wikileaks petition- stop the crackdown

2

Comments

  • catefrancescatefrances Posts: 29,003
    haffajappa wrote:
    haffajappa wrote:
    the men who sign the papers to start a war are the victims here, clearly, while those who merely uncover the truths about it are treasoners...


    Off with their heads?
    ummmm...................

    down here in the south we call them traitors. ;)8-)
    haaaa, i went all sarah palin on that i guess, what of it?
    there might be such thing as a treasoner... :lol::lol:

    not in the english speaking world. :lol::lol::lol:

    treasonous and treasonable are synonymous as adjectives... but one can not be a treasoner unless one is a manga character. 8-)
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • Byrnzie wrote:
    I don't trust my government but that doesn't mean I should or can trust wikileaks or Assange either. Best wishes to everyone just the same though. 8-)

    It's not about Assange, it's about the information Wikileaks has released which is furhter proof that those in power are liars and murders who don't give a fuck about the people they are elected to govern.

    Notice that I said wikileaks or Assange. I didn't make it about Assange. You did. :mrgreen:
  • haffajappahaffajappa British Columbia Posts: 5,955
    haffajappa wrote:

    down here in the south we call them traitors. ;)8-)
    haaaa, i went all sarah palin on that i guess, what of it?
    there might be such thing as a treasoner... :lol::lol:

    not in the english speaking world. :lol::lol::lol:

    treasonous and treasonable are synonymous as adjectives... but one can not be a treasoner unless one is a manga character. 8-)
    well i AM half japanese
    live pearl jam is best pearl jam
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    theres a fair amount of gossipy stuff being exposed, which whilst not security threatening, is amusing.

    Like the fact that The pharmaceutical giant Pfizer paid investigators to unearth corruption links to Nigeria's attorney general in an attempt to persuade him to stop his legal action against a controversial drug trial involving children with meningitis - http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010 ... -thewrap08 - or that that the US and China, the world's top two polluters, joined forces to stymie every attempt by European nations to reach agreement during the Copenhagen climate summit, or that British and US officials colluded to manoeuvre around a proposed ban on cluster bombs, allowing the US to keep the munitions on British territory, regardless of whether a treaty forbidding their use was implemented - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/de ... -thewrap08 - ?
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    Byrnzie wrote:
    I don't trust my government but that doesn't mean I should or can trust wikileaks or Assange either. Best wishes to everyone just the same though. 8-)

    It's not about Assange, it's about the information Wikileaks has released which is furhter proof that those in power are liars and murders who don't give a fuck about the people they are elected to govern.

    Notice that I said wikileaks or Assange. I didn't make it about Assange. You did. :mrgreen:

    Why don't you trust Wikileaks or Assange? What don't you trust?
  • Byrnzie wrote:
    Why don't you trust Wikileaks or Assange? What don't you trust?

    I don't know who either are other than what they tell me. Assange for one thing has a history I am not comfortable with much like my government. I am supposed to trust them because someone says they can be trusted? Like so many put there faith in the US government they lay there faith in the wikileaks organization and Assange. I find this disturbing. Much like I do not condone much of my government's behavior I feel equally the same towards wikileaks and Assange. Can you prove without a doubt that wikileaks or Assange can be trusted? Highly doubtful. I happen to be one of those in my generation who believe in questioning the validity and agenda of such things. So I remain an observer and healthy skeptic to it all until I see something that proves otherwise. Anyways, I think I am guilty of taking this thread off topic. My apologies.
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    edited December 2010
    Byrnzie wrote:
    Why don't you trust Wikileaks or Assange? What don't you trust?

    I don't know who either are other than what they tell me. Assange for one thing has a history I am not comfortable with much like my government. I am supposed to trust them because someone says they can be trusted? Like so many put there faith in the US government they lay there faith in the wikileaks organization and Assange. I find this disturbing. Much like I do not condone much of my government's behavior I feel equally the same towards wikileaks and Assange. Can you prove without a doubt that wikileaks or Assange can be trusted? Highly doubtful. I happen to be one of those in my generation who believe in questioning the validity and agenda of such things. So I remain an observer and healthy skeptic to it all until I see something that proves otherwise. Anyways, I think I am guilty of taking this thread off topic. My apologies.

    I don't think it has anything to do with anyone laying their faith in Wikileaks. They're simply relaying the information that's been made available to them. I don't understand why people can't assess that information itself instead of focusing on the messenger.
    Did everyone spend their time focusing on Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein during the Watergate affair? No, they focused on the criminals in the U.S government. So why should it be any different now?
    Post edited by Byrnzie on
  • John Briggs 2008John Briggs 2008 Posts: 1,024
    edited December 2010
    Byrnzie wrote:
    Byrnzie wrote:
    Why don't you trust Wikileaks or Assange? What don't you trust?

    I don't know who either are other than what they tell me. Assange for one thing has a history I am not comfortable with much like my government. I am supposed to trust them because someone says they can be trusted? Like so many put there faith in the US government they lay there faith in the wikileaks organization and Assange. I find this disturbing. Much like I do not condone much of my government's behavior I feel equally the same towards wikileaks and Assange. Can you prove without a doubt that wikileaks or Assange can be trusted? Highly doubtful. I happen to be one of those in my generation who believe in questioning the validity and agenda of such things. So I remain an observer and healthy skeptic to it all until I see something that proves otherwise. Anyways, I think I am guilty of taking this thread off topic. My apologies.

    I don't think it has anything ro do with anyone laying their faith in Wikileaks. They're simply relaying the information that's been made available to them. I don't understand why people can't assess that information itself instead of focusing on the messenger.
    Did everyone spend their time focusing on Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein during the Watergate affair? No, they focused on the criminals in the U.S government. So why should it be any different now?


    Well, to each there own but I disagree and debating your stance on what you think it is about or isn't doesn't change the fact that I don't trust any of it and indeed it is about trusting the source and agenda of said source if you want to be properly informed on both sides of the situation. The whole lot leave many things to be questioned. I don't readily jump to conclusions without knowing all the facts and the fact is that it's not unfolded yet so I won't be signing any petition for or against.
    Post edited by John Briggs 2008 on
  • catefrancescatefrances Posts: 29,003
    Byrnzie wrote:
    theres a fair amount of gossipy stuff being exposed, which whilst not security threatening, is amusing.

    Like the fact that The pharmaceutical giant Pfizer paid investigators to unearth corruption links to Nigeria's attorney general in an attempt to persuade him to stop his legal action against a controversial drug trial involving children with meningitis - http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010 ... -thewrap08 - or that that the US and China, the world's top two polluters, joined forces to stymie every attempt by European nations to reach agreement during the Copenhagen climate summit, or that British and US officials colluded to manoeuvre around a proposed ban on cluster bombs, allowing the US to keep the munitions on British territory, regardless of whether a treaty forbidding their use was implemented - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/de ... -thewrap08 - ?

    no :roll: ..... like the aforementioned putin alpha dog comment.
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • The JugglerThe Juggler Posts: 49,257
    Byrnzie wrote:
    Byrnzie wrote:
    Why don't you trust Wikileaks or Assange? What don't you trust?

