Wikileaks

[kieron]

watch this:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/july-dec10/wikileaks2_12-07.html

[dlbi22]

What does everyone think?personally i say we all put a bounty on there heads they dont deserve jail only death and a nice slow death,i hate rats run to brittain run to swedin ya have to stop sometimes i like to think america has guys like jason bourne whos sole job is to take assholes like this out surly we have snipers right?kill these pricks

lisa do you have any for of education? besides sounding totally retarded in everything you say, atleast use a fucking comma once in awhile. spell check works too...

[Ben]

WOW...this is tyranny. This is an absolutely absolute tyrannous conduct by governments towards the governed.

Great find Ben. Keep'em coming.

Hereya go:


YouTube - Judge Napolitano, Bradley Manning & Julian Assange (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMbOrcF8C5E)

[Ben]

WOW...this is tyranny. This is an absolutely absolute tyrannous conduct by governments towards the governed.

Great find Ben. Keep'em coming.

YouTube - Whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg: Julian Assange is Not a Terrorist (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CHdzxgy9rw)

[lisaparadise]

Hereya go:


YouTube - Judge Napolitano, Bradley Manning & Julian Assange (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMbOrcF8C5E)wow tx ben that was great insite manning is toast for sure assange i guess he will get off scott free once the rape case is over,the chinese are responsable for all the hacks?didnt know that till now

[onmyknees]

As we can see by now....Ben is a bit obsessed with Assange.....not sure why. You give me ten high profile defenders of Assange and I'll give you 10 Diane Fienstiens that argue the opposite. My issue is not the legalities....that won't be determined anytime soon, despite what Ben would have you believe. My issue has been from the onset..........is this been detrimental to the country and to our foreign policy and intelligence efforts. I think it's clear that it is. And so the left brings out Daniel Ellsberg, blows the dust off him , uses him as a prop and plasters him all over MSNBC like a modern day hero in some lame attempt to draw the equivalency with Assange. I'm convinced Assange is an anarchist and if he wasn't the man behind the curtain at Wilileaks, he'd be one of those guys running around the streets of any European city with a bad ski mask, breaking store windows and protesting the G-20 Summit. He's your garden variety self righteous anarchist.

When the men and women who operate in the shadows in our intelligence community tells us this is counter productive to our nation's efforts.....I listen and so should you Ben, and stop with the First Amendment bullshit. That's not with this is about.

[thx1138]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/assange-accuser-stops-cooperating-police/

[Ben]

YouTube - Ron Paul Defends Wikileaks: Don't Kill the Messenger - Change our Foreign Policy! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lcN4uvN_r4)

[Ben]

Ron Paul is nothing if not a conservative iconoclast. The Texas Republican House Representative, with deep libertarian roots, is taking a counter-intuitive departure from the traditional and established GOP rhetoric on the issue of WikiLeaks (http://www.mediaite.com/tag/wikileaks/). In an impassioned speech on the U.S. House floor, Paul likened the attack on Julian Assange (http://www.mediaite.com/tag/julian-assange/) to “killing the messenger for bringing bad news” before providing nine provocative questions for Americans to consider. Mr. Paul concluded his speech with a list of questions for the American citizens to consider, the transcript of which is below (via FromTheOld (http://fromtheold.com/news/politics/ron-paul-defends-wikileaks-house-floor-20934).)
Number 1: Do the America People deserve to know the truth regarding the ongoing wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen?
Number 2: Could a larger question be how can an army private access so much secret information?
Number 3: Why is the hostility directed at Assange, the publisher, and not at our government's failure to protect classified information?
Number 4: Are we getting our moneys worth of the 80 Billion dollars per year spent on intelligence gathering?
Number 5: Which has resulted in the greatest number of deaths: lying us into war or Wikileaks revelations or the release of the Pentagon Papers?
Number 6: If Assange can be convicted of a crime for publishing information that he did not steal, what does this say about the future of the first amendment and the independence of the internet?
Number 7: Could it be that the real reason for the near universal attacks on Wikileaks is more about secretly maintaining a seriously flawed foreign policy of empire than it is about national security?
Number 8: Is there not a huge difference between releasing secret information to help the enemy in a time of declared war, which is treason, and the releasing of information to expose our government lies that promote secret wars, death and corruption?
Number 9: Was it not once considered patriotic to stand up to our government when it is wrong?

[talon]

Wikileaks is currently mirrored on 1500+ sites:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article27007.htm

Other sites are springing up to do the same thing:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20025254-281.html

The rats are on the run. Shine the light into the dark dealings of the liars, I say.

[Ben]

YouTube - Julian Assange gets e-tag, curfew and £240,000 bond on bail (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLmM74fb6qA)

YouTube - Julian Assange granted bail (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewoysvcSC1Y)

[Ben]

Editorial: WikiLeaks prosecution would set bad precedent

It's understandable that officials are upset with Julian Assange, but the proper response is better security, not espionage charges.
By The Denver Post
12/09/2010 01:00:00 AM MST

The arrest of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has prompted a round of calls that the document-leaker be prosecuted by U.S. authorities for espionage.
That idea, which is about the only one in recent memory that has attracted bipartisan support in Washington, is ill-conceived and fraught with problems — based on the evidence now available.
It's understandable that the powers- that-be in Washington are incensed by the role Assange has played in divulging what are supposed to be secret, internal government communications for all the world to see.
Last week, five news organizations began publishing stories based on some 250,000 confidential diplomatic cables that Assange had gotten his hands on. Exactly how Assange came to acquire them is yet to be established, but an Army private involved in intelligence matters for the U.S. has been implicated in downloading them from secure computers.
U.S. Army Pfc. Bradley Manning is being held in solitary confinement at Quantico, Va. If the allegations against him are true, he ought to be prosecuted vigorously.
However, carrying that prosecution outward to Assange, the disseminator of the information, is far less certain territory. For one thing, the Espionage Act, a 1917 law, has never been used to prosecute the recipient of information important to national security.
For another, the success of the case could turn on whether WikiLeaks is defined as a media outlet. It's possible, given the evolving and increasingly digital nature of journalism.
It would be ironic if a statute that dates from 1917, written in an era of paper documents, were the vehicle to define what constitutes a media outlet in the age of the Internet.
Acquiring and publishing information is at the heart of the definition of a free press, which has substantial First Amendment protections.
Treading on these, even in a case with an antagonist as undeserving of sympathy as Assange, could set dangerous precedents in criminally pursuing all manner of media outlets.
Nevertheless, there are calls from politicians for just such action.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat and chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, wrote an op-ed piece published in The Wall Street Journal this week advocating prosecution of Assange for espionage. Mitch McConnell, Republican leader in the Senate, called Assange a "high-tech terrorist" who "needs to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law."
Meanwhile, Assange sits in jail in London awaiting the resolution of charges that he sexually assaulted two women in Sweden, allegations that on their face are unrelated to the WikiLeaks situation. Some hint darkly that the charges are a ruse, an effort to get Assange transported to Sweden, which has a strong extradition treaty with the U.S.
We surely hope not. Instead of prosecuting Assange, the U.S. government ought to focus on better securing information that it deems important to national security.

