World Politics

Page 230 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
May 13, 2009
3,093
0
0
A fun read on post?? colonial politics in Africa. (if you can read German)

The short of it:

Ukraine sold weapons to Kenya who were going to hand them over to the South Sudan rebels (SPLA). Then Somali pirates captured the ship and the whole deal became pretty public. Then the Obama administration put pressure on Kenya to stop the deal (they threatened to sanction Kenya). Kenya complained that in the past, the US (under Bush) was informed and even approved of such deals. Also, why would US sanction Kenya when the US is giving aid to the same rebel group directly? In the end, nothing came out of it and presumably the tanks (after the Somali pirates were paid $3.2 million) are rolling through Sudan right now.

And unlike he newspaper, I'll put up a link to the actual cable.


One more remark: considering what PayPal, Mastercard, Amazon, and VISA have done, Europeans (anyone outside the US really) should consider how much of their daily life depends on US companies obviously under the thumb of right wing senators like Lieberman. Might it be useful to develop parallel business solutions in Europe? If it's worth to put European (and Russian) GPS satellites in orbit, maybe it could be useful to start a credit card company, an anonymous internet pay service, or cloud computing capacity, too.

ETA: Another analysis of the charges brought by one of the women against Assange (in Swedish). In particular, a very good job on tracking back twitter and blog entries by the plaintiff and her failed attempts to erase them from the internet. Her tweets (before and after the alleged assaults) depict her basically as a groupie. And yes, it's the 'after' tweets she tried to get rid of (and failed miserably). Google cache can be a biatch sometimes.

ETA 2: The rumor mill has it that this woman also has been working with an ex CIA agent/mass murderer/terrorist and been expelled by Cuba once.
 
Nov 2, 2009
1,117
0
0
From Australian internet-based activist network GetUp!:

The statement:
Dear President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder:

We, as Australians, condemn calls for violence, including assassination, against Australian citizen and WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, or for him to be labeled a terrorist, enemy combatant or be treated outside the ordinary course of justice in any way.

As Thomas Jefferson said, "information is the currency of democracy." Publishing leaked information in collaboration with major news outlets, as Wikileaks and Mr. Assange have done, is not a terrorist act.

Australia and the United States are the strongest of allies. Our soldiers serve side by side and we’ve experienced, and condemned, the consequences of terrorism together. To label Wikileaks a terrorist organisation is an insult to those Australians and Americans who have lost their lives to acts of terrorism and to terrorist forces.

If Wikileaks or their staff have broken international or national laws, let that case be heard in a just and fair court of law. At the moment, no such charges have been brought.

We are writing as Australians to say what our Government should have: all Australian citizens deserve to be free from persecution, threats of violence and detention without charge, especially from our friend and ally, the United States.

We call upon you to stand up for our shared democratic principles of the presumption of innocence and freedom of information.


To sign: http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/Wikileaks&id=1489

Avaaz, the international version, has a similar campaign:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/wikileaks_petition/97.php?cl_tta_sign=ed44729fb1ed07d674c5971f4d07495a
 
Jun 16, 2009
19,657
0
0
it is not terrorism, but the leaking of documents is only to cause trouble. Don't think you should be advertising such things on this forum SpareTyre. Let people make up their own minds about the issue without posting links to sign a petition.
 
auscyclefan94 said:
it is not terrorism, but the leaking of documents is only to cause trouble. Don't think you should be advertising such things on this forum SpareTyre. Let people make up their own minds about the issue without posting links to sign a petition.
Never question the myth! :D
 
Nov 2, 2009
1,117
0
0
auscyclefan94 said:
it is not terrorism, but the leaking of documents is only to cause trouble. Don't think you should be advertising such things on this forum SpareTyre. Let people make up their own minds about the issue without posting links to sign a petition.
People are free to make up their own minds about whether or not to sign. I'm not compelling anybody.
 
May 13, 2009
3,093
0
0
Spare Tyre said:
From Australian internet-based activist network GetUp!:

The statement:
Dear President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder:

We, as Australians, condemn calls for violence, including assassination, against Australian citizen and WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, or for him to be labeled a terrorist, enemy combatant or be treated outside the ordinary course of justice in any way.

As Thomas Jefferson said, "information is the currency of democracy." Publishing leaked information in collaboration with major news outlets, as Wikileaks and Mr. Assange have done, is not a terrorist act.

