Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 76
  1. #21
    Platinum Poster Ben's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    11,509

    Default Julian Assange of WikiLeaks

    A Moving World: BlogSpot...


    Sunday, August 22, 2010

    Why Did Swedish Prosecutors Break Their Own Policy in the Assange Case?



    The "why" of the quickly-withdrawn 'case' against Wikileaks founder Julian Assange seems clear enough--it has all the initial indicators of a fabricated attempt to defame him. But the "how" of this attempt is murky. Here's an admittedly rough translation of part of the Swedish Prosecution Authority FAQ on their actions to date regarding Assange (Google translation edited for clarity):

    Why was Julian Assange's name published?
    Prosecutors do not normally publish the names of arrested persons, and the Swedish Prosecution Authority was not the source [cause] of Assange's name [being published] in this case. Assange's information reached - in a way that the authority does not know - a news service. The prosecutor's office merely confirmed the information.
    If the above is true, why didn't the Authority simply issue a "no-comment / ongoing investigation" statement rather than confirming that Assange was indeed the subject of investigation? If it is indeed the Prosecution Authority's policy not to release identities, the act of confirming an identity and making it public is no less a violation of policy than announcing Assange's name outright.


    And if the Prosecution Authority is being truthful that it did not leak Assange's name as part of a false smear effort, who did?


    So far, the explanations offered by the Prosecution Authority do not even begin to explain an apparent failure to follow their own policies. All this, needless to say, doesn't even touch on the remarkable flimsiness of the case, which was withdrawn within hours of being issued.



  2. #22
    Platinum Poster Ben's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    11,509

    Default Julian Assange of WikiLeaks




  3. #23
    Junior Poster
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    185

    Default

    i dont know...i'm having doubts about wikileaks...i think it's weird that in all these 90.000+ so called secret documents, there is not one single mention about the poppy fields and opium transport going on over there (conducted by the CIA in asociation with the pakistani secret service). i'm starting to suspect that this whole wikileaks-gate is a distraction to make us THINK we now know the 'leaked truth', whereas the most important stuff is left out. just a feeling. let's see where this whole affair leads to.



  4. #24
    Platinum Poster Ben's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    11,509

    Default Julian Assange of WikiLeaks




  5. #25
    Platinum Poster Ben's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    11,509

    Default Re: Julian Assange Explains WikiLeaks Disclosure...

