Having broken up disastrously in theprevious episode,J.D.andElliottry to avoid each other around the hospital. J.D.'s distress isn't made any easier when he finds out that his favorite high school teacher -- who wrote the reference that led J.D. to go into medicine -- recently died. His reaction to the news is typical J.D., though: he cracks a joke about it.
Cox destroys Franklyn's lab
That same day,Dr. Coxgets angry and destroysFranklyn's lab when his test results don't come back on time. That night, he goes to J.D.'s house and takes him to a bar (dragging J.D. out in his pajamas) where they spend the night drinking, and Cox tells J.D. that he can't take it anymore at the hospital. But, much to the confusion of J.D., Dr. Cox comes to work the next day in a good mood. When J.D. confronts him about it, Dr. Cox explains that everybody needs to release their emotions at times.
Meanwhile,Turkasks Elliot to help him with his studying, but leaves him whenThe Toddclaims that she was only picked for being a geek. Later, Turk explains that he chose Elliot for his partner to encourage her and J.D. to make up with one another. The two do just that, and the episode ends with J.D., Elliot, Turk and Carla throwing food off the roof of the hospital, much to theJanitor's horror.
DNS provider EveryDNS.net has dropped the wikileaks.org domain, apparently after DDoS attacks, WikiLeaks has said onTwitter.
EveryDNSexplainedits decision: "The interference at issue arises from the fact that wikileaks.org has become the target of multiple distributed denial of service (DDOS) attacks. These attacks have, and future attacks would, threaten the stability of the EveryDNS.net infrastructure, which enables access to almost 500,000 other websites."
Daniel Ellsberg has posted an open letter to Amazon atAntiwar.com:
"I’m disgusted by Amazon’s cowardice and servility in abruptly terminating today its hosting of the Wikileaks website, in the face of threats from Senator Joe Lieberman and other Congressional right-wingers. I want no further association with any company that encourages legislative and executive officials to aspire to China’s control of information and deterrence of whistle-blowing.[...]
I understand that many other regular customers feel as I do and are responding the same way. Good: the broader and more immediate the boycott, the better. I hope that these others encourage their contact lists to do likewise and to let Amazon know exactly why they’re shifting their business." Read more
"WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is at the centre of intense media speculation and a hate campaign against him in America, following the leak of 250,000 US diplomatic cables.
He will be live online to answer Guardian readers' questions at 1pm today, subject to his access to an internet connection - which is very much a live issue. His online interview comes at the end of a week of shocking revelations from the cables and on a day when WikiLeaks has been fighting US attempts to take its website down.
Assange will answer your questions in the comments section below. From 1pm you will need to navigate to the latest comments for his replies."
Update 1:The Q&A page proved so popular that it crashed the Guardian website. "...please be patient: the Guardian site is under *huge* load because of the #Wikileaks Julian Assange Q+A," tweeted@guardiantech.
Update 2:The Guardian has posted Julian Assange's answershere.
France:The French minister for industry, energy and digital economy, Eric Besson, wrote to CGIET, the body governing internet use, to ask that hosting for WikiLeaks in France be terminated, reportsLibération. WikiLeaks has been partly hosted by French provider OVH since December 2nd, after Amazon cancelled its hosting serviceunder political pressurefrom Sen. Lieberman's office.
Besson wrote that "The situation is unacceptable. France cannot host websites that violate diplomatic relations secrecy and endanger persons protected by diplomatic confidentiality. We cannot host sites that have been called criminal and rejected by other countries on the basis of harm to national rights." One would be tempted to ask Mr. Besson whether he is suggesting that Le Monde cannot be hosted in France either, seeing as how the paper has published exactly the same material as WikiLeaks.
OVH however did not bow to the pressure, responding in a letter that it will refer the issue of the legality of hosting WikiLeaks to a judge, and that "it was not up to the politicians or OVH to request or decide the closure of the site."
Pakistan:The Lahore High Court on Friday dismissed a petition seeking a ban on the Wikileaks website. The petition argued that "since Pakistan had good bilateral relations with a number of countries, particularly Saudi Arabia, the leakage of secret information would adversely affect these ties," reportsPakistan Dawn
High Court Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed dismissed the petition, calling it non-maintainable. "We must bear the truth, no matter how harmful it is," Justice Saeed was quoted as saying.
Russia:While theWashington Timesprominently featured an op-ed by Jeffrey T. Kuhner titled "Assassinate Assange,"Pravda's legal editor David R. Hoffman argues for transparency and a free press:
"And we see many right-wing commentators demanding that Assange be hunted down, with some even calling for his murder, on the grounds that he may have endangered lives by releasing confidential government documents.
