Great title the gift that keeps on giving. I cant help it I am so fascinated in how things will pan out with the whole wikileaks thing.

I feel as if I have to choose a side at times but which side? Really though I did not feel that our Prime Minister Julia Gillard has any idea of what she is saying. Most of her comments have appeared confused which is not good for a leader of a country. Why did she not just keep her personal opinions out of this? Rudd did and he was involved in the leaks. Howard even chimed in and stated that Assange needs support and did not commit a crime. Not that Howard matters though.I do not think Julia has been professional at all throughout this saga. I am interested to hear what Turnbull and Abbot have to say on the matter. Bronwyn Bishop's twitter account is a fake one,so all the harsh comments towards Wikileaks and assange are just someone who is trying to stir up drama. Wikileaks has developed a life of its own.

It does appear to be a Christmas drama, I am just waiting on the movie to come out in the next year or so. Like they have done with the Social Network movie.

*Ninety-four per cent of Greens and 73 per cent of Labor voters disapprove of her critical pronouncements on Assange and the legality of his behaviour.*

Perhaps what we need now, is for somebody to place a few thousand
internal Greens party emails and other documents on the web,
especially those marked "confidential".

We'd soon find out as to how many Greens party members are
hypocrites.

Sorry, but I tend to respect the fact that confidentiality matters
in all things. We have freedom of information laws, for when
there could be a true reason to get to the truth.

But then perhaps a large number of punters are voyeurs, obtaining
their thrills from others business. Perhaps they lead boring lives
and don't have enough real problems of their own. So the circus
continues.

"WikiLeaks may stand in a sweet spot for its story, but our love is not unconditional".

That may be well be right.

For me, it was a question of what was more important. Firstly, the legal misdeeds seemingly now caused by Britain, not Sweden. The treatment of Assange by the people involved in the UK deserves condemnation to say the least. There is a something wrong there and I hope that truth will out eventually. Influence of some type, I feel. In the UK as well? They can’t say that they don’t know the law.
After all, they gave us our laws in Australia from top to bottom but now seem to have forgotten basic human rights and fundamental law.

The second point, not just to me, was the selective content of the leaks. It is selective, mostly undated and that worries me. Such material should be date-stamped everywhere as it is the nature of the public servant to do this. These leaks are coming from public servants whatever they might like to call themselves;, CIA, cultural ambassadors, political advisers, military advisers, charge-d'affaires and on. Why no dates?

Graham said today “The irony for WikiLeaks is that while its operation continues as a bit of Christmas drama it will probably retain its favourable status, but should it cause any serious damage, then things will change.”

Well, according to Veteranstoday, http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/12/18/gordon-duff-gov-jesse-ventura-proves-911-cover-up-will-americas-government-fall/

‘Former Vice President Cheney has been accused of engineering the Pentagon attack. Rumsfeld cited as possible accomplice’.
It involves US$ 2.3 Trillion.

I think the above story is capable of upstaging anything that Wikileaks could offer with what is left of 2010.

rexw $ 2.3 trillion is a lot of money.For every US family of four in todays money,this is almost $ 50,000.This money was not part of the US Military budget since the annual budget was a third of this amount.

Where did this huge sum of money come from? The only institution capable of generating that amount of cash is the US Federal Reserve.

Wikileaks is very selective about what it releases and I fear it will be used to premote war with Iran.Wikileaks is not all it seems since the Murdoch press and others clear the leaks with the US State Dept before publication.Why does then the State Dept then feign outrage?Perhaps it needs and excuse to censor the net?

Organisations or individuals who have cables or emails published do
so at a cost but I can tell you from personal experience, little can be done officially unless one want's to charge the publisher of so called
confidential or private emails with a privacy infringement. Libel and
then damages possibly, even if the contents of the email are true.

In America, the libel laws are different from Australia and UK. And no charges have yet to be laid against the release of the climate gate emails allegedly sent between Michael Mann and the University of East Anglia.