[El Nino]

As we can see by now....Ben is a bit obsessed with Assange.....not sure why. You give me ten high profile defenders of Assange and I'll give you 10 Diane Fienstiens that argue the opposite. My issue is not the legalities....that won't be determined anytime soon, despite what Ben would have you believe. My issue has been from the onset..........is this been detrimental to the country and to our foreign policy and intelligence efforts. I think it's clear that it is. And so the left brings out Daniel Ellsberg, blows the dust off him , uses him as a prop and plasters him all over MSNBC like a modern day hero in some lame attempt to draw the equivalency with Assange. I'm convinced Assange is an anarchist and if he wasn't the man behind the curtain at Wilileaks, he'd be one of those guys running around the streets of any European city with a bad ski mask, breaking store windows and protesting the G-20 Summit. He's your garden variety self righteous anarchist.

When the men and women who operate in the shadows in our intelligence community tells us this is counter productive to our nation's efforts.....I listen and so should you Ben, and stop with the First Amendment bullshit. That's not with this is about.

You just love tyranny and lies, huh?

[lisaparadise]

Ron Paul is nothing if not a conservative iconoclast. The Texas Republican House Representative, with deep libertarian roots, is taking a counter-intuitive departure from the traditional and established GOP rhetoric on the issue of WikiLeaks (http://www.mediaite.com/tag/wikileaks/). In an impassioned speech on the U.S. House floor, Paul likened the attack on Julian Assange (http://www.mediaite.com/tag/julian-assange/) to “killing the messenger for bringing bad news” before providing nine provocative questions for Americans to consider. Mr. Paul concluded his speech with a list of questions for the American citizens to consider, the transcript of which is below (via FromTheOld (http://fromtheold.com/news/politics/ron-paul-defends-wikileaks-house-floor-20934).)

Number 1: Do the America People deserve to know the truth regarding the ongoing wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen?
Number 2: Could a larger question be how can an army private access so much secret information?
Number 3: Why is the hostility directed at Assange, the publisher, and not at our government's failure to protect classified information?
Number 4: Are we getting our moneys worth of the 80 Billion dollars per year spent on intelligence gathering?
Number 5: Which has resulted in the greatest number of deaths: lying us into war or Wikileaks revelations or the release of the Pentagon Papers?
Number 6: If Assange can be convicted of a crime for publishing information that he did not steal, what does this say about the future of the first amendment and the independence of the internet?
Number 7: Could it be that the real reason for the near universal attacks on Wikileaks is more about secretly maintaining a seriously flawed foreign policy of empire than it is about national security?
Number 8: Is there not a huge difference between releasing secret information to help the enemy in a time of declared war, which is treason, and the releasing of information to expose our government lies that promote secret wars, death and corruption?
Number 9: Was it not once considered patriotic to stand up to our government when it is wrong?
sorry about yer luck bitch.still in jail no bail hows that grab ya?

[onmyknees]

sorry about yer luck bitch.still in jail no bail hows that grab ya?

that grabs me like a firm hand ( preferrably yours) to the groin !! LOL

Ben will continue his never ending defense of this worm until we either throw up our arms in exasperation, or just plain throw up. I've been thinking about his motivation, and I think he fancies himself as some sort of Assange protege. I understand why some come to the defense of Assange...(of course I think they're contemptible) but in Ben's case...it's some sort of crusade...perhaps man love, but it's disturbing ...!!!

[Jericho]

that grabs me like a firm hand ( preferrably yours) to the groin !! LOL

Ben will continue his never ending defense of this worm until we either throw up our arms in exasperation, or just plain throw up. I've been thinking about his motivation, and I think he fancies himself as some sort of Assange protege. I understand why some come to the defense of Assange...(of course I think they're contemptible) but in Ben's case...it's some sort of crusade...perhaps man love, but it's disturbing ...!!!


Typical right-wing rebuttal.
i.e. none at all, so i'll question his sexuality! :shrug

[lisaparadise]

that grabs me like a firm hand ( preferrably yours) to the groin !! LOL

Ben will continue his never ending defense of this worm until we either throw up our arms in exasperation, or just plain throw up. I've been thinking about his motivation, and I think he fancies himself as some sort of Assange protege. I understand why some come to the defense of Assange...(of course I think they're contemptible) but in Ben's case...it's some sort of crusade...perhaps man love, but it's disturbing ...!!!lol ya if hes not searching the net for info on a deadman hes jerkin off to some dudes pix lol tragic

[Ben]

Andrew Napolitano states it correctly: "The Supreme Court says Julian Assange is protected. As long as what he distributes is in the public interest."
Again, Assange and/or Wikileaks haven't been charged with anything. (And... if Assange is guilty of rape, well, he should be thrown in a cage for a very long time.)
And, again, Bradley Manning committed a crime. He IS THE ONE who leaked the cables. Not Assange.
And if we go after Assange for publishing the cables, well, we have to go after the N.Y. Times and the Washington Post and The Guardian and Der Spiegel.
Then you're going down a very slippery slope.....
But, yeah, let's not be hypocrites. If we go after Assange then we must go after the N.Y. Times, the Guardian, the Washington Post etc. etc. etc.

YouTube - The Judge Explains Why We Have A 1ST Amendment To Newt Gingrich (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K42AZUK84GQ&feature=related)

[Paladin]

I'm pretty conservative in most matters, but all those assholes on TV are just plain stupid. No country can pass a law and apply it to non-citizens that are not in their country.

Hence the espionage act, can NOT be used against a non US citizen - UNLESS that person is in the US when he / she does something that would be subject to the act. Obviuosly a US citizen can be held accountable no matter where he is (for example the army private).

To argue otherwise would be to say we could / should have charged mao-tse tung, or joseph stalin with espionage. - Bullshit...

Now that army private - he's never getting out of jail. Good thing its not a declared war - or he'd be executed.

[NYBURBS]

I'm pretty conservative in most matters, but all those assholes on TV are just plain stupid. No country can pass a law and apply it to non-citizens that are not in their country.

Hence the espionage act, can NOT be used against a non US citizen - UNLESS that person is in the US when he / she does something that would be subject to the act. Obviuosly a US citizen can be held accountable no matter where he is (for example the army private).

To argue otherwise would be to say we could / should have charged mao-tse tung, or joseph stalin with espionage. - Bullshit...

Now that army private - he's never getting out of jail. Good thing its not a declared war - or he'd be executed.

