The Wikileaks Situation

[Ulysses]

I think its unfair to say that nobody has learned anything new. A lot of the things that came out were very interesting and there a lot of people, as unlikely it may seem to some, who would not have known about the influence of Shell in Nigeria for example.

We should be judging it on the impact. And unfortunately, I think the impact of the leaks have been minimal. Which probably just says a lot about the world to be honest.

On a macro, overall level, everyone knows for example in Nigeria, that the vast majority of political office holders are corrupt or corruptible. Shell has had its tentacles in Nigeria's political machinations since day dot, see Ken Saro-Wiwa. Wikileaks has just factualized and particularized what some people already knew.

Yeah, I agree the impact of the leaks has been minimal and most probably will be minimal. Most people in world could care less and the same goes for self-interested and non-altruistic states.

[Ulysses]

All this Wikileaks business is bullshit. Have we actually learnt anything new? An intransigent Israel? No f*ck*ng way!!!!

Will anything change for the better? Nope.

Julian Assange is just a weird man with a messiah complex and a predilection for unprotected sex.

Wikileaks is just a highbrow News of the World. (Without the sex of course)

Ended the corrupt rule of the Arap-Moi family in Kenya

http://habarizanyumbani.jambonewspot.com/2010/07/26/wikileaks-founder-on-kenya-corruption-and-more/

Exposed Al Quaida's explotation of young children

http://cyberlaw.org.uk/2009/06/29/wikileaks-italian-secret-internet-censorship-list-287-site-subset-21-jun-2009/

Exposed how the US govt. put pressure on Spain to drop the case of a murdered cameraman who was killed in an attack in 2003 in Baghdad. The case has since been reopened.

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/12/1/us_pressured_spain_to_drop_case

Clarified the terms of operation for Guantanamo Bay

http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2007/11/gitmo

Exposed how the Obama administration handed over detainee's despite previous reports of torture

http://www.iraqwarlogs.com/2010/10/23/obama-administration-handed-over-detainees/

Reveled hundreds of covered up Afghan war incidents by the US govt.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/datablog/interactive/2010/jul/25/afghanistan-war-logs-events

Revealed fifteen thousand Iraqi deaths had been covered up by the US govt.

http://www.iraqwarlogs.com/2010/10/23/iraqs-bloodbath/

I could go on but there are far far too many leaks, and I would likely be here for some years.

So yes, we have learnt new information, and people have benefited from it, and most importantly it has really brought government and business institutions under the microscope following the freedom of information act.

Where great power and influence is wielded, transparency is not to be sniffed at.

c/s

Ulysses is either a tr0ll or an idiot btw. Some of his posts in the last week have been unreal.

LOL haha Mate I'm not being a stupid f*ck*ng prick and I'm obviously not an idiot.

I stand by my argument.

On the first link about Kenya. Arap-Moi left office in 2002. The Kroll report was released in 2007. 'May have' is the operating phrase. Obviously Assange would claim that, messiah-complex and all. But it is in no way definitive. Even if his leak did influence the poll, look at what it did. The worst political violence seen since the Mau-Mau rebellion. Anyway Arap-Moi backed Kibaki is President in a power sharing agreement.

On the other points. My position is still clear. On a mirco-level we have learnt of NEW extremely unfortunate and depressing incidents. But on an overall level you think the US wouldn't doesn't cover sh*t up? Is it really surprising that the US would cover-up Iraq war deaths?

Furthermore now everyone knows about all this amazing new information released by Assange (A direct descendent of King David) will states suddenly become more altruistic? liberal? Progessive? Fair? don't think so mate.

"Brought governments and businesses under the microscope."Really perhaps for the liberal intelligentsia and human rights mafioso. But the average man does not GIVE A f*ck. Come voting time, the economy is the only thing important to him. 15,000 Iraqis covered up is just another inconsequential paragraph on page 7 for him. Its unfortunate but true.

[Skola]

maybe the impact hasnt been massive or need as great as we hoped but its definately a good thing that some of this common knowledge has been proven or factualized as you put it

[Guest Klitschko]

All this Wikileaks business is bullshit. Have we actually learnt anything new? An intransigent Israel? No f*ck*ng way!!!!

Will anything change for the better? Nope.

Julian Assange is just a weird man with a messiah complex and a predilection for unprotected sex.

Wikileaks is just a highbrow News of the World. (Without the sex of course)

Ended the corrupt rule of the Arap-Moi family in Kenya

http://habarizanyumbani.jambonewspot.com/2010/07/26/wikileaks-founder-on-kenya-corruption-and-more/

Exposed Al Quaida's explotation of young children

http://cyberlaw.org.uk/2009/06/29/wikileaks-italian-secret-internet-censorship-list-287-site-subset-21-jun-2009/

Exposed how the US govt. put pressure on Spain to drop the case of a murdered cameraman who was killed in an attack in 2003 in Baghdad. The case has since been reopened.

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/12/1/us_pressured_spain_to_drop_case

Clarified the terms of operation for Guantanamo Bay

http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2007/11/gitmo

Exposed how the Obama administration handed over detainee's despite previous reports of torture

http://www.iraqwarlogs.com/2010/10/23/obama-administration-handed-over-detainees/

Reveled hundreds of covered up Afghan war incidents by the US govt.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/datablog/interactive/2010/jul/25/afghanistan-war-logs-events

Revealed fifteen thousand Iraqi deaths had been covered up by the US govt.

http://www.iraqwarlogs.com/2010/10/23/iraqs-bloodbath/

I could go on but there are far far too many leaks, and I would likely be here for some years.

So yes, we have learnt new information, and people have benefited from it, and most importantly it has really brought government and business institutions under the microscope following the freedom of information act.

Where great power and influence is wielded, transparency is not to be sniffed at.

c/s

Ulysses is either a tr0ll or an idiot btw. Some of his posts in the last week have been unreal.

LOL haha Mate I'm not being a stupid f*ck*ng prick and I'm obviously not an idiot.

I stand by my argument.

On the first link about Kenya. Arap-Moi left office in 2002. The Kroll report was released in 2007. 'May have' is the operating phrase. Obviously Assange would claim that, messiah-complex and all. But it is in no way definitive. Even if his leak did influence the poll, look at what it did. The worst political violence seen since the Mau-Mau rebellion. Anyway Arap-Moi backed Kibaki is President in a power sharing agreement.

On the other points. My position is still clear. On a mirco-level we have learnt of NEW extremely unfortunate and depressing incidents. But on an overall level you think the US wouldn't doesn't cover sh*t up? Is it really surprising that the US would cover-up Iraq war deaths?

Furthermore now everyone knows about all this amazing new information released by Assange (A direct descendent of King David) will states suddenly become more altruistic? liberal? Progessive? Fair? don't think so mate.

"Brought governments and businesses under the microscope."Really perhaps for the liberal intelligentsia and human rights mafioso. But the average man does not GIVE A f*ck. Come voting time, the economy is the only thing important to him. 15,000 Iraqis covered up is just another inconsequential paragraph on page 7 for him. Its unfortunate but true.

So you are making the argument that because no one has the will, inclination, or testicles to act on the leaks [as of yet]

That, it means, to quote you

'Wikileaks is bullshit'

?

[Ulysses]

All this Wikileaks business is bullshit. Have we actually learnt anything new? An intransigent Israel? No f*ck*ng way!!!!

Will anything change for the better? Nope.

Julian Assange is just a weird man with a messiah complex and a predilection for unprotected sex.

Wikileaks is just a highbrow News of the World. (Without the sex of course)

Ended the corrupt rule of the Arap-Moi family in Kenya

http://habarizanyumbani.jambonewspot.com/2010/07/26/wikileaks-founder-on-kenya-corruption-and-more/

Exposed Al Quaida's explotation of young children

http://cyberlaw.org.uk/2009/06/29/wikileaks-italian-secret-internet-censorship-list-287-site-subset-21-jun-2009/

Exposed how the US govt. put pressure on Spain to drop the case of a murdered cameraman who was killed in an attack in 2003 in Baghdad. The case has since been reopened.

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/12/1/us_pressured_spain_to_drop_case

Clarified the terms of operation for Guantanamo Bay

http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2007/11/gitmo

Exposed how the Obama administration handed over detainee's despite previous reports of torture

http://www.iraqwarlogs.com/2010/10/23/obama-administration-handed-over-detainees/

Reveled hundreds of covered up Afghan war incidents by the US govt.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/datablog/interactive/2010/jul/25/afghanistan-war-logs-events

Revealed fifteen thousand Iraqi deaths had been covered up by the US govt.

http://www.iraqwarlogs.com/2010/10/23/iraqs-bloodbath/

I could go on but there are far far too many leaks, and I would likely be here for some years.

So yes, we have learnt new information, and people have benefited from it, and most importantly it has really brought government and business institutions under the microscope following the freedom of information act.

Where great power and influence is wielded, transparency is not to be sniffed at.

c/s

Ulysses is either a tr0ll or an idiot btw. Some of his posts in the last week have been unreal.

LOL haha Mate I'm not being a stupid f*ck*ng prick and I'm obviously not an idiot.

I stand by my argument.

On the first link about Kenya. Arap-Moi left office in 2002. The Kroll report was released in 2007. 'May have' is the operating phrase. Obviously Assange would claim that, messiah-complex and all. But it is in no way definitive. Even if his leak did influence the poll, look at what it did. The worst political violence seen since the Mau-Mau rebellion. Anyway Arap-Moi backed Kibaki is President in a power sharing agreement.

On the other points. My position is still clear. On a mirco-level we have learnt of NEW extremely unfortunate and depressing incidents. But on an overall level you think the US wouldn't doesn't cover sh*t up? Is it really surprising that the US would cover-up Iraq war deaths?

Furthermore now everyone knows about all this amazing new information released by Assange (A direct descendent of King David) will states suddenly become more altruistic? liberal? Progessive? Fair? don't think so mate.

"Brought governments and businesses under the microscope."Really perhaps for the liberal intelligentsia and human rights mafioso. But the average man does not GIVE A f*ck. Come voting time, the economy is the only thing important to him. 15,000 Iraqis covered up is just another inconsequential paragraph on page 7 for him. Its unfortunate but true.

So you are making the argument that because no one has the will, inclination, or testicles to act on the leaks [as of yet]

That, it means, to quote you

'Wikileaks is bullshit'

?

The hype around it is, yes.

[Guest Klitschko]

Who said anything about hype? You said wikileaks was bullshit.

[Ulysses]

Who said anything about hype? You said wikileaks was bullshit.

Stop being persnickety, you know what I meant.

[Mr Q]

Something else on wikileaks impact on what's going on in North Africa.

Did the Wikileaked State Department cables that described Tunisia's deposed leader Zine el-Abedin Ben Ali as the head of a corrupt police state play any role in encouraging the democratic uprising against him -- and thus spark the wave of protests now spreading across Egypt?

I asked our experts at Human Rights Watch to canvass their sources in the country, and the consensus was that while Tunisians didn't need American diplomats to tell them how bad their government was, the cables did have an impact. The candid appraisal of Ben Ali by U.S. diplomats showed Tunisians that the rottenness of the regime was obvious not just to them but to the whole world -- and that it was a source of shame for Tunisia on an international stage. The cables also contradicted the prevailing view among Tunisians that Washington would back Ben Ali to the bloody end, giving them added impetus to take to the streets. They further delegitimized the Tunisian leader and boosted the morale of his opponents at a pivotal moment in the drama that unfolded over the last few weeks.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/01/25/whispering_at_autocrats?sms_ss=twitter&at_xt=4d406cb645dd6076,0

[Ulysses]

Something else on wikileaks impact on what's going on in North Africa.

Did the Wikileaked State Department cables that described Tunisia's deposed leader Zine el-Abedin Ben Ali as the head of a corrupt police state play any role in encouraging the democratic uprising against him -- and thus spark the wave of protests now spreading across Egypt?

I asked our experts at Human Rights Watch to canvass their sources in the country, and the consensus was that while Tunisians didn't need American diplomats to tell them how bad their government was, the cables did have an impact. The candid appraisal of Ben Ali by U.S. diplomats showed Tunisians that the rottenness of the regime was obvious not just to them but to the whole world -- and that it was a source of shame for Tunisia on an international stage. The cables also contradicted the prevailing view among Tunisians that Washington would back Ben Ali to the bloody end, giving them added impetus to take to the streets. They further delegitimized the Tunisian leader and boosted the morale of his opponents at a pivotal moment in the drama that unfolded over the last few weeks.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/01/25/whispering_at_autocrats?sms_ss=twitter&at_xt=4d406cb645dd6076,0

Again, Wikileaks cannot take full credit for what is happening in Tunisia.

The protests were spurred by unemployment and economic woes. The whole affair was instigated by a the self-immolation of 26-year-old vegetable seller Mohamed Bouazizi, who set himself on fire on Dec. 17 because police had confiscated his vegetable cart. He became a martyr to crowds of students and the unemployed protesting against poor living conditions.

Tunisians didn't need anyone to tell them how corrupt their first family were (everyone knew), though admittedly the details released in Wikileaks might have just added more fuel to the fire.

[Mr Q]

Well if you had read the article, I think you would've found it wasn't giving full credit to wikileaks, it was discussing the impact and about the way diplomacy is aired .

[DAT_YOUT_FROM_E15]

can someone explain to me what wikileaks is plz

[Ulysses]

Well if you had read the article, I think you would've found it wasn't giving full credit to wikileaks, it was discussing the impact and about the way diplomacy is aired .

Couldn't be bothered

[DAT_YOUT_FROM_E15]

it was a genuine question and i get neggd for it

u tossers

[Guest FA23]

Seens like wikileaks and the guardian arnt on good terms atm

Three men were in the Belgian hotel courtyard cafe, ordering coffee after coffee. They had been arguing for six hours through the summer afternoon, with a break to eat a little pasta, and evening had fallen. Eventually, the tallest of the three picked up a cheap yellow napkin, laid it on the flimsy modern cafe table and started to scribble. Ian Traynor, the Guardian's European editor, recalls: "Julian [Assange] whipped out this mini-laptop, opened it up and did something on his computer. He picked up a napkin and said, 'OK you've got it.' "We said: 'Got what?' "He said: 'You've got the whole file. The password is this napkin.'"

Traynor adds: "I was stunned. We were expecting further, very long negotiations and conditions. This was instant. It was an act of faith." Assange had insouciantly circled several words and the logo on the Hotel Leopold napkin, adding the phrase "no spaces".

This was the password. In the corner he scrawled three simple letters, GPG – a reference to the encryption system he was using for a temporary website. The napkin was a perfect touch, worthy of a John le Carré thriller. Nick Davies stuffed the napkin in his case together with his dirty shirts. Back in England, the yellow square was reverently lodged in his study, next to a pile of reporters' notepads and a jumble of books. "I'm thinking of framing it," he says.

This encounter in Brussels – the fruit of Davies' eager pursuit of Assange would result in an extraordinary, if sometimes strained, partnership between a mainstream newspaper and WikiLeaks: a new model of co-operation aimed at publishing the world's biggest leak.

Weight of endeavour

Less than two months later, David Leigh sat in a rented cottage in the Scottish Highlands. The Guardian's investigations editor had originally planned to spend his annual summer holiday with his wife, hill-walking in the Grampians. But the summits of Dreish, Mayar, Lochnagar and Cat Law went unconquered. He sat transfixed at his desk instead, while the sun rose and set daily on the heather-covered hills outside. On the tiny silver Hewlett Packard memory stick plugged into his MacBook were the full texts of more than 250,000 diplomatic cables. To search through them was maddening, tiring – and utterly compelling.

It had been a struggle to prise these documents from Assange back in London. There were repeated pilgrimages to the mews house belonging to Vaughan Smith's Frontline Club near Paddington station before Assange reluctantly turned them over. He was keeping the three news organisations – the Guardian, the New York Times and Der Spiegel - dangling, despite his original agreement to deliver all the material for publication. He had willingly passed on the less important war logs from Afghanistan and Iraq, but talked of how he would use his power to withhold the cables in order to "discipline" the mainstream media.

The atmosphere had become even more problematic since Davies personally broke off relations in the summer, after Assange breached the original compact, as Davies saw it, by going behind his back and sharing the Afghanistan war logs with the Guardian's TV rivals at Channel 4, taking with him all the knowledge acquired by privileged visits to the Guardian's research room. Davies at the time said he felt betrayed: Assange simply insisted there had never been a deal.

Now, isolated up in the Highlands, with only hares and buzzards for company, Leigh braced himself to venture into the dangerous contents of the memory stick. Obviously, there was no way he, or any other human, could read through a quarter of a million cables. Its sheer bulk was overwhelming. If the tiny memory stick containing the cables had been a set of printed texts, it would have made up a library containing more than 2,000 sizeable books.

Leigh began his experiments by searching for the word "Megrahi". The resulting picture that emerged of US diplomatic dealings with Libya was richly textured and fascinating. It showed a superpower at work: cajoling, fixing, eavesdropping, manoeuvring and sometimes bullying. It also showed the dismayingly crazed attitudes of a foreign ruler possessing both nuclear ambitions and a lucrative reservoir of the world's oil – a truth which his own subjects would rarely be allowed to see. And, from the point of view of a domestic British reporter, it showed how limited the options open to the UK seemed to be despite its pretensions to punch above its weight in the world.

It was clear that America's secret diplomatic dealings over Libya were revelatory – not only newsworthy, but also important. This was a picture of the world seen through a much less scrambled prism than usual. And there were more than another 100 countries to go.

Betrayal claims

In early November, the three partner publications decided it was time for a meeting with Assange. Everything was threatening to get rather messy. The embattled WikiLeaks founder now wanted the Americans frozen out of the much-delayed deal to publish the diplomatic cables jointly – a punishment, so it was said, for a recent profile of him by the New York Times veteran London correspondent John F Burns. Assange had intensely disliked it.

The British were anxious about the fact that another copy of the cables had apparently fallen into the hands of Heather Brooke, a London-based American journalist and freedom of information activist. The Germans were worried that things could get acrimonious all round unless the editors held a clear-the-air meeting with what was left of WikiLeaks.

Assange had barely sat down before he started angrily denouncing the Guardian. Did the New York Times have the cables? How did they have them? Who had given them to them? This was a breach of trust. His voice was raised and angry. "We are getting the feeling that a large organisation is trying to find ways to step around a gentlemen's agreement. We're feeling a bit unhappy."

Alan Rusbridger, the Guardian's editor, responded that things had changed. The cables had fallen into the hands of Brooke. Things would soon move out of our control unless they decided to act more quickly. Assange didn't look well.

"They ran a front-page story - the front page! - a front-page story which was just a sleazy hit job against me personally, and other parts of the organisation, and based upon falsehoods." The Burns profile had dwelt, among other things, on the continuing police investigation into the Swedish sex allegations.

Burns had written that WikiLeaks staff had turned against Assange in the scandal's wake. They complained, he wrote, that their founder's "growing celebrity has been matched by an increasingly dictatorial, eccentric and capricious style".

Assange had another startling announcement. He wanted to involve other newspapers from the "Romance languages", to broaden the geopolitical impact. He mentioned El País and Le Monde. The others in the room looked at each other. This was going to double the complexities of an arrangement that was difficult enough to co-ordinate. But by now there was at least a negotiation about the means to go forward.

Asked under what conditions he would now collaborate with the Americans, Assange said he would only consider it if the paper agreed to run no more negative material about him and offered him a right to reply to the Burns piece with equal prominence. As the meeting dragged beyond midnight, it was decided that Rusbridger would ring Bill Keller, the New York Times executive editor.

Rusbridger returned to the room and conveyed Keller's message. Assange should write a letter, and there were no plans for sleazy hit pieces.

As he feared, Assange reacted furiously, saying this was not sufficient and that all bets were off. He announced that both the New York Times and Guardian themselves were now to be thrown out of the deal.

It was Der Spiegel's turn to speak, deliberately and firmly. The three publications were tied together, said its editor, Georg Mascolo. If Assange was cutting out the other two then the German publication was also out.

It was now nearly 1.30am. The discussion was going nowhere, so Rusbridger turned to Assange and summarised the position. "As I see it you have three options. One, we reach no deal; two, you try and substitute the Washington Post for the New York Times; three, you do a deal with us three.

"One and two don't work because you've lost control of the material. That's just going to result in chaos.

"So I can't see that you have any option but three. You're going to have to continue with us. And that's good. We have been good partners. We have treated the material responsibly. We've thrown huge resources at it. We're good at working together, we like each other. We've communicated well with your lot. It's gone well. Why on earth throw it away?"

If Assange was convinced, he wasn't going to show it. Not that night, anyway. The next day Rusbridger sent Assange's lawyer, Mark Stephens, a memo setting out the offer, which would see publication begin on 29 November, with exclusivity to the core partner publications, now numbering five, until a week after Christmas.

Within 24 hours Stephens rang back to say Assange had OK'd the deal. Five of the world's most reputable publications were now committed to selecting, redacting and publishing, on an unprecedented scale, the secret leaked diplomatic dispatches of a superpower. It was a project of astonishing boldness, which stood a chance of redefining journalism in the internet age.

Swiss spoiler

On the morning of Sunday 28 November, few were around at sleepy Badischer Bahnhof. The Basel station sits precisely on the border between Germany and Switzerland. It is a textbook example of European co-operation – with the Germans providing the trains, and the Swiss running the cafes and newspaper kiosks. This morning, however, the station would become briefly notorious for something else: a gigantic foul-up.

Early in the morning, a van rolled in, bearing 40 copies of Der Spiegel. The weekly German news magazine normally starts distributing copies to newsagents over the weekend, but on this occasion Spiegel was supposed to have held all copies of its edition back. The international release of the US embassy cables had been painstakingly co-ordinated for 21.30 GMT that evening. The Guardian, New York Times, El País and Le Monde were all waiting anxiously to push the button on the world's biggest leak. Everyone knew the script.

But the gods of news had decided to do things differently. At around 11.30am Christian Heeb, editor-in-chief of Radio Basel, discovered a copy of Der Spiegel at the station. The front cover was nothing less than sensational: "Revealed: How America Sees the World ... the secret dispatches of the US foreign ministry." Against a red background was a photo-gallery of world leaders, each accompanied by a quotation culled from the US cables. Angela Merkel, Germany's increasingly unpopular chancellor, was "risk-averse and rarely creative". Guido Westerwelle, Merkel's foreign minister, was "aggressive". Then there were the others. Vladimir Putin? "Alpha dog". Silvio Berlusconi? "Wild parties". Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? "Hitler". Next to Libya's Muammar Gaddafi were the tantalising words: "Luxuriant blonde nurse".

Heeb's station started to broadcast the news, saying a few early copies had become available at the station. It was at this point that a Twitter user called Freelancer_09 decided to check out the prospect for himself. He managed to obtain one of the last two or three copies of the rogue Spiegel batch, just as panicked executives at the magazine's headquarters were realising something had gone horribly wrong: one of the distribution vans sent to criss-cross Germany had set off for Switzerland 24 hours too early.

Within minutes, Freelancer_09 had begun tweeting the magazine's contents. Soon, word spread. Other journalists started "retweeting" his posts. Der Spiegel frantically messaged him to make contact. He ignored them.

By 4pm he had found a scanner, and was pumping the embargoed articles out on to the internet.

Sitting helplessly in London, Rusbridger realised that the 9.30pm GMT embargo for the release of the cables looked wobbly. "You have five of the most powerful news organisations, and everything was paralysed by a little freelancer," Rusbridger says. "We realised the story wasn't going to hold. We had sprung a leak ourselves."

By 6pm the Guardian and everyone else agreed just to publish, go with it. The Guardian's production staff stood poised in front of a bank of screens. Production boss Jon Casson asked: "Will we launch?" Deputy editor Ian Katz replied: "Launch!" The word was taken up and spread instantly across the backbench, the newsroom echoing with the words: "Launch! Launch! Launch!" The world's biggest leak had gone live.

Despite its scrappy launch, the publication of the US state department cables amounted to the biggest leak since 1971 when Daniel Ellsberg gave the Pentagon papers to the New York Times, provoking a historic court case and revealing the White House's dirty secrets in Vietnam. This data spillage was far bigger – an unprecedented release of secret information from the heart of the world's only superpower.

/

The Libya Leaks.

http://wikileaks.ch/reldate/2011-01-31_0.html

[Guest FA23]

In a CBS interview with 60 Minutes aired on Sunday night Mr Assange, who is currently under US criminal investigation over the leaking of hundreds of thousands of secret military reports and diplomatic cables, described members of Wikileaks as "free press activists" and said the website did not have a political agenda.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8292624/Julian-Assange-the-60-Minutes-interview.html

[Guest FA23]

Wikileaks now working with the Telegraph after severing ties with the guardian

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/

[Mr Q]

Wonder if they will actually intervene.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/01/bradley-manning-uk-citizen

The British government is under pressure to take up the case of Bradley Manning, the soldier being held in a maximum security military prison in Virginia on suspicion of having passed a massive trove of US state secrets to WikiLeaks, on the grounds that he is a UK citizen.

Amnesty International tonight called on the government to intervene on Manning's behalf and demand that the conditions of his detention, which the organisation has called "harsh and punitive", are in line with international standards. Amnesty's UK director, Kate Allen, said: "His Welsh parentage means the UK government should demand that his 'maximum custody' status does not impair his ability to defend himself, and we would also like to see Foreign Office officials visiting him just as they would any other British person detained overseas and potentially facing trial on very serious charges."

Clive Stafford Smith, director of Reprieve, which provides legal assistance to those facing capital punishment and secret imprisonment, likened the conditions under which Manning is being held to Guantánamo Bay. "The government took a principled stance on Guantánamo cases even for British residents, let alone citizens, so you would expect it to take the same stance with Manning."

Manning is a UK citizen by descent from his Welsh mother, Susan. Government databases on births, deaths and marriages show that she was born Susan Fox in Haverfordwest in 1953. She married a then US serviceman, Brian Manning, stationed at a military base near the city and they had a daughter, Casey, in the same year. Bradley was born in Oklahoma in 1987.

[Guest FA23]

will they f*ck, we are any puppet to the U.S

/

copped this book by David Leigh

should be a good read....

This was a picture of the world seen through a much less scrambled prism than usual," David Leigh, one of the journalists who forged an unprecedented deal between the whistleblower website WikiLeaks and the media, recalls in the first biography of the Julian Assange, the silver haired Australian who rattled the world order.

Authored by award-winning journalists David Leigh and Luke Harding, the book titled WIKILEAKS: Inside Julian Assange's War on Secrecy was published on Monday by Guardian Books. The Guardian book reveals for the first time several unknown facets of the computer hacker. From his childhood to the secret deal he clinched in a Belgian hotel to get the world's major newspapers help him bring out the truth - the book promises to "give a riveting account" of the lead-up to the publication of the US embassy cables.

One of the interesting revelations in the book would be the recount of the time when Assange, nervous about the CIA, disguised himself as an old woman in a wig to travel to Ellingham Hall, from where he launched the US state department cables on the world.

Must Read

Israel will lose much if Mubarak falls

Empty homes litter U.S. as occupancy dwindles

The book also throws light on an the, so far, mysterious aspect of Assange's life - his childhood. One detail which would be news to many is the fact that Julian Assange did not get his name from his real father. Assange's mother, Christine, met his real father on a Vietnam war demo in Sydney in 1970. She later married a touring puppet theater owner Brett Assange, whose name her son took.

Assange met his real father only at the age of 27. However, he used his real father's name as a front to register the WikiLeaks website. Assange's father's identity was unknown until the Guardian got Australian court files released for this book.

"This book will bring you as close to the unvarnished truth as you're likely to get," Leigh said.

The book also discloses the truth behind Assange's much spoken about quarrel with the Guardian's star reporter Nick Davies and the acrimonious row with the New York Times.

The book also gives details of Assange's deal with controversial journalist and writer, Israel Shamir. Israel Shamir also known as Jöran Jermas is a commentator on Arab- Israeli relations and Jewish culture. He has earned the reputation of being an anti-Semite for denying the holocaust. According to the documents, Assange paid Shamir €2,000 to be WikiLeaks' representative in Russia and gave him sensitive cables.

The United States diplomatic cables leak, which came to be dubbed 'Cablegate', began on 28 November 2010, when the first 220 of the 251,287 documents of private, secret and classified information from anonymous news sources, government whistleblowers, and news leaks were published on the WikiLeaks website.

The Guardian in United Kingdom was one among the five major newspapers around the world which worked with WikiLeaks on publishing articles on the leaks. The other media outlets were El País in Spain, Le Monde in France, Der Spiegel in Germany and the New York Times in the United States.

While the book published by The Guardian does claim to have a fairly large amount of details on Assange's personal life, the newspaper has not mentioned anything about the sex assault charges slapped against the Australian that scarred his reputation in the wake of the Cablegate.

WIKILEAKS: Inside Julian Assange's War on Secrecy can be purchased online from Guardian Book Shop.

[Guest FA23]

oh yeah, 9/11 sh*t is dropping now

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wikileaks-files/september-11-wikileaks/

The FBI has launched a manhunt for a previously unknown team of men suspected to be part of the 9/11 attacks, the Daily Telegraph can disclose.

Secret documents reveal that the three Qatari men conducted surveillance on the targets, provided “support” to the plotters and had tickets for a flight to Washington on the eve of the atrocities.

The suspected terrorists flew from London to New York on a British Airways flight three weeks before the attacks.

They allegedly carried out surveillance at the World Trade Centre, the White House and in Virginia, the US state where the Pentagon and CIA headquarters are located.

Ten days later they flew to Los Angeles, where they stationed themselves in a hotel near the airport which the FBI has now established was paid for by a “convicted terrorist”, who also paid for their airline tickets.

Hotel staff have told investigators they saw pilot uniforms in their room along with computer print outs detailing pilot names, flight numbers and times and packages addressed to Syria, Afghanistan, Jerusalem and Jordan.

On September 10 they were booked on an American Airlines flight from Los Angeles to Washington, but failed to board. The following day the same Boeing 757 aircraft was hijacked by five terrorists and crashed into the Pentagon.

But, instead of boarding the American flight, the Qatari suspects – named as Meshal Alhajri, Fahad Abdulla and Ali Alfehaid - flew back to London on a British Airways flight before returning to Qatar. Their current location is unknown.

Investigators are also hunting a fourth man, Mohamed Al Mansoori, who they say supported the alleged terrorist cell while they were in the US.

The man, who is from the United Arab Emirates, previously lived in Long Beach, Los Angeles. His current location is also unknown, and US officials recommended that he is put on an international terror watch list because he “may pose a threat to aviation in the US and abroad”.

The details of the secret 9/11 team have emerged in a secret American government document obtained by the Wikileaks website and passed to The Daily Telegraph. It was sent between the American Embassy in Doha and the Department for Homeland Security in Washington.

The document, sent on 11th February 2010, states: “Mr Al Mansoori is currently under investigation by the FBI for his possible involvement in the 11 September 2001 attacks. He is suspected of aiding people who entered the US before the attacks to conduct surveillance of possible targets and providing other support to the hijackers.”

Details of the unknown 9/11 alleged plotters has never previously been disclosed. An official inquiry into the 9/11 attacks, which killed nearly 3,000 people, indicated that the hijackers may have received assistance in Los Angeles but investigators did not publicly provide more details.

The 9/11 Commission report, published in July 2004, states that at least two of the hijackers previously visited Los Angeles but, at the time, investigators appeared to have little information on their movements. The report states they had a "brief stay in Los Angeles about which we know little".

Only one person – Zacarias Moussaoui - has been tried and convicted over involvement in the 9/11 attacks as all the terrorists died in the crashed planes. Moussaoui, accused of being the twentieth hijacker, was sentenced to life in prison.

The secret American document contains detailed information about the movements of the three alleged Qatari plotters.

They took BA flight 185 from London to New York on 15th August, 2001, and the memo alleges that they subsequently conducted “surveillance” on potential targets ahead of the 9/11 attacks. It states: “They visited the World Trade Centre, the Statue of Liberty, the White House and various areas in Virginia.”

They then flew on an American Airlines flight from Washington to Los Angeles, arriving on 24th August and checking into a single room at a hotel near the airport. They paid for the room with cash and during the last few days of their stay requested that their room should not be cleaned.

The cable states: “Hotel cleaning staff grew suspicious of the men because they noticed pilot type uniforms, several laptops and several cardboard boxes addressed to Syria, Jerusalem, Afghanistan and Jordan in the room on previous cleaning visits.

“The men had a smashed cellular phone in the room and a cellular phone attached by wire to a computer. The room also contained pin feed computer paper print outs with headers listing pilot names, airlines, flight numbers, and flight times.”

While in the US, they were aided by Mohamed Ali Mohamed Al Mansoori. The secret document also states that the three Qatari men spent a week travelling with Mr Al Mansoori to “different destinations in California”.

The Qatari men were scheduled to board American Airlines Flight 144 on September 10th from Los Angeles to Washington but did not turn up.

They instead boarded a British Airways flight to London, before flying back to Doha on another BA flight.

The following day the same American Airlines aircraft, flying on route AA77, was hijacked as it returned from Washington and crashed into the Pentagon, killing 184 people.

It is not known whether the FBI believe that the men were simply assisting the hijackers or were a fifth cell who pulled out at the final moment. Alternatively, they may have been planning an attack on the West Coast of America or even London which was abandoned or went wrong.

Mr Al Mansoori has never been publicly named in connection with the 9/11 attacks. The three Qatari men were included on an FBI list of more than 300 people who were wanted for questioning in connection with the 9/11 attacks, which was leaked in 2002.

At the time, the FBI stressed it was not a list of suspects, but merely parties they thought might have information useful to the investigation.

The US embassy cable obtained by the Daily Telegraph was written by Mirembe Nantongo, the deputy chief of mission in Doha. It was marked “priority” and sent to the office of Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI and the CIA.

Mr Al Mansoori’s visa was revoked after the information about him came to light, but “his name was not watchlisted in the class system”, suggesting he may have managed to leave America.

A spokesman for the FBI declined to comment.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8296860/WikiLeaks-FBI-hunts-the-911-gang-that-got-away.html

[Mr Q]

Interesting.

Wonder if there is anything on building 7. Although if we are to go with the (conspiracy) theories, then surely no-one in government is stupid enough to put anything on paper about that type of crap.

[Yuri]

Interesting.

Wonder if there is anything on building 7. Although if we are to go with the (conspiracy) theories, then surely no-one in government is stupid enough to put anything on paper about that type of crap.

Tell me you don't believe in the 9/11 conspiracy theories. Did not think you were that guy.

[Guest Awesome Kong]

Yuri, you believe anything the media/government tell you.

[Mr Q]

Interesting.

Wonder if there is anything on building 7. Although if we are to go with the (conspiracy) theories, then surely no-one in government is stupid enough to put anything on paper about that type of crap.

Tell me you don't believe in the 9/11 conspiracy theories. Did not think you were that guy.

I didn't say I believe in them, said it would be interesting to see what, if anything at all, the wikileaks says about that particular building.

[Yuri]

Yuri, you believe anything the media/government tell you.

Sorry, you are?

You don't know anything about what I believe

[Guest Awesome Kong]

I am one of the longest members of this forum and the previous forum, you are a gullible young man.