Yet, for the right-wing, this apparently was not a concern when the late columnist Robert Novak "outed" CIA agent Valerie Plame after her husband Joseph Wilson authored an OP-ED piece in The New York Times criticizing the motivations for waging war against Iraq. Even though there was evidence of involvement within the highest echelons of the Bush dictatorship, only one person, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, was indicted and convicted of "outing" Plame to Novak. And, despite the fact that this "outing" potentially endangered the lives of Plame's overseas contacts, Bush commuted Libby's thirty-month prison sentence, calling it "excessive."
Why the disparity? The answer is simple: The Plame "outing" served the interests of the military-industrial complex and helped to conceal the Bush dictatorship's lies, tortures and war crimes, while Wikileaks not only exposed such evils, but also revealed how Obama's administration, and Obama himself, are little more than "snake oil" merchants pontificating about government accountability while undermining it at every turn.[...]
And damn the right-wing outrage over the Wikileaks revelations. It is the American people who should be outraged that its government has transformed a nation with a reputation for freedom, justice, tolerance and respect for human rights into a backwater that revels in its criminality, cover-ups, injustices and hypocrisies.
So savor the Wikileaks documents while you can, because soon they'll be gone. And for the government criminals of the world, and for those who protect them, it will again be business as usual."
United States:We have already coveredAmazon,TableauandEveryDNSdropping WikiLeaks services, and at least the first two clearly linked to political pressure. It had been already reported that the State Department hadprohibited its stafffrom accessing WikiLeaks, but now we learn that it went as far as towarn prospective student internsto "NOT post links to these documents nor make comments on social media sites such as Facebook or through Twitter."
And in an even more surprising development,Talking Points Memoreports that the Library of Congress has blocked access to the Wikileaks site on its staff computers and on the wireless network that visitors use.
If something looks wrong with this picture, it probably is.
In its first months in office, the Obama administration sought to protect Bush administration officials facing criminal investigation overseas for their involvement in establishing policies the that governed interrogations of detained terrorist suspects. A "confidential" April 17, 2009,cablesent from the US embassy in Madrid to the State Department—one of the 251,287 cables obtained by WikiLeaks—details how the Obama administration, working with Republicans, leaned on Spain to derail this potential prosecution.
The previous month, a Spanish human rights group called the Association for the Dignity of Spanish Prisoners had requested that Spain's National Court indict six former Bush officials for, as the cable describes it, "creating a legal framework that allegedly permitted torture." The six were former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales; David Addington, former chief of staff and legal adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney; William Haynes, the Pentagon's former general counsel; Douglas Feith, former undersecretary of defense for policy; Jay Bybee, former head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel; and John Yoo, a former official in the Office of Legal Counsel. The human rights group contended that Spain had a duty to open an investigation under the nation's "universal jurisdiction" law, which permits its legal system to prosecute overseas human rights crimes involving Spanish citizens and residents. Five Guantanamo detainees, the group maintained, fit that criteria.
Soon after the request was made, the US embassy in Madrid began tracking the matter. On April 1, embassy officials spoke with chief prosecutor Javier Zaragoza, who indicated that he was not pleased to have been handed this case, but he believed that the complaint appeared to be well-documented and he'd have to pursue it. Around that time, the acting deputy chief of the US embassy talked to the chief of staff for Spain's foreign minister and a senior official in the Spanish Ministry of Justice to convey, as the cable says, "that this was a very serious matter for the USG." The two Spaniards "expressed their concern at the case but stressed the independence of the Spanish judiciary."
Two weeks later, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) and the embassy's charge d'affaires "raised the issue" with another official at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The next day, Zaragoza informed the US embassy that the complaint might not be legally sound. He noted he would ask Cándido Conde-Pumpido, Spain's attorney general, to review whether Spain had jurisdiction.
On April 15, Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.), who'd recently been chairman of the Republican Party, and the US embassy's charge d'affaires met with the acting Spanish foreign minister, Angel Lossada. The Americans, according to this cable, "underscored that the prosecutions would not be understood or accepted in the US and would have an enormous impact on the bilateral relationship" between Spain and the United States. Here was a former head of the GOP and a representative of a new Democratic administration (headed by a president who had decried the Bush-Cheney administration's use of torture) jointly applying pressure on Spain to kill the investigation of the former Bush officials. Lossada replied that the independence of the Spanish judiciary had to be respected, but he added that the government would send a message to the attorney general that it did not favor prosecuting this case.
The next day, April 16, 2009, Attorney General Conde-Pumpido publicly declared that he would not support the criminal complaint, calling it "fraudulent" and political. If the Bush officials had acted criminally, he said, then a case should be filed in the United States. On April 17, the prosecutors of the National Court filed areportasking that complaint be discontinued. In the April 17 cable, the American embassy in Madrid claimed some credit for Conde-Pumpido's opposition, noting that "Conde-Pumpido's public announcement follows outreach to [Government of Spain] officials to raise USG deep concerns on the implications of this case."
