Can you please show where Amnesty International made a public statement criticising Wikileaks?
On the Amnesty International website: “Q&A: Wikileaks and freedom of expression” I can not find where they have made a statement criticizing Wikileaks.
Amnesty International spokesman Susanna Flood said that while other human rights groups had also sent a joint letter to WikiLeaks, Amnesty was not among its signatories.
@thymefromti Hmm. Apparently most major news organizations (Wall Street Journal, for example, which I linked before) still carry the inaccurate story. Thanks for letting me know!
God, woman.. Using the information should not be used 'intelligently'. That would defeat the whole purpose. The whole reason that Wikileaks are leaking documents, is to come with the unedited truth. They are not taking any side but the truths.
If they started 'regulating' the documents they would be just another propaganda machine. They would be one big conspiracy.
I myself support freedom 100%. I support Anonymous, TPB, Wikileaks. All of them.
@xrunxnowx I agree with you entirely on one point, and I blame my wording for the misunderstanding. Information should not be "used" - not to serve a purpose. I dislike talking heads as much as I imagine you do - decisions must be must be made based on information, not opinion, not rhetoric.
I do believe that there are safety - and ethical - issues with releasing leaked documents en masse. Wikileaks clearly agrees with me, having redacted names and turned to major newspapers for help.
After the bad stuff went down when they released all the documents with names, wikileaks now censors all of the ground level names. They leave in the names of people like Obama, Kim Jung Il, and Clinton, but they take out any names of lower level people. They learned their lesson.
The reader who consults the Wikileaks website will observe that on top of redacting any revealing names they have on numerous occasions solicited the help of the American embassy to suggest any further details that might imperil innocent people's security so they could erase it. The published exchange of letters between Wikileaks and the embassy plainly show that the US government refused to co-operate with the security measures of Wikileaks. Wikileaks endangers nobody. They serve our democracy.
@FromAtomsMade - I definitely agree that the US government didn't respond appropriately to the situation, and I don't want to absolve them of responsibility either!
@player06dz (Je suis désolé si mon français n'est pas très bonne!)
Je ne sais pas si Wikileaks a l'intention d'enquêter sur 11 Septembre, mais je doute qu'il ya beaucoup beaucoup à apprendre. La plupart du monde n'est pas en accord avec Thierry Meyssan - mais peut-être Wikileaks va me surprendre.
Cablegate facts as I seem to have found out from just reading different articles on the web (I know don't believe everything you read) but here I go.
Assange and wikileaks are not releasing the documents. 5 media outlets from across the globe are (Guardian, Le Monde, Der Speigel I think NY times and one other. They read, redact and release the docs in a time specified manner agreed upon by wikileaks. USG does not "own" them becuase they cannot copyright their own material.
@aaronandmichelle777 One could argue wikileaks does not own them either. PFC Manning (who has been is custody for I think 5 months, need to double check that) downloaded the docs and gave them to wikileaks. "Manhunt" for Assange seems to be false as his attorneys report they are in contact with authorities. Like I said these are the facts as I see them. Not to draw conclusions but to clarify
@aaronandmichelle777 You're absolutely right that The Guardian, Le Monde, Der Spiegel and El Pais were all working with Wikileaks for the release of the diplomatic cables. (NY Times was collaborating with The Guardian, but not with Wikileaks itself.) They orchestrated simultaneous releases, so that when the Guardian, for instance, published stories/excerpts, Wikileaks would have the documents themselves available on their website.
As for the USG, it's not so much an issue of copyright as it is
@cateematthews the control of the dissemination information - information that they have every legal (if not ethical) right to control, just as any corporation or private individual would have the same right.
Thanks for the comment! I found it very interesting : )
Life in risk? That cunt and all the gov't can die in hell... Sep/11, Iraque, Afag, how many lifes did they destroy? How many inocent people they kill? Where is Al qeada? It's all bull shit, the gov't control de media... wikileaks spoke to much and not he is on the shit. Society is back to BBC and american Idol.. Sad truth...
