HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » WikiLeaks' Most Terrifyin...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 12:51 PM

WikiLeaks' Most Terrifying Revelation: Just How Much Our Government Lies to Us

WikiLeaks' Most Terrifying Revelation: Just How Much Our Government Lies to Us
Wikileaks has shown that our government and military form a 'vast lying machine' that perpetrates mass murder in our name.

January 3, 2011

-- U.S. MURDER OF CIVILIANS:
-- REGULAR COVERUPS OF U.S. CIVILIAN MURDER:
-- U.S. AND A CORRUPT AFGHAN GOVERNMENT ARE ALIENATING AFGHAN CIVILIANS AND LOSING THE WAR:

http://www.alternet.org/story/149393/wikileaks'_most_terrifying_revelation%3A_just_how_much_our_government_lies_to_us


5 more WikiLeaks Revelations Exposing the Rapidly Growing Corporatism Dominating American Diplomacy Abroad
One of WikiLeaks' greatest achievements has been to expose the exorbitant amount of influence that multinational corporations have over Washington's diplomacy.
June 21, 2011

"...From mining companies in Peru to pharmaceutical companies in Ecuador, one WikiLeaks embassy cable after the next illuminates a pattern of US diplomats shilling for corporate interests abroad in the most underhanded and sleazy ways imaginable...."

‎7. US officials work as salespeople for Boeing.
8 US diplomats by day — Monsanto henchmen by night.
9. Pharmaceuticals + US diplomats = best friends forever.
10. Washington 'hearts' abusive mining companies in Peru.
11. Diplomats as corporate spies

http://www.alternet.org/story/151370/5_wikileaks_revelations_exposing_the_rapidly_growing_corporatism_dominating_american_diplomacy_abroad/



5 WikiLeaks Hits of 2011 That Are Turning the World on Its Head -- And That the Media Are Ignoring
June 7, 2011
Is 2011 capable of exceeding 2010's revelations? And what discoveries in 2011 has WikiLeaks unearthed thus far

1. Arab Spring: The Tunisians were 1st in Arab world to oust a leader in a generation.
2. WikiLeaks released Guantanamo Files..showing an oppressive detention system riddled w/ incoherence & cruelty at every stage.
3. US allies are among the leading funders of international terrorism.
4. World leaders are practically lighting a fire under the Arctic.
5. US would let Haitians starve to protect US corp. interests.

http://www.alternet.org/world/151232/5_wikileaks_hits_of_2011_that_are_turning_the_world_on_its_head_--_and_that_the_media_are_ignoring/



WikiLeaks: Israel Plans Total War on Lebanon, Gaza

The Israeli military is planning out massive bombings of areas full of innocent civilians.
January 3, 2011
http://www.alternet.org/world/149387/wikileaks%3A_israel_plans_total_war_on_lebanon,_gaza


7 Shocking WikiLeaks Revelations
Round 1 of Cablegate, Julian Assange's big reveal.

November 29, 2010 |

1. We’ve been secretly bombing Yemen.

2. U.S. uses diplomats as spies. Speaking of Clinton... she ordered diplomats to spy on government officials at the UN, gathering such info as credit card and frequent flyer numbers, computer passwords...and DNA

3. U.S. uses Guantanamo Bay prisoners as bargaining chips.

4. China’s been hacking our systems since 2002.

5. Afghanistan is corruption Disneyland. OK, no big surprise there, but it is interesting that Ahmad Zia Massoud was caught traveling to the UAE with $52 million in cash. After being detained by the DEA, he "was ultimately allowed to keep
6. Iran might have long-range missiles. Practically the entire Middle East has urged the U.S

7. Putin and Berlusconi's close relationship causes alarm. "Alpha dog" Vladimir Putin and Italian partier/prime-minister Silvio Berlusconi have forged a close relationship, potentially involving shady business deals.

http://www.alternet.org/world/149015/7_shocking_wikileaks_revelations/


About the allegations made against Julian Assange:

There are no rape charges. Julian has invited Sweden to question him in the UK and Sweden refused. He answered allegations once and then Sweden dropped it, and he left Sweden.

Ironically the UK protected one of the world's worst war criminals , Pinochet from extradition, yet won't protect Julian from extradition to a country where there is no bail, trials are secret, and where Julian hasn't even been charged.


108 replies, 15076 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 108 replies Author Time Post
Reply WikiLeaks' Most Terrifying Revelation: Just How Much Our Government Lies to Us (Original post)
WillYourVoteBCounted Aug 2012 OP
2on2u Aug 2012 #1
rhett o rick Aug 2012 #2
goodword Aug 2012 #77
johnlucas Aug 2012 #79
rhett o rick Aug 2012 #103
formercia Aug 2012 #3
bvar22 Aug 2012 #58
1monster Aug 2012 #80
hootinholler Aug 2012 #4
rwsanders Aug 2012 #9
hootinholler Aug 2012 #29
KansDem Aug 2012 #30
midnight Aug 2012 #42
Hydra Aug 2012 #59
dixiegrrrrl Aug 2012 #95
CabCurious Aug 2012 #5
Wednesdays Aug 2012 #6
sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #8
midnight Aug 2012 #12
sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #43
tama Aug 2012 #35
sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #40
tama Aug 2012 #46
sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #10
pnwmom Aug 2012 #21
sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #7
fascisthunter Aug 2012 #14
OnyxCollie Aug 2012 #11
midnight Aug 2012 #15
treestar Aug 2012 #20
Le Taz Hot Aug 2012 #68
They_Live Aug 2012 #78
treestar Aug 2012 #108
sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #22
Eddie Haskell Aug 2012 #101
The Doctor. Aug 2012 #48
OnyxCollie Aug 2012 #69
treestar Aug 2012 #13
midnight Aug 2012 #17
treestar Aug 2012 #19
Ash_F Aug 2012 #31
kenny blankenship Aug 2012 #44
sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #23
fascisthunter Aug 2012 #16
pnwmom Aug 2012 #18
sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #24
pnwmom Aug 2012 #25
sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #27
pnwmom Aug 2012 #33
sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #41
backscatter712 Aug 2012 #49
sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #50
GliderGuider Aug 2012 #26
pnwmom Aug 2012 #34
GliderGuider Aug 2012 #36
pnwmom Aug 2012 #37
pnwmom Aug 2012 #38
GliderGuider Aug 2012 #39
sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #51
pnwmom Aug 2012 #52
GliderGuider Aug 2012 #54
pnwmom Aug 2012 #56
sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #90
hack89 Aug 2012 #82
sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #55
pnwmom Aug 2012 #60
sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #64
pnwmom Aug 2012 #66
sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #67
pnwmom Aug 2012 #72
hack89 Aug 2012 #84
sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #87
hack89 Aug 2012 #89
sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #93
hack89 Aug 2012 #94
sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #98
hack89 Aug 2012 #100
sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #104
hack89 Aug 2012 #105
sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #106
hack89 Aug 2012 #107
girl gone mad Aug 2012 #57
pnwmom Aug 2012 #73
pnwmom Aug 2012 #61
struggle4progress Aug 2012 #70
sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #45
sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #53
DeSwiss Aug 2012 #28
tama Aug 2012 #32
magical thyme Aug 2012 #47
Prophet 451 Aug 2012 #62
DemocratsForProgress Aug 2012 #63
bobthedrummer Aug 2012 #65
struggle4progress Aug 2012 #71
morningfog Aug 2012 #75
struggle4progress Aug 2012 #81
morningfog Aug 2012 #83
struggle4progress Aug 2012 #85
morningfog Aug 2012 #86
struggle4progress Aug 2012 #91
morningfog Aug 2012 #96
sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #88
LineReply .
Wilms Aug 2012 #74
goodword Aug 2012 #76
xchrom Aug 2012 #92
librechik Aug 2012 #97
Eddie Haskell Aug 2012 #99
Generic Other Aug 2012 #102

Response to WillYourVoteBCounted (Original post)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 01:37 PM

1. Wikileaks wouldn't exist if money wasn't the driving force for just about everything organized

 

factions get together to do whatever it may be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillYourVoteBCounted (Original post)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 01:46 PM

2. I am wondering how bad it has to get before the people strike out.

I am not in favor of violent revolution, but think it is inevitable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #2)

Mon Aug 27, 2012, 08:47 AM

77. That's Just What Our Government Thinks, Too

Our leaders feel so safe and so secure in their power and position because they believe the American people would never revolt.

