I thought it would be a neat idea to award Julian Assange the Nobel Peace Prize for 2011 - if he's still alive of course - but it seems I was not the only one to have the same thought - the Russian government has suggested it already - 2 Peace Prize Winners imprisoned - 1 in the USA (he ain't there yet of course but the paperwork is in the post while he languishes in solitary confinement in a London prison - what were his lawyers thinking of !) and 1 in China - is that cool or what ? http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/de … CMP=twt_gu
Strange thing about the whole wikileaks thing. I haven't beeen following it too closely simply because I have no television, radio or newspapers in my house (well apart from spanish tv but that doesn't count) - met a neighbour today who told me about all the Paypal accounts being hacked (and Visa and mastercard) because Paypal bowed to US government pressure to stop wikileaks in its track.
The hacking (and I did see a few people here complaining their account had been hacked) was to disable Paypal, not an individuals account.
There seems to be two factions at war here - those who support Mr Assange and those who support the US government.
Me? I'm all for freedom of speech. And the freedom of Paypal to honor transactions their clients wanted.
I think the hackers and and the Wikileaks activists are different people - the Wikileaks activists just wanted to stop the Paypalk and other sites from functioning - I don't think they actually tried to hack into people's accounts - but I could be wrong of course
Shows how much difference is between the USA and China nowadays
And yeah, I am all for Nobel prize for him - he deserves it much more than Obama...
Just how does what he did further the peace process? He did it for the money and noteriety. He is self delusional, arrogant, and if the charges are true, a rapist. Sounds like a wonderful candidate to me.
Gee, why not?!
It was awarded to another anti-American recently. Might as well give the spy Assange the prize with it's million dollars attached. Maybe we should even offer him the American Presidency, since there are no longer any decent requirements for that either.
Barack Hussein Obama.
I didn't think anyone needed to ask by now.
by that definition i wonder what would you call bush?...
Bush was (and I hope still is) an American Patriot.
You shouldn't have to ask about that either, except for the fact that liberals have harrassed him and given him a bad name, including political defectors like Colin Powell.
well who knows he might get it...russia has already floated this idea...
It would certainly seem the hypocrisy level has gone up a notch in the last week or so.
Release the Chinese dissident.
Jail the Australian terrorist.
That high moral ground can be a bit bumpy sometimes.
The Australian is not a terrorist. You are confusing an innocent promoter of freedom of speech (something the Americans claim to treasure) with the Americans running around illegal invading countries, killing innocent children and women.
The cables were stolen by an AMERICAN, NOT by Julian Assange.
And why do you think that the media outlets all over the world are not being threatened by the US for continuing to publish the leaks?
Release all political prisoners world wide. Jail the war criminals and real terrorists. (Bush, Blair, Howard, Netanyahu, Kim Il Jong...)
Oh Toby, I was mocking the idea. That's the trouble with straight text.
If you check my profile (am I allowed to say that?) you will see where I am coming from.
The key word in your post Toby is stolen
He heads an organisation that indiscriminately releases stolen documents and communications that he has not been given permission to use
Look how upset hubbers get when their work is stolen and copied elsewhere on the net
So do public figures and governments have no rights to privacy?
There are laws in most countries about classified information, and in most Western countries there are democratic, peaceful ways of questioning those laws if you don't like them.
Criminality and vandalism such as hacking company websites is not the way forward. Violence never wins - look at Martin Luther King who made great strides forward by promoting purely peaceful methods of protest.
No, governments do not have the right to privacy. They are elected (in theory) to represent the people and act within the constitution of their respective country.
How can we have open, transparent governance, when governments can hide information from the public that they have a right to know?
Whilst I support Assange 100%, I do not condone or support the hacking of business sites because they stop supporting wikileaks.
Hope this one doe not come across a rant.
I feel better after a coffee and packet of crisps
I agree, how do you know that your politicians are not lying to you and serving their own interests without transparency? When they do act to serve their own interests it is usually the people who suffer, thus they have a right to learn when their representatives are lying scum bags, and oddly even that doesn't always work. Folks don't WANT to know that their politicians are self serving scum bags, the lot of them! Even if they start out with good intentions, its not long before they are corrupted and folks just want to put their fingers in their ears and scream I am not listening! Just wait until the average person has nothing more to loose
How do we define what we have the right to know? Just a question (I'm not sure there is a 'right' answer to this one)
On the whole I believe that governments should be as transparent as possible, but those governments are made up by individuals.