    Official Washington Worries WikiLeak Will Reveal Inconsistent Approach to Terror

    by John Nichols
    Usually, when a WikiLeaks document dump is in the offering, US officials play like it could not possibly matter.
    "More of the same," "nothing new," "just a repeat of what everyone was already aware of": these have been the standard lines.
    But not this time. Washington is abuzz with Holiday weekend talk about how officials at the White House, the Department of Defense and the State Department are "holding their breath" in troubled anticipation of an imminent release of thousands of classified documents by the controversial website.
    WikiLeaks is tweeting that officials in Washington are "hyperventilating again over fears of being held to account."
    That's not hype. They really are worried this time.
    Why so? Because this release of documents could pull back the curtain on how the United States practices international diplomacy.
    To understand why this matters, consider two related realities:
    1. Many, if not all, of the US officials who deal on the international stage tend to like secrecy, as it allows them to play by different rules when dealing with countries that are deemed "allies" or "rogues." In other words, despite the blunt official talk about how the "war of terror" is a universal endeavor, the United States sometimes casts a blind eye toward-or even works with-groups that are identified as practicing terrorism.
    2. These powerful players often feel threatened by transparency, as it reveals when they are allow allied states to act like rogue states. This gets especially messy when "friendly" governments are allowed to get away with actions that the U.S. otherwise identifies as being so serious that might justify economic sanctions or even a military response.
    Understand these facts and you will understand why official Washington is worried by this particular WikiLeak.
    Reportedly, the next leak-which could come this weekend-will include "hundreds of thousands of classified State cables that detail private diplomatic discussions with other governments, potentially compromising discussions with dissidents, and even, reportedly, corruption allegations against foreign governments."
    Among other things, international press accounts suggest, the new WikiLeak will include a military report revealing that the US officials were aware that the Turkish government allowed its citizens to aid Al Qaeda in Iraq. An additional document will, according to London's Al-Hayat newspaper, reveal that the U.S. aided Kurdish separatist rebels whose group, the PKK, is listed by the State Department as a foreign terrorist organization.
    Turkey is a complex country located at a critical crossroads for the United States. It is no secret that U.S. officials have always applied different sets of rules when dealing with it.
    The problem is that the public revelation of the differences between US treatment of Turkey and, say, Iran, could be more than embarrassing. It could call into question whether US officials are consistent in their condemnation of terrorism and of countries that condone terrorism.
    Of course, that's not what State Department officials are saying publicly.
    They're talking about protecting diplomatic secrecy.
    "When this confidence is betrayed and ends up on the front pages of newspapers or lead stories on television and radio it has an impact," says spokesperson P.J. Crowley. "We decry what has happened. These revelations are harmful to the United States and our interests. They are going to create tension in our relationships between our diplomats and our friends around the world. We wish that this would not happen. But we are, obviously, prepared for the possibility that it will."
    What should US citizens make of such revelations?
    Don't expect an outcry. Americans will not be shocked to learn that their government is inconsistent in its relations with other countries.
    We don't yet know what exactly this WikiLeak will reveal.
    But these sorts of revelations, which so unsettle official Washington, could well improve the domestic debate.
    No one wants to see the world become a more dangerous place; nor is there anyone who wants to play fast and loose with the safety of US troops, diplomats or innocents abroad
    With those provisions, however, a case can certainly be made that transparency brings nuance to the discussion of how the United States engages with other countries, and to debates about the standards that are applied with regard to supposedly "terrorist" activity and supposedly "terrorist" groups.
    A broader consciousness of these realities could make it tougher for the White House, the Pentagon and the State Department to suggest that the United States faces only black-and-white choices, that this country's only options are absolutes, and that America cannot possibly negotiate with countries or groups that engage in actions that the US offically condemns.
    In other words, this WikiLeak might just make it harder for officials in Washington to "sell" hardline responses, covert actions and military interventions.
    Washington insiders might be bothered by that prospect.
    But the citizens of the United States can handle diplomatic reality-and transparency.
    © 2010 The Nation
    John Nichols is Washington correspondent for The Nation and associate editor of The Capital Times in Madison, Wisconsin.



  6. #26
    Platinum Poster Ben's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    11,509

    Default Re: Julian Assange Explains WikiLeaks Disclosure...

    Teresa Scanlan wins Miss America 2011; Miss Nebraska slams WikiLeaks during … – New York Daily News

    Teresa Scanlan wins Miss America 2011; Miss Nebraska slams WikiLeaks during … – New York Daily News
    BY Soraya Roberts

    DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
    Sunday, January 16th 2011, 11:37 AM

    Miss America 2011

    Becoming the first Cornhusker State resident to win the crown, Scanlan beat out 52 other beauty queens to win a $ 50,000 scholarship at the Planet Hollywood casino-resort in Las Vegas on Saturday night.

    Scanlan won over the seven judges after strutting down the stage in a black bikini and playing “White Water Chopped Sticks” at the piano.
    The blond teen told the Associated Press she plans to register to vote when she turns 18 next month and will defer her enrollment at Virginia’s Patrick Henry College to complete her reign.
    She then plans to go to law school and eventually become a politician and “stand up for what’s right, stand up for integrity and honesty.
    “At this point, attorneys and politicians are looked down on and have terrible reputations for being greedy and power hungry and I really think it’s important for people who have their heart and mind in the right place get into those powerful positions,” she told the AP.