@iamundergrace Ooops! I didn't mean to include the note next to the link identifying it as an article relating specifically to the charge, but it was an article I read while researching this video. You'll notice that it wasn't something I included in the video itself, but the charges were resubmitted yesterday, and they're part of the controversy.
@cateematthews It's obviously not true that he raped that Swedish girl. That way things would just turn out far too luckily for the governments of the world. And the way it's timed.. Not even possible.
You know, he was in Sweden doing interviews etc. about why he published all the leaks about the Afghan war, when he apparently raped some Swedish girl. Really, it's so unrealistic. First of all he must have been extremely stressed and would not even have the time to rape her.
@xrunxnowx Second, seeing as the whole media world has almost not even spoken of anything but him the last months. And even long time before that. He has been followed by other Journalists all the effing time. He could not Rape that girl.
@xrunxnowx I completely agree that the accusations are conveniently timed (the charge was made on the 20th of August, the Afghan War Diary was released on July 25th, 2010.) I won't make a call without further information - and there's so little available.
Can you please show where Amnesty International made a public statement criticising Wikileaks?
On the Amnesty International website: “Q&A: Wikileaks and freedom of expression” I can not find where they have made a statement criticizing Wikileaks.
thymefromti 1 year ago
@thymefromti online.wsj dot com /article/SB10001424052748703428604575419580947722558.html?mod=WSJEUROPE_hpp_MIDDLESecondNews
cateematthews 1 year ago
@cateematthews
Amnesty International spokesman Susanna Flood said that while other human rights groups had also sent a joint letter to WikiLeaks, Amnesty was not among its signatories.
telegraph dot co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/7938000/Wikileaks-urged-to-censor-Afghan-war-files.html
thymefromti 1 year ago
@thymefromti Hmm. Apparently most major news organizations (Wall Street Journal, for example, which I linked before) still carry the inaccurate story. Thanks for letting me know!
cateematthews 1 year ago
God, woman.. Using the information should not be used 'intelligently'. That would defeat the whole purpose. The whole reason that Wikileaks are leaking documents, is to come with the unedited truth. They are not taking any side but the truths.
If they started 'regulating' the documents they would be just another propaganda machine. They would be one big conspiracy.
I myself support freedom 100%. I support Anonymous, TPB, Wikileaks. All of them.
xrunxnowx 1 year ago
@xrunxnowx I agree with you entirely on one point, and I blame my wording for the misunderstanding. Information should not be "used" - not to serve a purpose. I dislike talking heads as much as I imagine you do - decisions must be must be made based on information, not opinion, not rhetoric.
I do believe that there are safety - and ethical - issues with releasing leaked documents en masse. Wikileaks clearly agrees with me, having redacted names and turned to major newspapers for help.
cateematthews 1 year ago
@cateematthews I'm glad we could agree on some of it.
It is of course true that they should not publish insignificant names. They don't do that anyway.
xrunxnowx 1 year ago
great video :)
tadej172 1 year ago
@tadej172 Thanks! : )
cateematthews 1 year ago
Great video
even better how you went into detail about some of the documents and mentioned the effects of said documents released that have had a positive result
dctcool 1 year ago
Thanks!
cateematthews 1 year ago
You're really following dan's "PDBAZ"!
good job
saadazzz 1 year ago
@saadazzz Haha, I had to google that to make sure that was a good thing. Thanks : )
cateematthews 1 year ago
After the bad stuff went down when they released all the documents with names, wikileaks now censors all of the ground level names. They leave in the names of people like Obama, Kim Jung Il, and Clinton, but they take out any names of lower level people. They learned their lesson.
AVeryIronicGoose 1 year ago
The reader who consults the Wikileaks website will observe that on top of redacting any revealing names they have on numerous occasions solicited the help of the American embassy to suggest any further details that might imperil innocent people's security so they could erase it. The published exchange of letters between Wikileaks and the embassy plainly show that the US government refused to co-operate with the security measures of Wikileaks. Wikileaks endangers nobody. They serve our democracy.
