Yes a very fragile thread Shadow Minister.
You will be aware of the news Wikileaks has split,yet another leaks page is about to be born as a result.
I never stop being amazed, gob smacked in fact, at how things are used to protect politicians, or to slander others.
In fedral Parliament, last week, conservatives tabled minutes of a government private meeting, and then we know about
Ute gate, it proved a lie,fiasco was as a result of leaks, well never was fraudulent leaks.
Show me the difference in this matter.
Well I will, America and its servants, have forgotten others stole this, and even America has A first amendment protecting? free speech.
IF these leaks prove wrong things happened the yanks must confront that crime not the message.
If failure to cover up lies and fraud crimes and needless death has to be protected this world is in trouble.
ALL crime must see daylight.

The following is a link that explains just how dependent a phenomenon like Wikileaks is on a system that was designed around and is stacked in favour of centralised corporate control in the form of domain name servers.

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/12/10/rushkoff.hacking.wikileaks/index.html?hpt=C2

This mornings Sydney morning Herald a report on a face to face meeting with the founder of Wikileaks is worth a read.
As more evidence mounts on just how far America,and its lapdogs, are prepared to go I want to revisit a theme.
If FOX this morning published documents that fell in to its hands, harmful to Democrats,left of center governments who would complain?
IN fact I would except it as we all know we should be informed on these things.

i supose its silly pointing out that julian gets the blame
when he is only doing that the media..does to him

but the media..gives its source..of wiki leaks..
[as a matter..of legal recourse]

but julian protects the whistle blower..source

but journalists..sources are protected

its all rather purile

but lets go the info google stole...at random..no doudt revealing who's been good..or bad...is it the source of all to be had?

who owns it when its all in a lump
vairious sources..[just as the wikileak stuff]

who is the source..the computa teq
the redneck sorting through it

the programer...heck lets just shut down google search
see where this all leads to?

lets recall the main jobs created..that were 'shovel ready'
was searching the air travelers...[wasnt that money well spent]

if you feel safe
you dont know the reality of things as they are

next year the bankers get the treatment...and we see the service govt gives to the corperations...[glen beck is a stooge]..they all blooming well are

the truth...
we couldnt handle the truth

and the polititions..serving their masters
the public ser-vice...serving the polititions

and the public service and the party machine
will allways advize the next party machine man you vote in

and the media will spin..the party machine man..public service/spin

The idea that the media, in republishing the material that Assange leaked, is just as culpable, is specious.

Once its become public, it no longer matters. If the news paper broke the material, the situation mught be different.

I just wonder what events Belly thinks have actually been uncovered that pass for crimes? The vast majority of the material relates to DIPLOMACY. They are diplomatic cables.

We accpet that in debating issues freely, what is said in cabinet is not privy to the rest of us. The point is to eencourage debate and get to the vest decision possible.The same is true of diplomacy. Exposing the honest but blunt assessments of US diplomats, embarresses the US. But what else does it achieve?

Those who wish to see harm done to the US will support these leaks, of course. But there is no substantive reason for anyone else to see the benefit.

Stuff I was reading today.

Can the US make a new law to get Assange?

http://islamicnewsdaily.com/media/wikileaks/julian-assanges-lawyers-watched
“It’s quite a serious situation,” she said, adding that, according to the UN’s Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, governments should ensure that lawyers “are able to perform all of their professional functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference” and that “lawyers shall not be identified with their clients or their clients’ causes as a result of discharging their functions”.

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/must-read/daniel-ellsberg-on-wikileaks
Video of American news.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/11/wikileaks-backlash-cyber-war
“Both Facebook and Twitter have won praise in recent years as outlets for free speech, yet both also harbour corporate aspirations that hinge on their ability to serve as advertising platforms for other companies.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-may-pass-new-law-to-prosecute-assange-2158070.html
US may pass new law to prosecute Assange