    I don't know who either are other than what they tell me. Assange for one thing has a history I am not comfortable with much like my government. I am supposed to trust them because someone says they can be trusted? Like so many put there faith in the US government they lay there faith in the wikileaks organization and Assange. I find this disturbing. Much like I do not condone much of my government's behavior I feel equally the same towards wikileaks and Assange. Can you prove without a doubt that wikileaks or Assange can be trusted? Highly doubtful. I happen to be one of those in my generation who believe in questioning the validity and agenda of such things. So I remain an observer and healthy skeptic to it all until I see something that proves otherwise. Anyways, I think I am guilty of taking this thread off topic. My apologies.

    I don't think it has anything to do with anyone laying their faith in Wikileaks. They're simply relaying the information that's been made available to them. I don't understand why people can't assess that information itself instead of focusing on the messenger.
    Did everyone spend their time focusing on Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein during the Watergate affair? No, they focused on the criminals in the U.S government. So why should it be any different now?

    woodward and bernstein were already respected journalists. assange is just....umm....
    www.myspace.com
  • The JugglerThe Juggler Posts: 49,257
    i ha ve the right of freedom of speech, dont i?

    no. you've been stripped of that right.

    by me.
    www.myspace.com
  • haffajappahaffajappa British Columbia Posts: 5,955
    i ha ve the right of freedom of speech, dont i?

    no. you've been stripped of that right.

    by me.
    mein führer!


    ;)
    live pearl jam is best pearl jam
  • CommyCommy Posts: 4,984
    Byrnzie wrote:
    Like the fact that The pharmaceutical giant Pfizer paid investigators to unearth corruption links to Nigeria's attorney general in an attempt to persuade him to stop his legal action against a controversial drug trial involving children with meningitis - http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010 ... -thewrap08 - or that that the US and China, the world's top two polluters, joined forces to stymie every attempt by European nations to reach agreement during the Copenhagen climate summit, or that British and US officials colluded to manoeuvre around a proposed ban on cluster bombs, allowing the US to keep the munitions on British territory, regardless of whether a treaty forbidding their use was implemented - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/de ... -thewrap08 - ?
    with everyone focusing on the gossip, details like this seem to be getting overlooked.


    :clap:
  • i ha ve the right of freedom of speech, dont i?
    or is that for when i just say stuff that everyone else agrees with?


    sure you can say whatever you want but that doesnt mean you should. i see it more as a privilege than a right and one that should be treated as such.

    saying what you want is not a privilage
    its a goddamn right
    a right as is thought is
    privliage FUCK THAT SHIT
  • I wonder what percentage of the people signing that petition have used their Visa or Mastercard recently... What percentage has recently shopped at Amazon or used their Paypal??

    Another worthless petition... if people really wanted to make a difference they would go after the private companies that are helping pull the plug on wikileaks.
  • bgivens33 wrote:
    I wonder what percentage of the people signing that petition have used their Visa or Mastercard recently... What percentage has recently shopped at Amazon or used their Paypal??

    Another worthless petition... if people really wanted to make a difference they would go after the private companies that are helping pull the plug on wikileaks.

    I agree with you all the way. Better yet, if so many people support wikileaks and it's all about the message then why don't folks petition there governments and the people in the leaked documents who are alleged to be committing these crimes. If these governments and criminals can hold it's citizens accountable then why don't the people hold there governments accountable?
  • bgivens33 wrote:
    I wonder what percentage of the people signing that petition have used their Visa or Mastercard recently... What percentage has recently shopped at Amazon or used their Paypal??

    Another worthless petition... if people really wanted to make a difference they would go after the private companies that are helping pull the plug on wikileaks.

    I agree with you all the way. Better yet, if so many people support wikileaks and it's all about the message then why don't folks petition there governments and the people in the leaked documents who are alleged to be committing these crimes. If these governments and criminals can hold it's citizens accountable then why don't the people hold there governments accountable?
    i have to wonder what sort of poeple join this club
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    i have to wonder what sort of poeple join this club

    Maybe people who want important decisions taken by their leaders to be given some level of transparency and accountability?
    Maybe also people who believe in the right of freedom of speech?
  • catefrancescatefrances Posts: 29,003
    bgivens33 wrote:
    I wonder what percentage of the people signing that petition have used their Visa or Mastercard recently... What percentage has recently shopped at Amazon or used their Paypal??

    Another worthless petition... if people really wanted to make a difference they would go after the private companies that are helping pull the plug on wikileaks.


    paypal reinstated the ability to contribute to the wikileaks account. which is great cause i really love using paypal. 8-)
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    Chomsky signs Australian letter of support for Assange

    By Amy Coopes (AFP)

    SYDNEY — Renowned American scholar and activist Noam Chomsky signed an open letter to Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard on Tuesday urging her to make a "strong statement" in support of Julian Assange.

    Chomsky, a professor of linguistics at the US Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a prominent critic of US foreign policy, joined scores of high-profile Australian lawyers, authors and journalists in signing the letter.

    Noting the "increasingly violent rhetoric" directed towards Australian-born Assange, the besieged founder of whistleblowing website WikiLeaks, the signatories said there were "grave concerns" for his safety.

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

    Penned by Victoria University academic Jeff Sparrow and human rights lawyer Lizzie O'Shea, the letter calls on Gillard to publicly confirm Australia's commitment to free political communication and uphold Assange's basic rights.

    It also urges her to "provide assistance and advocacy to Mr Assange; and do everything in your power to ensure that any legal proceedings taken against him comply fully with the principles of law and procedural fairness."

    "A statement by you to this effect should not be controversial -- it is a simple commitment to democratic principles and the rule of law," it says.

    Sparrow, editor of Australia's Overland literary journal, said the idea began with a few invitations but soon went viral, attracting an overwhelming response.

    "Chomsky contacted us because I guess somebody had forwarded it to him," Sparrow told AFP.

    "I think that this sentiment and this suspicion that Mr Assange is not to receive fair treatment is something... that extends beyond Australia more generally," he added.

    Also signed by Australian Greens Senator Bob Brown, army whistleblower Lance Collins and a host of Australian authors including Raimond Gaita, Christos Tsiolkas and Helen Garner, the letter said Assange's case was a "watershed" for free speech.

    "If these incitements to violence against Mr Assange... are allowed to stand, a disturbing new precedent will have been established in the English-speaking world," the letter to Gillard said.

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

    Gillard has slammed Assange's publication of leaked confidential US diplomatic cables as "grossly irresponsible", saying the information was gathered through an "illegal act".
  • Boxes&BooksBoxes&Books USA Posts: 2,672
    Michael Moore Offers to Bail Out Julian Assange



    Documentary filmmaker Michael Moore has a reputation for being a rabble-rouser. So it's not surprising that he would go out of his way to support one of his kind.

    Moore, the man behind Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 9/11, among other documentaries, has offered to pay $20,000 of the bail for WikiLeaks' Julian Assange, who is being held in a British prison on Swedish sex-crimes allegations. Courts granted Assange bail today with stringent conditions, like surrendering his passport and wearing an electronic tag.