    Teresa Scanlan shows off her wares during the Miss America pageant. (AP)

    On Saturday night, she spoke out about national security in response to a question about the WikiLeaks scandal.
    “You know when it came to that situation, it was actually based on espionage, and when it comes to the security of our nation, we have to focus on security first and then people’s right to know, because it’s so important that everybody who’s in our borders is safe and so we can’t let things like that happen, and they must be handled properly,” she said.
    Scanlan, whose platform issue was eating disorders, said she “never passed up a cookie” while traveling to the pageant.
    She is reportedly the youngest Miss America to win since the 90-year-old pageant put in age limits in 1938 (though in 1921, its first year, the pageant crowned 15-year-old Margaret Gorman from District of Columbia queen).
    “From 17 to 24, that can be a huge age range,” Scanlan told the AP. “But with these girls, they are all at the highest level imaginable.”
    Among them was Miss Arkansas Alyse Eady, who as first runner-up won $ 25,000. Miss Hawaii Jalee Fuselier came in third place and won $ 20,000.
    With News Wire Services



  7. #27
    Platinum Poster Ben's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    11,509

    Default Re: Julian Assange Explains WikiLeaks Disclosure...

    Wikileaks are now going after the banks:




  8. #28
    Platinum Poster Ben's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    11,509

    Default Re: Julian Assange Explains WikiLeaks Disclosure...

    You pay your taxes, or go to prison. Unless you are super-rich, or a corporation...

    by Johann Hari
    Johann Hari is an award-winning journalist who writes twice-weekly for the Independent, one of Britain's leading newspapers.

