usa- the assassins' nation seeks to divide & conquer all nations and all peoples.

Regarding the leaks,

Well, USA-if you have done nothing wrong, then you have nothing to fear from the
T R U T H.
Be Set Free by admitting to ongoing & insufferable crimes against
H U M A N I T Y .

See if you can recognize some of your government leaders here:

http://sosbeevfbi.com/statement.html

http://www.sosbeevfbi.com/part4-worldinabo.html

questions!
GERAL SOSBEE(956)536-3103

Governments of countries have every right to confidentiality and secrecy in the ir dealings with other countries.

Anyone who is naive enough to insist that all government dealing have to be open and transparent would have to be a moron, really.

One reason we have governments is so that someone can get on with the business of statesmanship, as well as international dealing to the advantage of our (or their country) - the idea of having everything out in the open is just comical, and shows the complete lack of how the world works. Somehow seeing the "outrage" and bluster of self inflated experts on this site who eschew that everyone should be nice in dealing with each other is not unusual, the utopia of the internet eh.

I see the usual parties are here insisting that democracy is exactly that, open and fair dealing with each other .. ah such innocence - stupidity is more like it.

Anyway, Assange is now being held by the British police and is probably going to be deported to Sweden to face charges for alleged possible crimes.

Not a good look for the upholder of so many people chest thumping "democracy"

So let's have some more openness, let's get all the CRU emails and data published, why not, it must be good for democracy surely .. oh wait, didn't they destroy it - what did they have to hide? Why did they avoid all the FOI requests, and conspire to hide data?

We need a whistleblower ..!

I imagine though there will be a plethora of excuses now of why this is different to embarrassing governments and putting peoples lives in danger.

It's fascinating to witness the oh so obvious stitching-up of Assange. The rhetoric employed is stunning in its nebulosity. We have such concrete accusatory gems as "possibly", "potentially", "could", "may", and "alleged" to name but a few.
Sounds like an open and shut case - what!

Jennifer Wilson’s article refers to These comments from
Al Jazeera reporter Mike Hanna……………….>

AL Jazeera? The same Al Jazeera that broadcast gloating and threatening photos of Osama Bin Laden just after his recruits murdered 3,000 people in a vicious attack on American homesoil.

The same Al Jazeera that represents the countries we are at war with who broadcast every bit of propraganda and bad story they can find to bad mouth America.

What does this tell you about Julian Assange and his Wikileaks?

Simply that he has committed a traitorous act against his own country’s Allies in a time of war thus providing the enemy with damaging propaganda.

To continue the above comment from Aj Jazeera reporter Mike Hanna gained from Wikileaks <he referred to allegations that Hilary Clinton ordered U.S. diplomatic staff to steal the personal data, (credit card, frequent flyer information)of highly placed United Nations officials.

Why do you think she did that? Answer- To check the paper trails (big money and bribes) that could be used to pay off any spies in the United Nations who may be being paid to spy on America or release sensitive information to the enemy. Ironical really, when one of the citizens of a so called friendly country did it for free.

This is why information needs to be kept classified in times of war. As not all things being done to ensure the home countrys security can be released as in this case it would and possibly has tipped off any would be spy.

I don’t know what Julian Assange thinks he is achieving, as I believe all this classified information unavailable to the public in times of war has a set time after the war when it has to be released to the public. I don’t know if this law still exists but I have never heard that it was changed. Maybe someone else has more information on this.

Not every government dealing Amicus. In a free country we are all able to express our views - unlike in China and North Korea where there is repercussions for criticism of government.

There are obvious exceptions - such as troop movements during war that would put lives at risk or national security considerations in revealing details of an ongoing investigation into criminal matters. Wikileaks clearly recognises this in their charter.

Secrets best kept during an event are no longer critical after the event (unless to do so might impede another investigation) and indeed many ASIO files are now available after a qualifying period through Archives. I suspect greater transparency might do more to prevent war than it's opposite.

"I see the usual parties are here insisting that democracy is exactly that, open and fair dealing with each other .. ah such innocence - stupidity is more like it."

It is not stupid to expect more from democracy rather than a lip service paid to it every so often during the election cycle.

What is moronic is using the veil of secrecy to protect interests other than national ones that might not always serve a country's best interests or be held to a moral standard. There is nothing sinister in transparency.

Wikileaks is not immune, nor should they be, from criticism. Neither would Assange or other Wikileak employees be perfect, they are flawed like anyone and if Assange is guilty of sexual molestation (the charge keeps changing) then he should be tried. The latest on this is that the sex was consensual but he did not wear a condom and the new charge is 'sex by surprise'.

The fact is if there is an allegation it should be investigated and if Assange is guilty of rape he should be held accountable. He is not immune from the same laws that we are all beholden. You wouldn't get too many people supporting Assange if the charges are valid even if he is the mastermind of Wikileaks. But that does not invalidate the aims of the organisation (for those who believe in them).

Ok, Cherful, if you don't like Al Jazeera try the Guardian and the New York Times.

Highly respected Western media institutions. What does that tell you about Assange and Wikileaks?