Wikileaks

[Brett]

I have not read 1984, but I have read Orwell's Animal Farm.

 

[filipovisck]

The strong do as they will, the weak do as they must.

👍

About wikileaks, lately i feel a bit for Manning. Imprisoned in solitary confinement for already more than 7 months,
allegedly for (denouncing war crimes through the) revealing of a lot of classified information, with not even a trial!

I'm not from US, never lived or been, although I like there and the people . (for many reasons)
But, just saying, if I heard about someone being imprisoned in solitary confinement for 7 months without a trial in Saudi Arabia,
Iran or North Korea, I would think 'ah dictatorships, their society has a lot to improve'. but in the US, the
self-proclaimed world's 'democracy/freedom/humans right' paladin? IMO something seems to be going in the wrong way there. 👎

 

[Dotini]

There is now some reason to believe WikiLeaks has caused its first national revolution - currently going down in Tunisia...http://wikileaks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/01/13/wikileaks_and_the_tunisia_protests

Respectfully submitted,
Dotini

 

[DK]

I've just thought of something: Assange reminds me of two characters from Stieg Larsson's "Millennium" trilogy. Care to guess which ones?

 

[Dotini]

Saudi Reserves Overstated; Peak Oil Real

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/feb/08/saudi-oil-reserves-overstated-wikileaks
The US fears that Saudi Arabia, the world's largest crude oil exporter, may not have enough reserves to prevent oil prices escalating, confidential cables from its embassy in Riyadh show.

The cables, released by WikiLeaks, urge Washington to take seriously a warning from a senior Saudi government oil executive that the kingdom's crude oil reserves may have been overstated by as much as 300bn barrels – nearly 40%.

The revelation comes as the oil price has soared in recent weeks to more than $100 a barrel on global demand and tensions in the Middle East. Many analysts expect that the Saudis and their Opec cartel partners would pump more oil if rising prices threatened to choke off demand.

However, Sadad al-Husseini, a geologist and former head of exploration at the Saudi oil monopoly Aramco, met the US consul general in Riyadh in November 2007 and told the US diplomat that Aramco's 12.5m barrel-a-day capacity needed to keep a lid on prices could not be reached.

According to the cables, which date between 2007-09, Husseini said Saudi Arabia might reach an output of 12m barrels a day in 10 years but before then – possibly as early as 2012 – global oil production would have hit its highest point. This crunch point is known as "peak oil".

Husseini said that at that point Aramco would not be able to stop the rise of global oil prices because the Saudi energy industry had overstated its recoverable reserves to spur foreign investment. He argued that Aramco had badly underestimated the time needed to bring new oil on tap.

One cable said: "According to al-Husseini, the crux of the issue is twofold. First, it is possible that Saudi reserves are not as bountiful as sometimes described, and the timeline for their production not as unrestrained as Aramco and energy optimists would like to portray."

It went on: "In a presentation, Abdallah al-Saif, current Aramco senior vice-president for exploration, reported that Aramco has 716bn barrels of total reserves, of which 51% are recoverable, and that in 20 years Aramco will have 900bn barrels of reserves.

"Al-Husseini disagrees with this analysis, believing Aramco's reserves are overstated by as much as 300bn barrels. In his view once 50% of original proven reserves has been reached … a steady output in decline will ensue and no amount of effort will be able to stop it. He believes that what will result is a plateau in total output that will last approximately 15 years followed by decreasing output."

The US consul then told Washington: "While al-Husseini fundamentally contradicts the Aramco company line, he is no doomsday theorist. His pedigree, experience and outlook demand that his predictions be thoughtfully considered."

Seven months later, the US embassy in Riyadh went further in two more cables. "Our mission now questions how much the Saudis can now substantively influence the crude markets over the long term. Clearly they can drive prices up, but we question whether they any longer have the power to drive prices down for a prolonged period."

A fourth cable, in October 2009, claimed that escalating electricity demand by Saudi Arabia may further constrain Saudi oil exports. "Demand [for electricity] is expected to grow 10% a year over the next decade as a result of population and economic growth. As a result it will need to double its generation capacity to 68,000MW in 2018," it said.

It also reported major project delays and accidents as "evidence that the Saudi Aramco is having to run harder to stay in place – to replace the decline in existing production." While fears of premature "peak oil" and Saudi production problems had been expressed before, no US official has come close to saying this in public.

In the last two years, other senior energy analysts have backed Husseini. Fatih Birol, chief economist to the International Energy Agency, told the Guardian last year that conventional crude output could plateau in 2020, a development that was "not good news" for a world still heavily dependent on petroleum.

Jeremy Leggett, convenor of the UK Industry Taskforce on Peak Oil and Energy Security, said: "We are asleep at the wheel here: choosing to ignore a threat to the global economy that is quite as bad as the credit crunch, quite possibly worse."

 

[Wolf-M]

Please, by all means, do so. The more I hear about the Wikileaks situation, the more irony and hypocrisy I see. That, and the more I realize many Libertarians are simply Anarchists.

That is only one such scenario. I agree that there are times when the information divulged should really stay out of public eyes and are better kept in secret. The breach of the Tiger Woods super injunction in the UK probably is one such example - the conduct of Wikileaks is clear defiance of the established legal order and is to be condemned. After all, what public interest would it serve to probe into the private life of a perverted golfer?

But what about these videos: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/05/wikileaks-us-army-iraq-attack

It's surely a thin line between the media's legitimate right in holding governmental authorities responsibile and the irresponsible and unjustified intrusion of privacy. I don't really think a conclusion can be reached here, it's after all the century old problem of balancing two conflicting rights and different people are bound to come to vastly different conclusions.

But the point I'm making here is simple - the (positive) significance of Wikileaks in promoting the freedom of dissemination of ideas (and consequently freedom of the press) can never be dismissed no matter how much you hate them.

Irony means the opposite of something, not the Alanis Morrisette definition, which is coincidental or similar bad luck.

Assange having his personal information leaked is the same thing he is doing to government information, not ironic. It would be ironic if he had found a way to remove all his personal information from public record.

I'm not sure what else you thought I would have, I was merely pointing out the improper use of the term.

What you said is only one aspect of the meaning of the word "irony". Why not rely on authorities this time - see the definition from Oxford English Dictionary:

"The amusing or strange aspect of a situation that is very different from what you expect; a situation like this"

Example:
"The irony is that when he finally got the job, he discovered he didn't like it."
"It was one of life's little ironies."

Hope this helped.

 

[ledhed]

The wiki leak guy is maybe guilty of being a dork ,but he got info and shared it , he didn't steal it --he didn't aggree to keep a secret ..he din't hack or break any law , that can be proven yet ,
The guilty are those that broke oaths , contracts or laws to get him info .
The IDIOTS and INCOMPETENT FOOLS , who are SUPPOSED to protect sensitive info are EPIC FAILURES --they share blame with the leakers ...going after the wiki leaks midget is a smokescreen ..
Get rid of the morons who are charged with protecting the info and catch and prosecute the lawbreakers ..

 

[blaaah]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/the-us-bank-and-the-secret-plan-to-destroy-wikileaks-2215059.html
The US bank and the plan to destroy wikileaks and threaten those who donate to wikileaks.

 

[TheToad263]

I am a journalist and I look at Julian as a Hero

 

[Alex p.]

I am a journalist and I look at Julian as a Hero

I often hear that journalists tend to say there is no real freedom of speech (or in this case: free press), in no country. How do you feel about that?

 

[Wolf-M]

I often hear that journalists tend to say there is no real freedom of speech (or in this case: free press), in no country. How do you feel about that?

That is true in every jurisdiction. Certainly every citizen has the right to free speech/expression. But at the same time on many occasions this right is exercised at the expense of other similarly important fundamental rights - eg privacy, right to private/family life etc National interests need also be weighed for the collective good of the whole society as in the case of Wikileaks. Ultimately it is one of balancing between two equally significant yet conflicting considerations.

So if you're talking about absolute freedom of speech, no, you won't find that in any place, not even in the US.

 

[Alex p.]

Understand. What makes me angry/sad about what you said is, that there is this common opinion that people can SIMPLY not handle "the truth", so we gotta hide it to not risk mass panic or something along those lines-I say ******** to that. Just my opinion.

 

[Dotini]

Understand. What makes me angry/sad about what you said is, that there is this common opinion that people can SIMPLY not handle "the truth", so we gotta hide it to not risk mass panic or something along those lines-I say ******** to that. Just my opinion.

For many people, life is a daily struggle with pain and misery. The illusion of safety, comfort and pleasure is understandably to be preferred over the harsher reality of somebody else's so-called truth. This is easier to understand as you grow older.

Respectfully,
Dotini

 

[Alex p.]

That is not a question of age. I understand that fully, and always understood that.

 

[Duck149]

So I'm curious to hear what the users of GTP think of the whole situation, which has recently escalated after British officials stated that they may breach into the Ecuadorian embassy and take Mr.Assange by force...

 

[II-zOoLoGy-II]

Good.

 

[Wiegert]

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=135207

 

[prisonermonkeys]

To be fair, that thread has been inactive for 18 months.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Okay, let's revive this discussion, given that the standoff between Assange and the British is coming to a head. Ecuador is on the verge of announcing a decision regarding his plea for political asylum, while the British have threatened to storm to embassy where Assange is currently awaiting a decision from Quito.

 

[hawkeye122]

It seems Assange's time is running out. I'm starting to think that if he IS innocent of the sexual assault charges, he should have no problem testifying. Requesting asylum in an Embassy seems like a guilty move. Unless Sweden has some unusually negative, unfair court system.


This has the makings of a good book. But other things would have to be added.

 

[Casio]

Rape charges are questionable at best (They got rid of the arrest warrant because they had no evidence). Everyone can see the only want him in Sweden so then can be extradited to the US and locked away for life or killed.

But I think the worst thing is the complete lack of action on behalf of the Australian government. Grow some balls and make a proper stand rather than saying 'We have support him'.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Assange - and his supporters - believe that the charges in Sweden have been trumped up as a pretext to get him deported to Stockholm, at which point the Americans will request extradition and the Swedes will oblige, and Assange will face charges in relation to the publication of classified material once he arrives in Washington.

Exactly why America is taking such a circutous route to get Assange is never quite explained.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I think the worst thing is the complete lack of action on behalf of the Australian government. Grow some balls and make a proper stand rather than saying 'We have support him'.

Why should the Australian government support him? Simply because he is Australian? How would it look if Australia supported Assasnge and he was proven to be guilty of a crime that he would have been prosecuted for here?

Assange has essentially done what every stereotypical journalist has done: published something and then washed their hands of anything that came of it, claiming that the public had a right to know about it. And I can understand "the public have a right to know", but he's not taking responsibility for his actions. At the first sign of trouble, he ran to the Ecuadorian embassy. If he genuinely believed that he was being falsely persecuted, why didn't he go the the Australian High Commission?

Assange went to the Ecuadorian embassy because he knows that political relations between Ecuador and America are not exactly rock-steady. There is no extradition treaty between Ecuador and America. And although there is such a treaty between Australia and America, I believe Australian law would protect Assange long enough for the Australians to investigate. Look at that guy - I forget his name; Gabe Something - who was accused of murdering his wife while they were scuba-diving. He was extradited to America, but only once Australia was done with him. It is a different situation, but there are provisions within the law that Assange could rely on. Australia probably would not have turned him over to the Americans straight away and without a second thought.

Running to the Ecuadorian embassy makes Assange look guilty.

 

[FoolKiller]

while the British have threatened to storm to embassy where Assange is currently awaiting a decision from Quito.

Since embassies are technically foreign soil, thus meaning Britain is threatening to invade Ecuador, can't that be an act of war?

Exactly why America is taking such a circutous route to get Assange is never quite explained.

Because invading foreign soil to arrest a single man for saying too much is an absolutely crazy notion. Unless you are Britain, of course.

I mean is that sensible behavior just to make a man face sexual assault charges in another country? And Im not trying to downplay the seriousness if sexual assault here, even if they did suspiciously come up just after he pissed America off. But honestly, if Ecuador chose to protect the sanctity of their soil lives could be at risk.

Of course, America could never explained keeping Bradley Manning detained and having his Constitutional rights repeatedly violated. So, if they will go out of their way to mistreat one individual in this case why not go out of their way to arrest the other?

And if I were Assange and I saw official investigations claiming cruel and unusual pre-trial punishment for the American citizen, who has guaranteed rights against that kind if treatment, who helped me get the classified materials I'd run too.

 

[Casio]

I think the Australian government should publicly question the integrity of the charges being bought upon on him.

 

[Grayfox]

If the UK barges into the Ecuadorian embassy that can be seen as an act of war since the Ecuadorian embassy is classed as Ecuadorian soil.

Plus their are laws against it and if they did it Assange will be let go as the UK will have a global backlash.

Plus I think it is good what Assange did America has killed many though this stupid war and some of their soldiers killed people for kicks.

But they can be charged for murder cause it is classed as a casualty of war.

Plus I see America as a war mongering nation,they are ordering china to back off in their own waters, they complained when North Korea where making long range missiles.

 

[hawkeye122]

Since embassies are technically foreign soil, thus meaning Britain is threatening to invade Ecuador, can't that be an act of war?


Because invading foreign soil to arrest a single man for saying too much is an absolutely crazy notion. Unless you are Britain, of course.

Britain has some sort of rule that once they are officially "Mad" at you, you get one week of sovereignty, and it then becomes Great Britain again, and they do what they want.

"Under British law we can give them a weeks' notice before entering the premises and the embassy will no longer have diplomatic protection," a Foreign Office spokesman said. "But that decision has not yet been taken. We are not going to do this overnight. We want to stress that we want a diplomatically agreeable solution."

Saying that Sweden will send him here seems a bit James Bond to me. The US doesnt have a case, since Assange is just "The Press". Manning did wrong, and he got smacked.

But thats not how it will work in the end. He'll get sent here, and quietly spend his life in Leavenworth. Or Pelican Bay.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Since embassies are technically foreign soil, thus meaning Britain is threatening to invade Ecuador, can't that be an act of war?

Only if they follow through on it, and where is it written that they intend to make good on the threat?

If Assange is granted asylum in Ecuador, then he has to get to Ecuador. While the embassy is considered soverign soil for Ecuador, there's twenty kilometres between him and the nearest airport, and all of that is British. While a car owned and used by a foreign embassy may be considered as soverign, this only applies under certain circumstances. If Assange leaves the embassy for Heathrow, Gatwick or any other airport, the British would be well within their rights to detain him en route.

Because invading foreign soil to arrest a single man for saying too much is an absolutely crazy notion. Unless you are Britain, of course.

That's not what Assange is being arrested for. He is being sent to Sweden to face sexual assault charges, and the High Court ruled that the extradition was legal. The British have no control over what happens to him once he is released to Swedish custody.

I think the Australian government should publicly question the integrity of the charges being bought upon on him.

I think the Australian government should publicly question the integrity of Julian Assange. Like I said, running to the Ecuadorian embassy instead of the Australian makes him look guilty.

I find it rather hypocritical for people to call for Australia to step in and do something. Assange had the option of going to the Australian High Commission. He didn't. And yet, people still expect the government to step in and help?

 

[Sphinx]

Can anyone supply a valid source highligting that Assange has actually been charged for anything by the Swedish?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Can anyone supply a valid source highligting that Assange has actually been charged for anything by the Swedish?

I don't think he can actually be charged with anything until he is there in person. The Swedish Prosecution Authority issued an arrest warrant for him, but it's possible that he cannot be formally charged with anything until that warrant is served, which was the entire point of the extradition hearing - to get him to Sweden to answer to the investigation.