More USA documents get released by Wikileaks

[Skeptical]

The Russia thing: it seems to assume that Russia is out to get the US. Still, it's strange that after Assange accused the Russian gov't of being responsible for multiple crime rings throughout Europe they would support him.

 

Assange trial: The plot thickens. That is rather interesting, and I look forward to more information. Maybe Assange can leak it for us.

 

Well the documents so far have been far more damaging for the US Gov than the Russians, so it seems like they're doing it to piss off the Americans. It's pretty hilarious too

 

As for the trial, the British judge gave the prosecutors until next week to present evidence relating to the case and his extradition, if they can't provide sufficient evidence he'll be released.

 

When I first heard that a day or two ago, I laughed:

 

"Well, sorry for the inconvenience, but we're going to need to see some evidence... we still have this really crappy thing called a justice system, and the stupid bureaucrats require it. Don't worry though: if we can push this case through on whatever crap you can dig up, we'll be well on our way to getting rid of it."

 

 

 

Skeptical, i don't think the companies want to silence him, they simply don't want to be associated with him. They are walking away from his profits to save the rest of their profits.

 

Somehow, I doubt that people would stop using their services since Wikileaks does as well. If you can donate to the KKK with Mastercard, people wouldn't blame Mastercard: after all, they're only providing a service, not actually supporting them. Seems to be a different standard for Wikileaks though.

[Bloodstain]

WikiLeaks' payment processor to sue card companies

Associated Press, 12.09.10, 04:05 AM EST

 

LONDON -- WikiLeaks' payment processor says it is preparing to sue credit card companies Visa and MasterCard over their refusal to process donations to the secret-spilling website.

 

The statement by Iceland's DataCell ehf comes as Internet payment company PayPal says it will return the funds frozen in WikiLeaks' account to the foundation that was fundraising for it.

 

 

It isn't yet clear where or when such a lawsuit would be heard. DataCell CEO Andreas Fink told The Associated Press that he would seek to have his case heard in a court in London, where Visa Europe Ltd. is based.

 

Fink said in an e-mail that "it is simply ridiculous to think WikiLeaks has done anything criminal." Visa and MasterCard ( MA - news - people ) have not immediately returned e-mails seeking comment.

 

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2010/12/09/technology-financials-wikileaks_8192332.html?boxes=Homepagebusinessnews

 

 

As for the whole terrorism talk, terrorism is a fairly loose term to be throwing around. I don't think Anon is a terrorist group, and the only difference between them and the USG is that the USG can do whatever the hell they want. They're trying to shut down sites that discuss the whole thing, shut down wikileaks website, etc.

[Danqazmlp]

Skeptical, I think the difference is the media attention. The whole ordeal is getting worldwide headlines on many newspapers and news programs, not just in the U.S. There are many people massively opposed to what Wikileaks are doing, who have a chance of stopping business with Mastercard if they know they allow support through them.

 

Bloodstain, the difference is that Anon have no legitimate legal power, the U.S gov does. The world is constructed in a way that those who have legitimate power, through the democeracy which is the U.S, have power. Those who don't have legal power yet still try to force terror and damage on others are terrorists.

[Range_This11]

If you show me when they have broken terms of service prior I will agree, but unless you can, saying they folded to U.S pressure means nothing. I'd also like to ask for proof of this U.S pressure. From where I stand, (outside of America) publicity of the wikileaks leak has been very large. Being associated with the person who started it all is bad publicity for any company. It would be more likely to be a business decision that any pressure from the government. But as I say, they are in their rights to cease 'trading' with whoever they want.

 

Thinking outside of the box, this is a great publicity wave to get Assange rich. Wonder if that could have been his plan all along? I have seen crazier things before.

This isn't the first time they've released cables or classified information. Those companies didn't care about it until the U.S. government told them to care.

[Danqazmlp]

Please show me the U.S government telling them to.

 

It is easy to think the worst in a knee jerk reaction when you are supporting one party, but thinking more logically, it is more likely a business decision in the face of bad publicity in the non-U.S world. Many who are in opposition to wikileaks would not like to be using a company which aids them by letting them use their services.

[sees_all1]

Please show me the U.S government telling them to.