Australia and the United States are the strongest of allies. Our soldiers serve side by side and we’ve experienced, and condemned, the consequences of terrorism together. To label Wikileaks a terrorist organisation is an insult to those Australians and Americans who have lost their lives to acts of terrorism and to terrorist forces.

If Wikileaks or their staff have broken international or national laws, let that case be heard in a just and fair court of law. At the moment, no such charges have been brought.

We are writing as Australians to say what our Government should have: all Australian citizens deserve to be free from persecution, threats of violence and detention without charge, especially from our friend and ally, the United States.

We call upon you to stand up for our shared democratic principles of the presumption of innocence and freedom of information.


To sign: http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/Wikileaks&id=1489

Avaaz, the international version, has a similar campaign:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/wikileaks_petition/97.php?cl_tta_sign=ed44729fb1ed07d674c5971f4d07495a
The 'West' condemned the fatwa on artist Salman Rushdie. Not only that, it made a litmus test out of what other muslim leaders and clerics had to say on this issue.

When certain militant right wing extremists such as Lieberman and Palin issue what's comparable to a fatwa on Assange, the 'West' is heard only by its deafening silence.

It's sad to see that the 9/11 terrorists have actually won.

Dissent and inconvenience now equals terrorism. Terrorism equals Guantanamo or death. Rendition, no habeas corpus, torture. Liberty is dying to the thunderous applause of the media and public.
 
Nov 2, 2009
1,117
0
0
May 13, 2009
3,093
0
0
Cobblestones said:
One more remark: considering what PayPal, Mastercard, Amazon, and VISA have done, Europeans (anyone outside the US really) should consider how much of their daily life depends on US companies obviously under the thumb of right wing senators like Lieberman. Might it be useful to develop parallel business solutions in Europe? If it's worth to put European (and Russian) GPS satellites in orbit, maybe it could be useful to start a credit card company, an anonymous internet pay service, or cloud computing capacity, too.
Quoting myself here:
This is interesting. Apparently Medvedev had the same idea and Russia plans to start their own credit card business. See how Visa and Mastercard and the US government are unhappy about it? And of course, this information sees the light thanks to Wikileaks.
 
Glenn_Wilson said:
rhubroma said:
Well since I have never been anywhere “around the globe” I guess my opinion is limited according to you. I completely understand the irony bit because if you would not have spelled it I would have never been able to look it up in the dictionary.

Now the article above was a good read but why not just link the article?
Yea, well sorry about that, but I had come by that via an e-mail from a colleague, so I didn't have a link at the time or I'd have certainly put it up.
 
Alpe d'Huez said:
Actually you guys both seem to pretty much be on the same page of thinking.

US policy has been like this for some time. Go back to the Cold War and how the US actions in Latin America were constantly looking away from horrible human rights violations as long as regimes they were supporting fought communism.

But it's my belief that the system we have now is much more akin to the post-Gilded Age, and actions of the robber barons. One can look back to 1970 and see the fear of communism and the power of the Soviet Union and their global aggression. But there is no such powerful antagonist today. While it may be masked as "terrorism", the general actions of the United States in Middle Eastern policy has to do with oil, control, and money. Because oil barons have so much influence over government, and the general rule of acceptance being that greed and hoarding is good for the economy, we continue the path with Obama that we did with Bush.

About 300 pages ago on this thread I wrote about Jimmy Carter's famous "Malaise Speech" and while his speech was poorly received as negative, in retrospect he was completely correct. Imagine if today we weren't importing much oil because over the last 30 years we had built more nuclear power plants, worked at clean(er) coal, built electric cars, etc.
Good post Alpe. On that note of "robber barons" if you're interested there's a good book I'm reading at the moment by Ronald G. Musto entitled Apocalypse in Rome: Cola di Rienzo and the Politics of the New Age. Basically it discusses the feudal system of barons, who themselves were the vassals of the papacy, then in Avignon, during XIV century Rome and the meteoric rise and fall of a certain Cola di Rienzo, who challenged the authority of those same barons to reestablish the Republic before ultimately being branded as a traitor and enemy of the common good. He was thus first loved by the lowly common folk, who saw in his persona someone that had risen up from their ranks willing to defend them from the exploitative and oppressive forces of the baron class.

After an astute and highly effective propagandistic campaign, however, with the compliance of the papacy in exile, the barons were able to effect the necessary pressure to bear and, in the end, have Cola's head.

This medieval tale placed on the microscopic level of Rome at the time, although that was the social norm throughout the feudal Western World, allows us to see that the more times change the more they indeed remain the same.