    In a witness statement, posted on his website, Moore writes:

    I support Julian, whom I see as a pioneer of free speech, transparent government and the digital revolution in journalism. ... What do we do with someone who informs the authorities -- and in this case it is the free people in a democracy who are the "authorities" -- that a crime has been committed? Do we arrest HIM? Do we try to shut his mouth? ... He should be thanked and honored, not abused and jailed. It dishonours this court to be used in this way, holding this man without bail. Julian has made the world, and my country in particular, a safer place.

    He also assures the court that Assange would not flee the country, as doing so would damage his reputation.



    It's unclear whether Assange will accept Moore's money; the filmmaker is one of many high-profile names offering to pay up. Meanwhile, though Assange has been granted bail, Reuters reports he will have to stay in jail while the prosecution appeals the decision.


    Read more: http://newsfeed.time.com/2010/12/14/mic ... z188PQuvaW
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    Why I'm Posting Bail Money for Julian Assange (A statement from Michael Moore)

    Tuesday, December 14th, 2010


    Friends,

    Yesterday, in the Westminster Magistrates Court in London, the lawyers for WikiLeaks co-founder Julian Assange presented to the judge a document from me stating that I have put up $20,000 of my own money to help bail Mr. Assange out of jail.

    Furthermore, I am publicly offering the assistance of my website, my servers, my domain names and anything else I can do to keep WikiLeaks alive and thriving as it continues its work to expose the crimes that were concocted in secret and carried out in our name and with our tax dollars.

    We were taken to war in Iraq on a lie. Hundreds of thousands are now dead. Just imagine if the men who planned this war crime back in 2002 had had a WikiLeaks to deal with. They might not have been able to pull it off. The only reason they thought they could get away with it was because they had a guaranteed cloak of secrecy. That guarantee has now been ripped from them, and I hope they are never able to operate in secret again.

    So why is WikiLeaks, after performing such an important public service, under such vicious attack? Because they have outed and embarrassed those who have covered up the truth. The assault on them has been over the top:

    **Sen. Joe Lieberman says WikiLeaks "has violated the Espionage Act."

    **The New Yorker's George Packer calls Assange "super-secretive, thin-skinned, [and] megalomaniacal."

    **Sarah Palin claims he's "an anti-American operative with blood on his hands" whom we should pursue "with the same urgency we pursue al Qaeda and Taliban leaders."

    **Democrat Bob Beckel (Walter Mondale's 1984 campaign manager) said about Assange on Fox: "A dead man can't leak stuff ... there's only one way to do it: illegally shoot the son of a bitch."

    **Republican Mary Matalin says "he's a psychopath, a sociopath ... He's a terrorist."

    **Rep. Peter A. King calls WikiLeaks a "terrorist organization."

    And indeed they are! They exist to terrorize the liars and warmongers who have brought ruin to our nation and to others. Perhaps the next war won't be so easy because the tables have been turned -- and now it's Big Brother who's being watched ... by us!

    WikiLeaks deserves our thanks for shining a huge spotlight on all this. But some in the corporate-owned press have dismissed the importance of WikiLeaks ("they've released little that's new!") or have painted them as simple anarchists ("WikiLeaks just releases everything without any editorial control!"). WikiLeaks exists, in part, because the mainstream media has failed to live up to its responsibility. The corporate owners have decimated newsrooms, making it impossible for good journalists to do their job. There's no time or money anymore for investigative journalism. Simply put, investors don't want those stories exposed. They like their secrets kept ... as secrets.

    I ask you to imagine how much different our world would be if WikiLeaks had existed 10 years ago. Take a look at this photo. That's Mr. Bush about to be handed a "secret" document on August 6th, 2001. Its heading read: "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US." And on those pages it said the FBI had discovered "patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings." Mr. Bush decided to ignore it and went fishing for the next four weeks.

    But if that document had been leaked, how would you or I have reacted? What would Congress or the FAA have done? Was there not a greater chance that someone, somewhere would have done something if all of us knew about bin Laden's impending attack using hijacked planes?

    But back then only a few people had access to that document. Because the secret was kept, a flight school instructor in San Diego who noticed that two Saudi students took no interest in takeoffs or landings, did nothing. Had he read about the bin Laden threat in the paper, might he have called the FBI? (Please read this essay by former FBI Agent Coleen Rowley, Time's 2002 co-Person of the Year, about her belief that had WikiLeaks been around in 2001, 9/11 might have been prevented.)

    Or what if the public in 2003 had been able to read "secret" memos from Dick Cheney as he pressured the CIA to give him the "facts" he wanted in order to build his false case for war? If a WikiLeaks had revealed at that time that there were, in fact, no weapons of mass destruction, do you think that the war would have been launched -- or rather, wouldn't there have been calls for Cheney's arrest?

    Openness, transparency -- these are among the few weapons the citizenry has to protect itself from the powerful and the corrupt. What if within days of August 4th, 1964 -- after the Pentagon had made up the lie that our ship was attacked by the North Vietnamese in the Gulf of Tonkin -- there had been a WikiLeaks to tell the American people that the whole thing was made up? I guess 58,000 of our soldiers (and 2 million Vietnamese) might be alive today.

    Instead, secrets killed them.

    For those of you who think it's wrong to support Julian Assange because of the sexual assault allegations he's being held for, all I ask is that you not be naive about how the government works when it decides to go after its prey. Please -- never, ever believe the "official story." And regardless of Assange's guilt or innocence (see the strange nature of the allegations here), this man has the right to have bail posted and to defend himself. I have joined with filmmakers Ken Loach and John Pilger and writer Jemima Khan in putting up the bail money -- and we hope the judge will accept this and grant his release today.

    Might WikiLeaks cause some unintended harm to diplomatic negotiations and U.S. interests around the world? Perhaps. But that's the price you pay when you and your government take us into a war based on a lie. Your punishment for misbehaving is that someone has to turn on all the lights in the room so that we can see what you're up to. You simply can't be trusted. So every cable, every email you write is now fair game. Sorry, but you brought this upon yourself. No one can hide from the truth now. No one can plot the next Big Lie if they know that they might be exposed.

    And that is the best thing that WikiLeaks has done. WikiLeaks, God bless them, will save lives as a result of their actions. And any of you who join me in supporting them are committing a true act of patriotism. Period.

    I stand today in absentia with Julian Assange in London and I ask the judge to grant him his release. I am willing to guarantee his return to court with the bail money I have wired to said court. I will not allow this injustice to continue unchallenged.

    Yours,
    Michael Moore
    <!-- e --><a href="mailto:MMFlint@aol.com">MMFlint@aol.com</a><!-- e -->
    MichaelMoore.com
  • The JugglerThe Juggler Posts: 49,257
    Byrnzie wrote:
    Why I'm Posting Bail Money for Julian Assange (A statement from Michael Moore)

    Tuesday, December 14th, 2010


    Friends,

    Yesterday, in the Westminster Magistrates Court in London, the lawyers for WikiLeaks co-founder Julian Assange presented to the judge a document from me stating that I have put up $20,000 of my own money to help bail Mr. Assange out of jail.