 

Said this before, I'll say it again.

If only wikileaks could leak the conspiracy against them. :mrgreen:

[Range_This11]

Please show me the U.S government telling them to.

 

It is easy to think the worst in a knee jerk reaction when you are supporting one party, but thinking more logically, it is more likely a business decision in the face of bad publicity in the non-U.S world. Many who are in opposition to wikileaks would not like to be using a company which aids them by letting them use their services.

I was not saying that the U.S. government called up the companies and personally told them to stop, I was suggesting that companies like Amazon, PayPal, Mastercard, etc. are nothing but bootlickers. When you have U.S. policy that helps out these companies (credit card companies dealing in Russia comes to mind), they will return the favor when the U.S. government needs it. Such is the case with WikiLeaks. It would be crazy not to think these companies got as big as they did without sleeping around. You choose not to connect the dots.

 

EDIT: This is what I was looking for.

 

WikiLeaks website pulled by Amazon after US political pressure

 

The US struck its first blow against WikiLeaks after Amazon.com pulled the plug on hosting the whistleblowing website in reaction to heavy political pressure.

 

The company announced it was cutting WikiLeaks off yesterday only 24 hours after being contacted by the staff of Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate's committee on homeland security.

WikiLeaks website pulled by Amazon after US political pressure

[magekillr]

Please show me the U.S government telling them to.

 

It is easy to think the worst in a knee jerk reaction when you are supporting one party, but thinking more logically, it is more likely a business decision in the face of bad publicity in the non-U.S world. Many who are in opposition to wikileaks would not like to be using a company which aids them by letting them use their services.

 

WikiLeaks website pulled by Amazon after US political pressure

 

The US struck its first blow against WikiLeaks after Amazon.com pulled the plug on hosting the whistleblowing website in reaction to heavy political pressure.

 

The company announced it was cutting WikiLeaks off yesterday only 24 hours after being contacted by the staff of Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate's committee on homeland security.

WikiLeaks website pulled by Amazon after US political pressure

[Danqazmlp]

The question is whether he was acting on his own or pressed to do so by the Obama administration, and how much pressure was applied to Amazon.

 

I said proof, not rumour. This is the problem with this whole affair. Everything that has been said has all been rumour from random websites on the internet. I'm sorry, but the internet is not a trustworthy source. Give me proof, show me a statement from Amazon saying they have taken it down due to pressure from the U.S Government. I'm also wondering what the 'contact' was. For all we know, he knows one of the CEO's personally and 'contacts' them all of the time.

[Giordano]

Well that's nice, asking for proof on something that is secret. Corporations don't tell things like that, negative connatations which will give them bad publicity. It is through suspicion and reason that its pretty obvious that these companies were pressured into blocking WikiLeaks.

 

I don't know why people distrust Wikileaks for the power to ruin groups, or Anon for having the power they have, but trust in theUS government.

 

All factions with use whatever methods they have, in relvenance to their reputation and cash stockpiles, to achieve their goals. There is no legality or illegality.

[Danqazmlp]

The reason I currently trust governments is that I currently live my life in a world which works from my perspective. I therefore have no reason to distrust them. Something may be 'pretty obvious' to some because of their perspective but to others, who have less bias towards wanting a government dragged through a bush, can take a step back and think about the wider world for a second and think about how business' work.

 

The difference between Anon, wikileaks and a government is that the government does whatever it can to have a world that works. The other two do whatever they can stop the government from doing that.

[Giordano]

Wikileaks does not stop the order and the stability. If it does, then the REAL problem isn't Wikileaks but the government who took a risk in the first place.

 

You follow the government because they follow their perspective. Understandable. Wikileaks and Anon are following their perspective. But instead of crying they're taking action. Maybe you should do the same?

[Range_This11]

the government does whatever it can to have a world that works.

Bull [cabbage]. A government does whatever it can to protect its power and its image without upsetting the status quo.

[Danqazmlp]

I have no need to take any action because I'm satisfied (not fully but enough) by the government. I can walk down the street safely, do my job, go to uni, socialise and basically anything I want to do safely.

 

Anon want to stop order and stability. They are terrorists. It will be hard for anybody to sway me from that opinion. Wikileaks may not directly want to destabilise a whole country, but what they have the possibility of doing is destabilising a government or various governments.

 

To range this^

And to do that, the world needs to work. If it didn't, they would be removed from office. The world has evolved into what it is today. It has gone through political systems and is a system which works in the modern world.

[Dupin]

I have no need to take any action because I'm satisfied (not fully but enough) by the government. I can walk down the street safely, do my job, go to uni, socialise and basically anything I want to do safely.

 

Anon want to stop order and stability. They are terrorists. It will be hard for anybody to sway me from that opinion. Wikileaks may not directly want to destabilise a whole country, but what they have the possibility of doing is destabilising a government or various governments.

 

To range this^

And to do that, the world needs to work. If it didn't, they would be removed from office. The world has evolved into what it is today. It has gone through political systems and is a system which works in the modern world.

Please show me a study that says Anon want to "stop order and stability", and anything at all that says Wikileaks are trying to destabilize governments.

[Range_This11]

If your judgment of how well a government is doing is if you can walk down the street safely, go to your job, and socialize then I don't know what to tell you. Government tends to make life comfortable for middle class white people because that's who it is run by haha.

[Danqazmlp]

I have no need to take any action because I'm satisfied (not fully but enough) by the government. I can walk down the street safely, do my job, go to uni, socialise and basically anything I want to do safely.

 

Anon want to stop order and stability. They are terrorists. It will be hard for anybody to sway me from that opinion. Wikileaks may not directly want to destabilise a whole country, but what they have the possibility of doing is destabilising a government or various governments.

 

To range this^

And to do that, the world needs to work. If it didn't, they would be removed from office. The world has evolved into what it is today. It has gone through political systems and is a system which works in the modern world.

Please show me a study that says Anon want to "stop order and stability", and anything at all that says Wikileaks are trying to destabilize governments.

 

 

Attacking websites and stopping business is stopping stability. But please, I don't even need to find a 'study' for you. It is right there in front of you to see. Anon attack companies they don't like without going through the respectful and legal means. It creates a lack of stability for on-line companies and on-line trading.

 

Again, Wikileaks are destabilising governments. They may not be attempting to do so, but it does have the potential to do so (as I said).

[Giordano]

Again, they leak documents. If governments do things to destablize the country and Wikileaks report it, who's fault is it?

 

And I meant to take action against Wikileaks and Anon if they're causing so much destability against your perspective. Less talk, more action.

[Dupin]

I have no need to take any action because I'm satisfied (not fully but enough) by the government. I can walk down the street safely, do my job, go to uni, socialise and basically anything I want to do safely.

 

Anon want to stop order and stability. They are terrorists. It will be hard for anybody to sway me from that opinion. Wikileaks may not directly want to destabilise a whole country, but what they have the possibility of doing is destabilising a government or various governments.

 

To range this^

And to do that, the world needs to work. If it didn't, they would be removed from office. The world has evolved into what it is today. It has gone through political systems and is a system which works in the modern world.

Please show me a study that says Anon want to "stop order and stability", and anything at all that says Wikileaks are trying to destabilize governments.

 

 

Attacking websites and stopping business is stopping stability. But please, I don't even need to find a 'study' for you. It is right there in front of you to see. Anon attack companies they don't like without going through the respectful and legal means. It creates a lack of stability for on-line companies and on-line trading.

 

Again, Wikileaks are destabilising governments. They may not be attempting to do so, but it does have the potential to do so (as I said).

I didn't know mods don't have to back up their claims with proof.

 

Anon is not one solid organization. It has no leader and no rules. One group of people with an opinion decide to do something, and get a bunch of people from Anon to do it, all in the name of Anon. This does not mean Anon supports the movement. In fact, by definition it cannot support anything, as it has no power to make decisions as a body. It's just a bunch of people with nothing better to do with their lives all thrown into an ugly little melting pot, pretending to make soup.

 

E: Just to be clear: Two claims. Zero proof.

 

Guns have the potential to kill people. Those are legal.

[Danqazmlp]

The problem with Anon and wikileaks is that they are largely untouchable being internet based. There is nothing your ordinary person can do to stop them. Governments can be protested against in person, these cannot.

 

Governments attempt to stabilise. Kept secret, these things keep countries stabilised. It is wikileaks spreading these publicly that destabilises.

[Dupin]

The problem with Anon and wikileaks is that they are largely untouchable being internet based. There is nothing your ordinary person can do to stop them. Governments can be protested against in person, these cannot.

 

Governments attempt to stabilise. Kept secret, these things keep countries stabilised. It is wikileaks spreading these publicly that destabilises.

Again, how does Wikileaks spreading documents destabilize? Without them, the government would be able to run its citizens into the ground without us knowing.

 

You cannot protest a government if you don't know it's doing something wrong.

[Bloodstain]

 

Anon want to stop order and stability. They are terrorists. It will be hard for anybody to sway me from that opinion. Wikileaks may not directly want to destabilise a whole country, but what they have the possibility of doing is destabilising a government or various governments.

 

 

 

You're like the USG, anyone against you is a terrorist.

 

ANYWAY, info dump time

 

 

 

 

AVAAZ has a petition with nearly 300,000 signatures on it so far for stopping the crackdown

http://avaaz.org/en/wikileaks_petition/?fpla

 

 

Happy stuff

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Article/201009115850853

 

 

Inmates at Wandsworth prison are pushing notes of support under the cell door of WikiLeaks founder, according to Sky News sources.

 

Julian Assange, who is accused of sex offences, was refused bail at an extradition hearing earlier this week. He faces being in jail until at least his next appearance in court on Tuesday.

 

A source at the prison said, among several notes Mr Assange received, are ones saying: "Hi Julian- good luck," "Sorry you're in here - it's wrong" and "We are one within here - Merry Christmas". Another said: "Dear Julian, welcome to the real Frontline Club," referring to the journalists' club in London where he was staying before his arrest.

 

Mr Assange is wearing a prison issue grey tracksuit and has no access to a computer. He has not yet received a personal visit but both his legal team and an Australian diplomat have been to see him, each for about an hour.

Sky understands that Mr Assange said: "I'm feeling in relatively good spirits, but I wish I was out."

 

He was keen to dismiss what he called "lies" about WikiLeaks and the recent computer hacking of private companies. He believes there is a "deliberate attempt to conflate the hacking attacks and WikiLeaks".

 

The 39-year-old Australian has given preliminary instructions to his legal representatives, but it is thought there will not be an attempt to get the bail ruling overturned until next Tuesday.

 

 

Pakistan creating fake cables

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/09/pakistani-newspaper-fake-leaks-india

 

 

Good news

11.12am: Facebook has clarified why the official Wikileaks page - which, at the last look, had 1,131,211 supporters - remains live while the group Anonymous was taken down, writes Jemima Kiss.

 

A spokeswoman said the site doesn't take down pages on controversial topics, such the Cumbria spree killer Raoul Moat, but it draws the line on groups that attack others.

 

The Anonymous page on Facebook, however, was removed last night for violating Facebook's terms: "We also take down Pages that attack an individual or group," said a warning message on the page where the Anonymous Facebook page used to be.

 

Here's the Facebook statement:

 

We haven't received any official requests to disable the Wikileaks page, or any notification that the articles posted on the page contain unlawful content. If we did, of course, we would review the material according to our rules and standards, and take it down if appropriate. But the mere existence of a Wikileaks page doesn't violate any law just like we don't take down other pages about controversial topics like Raoul Moat and Holocaust denial.

 

 

Some thoughts on the US and wiki

.06pm:

Louis Klarevas, a member of the clinical faculty at New York university's centre for global affairs, wonders whether it isn't time for the US to rethink the espionage act. He writes on the Atlantic website:

 

The world war I era law, intended primarily to punish government employees and contractors who pass classified information to foreign government agents, is wildly out of date. Written long before the internet changed how information and media work, the espionage act is unsuited to our era and long overdue for reform.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/12/wikileaks-the-web-and-the-need-to-rethink-the-espionage-act/67664/

 

 

 

a humorous rap video lol

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXbCwq4ewBU

 

 

 

 

Some interesting and funny stuff from Russia

Subsequent disclosures, however, that Nato had secretly prepared a plan in case Russia invaded its Baltic neighbours have left the Kremlin smarting. Today Russia's foreign minister Sergei Lavrov said Nato had to explain why it privately considered Russia an enemy while publicly describing it warmly as a "strategic partner" and ally.

 

"With one hand, Nato seeks agreement with us on joint partnership, and with the other, it makes a decision that it needs to defend. So when is Nato more sincere?" Lavrov asked today. "We have asked these questions and are expecting answers to them. We think we are entitled to that."

 

Lavrov said his attitude towards the leaked US state department cables was "philosophical". "It is interesting to read, including what ambassadors write to provide a stream of information to their capitals," he admitted.

 

Dmitry Rogozin, Russia's hardline ultra-nationalist ambassador to Nato, also today voiced his support for the embattled Assange. He tweeted that Assange's arrest and incarceration on Monday at the City of Westminster magistrates' court demonstrated that there was "no media freedom" in the west. Assange's "fate" amounted to "political persecution" and a lack of human rights, the ambassador said.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/09/julian-assange-nobel-peace-prize

 

 

 

 

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/12/information-antidote-fear-wikileaks-law-and-you

^ Would be interesting if it would load, I suspect. It's about how successful a prosecution of Wikileaks would be

 

 

LA PAZ, Bolivia - Vice-President Alvaro Garcia Linera has posted all U.S. diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks that pertain to Bolivia on his official website.

 

He told reporters Wednesday he wants people to know the "barbarities and insults" of what he called Washington's "interventionist infiltration."

 

As Wikileaks' own sites come under attack, sympathizers have created "mirror" sites that duplicate them partially or in full.

 

Bolivia's leftist leaders expelled the U.S. ambassador in 2008, accusing him of conspiring against it.

 

Garcia's site includes two quotes:

 

"The truth will set you free," from the New Testament.

 

And from WikiLeaks' founder Julian Assange: "Every organization rests on a mountain of secrets."

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/bolivias-vice-president-posts-wikileaks-cables-official-website.html

 

 

Good live updates

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2010/dec/09/wikileaks-us-embassy-cables-live-updates

Featuring an appearance from the real Assange at the end

[Bloodstain]

Posts from another forum I frequent

 

 

america is actively stealing the cuban doctors away from venezuela's poor rural medical system, crying about the venezuelans not enthusiastically going along with the idea and then [bleep]ing that the medical system is in disarray due to it being understaffed because of government mismanagement

http://wikileaks.ch/cable/2009/04/09CARACAS442.html

SUBJECT: CUBAN MEDICAL PERSONNEL FLEE VENEZUELA

¶1. © Summary: Embassy Caracas notes a significant number

of Cuban medical personnel applying to be paroled into the

United States under the Significant Public Benefit Parole

(SPBP) for Cuban Medical Professionals outside of Cuba

(CMPP).

 

http://wikileaks.ch/cable/2010/02/10CARACAS187.html

SUBJECT: Increased Harassment of Approved Cuban Medical Parolees

 

 

http://wikileaks.ch/cable/2009/12/09CARACAS1551.html

SUBJECT: VENEZUELA'S MEDICAL SYSTEM IN DISARRAY AS GBRV SHIFTS

RESOURCES TO BARRIO ADENTRO

¶1. © SUMMARY: Venezuelan doctors have accused the Venezuelan

Government (GBRV) of politicizing health care at the expense of the

health of Venezuelans. In recent months, protests have paralyzed

hospitals across Venezuela as doctors and patients have complained

of shortages of medical supplies, delays in hospital renovations

and unpaid wages and benefits. Observers describe public hospitals

as increasingly dangerous places where underpaid, undersupplied,

and understaffed doctors struggle to provide medical services to

Venezuela's poor.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

no real surprises of course, but it's interesting to hear confirmation about the lengths the U.S. goes to in order to [bleep] with chavez, and the internal rhetoric continually bashing his policies

 

first up: the united states pressuring the hell out of spain to not sell venezuela airplanes and boats

¶2. (U) The largest-ciruclation Spanish dailies, "El Pais" and

"El Mundo", provided extensive front page coverage of "U.S.

concern" regarding the Spanish weapons sale to Venezuela and

President Zapatero's overtures to Chavez. These press

stories indicate that Spain made a final decision on March 27

on the weapons package it would offer Venezuela, which will

include:

 

- 4 coastal patrol boats

- 4 ocean going corvettes

- 2 oil tankers

- 1

- 10 C-295 transport aircraft

- 2 coastal patrol aircraft

 

The total value of the sale is estimated at Euros 1.3 billion

(USDOLS 1.69 billion) and will reportedly provide 600 jobs

for 6 years at Spain's hard-pressed Navantia shipyards.

Separately, Spanish oil giant Repsol-YPF and Petroleos de

Venezuela were expected to conclude a cooperation agreement

during Zapatero's visit, which could include up to USDOLS 185

million in investments in Venezuela by Repsol.

 

 

seems more than reasonable, especially considering the regimes the u.s. sells weapons to

 

but wait!

 

http://wikileaks.ch/cable/2005/04/05MADRID1585.html

SPANISH DEFENSE MINISTRY: "TRUST US ON VENEZUELA

SALE"

 

Pardo told Charge (who was joined by defense attache

and pol-miloff) he called the meeting "in the interest of

transparency" and to avoid "manipulations" of information

about the Venezuela sale by third parties. The Zapatero

government and the defense ministry wanted to be "as clear as

possible" with the U.S. on what the Venezuela sale involved

and did not involve, because others, such as the opposition

Popular Party, were using the Venezuela sale to "drive a

wedge" between the Zapatero government and the U.S.

government. Pardo said he was "very bothered" that third

parties have created a problem where there shouldn't be one."

 

Pardo then showed Charge a copy of the memorandum of

agreement signed between Spain and Venezuela, pointed to the

portion describing the types of ships that would be sold, and

emphasized that nowhere did it mention "corvettes" as some in

the Popular Party and press had claimed Spain planned to sell

Venezuela. "I do not have to show you this classified

document," said Pardo, "but I want us both to be absolutely

clear on what we are and are not selling here." Pardo said

he wanted to be clear: Spain is only contemplating selling

Venezuela coastal patrol ships and oceanic patrol ships, the

latter needed to patrol Venezuela's free economic zone.

Spain will not be selling Venezuela corvettes.

 

Defense attache noted that ships in that displacement

range could be outfitted to carry missiles, regardless of

whether they're called corvettes or patrol boats. Noticeably

bothered, Pardo replied emphatically, "The ships will not

carry missiles -- that's what I'm trying to explain. Please

trust us." Pardo insisted that the Zapatero government and

the defense ministry are "responsible" and will not permit

the ships to carry offensive weapons. "We believe we deserve

your trust," said Pardo, adding "you should listen to what we

at the ministry tell you before you believe what a Spanish

congressman says (referring to Popular Party critics)."

 

Charge explained to Pardo that the U.S. is concerned

about the Venezuela sale not because "third parties" such as

the Popular Party had made an issue of it, but because the

U.S. believes the sale could add to Venezuela's ability to

cause destabilization in the region. In addition, Spain's

engagement with Venezuela, including by virtue of the sale,

could also lend Chavez political visibility and legitimacy he

otherwise would not have. Charge made clear the U.S. is very

concerned about Chavez's non-democratic moves in his own

country and his destabilizing activities in other countries

of Latin America. The last thing anyone needs to do right

now, explained Charge, is do something to give Chavez more

political and military muscle, which seems to us exactly what

Spain is doing. Charge also told Pardo it was not realistic

to think the Venezuela sale would not come up in the

Bono-Rumsfeld meeting. It was bound to be raised because it

remains an important issue for the U.S.

 

Comment: Pardo made every effort to show that he

was very irritated that the Venezuela sale had become such a

big issue in the Spanish press, in internal Spanish politics,

and in U.S.-Spain relations. The purpose of the meeting

appeared to be to demonstrate this irritation and to press

Charge to do what he could to exclude the Venezuela sale from

the Bono-Rumsfeld agenda. Charge made clear the U.S. was

troubled by the matter exclusive of the interests of any

third parties, the issue would very likely come up during

Bono's meeting with Rumsfeld, and the U.S. remained concerned

about the sale's ability to bolster Chavez politically and

militarily.