If we substitute, in my highly symbolic analysis (allegoria), the papacy with the Power in Washington, the barons with the corporate-industrial and financial universe (though perhaps, in our day, the two should be switched) and Cola di Rienzo with Assange and his network, the Romans with all of us; then we can clearly see how power and resistance to power has always worked. But also how the people at once aspire to justice, but the momment they realize that it is no longer politically expedient to do so and, to do otherwise, would be disadvantages to their immediate needs and concerns: they cave into tyranny. The idea that Tyranny expresses itself on many levels, not all of which may superficially seem tyrannous but are nonetheless. This is what is called the leverage that Power and Wealth and Power have always had over us.

This allegory in light of Assange's arrest, Power and Wealth and the nature our predicament, provides us little hope that things will change for the better any time soon. It's also just as interesting to see how a figure can be perceived in so many different ways: from "hero of civilization," to the anti-Christ, to XIX layman's model against religious obscurantism, to a Wagnerian prototype of the Nazi-Fascist defender of the Nation and its "true" People. Cola di Rienzo has been viewed within the spectrum of these many colored lights. Who knows how many ways future history will view Assange? I'll bet just as many, especially considering the present debates.

PS: the "post Guided-Age" to which you refered (a term that I liked very much) can also be called another way: Neo-medieval civilization.
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,773
1
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
About 300 pages ago on this thread I wrote about Jimmy Carter's famous "Malaise Speech" and while his speech was poorly received as negative, in retrospect he was completely correct. Imagine if today we weren't importing much oil because over the last 30 years we had built more nuclear power plants, worked at clean(er) coal, built electric cars, etc.
I remember those posts. I had also said something back then or on another thread (the BP oil spill) about Jimmy Carter is the only president that in my opinion had an actual Energy Policy that would have helped the United States. It was basically ignored because people were hung up on something as simple as "I can't drive 55" (terrible song btw). The meat of his Energy policy was good and should be in place today.
 
Cobblestones said:
The 'West' condemned the fatwa on artist Salman Rushdie. Not only that, it made a litmus test out of what other muslim leaders and clerics had to say on this issue.

When certain militant right wing extremists such as Lieberman and Palin issue what's comparable to a fatwa on Assange, the 'West' is heard only by its deafening silence.

It's sad to see that the 9/11 terrorists have actually won.

Dissent and inconvenience now equals terrorism. Terrorism equals Guantanamo or death. Rendition, no habeas corpus, torture. Liberty is dying to the thunderous applause of the media and public.

I feel i have to defend Sir Rushdie here.


The Fatwah was an ORDER to kill. An order given to people, millions of people who recognised the Ayatollah as a superior and who would carry out his order.

Has Palin told her hockey moms that they will recieve a place next to god in evangelical heaven if they will carry out a murder. Have they ordered any assasination?

Secondly The Ayatollah was the head of a state, so it became a state policy. Which is a significant. There is a big difference between state policy and a individual citizen standing up and saying something stupid. Palin isnt even in power anymore

THirdly, the Ayatollah put up a significant ammount of MONEY in his own name - 1 million dollars in reward for the murder of Salman.

Again has Palin even told anyone to murder him. Though there could be more (in which case im wrong on this) from what i understand she just said that he SHOULD be hunted down, which for one doesnt neccesarily mean murder and 2 is not a command. Theres a difference between hoping someone dies, and telling others they better well make sure he does.


fourthly one of Salmans translators was stabbed to death as a warning to others which shows just how serious the threat was.


And the west was not quite so united in its critiscism. A popular view was that it was all Salmans fault. How dare he think for himself and write a novel without taking into account the people thousands of miles away, who cant even read what he writes anyway.

But the point is Palins words arent being condemned because dillusional speech which MIght be construed as being a threat, from a nobody with no power, is not the same as the ORDER with the promise of MONEY from the HEAD of a very large State to carry out the murder.
 
The Hitch said:
I feel i have to defend Sir Rushdie here.


The Fatwah was an ORDER to kill. An order given to people, millions of people who recognised the Ayatollah as a superior and who would carry out his order.

Has Palin told her hockey moms that they will recieve a place next to god in evangelical heaven if they will carry out a murder. Have they ordered any assasination?

Secondly The Ayatollah was the head of a state, so it became a state policy. Which is a significant. There is a big difference between state policy and a individual citizen standing up and saying something stupid. Palin isnt even in power anymore

THirdly, the Ayatollah put up a significant ammount of MONEY in his own name - 1 million dollars in reward for the murder of Salman.

