WikiLeaks

[Sprucegoose]

Let the man go. He has comitted no crime

 

[Postcode]

After trawling through a good deal of the leaked cables relating to Australia - leaked not by Assange but by an American - there's nothing surprising at all. Not much more on people than can be found on wikipedia or google. Just chatter by American embassy staff and how they perceive Australian politics and those involved in it. A high school student could have written these reports.

It seems the American interests in our country read and report back to Washington on what they read on news.com.au and abc.net.au Rather lazy and superficial I would have thought. I'm sure the same comes from our embassy in Washington.

And they want to shoot the messenger.

 

[Oneworldplus2]

Got these links for another forum and l thought that l'd post the links.

Very good documentary about Wikileaks. Brilliant!

Part 1
[video=youtube;NhTfOL9_HBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhTfOL9_HBE[/video]

Part 2
[video=youtube;SRF3gYxz1XQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRF3gYxz1XQ&feature=related[/video]

Part 3
[video=youtube;q6TRb40Km6A]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6TRb40Km6A&feature=related[/video]

Part 4
[video=youtube;8imkYy_hJ4E]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8imkYy_hJ4E&feature=related[/video]

 

[UP4014]

And they want to shoot the messenger.

A bit like the Howard Govt and Andrew Wilkie.

 

[Oneworldplus2]

Frost over the World - Julian Assange interview



[video=youtube;U6mcSXge4Qo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6mcSXge4Qo&feature=player_embedded#![/video]

 

[Oneworldplus2]

Things getting hot again.

[video=youtube;l9m2kJbo_cc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9m2kJbo_cc[/video]

 

[yeldarb8]

The American Century is well and truly over. They know it. Just desperately trying to cling onto what has already been lost... credibility, integrity, moral high ground. A democracy survives only under the cleansing light of scrutiny... it's a shame that most Americans, in their ignorance, believe they live in a democracy. A bit like believing the American Civil War was about slavery...

 

[medhead]

A bit like believing the American Civil War was about slavery...

Exactly the American civil war was about state rights.

State rights to have slavery.

 

[yeldarb8]

Exactly the American civil war was about state rights.

State rights to have slavery.

State rights to have slavery? No. It was about congressional representation. Slavery per se was not the issue. The issue was that slaves were considered property and counted only as a fractional person. Thus, the population count of the South for congressional representation purposes was less than the actual human population. If the slave population counted 100% then the South would have had the majority in Congress. The folks in the North clearly didn't want that.

 

[medhead]

State rights to have slavery? No. It was about congressional representation. Slavery per se was not the issue. The issue was that slaves were considered property and counted only as a fractional person. Thus, the population count of the South for congressional representation purposes was less than the actual human population. If the slave population counted 100% then the South would have had the majority in Congress. The folks in the North clearly didn't want that.

That is pretty twisted logic. The north didn't want the whole southern population to have a "vote". So they abolished slavery, the one thing that ensured the south didn't have 100% representation, thereby giving the south greater congressional representation? That does not make sense. If chewbecca is a wookie, it does not make sense. Oh and then the south fought a war so they could have less than 100% representation.

In any case, your saying it was a war about congressional representation, for slaves under slavery. Keeps getting back to one key issue.

Another way to look at the representation thing is to say the south wanted to have their cake and eat it. We want these people to have congressional representation but we are going to give them no democratic rights.

 

[yeldarb8]

That is pretty twisted logic. The north didn't want the whole southern population to have a "vote". So they abolished slavery, the one thing that ensured the south didn't have 100% representation, thereby giving the south greater congressional representation? That does not make sense. If chewbecca is a wookie, it does not make sense. Oh and then the south fought a war so they could have less than 100% representation.

In any case, your saying it was a war about congressional representation, for slaves under slavery. Keeps getting back to one key issue.

Another way to look at the representation thing is to say the south wanted to have their cake and eat it. We want these people to have congressional representation but we are going to give them no democratic rights.

Yes, they they wanted the representation (for the South in total including the slaves in that population) but no rights for the slaves. Abolition just tipped the fat into the fire (states rights). Remember there were plenty of folks in the North who had slaves but the slave population was heavily concentrated in the South. Nobody said that it needed to all make sense. How many wars make sense?

 

[medhead]

Yes, they they wanted the representation (for the South in total including the slaves in that population) but no rights for the slaves. Abolition just tipped the fat into the fire (states rights). Remember there were plenty of folks in the North who had slaves but the slave population was heavily concentrated in the South. Nobody said that it needed to all make sense. How many wars make sense?

So, it was about slavery, about if and how slaves should represented and then states rights to have slavery

 

[drron]

I am with yeldarb8 here.Lincoln didn't decide on emancipation until after the Civil War started.Read the Lincoln Letters.

 

[medhead]

I am with yeldarb8 here.Lincoln didn't decide on emancipation until after the Civil War started.Read the Lincoln Letters.

The timing of emancipation is interesting but doesn't really come into the issue of congressional representation of the southern states, in particular representation of slaves.

 

[sheikeee]

I'm not sure how a discussion about wikileaks has turned into analysis about the Lincoln letters but I'd like to divert attention back to the fact that this man is not likely to receive a fair trial, and the saga will leave a legacy of government conspiracy and contempt on the freedom of speech

 

[samh004]

I'm not sure how a discussion about wikileaks has turned into analysis about the Lincoln letters but I'd like to divert attention back to the fact that this man is not likely to receive a fair trial, and the saga will leave a legacy of government conspiracy and contempt on the freedom of speech

I haven't heard the latest, will the UK allow him to be extradited (have they) or will they look at this for what it really is and play hardball with Sweden?

With all the floods and that stuff, I haven't heard a thing about it in a while.

 

[sheikeee]

His still trying to fight extradition to sweden. The greatest fears are that if he ggoes to sweden he will get extradicted to the US and once there he'd face the death penalty. All the Swedish have come out to say is that they won't play a part in whether he gets extradicted to the US...

 

[odysseus]

I'd like to divert attention back to the fact that this man is not likely to receive a fair trial

I'm sure it will be fairer than the role of judge and jury that he took on in gathering and publishing other's documents.

 

[dfcatch]

I'm sure it will be fairer than the role of judge and jury that he took on in gathering and publishing other's documents.

I love how he achieves notoriety by leaking others' secrets to embarrass them, and then cries "not fair" when someone does it to him

 

[browski]

I love how he achieves notoriety by leaking others' secrets to embarrass them, and then cries "not fair" when someone does it to him

It's a poor comparison. He's not worried about embarrassment, he's worried about death.