FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Wikileaks





yagnyavalkya
Is is correct to hound Assange?
Is America showing double standards here?
Cheeldash
I'm not american but as far as i know US laws, it's incorrect. It's also useless, because arresting Assange won't stop wikileaks.
jmi256
Cheeldash wrote:
I'm not american but as far as i know US laws, it's incorrect. It's also useless, because arresting Assange won't stop wikileaks.

I actually support Wikileaks, but you do realize it wasn't the Americans who arrested him, right?
a1webshopping
I'm undecided on this one.

On the one hand I support freedom of speech and expression but if the documents are stolen????

Hmmmm.....
deanhills
Cheeldash wrote:
I'm not american but as far as i know US laws, it's incorrect. It's also useless, because arresting Assange won't stop wikileaks.

Jmi is right Cheeldash. Also, you probably know that the cause of the arrest had nothing to do with Wikileaks. Assange was arrested in the UK because of rape charges in Sweden. Sweden has an extradition treaty with the UK and asked that Assange be extradited to Sweden.
Bikerman
I suspect there is more to it than that. The charges seem very flimsy to me - and one of his defence team - Helena Kennedy(who is also a pretty staunch feminist and not one to take any rape allegation lightly) thinks the charges would not justify the arrest, let alone refusal of bail. You also have to remember that this accusation was made some time ago, rejected by the Chief Prosecutor in Stockholm and dropped. It was then, weeks later, put to a prosecutor in another city who issued the arrest warrant.

Finally, tonight he was granted bail and the Swedish Government first said they would not challenge. Bail is set at £200,000 payable up front. A lot of celebs get together and pledge the money within 24 hours - the Swedish government then immediately appeal the decision...stinky!
watersoul
I'm gonna shame myself and use a mainstream media source here, but the allegation isn't rape as most of the world deems it in law, Sweden has many specific sex laws and having unprotected sex without first agreeing that is one of them:

Quote:
She had snagged perhaps the world’s most famous activist, and after they arrived at her apartment they had sex. According to her testimony to police, Assange wore a condom. The following morning they made love again. This time he used no protection.

Jessica reportedly said later that she was upset that he had refused when she asked him to wear a condom.

Again there is scant evidence — in the public domain at least — of rape, sexual molestation or unlawful coercion.

What’s more, the following morning, on the Tuesday, the pair amicably went out to have breakfast together and, at her prompting, Assange promised to stay in touch. He then returned to Stockholm, with Jessica again paying for his ticket.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1336291/Wikileaks-Julian-Assanges-2-night-stands-spark-worldwide-hunt.html#ixzz187jkCzuI


This is as political as anything could ever be political, and again, so far there have been no allegations of 'rape' or 'attack', but having read this, I myself will not have unprotected sex with a Swede unless I have something in writing with a witness that says it's OK!
Bikerman
Yes, I've heard that version as well. Basically I ignored it because of the source - I don't believe anything in the daily mail until it is confirmed by a proper source - but it isn't a million miles from the hints that Kennedy made about the charges. Basically if Helena Kennedy has seen the charges and says she thinks they are suspect and not enough to charge an 'ordinary' man then I'm willing to take her word. The thought that she would say that if there was any hint of sexual abuse is contrary to everything I know about the woman - she would be the first to condemn him.

The simple fact is that we won't know much more until the trial - if there is one - and even then we may never get the full story in our lifetimes. I just think it is very smelly indeed.
watersoul
Bikerman wrote:
Yes, I've heard that version as well. Basically I ignored it because of the source - I don't believe anything in the daily mail until it is confirmed by a proper source - but it isn't a million miles from the hints that Kennedy made about the charges. Basically if Helena Kennedy has seen the charges and says she thinks they are suspect and not enough to charge an 'ordinary' man then I'm willing to take her word. The thought that she would say that if there was any hint of sexual abuse is contrary to everything I know about the woman - she would be the first to condemn him.

The simple fact is that we won't know much more until the trial - if there is one - and even then we may never get the full story in our lifetimes. I just think it is very smelly indeed.