    Furthermore, I am publicly offering the assistance of my website, my servers, my domain names and anything else I can do to keep WikiLeaks alive and thriving as it continues its work to expose the crimes that were concocted in secret and carried out in our name and with our tax dollars.

    We were taken to war in Iraq on a lie. Hundreds of thousands are now dead. Just imagine if the men who planned this war crime back in 2002 had had a WikiLeaks to deal with. They might not have been able to pull it off. The only reason they thought they could get away with it was because they had a guaranteed cloak of secrecy. That guarantee has now been ripped from them, and I hope they are never able to operate in secret again.

    So why is WikiLeaks, after performing such an important public service, under such vicious attack? Because they have outed and embarrassed those who have covered up the truth. The assault on them has been over the top:

    **Sen. Joe Lieberman says WikiLeaks "has violated the Espionage Act."

    **The New Yorker's George Packer calls Assange "super-secretive, thin-skinned, [and] megalomaniacal."

    **Sarah Palin claims he's "an anti-American operative with blood on his hands" whom we should pursue "with the same urgency we pursue al Qaeda and Taliban leaders."

    **Democrat Bob Beckel (Walter Mondale's 1984 campaign manager) said about Assange on Fox: "A dead man can't leak stuff ... there's only one way to do it: illegally shoot the son of a bitch."

    **Republican Mary Matalin says "he's a psychopath, a sociopath ... He's a terrorist."

    **Rep. Peter A. King calls WikiLeaks a "terrorist organization."

    And indeed they are! They exist to terrorize the liars and warmongers who have brought ruin to our nation and to others. Perhaps the next war won't be so easy because the tables have been turned -- and now it's Big Brother who's being watched ... by us!

    WikiLeaks deserves our thanks for shining a huge spotlight on all this. But some in the corporate-owned press have dismissed the importance of WikiLeaks ("they've released little that's new!") or have painted them as simple anarchists ("WikiLeaks just releases everything without any editorial control!"). WikiLeaks exists, in part, because the mainstream media has failed to live up to its responsibility. The corporate owners have decimated newsrooms, making it impossible for good journalists to do their job. There's no time or money anymore for investigative journalism. Simply put, investors don't want those stories exposed. They like their secrets kept ... as secrets.

    I ask you to imagine how much different our world would be if WikiLeaks had existed 10 years ago. Take a look at this photo. That's Mr. Bush about to be handed a "secret" document on August 6th, 2001. Its heading read: "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US." And on those pages it said the FBI had discovered "patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings." Mr. Bush decided to ignore it and went fishing for the next four weeks.

    But if that document had been leaked, how would you or I have reacted? What would Congress or the FAA have done? Was there not a greater chance that someone, somewhere would have done something if all of us knew about bin Laden's impending attack using hijacked planes?

    But back then only a few people had access to that document. Because the secret was kept, a flight school instructor in San Diego who noticed that two Saudi students took no interest in takeoffs or landings, did nothing. Had he read about the bin Laden threat in the paper, might he have called the FBI? (Please read this essay by former FBI Agent Coleen Rowley, Time's 2002 co-Person of the Year, about her belief that had WikiLeaks been around in 2001, 9/11 might have been prevented.)

    Or what if the public in 2003 had been able to read "secret" memos from Dick Cheney as he pressured the CIA to give him the "facts" he wanted in order to build his false case for war? If a WikiLeaks had revealed at that time that there were, in fact, no weapons of mass destruction, do you think that the war would have been launched -- or rather, wouldn't there have been calls for Cheney's arrest?

    Openness, transparency -- these are among the few weapons the citizenry has to protect itself from the powerful and the corrupt. What if within days of August 4th, 1964 -- after the Pentagon had made up the lie that our ship was attacked by the North Vietnamese in the Gulf of Tonkin -- there had been a WikiLeaks to tell the American people that the whole thing was made up? I guess 58,000 of our soldiers (and 2 million Vietnamese) might be alive today.

    Instead, secrets killed them.

    For those of you who think it's wrong to support Julian Assange because of the sexual assault allegations he's being held for, all I ask is that you not be naive about how the government works when it decides to go after its prey. Please -- never, ever believe the "official story." And regardless of Assange's guilt or innocence (see the strange nature of the allegations here), this man has the right to have bail posted and to defend himself. I have joined with filmmakers Ken Loach and John Pilger and writer Jemima Khan in putting up the bail money -- and we hope the judge will accept this and grant his release today.

    Might WikiLeaks cause some unintended harm to diplomatic negotiations and U.S. interests around the world? Perhaps. But that's the price you pay when you and your government take us into a war based on a lie. Your punishment for misbehaving is that someone has to turn on all the lights in the room so that we can see what you're up to. You simply can't be trusted. So every cable, every email you write is now fair game. Sorry, but you brought this upon yourself. No one can hide from the truth now. No one can plot the next Big Lie if they know that they might be exposed.

    And that is the best thing that WikiLeaks has done. WikiLeaks, God bless them, will save lives as a result of their actions. And any of you who join me in supporting them are committing a true act of patriotism. Period.

    I stand today in absentia with Julian Assange in London and I ask the judge to grant him his release. I am willing to guarantee his return to court with the bail money I have wired to said court. I will not allow this injustice to continue unchallenged.

    Yours,
    Michael Moore
    <!-- e --><a href="mailto:MMFlint@aol.com">MMFlint@aol.com</a><!-- e -->
    MichaelMoore.com

    doesn't he have some awful film to be promoting?
    www.myspace.com
  • CommyCommy Posts: 4,984
    Byrnzie wrote:
    Why I'm Posting Bail Money for Julian Assange (A statement from Michael Moore)

    Tuesday, December 14th, 2010


    Friends,

    Yesterday, in the Westminster Magistrates Court in London, the lawyers for WikiLeaks co-founder Julian Assange presented to the judge a document from me stating that I have put up $20,000 of my own money to help bail Mr. Assange out of jail.

    Furthermore, I am publicly offering the assistance of my website, my servers, my domain names and anything else I can do to keep WikiLeaks alive and thriving as it continues its work to expose the crimes that were concocted in secret and carried out in our name and with our tax dollars.

    We were taken to war in Iraq on a lie. Hundreds of thousands are now dead. Just imagine if the men who planned this war crime back in 2002 had had a WikiLeaks to deal with. They might not have been able to pull it off. The only reason they thought they could get away with it was because they had a guaranteed cloak of secrecy. That guarantee has now been ripped from them, and I hope they are never able to operate in secret again.

    So why is WikiLeaks, after performing such an important public service, under such vicious attack? Because they have outed and embarrassed those who have covered up the truth. The assault on them has been over the top:

    **Sen. Joe Lieberman says WikiLeaks "has violated the Espionage Act."

    **The New Yorker's George Packer calls Assange "super-secretive, thin-skinned, [and] megalomaniacal."

    **Sarah Palin claims he's "an anti-American operative with blood on his hands" whom we should pursue "with the same urgency we pursue al Qaeda and Taliban leaders."