Michael Mann has threatened to sue of course but has anything as yet
eventuated from the U Tube 'Hide the decline'? Nor the second one?

The yanks have been embarrassed. They have possibly lost some diplomatic credits that they need to hold on to, with all the nasties around the world wanting nothing better but discredit the West and particularly the US of A. But others are taking advantage
and some releases from Pakileaks are saying Israel was advised by the USA to attack them, and blame it on Iraq/Iran, now that is dangerous
lies. And nothing to do with Wikileaks at all.

Although I have great respect for America, they are under tremendous
financial decline, that means they can't afford now to be 'the policeman of the world' as Britain boasted to be, rightly or wrongly.
And Wikileaks have actually played into hands of the enemies of the US of A.

But I would rather have the US of A as a friend than an enemy. And don't think that the West and developed countries don't have enemies who would like to see our way of life deminished and destroyed forever

And Happy Christmas or Yule to all subscribers and particularly Graham.
I'm hoping that Julian will not be extradited to the US of A. I can't see how they can do this. But -from an email from the Swedish foreign ministry, it seems they have not charged him yet with any sexual offenses but I query then why they would bother appealing against his bail? Seems to me, as grasping at straws?

Anyway, goodnight and have a happy festive season, and I'll be back
next year, as family commitments and I have to organize my annual Christmas lunch for 11 people and running out of time right now to do it.

Even if the information leaked via Wikileaks is just more of the same or only serves to match cynical expectations it is still valuable. The goodwill surrounding Wikileaks is I believe derived from the growing cynicism about politics, not only locally but globally and has nothing to do with conspiracy theories.

The really big stuff (fodder for conspiracies) I suspect would be less likely from the information derived via diplomatic emails but more from investigative reporting eg. Four Corners and its equivalent such as the exposé about the immoral dealings of private contractors in post and pre-war Iraq/Afghanistan.

Wikileaks has marked out names of certain companies and the like in many of the cables including this one picked at random so there has been some effort to cast an editorial eye should there be a risk of an unfair negative impact. Most publishers and journalistic rags do this to some extent.

http://213.251.145.96/cable/2009/05/09STATE53356.html

Dear Graham,

Assange solidly won me over with the Collateral Murder video and while the focus at the moment is on the diplomatic cables the scope of the material Wikileaks has provided us is far more extensive.

I would think it quite surprising if the Collateral Murder video has not resulted in a change of behaviour by the US armed forces in the way they conduct their operations via their rules of engagement. I am also convinced this would have directly prevented a number of unnecessary deaths.

In your piece you have used biblical references. I will admit to having mined biblical references for my own amusement on OLO and other forums especially Revelation 1:14 “His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire”.

One of the responses read;

“I don't know, guys. The theory's not that crazy. Think about it.
1. Jesus came to Earth to spread the truth. Assange is also spreading the truth.
2. Jesus was hated by corrupt politicians. Assange is hated by many world leaders.
3. Jesus risked his life to get his word out there. Assange's life is certainly at risk.
4. Jesus was convicted under trumped-up charges. Assange's charges are, at least, suspicious.
5. After Jesus died, many of his followers took up his cause and spread the word. Assange has many supporters that are ready to release the "insurance file" if anything happens to him.”

There were many others along similar lines, this on some pretty full on American Christian forums.

You state; “Assange is potentially a bit of a bad Santa.” but I also think he is potentially something quite dramatic. Whether an embryonic 'Messiah complex' finds fertile ground and becomes destructive remains to be seen. His obvious principles make keep it in check but power and corruption await just around the proverbial corner.

I do get a sense of game changing currents around Assange gathering over the various and often disparate parts of the internet I access, some quite frightening.

Fascinating stuff.

I find it interesting that Assange gets publically pilloried and accused of being some sort of international terrorist but Laurie Oakes is awarded a Walkley Award for doing precisely the same thing - publishing confidential information that was leaked to him.

