Wikileaks Poll #1

[Aaron]

Do you think Wikileaks and Julian Assange is a friend or foe
to the people of the world and are really for freedom or
is it some elaborate propaganda machine to get the governments
to try and censor the Internet?

There are many conspiracy theories (as they have yet to be
proven) about the motives behind Wikileaks. In any case,
please vote simply Friend or Foe or Undecided (to the people).

[Web000x]

I am undecided. Out of all of the truth campaigns going on all over the internet, why did the mainstream media decide to thoroughly pay attention to Wikileaks?

I admit that I have not read much of the information that has come from Wikileaks, but when the mainstream media presents anything over and over, there is usually a hidden agenda. I wouldn't be surprised if harsh legislation gets rammed through the United States Congress to monitor and control the internet due to a "terrorist" threat.

That's just my opinion and nothing more.

Dave

[Mad Scientist]

I too am undecided. I would like to think/hope he is for real, but I agree with web000x's assessment.

[nestor]

Friend or foe - wrong alternative

If wikileaks is friend or foe is a wrong alternative to me. Its just another resource, and it should be faced with the same amount of scepticism like any other ressource. My take on it is that those who initiated it simply had the intention to give whistleblowers a save plattform to interface with all interrested media. So basically I believe their official story. But of course each whistleblower has its own motives- and those might or might not be ok (depends on your perspective anyway). Of course it is possible to feed wikileaks with material that is completly or (even worse) partially fake. So just because its on wikileaks dosnt mean its true (or false).
I further think the distress shown by goverments and companies because of wikileaks is genuine and not a show for cover-up reasons. But those who are in trouble because of wikileaks existence will very soon adapt to it-- either because they manage to supress the concept of leaking plattforms completly or , more likely, because they find ways to minimize the impact of unwanted disclosures and learn to instrumentalize wikileaks to disseminate propaganda that appears to be leaked info. By ther way this is done since there is an organized press. So I vote "undecided".

[noises]

Since his first arrest by the Australian Federal Police, for hacking into Australian Government and University computer networks in the late 80's and early 90's, this guy has been a front line activist in the fight, and believe me, it's a god damned war, to keep the internet free and uncensored. He was phreaking to connect his modem to remote computers before most of you knew what a personal computer was, before you could even ring an ISP and sign up for an internet connection and get online the easy way.

His credentials as a whistleblower were established before he even set up wikileaks. Indeed, wikileaks is just one part of his entire adult life's work, to use the internet to establish greater social justice and freedom for the citizens of the free world. Did you know he registered the domain name leaks.com ten years ago? A website where other black hat hackers could leak information they'd gathered, ghosting around in networks they didn't belong in. Know why? Becuase ten years ago he knew that the only way us dumb schmucks could ever truly share our information, and take down powerful and corrupt people and organisations, was with united people power, and he saw the incredible vehicle that the internet represents to achieve that aim.

He has shown he is not above putting his own ass on the line to fight for a cause he sees as just, and I don't just mean this current debarcle he's involved in, I'm talking about standing up in a courtroom nearly 19 years ago and telling a judge "Your honour, I feel a great misjustice has been done and I would like to record the fact that you have been misled by the prosecution," before continuing to give a lecture on freedom of information before this country had even drafted freedom of information legislation. AND before the judge had handed down his sentence. Now that's literally having the courage of your convictions. I know what I think of the guy. I know who's side he's on. I know why I'll continue to speak out for him and for the ideals he holds dear.

Long live free speech and an un-censored internet, and may Julian be free again soon. I call, friend.

[Aaron]

anonymous poll

I see a lot of people viewing this poll but not voting. Why not?

It is anonymous!

There is an option to make the poll non-anonymous meaning it will show
everyone who voted for what. But this is definitely an anonymous poll as
they always have been.

And anyone can start their own.

[Pamela Vicik-Smith]

At first I tried to vote on the poll, but could not because I was not logged-in. That could account in part for the disapportionate amount of views vs votes.

That said, given the two choices, I choose "friend."

What strikes me as odd, is the amount of outrage targeted at Assange, while little to none is targeted at our own government (the US) in light of the attrocities commited in the name of war.

Am I the only one who viewed the video of US servicemen shooting and killing a civilian that was already very-much wounded? And in the accompanying audio, they did so with little-disguised glee?

I understand there was at least one other video of our men shooting children! I chose not to view that one.

Yet, we want to shoot the messenger.

[Aaron]

war crimes

Am I the only one who viewed the video of US servicemen shooting and killing a civilian that was already very-much wounded? And in the accompanying audio, they did so with little-disguised glee?

In one of the Wikileaks threads, I posted a link to the Wikirebels - The
Documentary - one video clip, gunship shooting a van rolling down the
street. Man gets out, faces the chopper and puts his hands in the air
to surrender. They just shot him dead on the spot while he was trying
to surrender. That isn't war, that is murder and is a war crime.

[noises]

I think it's also important to remember, the man who leaked that video to the world was an American soldier. And the man who picked up those children who kind hearted people can't bare to see suffer, and took them to medical aid, was also an American soldier. Think of the brave, beautiful acts of compassion and honesty men and women in the service of your government commit in the name of human decency, and be proud.

This is not, nor should it ever be seen to be, about any country pointing a finger of blame at another. The purpose of wikileaks is to expose injustice, crime and corruption, it is a way for people to get evidence into the public domain so that the people of any country can call their governments to task for their indiscretions, scandals and crimes. If your government, your boss, your lecturer is acting in a way that is less than ethical, you have somewhere to take your proof. That's all Wikileaks is. Julian Assange is just the guy who set that up. That's all.