Again has Palin even told anyone to murder him. Though there could be more (in which case im wrong on this) from what i understand she just said that he SHOULD be hunted down, which for one doesnt neccesarily mean murder and 2 is not a command. Theres a difference between hoping someone dies, and telling others they better well make sure he does.


fourthly one of Salmans translators was stabbed to death as a warning to others which shows just how serious the threat was.


And the west was not quite so united in its critiscism. A popular view was that it was all Salmans fault. How dare he think for himself and write a novel without taking into account the people thousands of miles away, who cant even read what he writes anyway.

But the point is Palins words arent being condemned because dillusional speech which MIght be construed as being a threat, from a nobody with no power, is not the same as the ORDER with the promise of MONEY from the HEAD of a very large State to carry out the murder.
Yes but this, in an extremely rare instance, is because the CIA didn't manage to address the situation in time....

You know how it works, Hitch, in democracy. The performance must always take on a certain wholesomeness, what goes on behind the scenes is only foul if noticed.

The Persians in regards to consistency had the unfair advantage of not having to resort to hypocrisy.

But in the end at all works out, one way or another, just the same. ;)
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,773
1
0
The Hitch said:
I feel i have to defend Sir Rushdie here.


The Fatwah was an ORDER to kill. An order given to people, millions of people who recognised the Ayatollah as a superior and who would carry out his order.

Has Palin told her hockey moms that they will recieve a place next to god in evangelical heaven if they will carry out a murder. Have they ordered any assasination?

Secondly The Ayatollah was the head of a state, so it became a state policy. Which is a significant. There is a big difference between state policy and a individual citizen standing up and saying something stupid. Palin isnt even in power anymore

THirdly, the Ayatollah put up a significant ammount of MONEY in his own name - 1 million dollars in reward for the murder of Salman.

Again has Palin even told anyone to murder him. Though there could be more (in which case im wrong on this) from what i understand she just said that he SHOULD be hunted down, which for one doesnt neccesarily mean murder and 2 is not a command. Theres a difference between hoping someone dies, and telling others they better well make sure he does.


fourthly one of Salmans translators was stabbed to death as a warning to others which shows just how serious the threat was.


And the west was not quite so united in its critiscism. A popular view was that it was all Salmans fault. How dare he think for himself and write a novel without taking into account the people thousands of miles away, who cant even read what he writes anyway.

But the point is Palins words arent being condemned because dillusional speech which MIght be construed as being a threat, from a nobody with no power, is not the same as the ORDER with the promise of MONEY from the HEAD of a very large State to carry out the murder.
Very good points Hitch. I know you do not need any props but wanted to says so anyhow.
For me I wish we did not have to compare anything Palin says to anyone but in this case I agree her words are not an order to act upon anything.

I wish her and her Kita-Chosen allies would get together for a summit sometime. That would prove to be an interesting conversation. :D
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,773
1
0
rhubroma said:
Yes but this, in an extremely rare instance, is because the CIA didn't manage to address the situation in time....
You know how it works, Hitch, in democracy. The performance must always take on a certain wholesomeness, what goes on behind the scenes is only foul if noticed.

The Persians in regards to consistency had the unfair advantage of not having to resort to hypocrisy.

But in the end at all works out, one way or another, just the same. ;)
Please elaborate on the above bolded part. I would like to read your thoughts on this.
 
Funny how COP16 Cancun has been completely overshadowed, with very small amounts of coverage compared to this time last year. I guess a lot of the delegates will be happy - no need to try and string together a facade "agreement" like last year... just sit back and enjoy the sun.
 
Nov 2, 2009
1,117
0
0
Ferminal said:
Funny how COP16 Cancun has been completely overshadowed, with very small amounts of coverage compared to this time last year. I guess a lot of the delegates will be happy - no need to try and string together a facade "agreement" like last year... just sit back and enjoy the sun.
Agreed. Possibly there is also a loss of hope after the failure of the talks at Copenhagen.


@ Hitch,
To me the fact that a presidential wannabe thinks it is ok to publicly suggest someone should be hunted down in a witch-hunt outside the rule of law is frankly a very disturbing sign of where things are at these days in the good ol' USA. It may not have the authority and power of a fatwa, but there are certainly parallels.
 
May 23, 2010
2,410
0
0
Spare Tyre said:
Agreed. Possibly there is also a loss of hope after the failure of the talks at Copenhagen.


