Michael Moore and Ron Paul agree on something

[MedStudent 56]

Both defend Wikileaks in a similar fashion.

 

Ron Paul:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDp1izlMQT0&feature=player_embedded

 

Moore:

 

Yesterday, in the Westminster Magistrates Court in London, the lawyers for WikiLeaks co-founder Julian Assange presented to the judge a document from me stating that I have put up $20,000 of my own money to help bail Mr. Assange out of jail.

 

Furthermore, I am publicly offering the assistance of my website, my servers, my domain names and anything else I can do to keep WikiLeaks alive and thriving as it continues its work to expose the crimes that were concocted in secret and carried out in our name and with our tax dollars.

 

We were taken to war in Iraq on a lie. Hundreds of thousands are now dead. Just imagine if the men who planned this war crime back in 2002 had had a WikiLeaks to deal with. They might not have been able to pull it off. The only reason they thought they could get away with it was because they had a guaranteed cloak of secrecy. That guarantee has now been ripped from them, and I hope they are never able to operate in secret again.

 

So why is WikiLeaks, after performing such an important public service, under such vicious attack? Because they have outed and embarrassed those who have covered up the truth. The assault on them has been over the top:

 

- Sen. Joe Lieberman says WikiLeaks "has violated the Espionage Act."

 

- The New Yorker's George Packer calls Assange "super-secretive, thin-skinned, [and] megalomaniacal."

 

- Sarah Palin claims he's "an anti-American operative with blood on his hands" whom we should pursue "with the same urgency we pursue al Qaeda and Taliban leaders."

 

- Democrat Bob Beckel (Walter Mondale's 1984 campaign manager) said about Assange on Fox: "A dead man can't leak stuff ... there's only one way to do it: illegally shoot the son of a ######."

 

- Republican Mary Matalin

"he's a psychopath, a sociopath ... He's a terrorist."

 

- Rep. Peter A. King calls WikiLeaks a "terrorist organization."

 

And indeed they are! They exist to terrorize the liars and warmongers who have brought ruin to our nation and to others. Perhaps the next war won't be so easy because the tables have been turned -- and now it's Big Brother who's being watched ... by us!

 

WikiLeaks deserves our thanks for shining a huge spotlight on all this. But some in the corporate-owned press have dismissed the importance of WikiLeaks ("they've released little that's new!") or have painted them as simple anarchists ("WikiLeaks just releases everything without any editorial control!"). WikiLeaks exists, in part, because the mainstream media has failed to live up to its responsibility. The corporate owners have decimated newsrooms, making it impossible for good journalists to do their job. There's no time or money anymore for investigative journalism. Simply put, investors don't want those stories exposed. They like their secrets kept ... as secrets.

 

I ask you to imagine how much different our world would be if WikiLeaks had existed 10 years ago. Take a look at this photo. That's Mr. Bush about to be handed a "secret" document on August 6th, 2001. Its heading read: "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US." And on those pages it said the FBI had discovered "patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings." Mr. Bush decided to ignore it and went fishing for the next four weeks.

 

But if that document had been leaked, how would you or I have reacted? What would Congress or the FAA have done? Was there not a greater chance that someone, somewhere would have done something if all of us knew about bin Laden's impending attack using hijacked planes?

 

But back then only a few people had access to that document. Because the secret was kept, a flight school instructor in San Diego who noticed that two Saudi students took no interest in takeoffs or landings, did nothing. Had he read about the bin Laden threat in the paper, might he have called the FBI? (Please read this essay by former FBI Agent Coleen Rowley, Time's 2002 co-Person of the Year, about her belief that had WikiLeaks been around in 2001, 9/11 might have been prevented.)

 

Or what if the public in 2003 had been able to read "secret" memos from ###### Cheney as he pressured the CIA to give him the "facts" he wanted in order to build his false case for war? If a WikiLeaks had revealed at that time that there were, in fact, no weapons of mass destruction, do you think that the war would have been launched -- or rather, wouldn't there have been calls for Cheney's arrest?

 

Openness, transparency -- these are among the few weapons the citizenry has to protect itself from the powerful and the corrupt. What if within days of August 4th, 1964 -- after the Pentagon had made up the lie that our ship was attacked by the North Vietnamese in the Gulf of Tonkin -- there had been a WikiLeaks to tell the American people that the whole thing was made up? I guess 58,000 of our soldiers (and 2 million Vietnamese) might be alive today.

 

Instead, secrets killed them.

 

For those of you who think it's wrong to support Julian Assange because of the sexual assault allegations he's being held for, all I ask is that you not be naive about how the government works when it decides to go after its prey. Please -- never, ever believe the "official story." And regardless of Assange's guilt or innocence (see the strange nature of the allegations here), this man has the right to have bail posted and to defend himself. I have joined with filmmakers Ken Loach and John Pilger and writer Jemima Khan in putting up the bail money -- and we hope the judge will accept this and grant his release today.

 

Might WikiLeaks cause some unintended harm to diplomatic negotiations and U.S. interests around the world? Perhaps. But that's the price you pay when you and your government take us into a war based on a lie. Your punishment for misbehaving is that someone has to turn on all the lights in the room so that we can see what you're up to. You simply can't be trusted. So every cable, every email you write is now fair game. Sorry, but you brought this upon yourself. No one can hide from the truth now. No one can plot the next Big Lie if they know that they might be exposed.

 

And that is the best thing that WikiLeaks has done. WikiLeaks, God bless them, will save lives as a result of their actions. And any of you who join me in supporting them are committing a true act of patriotism. Period.

 

I stand today in absentia with Julian Assange in London and I ask the judge to grant him his release. I am willing to guarantee his return to court with the bail money I have wired to said court. I will not allow this injustice to continue unchallenged.

 

P.S. You can read the statement I filed today in the London court here.

 

P.P.S. If you're reading this in London, please go support Julian Assange and WikiLeaks at a demonstration at 1 PM today, Tuesday the 14th, in front of the Westminster court.

 

http://www.huffingto...y_b_796319.html

[IMMensaMind 462]

Moore and Paul agree on most of Paul's foreign policy too - which is to say that they agree upon nothing.

[KSB2424 3,148]

If WikiLeaks is only about uncovering lies and exposing fraud then why did they post this on their website?

 

WASHINGTON – In a disclosure of some of the most sensitive information revealed yet by WikiLeaks, the website has released a secret cable listing sites worldwide that the U.S. considers critical to its national security. The locations cited in the diplomatic cable from U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton range from undersea communications lines to suppliers of food, medicine and manufacturing materials.

 

The Pentagon declined to comment Monday on the details of what it called "stolen" documents containing classified information. But a spokesman, Col. David Lapan, called the disclosure "damaging" and said it gives valuable information to the country's adversaries. "This is one of many reasons why we believe Wikileaks' actions are irresponsible and dangerous," Lapan said. WikiLeaks released the 2009 Clinton cable on Sunday. In the message, marked "secret," Clinton asked U.S. diplomatic posts to help update a list of sites around the world "which, if destroyed, disrupted or exploited, would likely have an immediate and deleterious effect on the United States."

 

The list was considered so confidential, the posts were advised to come up with it on their own: "Posts are not/not being asked to consult with host governments in respect to this request," Clinton wrote.Attached to Clinton's message was a rundown of sites included in the 2008 "Critical Foreign Dependencies Initiative" list. Some of the sites, such as border crossings, hydroelectric dams and shipping lanes, could hardly be considered secret. But other locations, such as mines, manufacturers of components used in weapons systems, and vaccine and antivenom factories, likely were not widely known. The Associated Press has decided against publishing their names due to the sensitive nature of the information.

 

The release came as WikiLeaks faced more pressure to end its release of secret U.S. diplomatic cables, which started last week.

The Swiss postal system on Monday shut down a bank account held by WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, leaving him and his website with few options left for raising money. Meanwhile, WikiLeaks' Swedish servers again came under suspected attack.Also Monday, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder again condemned the leaks and said the espionage act is just one of the laws the U.S. could use to prosecute those involved in the WikiLeaks releases.

 

Holder declined to say which other laws might come into play. Possibilities include charges such as the theft of government property or receipt of stolen government property.

 

I'll hang up and listen.

[IMMensaMind 462]

[crickets]What? No defense of Wikileaks now?[/crickets]

 

Also: the person that wrote that HuffingtonPuffington blogpost is a loon.

[MDC 7,505]

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder again condemned the leaks and said the espionage act is just one of the laws the U.S. could use to prosecute those involved in the WikiLeaks releases.

 

Holder declined to say which other laws might come into play. Possibilities include charges such as the theft of government property or receipt of stolen government property.

 

If the attorney general couild legitimately charge Assange with the espionage act or charge him with theft of gov't property or receipt of stolen gov't property, why doesn't he do that? Right now it looks like they're holding him up on bogus rape charges and attacking him financially because they have no serious legal recourse.

[SUXBNME 1,519]

I'm sure that they both agree that Michael Moore is a fat, ugly mocumentary err "documentary" producer from Michigan that uses propaganda to brainwash Americans into thinking their country is the worst place to live on Earth.

Michael Moore is liberal, anitAmerican, an opportunist and dishonest.

He thinks that most Americans are stupid and will believe the propagandist BS he produces. The irony is that he is a college flunkie and was expelled from a major Michigan University for plaigarism. The man has no credibility whatsoever, but wants us to believe he is a truth detector.

 

(Stoled from urban dictionary)