In business employees regularly present one face to a client, but make remarks or hold other opinions in private and vice versa. Is there anything to gain by all these personal opinions being aired? Do you want all the things you have said in confidence about family, friends, co-workers, bosses plastered over the internet for the sake of transparency?
I also believe that there is information of a sensitive nature that needs to be kept condidential for reasons of security. The list of companies important to US interests being released has put the innocent employees of those companies, their families, and anyone living in the immediate area at risk of acts of terrorism.
Living in London I have had to dodge many IRA bombs (one in the doorway of the shop next door to my flat!)and was on the train behind the one blown up in Aldgate on 7/7, so can I assure you that potentially unleashing terrorism and violence on innocent people is never the right way to go.
Also do not want to rant - wishing you a happy Saturday!
Also do not want to rant - wishing you a happy Saturday!
Try a cup of coffee and a packet of crisps! Works for me
Have had the coffee and am now on the jelly beans!!!!
Yum! Could I please have any black ones that you do not want? They are my favourite.
Agree with this. There is no analogy between an individual's right to privace and a state's right to secrecy. Someone once said (and I can't find out who or when) that there is no situation that can be improved by secrecy. Secrecy increases a government's ability to dodge accountability.
The only caveat to Assange's nomination for the PP is that he didn't release the conversations of all the major countries. This stinks of U.S. hate. I agree with complete transparency. It would go a long way to avoiding war except that there are the little penises who would not participate and still blow up buildings full of innocent people. If all governments participated, what a wonderful world it could be. Having said that, there are laws against cyber-piracy.
Yeah buddy Bush was a patriot. You wanna know how?
Because of him a lot of American soldier gave their life and many resulted in mental turbulance. Many families were destroyed. This however helped to reduce the population growth. Oh! what an patriot Bush is?
He might deserve some sort of media award or journalism investigation recognition or something, but he's hardly deserving of an award based on PEACE. Along with embarassing diplomats for doing what they have always done since the beginning of diplomacy, and along with letting the world know what it already knew about a few leaders' two-faced approach to their complicated realities, he has let out a TON of "insignificant" details regarding the people who are helping the U.S. fight the Taliban. Those insignificant people are now going to be exposed to beheadings on video and all sorts of other delightfully horrendous treatment in the name of the Taliban's merciful God.
While I realize people were already getting killed in this war, I'm not sure how getting even more people killed warrants recognition for PEACE.
Journalism, sure. Peace? No way. That would actually be even more stupid than giving it to Obama was.
by Stump Parrish 10 years ago
http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/ar … paragraph3Amen, the only threat they posed our government was the threat of discovery. Not that it matters, most in this country feel this country has the right to rule the world as they see fit. Abusing human rights is the prefered...
by Barefootfae 8 years ago
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/03/30/o … ize-right/Ok, when I was in the Army I had a security clearance that I will promise you was equal or greater than that of Bradley Manning.It did not matter what the information was that was classified if you allowed it to be released or God forbid...
by Ralph Schwartz 2 years ago
John McCain claimed that leaks provided to WikiLeaks by Bradley Manning, which included the diplomatic cables, caused U.S. foreign sources to be harmed.However, it was in fact an error on the part of a Guardian journalist, not WikiLeaks, that that led to the full unredacted cables leaking to third...
by Ralph Deeds 10 years ago
Newt Gingrich said Assange should be treated as an enemy combatant.Max Frankel said "The threat of massive leaks will exist so long as there are massive secrets." Secretary of Defense Robert Gates: Is it embarrassing? Yes. Is it awkward? Yes. Consequences for US foreign policy" I...
by andycool 10 years ago
WikiLeaks is involved in uncovering many hateful activities of the US government. In this respect would it be justified to restrict their activities by the US government?
by Zubair Ahmed 9 years ago
Why does the US want to silence Julian Assange?Julian Assange is the founder and spokesperson for the now infamous website Wikilieaks. This man and his website has become synonymous with government blunders. Being under house arrest for more than 500 days and still no conviction...SOMETHING...
Copyright © 2021 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|