Agreed about the daily mail, hence my earlier shame while quoting them! Embarassed

Also agreed about the Kennedy influence, he's got a pretty good QC there and as she's on his legal team, then it makes me think her interest goes a little further than simply the alleged crimes in Sweden.
Quote:
Helena Kennedy QC - Championing civil liberties, promoting human rights and campaigning for social justice.
www.helenakennedy.co.uk/
Dialogist
Clearly a witch-hunt transpired to get this man 'brought to justice' using the sexual charge to hang everything on, including him by wronged state power that has the power to evaporate a man's livelihood via amazon, paypal, mastercard etc. The "rape charge" (from my point of view) was similar to the "tax evasion" they got Al Capone with. It served as the hook to throw the entire book. The suggestion of 'double standards' you inferred was irrelevant to a government that 'must make an example' of anarchists or revolutionaries.

The only problem I have with Assange's deeds is one of national security. Sometimes governments need to have clandestine operations. I would amend that to, they always need them, actually. Akin to a man entering a conversation between two other men and saying to each of them, 'he called you this, and him? he called you this'. And both men looking at each other differently. I believe this is referred to in popular culture as "sh*t stirring" and it's not a very nice thing. Especially when the pot you're stirring has nuclear weapons and already mistrust each other. I would however, say in response to this that "stop doing it then" is equally as viable.

The final part of my misunderstanding is finding a man guilty of espionage for gaining access to classified information, that seemingly wasn't so private, which they intercepted from his site, also, not so private, and found him guilty of their actions, legally, when these documents didn't legally exist. I really wish I was this guy's defense lawyer sometimes. However, I would also like to not go to prison for that candy bar I stole when I was five.
deanhills
Dialogist wrote:
The final part of my misunderstanding is finding a man guilty of espionage for gaining access to classified information, that seemingly wasn't so private, which they intercepted from his site, also, not so private, and found him guilty of their actions, legally, when these documents didn't legally exist. I really wish I was this guy's defense lawyer sometimes. However, I would also like to not go to prison for that candy bar I stole when I was five.
Right, if the Government were clever, they would rather employ Assange on contract to help them with their intelligence efforts, as one would employ a hacker to catch out other hackers.
Dialogist
It would be the work of a cracker rather than a hacker. I know that sounds trivial but there is a big difference and it is important to outline it in this case because we are being asked a question about double standards as Assange basically stands accused of bearing unauthorized witness (cracking) to an action of clandestine illegal attempts to pervert the course of proceedings (hacking). So in a round about way I kind of agree:

Quote:
one would employ a hacker to catch out other hackers.


They unwittingly did, and still brought him to court for it anyway. Is it unfair to call Assange a "hacker". No, he is and freely pleaded guilty to it in the past. Although the wikileaks site only shows evidence of cracking (gaining access and not interacting) which, if you read his wikipedia page, has been his MO and number one "rule" since day one.

Quote:
"Don’t damage computer systems you break into (including crashing them); don’t change the information in those systems (except for altering logs to cover your tracks); and share information".


He's what's know in the l33t nerdy underworld as a "gray hat" or in this case, "a white hat" but his deeds concerning wikileaks can never be defined as a "black hat" and this arguably lessons his sentence due to motive and practical 'doing' of a 'crime'.

Is it fair to say that the governments are "hackers"? Well as I suggested in at the head of this post, they used secretive unauthorized methods via technology to attempt and in a lot of leaked documents, succeed in perverting the course of public functionality. Hmm? Also they used technology and nefarious methods to blackmail the likes of supporting benefactors such as Amazon, Mastercard and PayPal to not only deny service for his website, but also his funds, donations and otherwise legally earned living. Still a bit of a stretch to suggest that his accusers are the real hackers?

http://mashable.com/2010/11/28/wikileaks-ddos-attack/

Maybe not.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
Right, if the Government were clever, they would rather employ Assange on contract to help them with their intelligence efforts

Well, that depends on whether or not they can gain his loyalty...
If they can't make him loyal, putting him in charge of any intelligence efforts could easily give him unprecedented access for new leaks.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Right, if the Government were clever, they would rather employ Assange on contract to help them with their intelligence efforts

Well, that depends on whether or not they can gain his loyalty...
If they can't make him loyal, putting him in charge of any intelligence efforts could easily give him unprecedented access for new leaks.
Right! He could act as his own double agent. Now that would make for interesting reading .... Twisted Evil In retrospect, the other way round as well. The Government could set him up with false information.
liljp617
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Right, if the Government were clever, they would rather employ Assange on contract to help them with their intelligence efforts

Well, that depends on whether or not they can gain his loyalty...
If they can't make him loyal, putting him in charge of any intelligence efforts could easily give him unprecedented access for new leaks.