    **Democrat Bob Beckel (Walter Mondale's 1984 campaign manager) said about Assange on Fox: "A dead man can't leak stuff ... there's only one way to do it: illegally shoot the son of a bitch."

    **Republican Mary Matalin says "he's a psychopath, a sociopath ... He's a terrorist."

    **Rep. Peter A. King calls WikiLeaks a "terrorist organization."

    And indeed they are! They exist to terrorize the liars and warmongers who have brought ruin to our nation and to others. Perhaps the next war won't be so easy because the tables have been turned -- and now it's Big Brother who's being watched ... by us!

    WikiLeaks deserves our thanks for shining a huge spotlight on all this. But some in the corporate-owned press have dismissed the importance of WikiLeaks ("they've released little that's new!") or have painted them as simple anarchists ("WikiLeaks just releases everything without any editorial control!"). WikiLeaks exists, in part, because the mainstream media has failed to live up to its responsibility. The corporate owners have decimated newsrooms, making it impossible for good journalists to do their job. There's no time or money anymore for investigative journalism. Simply put, investors don't want those stories exposed. They like their secrets kept ... as secrets.

    I ask you to imagine how much different our world would be if WikiLeaks had existed 10 years ago. Take a look at this photo. That's Mr. Bush about to be handed a "secret" document on August 6th, 2001. Its heading read: "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US." And on those pages it said the FBI had discovered "patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings." Mr. Bush decided to ignore it and went fishing for the next four weeks.

    But if that document had been leaked, how would you or I have reacted? What would Congress or the FAA have done? Was there not a greater chance that someone, somewhere would have done something if all of us knew about bin Laden's impending attack using hijacked planes?

    But back then only a few people had access to that document. Because the secret was kept, a flight school instructor in San Diego who noticed that two Saudi students took no interest in takeoffs or landings, did nothing. Had he read about the bin Laden threat in the paper, might he have called the FBI? (Please read this essay by former FBI Agent Coleen Rowley, Time's 2002 co-Person of the Year, about her belief that had WikiLeaks been around in 2001, 9/11 might have been prevented.)

    Or what if the public in 2003 had been able to read "secret" memos from Dick Cheney as he pressured the CIA to give him the "facts" he wanted in order to build his false case for war? If a WikiLeaks had revealed at that time that there were, in fact, no weapons of mass destruction, do you think that the war would have been launched -- or rather, wouldn't there have been calls for Cheney's arrest?

    Openness, transparency -- these are among the few weapons the citizenry has to protect itself from the powerful and the corrupt. What if within days of August 4th, 1964 -- after the Pentagon had made up the lie that our ship was attacked by the North Vietnamese in the Gulf of Tonkin -- there had been a WikiLeaks to tell the American people that the whole thing was made up? I guess 58,000 of our soldiers (and 2 million Vietnamese) might be alive today.

    Instead, secrets killed them.

    For those of you who think it's wrong to support Julian Assange because of the sexual assault allegations he's being held for, all I ask is that you not be naive about how the government works when it decides to go after its prey. Please -- never, ever believe the "official story." And regardless of Assange's guilt or innocence (see the strange nature of the allegations here), this man has the right to have bail posted and to defend himself. I have joined with filmmakers Ken Loach and John Pilger and writer Jemima Khan in putting up the bail money -- and we hope the judge will accept this and grant his release today.

    Might WikiLeaks cause some unintended harm to diplomatic negotiations and U.S. interests around the world? Perhaps. But that's the price you pay when you and your government take us into a war based on a lie. Your punishment for misbehaving is that someone has to turn on all the lights in the room so that we can see what you're up to. You simply can't be trusted. So every cable, every email you write is now fair game. Sorry, but you brought this upon yourself. No one can hide from the truth now. No one can plot the next Big Lie if they know that they might be exposed.

    And that is the best thing that WikiLeaks has done. WikiLeaks, God bless them, will save lives as a result of their actions. And any of you who join me in supporting them are committing a true act of patriotism. Period.

    I stand today in absentia with Julian Assange in London and I ask the judge to grant him his release. I am willing to guarantee his return to court with the bail money I have wired to said court. I will not allow this injustice to continue unchallenged.

    Yours,
    Michael Moore
    <!-- e --><a href="mailto:MMFlint@aol.com">MMFlint@aol.com</a><!-- e -->
    MichaelMoore.com

    doesn't he have some awful film to be promoting?


    that's one thing, if you have ever seen any of his films, you can't really call moore out on. his documentaries are really well made.

    whether you agree with them or not is something else.
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    doesn't he have some awful film to be promoting?

    What does this have to do with the article? Nothing.

    Still, shooting the messanger is always the easiest option. Just ask Julian Assange.
  • The JugglerThe Juggler Posts: 49,257
    Commy wrote:

    Friends,

    Yesterday, in the Westminster Magistrates Court in London, the lawyers for WikiLeaks co-founder Julian Assange presented to the judge a document from me stating that I have put up $20,000 of my own money to help bail Mr. Assange out of jail.

    Furthermore, I am publicly offering the assistance of my website, my servers, my domain names and anything else I can do to keep WikiLeaks alive and thriving as it continues its work to expose the crimes that were concocted in secret and carried out in our name and with our tax dollars.

    We were taken to war in Iraq on a lie. Hundreds of thousands are now dead. Just imagine if the men who planned this war crime back in 2002 had had a WikiLeaks to deal with. They might not have been able to pull it off. The only reason they thought they could get away with it was because they had a guaranteed cloak of secrecy. That guarantee has now been ripped from them, and I hope they are never able to operate in secret again.

    So why is WikiLeaks, after performing such an important public service, under such vicious attack? Because they have outed and embarrassed those who have covered up the truth. The assault on them has been over the top:

    **Sen. Joe Lieberman says WikiLeaks "has violated the Espionage Act."

    **The New Yorker's George Packer calls Assange "super-secretive, thin-skinned, [and] megalomaniacal."

    **Sarah Palin claims he's "an anti-American operative with blood on his hands" whom we should pursue "with the same urgency we pursue al Qaeda and Taliban leaders."

    **Democrat Bob Beckel (Walter Mondale's 1984 campaign manager) said about Assange on Fox: "A dead man can't leak stuff ... there's only one way to do it: illegally shoot the son of a bitch."

    **Republican Mary Matalin says "he's a psychopath, a sociopath ... He's a terrorist."

    **Rep. Peter A. King calls WikiLeaks a "terrorist organization."

    And indeed they are! They exist to terrorize the liars and warmongers who have brought ruin to our nation and to others. Perhaps the next war won't be so easy because the tables have been turned -- and now it's Big Brother who's being watched ... by us!

    WikiLeaks deserves our thanks for shining a huge spotlight on all this. But some in the corporate-owned press have dismissed the importance of WikiLeaks ("they've released little that's new!") or have painted them as simple anarchists ("WikiLeaks just releases everything without any editorial control!"). WikiLeaks exists, in part, because the mainstream media has failed to live up to its responsibility. The corporate owners have decimated newsrooms, making it impossible for good journalists to do their job. There's no time or money anymore for investigative journalism. Simply put, investors don't want those stories exposed. They like their secrets kept ... as secrets.

