Access Wikileaks here - Pass It On

[NormanD]

Wikileaks currently at http://213.251.145.96/
Don't let US gov succeed in shutting it down. Pass it on.

[garth cartwright]

Agreed. The bastards are definitely intent on grinding Julian and his team down. There's some other odd thoughts - I posted Wikileaks on Facebook and an Oz friend said "courtesy of your friendly local CIA office" (but he also thinks the CIA set up 9/11 so is a bit bonkers).

[Chris P]

Julian Assange :

The west has fiscalised its basic power relationships through a web of contracts, loans, shareholdings, bank holdings and so on. In such an environment it is easy for speech to be "free" because a change in political will rarely leads to any change in these basic instruments. Western speech, as something that rarely has any effect on power, is, like badgers and birds, free. In states like China, there is pervasive censorship, because speech still has power and power is scared of it. We should always look at censorship as an economic signal that reveals the potential power of speech in that jurisdiction. The attacks against us by the US point to a great hope, speech powerful enough to break the fiscal blockade.

source: Guardian Q & A with Julian Assange

[Jonathan E.]

I only wonder what will replace the current situation if Assange's general thinking proves to be correct. There's always this frying-pan-and-fire issue. How will we organize our relationships, large and small?

[NormanD]

Wikileaks is now mirrored in over 1,000 other sites, making it harder to silence.

Full list here
http://wikileaks.ch/mirrors.html
If you agree, please pass this link on.

[Jonathan E.]

Hooray! Agreed! Passed on!

[nikki akinjinmi]

On the subject of Wikileaks, and the media reactions, I am not sure what to say as these are early days. I am finding it fascinating. I never thought I would witness a leak of this amount of classified data, and the pressure that various organisations are trying to place on Wikileaks - closing of bank accounts and suspension of services to Wikileaks - to me is dare I say it these actions have all the hallmarks of fascism. I have no idea whether the charges the Swedish prosecutor is trying to bring against Mr Assange are true or not, though I would not be surprised if the charges have been trumped up and a way of attempting to fast track him to a country where he could be extradited to America.

When I heard that several credit card companies's website had been attacked....I have to be honest and say I actually felt a glimmer of hope...that people can stand up to bullying if there is the collective will to do it.

I know it's early days but I feel that Wikileaks has embarrased much of the so-called free press/ media, and has also given a voice (as well as the evidence of what seems to be going on in various parts of the world) to those who are skeptical with the official line given by governments and various individuals, organisations, etc.

Last night -Tuesday - I watched Newsnight (which sometimes seems to be a try out for panto for wannabee actors), as I often do, and saw Kirsty Wark discuss a news item at one desk, and then she got up and the camera tracked her while she walked to another desk in the studio to discuss another story. My intial thought was why? Contrast with Wikileaks they put the information out and are letting people read it for themselves - no mugging up to the camera, no fancy dressing or terrible puns, or stupid/ inane visual accompaniment with news items, none of the unattributable leaks - a senior minister told me blah blah blah off the record, or I was in the lobby at Westminster and was told such and such by a senior member of party X. I'm not criticising all journalists - I do find the reports by Tim Whewell, Liz McKean & Paul Mason quite informative. And many journalists the world over try to report as best they can often under very, very difficult circumstances.

Why haven't the authorities gone after The Guardian, or the New York Times, or put pressure on those companies that advertise in those publications?


I am not saying I agree with everything Wikileaks has done/ or is doing....but at least some of the right questions are starting to be asked, and just as importantly hopefully one of the consequences is that of the relationships/ unfair contracts between the governed, and those who govern, and the infrastructure, etc might change for the better. Perhaps, I am being overly ambitious.

I am reminded of a song by Nona Hendryx of Labelle, called "Who's Watching The Watcher?" which appears on album Chameleon, I think.

Who's watching the watcher
Tell me who's keeping an eye
Who's watching the watcher
Sitting safe with their view from the sky

(I'm trying to remember the rest of the lyrics...I think it also says)

Who is watching their morals, and tell me who says they're ok
And who is gonna protect us, when it's a watchman's holiday....