Something tells me he would trust no government, especially after these recent events Razz Even before, it's been made clear by his own testaments that the very core of his philosophy is distrust.
deanhills
liljp617 wrote:
Something tells me he would trust no government, especially after these recent events Razz Even before, it's been made clear by his own testaments that the very core of his philosophy is distrust.
Isn't that the basis of his research however? To unmask how Government goes about its business? Because he does not trust Government. Also, with all the materials he has managed to collect, that in its own right must have substantiated his lack of trust. Especially from the point of view that those doing business with Government cannot trust Government. Government's track record is very poor in the trust department. Also, if it is so easy for him to get Government employees to feed him information, it could easily happen that information about him could be fed to others outside Government.
liljp617
deanhills wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
Something tells me he would trust no government, especially after these recent events Razz Even before, it's been made clear by his own testaments that the very core of his philosophy is distrust.
Isn't that the basis of his research however? To unmask how Government goes about its business? Because he does not trust Government. Also, with all the materials he has managed to collect, that in its own right must have substantiated his lack of trust. Especially from the point of view that those doing business with Government cannot trust Government. Government's track record is very poor in the trust department. Also, if it is so easy for him to get Government employees to feed him information, it could easily happen that information about him could be fed to others outside Government.


I just meant that if you read through his "manifesto," and really analyze what he's saying, this isn't a game of cat and mouse to him. It's larger than just outing this or that government with embarrassing material. If his writings and his speech are accurate representations, I reckon it's simply impossible that any government could gain his trust.
ocalhoun
liljp617 wrote:
I reckon it's simply impossible that any government could gain his trust.

A healthy attitude.
Trusting individuals is fine if they earn it... But I would advise against ever trusting any kind of large group.
deanhills
liljp617 wrote:
I just meant that if you read through his "manifesto," and really analyze what he's saying, this isn't a game of cat and mouse to him. It's larger than just outing this or that government with embarrassing material. If his writings and his speech are accurate representations, I reckon it's simply impossible that any government could gain his trust.
Agreed. It most certainly is serious business for him, and one I completely support. From two points of view. First of all, to unmask what needs to be unmasked, and secondly, to make for a more safe and secure Government, as every time when information is leaked, the Government gets to learn where its weak spots are, and hopefully can correct those.
Bikerman
In his own words:
Dialogist
Bikerman wrote:
In his own words:


I'm not sure if this "contributions" thing is an attempt to lessen his 'hacker' convictions or an attempt to spread the blame out nice and evenly, perhaps inducting a bigger worldwide international network of support for his cause. Perhaps its true. The idea of him sat there on his computer hacking into every major governments top secret information always seemed like utter nonsense to me (regardless of how good he is) so I always thought that he a) either had a deep throat or b) was some kind of diversionary patsy put in place to drop some really sensitive information and then some not-so-sensitive information. For example, Ahmadinejad secretly realigns nuclear weapons towards the western deploys in one cable and Obama adds rogaine to his shopping list in the next. Maybe I'm just paranoid. However, the credibility of 'the sources' who supply this info who they 'instantly destroy all record of', has gone down in my approximation considerably. Is he getting this from a twitter feed? From the local pub? I mean, 'they are very credible, you'll just have to take my word for it' is only supported by the fact that he's been blacklisted and gunned for. Perhaps with more dangerous, powerful and influential confidants (with access to the said info) letting him carry the can anyway. So either way, he's still a patsy? I mean in exposing the world's governments from two-faced sources from all the world's governments, then who to trust? The hacker/rapist or the government double agent misinformation tactics? Are they really using this guy? And letting him think he's Che Guevara or something? It's embarrassing.
deanhills
@Dialogist. The world always needs its heros, and for now it seems to be Assange. Fighting against a whole bunch of meanies. Very Happy I'm sorry he had to get into trouble with the criminal charges in Sweden as I like the Wikileaks cause. It at least keeps the Government on its toes and helps with the check and balances of excesses of Government actions. I hope that his current legal woes won't distract him from his Wikileaks projects and wonder whether this may be a few steps backwards for the organization. I also wonder if he had just gone to Sweden and stood trial, whether the case would not have been thrown out. Anyway, I don't know, and time will probably tell what is to happen. Right now he seems to be a fugitive of a kind, unwelcome in the United States, and when he thinks of traveling he probably will always have to check whether he will be legally safe in the country of destination. Hopefully he has a very savvy team of lawyers to advise him.
Dialogist
As far as his personal character goes, he's more of a lesser of two evils villain rather than a super hero to me. His characteristics are not what bothers me though. It doesn't really have an effect on what we are being cooked up with here and asked to eat by the media.