    Imagine that tomorrow you cancelled all your tax payments, and when a bill came from the Inland Revenue at the end of the year, you told them they could have ten percent of what’s due, or nothing. Try haggling. Try telling them you think it’s unfair to tax you because you made it all yourself. Try telling them that you “really” live in a Caribbean island, or Switzerland, or Jersey, and give them an address over there. Try pointing to some obscure loophole you found in the tax code and say it means you owe nothing. See what they say, and remember to send me a nice postcard from your prison cell.
    Yet for the people who can most afford to pay their taxes – the super-rich, and massive corporations – this is how Britain works. While we struggle, they are skipping free of paying their share, or any share, of keeping our country running. The notorious billionaire tax fraudster Leona Helmsley said that “taxes are for the little people.” It could be the motto for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs today. It was loose enough under New Labour, but under the Conservatives the few polite coughs and queries directed at the rich are being abolished – and it is you who picks up the bill. The less they pay, the more you pay.
    Nearly a third of the richest 700 companies in Britain pay no tax whatsoever. That’s zero. Here’s an example of how it works. For years now, Vodafone has been refusing to pay its taxes, and offering reams of accountancy excuses. Private Eye, based on interviews with people within the Inland Revenue, has calculated they owed in excess of £6bn. But when the Tories came to power, they simply cancelled almost all of the bill. George Osborne then immediately went to India to promote Vodafone, and appointed its head as an official advisor on how we should handle corporation tax. Not long after, Osborne announced £7bn in cuts for the poor – all of which would have been unnecessary if he had got this one company run by his chum to pay its bill.
    Similarly, extremely wealthy individuals usually pay nothing. Let’s look at another example of somebody David Cameron thought was doing it so right he appointed him to an official role advising the government: Sir Philip Greene, Britain’s sixth richest man. He runs BHS, TopShop, and Miss Selfridge. These businesses exist on our streets. You can see them every day. Yet for tax purposes, they are “registered” in a small building next to a dentist in Jersey, and with Greene’s wife in Monaco. So he avoids more than £250m a year that you and I have to pay instead. It adds up pretty quickly. Tax Research UK puts the figure from tax evasion and avoidance at £95bn a year – the bill for most of the cuts and tax increases by the government. None of it would have to happen if the rich paid their legal share.
    Of course, they argue that they owe nothing to the British people: I made this money, so I’m keeping it. It’s absolutely true they put in a lot of effort and skill and deserve a big share of the rewards. But did they do it entirely alone? Think about Greene again. Imagine if the police didn’t turn up when there was a theft from his shops, and the fire brigade didn’t turn up when they caught fire. Imagine if the bin-men didn’t collect the rubbish at the back. Imagine if the roads that deliver the goods weren’t paved and maintained. Imagine if the staff who worked in his shops couldn’t read or count because they had never been given an education, and simply died when they got sick. All these services are provided by the taxes you and I pay. Greene depends on our services to make his money, but he doesn’t want to contribute a penny towards them, and the government applauds him. There’s a term for that: parasitism.
    In public, the government insists, as Nick Clegg puts it: “We will crack down on the super-rich who hide away money overseas.” But the reality is the exact opposite. These people are now being asked to pay even less by the new government.
    The Financial Times put it plainly on its front page after the Conservatives won: “Tax office to soften stance on tax avoidance.” In the story, Dave Hartnett, head of tax at the Inland Revenue, apologized to the rich for being “too black and white about the law.” Osborne is sacking great swathes of the tax inspectors who monitor the rich – even though they make their wages back many times over. A senior tax inspector costs us £50,000 a year, and brings in £1.5m. A lower-level tax inspector costs is £25,000 a year, and brings in £300,000. It is ten times more profitable for us to set these inspectors on the wealthy than on benefit fraudsters. But Osborne is firing 25 percent of them, meaning you will have to pay more.
    Their actions again and again let the rich off from contributing anything towards the society they live in. The Cayman Islands have been demanding a bailout from the British government since the crash, and the last government – in a rare moment of spine – said they would have to stop being a tax haven and hand over crucial information if they wanted it. It was a golden opportunity to catch some of Britain’s worst tax-dodgers. As soon as he came to power, Cameron cancelled it and gave the money to the Caymans without conditions. Similarly, they just cut a deal with Switzerland that lets £40bn of due tax leech away to secret accounts in what Richard Murphy, the head of Tax Research, calls “a total tax amnesty for UK tax evaders who have used Switzerland.”
    Why would the government do this? There are several reasons. The first is that they personally benefit from it. For example, Osborne’s family wealth is held in an off-shore trust so he will pay no taxes when he inherits his unearned millions. The second is that they are funded by people who benefit from it even more. The Tory election campaign was largely paid for from a tax haven in Belize, courtesy of Lord Ashcroft. Osborne’s personal office as shadow chancellor was given large sums by hedge fund managers based in the Cayman Islands. As Robert Peston, the BBC’s Business editor, puts it: “Hedge funds and investment managers are a very important source of finance for the Tories.” And partly, it is ideological: these are Thatcher’s children, who believe in an overclass of rich people with no responsiblities to the rest.
    None of this has to happen. Many governments across the world have found ways to stop the rich ripping off the tax-payer. Some countries have signed a General Anti-Avoidance Principle into the law, stating that the taxman can bust anything that blatantly breaches the spirit of the tax laws, so you can’t hide behind extremely technical loopholes. The US requires you to pay taxes to the American state wherever you live in the world: if you want to stop, you have to renounce your citizenship. It kills the concept of the tax exile overnight. It says: if you don’t want to pay the membership fee to live in a civilized society, you can’t be in the club. Have fun in Dubai!
    If you have the political will, these havens can be closed fast. A few days after 9/11, every single one had been forced to shut al Qaeda related accounts. When Monaco refused to release tax details to France in the 1950s, Charles De Gaulle surrounded it with tanks and cut off their water supply until they relented.
    Yet we are moving in the opposite direction, while our government offers a deceitful covering chorus of “we’re all in this together.” You pay the bill for their failure. They will try to stop you from noticing by smearing anybody who explains this situation as some kind of Trotskyite class warrior. When they do, remember the words of billionaire Warren Buffet: “There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war. And we’re winning.”



  9. #29
    Platinum Poster Ben's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    11,509

    Default Re: Julian Assange Explains WikiLeaks Disclosure...




  10. #30
    Platinum Poster Ben's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    11,509

    Default Re: Julian Assange Explains WikiLeaks Disclosure...




Similar Threads

  1. WikiLeaks to release video of deadly US Afghan attack
    By Ben in forum Politics and Religion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-27-2010, 11:22 PM
  2. GG: Nadia Styles explains why she left porn...
    By Ben in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 06-19-2010, 10:23 PM
  3. A Harvard Psychiatrist Explains Zombie Neurobiology
    By Quiet Reflections in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-18-2009, 08:25 AM
  4. a video I made that explains how str8 men go TG crazy
    By alfredog in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 09-26-2005, 10:50 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •