Wikileaks: Here to Save Democracy!

[crackahcrackah]

YouTube - Ron Paul calls Wikileaks Heros

Red

This technique, again, is called "Appealing to Authority". Any one interested in furthering their understanding of how propaganda works, should look it up. Not all those who express attitudes congruent with your own are HONEST. Even if they appear to have the track record. Where is mr. Paul on 9/11? Oh that's right toeing the line...

[crackahcrackah]

There is more to the 9-11 story than the public knows. Find a military member that was deployed to Saudi Arabia weeks before 9-11 happened, in August to be exact.

Ask them what happened over there and what Saudi Arabia did to our military.

If you can't find anyone that was there then, find someone who was deployed to Saudi AFTER 9-11 and ask them what Saudi Arabia gave them/forced them to get??

Some still have it in their back pockets....it's a piece to why 9-11 happened.

I knew we were going to invade Iraq in the October after 9/11 because my ex-gf's father was a loadmaster at dover air force base. He told me that Iraq was next. And of course the propaganda started within the next so many months. I know he was forced to have an Anthrax shot that messed him up for months. When he was around he was in a bit of a haze and you could tell he was in pain.

That whole anthrax incident was directly tied to a Zionist who used to work at the Deitrick facility where it was traced back to, but he, along with his cohorts got the attention on a muslim.

Gee, what nation "wages war via deception"?

[crackahcrackah]

Wikileaks collaborates with 5 major media outlets, to seek advice on what they can and can't get away with publishing. These 5 media outlets have complete and FULL access to all wikileaks leaks.

You mean the major media outlets which are controlled? The same media outlets which select and filter what is presented to the masses? These media outlets wouldn't tell the people at wikileaks that they could or couldn't get away with something based on what they want the masses to see, rather than what's really a legal issue, would they?

[crackahcrackah]

Think about it, if you knew the REAL REAL REAL story behind 911, as Assange clearly does - wouldn't all the 'other' crap that is lumped with 911 Truth piss you off? Makes perfect sense to me!

Clearly, as I stated before, you're here hawking wikileaks and attempting to build reputation for them.

Assange doesn't touch 9/11 because that's not what his function is for. Let's see him leak documents on Abramoff. Let's see him leak documents on the heads of AIPAC who were being held for espionage charges, but the charges were dropped, because the prosecutors/judges involved were either bought and paid for, blackmailed, extorted, or members of the jewish criminal network. The issue of 9/11 is a true litmus test for wikileaks. The whole issue of 9/11 has been heavily doped with mossad and freemasons who attempt to steer discussion, create explanations, and insert themselves as some sort of "leaders".

Those who seek the truth need no leaders or single source for their information.

[bugler]

I just read an article about wikeleaks. It is well documented.

If We Lose our Internet Freedoms Because of Wikileaks, You Should At Least Know Why

[RedRightHand]

YouTube - Rap News 5: Wikileaks & the War on Free Speech (ft. Julian Assange)

YouTube - Rap News: WikiLeaks vs The Pentagon — Exclusive

YouTube - Impromptu Rap News performance at the Free Julian Assange Rally in Melbourne on 10 Dec. 2010

As I explore the vast internet landscape attached to the keyword wikileaks, I find a vast array of Free Speech Advocates everywhere. There is hope folks!

Surprisingly one of the best sources is: www.twitter.com/wikileaks

Red

[noises]

Unfortunately, you're citing a subsection of a list of concepts that not every one agrees upon or agrees to be governed by. Absolutely no one is bound to what is written in legal documents unless they agree to it, but those doing business in the corporations known as "government" are claiming a monopoly to force others to abide by their rules.

wow, you come across as someone who really hates human rights. Really.

Sadly, as of 1966, when 174 nations signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, those member nations became supporters in ethic and in law of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the document became an article of international law, and offenses against it may be brought to the international court.

You are right though, there are countries who aren't signatories to this world wide convention on basic human rights. here's a list of those who have either not signed, or who have signed but not ratified the treaty which made the UDHR law.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (non-member nation/states.)

Signed but not ratified
People's Republic of China (1998-10-05)[notes 1]
Comoros (2008-09-25)
Cuba (2008-02-28)
Guinea-Bissau (2000-09-12)
Laos (2000-12-07)
Nauru (2001-11-12)


Neither signed nor ratified
Antigua and Barbuda
Bhutan
Brunei
Burma (Myanmar)
Fiji
Iraq
Kiribati
Malaysia
Marshall Islands
Micronesia
Oman
Palau
Qatar
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Lucia
Saudi Arabia
Singapore
Solomon Islands
Tonga
Tuvalu
United Arab Emirates
Vatican City (through the Holy See)
Taiwan (Republic of China)

And as a matter of fact, although the US is a signatory to the treaty, citizens of the US do not enjoy the protection of the treaty nor the articles of rights set out and protected by the UDRH.

Indeed, the United States has not accepted a single international obligation required under the Covenant. It has not changed its domestic law to conform with the strictures of the Covenant. See Hain v. Gibson, 287 F.3d 1224 (10th Cir. 2002) (noting that Congress has not done so). Its subjects are not permitted to sue to enforce their basic human rights under the Covenant, as noted above. It has not ratified the Optional Protocol. As such, the Covenant has been rendered ineffective, with the bone of contention being United States officials' insistence upon preserving a vast web of sovereign, judicial, prosecutorial, and executive branch immunities that often deprives its subjects of the "effective remedy" under law the Covenant is intended to guarantee. In 2006, the Human Rights Committee expressed concern over what it interprets as material non-compliance, exhorting the United States to take immediate corrective action

Well, what say you to the fact a citizen in China has more and better human rights than a citizen of the USA? Something tells me you'd be really happy about that, and would seek to convince me and others that it's a good thing.


Well buddy, that's the type of conflict that leads to shooting wars, because you and I will never agree on the subject. And I'm not going to waste my time arguing with you about it, not when there's what I see as important civil rights concerns being played out today that require my time and attention. Watch your hate doesn't hollow you out from the inside, and may your humanity kick in one day and open your heart to the idea that life and liberty are sacred.

[bugler]

wow, you come across as someone who really hates human rights. Really.:

noises in this case, I think that crackahcrackah is talking about a different subject which is completely unkown for most people.

I think he is talking about the fact that a citizen can reject being governed and stop paying taxes. It is a most interesting subject.
People can decide to obey only the common law and none of the statues and silly rules imposed on us.

Unfortunately this is only for certain countries like US, Canada, maybe UK and Australia though not sure.

The system is completely corrupted and nothing makes sense any more. We have to start from scracth which can only happen with a needed revolution.

You have mentioned the list of countries not signing the human rights treaty. In the list is not a middle east country which violates human rights every single minute of every single day so what is the value of treaties?

I agree with you that this wikileaks guy should be free.

[noises]

n

You have mentioned the list of countries not signing the human rights treaty. In the list is not a middle east country....

Iraq, Qatar, Oman, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Bahrain are just a few countries off the top of my head I know are in the middle east. and they're on the list. However, I don't see how it's relevant that some of the worst human rights abusers on the planet are NOT signatories to the UDHR, or how not being a signatory is a good thing. They are not signatories because in many cases they are kingdoms, where the kings and princes are autocratic dictators, and they don't like the idea of their subjects having rights, or being treated as human beings deserving of human rights. You can count on one hand the number of (so called) free and democratic countries who aren't signatories though. Mainly it's dictatorships and communist regiems who have declined to be bound by this document.

and as for the notes on common law, I attended a court case last week in support of a friend who has been advocating personal autonomy and sovereignty for the last five years. I'm well aware of my rights under common law, and again, would put it to you there's bigger fish to fry right now.

Look at it this way. Lets say someone here had verifiable proof that their government, their company or their university or college was keeping a lid on free energy. Documents, that, if the world had a chance to see, would prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that their government, company or college was keeping a lid on free energy. I ask you, where would you go? Where would you take that information if you wanted to get it out to the public? CNN? Fox News? The New York Daily Mail? Good luck getting it published!

If you have any information like that, you'd take it to wikileaks. Because nobody else will touch it. Do you have any information like that? Can you get it? If not, why accuse wikileaks of hiding information they don't have. If you do, take it to wikileaks, and then come back after a couple of months and complain if they don't publish it.

In the meantime, unless you or someone you're writing about is rotting in jail, being held without charge waiting to be extradited for a rape case that's been withdrawn by one of the two accusers (the one who wasn't working for the CIA in cuba a couple of years ago,) get over arguing about who cares about 911, free energy or UFO's. Unless you get involved in the current battle in defense of freedom of the press and an uncensored internet, the truth about those things will NEVER come to light. That's exactly what this is about, and it's what I mean by drop your favorite conspiracy theory for five minutes and get involved with the fight for a free press. Wake up and smell the fascism and censorship.

[bugler]

...

I didn't express myself clearly. I meant a country who apparently has signed the treaty (cause it is not in the list) and violate systematically human rights every single day.

I turn the table on you. What has published wikileaks that is really worth reading? Something really important. It is an honest question cause I really don't have any
idea.
Very important information like how to cure cancer is freely available in internet. Why hasn't wikileaks published that?

For the record I work for a better world the best way I know which is to expose the biggest criminal network behind international terrorism, drug traffic, sex slaves, US government corruption, banking scam, financial scam, etc, etc. The jewish criminal network. I have a blog and I try to tell everybody about it so it gets destroyed.

By the way I don't believe in ufos.

[Aaron]

Transparency and Open Government

Just a reminder about what Obama promised and signed:

Transparency and Open Government | The White House

Transparency and Open Government

Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies

SUBJECT: Transparency and Open Government

My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.


Government should be transparent.



Transparency promotes accountability and provides information for citizens about what their Government is doing. Information maintained by the Federal Government is a national asset. My Administration will take appropriate action, consistent with law and policy, to disclose information rapidly in forms that the public can readily find and use. Executive departments and agencies should harness new technologies to put information about their operations and decisions online and readily available to the public. Executive departments and agencies should also solicit public feedback to identify information of greatest use to the public.


Government should be participatory.


Public engagement enhances the Government's effectiveness and improves the quality of its decisions. Knowledge is widely dispersed in society, and public officials benefit from having access to that dispersed knowledge. Executive departments and agencies should offer Americans increased opportunities to participate in policymaking and to provide their Government with the benefits of their collective expertise and information. Executive departments and agencies should also solicit public input on how we can increase and improve opportunities for public participation in Government.


Government should be collaborative.



Collaboration actively engages Americans in the work of their Government. Executive departments and agencies should use innovative tools, methods, and systems to cooperateamong themselves, across all levels of Government, and with nonprofit organizations, businesses, and individuals in the private sector. Executive departments and agencies should solicit public feedback to assess and improve their level of collaboration and to identify new opportunities for cooperation.


I direct the Chief Technology Officer, in coordination with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Administrator of General Services, to coordinate the development by appropriate executive departments and agencies, within 120 days, of recommendations for an Open Government Directive, to be issued by the Director of OMB, that instructs executive departments and agencies to take specific actions implementing the principles set forth in this memorandum. The independent agencies should comply with the Open Government Directive.


This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by a party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.


This memorandum shall be published in the Federal Register.


BARACK OBAMA

[noises]

Executive departments and agencies should harness new technologies to put information about their operations and decisions online and readily available to the public. Executive departments and agencies should also solicit public feedback to identify information of greatest use to the public.

:| Did Sarah Palin and Joseph Lieberman get copies of that?

It's a shame, such an awesome idea, and it gets shot down in flames by action 100% contrary to the ideal.

[noises]

While you're busy being upset that not enough people know how evil the jews are, and while you're calling wikileaks a propaganda website, what you're really doing is letting the US government demonise this man, and whip up an atmosphere of hysterical fear which will result in the moral majority going "oh yes, we need internet censorship, so terrorists can't publish data that puts our troops lives at risk."

And when that censorship comes in, and the websites about, disclosure, free energy and zionist conspiracies get added to the blacklist of websites people aren't allowed to visit any more, and YOU get shut up, and the only thing anyone can use the internet for is finding out if Miley Cyrus is a pot head, buying the latest iPhone off Amazon, visiting facebook or buying a song off iTunes, and even THIS site ends up on a government blacklist because people here dissent too often, and freely exchange information about free energy, you're going to regret not getting involved in this fight.

You'll probably blame someone else for censoring the internet, instead of blaming yourself for not fighting to keep it free. The only way to stop it is to inform the "sheeple" (as some call them,) the real reason why the government wants to shut down some websites, because unless they get what's really at stake, guys like Comrade Lieberman are just going to walk in an internet censorship bill, to thunderous applause.

[crackahcrackah]

wow, you come across as someone who really hates human rights. Really.

No, the problem is honestly in discourse. My issues have been cogently stated and they are being twisted so that they do not sound like what I have stated. No human has any right to force another human into any form of agreement. Is there some part of that you don't understand?

Sadly, as of 1966, when 174 nations signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, those member nations became supporters in ethic and in law of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the document became an article of international law, and offenses against it may be brought to the international court.

The UN is nothing but an instrument of the bankers. Do a little more research. It was preceded by the league of nations. All banker tools. If you're ignorant of this due to a lack of research, then here's your chance. Otherwise continued promotion can only be seen as agreement with the bankers and being ruled by them.

