57
   

WikiLeaks about to hit the fan

 
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jul, 2012 08:26 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Sorry.
That isn't worthy of a response, Finn.

Could we stick to the facts, please? Wink

0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jul, 2012 08:53 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
As opposed to your type that holds, desperately, to the idea that a government that does bad things can do no good things, or that a movement that doesn't achieve global change in five years has no value, that there are no greys, and preconceptions are impervious to evidence. Comparing our two pathetics, I'm glad I live mine.

PS thanks for the amnesty.org stuff on Ecuador - are you a donor to Amnesty International? That would **** with one of my preconceptions (I'm always happy to let mine go).
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jul, 2012 09:23 pm
@msolga,
1. I don't think Sweden pursued this strongly enough from the beginning. They shouldn't have let him leave to begin with.
2. my read of the changes clearly does not match yours.
3. I don't think he should have left Sweden.
4. He should likely have stayed in jail until the charges were heard, unless he posted bail. In both cases he should have stayed in Sweden. I think less of Sweden for letting him leave the country.
5. I think the trial in Sweden should be held as is normal as Sweden.


bottom line, from what I've read, he should have faced trial in Sweden, and likely should have spent some time in jail in Sweden.

ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jul, 2012 09:24 pm
@msolga,
msolga wrote:

OK, let's say you have, ehBeth.


I'm really coming around to georgeob's reaction to you.
msolga
 
  0  
Reply Thu 26 Jul, 2012 09:27 pm
@ehBeth,
Because I asked you some questions about the basis of your views, ehBeth? Neutral


0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  0  
Reply Thu 26 Jul, 2012 10:06 pm
@ehBeth,
Quote:
1. I don't think Sweden pursued this strongly enough from the beginning.

My understanding is that the two women involved were more concerned that he undergo tests for STDs than pursuing "rape charges" & one of them at least (that I'm aware of) , became very upset when things moved in that direction. And didn't want that at all.
Apart from that, it was decided (after questioning in Sweden) that there were no charges he should face.
Then the authorities/prosecution changed their minds after he legally left the country.
The prosecution "case" has been messy from the start & prone to changes.

Quote:
They shouldn't have let him leave to begin with.

But they had no charges against him following their investigations. So there was no legal reason to oblige him to stay in the country.

Quote:
2. my read of the changes clearly does not match yours.

How do you read the allegations then?

Quote:
3. I don't think he should have left Sweden.

They had finished questioning him & said he was free to go.
Why shouldn't he exercise the same rights to leave the country as anyone else? Confused

Quote:
4. He should likely have stayed in jail until the charges were heard, unless he posted bail.

There weren't (& still aren't, as best I understand) any formal charges against him. They want to question him. Which they can now do in the UK. They could have done that ages ago.

Quote:
5. I think the trial in Sweden should be held as is normal as Sweden.

Which would be behind closed doors.
The problem I have with that is that the Swedish authorities have made conflicting public comments about the allegations against him.
My concern is whether a fair trial is actually possible (if it comes to that), in the circumstances.
At the very least, given that this "story" has been so public, I think its perfectly reasonable in the circumstances that the public has access to what occurs.

Quote:
bottom line, from what I've read, he should have faced trial in Sweden, and likely should have spent some time in jail in Sweden.

Again. There were no actual charges to face.

.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 27 Jul, 2012 08:00 pm
@wandeljw,
Quote:
The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU Foundation sued to force the State Department to release "embassy cables concerning this nation's affairs" - information already released by third-party WikiLeaks - but U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly found that the government is justified in withholding the information.


Government by the people. Sure, now pull my other one.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Fri 27 Jul, 2012 08:06 pm
@ehBeth,
Quote:
I'd really like him to face those charges in Sweden.


You have no reason to hope for that other than your own narrow and jaundiced opinion, Beth. Sometimes it hard to tell you and G0b1 apart.

Quote:
It boggles the mind that he's been able to dodge them this long.


Why the faux outrage? You never say a thing about all the war criminals, the terrorists in the US that have been dodging justice for events that are quantum leaps worse.

JTT
 
  0  
Reply Fri 27 Jul, 2012 08:14 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
Finn wrote: Ecuador the White Knight of Nations!

What a laugh.

From the US State Department's website:


"from the US State Department's website"

Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing

Then Finn had the temerity to write, just one post later![/b]

Quote:
And the hypocritical remain totally clueless, yet so resolute.


That same US State Department has been helping, who else, the US, rape, torture, murder millions and pillage all these South/Central American countries for over a century. And it's hardly limited to this hemisphere.

Finn, you are stark raving bonkers! But you're only different from the vast majority of Americans in that you are way way bonkier than average.

0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Jul, 2012 08:16 pm
@JTT,
JTT wrote:
Sometimes it hard to tell you and G0b1 apart.


I'm flattered (sometimes).
JTT
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 27 Jul, 2012 08:25 pm
@ehBeth,
Yup, you're making it perfectly clear just what those times are, Beth.

But this isn't like you to create a tangent to avoid the difficult stuff.

Is that also a part of being like Gob1 that flatters you?
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 27 Jul, 2012 08:29 pm
@ehBeth,
Quote:
I'm really coming around to georgeob's reaction to you.


I went back one post, Beth, to see what precipitated this Gob1/Setanta response.

You've learned well, Grasshopper.

Can you say tangent?

0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Jul, 2012 07:35 pm
From a Twitter post today:

Julian Assange - 600 days detained, no formal charge.
Bradley Manning - 797 days jail, no trial.
JTT
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 28 Jul, 2012 09:46 pm
@msolga,
George W Bush - 100,000 murdered Iraqis, no formal charges.
Dickus Cheney - Evil personified, receiving US government pension.

0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  0  
Reply Sun 29 Jul, 2012 12:01 am
A must-read an op-ed piece from former executive editor of The NYTimes, Bill Keller, published today in the NYT.

In defense of "whistle blowers" & newspapers' rights to publish information in the public interest. (Though I don't agree with all he said about his attitude to Wikileaks. )

But till now I had no idea that there was a potential blockade against the NYT (by by Visa, Mastercard, and American Express) for publishing information obtained from Wikileaks.

Nor that some Republicans want New York Times journalists charged under the Espionage Act for recent stories on President Obama’s ‘Kill List’ and secret US cyber attacks against Iran.

Extremely concerning attacks on citizen's rights to freedom of information.
Extremely concerning for the journalists & publications whose job it is to supply that information.
Very, very frightening territory!

Quote:
OP- Ed Columnist
WikiLeaks, A Post Postscript
By BILL KELLER
Published: July 29, 2012/NYT

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/09/18/opinion/Keller_New/Keller_New-articleInline.jpg
Bill Keller

AS rumors build about the potential financial blockade against the New York Times by Visa, Mastercard, and American Express for hosting U.S. government cables published by WikiLeaks, I find myself in the awkward position of having to defend WikiLeaks. During the House Judiciary Subcommittee hearing on July 11th, several Republicans made it clear they also want New York Times journalists charged under the Espionage Act for their recent stories on President Obama’s ‘Kill List’ and secret US cyber attacks against Iran.

As those of you who have followed my turbulent relationship with WikiLeaks and its Guru-In-Chief Julian Assange know, I am first in line when it comes to distancing myself from his brand of transparency without government checks and balances. You don’t have to embrace Assange as a kindred spirit to believe that what he did in publishing those cables falls under the protection of the First Amendment. The backroom pressures by the Obama Administration’s State Department to expand its financial blockade targeting WikiLeaks to include news organizations that host information from their trove of pilfered documents goes too far.

I’ve said repeatedly, in print and in a variety of public forums, that I would regard an attempt to criminalize WikiLeaks’ publication of these documents as an attack on all of us, and I believe the mainstream media should come to his defense. Obama has clearly not lived up to his 2008 campaign promises to protect whistleblowers, rather his policy is more like China’s treatment of dissidents. In fact the Syrian government has even decided against financial embargos or prosecution of Wikileaks despite their recent email dump.

The ACLU has shown through its government FOIA requests of WikiLeaks published cables, pretending secrets are secret after they are public isn’t easy. While I am confident that news organizations will not succumb to these Orwellian tactics, this new chapter in the WikiLeaks Saga makes me long for the era when The Times and other mainstream media, were the responsible gatekeepers of information.

One of the most difficult roles of editor-in-chief is deciding when to hold back a story that your investigative journalists are willing to risk going to jail for. These decisions are never easy. I was confronted with this dilemma as editor at The Times with the story of the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping of American citizens. As I wrote in my December 16, 2005 statement justifying my decision to hold publication of the NSA story for a year, I came to the conclusion that the Bush Administration’s arguments to suppress outweighed the public’s right to know:

“Officials also assured senior editors of The Times that a variety of legal checks had been imposed that satisfied everyone involved that the program raised no legal questions. As we have done before in rare instances when faced with a convincing national security argument, we agreed not to publish at that time.”