And that's probably true right now. As long as everyone has a full belly, a minimum wage job and can watch Here Comes Honey Boo Boo they don't have the initiative to get up off the couch and take a stand against anything. But like you, I think it's coming. And it's coming sooner than some may think.

If the next year or two come to pass as predicted by global economists, we're in for a very difficult time. A global depression has been predicted with world-wide food shortages, lack of jobs, and rising inflation. Get enough hungry and angry people together and something's going explode.

"Every generation needs a new revolution.” Thomas Jefferson

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to goodword (Reply #77)

Mon Aug 27, 2012, 11:27 AM

79. Sad thing though is that usually all they end up doing is fighting their own

Revolution sounds good but think about riots in history.
People tend to tear up what's closest to them. They tear up their own neighborhoods before they do anything else.
They don't have focused anger. It's just wild rage.

The Revolution that COULD work would be an international strike...but good luck getting everybody on the same page.

It's simple. The only reason these jackasses get away with all the dirt they do is because collectively we are fragmented & self-destructive to our own cause.
Violent revolutions tend to change out one set of jackasses for a new set of jackasses.
It's probably inevitable but that doesn't mean things will improve.
John Lucas

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to johnlucas (Reply #79)

Mon Aug 27, 2012, 02:18 PM

103. I agree that revolutions will only replace one set of masters with another.

Also, many poor people will be killed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillYourVoteBCounted (Original post)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 01:59 PM

3. ...and there are some that are still Flogging Hillary for VP

After that Goat-Fuck in Honduras and all of the other revelations of Hillary's duplicity and malfeasance, it angers me that anyone would even give her the time of Day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to formercia (Reply #3)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 09:06 PM

58. Hillary did not act alone.

If you are going to attack her,
you should also attack about 1/2 of today's "New Democrat" Party,
including Bill Clinton and our current President.


TPTB (bi-partisan) don't believe that YOU have a right to know
what OUR government
is doing with OUR money
in OUR name.



You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their rhetoric, promises, or excuses.
Solidarity99!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #58)

Mon Aug 27, 2012, 11:32 AM

80. Yes. My biggest problem with Obama is not his economic or foreign policies. It is

human rights / First Amendment / privacy / Whitles Blower policies. The stance his administration takes on whistle blowers who have done great services for this country by exposing corruption and wrong doing makes me despair, because the Republicans are infinitely worse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillYourVoteBCounted (Original post)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 02:03 PM

4. Read War is a Racket sometime.

The more things change...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hootinholler (Reply #4)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 02:49 PM

9. I need to read it, as well as a few others...

https://members.truth-out.org/bgift96-gift/choose-type-donation
Days of Destruction, Days of Revolt by Chris Hedges and Joe Sacco

JFK and the Unspeakable

Family of Secrets

I'd love to hear an opinion from anyone that has read them all.

One other item, I've been trying to find the hidden reason for our entry into Vietnam. Any hints for articles or books?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rwsanders (Reply #9)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 03:59 PM

29. Lots of good info here...

In Der Fishie's journal.

Personally, I believe VN was payola for implementing The Great Society.

War is a Racket is a pretty short read.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rwsanders (Reply #9)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 04:00 PM

30. "...the hidden reason for our entry into Vietnam."

When I was an undergraduate during the early 1970s, I attended a kind of "teach in" about the Vietnam War. The guest was a newly released pilot who had been shot down over North Vietnam and POW. He came to talk about the war and answer questions.

When the subject turned to "why?", he maintained the "didn't want commies taking over Vietnam" line. However, there was a small group of vocal demonstrators who maintained it was because of oil. One of the members even knew the amount of area "owned" by one of the major oil companies.

I was still naive enough to believe it was the "commie scourge" but now believe it was for the financial advantage of major corporations.

Halliburton was established in 1919, under the name of its predecessor- Brown & Root (two brothers- George and Herman Brown, and their brother-in-law, Dan Root, started the firm). Incorporated in Delaware in 1924, Brown & Root started out as a cement company, but quickly expanded into manufacturing complex oil platforms, dams, and Navy warships. During this time, Earl Halliburton- an entreprenuer in Tennessee- was working on a new process called "oil well cementing," which involves sending cement down an oil well to create a wall to seal-out water and other unwanted contaminants.

In 1962, Halliburton Company, which at the time was a fast-growing oil-well construction and services firm, purchased Brown & Root, by then a renowned road construction company and general contractor. During the Vietnam War, Halliburton was awarded a government contract and took part in building approximately 85 per cent of the infrastructure needed by the Army.

Halliburton Company provides products and services to the petroleum and energy industries to aid in the exploration, development and production of natural resources. Halliburton KBR, which is the company's engineering and construction division, designs, builds and provides additional services to the energy industry and governments.


http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/industry/halliburton.htm

And, of course, Halliburton is a major player in Iraq

In the latest in the long line of corporate scandals involving the Bush Administration, Halliburton, the energy giant formerly run and still largely influenced abd controlled by Vice-President Dick Cheney, has announced that it will repay the US government over $27.4 million after it was discovered that it had grossly overcharged for the meals it supplies to the US military in Iraq. This follows on the heels of the discovery of bribery on the part of Halliburton agents who overcharged the military $6.3 million for fuel delivered to bases in Iraq and Kuwait. These glaring cases of graft and bribery may seem outrageous, but they are only the tip of the capitalist iceberg – just business as usual for US imperialism. These kinds of practices are in no way unique to Halliburton, or even the Bush Administration. The interconnections between capital and the state run deep, not just in George W. Bush’s America but in all capitalist countries.

The overcharging discovery involves Kellog, Brown & Root, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Halliburton. In a controversial “no-bid” contract, KBR was awarded a total of $8 billion to provide laundry, food supply, and build bases for the US military in Iraq. This also includes $1.2 billion to restore production in the southern Iraqi oil fields. It just so happens that Vice-President and major Halliburton stock-holder Cheney was directly involved in the awarding of rebuilding contracts in Iraq! That is not to say that only Halliburton got a share – so did major Bush-backer Bechtel, the construction firm, and of course a Texas-based company by the name of Exxon-Mobil.

Of course, this is not the first time US companies, whether they contribute more to the Republican or the Democratic Parties, have cashed in on US foreign policy. In fact, the US government operates several banks and organizations, all tax-funded, to spur on and assist US foreign investment. The foremost of these organizations are the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, the Import-Export Bank of the United States, and last but not least the International Monetary Fund, based in New York City. The OPIC assisted the now defunct Enron Corporation by granting it $2.4 billion in its venture to open a massive natural gas power plant in Nagpal, India, between 1992 and 2000. Halliburton is currently under investigation by French courts over $180 million paid in bribes to Nigerian government officials in its bid to win a gas plant deal along with partners Technip (France,) ENI SpA (Italy,) and Japan Gasoline Corporation.

Imperialist wars have always provided ample business “opportunities” - and the current war in Iraq is no exception. This is a defining feature of capitalism, specifically capitalism in its era of imperialism and decay. The following quote from a former US Marine general sums it all up: “I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Cuba and Haiti a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American Republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested. During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket.” (General Smedley Butler, from a speech in 1933.)


--more--
http://www.socialistappeal.org/usa/halliburton_scandal.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KansDem (Reply #30)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 04:51 PM

42. Cheney and Koch seem to be orchestrating much of the Romney/Walker installations, and so this info.

makes a great deal of sense...

"The looting of the public by companies like Halliburton is clear evidence that there is no longer anything historically progressive in capitalism, it is played out. Instead of developing and revolutionizing production as it did 200 years ago, it now is so feeble that it has to feed off of its own state. "

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to midnight (Reply #42)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 09:10 PM

59. Capitalism doesn't naturally seek innovation in the traditional sense

It seeks the easiest path to the most gain- in most cases, that means cannibalizing something that's already in place. The innovation and efficiency it creates in how fast and easily it can strip something down for profit. Usually this means companies, but a nearly unlimited source to tap is the gov't and its assets.

This drought is really highlighting how that cannibalization is working. We may all be lucky to survive what come next year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KansDem (Reply #30)

Mon Aug 27, 2012, 01:20 PM

95. Without the Brown bros LBJ would never have run for office

according to Robert Caro's extremely well researched series of bios on LBJ.
Brown and Root have been heavily involved in politics since the late 50's.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillYourVoteBCounted (Original post)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 02:06 PM

5. If you needed wikileaks to realize that... then you must be very young

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CabCurious (Reply #5)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 02:28 PM

6. But now it's more than just "realizing"

It seems Wikileaks has the goods.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CabCurious (Reply #5)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 02:39 PM

8. Did you know that you are using the talking point invented by Stratfor to try to diminish

the effects of these revelations?

Did you know that in their discussions of how to destroy Wikileaks, they concluded that they should try spreading around the talking point 'They haven't told us anything we didn't know already' in order to try to dismiss them and discourage people from reading them?

I'll be happy to provide a link to those discussions if you like. I am sure you do not want to spreading propaganda thought up by an anti-99% intel 'security' corporation.

Clearly you have never read some of these leaks. They rocked the Indian Govt. eg, have been credited by Egyptian and Tunisian revolutionaries with contributing to their determination to rid themselves of their corrupt brutal regimes, exposed Fraud in Iceland's main Bank, making it possible for That country to do what this country has not done, arrest the fraudulent bankers.

They were about to release info on OUR fraudulent bankers when suddenly a sex scandal appeared out of nowhere.

Talking point from Stratfor? 'They haven't told us anything we didn't know already'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #8)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 03:08 PM

12. I'm waiting for the info. on the bankers... I can't imagine how much worse it could be, but it must

be pretty bad if they have to make up this sex crime that they dropped and then revived..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to midnight (Reply #12)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 04:58 PM

43. I think they have succeeded in stopping the Bank leaks unfortunately.

Much of that material was stolen by Domscheit Berg, former Wikileaks partner of Assange. Wikileaks has stated they were informed that Befg was in contact with the FBI, which Berg denies.

Right after Assange revealed that Wikileaks would be releasing the Bank information, Berg claimed to have 'defected' from Wikileaks, joining in the smear campaign against him.

However, initially he neglected to inform the public of his theft of the material that would have been released by Wikileaks including the promised Bank revelations.

When asked why he had done this, he claimed he had not stolen it and would return it as soon as Wikileaks 'fixed some security problems'. This did not seem logical, Wikileaks strength in attracting whistle blowers was in the fact that not one whistle blower has been exposed by Wikileaks. Manning btw, was exposed by someone else.

The suspicions about Berg were confirmed, as everyone waited for the Bank leaks, when he confessed to having 'destroyed the material'. And with that, the Banks were off the hook as far as those leaks were concerned.

He still denies becoming an informant but cannot explain why he saved the Banks. People can form their own opinions of his motives, but his actions were against everything he says he believes in, protecting whistle blowers at all costs, respecting the risks they take by revealing corruption of governments and corporations. Whoever took the risk of exposing the banks, was betrayed by Berg regardless of whether he was an informant or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #8)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 04:17 PM

35. Other familiar RW talking point

 

about both Wikileaks and OWS are that they didn't any make difference or achieve anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tama (Reply #35)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 04:40 PM

40. That was the strategy settled on as revealed in the Stratfor emails.

To not try to fight the obvious impact of Wikileaks, but to diminish its importance by claiming they had not revealed anything of importance.

Easy to transfer it to OWS also which also threatened Wall Street.

I saw it a lot and wondered how anyone in their right mind could make that claim considering the glaring evidence to the contrary.

But then it all became clear in the Stratfor emails. Now when I see it, I just wonder how much Stratfor was paid and by whom, to help spread this talking around.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #40)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 05:22 PM

46. Most who spread it

 

probably don't need further payments at all as they sold their souls to the system long time ago. They take actual pleasure from perceptions and imaginations that power hierarchies are winning and people get defeated, again and again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CabCurious (Reply #5)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 02:56 PM

10. Well we did find out from Wikileaks a few things we could not have imagined in 2008

Last edited Sun Aug 26, 2012, 03:36 PM - Edit history (1)

when we were working so hard to get rid of Republicans from our government.

We were hoping to see America's image restored after the bloody, criminal years of the Bush administration. We were hoping one of the first steps would be to start investigating and prosecuting the war criminals.

When we were told to 'move on' from those crimes, it was a devastating blow but we still held out hope they would not get away with their crimes as other nations with jurisdiction stepped up and began the process of prosecuting them.

Hopes were dashed again when that prosecution did not go forward. We wondered what happened.

And then we saw the Wikileaks Cables. And they explained everything. The US Government is protecting war criminals and pressuring, smearing, attacking anyone else who attempts to hold them accountable.

People have a right to know what their government is doing in their name. Wikileaks stepped into the empty chasm of news created when Corporations took over our news media, that the American people were depending on for facts. And that is why Assange is under attack no matter how many comments you post to the contrary.

Welcome to DU btw, I did not realize what a recent member you were.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CabCurious (Reply #5)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 03:25 PM

21. What's so terrible about US officials advocating for Boeing airplanes?

This is the real world. European officials are also pushing for Airbus.

Of all the terrible things Wikileaks has apparently uncovered, this one seems pretty low on the list.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillYourVoteBCounted (Original post)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 02:33 PM

7. And so much more. Thank you for this OP. Flooding DU with anti-Wikileaks spam is

meant to make people look away from all the crimes exposed by Wikileaks.

Excellent OP, thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #7)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 03:14 PM

14. Yeah, and most of DU is sick of it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillYourVoteBCounted (Original post)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 03:02 PM

11. Obama administration violates Geneva Convention against torture.

Of course, a member of our DU community is obsessed to spam the board and tell us that Julian Assange is a nasty, awful man.

Obama called on the former general chairman of the RNC (and current JP Morgan Executive Committee member) to stop Spain's investigation of US torture crimes.

WikiLeaks: How U.S. tried to stop Spain's torture probe
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/12/25/105786/wikileaks-how-us-tried-to-stop.html

MIAMI — It was three months into Barack Obama's presidency, and the administration -- under pressure to do something about alleged abuses in Bush-era interrogation policies -- turned to a Florida senator to deliver a sensitive message to Spain:

Don't indict former President George W. Bush's legal brain trust for alleged torture in the treatment of war on terror detainees, warned Mel Martinez on one of his frequent trips to Madrid. Doing so would chill U.S.-Spanish relations.



US embassy cables: Don't pursue Guantánamo criminal case, says Spanish attorney general
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/202776?INTCMP=SRCH

6. (C) As reported in SEPTEL, Senator Mel Martinez, accompanied by the Charge d'Affaires, met Acting FM Angel Lossada during a visit to the Spanish MFA on April 15. Martinez and the Charge underscored that the prosecutions would not be understood or accepted in the U.S. and would have an enormous impact on the bilateral relationship. The Senator also asked if the GOS had thoroughly considered the source of the material on which the allegations were based to ensure the charges were not based on misinformation or factually wrong statements. Lossada responded that the GOS recognized all of the complications presented by universal jurisdiction, but that the independence of the judiciary and the process must be respected. The GOS would use all appropriate legal tools in the matter. While it did not have much margin to operate, the GOS would advise Conde Pumpido that the official administration position was that the GOS was "not in accord with the National Court." Lossada reiterated to Martinez that the executive branch of government could not close any judicial investigation and urged that this case not affect the overall relationship, adding that our interests were much broader, and that the universal jurisdiction case should not be viewed as a reflection of the GOS position.



Judd Gregg, Obama's Republican nominee for Commerce secretary, didn't like the investigations either.

US embassy cables: Don't pursue Guantánamo criminal case, says Spanish attorney general
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/202776?INTCMP=SRCH

4. (C) As reported in REF A, Senator Judd Gregg, accompanied by the Charge d'Affaires, raised the issue with Luis Felipe Fernandez de la Pena, Director General Policy Director for North America and Europe during a visit to the Spanish MFA on April 13. Senator Gregg expressed his concern about the case. Fernandez de la Pena lamented this development, adding that judicial independence notwithstanding, the MFA disagreed with efforts to apply universal jurisdiction in such cases.



Why the aversion? To protect Bushco, of course!

US embassy cables: Spanish prosecutor weighs Guantánamo criminal case against US officials
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/200177

The fact that this complaint targets former Administration legal officials may reflect a "stepping-stone" strategy designed to pave the way for complaints against even more senior officials.



Eric Holder got the message.

Holder Says He Will Not Permit the Criminalization of Policy Differences
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=7410267&page=1

As lawmakers call for hearings and debate brews over forming commissions to examine the Bush administration's policies on harsh interrogation techniques, Attorney General Eric Holder confirmed to a House panel that intelligence officials who relied on legal advice from the Bush-era Justice Department would not be prosecuted.

"Those intelligence community officials who acted reasonably and in good faith and in reliance on Department of Justice opinions are not going to be prosecuted,"
he told members of a House Appropriations Subcommittee, reaffirming the White House sentiment. "It would not be fair, in my view, to bring such prosecutions."



CIA Exhales: 99 Out of 101 Torture Cases Dropped
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/06/cia-exhales-99-out-of-101-torture-cases-dropped/

This is how one of the darkest chapters in U.S. counterterrorism ends: with practically every instance of suspected CIA torture dodging criminal scrutiny. It’s one of the greatest gifts the Justice Department could have given the CIA as David Petraeus takes over the agency.

Over two years after Attorney General Eric Holder instructed a special prosecutor, John Durham, to “preliminar(ily) review” whether CIA interrogators unlawfully tortured detainees in their custody, Holder announced on Thursday afternoon that he’ll pursue criminal investigations in precisely two out of 101 cases of suspected detainee abuse. Some of them turned out not to have involved CIA officials after all. Both of the cases that move on to a criminal phase involved the “death in custody” of detainees, Holder said.

But just because there’s a further criminal inquiry doesn’t necessarily mean there will be any charges brought against CIA officials involved in those deaths. If Holder’s decision on Thursday doesn’t actually end the Justice Department’s review of torture in CIA facilities, it brings it awfully close, as outgoing CIA Director Leon Panetta noted.

“On this, my last day as Director, I welcome the news that the broader inquiries are behind us,” Panetta wrote to the CIA staff on Thursday. “We are now finally about to close this chapter of our Agency’s history.”


Hey kids! See how many violations of the Geneva Convention you can spot!

CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE 
and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
 Treatment or Punishment
http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html

Article 1

For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.

Article 2

Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

Article 3

No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.
For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.

Article 4

1. Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture.
2. Each State Party shall make these offences punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature.

Article 5

1. Each State Party shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offences referred to in article 4 in the following cases:
1. When the offences are committed in any territory under its jurisdiction or on board a ship or aircraft registered in that State;
2. When the alleged offender is a national of that State;
3. When the victim was a national of that State if that State considers it appropriate.
2. Each State Party shall likewise take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over such offences in cases where the alleged offender is present in any territory under its jurisdiction and it does not extradite him pursuant to article 8 to any of the States mentioned in Paragraph 1 of this article.
3. This Convention does not exclude any criminal jurisdiction exercised in accordance with internal law.

Article 6

1. Upon being satisfied, after an examination of information available to it, that the circumstances so warrant, any State Party in whose territory a person alleged to have committed any offence referred to in article 4 is present, shall take him into custody or take other legal measures to ensure his presence. The custody and other legal measures shall be as provided in the law of that State but may be continued only for such time as is necessary to enable any criminal or extradition proceedings to be instituted.
2. Such State shall immediately make a preliminary inquiry into the facts.
3. Any person in custody pursuant to paragraph 1 of this article shall be assisted in communicating immediately with the nearest appropriate representative of the State of which he is a national, or, if he is a stateless person, to the representative of the State where he usually resides.
4. When a State, pursuant to this article, has taken a person into custody, it shall immediately notify the States referred to in article 5, paragraph 1, of the fact that such person is in custody and of the circumstances which warrant his detention. The State which makes the preliminary inquiry contemplated in paragraph 2 of this article shall promptly report its findings to the said State and shall indicate whether it intends to exercise jurisdiction.

Article 7

1. The State Party in territory under whose jurisdiction a person alleged to have committed any offence referred to in article 4 is found, shall in the cases contemplated in article 5, if it does not extradite him, submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution.
2. These authorities shall take their decision in the same manner as in the case of any ordinary offence of a serious nature under the law of that State. In the cases referred to in article 5, paragraph 2, the standards of evidence required for prosecution and conviction shall in no way be less stringent than those which apply in the cases referred to in article 5, paragraph 1.
3. Any person regarding whom proceedings are brought in connection with any of the offences referred to in article 4 shall be guaranteed fair treatment at all stages of the proceedings.

Article 8

1. The offences referred to in article 4 shall be deemed to be included as extraditable offences in any extradition treaty existing between States Parties. States Parties undertake to include such offences as extraditable offences in every extradition treaty to be concluded between them.
2. If a State Party which makes extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty receives a request for extradition from another State Party with which it has no extradition treaty, it may consider this Convention as the legal basis for extradition in respect of such offenses. Extradition shall be subject to the other conditions provided by the law of the requested State.
3. States Parties which do not make extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty shall recognize such offences as extraditable offences between themselves subject to the conditions provided by the law of the requested state.
4. Such offences shall be treated, for the purpose of extradition between States Parties, as if they had been committed not only in the place in which they occurred but also in the territories of the States required to establish their jurisdiction in accordance with article 5, paragraph 1.

Article 9

1. States Parties shall afford one another the greatest measure of assistance in connection with civil proceedings brought in respect of any of the offences referred to in article 4, including the supply of all evidence at their disposal necessary for the proceedings.
2. States Parties shall carry out their obligations under paragraph 1 of this article in conformity with any treaties on mutual judicial assistance that may exist between them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnyxCollie (Reply #11)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 03:15 PM

15. It's hard to see why the law is side stepped when it's quit clear that we can't be in the business

of making crimes disappear vis calling them "a policy difference"...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnyxCollie (Reply #11)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 03:23 PM

20. Well that was certainly spam

And you're trashing Obama very close to the election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #20)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 10:54 PM

68. So what?

This isn't about a fucking election, it's about TRUTH. It's about our government sponsoring terrorism throughout the world and strongarming anyone who exposes that vile corruption. If the Obama Administration is exposed as facilitating the same corruption as the Bush Administration then he and his cabinet are every bit as guilty.