Graham Young reports in the article 'Cablegate gift keeps on giving', with respect to the recent OLO research survey, that:

"According to our research, out of a
politically representative group of 950
opinion leaders, 65 per cent approve of
the WikiLeaks organisation, while only
18 per cent disapprove."

As a respondent to that survey, I thank you for the promotion to the rank of Meinungsfuhrer, GrahamY.

The article also makes the observation that:

"WikiLeaks may stand in a sweet spot for its
story, but our love is not unconditional."

Too right! Just imagine if, in further disclosures, some scandal envelopes television personality and chef Gabriel Gate. We would have Gategate, wouldn't we? What with the concurrent threat to the apostrophe, this potentially double-barrelled threat to our ever-evolving aglutinative linguistry would paralyse our ability to communicate in regard to the scandalous or salacious.

Without having had to outlay a dollar, we would all be living, whether we liked it or not, in a 'gated community'!

Yes, I think we should all watch our language in the offering of any opinions in relation to this lamentable security breach.

Now, say, can you see what could happen if, at the same time as Assange is able to be represented as being a type of journalist, an enterprising Swedish entrepreneur was to market a new line of condoms called 'Dip-Your-Wiki': why, it could bring the term 'embedded journalist' into utter disrepute (especially if they leaked!), couldn't it? Lots of US government money has been spent establishing the concept of 'embedded journalism' in the public mind. Wouldn't do to blow it, now, would it? Conditional love. Yep.




BTW, in the process of obtaining from Google the correct German translation for 'opinion leader', I came across this paper that might interest you, should you not already be familiar with it, that purports to address the questions in its title:

"Are all opinion leaders opinion givers?
- Are all opinion givers opinion leaders?
A clarification of constructs based on
empirical data."

http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/9/1/5/5/pages91554/p91554-1.php

Thankyou Graham. OLO has provided a valuable forum and analysis of response to Wikileaks/Assange but on 3 matters, more might have been said:

1. Freedom of the Press and speech. Attacks on Wikileaks for publishing and Assange as its editor should be seen as an attack on all media editors and their right to publish material irrespective of how it came into their possession. I place a very high value on that right, even though I believe that right is not unlimited and may strongly disagree with what is published.

2. Who is responsible? Neither Wikileaks or Assange stole the material they published. It was provided to them by people who were in a position to access it because of a seriously defective system of security used by the US government. It is the US government which should be held responsible for its unauthorised release.

3. Justice and its perversion. The way in which Assange has been treated by the Swedish and UK courts and the UK prison system has been disgraceful. The extent to which they have been “influenced” by the US government is speculative but may well be revealed by Wikileaks in the future.

As others have pointed out, Wikileaks publication of leaked material has been more than simply embarrassing for the US government, its “security” and its military. It has revealed illegal activities, including murder. It has also provided us with candid, if not diplomatic comment, by US officials. If they want their view to remain private, they should insist on better security, rather than demand Assenges blood and demand that others persecute Wikileaks.

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/confidential-swedish-police-report-details-claims-against-assange-20101220-192ih.html

Given the intrigue of Julian's sexual habits, and the ease with
which a rape charge can be pressed in Sweden, sounds to me that
Julian might well be a victim of the rabid feminist movement in
Sweden.

In that case its not UK or the US to blame, but Swedish law.

Given that the Gift that keeps on Giving has, in the link that is to follow, given yet more, I am hoping that this thread is not an inappropriate place to make a nomination for the OLO January Feature, 'Best Blogs for 2010'. (Yes, I know I have an unfortunate history with respect to Monthly Features and the rendering of offerings thereto, but what went around in 'Personal Epiphanies' has come around, as the saying goes in the past tense, with WikiLeaks' Cablegate flagshipping the December Feature, 'Whistleblowers', as comprehensively as Togo at Tsushima.)




I nominate this blog by Jim Goad:


"Cultural Caviar: The Rape Of Julian Assange"


The blog post can be found here: http://bit.ly/eY2Q4c




Without giving the gift away entirely, these concluding lines to the post I post by way of giving viewers some idea of the feast of which they may later be partaking. Thus:

"Ardin and Wilen have hired Swedish celebrity
lawyer Claes Borgström, who has uttered such
gems about the [Assange] case as “He had sex against
their will one way or the other” and explained
that even though the girls insisted Assange
didn’t use force, they don’t understand they’ve
been raped because “They’re not lawyers.”

Somehow, what happened doesn’t quite sound like
“rape” to me, at least as I’ve been led to
understand the term in America.

Then again, I don’t live in Sweden. But after
reading literally thousands of online forum
comments about the case, many of them appearing
to be from bona fide Swedes, I realize those
blond bastards define rape as broadly as our
fair galaxy.

Everything is rape to them. Apparently there’s
a running joke—“That’s rape in Sweden.” Did you
spill your coffee? “That’s rape in Sweden.” Did
you cough too loud during the board meeting?
“That’s rape in Sweden.” What, you don’t understand
the joke? “That’s rape in Sweden.”"




Who stands to benefit most from all this wiking guilt-tripping? Prince Rupert of the Whine by any chance?

I received an email response to my sort of complaint to the Swedish
Ambassador in Canberra. It was most polite and they forwarded me their Swedish sexual assault laws etc. They are very similar to ours in Australia.It would seem it is a private lawyer acting on behalf of these two women pressing charges, as yet no criminal charges have been
set in Sweden. But a European (as UK is now part of the EU - in my opinion to their chagrin - however) was a private warrant was one that
was declined on the appeal against his release from gaol.

According to my first response from the Swedish foreign office, Sweden has never extradited anyone from Sweden to the US of A as was feared.

However, my second response was a little more aggressive, as I said,
then 'why did the Swedish lawyers want to restrict the bail application when no criminal charges had as yet be placed in Sweden?"
And there was no fear of Julian flying away to avoid apprehension in
Sweden, when he has this legally from his point of view, accepting that charges will be laid against him, but yet non have been - so no defense can be prepared? No response as yet from the Swedish foreign
Ministry?

Only my speculation - but encouraged by those who have been revealed in an embarrassing light from Wikileaks to pressure him and discredit him. Or just get publicity from sleeping with Julian?

If Graham wishes to get the Swedish laws etc., he knows my private email address and he can request them. But I can assure you other than being asleep and being raped, nothing seems to be compute, Unless
Julian is a carrier of any STD? Or HIV. And if he is - he is toast!
Unless those women have slept un protected with others since last August, when they could have had HIV tests done immediately and after 12 weeks after sex with Julian without protection. I find it very unlikely don't you?

I am thinking about Julian. I - as an mature aged wise woman, looks at him and thinks. Yes you are reasonably attractive, physically. But the way you walk, you seem to me more a Nerd or Dork, rather than a warrior.
(No disrespect either meant). However, with a multi million dollar
internet Wikileaks thriving and also driving his personality, he would be attractive to many (other than women of course), not just sexually from women, but also those who believed that we need someone to lead a group of those who are not afraid to unleash the absolute lies governments and politics thrive on via the media and governmental lies. Not so easy now via the Internet?

This happens, I know. When I worked for the Health Commission in Kogarah,(early 1970s) word came through from Darwin, or NT Health Commissioner to other Australian Health Commissioners, Boat people were expected over the next 3 years perhaps. 27,000 people. And Darwin refugee quarantine centers could not cope with this number of people from Vietnam. Almost immediately, Gareth Evans announced on TV
that only 9,000 people from Vietnam were expected over the next three
years. As I watched this on TV I told my husband 'He's lieing!"

Well with the boat people right now coming via Christmas Island, when
have they now adapted, quarantine camps and camps from the ex Vietnam
experience to cope to this Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan refugees or boat people who need assistance?

There is a lot we are not told, and should be told!