Still, this did not end the matter. It would still be up to investigating JudgeBaltasar Garzón—a world-renowned jurist who had initiated previous prosecutions of war crimes and had publicly said that former President George W. Bush ought to be tried for war crimes—to decide whether to pursue the case against the six former Bush officials. That June—coincidentally or not—the Spanish Parliament passed legislation narrowing the use of "universal jurisdiction." Still, in September 2009, Judge Garzónpushed ahead with the case.
The case eventually came to be overseen by another judge who last spring asked the parties behind the complaint to explain why the investigation should continue. Several human rights groups filed abriefurging this judge to keep the case alive, citing the Obama administration's failure to prosecute the Bush officials. Since then, there's been no action. The Obama administration essentially got what it wanted. The case of the Bush Six went away.
Back when it seemed that this case could become a major international issue, during an April 14, 2009, White House briefing, I asked press secretary Robert Gibbs if the Obama administration would cooperate with any request from the Spaniards for information and documents related to the Bush Six. Hesaid, "I don't want to get involved in hypotheticals." What he didn't disclose was that the Obama administration, working with Republicans, was actively pressuring the Spaniards to drop the investigation. Those efforts apparently paid off, and, as this WikiLeaks-released cable shows, Gonzales, Haynes, Feith, Bybee, Addington, and Yoo owed Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton thank-you notes.
One of the women who filed charges against Julian Assange is Anna Ardin. She stood in the elections to the community council for the social democrats and she is a public person who should be examined. So I'll publish her name.
Anna Ardin is christian, feminist, social democrat, animal rights activist, and opponent of abortion on the left political scene. She's previously been in charge of equality issues for the student union of Uppsala University -a job she won an award for. Today she works for theBrotherhood Movementand 'burns for peace and justice... for a just, open society of solidarity'. On her own blog she describes herself:
'A political scientist, communicator, entrepreneur, and freelance writer with special knowledge within faith and politics, gender equality issues, feminism, and Latin America.'
On Saturday 14 August at 14:00she wrote the following on her Twitter account.
'Julian wants to go to a crayfish party, anyone have a couple of available seats tonight or tomorrow? #fb'
Early on the morning of Sunday 15 August (02:00)she writes again at Twitter.
'Sitting outdoors at 02:00 and hardly freezing with the world's coolest smartest people, it's amazing! #fb'
When Anna Ardin files a police complaint against Julian Assange on 20 August these tweets are removed. Why? As far as I can tell, it's not common for victims of crime to delete blogs, clean up their cellphones, and try to get witnesses to attest to things that aren't true. Why is it so important to remove these particular tweets?
If you know that the 'reported molestation' takes place on the night towards 14 August, then it all becomes easier to understand. The tweets actually indicate that Anna really liked Julian and that there had been no molestation 24 hours earlier. You can't divine in the tweets that Anna Ardin thinks Julian has a 'warped view of womanhood and can't take no for an answer'. The tweets are more an attempt by Ardin to shine in the brilliance of Julian Assange. Why else would she publish them on the Internet? The tweets don't match Anna's story given to the police on 20 August. So she simply deletes them.
Proof That Anna Ardin Is Hiding the Truth
In the beginning of September, I note that Anna Ardin has two identical 'miniblogs' - one at Twitter and the other at Bloggy.se. It looks as if Anna Ardin's tweets are posted to both blogs at the same time. The tweets that are deleted from Twitter are still visible at annaardin.bloggy.se. Anna missed the fact that she has to delete on each and every blog. Bad luck.
To see if Anna Ardin is really trying to hide her Twitter tweets, I post a comment to Sara Gunnerud's articleWikiLeaks Heroes Can Also Do Stupid Things. The article is published at the Rebella blog, a social democratic feminist blog where Anna Ardin contributes and runs the website. In my comment I mention the deleted Twitter tweets. After five days, on 13 September, my comment is reviewed and removed directly. I then post a new comment where I mention that one can read the deleted Tweets at annaardin.bloggy.se. My comment is removed directly. A few hours later the entire Bloggy.se site is taken offline. When Bloggy.se reopens at 04:00 in the morning of 14 September, the tweets deleted from Twitter are also deleted from annaardin.bloggy.se.
But it's not as easy to remove things from the Internet as Anna Ardin thinks. Google takes snapshots of how web pages look - so called caches. If you search forthe cached page for annaardin.bloggy.seyou can see what it looked like on 19 August. (If the cache disappears,click here.) Then you can compare the page with howannaardin.bloggy.seandtwitter.com/annaardinlook.
As we can see, Anna Ardin is doing all she can to hide her tweets. Tweets that indicate Julian Assange is actually innocent of at least the charge of 'molestation' that he's been accused of. It looks like Anna Ardin is doing all she can to get Julian Assange convicted. By deleting and denying acquitting circumstances, she's perhaps making herself guilty of false accusation.