You are right though, there are countries who aren't signatories to this world wide convention on basic human rights. here's a list of those who have either not signed, or who have signed but not ratified the treaty which made the UDHR law.

Can you cut with the jokes already? Those who make statements for or against a thing are not always honest and their behavior is not always congruent with that expression.

And as a matter of fact, although the US is a signatory to the treaty, citizens of the US do not enjoy the protection of the treaty nor the articles of rights set out and protected by the UDRH.

Well, what say you to the fact a citizen in China has more and better human rights than a citizen of the USA? Something tells me you'd be really happy about that, and would seek to convince me and others that it's a good thing.

You're blatantly ignoring the substance of my comments.None of the people doing business as "so called" governments have any right to claim authority over people in the land where they claim to do business. If slaves want so called "representatives" then that's up to the slaves, but those who wish to be left alone have every right to be left alone. Now before you go responding to select and isolated elements of my responses, take the time to read the substance and save yourself the time that would have been spend in creating an irrelevant response.

Well buddy, that's the type of conflict that leads to shooting wars, because you and I will never agree on the subject. And I'm not going to waste my time arguing with you about it, not when there's what I see as important civil rights concerns being played out today that require my time and attention. Watch your hate doesn't hollow you out from the inside, and may your humanity kick in one day and open your heart to the idea that life and liberty are sacred.

That's why you should leave other people alone and not attempt to force your own ideology on them. It's very simple. Leave other people alone. When you attempt to force ideology on them they have the right to resist. And to chalk up a stance that promotes individuality as "hate" is a propaganda or brainwashed behavior.

You don't see me trying to force other people to think the way I do, so don't try to force me to think the way you do.

Totalitarians and those brainwashed by totalitarians all feel the need to force their beliefs on other people.

[crackahcrackah]

and as for the notes on common law, I attended a court case last week in support of a friend who has been advocating personal autonomy and sovereignty for the last five years. I'm well aware of my rights under common law, and again, would put it to you there's bigger fish to fry right now.

On one hand you argue for human rights, on the other hand you claim there's bigger fish to fry. Which is it?

I ask you, where would you go? Where would you take that information if you wanted to get it out to the public? CNN? Fox News? The New York Daily Mail? Good luck getting it published!

I'm right where I'd be. I've publicly posted a number of Tesla's most important radiant energy patents on this forum and no one has censored it. Perhaps the people running energeticforum should have their own cheerleader section...? Where are the headlines and attacks from fox news and cnn on energeticforum? I guess energeticforum isn't serving some sort of propaganda function? Well that's good to know!

If you have any information like that, you'd take it to wikileaks. Because nobody else will touch it. Do you have any information like that? Can you get it? If not, why accuse wikileaks of hiding information they don't have. If you do, take it to wikileaks, and then come back after a couple of months and complain if they don't publish it.

No, YOU would take it to wikileaks. Other people would do different things. I've seen people set up yahoo forums and the like for such information. Different people approach things differently. Thank god for that.

In the meantime, unless you or someone you're writing about is rotting in jail, being held without charge waiting to be extradited for a rape case that's been withdrawn by one of the two accusers (the one who wasn't working for the CIA in cuba a couple of years ago,) get over arguing about who cares about 911, free energy or UFO's. Unless you get involved in the current battle in defense of freedom of the press and an uncensored internet, the truth about those things will NEVER come to light. That's exactly what this is about, and it's what I mean by drop your favorite conspiracy theory for five minutes and get involved with the fight for a free press. Wake up and smell the fascism and censorship.

There have been 1.6 million iraqi's murdered in iraq. The country turned upside down. The same issue has happened elsewhere. False flag attacks and lies for going to war are important issues. You sound like a propaganda parrot using the phrases conspiracy theory,etc. Those of us who have researched these issues deal in FACTS not theory. It is a FACT that Mossad agents were busted all around NYC on the day of 9/11 and hundreds were deported in the months thereafter.

But let's ignore that, and exhibit tunnel vision on this one single guy, who has claimed that Netanyahu is a transparent political leader. Yeh, we can trust both of those guys all right...

You're pretending as if the issues which people like me raise have no saliency to truth and it does not reflect well upon you or your judgment. It certainly raises the issue of how many intel agents are flooding forums all over the net promoting false ideas and idolotry. It is a KNOWN function of intelligence agencies and the biggest agencies involved in the "info war" are israeli operated. I can guess two primary reasons why you wouldn't get this through your head. But that's just me, and what do I know?