Some refer to long arm jurisdiction, basically that it is a resultant offense (took place elsewhere but had an effect here). I personally find this to be an absurd and dangerous argument, but it nevertheless is the position of some in the legal world.

[scroller]

But, yeah, let's not be hypocrites. If we go after Assange then we must go after the N.Y. Times, the Guardian, the Washington Post etc. etc. etc.

Of course, the Air Force has in fact started blocking the entirety of the websites Wikileaks, New York Times, Guardian, Le Monde, etc. So insanely, they might actually be willing to go there. Hope not.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704694004576019944121568506.html

[scroller]

Speaking of which, I thought this article in the New York Times was very interesting:


Europeans Criticize Fierce U.S. Response to Leaks

PARIS - For many Europeans, Washington’s fierce reaction to the flood of secret diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks displays imperial arrogance and hypocrisy, indicating a post-9/11 obsession with secrecy that contradicts American principles.

For Seumas Milne of The Guardian in London, which like The New York Times has published the latest WikiLeaks trove, the official American reaction “is tipping over toward derangement.” Most of the leaks are of low-level diplomatic cables, he noted, while concluding: “Not much truck with freedom of information, then, in the land of the free.”

German newspapers were similarly harsh. Even The Financial Times Deutschland (independent of the English-language Financial Times), said that “the already damaged reputation of the United States will only be further tattered with Assange’s new martyr status.” It added that “the openly embraced hope of the U.S. government that along with Assange, WikiLeaks will disappear from the scene, is questionable.”

The left-wing Berliner Zeitung wrote that Washington’s reputation had been damaged by the leaks. But the reputation of United States leaders “is being damaged much more right now as they attempt — with all their means — to muzzle WikiLeaks” and Mr. Assange. They are the first, the paper claimed, to have “used the power of the Internet against the United States. That is why they are being mercilessly pursued. That is why the government is betraying one of the principles of democracy.” http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/10/world/europe/10wikileaks-react.html

[Kareninfife]

While politicians are baying for the head of Wikileaks, maybe that should be countered by a FULL INDEPENDENT investigation of 9/11. I bet you would see a number of senior politicians running for cover.

Also what about a trial of Clinton, GWB & Co. under the Universal Jurisdiction Act of the 4th Geneva Convention over the Wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and several other places? I bet you would not see any of them for dust.

Maybe yet another investigation of where these politicians get all their money from and who is "supporting" (say) Israeli propaganda and the regime there? - is that not an act of Treason against the American Public? Politicians are paid to support the American people - NOT anyone else.

[Paladin]

Some refer to long arm jurisdiction, basically that it is a resultant offense (took place elsewhere but had an effect here). I personally find this to be an absurd and dangerous argument, but it nevertheless is the position of some in the legal world.

Yes burbs, but's it's also illegal and is why there's no rush to attempt extradition because other countries will tell us to fuck off - especially sweden...

[Paladin]

Of course, the Air Force has in fact started blocking the entirety of the websites Wikileaks, New York Times, Guardian, Le Monde, etc. So insanely, they might actually be willing to go there. Hope not.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704694004576019944121568506.html

The military blocks so much shit on the net, i can't even pay some of my bills from work! they also log where you go...

[lisaparadise]

The military blocks so much shit on the net, i can't even pay some of my bills from work! they also log where you go...what the hell are you talking about?this military is protecting your sorry ass so id show alittle more respect if i were you.

[manc_jay]

I'm pretty conservative in most matters, but all those assholes on TV are just plain stupid. No country can pass a law and apply it to non-citizens that are not in their country.

Hence the espionage act, can NOT be used against a non US citizen - UNLESS that person is in the US when he / she does something that would be subject to the act. Obviuosly a US citizen can be held accountable no matter where he is (for example the army private).

To argue otherwise would be to say we could / should have charged mao-tse tung, or joseph stalin with espionage. - Bullshit...

Now that army private - he's never getting out of jail. Good thing its not a declared war - or he'd be executed.

True but the last time the US declared war was against Nazi Germany. Too much of a hassle for them nowadays and gets around a lot of legal constraints.

[manc_jay]

what the hell are you talking about?this military is protecting your sorry ass so id show alittle more respect if i were you.

yawn

[Paladin]

what the hell are you talking about?this military is protecting your sorry ass so id show alittle more respect if i were you.
i guess i'm protecting my own sorry ass...

[Ben]

[QUOTE=Ben;845046]Andrew Napolitano states it correctly: "The Supreme Court says Julian Assange is protected. As long as what he distributes is in the public interest."
Again, Assange and/or Wikileaks haven't been charged with anything. (And... if Assange is guilty of rape, well, he should be thrown in a cage for a very long time.)
And, again, Bradley Manning committed a crime. He IS THE ONE who leaked the cables. Not Assange.
And if we go after Assange for publishing the cables, well, we have to go after the N.Y. Times and the Washington Post and The Guardian and Der Spiegel.
Then you're going down a very slippery slope.....
But, yeah, let's not be hypocrites. If we go after Assange then we must go after the N.Y. Times, the Guardian, the Washington Post etc. etc. etc.

/QUOTE]

I should underscore that Bradley Manning is the alleged perpetrator. He hasn't been convicted.

YouTube - Over A Thousand WikiLeaks Mirror Sites Now On The Web (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sLCHctJhsQ&feature=related)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRysDp0bnyM&feature=player_embedded#!

[Ben]

Columbia School of Journalism Comes Out Against Prosecution of Julian Assange (http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/12/15/columbia-school-of-journalism-comes-out-against-prosecution-of-julian-assange/)

By: David Dayen (http://news.firedoglake.com/author/dday/) Wednesday December 15, 2010


Twenty members of the Columbia School of Journalism have written a letter to President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder expressing their opposition to charging Wikileaks founder Julian Assange with criminal counts for leaking a cache of classified State Department cables.
Some of the professors who signed the statement don’t agree with Assange or his methods. In fact, one high-profile signer, Professor Todd Gitlin, wrote a condemnation of Assange (http://www.tnr.com/blog/foreign-policy/79678/data-isnt-everything-wikileaks-julian-assange-daniel-ellsberg) just a week or so ago in The New Republic. He said in the story that Wikileaks would weaken diplomatic relations across the world and increase official secrecy. And yet he believes that Assange should be protected from prosecution. “There are plenty of unethical or otherwise wrong-headed actions that should be morally sanctioned but remain legal,” Gitlin said. He added that Wikileaks is certainly conducting journalistic activity, and that a prosecution would chill journalistic conduct across the country. This is from the letter:
Any prosecution of Wikileaks’ staff for receiving, possessing or publishing classified materials will set a dangerous precedent for reporters in any publication or medium, potentially chilling investigative journalism and other First Amendment-protected activity.
As a historical matter, government overreaction to publication of leaked material in the press has always been more damaging to American democracy than the leaks themselves.
The U.S. and the First Amendment continue to set a world standard for freedom of the press, encouraging journalists in many nations to take significant risks on behalf of transparency. Prosecution in the Wikileaks case would greatly damage American standing in free-press debates worldwide and would dishearten those journalists looking to this nation for inspiration.

Gitlin said that the Espionage Act in particular, which he couldn’t cite used in a case of this type since World War II, would create a very broad standard for prosecution on publishing virtually any state secret. “WikiLeaks, approve its m.o. or not, is certainly conducting what the letter calls ‘journalistic activity,’ however flawed,” Gitlin concluded.
(I should note that the Bush Administration sought a conviction under the Espionage Act (http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/03/bushs-attacks-on-press-freedoms.html) against two employees of AIPAC who disseminated classified information. It was thought at the time (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/16/AR2006021602186.html) that this was a step toward criminalizing journalistic activity.)
As Glenn Greenwald (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/14/wikileaks) noted yesterday, prosecuting Wikileaks for engaging in the same activity as their traditional journalism partners would significantly damage freedom of the press.
Put simply, there is no intellectually coherent way to distinguish what WikiLeaks has done with these diplomatic cables with what newspapers around the world did in this case and what they do constantly: namely, receive and then publish classified information without authorization. And as much justifiable outrage as the Bush DOJ’s prosecution of the AIPAC officials provoked, at least the actions there resembled “espionage” far more than anything Assange has done, as those AIPAC officials actually passed U.S. secrets to a foreign government, not published them as WikiLeaks has done.
To criminalize what WikiLeaks is doing is, by definition, to criminalize the defining attribute of investigative journalism.

There’s very little, if any, difference between the stories written on Wikileaks, and, say, James Risen’s story (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/12/world/asia/12drugs.html) from earlier this week about drug lords in Afghanistan. Both relied on classified information. Both printed the stories based on the public right to know. Both are protected under the First Amendment freedoms of the press. At least they used to be.
The letter is below.
Dear Mr. President and General Holder:
As faculty members and officers of the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, we are concerned by recent reports that the Department of Justice is considering criminal charges against Julian Assange or others associated with Wikileaks.
Journalists have a responsibility to exercise careful news judgment when classified documents are involved, including assessing whether a document is legitimately confidential and whether there may be harm from its publication.
But while we hold varying opinions of Wikileaks’ methods and decisions, we all believe that in publishing diplomatic cables Wikileaks is engaging in journalistic activity protected by the First Amendment. Any prosecution of Wikileaks’ staff for receiving, possessing or publishing classified materials will set a dangerous precedent for reporters in any publication or medium, potentially chilling investigative journalism and other First Amendment-protected activity.
As a historical matter, government overreaction to publication of leaked material in the press has always been more damaging to American democracy than the leaks themselves.
The U.S. and the First Amendment continue to set a world standard for freedom of the press, encouraging journalists in many nations to take significant risks on behalf of transparency. Prosecution in the Wikileaks case would greatly damage American standing in free-press debates worldwide and would dishearten those journalists looking to this nation for inspiration.
We urge you to pursue a course of prudent restraint in the Wikileaks matter.
Please note that this letter reflects our individual views, not a position of the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism.
Respectfully,
Emily Bell, Professor of Professional Practice; Director, Tow Center for Digital Journalism
Helen Benedict, Professor
Sheila Coronel, Toni Stabile Professor of Professional Practice inInvestigative Journalism; Director, Toni Stabile Center for Investigative Journalism
June Cross, Associate Professor
John Dinges, Godfrey Lowell Cabot Professor of Journalism
Joshua Friedman, Director, Maria Moors Cabot Prize for Journalism in the Americas
Todd Gitlin, Professor; Chair, PhD Program
Ari Goldman, Professor
LynNell Hancock, Professor; Director, Spencer Education Journalism Fellowship
Marguerite Holloway, Assistant Professor; Director, Science and Environmental Journalism
David Klatell, Professor of Professional Practice; Chair, International Studies
Nicholas Lemann, Dean; Henry R. Luce Professor
Dale Maharidge, Associate Professor
Arlene Notoro Morgan, Associate Dean, Prizes and Programs
Victor S. Navasky, George T. Delacorte Professor in Magazine Journalism; Director, Delacorte Center for Magazine Journalism; Chair, Columbia Journalism Review
Michael Schudson, Professor
Bruce Shapiro, Executive Director, Dart Center for Journalism and Trauma
Alisa Solomon, Associate Professor; Director, Arts Concentration, M.A. Program
Paula Span, Adjunct Professor
Duy Linh Tu, Assistant Professor of Professional Practice; Coordinator, Digital Media Program

[Ben]

Some levity b4 Christmas -- :)

YouTube - Julian Assange sketch on SNL (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7-MbiixFe0)

[onmyknees]

Some levity b4 Christmas -- :)

YouTube - Julian Assange sketch on SNL (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7-MbiixFe0)\


Well Ben...I appreciate the levity, now how about a little IRONY ??????

This is a real knee slapper !!!!!!!!! Even an Assange butt boy like you has to find the irony delicious !!!!!!!!!


Lawyers for noted anti-American anarchist and professional leaker Julian Assange are outraged that information on his sex life was leaked to the press.


His lawyers say they do not know who has given these documents to the media, but the purpose can only be one thing – trying to make Julian look bad.
How tragic.
The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/lawyers-cry-foul-over-leak-of-julian-assange-sex-case-papers/story-e6frg6so-1225973548657) reported:

LAWYERS for Julian Assange have expressed anger about an alleged smear campaign against the Australian WikiLeaks founder.
Incriminating police files were published in the British newspaper that has used him as its source for hundreds of leaked US embassy cables.
In a move that surprised many of Mr Assange’s closest supporters on Saturday, The Guardian newspaper published previously unseen police documents that accused Mr Assange in graphic detail of sexually assaulting two Swedish women. One witness is said to have stated: “Not only had it been the world’s worst screw, it had also been violent.”
Bjorn Hurtig, Mr Assange’s Swedish lawyer, said he would lodge a formal complaint to the authorities and ask them to investigate how such sensitive police material leaked into the public domain. “It is with great concern that I hear about this because it puts Julian and his defence in a bad position,” he told a colleague.
“I do not like the idea that Julian may be forced into a trial in the media. And I feel especially concerned that he will be presented with the evidence in his own language for the first time when reading the newspaper. I do not know who has given these documents to the media, but the purpose can only be one thing – trying to make Julian look bad.”

[Ben]

Good old Larry Flynt....