First of all, if these government are as corrupt as he'd like us to believe (and to be fair, anyone who's read Chomsky, Zinn, Giroux, Thomp, Schneuer, Krugman or even Orwell knows he's hardly even scratching the surface with his expose-lite, sugar free whistle blowing) then we're also asked to believe he's either wrong or the source is wrong or he is wrong. So his contention is government corruption which he offers evidence of. They haven't denied it and they seem pretty determined to get him dealt with. In other words, even to the reader's digest, Time magazine's subscriber, the government has been caught with their hands in the cookie jar. So the government is corrupt. Fine. And in his upcoming sensational new leaks: The pope is a catholic and bears defecate in the woods.

So if the government is corrupt and by admitting that he receives contributions of top secret sensitive information from undisclosed sources, Mr Assange is also inferring (pretty much 'admitting' if you know anything about computer or state security) that he is receiving this information from the only people who have access to it (ie: The government, government employees, government & intelligence operatives and trusted individuals). This kind of stuff is way beyond the realm of Matthew Broderick in War Games.

So the government is corrupt and in an effort to expose this double dealing, Assange is showing us information begotten from the same source and asking us to a) believe him, b) believe that it is this easy to put the government on blast and c) expect not to doubt that this information of and from the deceitful is not deceitful too.

You can do the math if you want?

Here's my theory: Ambitious rival politicians pretty high up in the government (McCain etc) are using Assange as kind of 16th Century Florentine hole-in-the-city-wall informant's drop-box to mud sling and defame either. This is why some of it is apparently true. Others are using him as sandbox to play games with misinformation nefariously about other governments (Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong-il, etc) and notice how Putin and Chavez are smart enough to realize this and have shrewdly fired back under the guise of 'supporting his actions'. Overall, although I don't believe he thinks he's doing a 'good thing' (my view is that he's a pastiche and a fraud and an imposter revolutionary who is seeking attention and self promotion in the atypical script kiddie "pwn3d and by l33t_h4xor_666" website defacement notice). I do think he wants us to think he is the lone ranger. Unfortunately some of us know a great deal more than he and they think we do about both players in this greek tragedy and some of us therefore know for a fact he's being used as a patsy and only being allowed to continue with this charade because somebody with a lot of power is getting a lot of milage out of him and his website. Alternatively, much like if tried to fly his private jet over Area 51, he wouldn't have been made famous, he'd have been made dead. No questions asked, no story to expose and nobody to expose it.
watersoul
Dialogist wrote:
Unfortunately some of us know a great deal more than he and they think we do about both players in this greek tragedy and some of us therefore know for a fact he's being used as a patsy and only being allowed to continue with this charade because somebody with a lot of power is getting a lot of milage out of him and his website.


Interesting comments Dialogist, I cannot say I disagree with the main thrust of it, but I have to admit I'm very curious about the sources of the folk who know 'for a fact' he's being used as a patsy. My own research for evidence in this matter has appeared fruitless so far. Perhaps I'm not as fortunate or skillful as some other investigative individuals? Rolling Eyes
Dialogist
watersoul wrote:
I'm very curious about the sources of the folk who know 'for a fact' he's being used as a patsy.


It's basic process of elimination. Well, not even that. It's every single avenue possible. There is absolutely no way he could be having this stuff contributed and not be a patsy. So it's a fact that he is one. You can try to find a way that gets him out of it but you'll probably fail after that admission.

He's just said in the video posted above that he receives contributions to the whistle blowing. Now, if this isn't information that he himself cannot access via hacking (and we agree that he'd need to be the world's greatest hacker to get the majority of this stuff right?) then that implies that there's either a greater hacker than he, (ie: on a par with that "I'm a mac" dude from Die Hard 4, hacking satellites in space to break cell phones which don't use them and downloading 70 terabytes on a laptop in a moving van wirelessly in the timeframe of about 20 minutes etc) OR, he has somebody on the inside. I think the latter option is about as close to a fact as facts get at this point. He would need somebody who is either in the government or has direct connections to the target of his finger pointing.

So whether he is innocently trying to expose double dealing, is besides the point in respects to...

Example 1) He is receiving sensitive information that certain parties in the government wish to be revealed about other certain parties in the government and this would mean that he is in fact, a patsy.

Example 2) He is receiving sensitive information that certain parties in the government wish to be revealed about other governments and this would mean that he is in fact, a patsy.

I can't think of any more motives of how or why he'd be receiving this information from the government about governments which seem make itself look bad. Oh, there is the government member with a new found conscience road, but I think its also a fact that traveling down that one would be somewhat of a primrose path. ie: There's slim chance. And even if that was the case, he'd still be receiving deceitful whistle-blows on whistle-blowers from the same source. And yep...still a fact that he'd still be patsy.

Where's Jack Ruby at?
watersoul
Very interesting theories, which may (or may not be) correct...knowing something for a fact is a different kettle of fish though.
I look forward to some stronger evidence in future posts Wink
Dialogist
watersoul wrote:
I look forward to some stronger evidence in future posts


Assange freely admits that he destroys it, only adding to it.

My findings are basic reductionism. It may be fallacious but no more or less than other "facts" that we currently hold as "fact". People are convicted to death row from the same logic. The difference between this is and other forms of it in both science and law, is that mine leaves no room for any alternative for this not being a fact. And I gathered all my workings from information he freely submitted.
ocalhoun
Dialogist wrote:
It may be fallacious but no more or less than other "facts" that we currently hold as "fact".

The veracity of 'facts' is not relative.
deanhills
Dialogist wrote:
Example 1) He is receiving sensitive information that certain parties in the government wish to be revealed about other certain parties in the government and this would mean that he is in fact, a patsy.
OK. I will use the same reductionism as you have used as I can't believe he is a patsy.

He is a rebel. When the Swedish Public Prosecutor charged him with sexual misconduct, he rejected it completely and in no uncertain terms counter-charged the Swedish Government through the media with doing this because of Wikileaks etc. etc. He sounds like someone who only reports to himself and no one else. If he had been a patsy, he would have kept a very low profile. He would have had assistance from the US Government to squash the criminal charges, if indeed there would have been any. Instead his behaviour shows someone who is very passionate, set on principle, is defiant, does not really like Government that much, specifically the US Government and Military and is showing the proverbial finger at them all of the time.

Also, Government is notorious for bungling things, and I would always expect a Government or ex Government employee leaking something. Wanting to get even, or find some kind of justice.
Dialogist
@deanhills, he is (in my opinion) a true patsy. ie: He doesn't know he is or maybe he does but is powerless to it and is seeking something out of it. Either way, I never suggested that he was working for or with the government (to the best of his will/intent/knowledge).

@ocalhoun What's the veracity of the theory of relativity these days? Is it relative to fact?
deanhills
Dialogist wrote:
@deanhills, he is (in my opinion) a true patsy. ie: He doesn't know he is or maybe he does but is powerless to it and is seeking something out of it. Either way, I never suggested that he was working for or with the government (to the best of his will/intent/knowledge).
OK. I got it Dialogist. And to be truthful, I don't think I really understood what you meant by a patsy. Is it possible to explain exactly what a patsy is? Embarassed
Dialogist
Patsy has various connotations but it generally just means "Fall guy" (usually somebody manipulated to be a fall guy).

Dennise
Assange is just another sensationalist doing it for notoriety and money.

The media used to have ethical and moral common sense and knew where to draw the line. No more.

Assange couldn't care less if he reveals and destroys privacy and confidence that must exist in this human world with all its frailties. This guy wouldn't think twice about revealing his grandmother's sex life if he thought it wold further his agenda or make money.
deanhills
Dennise wrote:
Assange is just another sensationalist doing it for notoriety and money.

The media used to have ethical and moral common sense and knew where to draw the line. No more.

Assange couldn't care less if he reveals and destroys privacy and confidence that must exist in this human world with all its frailties. This guy wouldn't think twice about revealing his grandmother's sex life if he thought it wold further his agenda or make money.
I don't agree. If that were the case, people would not have taken Wikileaks that seriously. They would not have taken Assange seriously. Assange would have been extradited by the UK to Sweden in one shot without a blink of the eye. Or he would have been detained in Sweden. The world is taking him seriously. Assange has taken some awesome risks in order to make Wikileaks happen. And I guess the kind of personality that provides the courage and stubbornness to make Wikileaks work, unfortunately has a negative side of not being careful or discreet when he was socializing with groupies in Sweden.
Dialogist
deanhills wrote:
Assange has taken some awesome risks in order to make Wikileaks happen.


While this is true and he seems to have an unshaken determination, some of the things Dennise says are true and others are easily arrived at (I know because I share those beliefs). The concern is one of a personal notoriety in lieu of the responsibility of the possible effect of his actions. Maybe he has spoken passionately about ethics, principals and doing what is right - but I must have missed it. All I have seen is camera flashes.
catscratches
Dennise wrote:
The media used to have ethical and moral common sense and knew where to draw the line. No more.
I don't know for what time period you speak of here, but it can't be for the last 80 years. I'm pretty sure there were plentiful instances of immorality in media before as well, I'm just not very good at history (or things might just slip my mind).

Edit: Racism in all kinds of media goes back pretty damn long.
ocalhoun
catscratches wrote:
Dennise wrote:
The media used to have ethical and moral common sense and knew where to draw the line. No more.
I don't know for what time period you speak of here,

Before the telegraph?
(ie before news became a commodity...)
liljp617
Dennise wrote:
Assange is just another sensationalist doing it for notoriety and money.

The media used to have ethical and moral common sense and knew where to draw the line. No more.

Assange couldn't care less if he reveals and destroys privacy and confidence that must exist in this human world with all its frailties. This guy wouldn't think twice about revealing his grandmother's sex life if he thought it wold further his agenda or make money.


What do you mean by "the media" and how far back does "used to" take us? The media, especially when it comes to politics, is hardly different from how it was when Thomas Jefferson ran for President...in fact, it my be more tame now than it was then.
deanhills
Dialogist wrote:
All I have seen is camera flashes.
But aren't those leaks of the camera flashing variety anyway? And when that happens people generally like to associate a human face with it, and Assange's just happened to be there. And then he became famous?

I may be wrong, as I hardly know the guy, but I would imagine that in his kind of business of wheeling and dealing with people who want to go public with their "secrets", that Assange could have done quite well with not having any of this media stuff all around him. His business is of the kind that a low profile would have suited Wikileaks much better?
ocalhoun
liljp617 wrote:

What do you mean by "the media" and how far back does "used to" take us? The media, especially when it comes to politics, is hardly different from how it was when Thomas Jefferson ran for President...in fact, it my be more tame now than it was then.

More biased, certainly, but also more 'intelligent'.

They would actually write long appeals to reason, talking about actual political ideals, positions, and theories. The bias could be overcome by simply reading the other side's position, and making up your mind for yourself.

(Personally, I would prefer open media biases rather than today's ubiquitous pretensions of objectivity.)
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
liljp617 wrote:

What do you mean by "the media" and how far back does "used to" take us? The media, especially when it comes to politics, is hardly different from how it was when Thomas Jefferson ran for President...in fact, it my be more tame now than it was then.

More biased, certainly, but also more 'intelligent'.
I would go as far as saying, more manipulative. As the business of the media at that time was not as strategized as it is now. These days people are taking courses at University and it is part of their jobs to implement strategies and editorial policies with regard to bias towards one or the other political groups.
Fishing10
I agree with you Deanhills. Cool
sudipbanerjee
what are published in wikileaks are all these true?
Related topics
Wikileaks.... US government blocking free speach
Collateral Murder: Pentagon vs. WikiLeaks
Presidential Assasination Program
How could these leaks have happened?
Wonder how far WikiLeaks is from prosecution?
Wikileaks documents Bush's war disasters
Wikileaks founder sought for rape in Sweden?
New Wikileaks releases
More Wikileaks risking US Russia relations?
Wikileaks Soon To be Targeting Corporate America?
Hackers Strike Back to Support WikiLeaks
Do you think wikileaks is a terrorist?
Ethics of wikileaks.
EX Swiss Banker leaks Banking info to Wikileaks ....
the great fear of almost every person
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.