    I ask you to imagine how much different our world would be if WikiLeaks had existed 10 years ago. Take a look at this photo. That's Mr. Bush about to be handed a "secret" document on August 6th, 2001. Its heading read: "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US." And on those pages it said the FBI had discovered "patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings." Mr. Bush decided to ignore it and went fishing for the next four weeks.

    But if that document had been leaked, how would you or I have reacted? What would Congress or the FAA have done? Was there not a greater chance that someone, somewhere would have done something if all of us knew about bin Laden's impending attack using hijacked planes?

    But back then only a few people had access to that document. Because the secret was kept, a flight school instructor in San Diego who noticed that two Saudi students took no interest in takeoffs or landings, did nothing. Had he read about the bin Laden threat in the paper, might he have called the FBI? (Please read this essay by former FBI Agent Coleen Rowley, Time's 2002 co-Person of the Year, about her belief that had WikiLeaks been around in 2001, 9/11 might have been prevented.)

    Or what if the public in 2003 had been able to read "secret" memos from Dick Cheney as he pressured the CIA to give him the "facts" he wanted in order to build his false case for war? If a WikiLeaks had revealed at that time that there were, in fact, no weapons of mass destruction, do you think that the war would have been launched -- or rather, wouldn't there have been calls for Cheney's arrest?

    Openness, transparency -- these are among the few weapons the citizenry has to protect itself from the powerful and the corrupt. What if within days of August 4th, 1964 -- after the Pentagon had made up the lie that our ship was attacked by the North Vietnamese in the Gulf of Tonkin -- there had been a WikiLeaks to tell the American people that the whole thing was made up? I guess 58,000 of our soldiers (and 2 million Vietnamese) might be alive today.

    Instead, secrets killed them.

    For those of you who think it's wrong to support Julian Assange because of the sexual assault allegations he's being held for, all I ask is that you not be naive about how the government works when it decides to go after its prey. Please -- never, ever believe the "official story." And regardless of Assange's guilt or innocence (see the strange nature of the allegations here), this man has the right to have bail posted and to defend himself. I have joined with filmmakers Ken Loach and John Pilger and writer Jemima Khan in putting up the bail money -- and we hope the judge will accept this and grant his release today.

    Might WikiLeaks cause some unintended harm to diplomatic negotiations and U.S. interests around the world? Perhaps. But that's the price you pay when you and your government take us into a war based on a lie. Your punishment for misbehaving is that someone has to turn on all the lights in the room so that we can see what you're up to. You simply can't be trusted. So every cable, every email you write is now fair game. Sorry, but you brought this upon yourself. No one can hide from the truth now. No one can plot the next Big Lie if they know that they might be exposed.

    And that is the best thing that WikiLeaks has done. WikiLeaks, God bless them, will save lives as a result of their actions. And any of you who join me in supporting them are committing a true act of patriotism. Period.

    I stand today in absentia with Julian Assange in London and I ask the judge to grant him his release. I am willing to guarantee his return to court with the bail money I have wired to said court. I will not allow this injustice to continue unchallenged.

    Yours,
    Michael Moore
    <!-- e --><a href="mailto:MMFlint@aol.com">MMFlint@aol.com</a><!-- e -->
    MichaelMoore.com

    doesn't he have some awful film to be promoting?


    that's one thing, if you have ever seen any of his films, you can't really call moore out on. his documentaries are really well made.

    whether you agree with them or not is something else.[/quote]

    i've seen all his films. they're rubbish.
    www.myspace.com
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    This case is such bullshit. It really borders on the absurd. The first woman felt so threatened and distressed with the 'incident' that she continued living with Assange and having sex with him for another week. The second woman felt so threatened and distressed with the 'incident' that she threw a party for Assane that same night and then had sex with him again a couple of days later.

    What a fucking stitch-up. I wonder how much money the authorities have agreed to pay them for this sham?

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/de ... nge-sweden

    10 days in Sweden: the full allegations against Julian Assange

    Unseen police documents provide the first complete account of the allegations against the WikiLeaks founder

    * Nick Davies
    * guardian.co.uk, Friday 17 December 2010


    Documents seen by the Guardian reveal for the first time the full details of the allegations of rape and sexual assault that have led to extradition hearings against the WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange.

    The case against Assange, which has been the subject of intense speculation and dispute in mainstream media and on the internet, is laid out in police material held in Stockholm to which the Guardian received unauthorised access.

    Assange, who was released on bail on Thursday, denies the Swedish allegations and has not formally been charged with any offence. The two Swedish women behind the charges have been accused by his supporters of making malicious complaints or being "honeytraps" in a wider conspiracy to discredit him.

    Assange's UK lawyer, Mark Stephens, attributed the allegations to "dark forces", saying: "The honeytrap has been sprung ... After what we've seen so far you can reasonably conclude this is part of a greater plan." The journalist John Pilger dismissed the case as a "political stunt" and in an interview with ABC news, Assange said Swedish prosecutors were withholding evidence which suggested he had been "set up."

    However, unredacted statements held by prosecutors in Stockholm, along with interviews with some of the central characters, shed fresh light on the hotly disputed sequence of events that has become the centre of a global storm.

    Stephens has repeatedly complained that Assange has not been allowed to see the full allegations against him, but it is understood his Swedish defence team have copies of all the documents seen by the Guardian. He maintains that other potentially exculpatory evidence has not been made available to his team and may not have been seen by the Guardian.

    The allegations centre on a 10-day period after Assange flew into Stockholm on Wednesday 11 August. One of the women, named in court as Miss A, told police that she had arranged Assange's trip to Sweden, and let him stay in her flat because she was due to be away. She returned early, on Friday 13 August, after which the pair went for a meal and then returned to her flat.

    Her account to police, which Assange disputes, stated that he began stroking her leg as they drank tea, before he pulled off her clothes and snapped a necklace that she was wearing. According to her statement she "tried to put on some articles of clothing as it was going too quickly and uncomfortably but Assange ripped them off again". Miss A told police that she didn't want to go any further "but that it was too late to stop Assange as she had gone along with it so far", and so she allowed him to undress her.

    According to the statement, Miss A then realised he was trying to have unprotected sex with her. She told police that she had tried a number of times to reach for a condom but Assange had stopped her by holding her arms and pinning her legs. The statement records Miss A describing how Assange then released her arms and agreed to use a condom, but she told the police that at some stage Assange had "done something" with the condom that resulted in it becoming ripped, and ejaculated without withdrawing.

    When he was later interviewed by police in Stockholm, Assange agreed that he had had sex with Miss A but said he did not tear the condom, and that he was not aware that it had been torn. He told police that he had continued to sleep in Miss A's bed for the following week and she had never mentioned a torn condom.

    On the following morning, Saturday 14 August, Assange spoke at a seminar organised by Miss A. A second woman, Miss W, had contacted Miss A to ask if she could attend. Both women joined Assange, the co-ordinator of the Swedish WikiLeaks group, whom we will call "Harold", and a few others for lunch.

    Assange left the lunch with Miss W. She told the police she and Assange had visited the place where she worked and had then gone to a cinema where they had moved to the back row. He had kissed her and put his hands inside her clothing, she said.

    That evening, Miss A held a party at her flat. One of her friends, "Monica", later told police that during the party Miss A had told her about the ripped condom and unprotected sex. Another friend told police that during the evening Miss A told her she had had "the worst sex ever" with Assange: "Not only had it been the world's worst screw, it had also been violent."

    Assange's supporters point out that, despite her complaints against him, Miss A held a party for him on that evening and continued to allow him to stay in her flat.

    On Sunday 15 August, Monica told police, Miss A told her that she thought Assange had torn the condom on purpose. According to Monica, Miss A said Assange was still staying in her flat but they were not having sex because he had "exceeded the limits of what she felt she could accept" and she did not feel safe.

    The following day, Miss W phoned Assange and arranged to meet him late in the evening, according to her statement. The pair went back to her flat in Enkoping, near Stockholm. Miss W told police that though they started to have sex, Assange had not wanted to wear a condom, and she had moved away because she had not wanted unprotected sex. Assange had then lost interest, she said, and fallen asleep. However, during the night, they had both woken up and had sex at least once when "he agreed unwillingly to use a condom".

    Early the next morning, Miss W told police, she had gone to buy breakfast before getting back into bed and falling asleep beside Assange. She had awoken to find him having sex with her, she said, but when she asked whether he was wearing a condom he said no. "According to her statement, she said: 'You better not have HIV' and he answered: 'Of course not,' " but "she couldn't be bothered to tell him one more time because she had been going on about the condom all night. She had never had unprotected sex before."

    The police record of the interview with Assange in Stockhom deals only with the complaint made by Miss A. However, Assange and his lawyers have repeatedly stressed that he denies any kind of wrongdoing in relation to Miss W.

    In submissions to the Swedish courts, they have argued that Miss W took the initiative in contacting Assange, that on her own account she willingly engaged in sexual activity in a cinema and voluntarily took him to her flat where, she agrees, they had consensual sex. They say that she never indicated to Assange that she did not want to have sex with him. They also say that in a text message to a friend, she never suggested she had been raped and claimed only to have been "half asleep".

    Police spoke to Miss W's ex-boyfriend, who told them that in two and a half years they had never had sex without a condom because it was "unthinkable" for her. Miss W told police she went to a chemist to buy a morning-after pill and also went to hospital to be tested for STDs. Police statements record her contacting Assange to ask him to get a test and his refusing on the grounds that he did not have the time.

    On Wednesday 18 August, according to police records, Miss A told Harold and a friend that Assange would not leave her flat and was sleeping in her bed, although she was not having sex with him and he spent most of the night sitting with his computer. Harold told police he had asked Assange why he was refusing to leave the flat and that Assange had said he was very surprised, because Miss A had not asked him to leave. Miss A says she spent Wednesday night on a mattress and then moved to a friend's flat so she did not have to be near him. She told police that Assange had continued to make sexual advances to her every day after they slept together and on Wednesday 18 August had approached her, naked from the waist down, and rubbed himself against her.

    The following day, Harold told police, Miss A called him and for the first time gave him a full account of her complaints about Assange. Harold told police he regarded her as "very, very credible" and he confronted Assange, who said he was completely shocked by the claims and denied all of them. By Friday 20 August, Miss W had texted Miss A looking for help in finding Assange. The two women met and compared stories.

    Harold has independently told the Guardian Miss A made a series of calls to him asking him to persuade Assange to take an STD test to reassure Miss W, and that Assange refused. Miss A then warned if Assange did not take a test, Miss W would go to the police. Assange had rejected this as blackmail, Harold told police.

    Assange told police that Miss A spoke to him directly and complained to him that he had torn their condom, something that he regarded as false.

    Late that Friday afternoon, Harold told police, Assange agreed to take a test, but the clinics had closed for the weekend. Miss A phoned Harold to say that she and Miss W had been to the police, who had told them that they couldn't simply tell Assange to take a test, that their statements must be passed to the prosecutor. That night, the story leaked to the Swedish newspaper Expressen.

    By Saturday morning, 21 August, journalists were asking Assange for a reaction. At 9.15am, he tweeted: "We were warned to expect 'dirty tricks'. Now we have the first one." The following day, he tweeted: "Reminder: US intelligence planned to destroy WikiLeaks as far back as 2008."

    The Swedish tabloid Aftonbladet asked if he had had sex with his two accusers. He said: "Their identities have been made anonymous so even I have no idea who they are. We have been warned that the Pentagon, for example, is thinking of deploying dirty tricks to ruin us."

    Assange's Swedish lawyers have since suggested that Miss W's text messages – which the Guardian has not seen – show that she was thinking of contacting Expressen and that one of her friends told her she should get money for her story. However, police statements by the friend offer a more innocent explanation: they say these text messages were exchanged several days after the women had made their complaint. They followed an inquiry from a foreign newspaper and were meant jokingly, the friend stated to police.

    The Guardian understands that the recent Swedish decision to apply for an international arrest warrant followed a decision by Assange to leave Sweden in late September and not return for a scheduled meeting when he was due to be interviewed by the prosecutor. Assange's supporters have denied this, but Assange himself told friends in London that he was supposed to return to Stockholm for a police interview during the week beginning 11 October, and that he had decided to stay away. Prosecution documents seen by the Guardian record that he was due to be interviewed on 14 October.

    The co-ordinator of the WikiLeaks group in Stockholm, who is a close colleague of Assange and who also knows both women, told the Guardian: "This is a normal police investigation. Let the police find out what actually happened. Of course, the enemies of WikiLeaks may try to use this, but it begins with the two women and Julian. It is not the CIA sending a woman in a short skirt."

    Assange's lawyers were asked to respond on his behalf to the allegations in the documents seen by the Guardian on Wednesday evening. Tonight they said they were still unable obtain a response from Assange.

    Assange's solicitor, Mark Stephens, said: "The allegations of the complainants are not credible and were dismissed by the senior Stockholm prosecutor as not worthy of further investigation." He said Miss A had sent two Twitter messages that appeared to undermine her account in the police statement.

    Assange's defence team had so far been provided by prosecutors with only incomplete evidence, he said. "There are many more text and SMS messages from and to the complainants which have been shown by the assistant prosecutor to the Swedish defence lawyer, Bjorn Hurtig, which suggest motivations of malice and money in going to the police and to Espressen and raise the issue of political motivation behind the presentation of these complaints. He [Hurtig] has been precluded from making notes or copying them.

    "We understand that both complainants admit to having initiated consensual sexual relations with Mr Assange. They do not complain of any physical injury. The first complainant did not make a complaint for six days (in which she hosted the respondent in her flat [actually her bed] and spoke in the warmest terms about him to her friends) until she discovered he had spent the night with the other complainant.

    "The second complainant, too, failed to complain for several days until she found out about the first complainant: she claimed that after several acts of consensual sexual intercourse, she fell half asleep and thinks that he ejaculated without using a condom – a possibility about which she says they joked afterwards.