Penal Code Chapter 15, 7 §A person who, otherwise than in 6 §, with prosecutors, police or other authority falsely testifies of a criminal act, provides compromising circumstances, or denies acquitting or mitigating circumstances, shall be found guilty, if authority review such a case, of false accusation to imprisonment not exceeding two years or, if the crime is petty, to a fine or imprisonment not exceeding six months.
The Assange case gets really creepy if we take everything that's happened into account. Anyone wanting to read more can seethis article andthis article. Julian lives in Anna Ardin's flat from 11 August until 19-20 August. During this time Julian and Anna have sex. Around 18-19 August Anna gets a call from a woman wanting to speak to Julian. When Anna realises that Julian's also had consensual sex with this woman, something happens. The two women who are both christians and are connected to the Brotherhood Movement and were at the seminar at the Brotherhood Movement realise immediately that Julian doesn't have any long term serious intentions with them. They decide after discussing the matter to file complaints against Julian Assange for sexual molestation.
It might seem strange that a christian social democrat feminist would avail herself of legislation to get revenge on a man who is 'unfaithful'. When you read aboutAnna Ardin's post about revenge, it's no longer strange. It's completely natural. Anna Ardin has for a long time wondered how she can exact revenge on a man who dumps her, is unfaithful. When the other woman turns up, she has the opportunity to do something about her ideas. Anna Ardin plans it all well. She gets another woman to make the actual rape accusation. A case of 'revenge by proxy'. And then she gets help from Claes Borgström who's done all he can to try to get Julian Assange put on trial, frenetically cheered on by the feminist blogs.
But the truth wins out in the end. Anna's perfect7-Step Programme for Legal Revengefailed. One deletion too few. And the Google cache. Too bad, Anna. The ways of the Lord are truly mysterious.
I'm very surprised that christian feminist 'equality' women can so idolise a WikiLeaks hero that they do all in their power to get him into bed as soon as they have the chance. And then, when they realise he's not as interested in them as they are in him, go to the police and accuse him of rape. This demonstrates an extreme contempt for the women who are real victims of violence and sexual crimes. Their behaviour is unconscionable.
If you're a groupie at heart, why not just try to keep quiet about it? It's nothing you should spread on the net or go to the police to talk about. As things look now, Anna Ardin's carefully planned character assassination and revenge on Julian Assange amounts to nothing more than a suicide bomb on her foot. A bit unlucky for Anna that Google cache keeps track of things like an Internet god. If you're going to delete, then delete good and proper.
All that remains is to see what the preliminary investigation leads to. According to the prosecutors:
'The investigation is well advanced and only a small number of investigative procedures remain to be taken before a decision.'
If the prosecutors conclude that this is a case of false accusation, then hundreds of thousands of men who claim most rape complaints are false will win their argument. This will unfortunately also lead to making it much more difficult to get justice for real victims. That would be a catastrophe.
But something good will come out of this story. We are going to learn that just because you're christian, feminist, social democrat, animal rights activist, and opponent of abortion, it doesn't mean you believe in equal rights for women and men.
Göran Rudling, born in 1951, is the editor ofSamtycke Nu/Consensus Now, a site promoting sexual self-determination that uses the motto 'it is a human right to decide for oneself when and with whom we are going to have sex'. Rudling is a frequent contributor toNewsmillwhere he writes about the need to introduce democratic laws that are based on sexual activities needing to be consensual to not be considered criminal.
The Library of Congress has blocked access to the Wikileaks site on its staff computers and on the wireless network that visitors use, two sources tell TPM.
The error message reportedly reads:
" Ad or Website blocked by LC DNSBH. Advertisements or websites that may be malicious are blocked. If this message appears in lieu of an advertisement (i.e., on part of the page), the advertisement site may be malicious. However the website is safe to use. If this message appears on a page by itself, the website is blocked due to potential malicious content. More information - LC IT Security "
A spokesman for the library could not immediately comment, but expects to have a statement shortly.
The library is a governmental institution and serves as the research arm for Congress. It was established in 1800 and, when it was burned down by the British in 1814, Thomas Jefferson donated his own personal library to replace it. (Not for free, though; Congress paid $23,950 for the books.) It has grown ever since and, according to the library, it has "more than 144 million items including more than 33 million cataloged books and other print materials in 460 languages; more than 63 million manuscripts; the largest rare book collection in North America; and the world's largest collection of legal materials, films, maps, sheet music and sound recordings."
Hai un passaporto australiano, vuoi ritornare nel tuo Paese o è fuori questione perché rischi di essere arrestato all’arrivo per aver rilasciato i “cable” sui diplomatici australiani?