Larry Flynt (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-flynt)Larry Flynt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Larry_Flynt_2009.jpg" class="image"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/13/Larry_Flynt_2009.jpg/220px-Larry_Flynt_2009.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/1/13/Larry_Flynt_2009.jpg/220px-Larry_Flynt_2009.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Flynt)

Publisher of Hustler magazine and free speech advocate
Posted: December 17, 2010


Why I Am Donating $50,000 to WikiLeaks' Defense Fund (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-flynt/why-i-am-donating-50000-t_b_798159.html)


Let's get something straight: Julian Assange is a journalist. You can argue that he is not practicing journalism the way you think it should be practiced -- releasing classified U.S. State Department documents -- but he's a journalist nonetheless. And for many of us he's a hero.
I'm sick and tired of the politicians and political pundits treating this man as if he were a criminal. If WikiLeaks had existed in 2003 when George W. Bush was ginning up the war in Iraq, America might not be in the horrendous situation it is today, with our troops fighting in three countries (counting Pakistan) and the consequent cost in blood and dollars.
Here's what I know about censorship: The free flow of information is ultimately less harmful than the impeded flow of information. A democracy cannot exist without total access to the facts.
What's wrong is that a concerned outsider -- an Australian publisher, not our own vaunted mainstream press -- exposed the secret documents. For that, Assange has been hit with dubious criminal charges because his condom failed during a sexual encounter. Give me a break.
Julian Assange should not face a prison sentence. We should have a ticker-tape parade for this brave man.

[audifan]

Yes it's ironic that Assange's lawyers complain about leaks in the rape case, but that's their job. They're lawyers. They do things rats won't do.

And IMO the governments which seek to claim the moral high ground in this case shouldn't be smearing the guy and prejudicing a fair trial on rape allegations which are far from clear. The full Guardian reporting was much more balanced.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden

[onmyknees]

Yes it's ironic that Assange's lawyers complain about leaks in the rape case, but that's their job. They're lawyers. They do things rats won't do.

And IMO the governments which seek to claim the moral high ground in this case shouldn't be smearing the guy and prejudicing a fair trial on rape allegations which are far from clear. The full Guardian reporting was much more balanced.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden

The Guardian ?????????????????????????? Forgive me while I fall over laughing. That's like saying the NY Times treated McCain fairly despite releasing unsourced stories about he and Vicki Iseman, a Washington lobbyist and a reported affair. The Times and Ms. Iseman's attorneys settled the defamation lawsuit out of court.
Let's be careful about who we hold up as pillars of "balance".

[audifan]

The Guardian ?????????????????????????? Forgive me while I fall over laughing. That's like saying the NY Times treated McCain fairly despite releasing unsourced stories about he and Vicki Iseman, a Washington lobbyist and a reported affair. The Times and Ms. Iseman's attorneys settled the defamation lawsuit out of court.
Let's be careful about who we hold up as pillars of "balance".

OK, so check out the deeply "establishment" Murdoch media saying much the same thing:

Assange. Leaks Against The Leaker http://blogs.news.sky.com/foreignmatters/Post:ec20dc5d-b821-4606-baeb-b08b307246e2

[GroobySteven]

The Guardian ?????????????????????????? Forgive me while I fall over laughing. That's like saying the NY Times treated McCain fairly despite releasing unsourced stories about he and Vicki Iseman, a Washington lobbyist and a reported affair. The Times and Ms. Iseman's attorneys settled the defamation lawsuit out of court.
Let's be careful about who we hold up as pillars of "balance".

Well you are so right wing on this the scales have tipped over, so a middle-to-left paper like the Guardian might help centeralize it slightly.
You are clutching at straws.

[ShaunMoore]

Whether you are conservative or liberal, take a moment to free your minds from the grip that the media has taken.

Consider only one thing: WikiLeaks has exposed classified documents that, so far, has not proven DEADLY or HARMFUL to US personnel. This has only exposed embarrassing US foreign policy. If you value the first amendment - free speech and free press - you will stand by WikiLeaks, regardless of the content of their leaks.

If you don't care about me, listen to larry flynt!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-flynt/why-i-am-donating-50000-t_b_798159.html

[Ben]

Whether you are conservative or liberal, take a moment to free your minds from the grip that the media has taken.

Consider only one thing: WikiLeaks has exposed classified documents that, so far, has not proven DEADLY or HARMFUL to US personnel. This has only exposed embarrassing US foreign policy. If you value the first amendment - free speech and free press - you will stand by WikiLeaks, regardless of the content of their leaks.

If you don't care about me, listen to larry flynt!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-flynt/why-i-am-donating-50000-t_b_798159.html

Yep! And quoting LARRY FLYNT: "I'm sick and tired of the politicians and political pundits treating this man as if he were a criminal. If WikiLeaks had existed in 2003 when George W. Bush was ginning up the war in Iraq, America might not be in the horrendous situation it is today, with our troops fighting in three countries (counting Pakistan) and the consequent cost in blood and dollars."

[notdrunk]

Whether you are conservative or liberal, take a moment to free your minds from the grip that the media has taken.

Consider only one thing: WikiLeaks has exposed classified documents that, so far, has not proven DEADLY or HARMFUL to US personnel. This has only exposed embarrassing US foreign policy. If you value the first amendment - free speech and free press - you will stand by WikiLeaks, regardless of the content of their leaks.

If you don't care about me, listen to larry flynt!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-flynt/why-i-am-donating-50000-t_b_798159.html

Actually, you are wrong.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jUIQj-jUsDX4I3QrdsITQ7c87BAQ?docId=CNG.8549d9b93537814e9 0de0a33a00a6b06.3b1



WikiLeaks has divulged a secret list compiled by Washington of key infrastructure sites around the world that could pose a critical danger to US security if they come under terrorist attack.
.....
It details undersea cables, key communications, ports, mineral resources and firms of strategic importance in countries ranging from Britain to New Zealand, via Africa, the Middle East and China.
Also listed are European manufacturers of vaccines for smallpox and rabies, an Italian maker of treatment for snake-bite venom, and a German company making treatment for plutonium poisoning.
......
Compilation of the list would help "prevent, deter, neutralize or mitigate the effects of deliberate efforts by terrorists to destroy, incapacitate or exploit" sites deemed of "vital" importance to the United States.Answer me this: What was the point releasing the cable that contained the sites that are considered vital to the security of the United States?

http://turtlebay.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/12/03/how_many_sources_has_wikileaks_put_at_risk



WikiLeaks this week published the name of an Algerian reporter who accused Algerian President Abdelaziz Bouteflika of manipulating a 2006 parliamentary election during talks with American diplomats, according to a journalists' rights group.
....
Simon cited another case, however, in which a published cable from Caracas identified an unnamed Venezuelan reporter as a health reporter for a well-known Venezuelan newspaper, making it easy for the government -- which has hostile relations with the United States -- to figure it out. "There may be enough identifying information for people to identify," Simon said.

The Venezuelan reporter, according to the December 2009 diplomatic cable from Caracas, provided American officials with insights into the decaying state of the country's public hospitals, describing them as "increasingly dangerous places, where underpaid, undersupplied, and understaffed doctors work in unsanitary conditions to provide medical services to Venezuela's poor. Due to shortages of basic medical supplies, doctors ask patients to purchase their own needles, disinfectants and gauze."
Yep, exposing embarrassing foreign policy.

[onmyknees]

Well you are so right wing on this the scales have tipped over, so a middle-to-left paper like the Guardian might help centeralize it slightly.
You are clutching at straws.

No dude...if you're telling me the Guardian plays it down the middle you're clutchin' your crotch !!!!!!!!! LOL

State your case as you will, but let's not pretend about the political agenda and leanings of the NY Times and The Guardian. Reality check time !!!!!!!!!

[Jackal]

i guess i'm protecting my own sorry ass...

lol, I thought it was obvious your implicit statement that you are involved with the military. You have nothing to be sorry for, obviosuly

[onmyknees]

Whether you are conservative or liberal, take a moment to free your minds from the grip that the media has taken.

Consider only one thing: WikiLeaks has exposed classified documents that, so far, has not proven DEADLY or HARMFUL to US personnel. This has only exposed embarrassing US foreign policy. If you value the first amendment - free speech and free press - you will stand by WikiLeaks, regardless of the content of their leaks.

If you don't care about me, listen to larry flynt!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-flynt/why-i-am-donating-50000-t_b_798159.html


What the hell does "so far" mean ?? Are you telling me you'll take it all back if one of those Afghani's is found decapatated? Nice of you to play fast and loose with lives...as long as it's not yours !!!!!!! LMAO

with respect to Flynn....I'm not sure why you'd have me listen to him . Look...the guys battles with the courts over the first amendment are ledgendary. I have no issue with him on his fight for his freedom, in fact I commend him. ...but some balance might be in order here...You probably won't see this on the web sites you frequent, and I'm sure he's a folk hero to lots of folks on here, and again I admire his courage and his stamina, but consider this before holding him up as some modern day Thoman Jefferson...I wish you folks would defend Assange and Manning with your own words and stop quoting Larry Flint and Michael Moore. A trip down memory lane about ole Larry....


Viewing Larry Flynt merely as a pornographer who's made a lot of money exploiting people's vices doesn't do him justice. He's also the conscience of the Democratic Party.

Flynt pays money to procure salacious information about members of Congress and high-ranking government officials. Last week, he took credit for outing Louisiana Senator David Vitter. The Republican admitted using the services of prostitutes.

In a press conference, Flynt claimed he currently is looking at more than 20 similar cases. He takes particular delight in exposing Republicans. He's quoted in The Hill:

"They've (Republicans) been living a repressed life all their life. Democrats are liberal — they wear it on their sleeve. Their sex life is what it is. They don't spend their whole life trying to cover it up."

Really? Perhaps that explains Democrats like former New Jersey Gov. James "I'm a gay American" McGreevy, the late Congressman Gerry Studds and current House committee chairman Barney Frank.

"I don't want a man like that (Vitter) legislating for me, especially in the areas of morality." My guess is that Flynt doesn't want anyone legislating morality. Could be bad for business.

Flynt's zeal for revealing Republican transgressions started when Bill Clinton was impeached. Larry liked Bill and his pals. Clinton consultant James Carville had even appeared in a movie lionizing the pornographer. Hiring investigators who also worked for Clinton, Flynt started digging for dirt.

His alleged reason for doing this was because he hates hypocrisy. According to him, Clinton was impeached for engaging in nothing worse than what many conservative Republicans were doing.

Not exactly. Clinton didn't hire a prostitute; he took advantage of an immature White House intern. He lied under oath and obstructed justice and was fined $90,000 for doing so. He paid $850,000 in the Paula Jones suit, despite repeatedly denying that as governor he'd sexually harassed the low level state employee.

Clinton was disbarred in Arkansas. He was prohibited from practicing law before the U.S. Supreme Court.

No, Clinton's sins weren't the same. And if Larry Flynt's scorn for hypocrisy were so strong, he'd have hated the shots of Clinton leaving church, clutching a Bible the size of an aircraft carrier in one hand and the woman he'd done wrong in the other.

Flynt took several Republican scalps, including that of the speaker-elect, during the impeachment proceedings. When White House press secretary Joe Lockhart was asked if Clinton would call Flynt and ask him to cut it out, the answer was no. Some presidents would have been embarrassed having a smut king leading their defense; Bill Clinton wasn't one of them.

Lockhart did try to elevate Flynt's porn rag, referring to it as "a news magazine." In Clinton's White House, maybe it was.

Democrats were pleased with Flynt's efforts. One senior Democratic senator said, "Larry Flynt says his mission is against hypocrisy, and, boy, I think that's a pretty good mission." Party voices condemning his politics of personal destruction were mute.

When President Kennedy's aide Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. reviled "the nation's number one pornographer," he was speaking not of Our Man Flynt, but of independent counsel Ken Starr. Licentious Larry had achieved an element of respectability within the party.

The following year John Kennedy, Jr. invited Flynt to be his guest at a White House Correspondents' dinner. How understanding of Junior. The smut peddler had once printed pictures of John's mother sunbathing in the nude in his newsmagazine.

Flynt's current crusade has again been met with silence from the people under the microscope. Maybe Republicans, particularly those of a conservative stripe, are fearful they or their allies will be caught in the dragnet.

Once again, Democrats are satisfied to sit back and let Larry do the heavy lifting for them. Where is the outrage, the denunciation of the slime machine?

I do have a suggestion for any Republican who is accused. Kill the scandal immediately. Just issue a statement saying:

"The facts of this incident are now fully public and eventual judgment and understanding rests where it belongs. For myself, I plan no further statements on this tragic matter."

Teddy Kennedy used that on the day the inquest results of a young woman who died in his car were made public. It worked for him. He's become a liberal icon and is now widely seen as a stanch advocate for women.

And no doubt Larry Flynt, conscience of the Democratic Party, admires him for his moral values.

[Ben]

WikiLeaks “no threat,” top German official says


By Jeff Stein

Germany’s top security official said Monday that WikiLeaks is “irritating and annoying for Germany, but not a threat.”
Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziere also he said he was opposed to financial entities cutting off payments to WikiLeaks under pressure from Washington.
“If this occurs under pressure from the U.S. government, I don't think it is acceptable,” de Maiziere, a confidant of Chancellor Angela Merkel, said in an interview (http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,735587-2,00.html) with the German weekly Der Spiegel. “If a company freely decides to do so, then that is a corporate decision, but it is also politically problematic. I am a big advocate of what is known as net neutrality. This means that providers are compelled to transmit content without political or commercial pre-selection.”
PayPal and Bank of America have announced they will no longer process payments to WikiLeaks.
De Maiziere, Merkel's former chief of staff, also questioned how “intelligent” the U.S. government is for allowing so many people access to classified documents.
“From an international perspective, I see their actions as totally irresponsible,” de Maiziere said of WikiLeaks. “One might also ask, however, if a government is acting intelligently when it organizes its entire diplomatic correspondence on a network that can be accessed by 2.5 million people.”
The Government Accountability Office reported (http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2009/07/security_clearances.html) last year that over 2.4 million people have security clearances.
De Maiziere, the chancellor’s former chief of staff, cautioned that he wasn’t making a case for “total transparency” in foreign relations.
“Governments also have to be able to communicate confidentially. Confidentiality and transparency are not mutually exclusive, but rather two sides of the same coin,” he said.
But he said he was “astounded” to learn from WikiLeaks that Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton had ordered U.S. diplomats to “spy” on their foreign counterparts at the United Nations, by gathering such personal information as their “credit card account numbers; frequent flyer account numbers; work schedules, and other relevant biographical information,” as a cable signed by her said.
Such an order was “unprecedented,” former State Department intelligence chief Carl W. Ford told SpyTalk (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/spy-talk/2010/11/former_state_department_intell.html) on Nov. 29, but other U.S. diplomats said such headquarters directives were a longtime and routine practice, one not always fully obeyed.
In any event, de Maiziere said, a better target for WikiLeaks would be truly closed governments like those of China and Russia.
“I would actually prefer it if WikiLeaks focused less on transparent and open Western democracies and more on the world's dictatorships and oppressive regimes,” he said. “Then it could at least have a genuine informative purpose.”

[onmyknees]

Ben.........I'm beginning to warm towards this guy Assange....LMAO.
But in reality, to anyone paying any attention to what transpired in Hondouras, this disclosure is really NBFD. (no big fucking deal). And I suspect, your buds at the NY Times and Huff Po won't have the balls to even give it an honorable mention...so what's the fucking point?



Wikileaks: Obama Regime Knew Ousted Honduran Leader Was Socialist Pig – Backed Him to Please Chavez (http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/2010/12/wikileaks-obama-regime-knew-ousted-honduran-leader-was-socialist-pig-backed-him-to-please-chavez/)

Posted by Jim Hoft on Tuesday, December 21, 2010, 3:16 PM
The Obama Administration knew that Manuel Zelaya was an anti-democratic anti-Semitic (http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/2009/10/jewish-leaders-outraged-over-obamas-pal/) pig whose goal was to become ruler for life like his buddy Hugo Chavez. But, Team Obama decided to support him for the greater good of Latin American relations. Barack Obama even cut off aid to Honduras (http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/2009/08/figures-obama-cuts-off-aid-to-honduras/) in order to appease tyrant Hugo Chavez.

(Michael Ramirez (http://www.ibdeditorials.com/cartoons.aspx))
The news that President Obama cut off aid to American ally Honduras did not make many headlines. Barack Obama openly sided with Marxists Raul Castro, Hugo Chavez and Daniel Ortega in punishing the government of Honduras.
The Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703395204576023843828913256.html?m od=googlenews_wsj) reported, via Weasel Zippers (http://weaselzippers.us/2010/12/21/wikileaks-obama-regime-knew-deposed-honduras-marxist-president-manuel-zelaya-was-a-threat-to-democracy-backed-him-to-please-hugo-chavez/):

Lots of hypotheses have been floated to explain why the Obama administration went to such extremes last year to try to force Honduras to reinstate deposed president Manuel Zelaya.
Now the release of two WikiLeaked cables from the U.S. embassy in Tegucigalpa strengthens one of those theories: that the U.S. knew Mr. Zelaya was a threat to democratic Honduras but had decided the country should tolerate his constitutional violations in the interest of realpolitik.
Practically speaking, Hugo Chávez was the man to please. After a decade in power, the president of Venezuela’s influence around the region was notable. George W. Bush had clashed with him. Barack Obama was out to prove that they could get along, as evidenced by the warm handshake at the Summit of the Americas in Port of Spain in April 2009.
Honduras offered a bonding opportunity. Mr. Zelaya was a protégé of Mr. Chávez. Standing up for him as democratically elected was a way to score points with Latin America’s hard left.
But Honduras wasn’t willing to play the sacrificial lamb. When its other branches of government removed him from office last year, it caught Hugo Llorens, the U.S. ambassador, flat-footed. Saving face became the top priority.
Mr. Ford’s cable, written as he was turning his post over to Mr. Llorens after a three-year assignment in Tegucigalpa, supports this premise.
Instead of supporting Honduras Obama officials compared (http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/2009/09/unreal-us-official-condemns-honduran/) the interim leader to Napoleon. But, despite their work, the Obama Administration failed to prop (http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/2009/08/honduras-wins-castro-chavez-obama/) the Chavez lackey Manuel Zelaya back into power.

[lisaparadise]

Ben.........I'm beginning to warm towards this guy Assange....LMAO.
.nnnnnnnnnnnnnnooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

[onmyknees]

nnnnnnnnnnnnnnooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo


LMAO...Not a chance Lisa ! The only one I'm warming to is you baby ! :fuckin:

[bassman2546]

People that leak national secrets are committing treason and should punished to the full extent of the law.

And why do you think the government put this sort of treason law in place? To help protect the criminal activities they don't want the public knowing about. This world is in such disarray, and it's only going to get worse. Look at the video footage of the U.S. military running over a dead body they just killed for the hell of it and laughing about it. And that's not even the tip of the iceberg as to what is going on over there.

I'm at a loss as to why anyone thinks these guys should be put do death or life in prison, unless you support the communist ways of this world.

The fact that Assange ran to Sweden was because of the bullshit laws the governments put in place to defend their greedy criminal activities.

God, what is wrong with the people against this?!!!

It's long overdue!!

[Ben]

nnnnnnnnnnnnnnooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Wikileaks &/or Assange haven't broken any laws. And Assange hasn't been charged with anything.
Again, it was Bradley Manning who broke the law. (And as Repiblican Ron Paul [who I like] has said: Governments have gotta do a much better job at safeguarding their secrets. I mean, how does a GRUNT like Manning get access to so many government secrets? That should concern all Americans.)
And if Assange is guilty of rape, well, he should be thrown in a cage for a very long time. I don't know Assange. He could very well be a rapist. I've no idea. So, again, IF HE COMMITTED RAPE, well, I want him in prison for a very long time.
And to quote Glenn Beck: "He's (Assange) exposing the lies of our government."
And to quote Judge Napolitano: "The thief who steals the document is committing the crime. The person who disseminates them, as long as they're truthful documents, does NOT commit the crime. That IS the Pentagon Papers case."

YouTube - Judge Napolitano - Glenn Beck Show - 12/13/10 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T_ggPWNm5M)

[thx1138]

This is all a distraction to keep the sheeple's attention focused on the wrong issue. (until too late) The real issue is the coming financial collapse:
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/municipal-bond-market-crash-2011-are-dozens-of-state-and-local-governments-about-to-default-on-their-debts

[Ben]

Julian Assange...


YouTube - Julian Assange: "There's An Enormous Hidden World We Don't Know About" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sz4EUEtg0-I)

[Ben]

Julian Assange awarded Australian peace prize

WikiLeaks founder receives the Sydney Peace Foundation's gold medal for 'championing people's right to know'



guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/), Wednesday 11 May 2011 05.17 BST




http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2011/5/11/1305087240315/Julian-Assange-holds-up-h-006.jpg Julian Assange was presented with the Sydney Peace Foundation's gold medal at the Frontline Club in London. Photograph: Stefan Wermuth/Reuters

WikiLeaks (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/wikileaks)' Australian founder Julian Assange (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/julian-assange), who enraged Washington by publishing thousands of secret US diplomatic cables, has been given a peace award for "exceptional courage in pursuit of human rights".
Assange was awarded the Sydney Peace Foundation's gold medal on Tuesday at the Frontline Club in London, only the fourth such award to be handed out in its 14-year history. The not-for-profit organisation is associated with the University of Sydney and supported by the City of Sydney.
Assange, who is fighting extradition from Britain to Sweden over alleged sex crimes, was praised for "challenging centuries-old practices of government secrecy and by championing people's right to know".
"We think the struggle for peace with justice inevitably involves conflict, inevitably involves controversy," the foundation's director, Professor Stuart Rees, said.
"We think that you and WikiLeaks have brought about what we think is a watershed in journalism and in freedom of information and potentially in politics."
Rees criticised the Australian government, saying it must stop shoring up Washington's efforts to "behave like a totalitarian state", and said the foundation was "appalled by the violent behaviour by major politicians in the United States (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/usa)".
WikiLeaks caused a media and diplomatic uproar late last year when it began to publish its cache of more than 250,000 US diplomatic cables, revealing secrets such as that Saudi leaders had urged US military action against Iran. Some US politicians said WikiLeaks should be defined as an international terrorist organisation.
Assange himself claimed publication of the cables helped shape uprisings in north Africa and the Middle East and said WikiLeaks was on the side of justice.

[onmyknees]

Julian Assange awarded Australian peace prize

WikiLeaks founder receives the Sydney Peace Foundation's gold medal for 'championing people's right to know'



guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/), Wednesday 11 May 2011 05.17 BST



http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2011/5/11/1305087240315/Julian-Assange-holds-up-h-006.jpg Julian Assange was presented with the Sydney Peace Foundation's gold medal at the Frontline Club in London. Photograph: Stefan Wermuth/Reuters

WikiLeaks (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/wikileaks)' Australian founder Julian Assange (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/julian-assange), who enraged Washington by publishing thousands of secret US diplomatic cables, has been given a peace award for "exceptional courage in pursuit of human rights".
Assange was awarded the Sydney Peace Foundation's gold medal on Tuesday at the Frontline Club in London, only the fourth such award to be handed out in its 14-year history. The not-for-profit organisation is associated with the University of Sydney and supported by the City of Sydney.
Assange, who is fighting extradition from Britain to Sweden over alleged sex crimes, was praised for "challenging centuries-old practices of government secrecy and by championing people's right to know".
"We think the struggle for peace with justice inevitably involves conflict, inevitably involves controversy," the foundation's director, Professor Stuart Rees, said.
"We think that you and WikiLeaks have brought about what we think is a watershed in journalism and in freedom of information and potentially in politics."
Rees criticised the Australian government, saying it must stop shoring up Washington's efforts to "behave like a totalitarian state", and said the foundation was "appalled by the violent behaviour by major politicians in the United States (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/usa)".
WikiLeaks caused a media and diplomatic uproar late last year when it began to publish its cache of more than 250,000 US diplomatic cables, revealing secrets such as that Saudi leaders had urged US military action against Iran. Some US politicians said WikiLeaks should be defined as an international terrorist organisation.
Assange himself claimed publication of the cables helped shape uprisings in north Africa and the Middle East and said WikiLeaks was on the side of justice.



Ben........and this surprises you why? The Sydney Peace Foundation? It's hardly as deserved or prestigious as a nobel peace prize......LOL

[Jericho]

Not sure he deserves a peace prize, but............

[anon451]

Julian Assange deserves to be gunned down in the dirt like a dog, and the whole Wikkileaks organization should be destroyed and dismantled. If I still had the physical capability to do it myself I would. Unfortunately I lost it fighting for my country's freedom and security which has been repeatedly threatened by this asshole and his fucking criminal organization..I would not hesitate to pull the trigger on every one of them, starting with the American traitors who stole information for him just to make a buck. The fuckers all deserve to die..

[robertlouis]

Julian Assange deserves to be gunned down in the dirt like a dog, and the whole Wikkileaks organization should be destroyed and dismantled. If I still had the physical capability to do it myself I would. Unfortunately I lost it fighting for my country's freedom and security which has been repeatedly threatened by this asshole and his fucking criminal organization..I would not hesitate to pull the trigger on every one of them, starting with the American traitors who stole information for him just to make a buck. The fuckers all deserve to die..

Not a peacenik then.....

[Jericho]

Julian Assange deserves to be gunned down in the dirt like a dog, and the whole Wikkileaks organization should be destroyed and dismantled. If I still had the physical capability to do it myself I would. Unfortunately I lost it fighting for my country's freedom and security which has been repeatedly threatened by this asshole and his fucking criminal organization..I would not hesitate to pull the trigger on every one of them, starting with the American traitors who stole information for him just to make a buck. The fuckers all deserve to die..

Fuck you, wanker!

You didn't fight for your countries freedom, you fought for the same reasons i did...And they're all bullshit!

If Assange gets a medal for telling the truth, good luck to him. Maybe more will follow suit ! :shrug

[Helvis2012]

Sadly, many people here, sounding off on this issue, fail to realize that if the very same people that they call on to lock WIiKI-Man up, would do just the same to their T-chasing asses.

It's a fool's paradise. Sleep tight.

[robertlouis]

Julian Assange deserves to be gunned down in the dirt like a dog, and the whole Wikkileaks organization should be destroyed and dismantled. If I still had the physical capability to do it myself I would. Unfortunately I lost it fighting for my country's freedom and security which has been repeatedly threatened by this asshole and his fucking criminal organization..I would not hesitate to pull the trigger on every one of them, starting with the American traitors who stole information for him just to make a buck. The fuckers all deserve to die..

That just about sums up all the best reasons why the UK should resist the US's attempts to extradict Assange to the utmost.

[betts]

That just about sums up all the best reasons why the UK should resist the US's attempts to extradict Assange to the utmost.

This.