FromAtomsMade 1 year ago 5
@FromAtomsMade - I definitely agree that the US government didn't respond appropriately to the situation, and I don't want to absolve them of responsibility either!
cateematthews 1 year ago
dans l'attente que wikileaks pourrai bien nous éclairer a propos des attentats du 11 septembre!
si c'est vraiment des révélations objectives bien sur!
player06dz 1 year ago
@player06dz (Je suis désolé si mon français n'est pas très bonne!)
Je ne sais pas si Wikileaks a l'intention d'enquêter sur 11 Septembre, mais je doute qu'il ya beaucoup beaucoup à apprendre. La plupart du monde n'est pas en accord avec Thierry Meyssan - mais peut-être Wikileaks va me surprendre.
cateematthews 1 year ago
Cablegate facts as I seem to have found out from just reading different articles on the web (I know don't believe everything you read) but here I go.
Assange and wikileaks are not releasing the documents. 5 media outlets from across the globe are (Guardian, Le Monde, Der Speigel I think NY times and one other. They read, redact and release the docs in a time specified manner agreed upon by wikileaks. USG does not "own" them becuase they cannot copyright their own material.
aaronandmichelle777 1 year ago 2
@aaronandmichelle777 One could argue wikileaks does not own them either. PFC Manning (who has been is custody for I think 5 months, need to double check that) downloaded the docs and gave them to wikileaks. "Manhunt" for Assange seems to be false as his attorneys report they are in contact with authorities. Like I said these are the facts as I see them. Not to draw conclusions but to clarify
aaronandmichelle777 1 year ago
@aaronandmichelle777 Wikileaks does not claim to own any leaks. And they are not interested in copyright.
xrunxnowx 1 year ago
@aaronandmichelle777 You're absolutely right that The Guardian, Le Monde, Der Spiegel and El Pais were all working with Wikileaks for the release of the diplomatic cables. (NY Times was collaborating with The Guardian, but not with Wikileaks itself.) They orchestrated simultaneous releases, so that when the Guardian, for instance, published stories/excerpts, Wikileaks would have the documents themselves available on their website.
As for the USG, it's not so much an issue of copyright as it is
cateematthews 1 year ago
@cateematthews the control of the dissemination information - information that they have every legal (if not ethical) right to control, just as any corporation or private individual would have the same right.
Thanks for the comment! I found it very interesting : )
cateematthews 1 year ago
Life in risk? That cunt and all the gov't can die in hell... Sep/11, Iraque, Afag, how many lifes did they destroy? How many inocent people they kill? Where is Al qeada? It's all bull shit, the gov't control de media... wikileaks spoke to much and not he is on the shit. Society is back to BBC and american Idol.. Sad truth...
Driftaway1000 1 year ago
why did you list a link about the rape charges??? the overwhelming evidence that community has found on it has shown that the charges are absurd.
iamundergrace 1 year ago
@iamundergrace Ooops! I didn't mean to include the note next to the link identifying it as an article relating specifically to the charge, but it was an article I read while researching this video. You'll notice that it wasn't something I included in the video itself, but the charges were resubmitted yesterday, and they're part of the controversy.
cateematthews 1 year ago
@cateematthews It's obviously not true that he raped that Swedish girl. That way things would just turn out far too luckily for the governments of the world. And the way it's timed.. Not even possible.
You know, he was in Sweden doing interviews etc. about why he published all the leaks about the Afghan war, when he apparently raped some Swedish girl. Really, it's so unrealistic. First of all he must have been extremely stressed and would not even have the time to rape her.
xrunxnowx 1 year ago
@xrunxnowx Second, seeing as the whole media world has almost not even spoken of anything but him the last months. And even long time before that. He has been followed by other Journalists all the effing time. He could not Rape that girl.
xrunxnowx 1 year ago
@xrunxnowx I completely agree that the accusations are conveniently timed (the charge was made on the 20th of August, the Afghan War Diary was released on July 25th, 2010.) I won't make a call without further information - and there's so little available.
cateematthews 1 year ago