Had The Times had exclusive access to the WikiLeaks cables, we could have pursued a similar government-review-before-publication policy, thus safeguarding national security from legal and public scrutiny. Though I must say I have yet to hear of any actual harm or consequences from the nearly 260,000 cables released in 2010.

Although PayPal’s courageous refusal to participate in the expanded blockade against The New York Times strikes me as a slightly disingenuous given that The Times doesn’t accept subscription payment through PayPal, their position is nonetheless admirable and should be applauded. How it will impact their original defense of the WikiLeaks blockade remains to be seen. However we may need their services should a blockade be imposed by the major credit card companies.

Even after Wikileaks’s first victory against Visa in Iceland, I still must urge Visa, Mastercard, and American Express to take a similar stand against the use of financial embargos to prohibit supporters from contributing or subscribing to media organizations protected by the First Amendment and free speech laws. Even though journalism should work in unison with government, I fear the calls for limited free speech rights by upstart radical groups like Block The New York Times and Accuracy in Media.

I wish these were my final words on the existential drama that is WikiLeaks, but don’t get your hopes up. With an ongoing grand jury, extradition ruling, and Bradley Manning’s court martial, the WikiLeaks Postscript has only just begun. I fear I am condemned to a life in Sartre’s No Exit (or is it Kafka’s The Trial?).


http://www.opinion-nytimes.com/2012/07/29/opinion/keller-a-post-postscript.html

Quote:
Bill Keller is an Op-Ed columnist for The New York Times and writes for The New York Times Magazine. His column appears on alternate Mondays.

From July 2003 until September 2011, he was the executive editor of The Times, presiding over the newsroom during a time of journalistic distinction, economic challenge, and transformation. During his eight years in that role, The Times sustained and built its formidable newsgathering staff, winning 18 Pulitzer Prizes, and expanded its audience by mastering the journalistic potential of the Internet. ... <cont>


Bill Keller:
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/billkeller/index.html

..
msolga
 
  0  
Reply Sun 29 Jul, 2012 12:38 am
@msolga,
I am genuinely in the dark here. And I don't live in the US.
But could someone in the US explain to me why Visa, Mastercard, and American Express feel that they have some right to control what information Americans read in their newspapers?
Since when have credit companies considered themselves the arbiters of what information people are allowed access to in their news?
And why should they feel they have this right, for heavens sake? Confused
Their business is making as much money as they can, NOT deciding what citizens can read (or not) in the news, surely?

.
roger
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Jul, 2012 01:34 am
@msolga,
msolga wrote:


But could someone in the US explain to me why Visa, Mastercard, and American Express feel that they have some right to control what information Americans read in their newspapers?


We're probably at odds on every single issue (ETA on this thread) - except this one. Sorry though, you're going to have to wait on someone else for an explanation, cuz I'm as much in the dark as anyone else.

I do kind of hope some explanation is forthcoming that makes some kind of sense of what you have so far. Anyhow, boycotting VISA, MasterCArd, and Amex would be about as easy as boycotting the US Government.
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Jul, 2012 01:43 am
@roger,
Thanks, roger.
I wasn't suggesting that Visa, Mastercard, and American Express should be boycotted. (Though now you mention it ... Idea
Smile )

Quote:
I do kind of hope some explanation is forthcoming that makes some kind of sense of what you have so far.

Yeah.
Me too!

Thanks.
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Jul, 2012 01:54 am
@msolga,
But the other alarming thing from Bill Keller's op-ed (above) :

Quote:
During the House Judiciary Subcommittee hearing on July 11th, several Republicans made it clear they also want New York Times journalists charged under the Espionage Act for their recent stories on President Obama’s ‘Kill List’ and secret US cyber attacks against Iran.


Has it ever been seriously suggested before (in recent history, I mean) that journalists working for an established newspaper should be dealt with in this way for articles they've written?
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Jul, 2012 07:03 am
@msolga,
Wow.
Having seen this op-ed article posted any number of times today (with link to the NYT) .....
Bill Keller has just posted on Twitter:


Quote:
Bill Keller ‏@nytkeller

THERE IS A FAKE OP-ED GOING AROUND UNDER MY NAME, ABOUT WIKILEAKS. EMPHASIS ON "FAKE. "AS IN, NOT MINE.


What's going on here? Confused Confused
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 06/16/2024 at 05:42:06