WL doesn't go out and collect the evidence. It doesn't pre-judge the evidence it gets. It doesn't even publish it's documentary material itself, it simply makes it available for publishing. And without people like PFC Manning, it's a toothless tiger. A waste of web traffic. A nothing. It's the people providing the leaks who give substance to that website, and those people come from all over the world.

[Nadda]

I voted foe. Its a hard vote though, we still dont know what ramifications may happen due to what he's doing. Right now i'm skeptical about the immense media coverage like many others. Seems like there is an agenda somewhere and from what i understand he hasnt yet leaked any breakthrough information reguarding any technology, science or astrological advances so it just seems like a bunch of political propaganda to me. I'm uneducated on the subject though so i could be wrong. For all we know these releases could be the catalyst to spreading censorship laws due to potiental threats to "national security".

Am I the only one who viewed the video of US servicemen shooting and killing a civilian that was already very-much wounded? And in the accompanying audio, they did so with little-disguised glee?

I didnt view it but that is horrid. I just hope that people dont (although im sure many do) see one solider doing that and place all americans or soliders with that same label. There are evil disgusting people all over the world, in our troop squads, in our neighbor-hoods, in the NFL (michael vick). And unfortunately we cant stop terrible people from doing terrible things until they do it. I just hope our military does punish those who commit crimes.

I understand there was at least one other video of our men shooting children!I chose not to view that one.

I certainly hope they werent innocent children, we have to remember the people we are fighting against have been using all means necessary to kill our troops, that includes recruiting children to shoot soliders as they pass by town. If they were innocent unarmed children I hope to god those soliders were held accountable by law.

Man gets out, faces the chopper and puts his hands in the air
to surrender. They just shot him dead on the spot while he was trying
to surrender. That isn't war, that is murder and is a war crime.

I agree, thats not stopping terrorism, Thats creating it.

[noises]

^ I suppose that's what you get for only seeing what the US media has to say about him, and trying to reconcile that with a lifetime of "USA, USA!" propaganda.

Frankly, I think it's it's incredibly illogical to say "wikileaks hasn't leaked anything on topics I wish there was information leaked about, so clearly they're a new world order conspiracy." Reds under the bed much?

Don't be so ethnocentric. The world, and indeed, wikileaks, doesn't revolve around american domerstic policy. In case you didn't know, and you wouldn't, because nobody on CNN has told you this yet, but in the last two years wikileaks posted has the Australian, danish and swedish proposed internet blacklists (the sites the proposed internet filters in those countries would block out.) That is, they've told the citizens of those countries, hey, look the types of sites your governement doesn't want you to look at." which has been absolutely critical in the people of those countries being angry enough and united enough to able to defeat the calls for internet censorship from small groups of people with the government's ear. Ultimately, the governments there are accountable to ALL the people, and WL was instrumental in raising public awareness of just what would be filtered, which became the crux of the people's objection to censorship.

Now america is on the path to getting internet filtering, and their media and government are demonising and castigating one of the loudest voices for a free internet ON the internet, and making Americans distrustful of him. For what, not publishing photos of obama shaking hands with an alien, or george bush crushing a car that runs on water? You show me such evidence was ever sent to wikileaks, and that they failed to publish it, and I'll join you in condeming them for covering it up. But otherwise, all the absence of leaks on your favorite topics proves is that nobody has leaked the information to them yet. Simple.

And like I've been saying here all week, if you have a free energy coverup or scandal you have evidence of and would like to tell the world about, now would be a great time to go ahead and leak it. Otherwise it's not even relevant to what is actually a case with more to do with freedom of the press and an uncensored internet than free energy and UFO disclosure. Sorry to be blunt, but that's the story without the spin.

[future pather]

I'm slightly suspicious of wikileaks but mainly undecided at this point.

[Mad Scientist]

Now america is on the path to getting internet filtering, and their media and government are demonising and castigating one of the loudest voices for a free internet ON the internet,

Yes. But isn’t it interesting those who claim to want to save the internet freedom are the same ones who are more then willing to limit access to it. Either they are totally oblivious to the hypocrisy in this or they are actually trying to restrict access to only the correct people. Personally I suspect the latter.

[noises]

Yes. But isn’t it interesting those who claim to want to save the internet freedom are the same ones who are more then willing to limit access to it. Either they are totally oblivious to the hypocrisy in this or they are actually trying to restrict access to only the correct people. Personally I suspect the latter.

Sorry, who's trying to limit access to the internet? Here in Australia, it's Stephen Conroy, Family First and the christian right. I only know of a few groups who support free and open access to information of all kinds on the internet. Most of them are labled hackers and considered subversives or propagandists at best, or terrorists and criminals at worst. Which smells a bit funky to me, when all I ever hear them saying is we don't want there to be any secrets kept from people - if we have to, we'll dig out those secrets, and publish them... and you can't stop us.

I'd expect official resistance to that idea, but by the same token, I'd expect massive and unstoppable grassroots support for it too.

[Aaron]

fema vid

FEMA was training US Military in classrooms - brainwashing I should say
to believe that the Founding Fathers are terrorists and were the first
terrorist organization.

So, they're already brainwashed to believe that anyone that believes in
the freedom of speech is a terrorist. This is not an exaggeration. I saw a
video on it on youtube and wondered if it was true. Yes, it is. A good
friend is a drill sergeant in the Army and he told me he was wherever
he was stationed and was told the same thing. It is for real, they ARE
brainwashing the military to believe that anyone that asserts their
Constitutional rights are terrorists or enemy combatants.

Here - YouTube - FEMA Says Founding Fathers Are Terrorists
Have to crank up your sound.