perhaps the legal community might consider this. And, for example, encourage the “Bar” to take complaints a little more seriously than they perspectively do.
Loading…
Amused
@Chris. Re the Bar – BRAVO!!!! WELL SAID!!!! Couldn’t agree with you more. It is, after all, a statutory organization that for reasons passing all understanding, seems to have a very limited grasp of law and its obligations – even towards its members. Did you know that the prize jackasses who run the BBA still insist on trying to charge VAT on BBA dues, despite the abundant body of case law that clearly establishes that VAT is not chargeable in the case of statutory orgranizations? The trouble is that the people who run the BBA are of the “also ran” variety of lawyer who all believe that, rather than relying on merit, they will be made QCs by virtue of the BBA work. The best lawyers simply don’t have the time to give to the BBA, but maybe everyone is coming to the conclusion that time must be made and the complaints against members treated with far greater depth and importance than currently by far more expert counsel that those that currently run the BBA.
The Associated Press
Saturday, December 11, 2010; 7:28 AM
VATICAN CITY — Newly released U.S. diplomatic cables indicate that Ireland caved in to Vatican pressure to grant immunity to church officials in the government probe of decades of sex abuse by Irish clergy in the predominantly Catholic nation.
That the Holy See used its diplomatic immunity status as a tiny-city state to try to thwart Ireland’s government-led probe has long been known. But the WikiLeaks cables, published by Britain’s The Guardian newspaper on Saturday, contain delicate, behind-the-scenes diplomatic assessments of the highly charged situation.
The Vatican press office declined to comment on the content of the cables Saturday, but decried the leaks as a matter of "extreme gravity."
The U.S. ambassador to the Holy See also condemned the leaks and said in a statement that the Vatican and American cooperate in promoting universal values.
According to the deputy to the Irish ambassador to the Holy See, the Irish government gave in to Vatican pressure and granted church officials immunity in exchange for testifying, according to one of the cables from a U.S. diplomat.
Ambassador Noel Fahey apparently told U.S. diplomat Julieta Valls Noyes that the sex abuse scandal was a tricky one to manage.
The Irish government wanted to be seen as cooperating with the investigation because its own education department was implicated in decades of abuse, but politicians were reluctant to insist Vatican officials answer the investigators’ questions, the cables indicate.
One cable discloses the behind-the-scenes diplomatic maneuvers during which Irish politicians tried to persuade the Vatican to cooperate with the probe.
Saturday’s Vatican press official statement said the WikiLeaks cables should be evaluated with "reservations" and "prudence," and not be taken as an "expression" of the Holy See.
The cables also contain information regarding the Vatican’s relations with the Anglican Communion, which includes the Church of England and its affiliates in more than 160 countries.
One cable reports that Britain’s ambassador to the Vatican warned that the pope’s invitation to disaffected Anglicans to join the Catholic church had chilled relations between the two churches and risked inciting a violent backlash against British Catholics.
A November 2009 file from U.S. Embassy at the Vatican quotes British envoy Francis Campbell as saying that "Anglican-Vatican relations were facing their worst crisis in 150 years as a result of the pope’s decision."
The Vatican moved last year to make it easier for traditional Anglicans upset over the appointment of female priests and gay bishops to join the Catholic Church, whose teaching holds that homosexual activity is sinful.
The pope invited Anglicans to join new "personal ordinariates," which allow them to continue to use some of their traditional liturgy and be served by married priests.
A cable quotes Campbell as saying the move put the Anglican spiritual leader, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, "in an impossible situation." And he worried that the crisis could aggravate "latent anti-Catholicism" in majority-Protestant England.
"The outcome could be discrimination or in isolated cases, even violence, against this minority," the cable said.
@ Amused,”The best lawyers simply don’t have the time to give to the BBA,”
Correct Amused.
In Barbados “the best lawyers” are probably too busy working with their accountants,building contractors and stock market traders to ensure that their “Client accounts” stay in the black.
@Amused (December 10, 2010 at 6:35 AM): “But why her bitterness and prohibition should extend to all lawyers and encompass those who are not only excellent, but who do a lot of work pro bono for poor people in the community, I do not know.
@Amused (December 10, 2010 at 5:11 PM): “The trouble is that the people who run the BBA are of the “also ran” variety of lawyer who all believe that, rather than relying on merit, they will be made QCs by virtue of the BBA work. The best lawyers simply don’t have the time to give to the BBA…
If I May, Amused, these two statements are very interesting. And I would argue somewhat contradictory.
My below is sincere.
Could it be interpreted that you yourself are arguing that it’s time that some of the “excellent lawyers” do some pro bono work to restructure the organization which is supposed to “police” the law profession? The organization which is supposed to give consumers of the law profession recourse when they (claim) to have been wronged?
I would argue this could be an excellent way of helping not only the “poor people”, but everyone who will ever have to retain a lawyer here in Bim. (Read: almost everyone who has any presence in Barbados.)
Let us please recognize the elephant in the room: it is perceived by many that there are many legal representatives here in Barbados who don’t exactly execute their client’s instructions in a timely matter. And it is further perceived by many that there is no recourse to the consumer.
Hope y’all having a great weekend – greetings from a thawing “deep freeze”… LOL
“According to the deputy to the Irish ambassador to the Holy See, the Irish government gave in to Vatican pressure and granted church officials immunity…”
Thanks for that DAVID* – that’s all I needed to start my Sunday morning!!!
I am not generally a rude or obnoxious person in anyway but somethings will make you “cuss” and drop a few bombs!!!
Lawyers in Sweden have dropped their appeal against bail and Assange could be out of prison by tomorrow…
Donor are putting up the 200K as surety for his bail…
Loading…
Yardbroom
I am sure since the above report, the Prosecution in Sweden have decided to appeal against the granting of bail for Mr. Assange in London. As a result Mr. Assange will spend another night in Wandsworth jail. Now that he has an address which was acceptable to the Magistrate, and with the other conditions, surety and security from responsible persons £240.000, with reporting conditions- to the police – electronic tagging etc, there is a good chance he will be granted bai, when the appeal is heard by a Judge within forty eight hours.
Of course with the twist and turns in this bail application, the unexpected can happen, as one never knows the true story from out side the court. However, the individual has a right to bail, this can be cancelled out by the seriousness of the allegation, and of course the strength of the evidence presented by the prosecution. Many Jurisdictions are involved in this one. . . there is often more than what you see.
@Yardbroom: “Many Jurisdictions are involved in this one. . . there is often more than what you see.
Please forgive me for this simple question Yardbroom, but why are the observers of such important questions assumed to be stupid, and thus not worthy of hearing the answers?
Loading…
Yardbroom
@ Christopher Halsall
Quote: ” Please forgive me for this simple question Yardbroom but why are the observers of such important questions assumed to be stupid, and thus not worthy of hearing the answers?”
Hi Christopher
I decided not to make a definite assumpton either way, because I have not got “all” the evidence, and it is most unlikely that I would. Neither have I assumed, or will I surmize that the Magistrate or observers are stupid.
A Magistrate of Judge would look rather silly, if despite “strong” representations by the prosecution, an individual is granted bail and on the day of the hearing – for what ever reason -when his name is called he does not answer the call of the court usher. As to some observers, often it is just today’s news which interest them.
A “competent Magistrate or Judge” will not play to the gallery, he has to make a responsible decision in the interest of Justice, and despite all the International attention and media hype – which means nothing to him – he will make a decision on the evidence produced in court.
Looks like Assange’s bail is being thwarted by the Swedes who are believed to be manipulated by others. If one is to judge by the full page add in the New York Times and Michael Moore’s support for Assange finances is not a problem for Assange.
I’m sure I shagged a few Swedes in the 70s & 80s, mostly unprotected.
But never once did I consider I would have to raise $700,000 to keep me outside of jail, no matter how the girl judged my performance.
Loading…
The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.Cancel reply
The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.