Deep Politics Forum

AMY GOODMAN: We move on to more stories within WikiLeaks. Juan?

JUAN GONZALEZ: One of the biggest early revelations from the massive leak of U.S. embassy cables is that the State Department ordered American diplomats to spy on the leadership of the United Nations. The directives were signed by Secretaries of State Condoleezza Rice and Hillary Clinton. On Wednesday, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon met with Hillary Clinton to discuss the matter.

While WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has called on Hillary Clinton to resign, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs dismissed any wrongdoing on her part and denied that U.S. diplomats engage in spying.

Well, one of the instructions in the leaked State Department directive urges diplomats to gather intelligence about, quote, "plans and intentions of member states or UN Special Rapporteurs to press for resolutions or investigations into US counterterrorism strategies and treatment of detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan or Guantanamo."

AMY GOODMAN: Juan Méndez is the new UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Last month he called on the United States to investigate and prosecute torture committed under President George W. Bush. He also said he hopes to visit Iraq and Guantánamo to probe widespread torture allegations.

Juan Méndez, welcome to Democracy Now! First, comment on the WikiLeaks cable that actually would target you. You’re one of the special rapporteurs.

JUAN MÉNDEZ: Yes, if I understand correctly, these cables are earlier than when I started my term, which is only a month ago, but still, they are kind of puzzling because there’s nothing more transparent than what special rapporteurs of the United Nations do and plan. In fact, we all want to have dialogues with governments. If they really want to know what the special rapporteurship on torture is trying to do, they could just call me. Except for obvious confidentiality of some sources, if people ask us for confidentiality to protect their safety, everything else we do is so transparent that it’s kind of surprising to see that there would be any kind of request for an operation to find out what we are trying to do.

AMY GOODMAN: It’s interesting to think about. You’re saying they could just call you, but they’re talking about taking your iris scan, your fingerprints, getting somehow your DNA, some of your biometrics information. What could they possibly want with this?

JUAN MÉNDEZ: That’s right. I have no idea. That is actually more than puzzling. That’s troubling, because, obviously, you know, they—that’s the kind of—

AMY GOODMAN: Have you been invited for tea recently with any U.S. diplomat, Juan Méndez?

JUAN MÉNDEZ: No, but I’ve actually read the leaked cable, and it’s not clear to me that when they’re asking for that kind of, you know, privacy-related information, that they’re talking generally about UN officials. Whether they mean special rapporteurs is kind of open to question, because we are not UN officials. We are volunteers who do our work as experts on specific human rights themes. And so, they may be referring to other UN officials. But even then, it’s very troubling, because, you know, we do need to protect privacy rights, and especially with the potential for that information to be used by others with bad intentions, I think that that is troubling to me.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Let me ask you, these revelations—some in the U.S. media have said this should not be a major shock, intelligence gathering is part of the diplomatic process by different officials, diplomatic officials from different countries. But is it your sense that other folks at the United Nations are shocked in any way by the level of effort that is being made by—especially by the State Department—we’re not talking now about the normal spies of the U.S. government, but by State Department officials—to gather this kind of information from fellow diplomats?

JUAN MÉNDEZ: I cannot speak for others in the UN. Frankly, you know, I speak with a relatively small number of people who help me in my task as special rapporteur on torture. And I can’t comment on areas of the WikiLeaks that are completely outside my mandate, like spying and things like that.

What I am really worried about is that we seem to be focusing on whether disclosing these cables is legal or illegal, whether it merits some kinds of action against Mr. Assange. We’re not really discussing the merits, the substance of what some of these things reveal. And in my case, for example, I’m very concerned about the documents that show that literally thousands of people were first imprisoned by American forces and then transferred to the control of forces in Iraq and perhaps even in Afghanistan, where they knew that these people were going to be tortured. That’s a very clear violation of a standard that applies to the United States as a signatory of the Convention Against Torture, and I want to know what’s being done about getting to the bottom of that.

AMY GOODMAN: You have called on the United States to investigate and prosecute torture committed under former President George W. Bush. I want to play you the recent comments of President Bush talking about waterboarding. He was interviewed recently by NBC’s Matt Lauer.

MATT LAUER: Why is waterboarding legal, in your opinion?

GEORGE W. BUSH: Because the lawyers said it was legal, said it did not fall within the Anti-Torture Act. I’m not a lawyer. And—but you got to trust the judgment of people around you. And I do.

MATT LAUER: You say it’s legal, and the lawyers told me.

GEORGE W. BUSH: Yeah. [...] First of all, we used this technique on three people. Captured a lot of people and used it on three. We gained valuable information to protect the country, and it was the right thing to do, as far as I’m concerned.

MATT LAUER: So, if it’s legal, President Bush, then if an American is taken into custody in a foreign country, not necessarily a uniformed American—

GEORGE W. BUSH: Look, I’m not going to debate the issue, Matt. I really—

MATT LAUER: I’m just asking. Would it be OK for a foreign country to waterboard an American citizen?

GEORGE W. BUSH: It’s—all I ask is that people read the book. And they can reach the same conclusion if they would have made the same decision I made or not.

MATT LAUER: You’d make the same decision again today?

GEORGE W. BUSH: Yeah, I would.

AMY GOODMAN: That was President Bush. Juan Méndez, you’re the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture. Your response?

JUAN MÉNDEZ: Well, I think it’s very disingenuous to rely on a memo that President Bush himself withdrew. And, you know, if he knew it was wrong on the law, he can’t, you know, years later rely on it to say, "Well, I was told it was legal." And besides, quite frankly, if you—just by the description of what waterboarding tries to do, which is to create a sense of asphyxiation, it’s not rocket science to know that that’s torture and that, the memos notwithstanding, that’s both illegal and immoral. And quite frankly, it violates a very clear standard that the United States is bound to.

Now, I’ve been calling for the United States to live up to its obligation under the torture convention. The torture convention says very clearly that every case of torture has to be investigated, prosecuted and punished as an international law obligation of the state. Unfortunately, despite the fact that we have leads like this, like the torture memos, like the revelations that Mr. Bush himself has made, I don’t see enough, at least—I mean, obviously I’m in conversations with the U.S. government, so I’m hoping that they will give me more chapter and verse about what it is that they are doing to live up to this obligation to investigate in good faith every single act of torture.

AMY GOODMAN: So you think President Bush should be investigated?

JUAN MÉNDEZ: Well, I’m not saying who should be prosecuted or investigated. What I’m saying is that this is a significant lead that should lead investigators to pursue it to whatever consequences it takes them. I’m not in a position to say who’s responsible for what criminal act.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, Juan Méndez, President Obama has resisted calls to investigate the torture of detainees under the Bush administration. This is what he said last year on CBS’s Face the Nation.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: I have said consistently that I want to look forward and not backward when it comes to some of the problems that occurred under the previous administration when it came to interrogations. I don’t want witch hunts taking place.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Your response on this issue of looking forward instead of back and not allowing witch hunts to take place?

JUAN MÉNDEZ: Well, this has been a debate all over the world every time we have to look at egregious conduct by state officials. People always say we want to look forward and not backward. I reject the notion that investigating and prosecuting international crimes is a way of just looking backwards and being—and engaging in a witch hunt or being vengeful. I think, on the contrary, it’s a proper way of looking forward: it’s settling the stories the way they should be settled, deciding on what was done by order of whom and against whom, and moving forward only after we know the whole truth.

In the United States, there were at least some initial encouraging moves by Congress, especially, to investigate some of the atrocious things that have happened in the war on terror. But unfortunately, in the last two years, we have seen very little in the way of those investigations. As I said, I am talking to the U.S. government, and I’m hoping to be given much more information about what is actually being done. But I want to stress that that’s not a discretionary decision by any state. Every state that signs and ratifies the Convention Against Torture is legally obliged to investigate, prosecute and punish every single act of torture.

AMY GOODMAN: Juan Méndez, we only have 30 seconds, but you speak from personal experience. I mean, you come from Argentina. In Argentina, there are hundreds of trials going on now of torturers.

JUAN MÉNDEZ: That’s right.

AMY GOODMAN: You, yourself, were tortured for representing political prisoners—that’s right?—in the 1970s?

JUAN MÉNDEZ: That’s correct, yes. That’s right. You know, and I am following the trials in Argentina. They are, you know, very uplifting, and they are a way of looking forward. It’s a way in which the country sees itself in the mirror, reckons with its past, and makes sure that it doesn’t happen again. So, that’s a way of looking forward.

AMY GOODMAN: Juan Méndez, I want to thank you very much for being with us, UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

Thursday, December 2, 2010

Julian Assange has close links to the Rothschilds


By Jane Burgermeister at birdflu666.wordpress.com

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has won an award from the “Economist” magazine, a financial publication controlled by the Rothschild banking family, and he has also featured on an “Economist” video clip, raising questions about conflicts of interest. Assange predicted a bank run could be triggered by bank data leaks but he does not mention that this would result in the robbery of millions of people because of the way the fractional reserve banking system works, and profit the banks.

Is a false flag bank run hyped by the banker’s media and carried out by a Rothschild operative being planned to rob millions and to implement emergency laws?

Julian Assange, the Wikileaks founder who plans to leak bank documents that will take down „one or two“ major banks according to Forbes, has won an award from the Economist, a magazine belonging to the Economist group, half of which is owned by the Financial times, a subsidiary of Pearson PLC. A group of independent shareholders, including many members of the staff and the Rothschild banking family of England.

Kurt Nimmo writes that the Economist is owned by members of the Rothschild banking family of England. It is run by the Economist Group, a known CIA front

http://www.infowars.com/rothschild-and-c...orshipers/

Greek blogger Vicky Chrysou found that Assange won an Economist Censorship Index Award in 2008.

http://vickytoxotis.blogspot.com/2010/11...leaks.html

Assange’s close links to perhaps the world’s leading financial publication, which has consistently given misinformation about the eurozone and bank bailout, are underlined by a recent video interview he held with the Economist magazine.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_HPLHIBT...r_embedded

Assange has not only won awards from the Rothschild banking family’s financial publications; he also won an award from Amnesty International, which works closely with the UN, itself associated with the IMF, the World Bank profitting politically and financially from the gigantic national debts saddled on country’s by banks with the help of compliant politicians.

Assange’s latest Wikileaks have been hyped by the mainstream media around the world as a major diplomatc row and destablising factor in spite of the fact that they are largely trivial gossip and news items that are in alignment with the Globalist’s goals.

If Assange were a real activist, he would not be getting any coverage from the mainstream media, let alone so headlines every day in every well known corporate media outlet. The alleged hide and seek between Assange and the US government as well as Interpol is played out on the theatrical stage of the world’s media when it is well known the US government and Interpol can arrest anyone they want virtually any time they want given their immense resources.

The Economist and FT were also among the corporate media that consistently hyped the swine flu pandemic and the need for vaccines last April while blocking information about the incident where Baxter contaminated 72 kilos of seasonal flu vaccine with the bird flu virus in ist biosecurity level 3 labs — virtually ruling out an accident — and so nearly triggered a global bird flu pandemic.

This media group has also consistently given misinformation about the current financial crisis and how it is being engineered by the banks to rob people, using the fractional reserve banking system.

Vienna Economics University Professor Franz Hormann explained how „banks create money out of air“ in a model for fraud in an interview with Der Standard recently. Hormann has also said that current economic theory is „political propaganda.“ But the Economist Group and IMF spout this propaganda all the time for the profit of the banks.

A bank run would result in the loss of people’s money, savings, pay checks and so bring ruin to millions of people – but this is what Assange wants because that is what will happen as anyone with a basic knowledge of economics now. The fractional reserve banking system means that the money or capital people put in the bank does not need to be on their account: capital can be spread all over the banks activities, locked in bonds and shares. Governments have very limited guarentees for deposits.

So if there the bankers can engineer a bank run, it will be the ordinary people who are robbed once more. Assange goes along with the propaganda that banks have capital in the banks not fractional reserve digits.

Expect the corporate media to hype Assange’s bank data leaks and hype the disaster and so help the banks justify bringing down the shutters and ruining millions if not billions of people in the process in a crash as devastating as 1931.

The media hyped the mild swine flu into a pandemic and they can hype a few extra withdrawls into a bank stampede as well unless we take action and demand that financial services scrutinse all withdrawals.

Because the euro is crumbling faster than expected, the bankers are desperate to institute some form of emergency law or martial law and a false flag bank run initiated by their operative Assange and hyped by their media would suit their plans perfectly.

His irresponsible actions that could destroy the world’s economy in a financial Pearl Harbour — also on December 7th, the date set for another irresponsible bank run — certainly are those of an operative working for the banks and may even be on the orders of the Rothschilds directly given his close links to the Economist. His task is to destroy the financial system before the eurozone fragments, allowing country’s potentially to restore their own currencies and regain their souvereignty.

His gigantic financial crime is also designed to discredit the alternative media and investigative journalists and so give the a chance to close websites and steer people back into the mainstream media.

Accusations of a sordid rape are also desgned to discredit investigative journalists in the eyes of the public.

Help spread this news: a false flag bank run hyped by the media is being planned by a Rothschild operative and it will result in the robbery of millions of people. Get financial regulators and the police to scrutinize all financial transactions and stop banks declaring themselves broke artificially, thereby robbing customers.

Read More Articles By Jane Burgermeister at birdflu666.wordpress.com


Posted by poorrichard at 2:31 AM

Enter stage right, to add some colour to this pantomime, that noted political thinker Sarah Palin and the more sinister neocon William Kristol:

Quote:Sarah Palin has called on the US government to hunt down WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange like an al-Qaeda or Taliban leader, calling him "an anti-American operative with blood on his hands".

In a post on her Facebook page, the former US Republican vice-presidential candidate wrote: "Assange is not a 'journalist', any more than the 'editor' of al-Qaeda's new English-language magazine Inspire is a 'journalist'."

Manhunt calls via Facebook. Wow nice touch. Perhaps she should have tweeted it though...

Quote:"He is an anti-American operative with blood on his hands. His past posting of classified documents revealed the identity of more than 100 Afghan sources to the Taliban. Why was he not pursued with the same urgency we pursue al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders?"

She added that the activist website should have its financial assets frozen "just as we do to individuals who provide material support for terrorist organisations" and that "cyber tools" should be used to "permanently dismantle WikiLeaks".

Oh, she did tweet it as well:

Quote:The 46-year-old, who is known for her conservative views, questioned on Twitter why the US government couldn't "stop WikiLeaks' treasonous act", perhaps unaware that Mr Assange is not an American citizen, and that the activist website is hosted in Sweden with servers across the globe.

Here's Billy:

Quote:She also linked to a blog by William Kristol, the editor of the right-wing US magazine The Weekly Standard, who called for his country's government to "use our various assets to harass, snatch or neutralize Julian Assange and his collaborators, wherever they are".

"Congress can have emergency hearings - in closed session, if necessary - to find out if the executive branch has the necessary means to defeat WikiLeaks. If it doesn't, Congress can provide additional means and authorities to those that already exist," wrote Kristol, who served under former US president Ronald Reagan and former US vice-president Dan Quayle.

"But in either case, Congress can act, in an expeditious and bipartisan manner, to encourage and authorise the use by the executive branch of all necessary means to respond to and defeat WikiLeaks."

Kristol did not elaborate on what he meant by "all necessary means", although some US media have speculated that he and Mrs Palin could be calling for the US to " treat WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange as a target to be snatched off the streets somewhere by the CIA", The Christian Science Monitor wrote.

Kristol's blog is called "Whack Wikileaks".

I wonder what Billy Boy could possibly be suggesting...

Sources:
http://www.theage.com.au/technology/tech...18g69.html

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/whac...20462.html

Isn't incitement to murder a crime?

WikiLeaks Backup Plan Could Drop Diplomatic Bomb --Supporters Downloading Heavily Encrypted File Told They Will Receive Key if Trouble Befalls Website, Founder 02 Dec 2010 WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has a backup plan should anything happen to him or his notorious document-dumping website. The legal net is tightening around Assange. On Thursday, Sweden's highest court turned down an appeal from his legal team, which means an international warrant for his arrest in a sexual assault case is valid, CBS Newsreports. Supporters of WikiLeaks around the world are downloading a file the site calls an insurance policy. The files are encrypted with a code so strong it's unbreakable, even by governments. If anything happens to Assange or the website, a key will go out to unlock the files.

Danny Jarman Wrote:Isn't incitement to murder a crime?

We're even handed in the USA - it is ONLY a crime if it comes from a poor, black, middle-of-the-road or percieved leftie.

Ed Jewett Wrote:WikiLeaks Backup Plan Could Drop Diplomatic Bomb --Supporters Downloading Heavily Encrypted File Told They Will Receive Key if Trouble Befalls Website, Founder 02 Dec 2010 WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has a backup plan should anything happen to him or his notorious document-dumping website. The legal net is tightening around Assange. On Thursday, Sweden's highest court turned down an appeal from his legal team, which means an international warrant for his arrest in a sexual assault case is valid, CBS Newsreports. Supporters of WikiLeaks around the world are downloading a file the site calls an insurance policy. The files are encrypted with a code so strong it's unbreakable, even by governments. If anything happens to Assange or the website, a key will go out to unlock the files.

I downloaded it and I hope it has dynamite information in it! I also hope I don't have to use it. It downloads very quickly as so many others are, as well, and torrents work best when many are downloading and seeding. At any given moment it seems that about 1000 are downloading the 'insurance' torrent. At LEAST 250,000 persons have downloaded the file. That should put some fear into the hearts of the USA...but as to their not knowing how to crack the code, that I doubt. The NSA can surely crack it...so they will be able to evaluate the net gamble they take. I'm sure a few other nations can decode it too....U.K, France, Germany, Israel, Russia, China at the very least...perhaps several others. A very interesting game being played on the Grand Chess Board.

I know many here are saying or positing that Assange is really acting as a knowing agent for the very people he seems to be hurting, but I think not - and I now believe his life and that of the others running Wikileaks is in real danger. It seems he will eventually be taken to Sweden and likely the charges dismissed, but I fear the USA will ask to extradite him; and from there he will go to one of our black sites.....and our famous Empire-class 'injustice' system. If he ever came to trial in the USA [which I doubt - as the evidence on his side and discovery would be too embarrassing - not to mention the insurance materials - many of which I'm sure are not being put out on the internet....[i.e. they'd eliminate him or Guantanamo him and throw away the key.]

Sad that Australia doesn't seem to care about him. Sad he is in the UK...they may do a Gareth Williams on him. I do remember some nation offering him asylum, but there is no way for him to leave the UK now. I'm sure MI5 has him under 24/7 surveillance now, and the home or flat bugged.

by William Blum
http://www.killinghope.org
If the house where Julian Assange of Wikileaks is staying is destroyed by a Predator drone, and the United States denies any involvement ... Well, I'll believe them.

One of the most common threads running through the Wikileaks papers is Washington's manic obsession with Iran. In country after country the United States exerts unceasing pressure on the government to tighten the noose around Iran's neck, to make the American sanctions as extensive and as painful as can be, to inflate the alleged Iranian nuclear threat, to discourage normal contact as if Iran were a leper.

"Fear of 'different world' if Iran gets nuclear weapons. Embassy cables reveal how US relentlessly cajoles and bullies governments not to give succour to Tehran," read a Guardian of London headline on November 28. And we're told that Arab governments support the United States in this endeavor, that fear of Iran is widespread. John Kerry, the Democratic head of the Senate foreign relations committee, jumped on this bandwagon. "Things that I have heard from the mouths of King Abdullah [of Saudi Arabia] and Hosni Mubarak [Egyptian president] and others are now quite public," he said. He went on to say there was a "consensus on Iran". (Guardian, December 2) If all this is to have real meaning, the implication must be that the Arab people feel this way, and not just their dictator leaders. So let us look at some numbers.

The annual "Arab Public Opinion Poll", was conducted this past summer by Zogby International and the University of Maryland, in Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. A sample of the results:
"If Iran acquires nuclear weapons, which of the following is the likely outcome for the Middle East region?" More positive 57%, Would not matter 20, More negative 21.
Amongst those who believe that Iran seeks nuclear weapons, 70% believe that Iran has the right to its nuclear program.
"In a world where there is only one superpower, which of the following countries would you prefer to be that superpower?"
France 55%, China 16, Germany 13, Britain 9, Russia 8, United States 7, Pakistan 6.
"Name TWO countries that you think pose the biggest threat to you." Israel 88%, US 77, Algeria 10, Iran 10, UK 8, China 3, Syria 1.
"Which world leader (outside your own country) do you admire most?" (partial list) Recep Erdogan [Turkey] 20%, Hugo Chavez 13, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad 12, Hassan Nasrallah [Hezbollah/Lebanon] 9, Osama bin Laden 6, Saddam Hussein 2. (Barack Obama not mentioned) 1

Also in Wikileaks: " ... during a meeting of Iran's Supreme National Security Council (an) enraged Revolutionary Guard Chief of Staff Mohammed Ali Jafari allegedly got into a heated argument with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and slapped him in the face because the generally conservative president had, surprisingly, advocated freedom of the press."

How will the White House and Israeli propaganda machines and the US media deal with this? Their favorite whipping boy, President Ahmadinejad — oppressive dictator, stager of fraudulent elections, "Holocaust denier", nuclear threat to all that is decent and holy — a champion of press freedom? And how powerful can he be? It's not mentioned whether the man who slapped him suffered any punishment.