Sono un cittadino australiano e mi manca molto il mio Paese, tuttavia nelle ultime settimane il primo ministro australiano e il procuratore generale hanno fatto sapere chiaramente non solo che il mio ritorno è impossibile, ma che stanno aiutando attivamente il governo Usa nei suoi attacchi contro di me e contro le persone che lavorano con me. Questo ovviamente mi spinge a chiedermi che cosa significa essere un cittadino australiano. Vuol dire qualcosa oppure saremo tutti trattati come David Hicks, giusto perché i politici australiani e i diplomatici possano essere invitati ai migliori cocktail party dall’ambasciata americana?
In che modo credi di aver cambiato lo scenario mondiale? E considerata tutta l’attenzione che hai ricevuto non credi che anche la tua fonte dovrebbe ricevere una parola di apprezzamento da parte tua?
Negli ultimi quattro anni uno dei nostri obiettivi è stato di esaltare le fonti che si assumono i veri rischi in ogni rivelazione giornalistica. E senza questi sforzi, i giornalisti sarebbero nulla. Se è vero, come sostiene il Pentagono, che un giovane soldato – Bradley Manning – è dietro alcune delle nostre ultime rivelazioni, di sicuro lui è un eroe senza precedenti.
Avete rilasciato o rilascerete ‘cable’ (sia negli ultimi giorni sia nelle rivelazioni sulle guerre in Asia) con i nomi di informatori afghani o simili?Avete intenzione di censurare – scusa il termine – qualche nome che voi ritenete potrebbe trovarsi in pericolo di rappresaglia? In ogni caso penso che la storia ti assolverà, ben fatto…
Wikileaks ha una storia di pubblicazioni che dura da quattro anni. In questo periodo non c’è nessuna affermazione credibile – neanche da parte di organizzazioni come il Pentagono – che una persona abbia subito danni come risultato delle nostre attività. Questa è una manipolazione molto comune che cerca di spingere le persone a una conclusione fuorviante. Non abbiamo intenzione di cambiare politica a questo riguardo.
Il Dipartimento di Stato sta dibattendo sulla questione se tu sia o no un giornalista. Sei un giornalista? Nel momento in cui si pubblica informazione che qualcuno non vuole veder pubblicata, ha importanza che tu sia un giornalista oppure no? Ho cofirmato il mio primo saggio quando avevo 25 anni. Da allora ho lavorato in documentari, giornali, tivù e su Internet. Tuttavia non è necessario dibattere se sono o non sono giornalista. O come mai chi lavora con me misteriosamente è accusato di aver cessato di fare il giornalista nel momento in cui comincia a scrivere per la nostra organizzazione. Anche se io ancora scrivo, faccio ricerca e inchieste, il mio ruolo è primariamente quello di un direttore che organizza e dirige altri giornalisti.
Mister Assange, ha mai ricevuto documenti che avessero a che fare con gli Ufo?
Abbiamo avuto a che fare con molti personaggi strani ci scrivono sugli Ufo o su come hanno scoperto che erano l’Anticristo mentre parlavano con la loro ex moglie durante una festa in giardino… Tuttavia non hanno finora soddisfatto due delle nostre condizioni di pubblicazione: che i documenti non siano fatti in casa e che siano autentici. Però posso dire che in alcune parti dei nostri cable non ancora pubblicati ci sono riferimenti agli Ufo.
Che cosa è successo a tutti gli altri documenti che si trovavano su Wikileaks prima di questa serie di “mega-leaks”? Li rimetterete on line a un certo punto, ‘difficoltà tecniche’ permettendo?
Molti di questi documenti sono ancora disponibili su Mirror.wikileaks.infoe il resto ritornerà on line appena troveremo un momento per occuparci delle questioni tecniche complesse. Da aprile di quest’anno i nostri tempi non abbiamo potuto deciderli noi, perché la nostra agenda è stata decisa dalle mosse del governo americano contro di noi. Ti posso assicurare che sono profondamente dispiaciuto che tre anni e mezzo del lavoro mio e degli altri non sia accessibile facilmente dal pubblico.
Ti aspettavi questo livello di impatto (delle tue rivelazioni) sul mondo? Hai paura per la tua sicurezza?
Ho sempre pensato che l’idea di Wikileaks avrebbe giocato un ruolo globale e a un certo livello era chiaro che lo stava già facendo nel 2007, quando ha cambiato il risultato delle elezioni in Kenya. Credevo che ci sarebbe voluti due anni invece di quattro affinché altri ci riconoscessero questo ruolo importante. Quindi per quel che mi riguarda siamo un po’ indietro rispetto ai miei piani e abbiamo molto lavoro da fare. Le minacce contro le nostre vite sono una questione pubblica, tuttavia stiamo prendendo le precauzioni appropriate, sempre considerando che abbiamo a che fare con una superpotenza.
Può spiegarci la censura su alcune identità marcate come “xxxx” nei cable che sono stati rivelati? Alcune identità critiche sono lasciate in chiaro, altre sono nascoste. Alcuni cable poi sono rivelati in parte… Ancora: c’è un ordine nel modo in cui rivelate i cable o sono selezionati in modo casuale?
I cable che abbiamo reso pubblici corrispondono alle notizie rilevanti dei nostri partners nei grandi media. Sono stati rivisti in redazione dai giornalisti che lavorano su queste storie, dal momento che queste persone devono conoscere bene il materiale, per poterci scrivere. Questi materiali vengono poi rivisti almeno da un altro redattore. Poi noi rivediamo anche degli stralci forniti da altre organizzazioni per essere sicuri che il processo funzioni.
Per quanto possa essere fastidioso, i blocchi al tuo server possono farti pubblicità o quanto meno aggiungono credibilità a quello che fai. E così anche essere stato buttato fuori dai server di Amazon. Cosa ne pensi? E cosa pensi di fare in proposito?
Fin dal 2007 abbiamo messo alcuni dei nostri server sotto giurisdizioni che sospettavamo potessero avere un deficit di libertà di parola, separando la retorica dalla realtà. Amazon è uno di questi casi.
Tom Flanagan, un consigliere del primo ministro canadese, ha detto: “Penso che Assange dovrebbe essere assassinato. Penso che Obama dovrebbe occuparsene e non mi dispiacerebbe se Assange sparisse”. Come ti sei sentito, dopo averlo letto?
E’ corretto dire che mister Flanagan e gli altri che fanno seriamente di queste affermazioni dovrebbero essere incriminati con l’accusa di istigazione a delinquere.
Perché hai creduto che fosse necessario “dare a Wikileaks una faccia”? Non pensi che sarebbe stato meglio se l’organizzazione fosse stata anonima? Tutto il dibattito è diventato molto personale e si riduce a te – “Assange ha rilasciato dei documenti” , “Assange è un terrorista” etc- e nessuno parla più di Wikileaks come di un’organizzazione e molti neanche sanno che ci sono altre persone dietro. Questo rende Wikileaks vulnerabile perché permette ai tuoi avversari di screditarti sul piano personale. Se convincono il pubblico che tu sei un malvagio, uno stupratore e un terrorista, allora la credibilità di Wikileaks sarà finita. E inoltre, con tutto il rispetto per te, non credo che sia giusto nei confronti delle altre persone coraggiose che lavorano per Wikileaks.
E’ una domanda interessante. All’inizio ho cercato di mantenere l’organizzazione anonima, perché non volevo che i nostri ego avessero un ruolo in ciò che facciamo. Questo segue la tradizione dei Bourbaki, un collettivo di matematici francesi anonimi. Tuttavia ciò ha portato rapidamente a una curiosità esagerata su chi fossimo e anche al fatto che degli individui si attribuissero la facoltà di rappresentarci. E alla fine qualcuno deve essere responsabile di fronte all’opinione pubblica. Soltanto una leadership che è disposta a essere pubblicamente coraggiosa può dare un’idea veritiera che le fonti si assumono un rischio per il bene collettivo. In questo processo io sono diventato il parafulmine. Ho ricevuto attacchi non meritati su ogni aspetto della mia vita personale. Ma ho anche ricevuto crediti non meritati, come in una sorta di compensazione
I governi occidentali sottolineano la loro autorità morale legandola al fatto che nei loro Paesi ci sono garanzie legali per una stampa libera. Ma la minaccia di ritorsioni contro Wikileaks e contro di te sembrano indebolire questa pretesa. (…). Sei d’accordo con l’affermazione che attaccando Wikileaks i governi occidentali rischiano di perdere autorità morale? Anzi, credi che davvero i governi occidentali abbiano una qualche autorità morale?
L’Occidente ha “fiscalizzato” le sue relazioni di potere attraverso una rete di contratti, prestiti, possesso di azioni e proprietà finanziarie. In questo contesto, è facile per la parola essere libera perché un cambiamento nella volontà politica raramente porta alcun cambiamento reale in questa rete di rapporti e proprietà. In Occidente la parola, essendo qualcosa che raramente ha effetti sul vero potere, è libera come gli uccelli e i tassi (cioè serve a poco, ndr). In stati come la Cina c’è invece una censura pervasiva perché la libertà di parola ha ancora un potere e dunque il potere la teme. Dobbiamo sempre guardare alla censura come a un segnale economico che rivela il potere potenziale della libertà di espressione in quel tipo di governo. Gli attacchi contro di noi da parte degli Stati Uniti ci fanno intravedere una grande speranza, ovvero che la libertà di informazione sia abbastanza potente da rompere questo muro di rapporti consolidati.
Credi che ci possa essere un vincitore nel gioco in cui sei finito? Tecnicamente puoi continuare a giocare a nascondino con i potenti quando i service provider sono direttamente o indirettamente sotto i controlli governativi, o comunque vulnerabili di fronte alle pressioni, come Amazon? Se vieni “rimosso ” (in senso tecnico, non necessariamente fisico) che alternative hai? C’è una seconda linea di attivisti che può continuare la tua campagna? E il tuo materiale è abbastanza distribuito in modo che rimuovere una cache non voglia dire mettere fine al gioco?
L’archivio “cablegate” è stato distribuito insieme a materiale significativo dagli Usa e da altri Paesi a oltre diecimila persone in forma criptata. Se ci succede qualcosa, le parti più importanti saranno diffuse immediatamente. Inoltre gli archivi “cablegate” sono nelle mani di più organizzazioni editoriali. La storia vincerà e il mondo diventerà un posto migliore. Noi sopravviveremo? Questo dipende da voi»
The Guardian: WikiLeaks cables: Conservatives promised to run 'pro-American regime'
"Conservative party politicians lined up before the general election to promise that they would run a "pro-American regime" and buy more arms from the US if they came to power this year, the leaked American embassy cables show.[...]
The incoming Conservatives appear to have made some wide-ranging offers of political co-operation with the US. The cables detail a series of private meetings with Tory frontbenchers, many of whom are now in the cabinet.
Liam Fox, now the defence secretary, promised to buy American military equipment, while the current foreign secretary, William Hague, offered the ambassador a "pro-American" government. Hague also said the entire Conservative leadership were, like him, "staunchly Atlanticist" and "children of Thatcher"." Read more
The Guardian: WikiLeaks cables reveal how US manipulated climate accord
"Hidden behind the save-the-world rhetoric of the global climate change negotiations lies the mucky realpolitik: money and threats buy political support; spying and cyberwarfare are used to seek out leverage.
The US diplomatic cables reveal how the US seeks dirt on nations opposed to its approach to tackling global warming; how financial and other aid is used by countries to gain political backing; how distrust, broken promises and creative accounting dog negotiations; and how the US mounted a secret global diplomatic offensive to overwhelm opposition to the controversial "Copenhagen accord", the unofficial document that emerged from the ruins of the Copenhagen climate change summit in 2009." Read more
Der Spiegel: "'Operation Scorched Earth': A US Hand in Yemen's Civil War"
"Yemen is becoming an important refuge for al-Qaida terrorists, but authorities in the country are more interested in pursuing its war against Shiite rebels in the north. American weapons are used in the fight -- and the US secretly pursues terrorists on their own.
His Excellency Ali Abdullah Saleh, the first and so far only president of the Republic of Yemen, ruler over 23 million inhabitants and 50 million firearms, is not a good man to have as an enemy -- but having him as a friend is even worse. In Yemen he is called "The Boss."
Since 2004, the boss has been fighting a ruthless war against the Houthi rebels in the north. They are Shiites -- and politically marginalized. In August 2009, this conflict entered a new phase when the Yemeni army launched a new offensive designed to wipe out all Houthi resistance. The president categorically rejects negotiations with the rebels: "The war will never stop no matter how much money or martyrs it costs," he said a year ago." Read more
El Pais: The US executed a plan to create a law against downloads in Spain
"La Embajada de Estados Unidos en Madrid convirtió la lucha contra la piratería en Internet en una de las prioridades de su agenda en el periodo 2004-2010. Según se deduce de la lectura de más de 35 cables dedicados a la protección de los derechos de propiedad intelectual, las presiones empezaron a intensificarse a partir del año 2004, tras la llegada al Gobierno del socialista José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero y se vertebraron en torno a una lista negra, la Lista Especial 301 que elabora la oficina de Comercio estadounidense.
Ante la falta de resultados en esos primeros años, diseñaron en 2007 una minuciosa hoja de ruta que incluía encuentros con ministros, secretarios de Estado y mandos intermedios de los departamentos de Cultura e Industria." Read more
Le Monde: WikiLeaks : les Etats-Unis en première ligne dans la lutte contre Al-Qaida au Yémen
"Qui mène la guerre contre Al-Qaida pour la péninsule arabique (AQPA), cette "filiale" créée au début de l'année 2009 et retranchée dans les confins du Yémen ? Officiellement, ce sont les forces de sécurité yéménites en coopération avec les Etats-Unis qui s'inquiètent depuis 2000 et l'attaque meurtrière à Aden contre un bâtiment de guerre de leur marine, le Cole, de la présence de djihadistes aguerris dans les camps afghans.
Le rôle américain est cependant bien plus important, comme en témoignent les notes diplomatiques obtenues par WikiLeaks et révélées par Le Monde, même s'il est tenu secret compte tenu de l'animosité que suscitent les Etats-Unis dans le pays." Read more
The Guardian: Diplomatic cables: Gaddafi risked nuclear disaster after UN slight
"A potential "environmental disaster" was kept secret by the US last year when a large consignment of highly enriched uranium in Libya came close to cracking open and leaking radioactive material into the atmosphere.