@ Hitch,
To me the fact that a presidential wannabe thinks it is ok to publicly suggest someone should be hunted down in a witch-hunt outside the rule of law is frankly a very disturbing sign of where things are at these days in the good ol' USA. It may not have the authority and power of a fatwa, but there are certainly parallels.
The parallel is Tim McVeigh and John Hinkley,,,Palin, Beck, Rush speak everyday hoping the next McVeigh will hear their special message and step up.
 
Spare Tyre said:
@ Hitch,
To me the fact that a presidential wannabe thinks it is ok to publicly suggest someone should be hunted down in a witch-hunt outside the rule of law is frankly a very disturbing sign of where things are at these days in the good ol' USA. It may not have the authority and power of a fatwa, but there are certainly parallels.
Oh come on. Its a disturbing sign? Its a big bad world out there. You know better than that. America is a big country. Its always had evil in power. Its always had presidential candidates say bad things. Pat Robertson was a presidential wannabee and he said 911 happened because New York was gay. Mike Huckabee leads polls (though realistically he has no chance) and he says worse things too. Bill Clinton flew back to Arksnasa to execute a disabled man to prove he was tough on crime, just before the 92 election. GWB said atheists arent welcome in america.

I mean come on. What sort of standards do you expect from presidential candidates? Moreover what standards do you expect from Sarah Palin.

As for the Fatwa, theres no parallel.

Theres no order, theres no reward and the words arent direct. Moreover the context is her trying to increase her popularity.

When Ayatollah says he wants Salman dead, its because he wants Salman dead. When Sarah Palin says "hunt down" those are deliberately chosen because they get a particular reaction, that "assasinate" or "imrpison" or "punish" or "catch" do not. Assasinate, imprison, Catch, those are all about Assange. What he can expect to get, how much we hate him and will get revenge on HIM.

But Hunt down, now the subject is not Assange but America. Its patirotism. Its making the audience feel good about american power. We have power, and thats what Palins ticket is after all, patriotism.

And increasing her popularity amongst her base is what shes doing.

Either it has meaning or it doesnt.

The 15 years Salman spent under extreme peace protection and the grave of his japanese translator show it does.

The murder of theo van goth and Ayan hirsi alis police protection show the threats against her have meaning.

Sarah Palins nature, and the context of what was said as well as the words that were chosen shows it doesnt.

Either it has meaning, or it doesnt.
 
May 26, 2009
377
0
0
The Hitch said:
When Ayatollah says he wants Salman dead, its because he wants Salman dead. When Sarah Palin says "hunt down" those are deliberately chosen because they get a particular reaction, that "assasinate" or "imrpison" or "punish" or "catch" do not.

The 15 years Salman spent under extreme peace protection and the grave of his japanese translator show it does.

The murder of theo van goth and Ayan hirsi alis police protection show the threats against her have meaning.

Sarah Palins nature, and the context of what was said as well as the words that were chosen shows it doesnt.

Either it has meaning, or it doesnt.
1 x dead president, 1 x dead brother of a president, 1 x dead black civil rights leader, all in living history might argue that it's naive to think that when a right winger in the USA publicly calls from somebody to be killed, it's just a colourful turn of phrase.

I listened to an interview not that long ago with an Iranian who said that Western analysts assuming that Ahmadinnajacket is just posturing for the benefit of his own audience are gravely mistaken. I have the same feeling about the right wingnuts in the USA. Both are insular and aggressive tribesmen (and women).
 
yourwelcome said:
1 x dead president, 1 x dead brother of a president, 1 x dead black civil rights leader, all in living history might argue that it's naive to think that when a right winger in the USA publicly calls from somebody to be killed, it's just a colourful turn of phrase.
SO it was the republicans behind the Kennedy and King assisantions?

Personally i could never decide betrween the aliens theory and new orleans, the but as they say, each his own :rolleyes:
 
May 23, 2010
2,410
0
0
1994

""After a few years exploiting his notoriety for TV game show appearances and guest starring roles on programs like "Miami Vice," Liddy took the perhaps inevitable career course laid out before him, and became a syndicated radio talk show host, where he famously dished out advice to would-be nut jobs seeking to protect their constitutional rights. The most infamous of these incidents was a 1994 show in which he advised a caller worried about jack-booted ATF agents kicking in his door: "They've got a big target on there: ATF. Don't shoot at that because they've got a vest on underneath that. Head shot, head shots." He also suggested that groin shots were a good backup plan.""