    "Both complainants say they did not report him to the police for prosecution but only to require him to have an STD test. However, his Swedish lawyer has been shown evidence of their text messages which indicate that they were concerned to obtain money by going to a tabloid newspaper and were motivated by other matters including a desire for revenge."
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    December 18th, 2010 4:47 AM
    ¡Viva WikiLeaks! SiCKO Was Not Banned in Cuba

    By Michael Moore


    Yesterday WikiLeaks did an amazing thing and released a classified State Department cable that dealt, in part, with me and my film, 'Sicko.'

    It is a stunning look at the Orwellian nature of how bureaucrats for the State spin their lies and try to recreate reality (I assume to placate their bosses and tell them what they want to hear).

    The date is January 31, 2008. It is just days after 'Sicko' has been nominated for an Oscar as Best Documentary. This must have sent someone reeling in Bush's State Department (his Treasury Department had already notified me they were investigating what laws I might have broken in taking three 9/11 first responders to Cuba to get them the health care they had been denied in the United States).

    Former health insurance executive Wendell Potter recently revealed that the insurance industry -- which had decided to spend millions to go after me and, if necessary, "push Michael Moore off a cliff" -- had begun working with anti-Castro Cubans in Miami in order to have them speak out and smear my film.

    So, on January 31, 2008, a State Department official stationed in Havana took a made up story and sent it back to his HQ in Washington. Here's what they concocted:

    XXXXXXXXXXXX stated that Cuban authorities have banned Michael Moore's documentary, "Sicko," as being subversive. Although the film's intent is to discredit the U.S. healthcare system by highlighting the excellence of the Cuban system, he said the regime knows the film is a myth and does not want to risk a popular backlash by showing to Cubans facilities that are clearly not available to the vast majority of them.

    Sounds convincing, eh?! There's only one problem -- 'Sicko' had just been playing in Cuban theaters. Then the entire nation of Cuba was shown the film on national television on April 25, 2008! The Cubans embraced the film so much so it became one of those rare American movies that received a theatrical distribution in Cuba. I personally ensured that a 35mm print got to the Film Institute in Havana. Screenings of 'Sicko' were set up in towns all across the country.

    But the secret cable said Cubans were banned from seeing my movie. Hmmm.

    We also know from another secret U.S. document that "the disenchantment of the masses [in Cuba] has spread through all the provinces," and that "all of Oriente Province is seething with hate" for the Castro regime. There's a huge active underground rebellion, and "workers there readily give all the support they can," with everyone involved in "subtle sabotage" against the government. Morale is terrible throughout all the branches of the armed forces, and in the event of war the army "will not fight." Wow -- this cable is hot!

    Of course, this secret U.S. cable is from March 31, 1961, three weeks before Cuba kicked our asses at the Bay of Pigs.

    The U.S. government has been passing around these "secret" documents to itself for the past fifty years, explaining in painstaking detail how horrible things are in Cuba and how Cubans are quietly aching for us to come back and take over. I don't know why we write these cables, I guess it just makes us feel better about ourselves. (Anyone curious can find an entire museum of U.S. wish fulfillment cables on the website of the National Security Archive.)

    So what do you do about a false "secret" cable, especially one that involves you and your movie? Well, you wait for a responsible newspaper to investigate and shout what it discovers from the rooftops.

    But yesterday WikiLeaks gave the 'Sicko' Cuba cable to the media -- and what did they do with it? They ran it as if it were true! Here's the headline in the Guardian:

    WikiLeaks: Cuba banned Sicko for depicting 'mythical' healthcare system

    Authorities feared footage of gleaming hospital in Michael Moore's Oscar-nominated film would provoke a popular backlash

    And not one scintilla of digging to see if Cuba had actually banned the movie! In fact, just the opposite. The right wing press started to have a field day reporting a lie (Andy Levy of Fox -- twice -- Reason Magazine, Spectator and Hot Air, plus a slew of blogs). Sadly, even BoingBoing and my friends at the Nation wrote about it without skepticism. So here you have WikiLeaks, who have put themselves on the line to find and release these cables to the press -- and traditional journalists are once again just too lazy to lift a finger, point and click their mouse to log into Nexis or search via Google, and look to see if Cuba really did "ban the film." Had just ONE reporter done that, here's what they would have found:

    June 16, 2007 Saturday 1:41 AM GMT [that's 7 months before the false cable]

    HEADLINE: Cuban health minister says Moore's 'Sicko' shows 'human values' of communist system

    BYLINE: By ANDREA RODRIGUEZ, Associated Press Writer

    DATELINE: HAVANA

    Cuba's health minister Jose Ramon Balaguer said Friday that American filmmaker Michael Moore's documentary 'Sicko' highlights the human values of the island's communist-run government... "There can be no doubt this documentary by a personality like Mr. Michael Moore helps promote the profoundly human principles of Cuban society."

    Or, how 'bout this little April 25, 2008 notice from CubaSi.Cu (translation by Google):

    Sicko premiere in Cuba

    25/04/2008

    The documentary Sicko, the U.S. filmmaker Michael Moore, which deals about the deplorable state of American health care system will be released today at 5:50 pm, for the space Cubavision Roundtable and the Education Channel.

    Then there's this from Juventudrebelde.cu (translation by Google). Or this Cuban editorial (translation by Google). There's even a long clip of the Cuba section of 'Sicko' on the homepage of Media Roundtable on the CubaSi.cu website!

    OK, so we know the media is lazy and sucks most of the time. But the bigger issue here is how our government seemed to be colluding with the health insurance industry to destroy a film that might have a hand in bringing about what the Cubans already have in their poverty-ridden third world country: free, universal health care. And because they have it and we don't, Cuba has a better infant mortality rate than we do, their life expectancy is just 7 months shorter than ours, and, according to the WHO, they rank just two places behind the richest country on earth in terms of the quality of their health care.

    That's the story, mainstream media and right-wing haters.

    Now that you've been presented with the facts, what are you going to do about it? Are you gonna attack me for having my movie played on Cuban state television? Or are you gonna attack me for not having my movie played on Cuban state television?

    You have to choose one, it can't be both.

    And since the facts show that the movie played on state TV and in theaters, I think you're better off attacking me for having my films played in Cuba.

    ¡Viva WikiLeaks!
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    On the subject of Wikileaks from John Pilger's latest documentary 'The War You Dont See':
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymX4kr-r ... re=related

    As an aside, I find it interesting that the Apache helicopter pilot in the Wikileaks released video of the attack on the journalists and other civilians in a Baghdad street comments that 'Well It's their fault for bringing their kids into a battle'.
    What battle? When some murdering cocksucker sits one mile away in an Apache heliopter and massacres a bunch of civilians, including a four year old girl and a seven year old boy, that isn't a battle. These murdering bastards haven't been engaged in any battle. They're nothing but cowards who kill innocent people the same way they play videogames at home.
  • The JugglerThe Juggler Posts: 49,257
    language, please.

    thank you.
    www.myspace.com
Sign In or Register to comment.