The incident came after the mercurial Libyan leader, Muammar Gaddafi, suddenly went back on a promise to dispose of the weapons-grade uranium, apparently out of pique at a diplomatic slight received in New York when he was barred from pitching a tent outside the UN." Read more
Der Spiegel: America's 'Iran Watchers': A Coordinated Effort to Get Information about Tehran
"In 2006, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice realized that Washington needed to know a lot more about Iran. Since then, observation posts in surrounding countries have been supplying information, including rumors of a slap for President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
In no other country in the Middle East were US diplomats as well sourced as they were in Iran -- yet in no other country were they as off target. The fact that they didn't see the Islamic Revolution coming in 1979 -- that they didn't even see it as a possibility -- surely ranks among the biggest intelligence misjudgements in the history of US foreign policy. Even today, the painful effects of this failure can still be felt." Read more
El Pais: Chavez buys loyalty inside the Bolivian government
"Venezuela ha creado una estructura de asesores y lealtades compradas en Bolivia que provoca los recelos de los círculos más fieles a Evo Morales. En el mismo sentido, algunos jefes del Ejército dudan de la verdadera lealtad de las tropas, según informan los diplomáticos estadounidenses en La Paz a Washington.
El principal punto de fricción viene de los intentos del Gobierno de emplear al Ejército como fuerza policial, algo a lo que los uniformados se oponen. En sus informaciones internas Washington cree posible que en el caso de que el Ejército recibiera una orden de Morales en este sentido, podría dividirse con una facción, que recibe pagos de Caracas, que no obedecería a sus mandos. "Aunque los bonus venezolanos han cimentado algunas lealtades, también han creado mucho resentimiento entre los rangos medios y bajos al costo significativo de legitimidad para el alto mando", subraya un texto." Read more
The Guardian: WikiLeaks cables: Yemen offered US 'open door' to attack al-Qaida on its soil
"The president of Yemen secretly offered US forces unrestricted access to his territory to conduct unilateral strikes against al-Qaida terrorist targets, the leaked US embassy cables reveal.
In a move that risked outraging local and Arab opinion, Ali Abdullah Saleh told Barack Obama's deputy national security adviser, John Brennan, in September 2009: "I have given you an open door on terrorism. so I am not responsible," according to a secret dispatch back to Washington
In reality, despite the offer of an "open door", Yemen has restricted access for US forces in order to avoid playing into the hands of Saleh's domestic critics." Read more
El Pais: Van Rompuy: "Copenhagen was a disaster. The climate treaty won't work."
"La frustración por el fracaso de la Cumbre del Clima de Copenhague recorrió las Embajadas de toda Europa. Pese a que el discurso oficial de los delegados europeos era que el acuerdo alcanzado allí tenía elementos positivos, los cables confidenciales de la diplomacia de EE UU obtenidos por Wikileaks y analizados por este diario revelan lo contrario: decepción por el pacto, enfado con EE UU y con China y poca fe en que la negociación internacional contra el cambio climático en la ONU llegue algún día a buen puerto. El más claro es el presidente del Consejo Europeo, el belga Herman Van Rompuy. Este, según un cable confidencial de la Embajada de Bruselas a Washington fechado el pasado 4 de enero, confesó al embajador en Bruselas que Copenhague fue "un desastre increíble", y añadió: "Las cumbres multilaterales no funcionarán"." Read more
Le Monde: WikiLeaks : la loi Hadopi intéresse au plus haut point Washington
"L'ambassade des Etats-Unis à Paris s'est intéressée de très près à la loi Hadopi (qui sanctionne les internautes coupables de téléchargements illicites), car en France, comme ailleurs, la majorité de la musique et des films piratés sont américains. Les diplomates ont d'abord suivi les diverses péripéties parlementaires autour du projet de loi avec étonnement, qualifiant le comportement des députés français de "théâtre de l'absurde". Ils sont alors entrés en relation avec un conseiller juridique du ministre de la culture, qui leur racontait le cheminement du projet et tentait de les rassurer sur la victoire finale.
L'ambassade travaillait aussi en liaison constante avec les grandes associations de l'industrie américaine du show business, notamment la MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) et la RIA (Recording Industry Association). Le vote de la loi Hadopi était pour elles une "priorité très importante", d'autant qu'elle pourrait servir d'exemple aux autres pays européens." Read more
(p)Link
Commenti
Storico
Stampa
Via
The Library of Congress has blocked access to the Wikileaks site on its staff computers and on the wireless network that visitors use, two sources tell TPM.
Feed RSS 0.91
Feed Atom 0.3