1995
 
Nov 2, 2009
1,117
0
0
The Hitch said:
When Ayatollah says he wants Salman dead, its because he wants Salman dead. When Sarah Palin says "hunt down" those are deliberately chosen because they get a particular reaction, that "assasinate" or "imrpison" or "punish" or "catch" do not. Assasinate, imprison, Catch, those are all about Assange. What he can expect to get, how much we hate him and will get revenge on HIM.

But Hunt down, now the subject is not Assange but America. Its patirotism. Its making the audience feel good about american power. We have power, and thats what Palins ticket is after all, patriotism.

.
Yes, IMO it's very dangerous to fuel the fires of rabid patriotism and to have political leaders set a tone in which vigilante justice is condoned.

A similar kind of impulse towards patriotism and vigilante justice gave us the deadly War on Guerrilla Warfare which has so dominated recent years and shows no sign of ending or achieving its goal.

ETA: The fact bad things have been said by American political figures in the past does not make Palin's comment any less reprehensible.
 
Glenn_Wilson said:
Please elaborate on the above bolded part. I would like to read your thoughts on this.
Well I was simply referring to the number of direct or indirect hit jobs the CIA has notoriously been involved with to protect America's empire: from Mosaddegh, to Jaime Roldos, to Patrice Lumumba, etc., etc. There have also been many instances of "hostile" types being launched out of some high window or thrown off a bridge, discretely, in a manner of speaking, but Assange has somehow eluded such a fate.

There is no substantial difference, however, between an Ayatollah ordering a public fatwa against someone they find offensive and destabilizing and the CIA violating every principle of human rights, international law and, in many cases, democratic choice (which we are supposed to represent and protect globally!), to privately murder in the same name of some "higher principle." If there is any difference, then it is to be found in the fact that one act is committed in the name of a religious ideology, the other in the name of a political ideology. Apart from this, though, they are the same crime, the same form of intolerance, the same form of injustice, the same shame.

Of course one act gets publicly demonized by our establishment, the other is privately glorified by it (until, that is, things come to light, at which time, and in order to save face, that establishment must make false and hypocritical apologies to the world that nobody with a critical head can take seriously, above all our enemies).

This is also the case between the glorification of a Rushdie by the Western governments and their at the same time demonizing Assange, which can only be compared to symbolically, as was already mentioned, a political fatwa. And don't kid yourself into thinking that the rhetorical claims of a Palin don't reflect, aren't backed by, real sentiments and intentions of covert agents of the governments. This is what I meant by the Persians having had the advantage over the democracies in terms of not needing to cave into hypocrisy. Though, substantially, there is no real difference between spoken voice and intended actions in these separate cases.

Simple. Anyone that says to the contrary is a liar and a hypocrite in my book.

Hence the difference that some here claim to exist between the two, is invisible to me.
 
Nov 2, 2009
1,117
0
0
Spare Tyre said:
From Australian internet-based activist network GetUp!:

The statement:
Dear President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder:

We, as Australians, condemn calls for violence, including assassination, against Australian citizen and WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, or for him to be labeled a terrorist, enemy combatant or be treated outside the ordinary course of justice in any way.

As Thomas Jefferson said, "information is the currency of democracy." Publishing leaked information in collaboration with major news outlets, as Wikileaks and Mr. Assange have done, is not a terrorist act.

Australia and the United States are the strongest of allies. Our soldiers serve side by side and we’ve experienced, and condemned, the consequences of terrorism together. To label Wikileaks a terrorist organisation is an insult to those Australians and Americans who have lost their lives to acts of terrorism and to terrorist forces.

If Wikileaks or their staff have broken international or national laws, let that case be heard in a just and fair court of law. At the moment, no such charges have been brought.

We are writing as Australians to say what our Government should have: all Australian citizens deserve to be free from persecution, threats of violence and detention without charge, especially from our friend and ally, the United States.

We call upon you to stand up for our shared democratic principles of the presumption of innocence and freedom of information.


To sign: http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/Wikileaks&id=1489

Avaaz, the international version, has a similar campaign:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/wikileaks_petition/97.php?cl_tta_sign=ed44729fb1ed07d674c5971f4d07495a

GetUp! is going to place a full page ad in the NY Times. As of now 52,844 people have joined this campaign.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
MarieDGarzai Non-Cycling Discussions 2
S Non-Cycling Discussions 12

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts