• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest which gives you limited access.

    By joining you will gain full access to thousands of Videos, Pictures & Much More.

    Membership is absolutely FREE and registration is FAST & SIMPLE so please, Register Today and join one of the friendliest communities on the net!



    You must be at least 18 years old to legally access this forum.
  • Hello Guest,

    Thanks for remaining an active member on GayHeaven. We hope you've enjoyed the forum so far.

    Our records indicate that you have not posted on our forums in several weeks. Why not dismiss this notice & make your next post today by doing one of the following:
    • General Discussion Area - Engage in a conversation with other members.
    • Gay Picture Collections - Share any pictures you may have collected from blogs and other sites. Don't know how to post? Click HERE to visit our easy 3-steps tutorial for picture posting.
    • Show Yourself Off - Brave enough to post your own pictures or videos? Let us see, enjoy & comment on that for you.
    • Gay Clips - Start sharing hot video clips you may have. Don't know how to get started? Click HERE to view our detailed tutorial for video posting.
    As you can see there are a bunch of options mentioned in here and much more available for you to start participating today! Before making your first post, please don't forget to read the Forum Rules.

    Active and contributing members will earn special ranks. Click HERE to view the full list of ranks & privileges given to active members & how you can easily obtain them.

    Please do not flood the forum with "Thank you" posts. Instead, please use the "thanks button"

    We Hope you enjoy the forum & thanks for your efforts!
    The GayHeaven Team.
  • Dear GayHeaven users,

    We are happy to announce that we have successfully upgraded our forum to a new more reliable and overall better platform called XenForo.
    Any feedback is welcome and we hope you get to enjoy this new platform for years and years to come and, as always, happy posting!

    GH Team

WikiLeaks founder Assange the center of worldwide attention

darkjimster

V.I.P Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2008
Messages
573
Reaction score
43
Points
28
The government is not a "person" who deserves to have private secrets; a government doesn't have an emotional or personal life, what it has is a responsibility to be transparent to the citizens who have elected it into power because there is no democracy without transparency. The Iraq and Afghan war logs have rightly exposed the dishonest propaganda put out by the US government that their war against Afghanistan is righteous and that they are even capable of winning. The US created the taliban in the first place (in order to force the Soviet Union out of Afganistan), but neither the taliban nor Afganistan as a people or a nation were responsible for 9/11.

So who is behind 9/11 and terrorist cells i hope it's not aliens.
What country in the world is completely transparent.

Furthermore, "the taliban" today is not the same taliban it was ten years ago; and there is a wide resistance against the daily atrocities and humiliations that the US/Nato occupation is committing against the citizens of Afghanistan. The taliban are a local, indigenous movement; naturally they will continue fighting against this occupation, just as they forced out the Soviet Union. The US has no right to kill anyone else in Afganistan; all are innocent. The combined US/Nato presence in the middle east has murdered millions of people since 9/11; but apparently that isn't enough, because the lives of 3,000 Americans are just worth more than a few million poor peasants in the middle east.

The Taliban are what a peace movement now, give me a break.
So the US/NATO should pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan immediately in your opinion or what. Because then it really will turn into a blood-fest.

obama administrations should be prosecuted for their war crimes

So because the Obama administration inherited this war from the Bush administration they should be prosecuted for it
 

darkjimster

V.I.P Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2008
Messages
573
Reaction score
43
Points
28
In no way did i mean to insult anyone i'm against this war and the killing,torturing,raping of people i apologize if i did. I just don't think we should make Assange a saint just yet, that's all.
 

ritsuka

V.I.P Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2008
Messages
546
Reaction score
33
Points
28
So who is behind 9/11 and terrorist cells i hope it's not aliens.
What country in the world is completely transparent.

The Taliban are what a peace movement now, give me a break.
So the US/NATO should pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan immediately in your opinion or what. Because then it really will turn into a blood-fest.

So because the Obama administration inherited this war from the Bush administration they should be prosecuted for it

Following the standard 9/11 story, the hijackers were Saudi Arabians, and part of an organization which was not friends with the taliban, and not working on behalf of their government. Wikileaks wants to make all governments more transparent. The obama administration didn't just passively "inherit" this war; Obama chose to massively increase the number of troops in Afganistan, to ramp up the drone strikes against Pakistan, and enter Yemen, which in all cases has meant murdering civilians with arrogant impunity. The moment you inherit something is very short; once you do something with it, it's now yours and you are responsible for what you've done.

The taliban are part of a large umbrella of resistance fighters working against the foreign occupation; they are, coincidentally, not much better or worse than the US-installed corrupt puppet government in Khabul, packed with warlords and overseeing a police force that tortures, steals from, and kills regular people with abandon. The taliban is based around the largest ethnic group in Afghanistan, the Pashtuns, 40% of the population and residing primarily in remote villages. You'll never kill them all, or even be able to locate them. The civil war in Iraq is long finished, so it would not turn into a bloodbath, and the US is not concerned with that anyway.

As for Afganistan, polls of it's citizens show they would like a coalition government including the taliban; what they don't want is the US/NATO occupation breaking into their houses in the middle of the night to kill them and dissapear their young men, bomb their farmland, and otherwise do everything possible to make their lives worse. If the foreign occupation finally leaves after 10 years and doesn't arm/fund any one group over another, it will mean the violence will go down and the nation can try for stability on it's own terms. So yes, leaving now would be a great idea; while the US is at it, they can shut down the rest of their foreign military bases in places like Diego Garcia, Okinawa, the Philippines, and focus on taking care of their own instead of bombing people.
 
Last edited:

Daedalus

V.I.P Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2010
Messages
2,996
Reaction score
65
Points
0
Update:
Julian Assange faces 'man-hater prosecutor and media trial' in Sweden
http://anonym.to/?http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/feb/07/julian-assange-prosecutor
The prosecutor leading the rape and sexual assault case against Julian Assange is a "malicious" radical feminist who is "biased against men", a retired senior Swedish judge has told the hearing into Assange's extradition to Sweden.
Marianne Ny, who is seeking the Wikileaks founder's extradition, "has a rather biased view against men". "I honestly can't understand her attitude here. It looks malicious," [Brita Sundberg-Weitman] said.


Who will win?

Marianne Ny ("malicious" radical feminist?)
e164708516d56e4dddcf6d6c611fe4bd.jpg

vs.
Julian Assange (hottie and all round nice guy!)
8881e7c0e59dcfbff786561d2988ef47.jpg
 

ritsuka

V.I.P Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2008
Messages
546
Reaction score
33
Points
28
Lol; I'm definitely in for Julian. I've read that the level of charges he is accused of doesn't even warrant a prison sentence under normal Swedish law. But of course this has nothing to do with those standards; he is being harassed because two people later (much later, really) regretted having consensual sex with him, and all so as to stimy his political activities and pave the way for the obama administration to pounce. Many feminist organizations around the world insist that this case makes real rape victims look quite stupid, and also makes a mockery of the Swedish court system.
 
Last edited:
D

diklik

Guest
The government is not a "person" who deserves to have private secrets; a government doesn't have an emotional or personal life, what it has is a responsibility to be transparent to the citizens who have elected it into power because there is no democracy without transparency.

I would agree, but would add that the government has an additional responsibility to maintain certain things private that - if revealed - might lead to a security risk that could affect the lives and safety of the very citizens who elected it. I agonize personally over what should and should not be kept secret, and knowing the culture of non-transparency in the USA, it's difficult to determine where to draw the line of revelation and secrecy. However if Assange is not dealt with in some fashion for disclosing the stuff he published, that will open a Pandora's box that we cannot afford.
 

ritsuka

V.I.P Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2008
Messages
546
Reaction score
33
Points
28
Actually, no a government does not have any so-called "right" to commit war crimes, torture, illegal spying, manipulation of foreign legal systems, rendition, and etc. and then to keep this secret. They should simply not do these things at all if they fear embarrassment. There has been no proven national security risk as a result of the wikileaks releases, and even the pentagon has confirmed this (however, the illegal invasions/occupations of Iraq and Afganistan, the war crimes committed against Yemen and Pakistan do cause a daily national security risk that the citizens of the US live under.)

Julian Assange is a journalist; he has the right under freedom of the press to publish information given to him by his sources. If you're going to prosecute him for publishing, you have to do the same to the new york times and other newspapers involved. A "pandoras box" will not be opened unless the Obama administration begins to prosecute journalists; no one went to jail for releasing the Vietnam-Era pentagon papers, and it still took decades for a comparable release to happen. A pandoras box, however, has been opened by the obama administrations refusal to prosecute Bush era war criminals, and furthermore to continue those policies of murdering civilians in the name of the fraudulent war on terror. Too bad you don't agonize about that.

I would agree, but not at all.
 
Last edited:
D

diklik

Guest
Actually, no a government does not have any so-called "right" to commit war crimes, torture, illegal spying, manipulation of foreign legal systems, rendition, and etc. and then to keep this secret.
A pandoras box, however, has been opened by the obama administrations refusal to prosecute Bush era war criminals, and furthermore to continue those policies of murdering civilians in the name of the fraudulent war on terror. Too bad you don't agonize about that.

I would assert that you cannot know over what I agonize or ponder, merely by analyzing a specific posting. I guess that we will differ drastically in how we define what a war crime is and is not.
 

ritsuka

V.I.P Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2008
Messages
546
Reaction score
33
Points
28
Who will win?

Marianne Ny ("malicious" radical feminist?)
e164708516d56e4dddcf6d6c611fe4bd.jpg

vs.
Julian Assange (hottie and all round nice guy!)
8881e7c0e59dcfbff786561d2988ef47.jpg

And the winner turns out to be Marianne Ny, despite the irony that all rape trials in Sweden are closed, secret affairs and the Swedish government decided to leak a firestorm of tabloid sensationalism on Assange, he lost the first round. Depending on his appeals, he might be on his way to a prison cell in cold Sweden (they don't even have such a thing as bail in their legal system, so you wait in jail until they decide to try you.) He still isn't charged with anything.

More interesting, however, is this article, which takes a critical look of how The Guardian violated their agreement with Assange, encouraged people to steal his personal files, and are redacting cables to fit their own political line whilst publishing articles smearing him.

Daniel Domscheit-Berg has published a sort of book, a breathless “Assange in robe and slippers” tale of the kind usually written by former valets bearing a grudge. The author, a man whose only claim to fame is a short period as an employee of Assange, claims that Assange mistreated his cat and ate up all the candy. Julian took him up after ten years on the dole, and he immediately pocketed Julian’s lifework and ran away with it because… you guessed it, it would be safer in his hands. He delivered all Wikileaks emails and backups into the hands of the enemy and now he sits like a spider in his shiny new shop inviting trustful potential leakers into his parlour.

Another Wikileaks turncoat is young James Ball, a computer journalist in his early twenties who worked for a few months with Julian. The poor lad was offered ten months' steady pay by The Guardian and he accepted it gratefully. In neo-liberal England, there are so few chances for a young man to find employment that he will betray even his own father and mother to get at it. James carried off the entire personal correspondence of the Wikileaks team and walked it straight over to The Guardian.

Bill Keller confesses that before publishing, his “colleagues were invited to a windowless room at the State Department, where they encountered an unsmiling crowd. Representatives from the White House, the State Department, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the C.I.A., the Defense Intelligence Agency, the F.B.I. and the Pentagon gathered around a conference table. Others, who never identified themselves, lined the walls.” Keller reveals that US authorities actually vetted the NY Times “news” release and that corresponding orders were conveyed to the London outlet.

It was for this very reason that Julian Assange refused to give the stuff to the NY Times in the first place – because of their vetting procedure, and because of their ability “to make pretty good lemonade out of the bitterest lemons” in Keller’s words, to wit, to misinterpret data for their own advantage. It may have been naïve of Julian to believe that the Brits, in contrast, would play fair, but he could not have counted on two hired guns as mean, ruthless, and indiscriminate as any character lifted from the Threepenny Opera: David Leigh and Luke Harding.

These two young mercenaries separated themselves from the crowd by breaching their non-disclosure agreements and delivering the cables that were entrusted to them into the hands of the Americans. They followed up this triumph by cranking out another dull exposé on Wikileaks, which is now heavily promoted on the Guardian website. The book has the tone of Gollum reminiscing about the hobbit he strangled in order to get hold of the Ring: I deserve it. He just found it, and anyway he was just a stray homeless tramp who had no idea what it was worth.

These two young orcs cooked up more than hobbits. They are members of the Guardian gang that is responsible for cooking up the Wikileaks cables so that they are suitable for general consumption. But The Guardian adds more than a pinch of salt to their unwholesome pottage: they add misleading headlines (knowing that the majority of their readers do not read beyond the headlines), they censor, redact, and finally they frame the cables with the prose necessary to twist them to The Guardian’s political agenda...
http://anonym.to/http://www.counterpunch.org/shamir02252011.html

Read the full article, it's long, but here is another juicy snippet:

...Comparing redacted cables to the originals, it becomes clear that The Guardian is covering up for BP. In 07BAKU1268, The Guardian removed an assessment that “it was BP who was acting illegally”. In 08BAKU671, another anti-BP sentence was removed: “It is worth noting that within the AIOC Consortium there is a perception that operator BP grossly mishandled the rate of return issue, costing the Consortium billions of dollars over the life of the PSA and significantly emboldening SOCAR in its relationship with the Consortium.” Guardian readers will never learn that Azerbaijanis are angry because BP was colluding with GazProm and the Russians to undermine Azerbaijan's interests. In cable 07ASTANA919, The Guardian removed incriminating material showing that Western companies give bribes: “The internal investigation revealed that from 1998 to 2003, former employees caused the company to pay $5.2 million to agents with the intent that these payments would influence Kazakhstani officials to allow the company to obtain business.”

These are just a few of the hundreds of cables cooked up by Harding and Leigh. This is the reason they must destroy Julian: he has seen the originals and he can reveal their lies. In a recent interview, Julian said:

“Our agreement with The Guardian was that they would redact information for ‘Cablegate’, based on just one criterion, which was the protection of individuals from unfair incarceration, or any type of execution ... and for no other reasons. The Guardian has been redacting all sorts of things ... for very different reasons. For instance, The Guardian has been redacting claims about particular companies who are corrupt.”
 
Last edited:

Daedalus

V.I.P Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2010
Messages
2,996
Reaction score
65
Points
0
See also:
WikiLeaks' Assange applies to trademark his name
http://anonym.to/?http://www.thinq.co.uk/2011/2/28/wikileaks-assange-applies-trademark-his-name/

Assange seems to be learning lessons and planning ahead. He expects his reputation to be further smeared and undermined so he now has to actually trademark his name to try and somehow contain any adverse publicity.
The endgame I think is to successfully extradite him to the U.S.A. So why go about extraditing him to Sweden first? One possible explanation is that the British general public might resist or resent any pressure, demands or arm-twisting on the part of the U.S. In other words, Sweden is a smaller country and is therefore more likely to capitulate and eventually hand Assange over to the American authorities; in that case he might, potentially, be executed.
The death penalty seems a little outlandish or 'unthinkable'? Well it's a factor for sure. :worried: Consider also that some folks have been afraid to donate to or otherwise assist Wikileaks because of the perception that donators/supporters might be placed under suspicion, surveillance or investigation (e.g. the 'no fly list'). I am sure the newspapers that 'assisted' Assange are also afraid of the U.S. authorities. Can we really expect that a small, relatively weak country like Sweden will stand up to the U.S.? :thinking:
 
D

diklik

Guest
Can we really expect that a small, relatively weak country like Sweden will stand up to the U.S.? :thinking:

Doubtful. Setting aside any question as to the rightness or wrongness of Assange's actions and WikiLeaks in general; it would seem that Mr. Assange ran afoul of the most powerful country he could possibly have angered - and may be scheduled for some nasty treatment. The US courts have no concern about how a defendant (or an accused person) gets to stand before them. If kidnapping or political dealing is done, once the person in question stands on US soil, they are at the mercy of the courts. It's happened several times before, in DEA prosecutions.

Aside from his personal ethics, Julian Assange might be able to mitigate some of his legal nightmares if he chooses to 'aid' the USA by power of his website. Standing stiffnecked and proud is fine for the camera, but death (possibly) and certainly financial ruin are reality. Pleading for mercy and offering some sort of olive branch might help his case somewhat.
 

ritsuka

V.I.P Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2008
Messages
546
Reaction score
33
Points
28
Julian is certainly very smart, I'm sure he will be taking lots of measures to protect himself and his organization. The US government has done a great deal of harm, but just like Bradley Manning (who still refuses to give false evidence against Julian, as I've last heard) I'm sure he is going to stand strong and not destroy his dignity or credibility by giving in. His best bet seems to be if he could shake free of his staged trial in Sweden and find some country which would provide him with absolute asylum for his work. Iceland, with it's advancing legislation to protect whistle blowers, would be a possibility. But that possibility seems to become farther and farther away, especailly now that Sweden has made an official offer to give him a four year jail sentence, which would offer the US plenty of time to fluff up their case.

It is true that once the US has someone in the country, they are already assured of a guilty verdict, no matter how flimsy the evidence. This can be seen through the examples of Aafia Siddiqui, who was kidnapped by the US and tortured for years along with her children (one of whom died in a jail cell) before they 'released' her just to make an official arrest and make up some charges, and Omar Khadr, a 15 year old taken at Guantanamo to be tortured at 15 years of age because he allegedly fired at the soldiers invading his house, who put several bullets into his stomach. After all, you can't really expect fair legal treatment from people who assert the right to extra judicially assassinate their own citizens and hold people indefinitely without trial.
 
D

diklik

Guest
After all, you can't really expect fair legal treatment from people who assert the right to extra judicially assassinate their own citizens and hold people indefinitely without trial.

Yep. And once upon a time, things like due process and justice for all seemed to matter in the USA. Not born there, but worked there for a considerable time and hold dual citizenship. I used to feel very proud when their anthem was played, and would remove my hat (if worn) and hold my hand over my heart - very sincerely - since I prospered and did well there. Not any more.:no:
 

ritsuka

V.I.P Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2008
Messages
546
Reaction score
33
Points
28
Disturbing news about gay whistleblower Bradley Manning:

...On March 1, the military charged Manning with 22 additional offenses – on top of the original charges of improperly leaking classified information, disobeying an order and general misconduct. One of the new charges, “aiding the enemy,” is punishable by death. That means Manning faces the prospect of being executed or spending his life in prison for exposing the ugly truth about the U.S. empire.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration has decided to make Manning's pre-trial existence as torturous as possible, holding him in solitary confinement 23 hours a day since his arrest 10 months ago – treatment that the group Psychologists for Social Responsibility notes is, “at the very least, a form of cruel, unusual and inhumane treatment in violation of U.S. law.”

In addition to the horror of long-term solitary confinement, Manning is barred from exercising in his cell and is denied bed sheets and a pillow. And every five minutes, he must respond in the affirmative when asked by a guard if he's “okay.”

Presumably he lies.

And it gets worse. On his blog, Manning's military lawyer, Lt. Col. David Coombs, reveals that his client is now being stripped of his clothing at night, left naked under careful surveillance for seven hours. When the 5:00 am wake-up call comes, he's then “forced to stand naked at the front of the cell.”

If you point out that the emperor has no clothes, it seems the empire will make sure you have none either.

Officials at the Quantico Marine Base where Manning is being held claim the move is “not punitive” but rather a “precautionary measure” intended to prevent him from harming himself. Do they really think Manning is going to strangle himself with his underwear – and that he could do so while under 24-hour surveillance?

“Is this Quantico or Abu Ghraib?” asked Rep. Dennis Kucinich in a press release. Good question, congressman. Like the men imprisoned in former President Bush's Iraqi torture chamber, Manning is being abused and humiliated despite having not so much as been tried in a military tribunal, much less convicted of an actual crime.

Full Article:
http://anonym.to/http://www.counterpunch.org/benjamin03072011.html
 
Last edited:
D

diklik

Guest
Disturbing news about gay whistleblower Bradley Manning:

{ritsuka quotes an article, including the following phrase}:
"Meanwhile, the Obama administration has decided to make Manning's pre-trial existence as torturous as possible"

While I am neither condemning nor praising Obama and his Administration, it is entirely possible that Obama was unaware of the specifics of Mannings tortuous detention regime, and also possible that he never ordered such treatment or hinted that Manning should be dealt with in this horrendous fashion.

Military brass are known for never fully informing their superiors, allowing for deniability in both directions. This may have been fully intentional and then again, it may not have anything to do with orders or intentions of the Administration. Military officers are not always in tune with HQ, a fact of life in the military that becomes apparent when wrongdoing surfaces. Before formally accusing very high leadership with this abominable act of cruelty, I'd like to see a bit more investigative reportage; but first I'd like to see Manning released from that level of detention and treated in a humane and proper manner.
 

ryan_holtz

Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
139
Reaction score
6
Points
0
Just free Bradley Manning! He doesn't deserve what he is experiencing right now.
 
D

diklik

Guest
Just free Bradley Manning! He doesn't deserve what he is experiencing right now.

I hear you, but it's not that simple.

If he really did leak classified material, and disobey a direct order, he is guilty of crimes under military law. Manning is a member of the armed forces and signed/swore specific oaths of secrecy and confidentiality and loyalty. Regardless of good intent, he is under a set of stringent rules and regs so long as he is part of the military. Like it or hate it or anything in between, the armed forces of any country depend on the loyalty of their serving members to uphold the promises they make when they join. There have to be consequences for breaking one's solemn word, otherwise we're all in deep shit. It's not acceptable for military personnel to suddenly decide they don't like what they're ordered to do, and to publicly disclose classified info that could lead to security risks. It's not the rightness or wrongness of Manning's specific acts per se, but the principle of upholding one's oath which I assert here.
 

ritsuka

V.I.P Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2008
Messages
546
Reaction score
33
Points
28
Diklik, this is an extremely high profile case, and has been for some time. The Obama administration is not unaware of Bradley Manning an how he's being treated. People in congress and the press have talked about it for months now. Reportedly, the previous commander overseeing him was replaced, and yet the torture continues. To be honest, I really don't appreciate these mind games from supporters of Obama. He is responsible for his appointments and his administration. Bush was never given such a rhetorical free pass by the same people.

Bradley Manning should be released. The article I posted includes a long passage that talks about the fact that if he had committed war crimes instead of leaking evidence of them, he would not be in jail right now, he'd be free and treated as a hero. The US government an military are in violation of international law, and no one is being prosecuted for that. No one went to jail for torture under the Bush/Obama administrations, for the illegal war against Iraq, for the Nisoor Square Massacre...Just this past week, the US murdered several more schoolboys from a plane in Afganistan; a weak apology was given, an that is likely the end of the matter. Since politicians won't stop their murderous policies, it might be up to some truly brave military people to revolt; I know some units refused in the past to deploy to Iraq, and I think that is a great thing. They should revolt against this endless war instead of following orders to violate international law.
 
Top