What will we learn next from Wikileaks? That Hugo Chávez doesn't really eat babies?

EveryDNS.net Status

[COWARDS!]

EveryDNS.net provided domain name system (DNS) services to the wikileaks.org domain name until 10PM EST, December 2, 2010, when such services were terminated. As with other users of the EveryDNS.net network, this service was provided for free. The termination of services was effected pursuant to, and in accordance with, the EveryDNS.net Acceptable Use Policy.

More specifically, the services were terminated for violation of the provision which states that "Member shall not interfere with another Member's use and enjoyment of the Service or another entity's use and enjoyment of similar services." The interference at issues arises from the fact that wikileaks.org has become the target of multiple distributed denial of service (DDOS) attacks. These attacks have, and future attacks would, threaten the stability of the EveryDNS.net infrastructure, which enables access to almost 500,000 other websites.

Thus, last night, at approximately 10PM EST, December 1, 2010 a 24 hour termination notification email was sent to the email address associated with the wikileaks.org account.

In addition to this email, notices were sent to Wikileaks via Twitter and the chat function available through the wikileaks.org website. Any downtime of the wikileaks.org website has resulted from its failure to use another hosted DNS service provider.

--------------------------------------------
Amazon Web Services:

There have been reports that a government inquiry prompted us not to serve WikiLeaks any longer. That is inaccurate.

There have also been reports that it was prompted by massive DDOS attacks. That too is inaccurate. There were indeed large-scale DDOS attacks, but they were successfully defended against.

Amazon Web Services (AWS) rents computer infrastructure on a self-service basis. AWS does not pre-screen its customers, but it does have terms of service that must be followed.

WikiLeaks was not following them. There were several parts they were violating. For example, our terms of service state that “you represent and warrant that you own or otherwise control all of the rights to the content… that use of the content you supply does not violate this policy and will not cause injury to any person or entity.”

It’s clear that WikiLeaks doesn’t own or otherwise control all the rights to this classified content. Further, it is not credible that the extraordinary volume of 250,000 classified documents that WikiLeaks is publishing could have been carefully redacted in such a way as to ensure that they weren’t putting innocent people in jeopardy.

Human rights organizations have in fact written to WikiLeaks asking them to exercise caution and not release the names or identities of human rights defenders who might be persecuted by their governments.

We’ve been running AWS for over four years and have hundreds of thousands of customers storing all kinds of data on AWS. Some of this data is controversial, and that’s perfectly fine. But, when companies or people go about securing and storing large quantities of data that isn’t rightfully theirs, and publishing this data without ensuring it won’t injure others, it’s a violation of our terms of service, and folks need to go operate elsewhere.

We look forward to continuing to serve our AWS customers and are excited about several new things we have coming your way in the next few months.

BOYCOTT Amazon Web Services!

----------------------------------------
As a temporary fix, you can find Wikileaks here - although some links don't work and it an older version than what was up. I'm sure in a few days they'll find a work-around. The real question is who launched the attack...ummmmm, let me guess.....:driver: The Pentagon yesterday bragged they could bring down Wikileaks whenever they cared to, but had not and hinted that Russia might have....:marchmellow:

N.B. While this Forum is smaller, I'd suggest those in charge think about what to do in a similar attack and loss of DNS server ahead of time. The Pentagon or NSA or others could bring this forum down anytime they wanted. Sadly, I believe we will see [or not see] much more of this very shortly.....I believe war on the Truth has been declared and on all those websites and persons who'd dare to brandish it as a weapon against he real villians in this 'piece' [read: Planet].

Ed Jewett Wrote:The US government has got away with telling lies for so long that it no longer hesitates to lie in the most blatant way. WikiLeaks released a US classified document signed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that explicitly orders US diplomats to spy on UN Security council officials and on the Secretary General of the United Nations. The cable is now in the public record. No one challenges its authenticity. Yet, today the Obama regime, precisely White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, declared that Hillary had never ordered or even asked US officials to spy on UN officials.

For the record, HERE is the Wikileaks document of Hilary's National HUMINT Collection Directive targeting the United Nations.

Despite our knowledge of history about the Goebbels big lie, people amazingly still believe the official "Big Whopper".

PS, I just checked and Cryptome's Wikileaks mirror is working okay.