 

 

yes, venezuela, notorious for wreaking destabilization and chaos throughout latin america despite america's every effort to heal fissures and promote democracy.... jesus [bleep]ing christ this world is complete [bleep]ing [cabbage] ahahahahahahahhhhhaaaahahhahahaha

 

anyway,

 

let's wrap this up by hearing from the u.s.'s [bleep] in the area, president uribe of colombia, thoughts on chavez:

 

http://wikileaks.ch/cable/2005/08/05BOGOTA7402.html

Uribe noted that Chavez had been quieter in the last two months and had, for example, agreed to extradite FARC leader Chiguiro to Colombia without a formal GOC request. Nonetheless, he did not trust Chavez. He never talked to him alone; he always brought along Foreign Minister Barco or some other witness. On GOV links to the FARC, Uribe said Chavez has told him that he does not protect the guerrillas but could not deny that some in his political organization supported them. Uribe complained that Chavez had little opposition now. There was no balance of power within the government. All decisions were ultimately made by him. Uribe stressed that Chavez had an effective stump speech: he claims to be distributing the country's oil wealth through subsidies to the populace while previous governments stole it. This was a powerful message and hard to contradict. Uribe also expressed surprise that the Venezuelan business community was not more jittery, given Chavez's efforts to create a "new socialism." The Venezuelan economy could also move into hyper-inflation, he predicted. Already, inflation had increased to 17-20%, compared to 5% in Colombia.

According to Uribe, Chavez was a mix of someone with

imperial sentiments, drunk with socialism. He believed that Chavez, with presumed support from President Lula, hoped to create a new coalition to confront the U.S. He has may dreams, said Uribe, including a hemispheric television station (Telesur) and the unification of oil companies on the continent into a regional "petrosur." He encouraged the U.S. to improve relations with Uruguay and others in the region Chavez believed were his supporters.

 

Finally, Uribe said he was becoming more and more resigned to the notion that, given the current situation in Venezuela, political unrest was inevitable.

 

heh

 

finally, a quick detour to spain about evo morales while we're on the subject

 

http://wikileaks.ch/cable/2006/01/06MADRID76.html

On the visit of Bolivian president-elect Evo Morales,

Moratinos shared his impression that Morales' strengths were

his "honesty and his conscience." However, Moratinos also

described Morales as uninformed and inexperienced. Morales

told Spanish interlocutors that he desired a special

relationship with Spain and did not want to rely solely on

Venezuela and Cuba, but Moratinos expressed concern that

Castro and Chavez' "bear hug" of Morales would continue to

have a negative effect. Moratinos said he had urged Morales

to stop aggravating the USG. According to Moratinos, Morales

asked that Spain convey two messages to the USG on his behalf:

 

-- Do not implicate him with narcotics trafficking (or by

extension narco terrorism) simply because of his support for

coca cultivation; and,

 

-- Give him room for manuever with the IMF and the World Bank.

[Bloodstain]

HAHAHA Putin owns

 

(Reuters) - Prime Minister Vladimir Putin attacked the United States on Thursday over secret U.S. diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks, saying the West had no right to preach to Russia about democracy.

When asked about cables which cast him as Russia's "alpha-dog" ruler, Putin asked: "Do you think the American diplomatic service is a crystal clean source of information? Do you think so?"

 

He then criticised the West over the arrest of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who turned himself in to authorities in Britain this week after a warrant by a Swedish prosecutor who wants to question him about sexual misconduct accusations.

 

"If it is full democracy, then why have they hidden Mr. Assange in prison? That's what, democracy?" Putin said, in the strongest Russian criticism of the affair.

 

"So, you know, as they say in the countryside, some people's cows can moo, but yours should keep quiet. So I would like to shoot the puck back at our American colleagues," Putin said at a briefing with his French counterpart Francois Fillon.

http://in.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-53463620101209

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

e:

WikiLeaks: France adds to US pressure to ban website

• Minister warns of consequences for companies helping keep WikiLeaks online

• US diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks are hosted by French firm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-france-ban-website

[Skeptical]

After reading this, I'm pretty sure that all they'll be able to do is drag the case out for a while.

http://radsoft.net/news/20101001,01.shtml