This isn't some fucking football game, it's about global dominance and U.S. PRIVATE INDUSTRY (you know, the ones our military work for and that WE pay for) dominating and subjugating BILLIONS of people.

And please don't respond with the idiotic "President Romney" shit. Many of us are way past binary thinking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Le Taz Hot (Reply #68)

Mon Aug 27, 2012, 10:42 AM

78. "This isn't some fucking football game"

Exactly! This is about a basic morality and common conscience. We should be ending corruption, not proliferating it. I fight for my children's future and what little of mine that is left.

+ 10,000

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Le Taz Hot (Reply #68)

Thu Aug 30, 2012, 12:40 AM

108. So who will you vote for then?

What left wing third party do you support?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnyxCollie (Reply #11)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 03:29 PM

22. We had so much hope of seeing the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld liars and criminals finally

held accountable. And the DOJ reduces the murders, torture, rape and destruction of sovereign nations, all done in our name, which we railed against loudly for eight, long, crushingly despairing years, to 'policy differences'.

War Crimes = Policy Differences.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #22)

Mon Aug 27, 2012, 02:14 PM

101. Not to mention the financial crimes

Too big to fail = too big to prosecute

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnyxCollie (Reply #11)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 05:24 PM

48. Never pass up an opportunity to bash Obama, eh?

 


Yeah, not happy that the administration moved against Spain's investigation. Should have just distanced itself from the proceedings.

Had anything nice to say about Obama in the past month?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnyxCollie (Reply #11)


Response to WillYourVoteBCounted (Original post)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 03:09 PM

13. How could we secretly bomb a place

I mean, someone's going to notice that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #13)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 03:18 PM

17. I'm sure many folks did notice..... I think the secret part is not reporting it...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to midnight (Reply #17)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 03:21 PM

19. So AP and the NYT and the Yemen Times missed it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #19)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 04:08 PM

31. I'm sure a lot of average people read those

How about 8 hours of Cable TV news coverage like the 'New Black Panther Party' received? I went to work one day and my co-worker, told me, out of the blue, 'man I am really worried about that New Black Panther Party, things are really stirring up. There's a race war coming'. I had no idea what he was talking about but apparently it was all over the news for days(don't have a tv).

So I guess after that much exposure, he now knew all about the 'New Black Panther Party'. But somehow, I doubt he knows about the fact that the State Department has been aware that US contractors have been involved in the Afghan child sex trade(both trafficking and rape) for years but has yet to make any moves to prosecute. And I don't think most Americans know either, even though thanks to the leaks there is no dispute as they spell it out clearly from the perspective of US officials themselves. Even though the issue did get a few token articles here and there.

How about you treestar? Were you aware?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to midnight (Reply #17)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 05:10 PM

44. The cover story was that Yemen's military had bombed a place in Yemen

but in fact it was the US military dropping bombs, which eventually came out. It was therefore a "secret" bombing until the Yemeni-US lies and denials were exposed by the United States' own diplomatic cables, published by the journalistic organization Wikileaks.

BBC News: Wikileaks files reveal secret US-Yemen bomb deal
4 December 2010
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11918037

The unacknowledged bombing became an unacknowledged bombing campaign:
NYTimes : U.S. Is Intensifying a Secret Campaign of Yemen Airstrikes
By MARK MAZZETTI
Published: June 8, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/09/world/middleeast/09intel.html

A campaign of bombing civilian areas which our government would not own up to, is therefore a "secret" war or secret terror bombing campaign, even though the bloody hand behind the strikes eventually is revealed. Since the government wouldn't acknowledge its actions despite the cover story falling apart, they are "covert" or secret acts of state murder. Until the government acknowledges its acts and/or ceases its denials, some people will not accept the existence of those acts. It can kept from becoming a debatable issue for society, the media and the elected representative government, whatever that may be. As for those who quibble about the use of the term "secret", they would no doubt have quibbled about the "secret" bombing of Laos and Cambodia. The United States bombed Laos and Cambodia for years secretly, beginning in 1965, without acknowledging these acts of war against either state. Such people wouldn't know of these goings on, nor believe you if you tried to tell them, because the government hadn't told them first. In 1969, the intensified bombing campaign ordered by Richard Nixon in Operation Menu and Operation Breakfast would eventually lead to disclosure and widespread acknowledgement of the secret bombing campaign. But meanwhile, B-52 crews in Menu and Breakfast were officially being told that their targets were in S. Vietnam, and then diverted mid-flight to bomb coordinates in Cambodia and Laos, after being sworn to secrecy on each mission by the commanding General. And even though intensive bombing of Cambodia did come to light in 1969, due to a leak to the NY Times, the pre-Nixon extent of the secret bombing campaign against Laos and Cambodia was still kept secret and unacknowledged until the Clinton years. Coincidentally or not, the descent of the Nixon Administration into wiretapping fueled paranoia began over this specific incident - the exposure of the existence of a secret air war against Cambodia and Laos. The first wiretap order issued by Nixon to what would become his "Plumbers" group was directed against Morton Halperin, a NSC aide to Henry Kissinger. The secret war to keep our secret wars quiet culminated in Watergate, an attempt to subvert the legitimacy of a Presidential and Congressional election.

As to the particular authoritarian you were arguing with, you may as well try to convince Goebbels that Hitler was a bad guy. Just shrug it off and move on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #13)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 03:30 PM

23. Do you think that members of the Bush administration who lied this country into

war should be held accountable?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillYourVoteBCounted (Original post)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 03:15 PM

16. What a creepy government we have

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillYourVoteBCounted (Original post)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 03:19 PM

18. About the allegations made against Julian Assange:

The Swedish justice system is completely different than ours. They don't press charges till near the end of a long investigative process, and they have to have the person under arrest. They can't do that while he's in another country. That's why there are no charges -- yet.

There's much more info at this link:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1203540

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #18)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 03:33 PM

24. This OP appears to be about the Bush war crimes. What does Assange's personal

issues have to do with has been revealed regarding Bush' war crimes that have yet to even be investigated in this country?

Did you, eg, during the Bush years, feel that the US Media was doing a good job of exposing the lies being told to get us into wars?

Do you object to a News Organization providing information, the accuracy of which has never been denied, that confirms the allegations of war crimes against the Bush Administration?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #24)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 03:34 PM

25. If that is how it appears to you, it's because you didn't read THE WHOLE THING.

Try reading through to the end.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #25)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 03:47 PM

27. This OP is about Wikileaks' revelations related to war crimes committed by the Bush

Administration. People are wondering why not a thing has been done about those massive, horrific crimes that took the lives of over one million people, including thousands of US soldiers.

And then they see a Global man hunt for someone, who just happens to have been the publisher of the International News Organization that revealed those facts, who has not been charged with a crime, but who was suddenly involved in a 'sex scandal' right after he stated that Wikileaks had millions of documents on the 'Private Sector' and that 'One major bank was likely to fall' when these documents were released. One month later, coincidentally, the so-far not filed case against him, was filed.

Yet not a single investigation into the orchestrators of the lies that dragged this country into a wrong war which resulted in horrific war crimes, such as torture, rape, murder and brutality against several sovereign nations.

There is something not proportional about the pursuit of this one individual and the lack of pursuit of war criminals.

Why are there no investigations into one of the worst crimes an elected official can commit, to lie a country into war??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #27)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 04:12 PM

33. This OP says it's about how much our government lies to us, both concerning war crimes,

and in areas unrelated to war crimes. For example, one of the points made is that US officials help persuade other countries to buy Boeing planes. (BFD.)

And then, at the end, the OP misstates the situation that Assange is in.

That is what I was responding to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #33)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 04:47 PM

41. This OP is about how Wikileaks demonstrated with whistle blower leaks, how much our

government lies to us. It is a very short list of the major revelations made by Wikileaks and their impact on how people now view their governments.

The hot pursuit of Wikileaks' Editor and Publisher has been noted as a huge coincidence seeing as how it began one month after Assange revealed that Wikileaks was about to make more revelations about some of the big banks, one of which might fall as a result of those leaks. This was in response to a question by the Forbes interviewer. We know now, thanks to Anonymous leaks from HB Gary that directly after that interview, BOA went into action, hiring contractors, HB Gary being of those applying for the job, to help squash, destroy, smear, or whatever it took, Wikileaks and specifically Assange.

Some coincidences when they so benefit wrong doers, do make intelligent people wonder.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #41)


Response to backscatter712 (Reply #49)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 05:55 PM

50. All I can say is if anyone cares about this country they will focus on the reasons why

we have lost the respect of the world, diminishing our influence to do any good, here or elsewhere. Wikileaks gave the American people some truths about how our government works which our Corporate owned media fails to do.

Imo, anyone who refuses to acknowledge these facts, needs to ask themselves some serious questions.

Watching the OAS conference last week demonstrated the loss of stature they US has suffered in the world, as it was isolated along with its few allies, from the entire continent of Sough America. It brought into stark light how little the rest of the world trusts us. One main reason is the war crimes the world has witnessed, while we preach morality and condemn selected dictators while supporting others, and refuse to prosecute those horrific crimes.

I am not distracted by Assange allegations. They are so effing minor, true or not, to the crimes that have gone unpunished and unremarked on by the same individuals feigning outrage of a case that has not even been filed in court. If anything the anti-Wikileaks contingency only shines a brighter light on those facts.

And I hope no one is wasting any tax-payer money on these efforts as they are having the exact opposite effect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #18)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 03:37 PM

26. Sweden could at least question him in the UK

That would move the process forward a significant step. Even if they can't take him into custody, they could at least cross the i's and dot the t's, and have the package ready to go when Julian needs to step out of the Embassy to take a leak...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GliderGuider (Reply #26)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 04:14 PM

34. They can't proceed with this particular type of "interview"

until they arrest him, which they can't do on UK soil.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #34)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 04:19 PM

36. Could you point me to some support for that?

Because frankly this is a question that's been puzzling me since the start. I've never heard Sweden say that - AFAIK they just declined without giving a reason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GliderGuider (Reply #36)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 04:24 PM

37. I will look for it, but I can't remember off the top of my head

where I saw it. I'll check The Guardian first, because I've read a fair amount there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GliderGuider (Reply #36)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 04:29 PM

38. Okay, I've found something. It's discussed here in "Myth Four."

Four: “The Swedes should interview Assange in London”
This is currently the most popular contention of Assange’s many vocal supporters. But this too is based on a misunderstanding.

Assange is not wanted merely for questioning.

He is wanted for arrest.

This arrest is for an alleged crime in Sweden as the procedural stage before charging (or “indictment”). Indeed, to those who complain that Assange has not yet been charged, the answer is simple: he cannot actually be charged until he is arrested.


Much more at link, including UK's appeals court opinion:

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-myths-about-assange-extradition

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #38)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 04:40 PM

39. Thanks. That seems to settle that issue. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GliderGuider (Reply #39)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 06:24 PM

51. Assange HAS been arrested in London, under a warrant issued by the Swedish Prosecutor.

That is a fact. He was detained in jail for ten days, then released on bail but has been under house arrest for two years while he fought that warrant for his extradition.

So the comment you responded IS the myth. Nothing prevents the Swedish prosecutor from having Assange arrested in Britain, nor did it.

The reasons given for the refusal of the Swedish prosecutors to interview Assange in London have all been debunked many times and even they are no longer trying to make those claims.

The facts are, for some reason the Swedish Prosecutors appear to not want to file their charges. As of now, no charges have been filed. If they were serious, they would have removed the obstacle they say is preventing this, go talk to him, you had two years to do so and then file these charges. Why won't they? The last time they were asked this question, last week on a radio show, the answer from a spokesperson for the Swedish prosecutor was 'I don't know'.

The women's own lawyer, btw, has stated that 'the case is weak'. Which anyone who actually read the available evidence agrees. Dragging this on however, achieves, or did as people are now becoming very skeptical, the goal of silencing him. People can and have made up their own minds as to why this case has not yet been filed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #51)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 07:09 PM

52. No, nothing prevents Sweden from having an Interpol arrest of Assange in England,

which is why Assange is hiding out in the Embassy. But then they need him brought to Sweden, for the "interview" after which he will be charged.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #52)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 07:35 PM

54. So, they can place him under arrest in London

but they can't take him into custody or return him to Sweden. Does he need to be physically in Sweden to be charged? If so, why?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GliderGuider (Reply #54)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 07:38 PM

56. It would be Interpol arresting him, and then extraditing him to Sweden.

Swedish police don't have authority in the UK, but they're the ones that need to do the interview.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #56)

Mon Aug 27, 2012, 12:33 PM

90. No it wouldn't only be Interpo. Sweden is a member of the EU. All members of the EU can issue an EAW

(European Arrest Warrant, which Sweden did) to have someone they want, arrested. Your claim and apparently the latest moving of the goal posts, was that Sweden had to talk to him in Sweden because they could not arrest him in London. That is false.

Under an EAW the person is arrested by the police of whatever country they are in, and then handed over to the country that issued the EAW. It's very simple.

Iow every excuse that has been made as to why Sweden won't simply file this case after two years of International Theatrics, has been thoroughly debunked.

The real reason for their reluctance to file their case may be because as the women's own attorney said nearly two years ago: 'It is a very weak case'

Btw, their attorney also said, contrary to that other false smear, that Assange had every right to leave Sweden when he did, as he was told he was no longer wanted there.

It's always interesting to go back to the beginning and see how and where the lies began to emerge. Early evidence is always the most important and the closest to the facts.



.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GliderGuider (Reply #54)

Mon Aug 27, 2012, 12:02 PM

82. The Swedes didn't arrest Assange in London - the Brits did. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #52)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 07:38 PM

55. It was not an Interpol arrest warrant. .

DU is fast getting a reputation of being unreliable as a source for fact based information due to the tsunami of false information being posted here.

Sweden issued an EAW. Interpol issued a different alert.

The EAW is not an international warrant. It is confined to members of the EU.

Interpol is an international organization.

The EAW was issued by Sweden itself, not by Interpol. Your claim was that Sweden could not arrest him in London, that was false. They did have him arrested in London, Sweden NOT Interpol.

And as pointed out by so many people, the Interpol alert was a RED alert, which they do not issue even for people like Gadaffi for whom Interpol issued only an orange alert.

Then the pile on from Sweden, with the EAW. You would swear this man was more dangerous to society than say, Pinochet or something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #55)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 09:57 PM

60. Wrong. Here is the official notice of the Arrest Warrant Issued by Interpol

There were two warrants: First Sweden issued its warrant and then Interpol put out its own warrant. It is a RED notice, as opposed to another color notice, because a Red Notice is the only color that equivalent to an arrest warrant. The other colors all pertain to various levels or warnings and requests for information.

If you read the warrant, you'll note that at the top it says:

"Arrest Warrant Issued by International Public Prosecution Office"

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/11/assange-interpol/

The international police organization Interpol has issued a Red Notice for the arrest of WikiLeaks’ founder Julian Assange, in connection with a sex crime investigation in Sweden.

A Red Notice is kind of international wanted poster seeking the provisional arrest of a fugitive, with an eye towards extradition to the nation that issued the underlying arrest warrant. Interpol transmits the notices to its 188 member countries, including Britain, where Assange is believed to be located. Interpol has no authority to compel a subject’s arrest. It issued 5,020 Red Notice last year for a variety of crimes.

A terse extract of Assange’s notice appeared on Interpol’s website Tuesday, without a photograph, reporting that the 39-year-old Australian is wanted for “sex crimes” by the International Public Prosecution Office in Gothenburg, Sweden.

A Swedish judge on Nov. 18 ordered Assange “detained in absentia” to answer questions in a rape, coercion and molestation investigation in Stockholm. A court approved an international arrest warrant for the ex-hacker two days later, at which point Sweden reportedly applied to Interpol for the Red Notice. Assange’s lawyer appealed the detention order to the Svea Court of Appeal, but lost. Assange filed a new appeal Tuesday to the Swedish Supreme Court.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpol_notice

An Interpol notice or international notice is issued by Interpol to share information between its members. There are seven types, colour-coded by their function: red, blue, green, yellow, black, orange, and purple.

Requests (provisional) arrest of wanted persons, with a view to extradition. An Interpol Red Notice is "the closest instrument to an international arrest warrant in use today." Interpol does not have the authority to issue arrest warrants in the formal sense of the word, as this is the domain of the sovereign member states.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #60)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 10:25 PM

64. You said that Sweden could not arrest Assange in London. That was clearly false.

Yes there were two warrants, issued simultaneously, for a man who has not even charged with a crime.

The more people see the lengths to which those who oppose Wikileaks have gone to go after someone for something that in Sweden itself, rarely even results in a conviction, the more it becomes clear that it is not this case they are after him for. This was unprecedented in the history if Interpol and the EU.

The claim that Sweden could not arrest Assange in London was false, I'm glad you finally realize that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #64)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 10:39 PM

66. You're still wrong. Sweden could NOT arrest Assange in London.

All they could do was ask Interpol to issue this warrant. And even Interpol couldn't arrest Assange. They put out this RED NOTICE asking its member countries, which would include the UK, to arrest him and extradite him to Sweden. As the Wiki article explains, this is as close to an International Arrest Warrant as you can get; but it still doesn't allow Interpol to arrest him directly. Only the member country can do that.

The two warrants weren't issued simultaneously. First Sweden issued its warrant; two days later, Interpol issued theirs.

Europe comprises several smaller countries, and criminals easily cross their borders. Thousands of these notices are issued every year. And the Red Notice isn't some super-duper special warrant for the worst criminals; it's the only arrest warrant that Interpol issues. All the other color-levels aren't warrants at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #66)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 10:47 PM

67. Wrong again. Interpol has nothing to do with the EAW which every member of the EU can

issue and which the Swedish prosecutor DID issue. She did not need the Interpol alert in order to have Assange arrested in London.

Iow, every country that is a member of the EU can issue an EAW to have someone arrested in any EU country.

Assange was arrested, something you neglected to note in your original comment, held for 10 days, bailed out, was kept under house arrest for two years, would have been handed over to Sweden had he not appealed the extradition.

It is incorrect to state that Sweden refuses to speak to Assange in London because they could not arrest him there. That was an excuse to try to explain their two year refusal to speak to him, and it was false.

Every member of the EU can issue an EAW if they want someone arrested in a foreign country.

The ridiculous Interpol Red Alert was simply overkill and unprecedented in a case like this.

Someone wants him very badly and it isn't just Sweden.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #67)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 11:29 PM

72. Sweden cannot arrest Assange in London. Only UK police can do that, in response

to an EAW or an Interpol warrant.

The interview that Sweden wants to conduct now isn't some little talk. It's a formal proceeding that must take place on Swedish soil, after he's in Swedish custody. They've collected the evidence for a case against him and, in this interview, they will give him a chance to answer it. Then they will make the final decision to charge him or not

TorchtheWitch explains more about that here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1203540

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #64)

Mon Aug 27, 2012, 12:04 PM

84. The British arrested Assange in London, not the Swedes.

The Brits arrested him and started extradition proceedings in accordance with the treaty between the UK and Sweden. Once he is on Swedish soil then the Swedes can arrest him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #84)

Mon Aug 27, 2012, 12:16 PM

87. You are lost again. The British had no reason to arrest him. He was arrested under an EAW

issued by the Swedish prosecutors, something that may have violated the EU charter btw, and simultaneously, because it appears the puppet governments in Europe have Interpol in their pockets, a 'Red Alert' from Interpol.

The anti-wikileaks faction have been claiming that Sweden could not have Assange arrested in London. That was false. Sweden is a member of the EU and can have someone arrested anywhere in the EU under a EAW. So another excuse for the Prosecutors not moving this case along, has been debunked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #87)

Mon Aug 27, 2012, 12:31 PM

89. The British executed an European Arrest Warrant - and yes, they were required to honor it.

The European Arrest Warrant (EAW) is an arrest warrant valid throughout all member states of the European Union (EU). Once issued, it requires another member state to arrest and transfer a criminal suspect or sentenced person to the issuing state so that the person can be put on trial or complete a detention period.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Arrest_Warrant#Issuing_judicial_authority

Having the British police arrest Assange is not the same as the Swedes arresting him. He was in British custody, not Swedish custody so how the hell can you claim that that constitutes a Swedish arrest is beyond me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #89)

Mon Aug 27, 2012, 01:07 PM

93. What exactly is your point? Yes they did, which means Sweden CAN get their man

in London, so it was false to say they couldn't, period.

Sigh, 'having the Brits arrest Assange is not the same thing'. Lol! Seriously, did you really say that? Under a EU warrant it IS the same thing since it has the exact same result as if they arrested him Sweden.

One more time. It was false to state that Sweden could not speak to Assange in London because even if they did they could not arrest him there.

Fact: Sweden and any member of the EU has the power to issue a EU warrant, have the person arrested and handed over to them.

I hope that is the end of that particular excuse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #93)

Mon Aug 27, 2012, 01:13 PM

94. So the Swedes had physical custody of Assange? Because that is what arrest means to most people

You play these silly word games but you know what the Swedes want. They want him physically in Sweden. They want to put him on trial. That can't happen until the Swedish police have physical custody of him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #94)

Mon Aug 27, 2012, 01:54 PM

98. Apparently they don't want him in Sweden or they would have detained him

while he was there and they would have long ago removed the obstacle they keep using as an excuse, their refusal to talk to him. Had they done that long ago, since there are no legal obstacles to doing so, they could have filed their charges, and the trial could be over by now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #98)

Mon Aug 27, 2012, 02:12 PM

100. Considering he left the day before his scheduled interview with Swedish prosecutors

Last edited Mon Aug 27, 2012, 10:24 PM - Edit history (1)

I don't think that is a particularly strong argument

The prosecutors told his lawyers three time on the 22nd and 23rd of September 2010 that he was to come in for an interview on the 28th. He skipped town on the 27th.