Nobody seems to care when they've got their share of the pie
Does anybody care?
Nobody seems to care until the water's rising high.
Does anybody care?

[Hugh Weldon]

Nikki

I am reminded of a song by Nona Hendryx of Labelle, called "Who's Watching The Watcher?" which appears on album Chameleon, I think.

Since the original 'who will watch the watchers' or 'Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?' was coined by the Roman poet Juvenal in the first century, it is obviously a good question. Nothing new under the sun etc etc, good luck to Mr Assange though.

[garth cartwright]

Excellent post, Nikki! I vaguely recall the tune - will now go to spotify to see if they have it. And, yes, I agree with all the thoughts you eleoquently expressed on today's media. And it the UK newsprogrammes are dumbing down wait until you see those in the US. Fox and others initially appear to be parodies from something like Not The 9 O Clock News. Then you realise they are serious . . .

[garth cartwright]

Not on Spotify. Mark, just in case you read the politics stuff, any chance you have it at home and could play it on one of the few remaining shows?

[judith]

Why haven't the authorities gone after The Guardian, or the New York Times, or put pressure on those companies that advertise in those publications?

Hi, Nikki. I really enjoyed your thoughtful post, as always. You've probably heard by now that there has been pressure to go after the New York Times for violation of the Espionage Act by some. Lieberman (Homeland Security) wants the Times investigated. I was going to find some links for you from a variety of sources but I'm not up to the mad dogs foaming this morning (reactions extremely disturbing/alarming). Here's a couple - one from public radio and the other from major media.
Here's an NPR bit from yesterday
http://tinyurl.com/36rqj3n

CBS from a couple of days ago
http://tinyurl.com/25mfxeh

[Jonathan E.]

Lieberman is a total asshole. Opportunistic and authoritarian and totally old-school hierarchical. Among the very worst of US scum politicos floating to the top. And to think he had a shot at the presidency. Uggghhhh!

[Dayna]

I'm sort of torn on a lot of this information. It is good to hear different sides to stories than what we've been told, since most of us never really know the truth about what's going on. But don't like it getting into enemy hands.

[nikki akinjinmi]

Why haven't the authorities gone after The Guardian, or the New York Times, or put pressure on those companies that advertise in those publications?

Hi, Nikki. I really enjoyed your thoughtful post, as always. You've probably heard by now that there has been pressure to go after the New York Times for violation of the Espionage Act by some. Lieberman (Homeland Security) wants the Times investigated. I was going to find some links for you from a variety of sources but I'm not up to the mad dogs foaming this morning (reactions extremely disturbing/alarming). Here's a couple - one from public radio and the other from major media.
Here's an NPR bit from yesterday
http://tinyurl.com/36rqj3n

CBS from a couple of days ago
http://tinyurl.com/25mfxeh

Thank you, Judith. I shall take a look at the links.

[Neil Foxlee]

To get this all in perspective, it's useful to read Simon Jenkins' piece in the Guardian:

"[...] the Guardian had to consider two things in abetting disclosure, irrespective of what is anyway published by WikiLeaks. It could not be party to putting the lives of individuals or sources at risk, nor reveal material that might compromise ongoing military operations or the location of special forces.

In this light, two backup checks were applied. The US government was told in advance the areas or themes covered, and "representations" were invited in return. These were considered. Details of "redactions" were then shared with the other four media recipients of the material and sent to WikiLeaks itself, to establish, albeit voluntarily, some common standard.

The state department knew of the leak several months ago and had ample time to alert staff in sensitive locations. Its pre-emptive scaremongering over the weekend stupidly contrived to hint at material not in fact being published. Nor is the material classified top secret, being at a level that more than 3 million US government employees are cleared to see, and available on the defence department's internal Siprnet."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... -wikileaks

Any mainstream media reporting that doesn't mention this or take it into account is criminally ill-informed, downright irresponsible and/or just aiding and abetting government propaganda.