Bullshark

Wikileaks

30 posts in this topic

So I make the observation that I've never really bothered too much with Wikileaks, even after the whole '10 billion gigs of bad press about the war' stuff they published a few months back.

Only now 'the powers that be' are smashing the websites, charging the owner with sexual assault and deleting his paypal account - his PAYPAL account if you can believe it...

Gotta say, now i'm intrigued - might become a Wikileaks aficionado (assuming they dont extraordinary rendition the guy to Egypt and disappear him good).

Anyone else getting into Wikileaks now The Bankers wan't him dead?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where there's smoke, there's bound to be fire!!

Surely they weren't so naive at Wikileaks, though to believe that if they tread on enough toes, that those same people might start fighting back.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer claimed

"To understand reality is not the same as to know about outward events. It is to perceive the essential nature of things. The best-informed man is not necessarily the wisest. Indeed there is a danger that precisely in the multiplicity of his knowledge he will lose sight of what is essential. But on the other hand, knowledge of an apparently trivial detail quite often makes it possible to see into the depths of things. And so the wise man will seek to acquire the best possible knowledge about events, but always without becoming dependent upon this knowledge. To recognize the significant in the factual is wisdom."

— Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Of course, he was killed for his efforts to reveal the truth.

John the Baptist did the same. He was beheaded!!

Perhaps there is a pattern here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The authoritarian response is truly disturbing, and the calls for his murder from the likes of O'Reilly is disgracefull.

To me the most important thing is that the heavyhanded response is exposing so many of our politicians, and much of the media for the power hungry arseholes they truly are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Revealed on Wikileaks this morning - Kevin Rudd telling the US to open up their can of whoopass on China:

http://www.news.com.au/national/wikileaks-cable-reveals-kevin-rudds-plan-for-paranoid-china/story-e6frfkw9-1225966069413

I thought him and China were best buddies, wonder if there will be any repercussions against Australia over this one...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

really 1984 ish

truth is terror

rather the opposite

I'm not convinced that airing confidential diplomatic memos is the best way to go, to be honest -- seems rather naive. sort of like 'I've got a secret, so I have to tell everybody' -- in the case of corporate malfeasance or unjustified wars and invasions, yes, but day to day diplomatic concerns? It's a little like the Jim Carrey movie 'Liar' -- we couldn't function as communities and societies without a few harmless white lies to keep everyone happy. do we run around telling all our friends they're overweight or boorish or have bad dress sense or whatever in the interests of 'let the truth be free, and the devil the consequences'?

plus the article points out he's a dirty Queenslander, that explains it all...

Edited by Sean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

rather the opposite

I'm not convinced that airing confidential diplomatic memos is the best way to go, to be honest -- seems rather naive.

Mish publishes the counter argument.

Why We Have Leaks

No one has bothered to tackle the question why we have security problems and leaks.

I will tell you why: The US has troops in 140 countries around the world, we arrogantly go where we have no vested interest going, we support corrupt regimes when it suits our purposes, we follow the asinine creed "the enemy of our enemy is our friend", and we believe we - and we alone - act as the moral authority to be the world's policeman.

When you do that you make enemies. When you make enemies you create security problems.

Instead of addressing WHY we make enemies, we setup sham terrorist organizations like the Department of Homeland Security whose efforts make us less secure.

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/12/amazon-drops-wikileaks-on-request-of.html

Ron Paul

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/12/ron-paul-suggests-we-need-fed-wikileaks.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah exactlly when is it good to reveal your helicopter troops gunning down unarmed men in the street?

exactly when is it good to reveal you are torturing people with electrodes and dogs?

the gov has proven it cant be trusted with secrets,.

and damn the fool that ever thought they can, if they acted morally , even revealing the bad sh*t themselves, is moral. then they can take the high ground,.

i wonder when the wiki leak between america and china where america states if it came to a war between the two, they would hand over australia as tribute to prevent it comes out?

these power guys aint moral, they want what they want, and they dont want the world looking at them thru a clear window. if they aCTED JUSTLY then there would be no need for wiki leaks, after all we're the good guys right?

Edited by savagegoose

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Julian [Assange] charged with having sex without a condom - all over the media.

Julia [Gillard] charged with treason and misprision of treason (concealing treason) - not a peep from the media.

What a disgrace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Julia [Gillard] charged with treason and misprision of treason (concealing treason) - not a peep from the media.

I don't understand this part. Can you explain further?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand this part. Can you explain further?

It's our own home-grown take on the 'birther' nuttery from the USA. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand this part. Can you explain further?

As Tinpusher said you can google for info.

It seems to be an obvious act of treason (prima facie). Refer to Sec 42, 44 and the schedule in the Constitution and then view her affirmation when appointed PM in June (on youtube). The legal definition for treason is a breach of allegiance. Now tell me what do you think? She has sworn allegiance to a company registered with the SEC, not with the Crown (and refer to the Coronation Oath - the Queen serves the people).

Such a charge requires an indictment and there's only two ways of getting that - the DPP and grand jury. The head of the DPP Jeremy Rapke is currently charged and also charged with perverting the course of justice (and is under serious accusations of corruption), so the DPP is not going to handle it. A grand jury is looking unlikely given that Rob Hulls introduced a bill in 2009 to abolish common law grand juries.

Hopefully Robert Clark has a set of balls and will clean up this mess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Tinpusher said you can google for info.

It seems to be an obvious act of treason (prima facie). Refer to Sec 42, 44 and the schedule in the Constitution and then view her affirmation when appointed PM in June (on youtube). The legal definition for treason is a breach of allegiance. Now tell me what do you think? She has sworn allegiance to a company registered with the SEC, not with the Crown (and refer to the Coronation Oath - the Queen serves the people).

Such a charge requires an indictment and there's only two ways of getting that - the DPP and grand jury. The head of the DPP Jeremy Rapke is currently charged and also charged with perverting the course of justice (and is under serious accusations of corruption), so the DPP is not going to handle it. A grand jury is looking unlikely given that Rob Hulls introduced a bill in 2009 to abolish common law grand juries.

Hopefully Robert Clark has a set of balls and will clean up this mess.

The whole thing is because she won't swear to God?

If she had sworn to God that would be just as troublesome wouldn't it? She would have openly said "Screw you I'll do what I want" given that she has publicly stated to being an atheist and therefore the oath to God is the equivalent of yelling "Elephant tuesday bumrush".

If it gets resolved it will be a retroactive change to the constitution allowing you to say "yeah sure I'll do my best" instead of "I promise to do my best and my invisible friend can totally bake my arse if I don't".

I don't get these people with the birth certificate and the God is in charge and blah blah blah. The opposition would love to have her kicked out on a technicality. They have cash and lawyers and yet somehow all their lawyers can't see something a million whackos on the internet can see.

As usual this comes down to people purporting to be smart wasting their time and supposed intellect on stuff that doesn't matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr Medved's definition of "charged with treason" seems to include what other people might refer to as "fanciful action brought about by known vexatious litigant and dutifully dismissed by the court"?

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/litigant-pests-cost-62m/story-e6frf7kx-1111114389589

Which does raise the question of what Mr Medved is going to do with the knowledge he gains from his 100K course. Hopefully not follow in those footsteps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which does raise the question of what Mr Medved is going to do with the knowledge he gains from his 100K course. Hopefully not follow in those footsteps.

Remember a robust legal system as we have in Australia is only made stronger by people testing it.

I know what you say about taxpayer dollars but really if you don't agree with this, and their may be valid reasons for nto agreeing with it, but I say if someone wants to bring a case let them bring it. If there is strong precedent it will not take long to knock it on the head anyway. If not then perhaps testing it is a worthwhile exercise for future perhaps at first seemingly unrelated cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr Medved's definition of "charged with treason" seems to include what other people might refer to as "fanciful action brought about by known vexatious litigant and dutifully dismissed by the court"?

http://www.heraldsun...x-1111114389589

It's not my definition - it is the legal definition. Deal with the facts.

- The Constitution

- Gillard's affirmation

- Definition of treason (see Halsbury's Statutes of England)

The DPP label people as vexatious to keep them out of the courts. I know a guy who had to defend a charge of being a vexatious litigant in NSW. It's just a way to try and shut him up. He knows his stuff, he has a law degree and has been studying law for 20 years. There is so much fraud and criminality in the court system it is frightening. Most people aren't exposed to the courts so would have no idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole thing is because she won't swear to God?

If she had sworn to God that would be just as troublesome wouldn't it? She would have openly said "Screw you I'll do what I want" given that she has publicly stated to being an atheist and therefore the oath to God is the equivalent of yelling "Elephant tuesday bumrush".

If it gets resolved it will be a retroactive change to the constitution allowing you to say "yeah sure I'll do my best" instead of "I promise to do my best and my invisible friend can totally bake my arse if I don't".

I don't get these people with the birth certificate and the God is in charge and blah blah blah. The opposition would love to have her kicked out on a technicality. They have cash and lawyers and yet somehow all their lawyers can't see something a million whackos on the internet can see.

As usual this comes down to people purporting to be smart wasting their time and supposed intellect on stuff that doesn't matter.

Tor - plenty of Liberal politicans (and Greens, and Justices, and Ministers) are in the same boat, it is not a political issue.

What is the point of having a Constitution if it is ignored? Her affirmation is unconstitutional. It's like George W Bush saying the constitution is just a piece of paper... and we know where that sort of attitude leads us.

When the rule of law crumbles and collapses, society crumbles and collapses. The last 5000 years is enough evidence of that. It matters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tor - plenty of Liberal politicans (and Greens, and Justices, and Ministers) are in the same boat, it is not a political issue.

What is the point of having a Constitution if it is ignored? Her affirmation is unconstitutional. It's like George W Bush saying the constitution is just a piece of paper... and we know where that sort of attitude leads us.

When the rule of law crumbles and collapses, society crumbles and collapses. The last 5000 years is enough evidence of that. It matters.

If it is the same for all of them why do they not claim all of them are treasonous?

What is to be gained from it? Are you hoping that affirmations get removed or that the politicians are removed or that affirmations are allowed?

Personally I would make a wild arse guess and say that there is some series of precedents which makes this valid and not the crumbling of the rule of law.

And it doesn't matter!

Why don't these smart people with their awesome skills work on things which are actually important? I can't see this as having any impact except the rules might get changed to make the status quo specifically clear to stop people wasting their time with it.

There are some really hard questions out there which, if these people were altruistic and smart, would be really great to have resolved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not my definition - it is the legal definition. Deal with the facts.

- The Constitution

- Gillard's affirmation

- Definition of treason (see Halsbury's Statutes of England)

It's the word "charged" I dispute. I don't dispute that serial pest Brian William Shaw 'charged' Julia Gillard. But Julia Gillard was never "charged with treason" in the sense that there was ever any reason to expect that she would be asked to answer such a charge in a court of law.

I can 'charge' tor with treason if I want to. It too would be meaningless and fruitless (I guess?). And if people then went around stating without qualification that "tor has been charged with treason" they would be implying a fairly inaccurate picture.

Some funnies:

http://www.elijahschallenge.net/legal.htm

http://www.larryhannigan.com/election2010.htm

I particularly like the bit where it says if I read it and don't reveal it to the public within 24 hours, I'm going to be charged with treason too!...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the word "charged" I dispute. I don't dispute that serial pest Brian William Shaw 'charged' Julia Gillard. But Julia Gillard was never "charged with treason" in the sense that there was ever any reason to expect that she would be asked to answer such a charge in a court of law.

I can 'charge' tor with treason if I want to. It too would be meaningless and fruitless (I guess?). And if people then went around stating without qualification that "tor has been charged with treason" they would be implying a fairly inaccurate picture.

Some funnies:

http://www.elijahschallenge.net/legal.htm

http://www.larryhannigan.com/election2010.htm

I particularly like the bit where it says if I read it and don't reveal it to the public within 24 hours, I'm going to be charged with treason too!...

Hard to charge me with treason, not a member of this country.

I would apparently deserve it though if I was because I don't believe in God either.

What do we charge people with that took the god oath but don't believe in god?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hard to charge me with treason, not a member of this country.

I would apparently deserve it though if I was because I don't believe in God either.

What do we charge people with that took the god oath but don't believe in god?

Eternity in hell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hard to charge me with treason, not a member of this country.

Not an obstacle.

I could still substitute your name onto this semi-blank form and lodge it at my local court:

http://www.elijahschallenge.net/legal/charges/Charge%20Sheet%20and%20Summons%20Gillard%20Blank.pdf

Then serve you.

Bamm! :thumbsup:

The DPP would be forced to waste time officially discontinuing the process, and I would gain the great pleasure of being able to claim that "tor has been charged with treason". Though I suspect that would tickle you almost as much?

Eternity in hell.

Sounds like my kind of party!

Back on topic, the news is suggesting that Assange might surrender himself soonish? And even better, that if he is persecuted or killed that he has mechanisms in place to release a 'doomsday file' of highest classified material?!?

2 years ago this could have been a movie plot and I would have said "yeah, 'sif!"... :shocking:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now