He fled Sweden to avoid arrest. He fought extradition for two years to avoid arrest. He fled to the Ecuadorian embassy to avoid arrest. I see a pattern here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #100)

Mon Aug 27, 2012, 07:48 PM

104. No, did not. The women's lawyer has even confirmed that he was free to leave Sweden

and was told he could leave by the prosecutor. He was not, said the women's attorney, charged with any crime. The arrest warrant was issued on the exact same day. Interesting timing, after telling someone 'no we don't need you here' then boom, issue an arrest warrant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #104)

Mon Aug 27, 2012, 09:49 PM

105. His lawyer testified under oath that he was notified of the interview 6 days before he left

In cross-examination the Swedish lawyer confirmed that paragraph 13 of his proof of evidence is wrong. The last five lines of paragraph 13 of his proof read: “in the following days I telephoned a number of times to ask whether we could arrange a time for Mr Assange’s interview but was never given an answer, leaving me with the impression that they may close the rape case without even bothering to interview him. On 27th September 2010, Mr Assange left Sweden.He agreed that this was wrong. Ms Ny did contact him. A specific suggestion was put to him that on 22nd September he sent a text to the prosecutors saying “I have not talked to my client since I talked to you”. He checked his mobile phone and at first said he did not have the message as he does not keep them that far back. He was encouraged to check his inbox, and there was an adjournment for that purpose. He then confirmed that on 22nd September 2010 at 16.46 he has a message from Ms Ny saying: “Hello – it is possible to have an interview Tuesday”. Next there was a message saying: “Thanks for letting me know. We will pursue Tuesday 28th at 1700”. He then accepted that there must have been a text from him. “You can interpret these text messages as saying that we had a phone call, but I can’t say if it was on 21st or 22nd”. He conceded that it is possible that Ms Ny told him on the 21st that she wanted to interview his client. She requested a date as soon as possible. He agrees that the following day, 22nd, she contacted him at least twice.


http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/20110224-Britain-Ruling-Assange-Extradition-to-Sweden.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #105)

Mon Aug 27, 2012, 10:26 PM

106. The lawyer is not Assange. The lawyer explained why he missed the messages,

200 clients at that time. The Prosecutor, after receiving no response to her first two messages should have understood the lawyer was not receiving them and called him. She has no phone?

Instead she re-used a failed method of communication. She also could have contacted Assange himself, but did not do so.

She, and the women's attorney confirms this, told him he was free to go. That's all the information he had, due to her incompetence, or whatever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #106)

Mon Aug 27, 2012, 10:35 PM

107. He testified that he had a phone call with the prosecutor

Next there was a message saying: “Thanks for letting me know. We will pursue Tuesday 28th at 1700”. He then accepted that there must have been a text from him. “You can interpret these text messages as saying that we had a phone call, but I can’t say if it was on 21st or 22nd”. He conceded that it is possible that Ms Ny told him on the 21st that she wanted to interview his client


She texted and phoned him - and he said he received those messages and replied.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #38)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 08:10 PM

57. Again with the cut and paste of this discredited author?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to girl gone mad (Reply #57)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 11:31 PM

73. He hasn't been discredited. Someone disagreed with him

and he was confident enough to post that person's response on his own blog. But I read both and the responder's points weren't very strong, IMO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GliderGuider (Reply #36)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 10:01 PM

61. Here is information about the Interpol Arrest Warrant that was issued for Assange.

Some here will tell you that this doesn't exist.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1207602

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to pnwmom (Reply #34)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 05:16 PM

45. He has been arrested in London, with an EAW from the Swedish prosecutor. He was jailed

for ten days, then released on bail but remained on house arrest until seeking asylum in the Ecuodorian Embassy.

Iow, the Swedish Prosecutor had him arrested and essentially detained and intended to extradite him Sweden immediately, which she could have done, still intends to do and never was prevented from doing.

This is another false claim made by people who have no clue about this case but for some reason feel compelled to speak as if they did.

The only reason he was not returned to Sweden was that he appealed the extradition as was his right to do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #34)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 07:30 PM

53. Yes they can please stop spreading this false information around DU. It has been corrected

numerous times, yet you persist in repeating it. Sweden is no longer making that claim themselves, so why are you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillYourVoteBCounted (Original post)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 03:50 PM

28. Surprising only to those not paying attention. - K&R :-/ n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillYourVoteBCounted (Original post)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 04:10 PM

32. There's whole lotta to digest

 

for decades to come.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillYourVoteBCounted (Original post)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 05:23 PM

47. K&R. We need to remember why there is a smear campaign against Assange nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillYourVoteBCounted (Original post)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 10:19 PM

62. None of which should have come as a revelation

Bottom line: If you're not cynical, you're not paying attention. Whatever you think they're doing, what they're actually doing is far worse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillYourVoteBCounted (Original post)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 10:21 PM

63. Stop the presses! Who knew?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillYourVoteBCounted (Original post)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 10:33 PM

65. Afghanistan: The War Logs (WikiLeaks via The Guardian)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillYourVoteBCounted (Original post)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 11:27 PM

71. i'm gonna make a wild flying fuck of a guess: you don't remember nixon or reagan, do you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #71)

Mon Aug 27, 2012, 07:58 AM

75. What a stupid reply.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #75)

Mon Aug 27, 2012, 11:49 AM

81. Maybe you just had to be there then to have any idea what I'm talking about

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #81)

Mon Aug 27, 2012, 12:03 PM

83. What the hell are you even trying to say? You should just say it.

Is it that since we were lied to in the past, we should accept it now? Or what? Come out and say what you mean.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #83)

Mon Aug 27, 2012, 12:06 PM

85. OP says: Wikileaks revealed to us how much government lies to us. I say: if OP learned that

from Wikileaks, then OP doesn't remember Nixon and Reagan

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #85)

Mon Aug 27, 2012, 12:12 PM

86. Which implies we should get used to it and aren't privy to know the truth.

Like I said, stupid reply.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #86)

Mon Aug 27, 2012, 12:35 PM

91. Huh?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #91)

Mon Aug 27, 2012, 01:33 PM

96. Duh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #85)

Mon Aug 27, 2012, 12:22 PM

88. OP says that Wikileaks revealed specific war crimes. Not one of them has been addressed

while an international man hunt was staged, complete with a Red Alert from Interpol, of the messenger, the editor and publisher of the News Organization that produced the evidence of those crimes.

Any idea why no one so far, has even been investigated for those crimes? Women brutally raped and tortured, children sodomized and tortured, men women and children murdered.

You seem inordinately exorcised over what is not even established as a crime, not even charged, so how do you feel about these massive crimes against humanity? I could be wrong, but you appear to be dismissing them? If so, your 'outrage' over some allegations becomes very questionable frankly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillYourVoteBCounted (Original post)

Mon Aug 27, 2012, 07:44 AM

74. .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillYourVoteBCounted (Original post)

Mon Aug 27, 2012, 08:37 AM

76. Our Government Lies to Us????

If Americans had any sense they would realize they've been lied to for many, many years. If they read and researched and checked facts they would find that our government is untrustworthy and despicably unscrupulous. If they shook themselves loose from Limbaugh and Hannity, they would recognize that our government is no longer within the control of the people no matter who we vote for.

I'm disgusted with American governments, and not just the Federal one. The corruption that lives within these organizations is so powerful it is like an addiction; and we who vote are the enablers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillYourVoteBCounted (Original post)

Mon Aug 27, 2012, 12:56 PM

92. du rec. Nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillYourVoteBCounted (Original post)

Mon Aug 27, 2012, 01:37 PM

97. yes--and are any of those murderers being prosecuted? No, the guy who told us about the crimes

is imprisoned and punished without trial because what he did isn't exactly against the law, so they have to scramble to find a way to make it a capitol crime. So as to hide the fact that they can hold anyone indefinitely without a lawyer.

The DOJ is out of control, ever since Bush. And that sissy Holder is doing nothing to fix it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillYourVoteBCounted (Original post)

Mon Aug 27, 2012, 01:58 PM

99. The biggest lie goes unspoken here ...


“Coincidence is God's way of remaining anonymous.”

― Albert Einstein

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillYourVoteBCounted (Original post)

Mon Aug 27, 2012, 02:16 PM

102. Bookmarked

Thanks for an excellent post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread