Wikileaks - India

[Husky]

Guessing that this would have been part of the recent Wiki-leak (from previous post)...



http://rajeev2004.blogspot.com/2011/09/i...adley.html

Saturday, September 03, 2011

Indian Govt Wasn't Serious on Headley Extradition



Now that the entire WikiLeaks repository has been exposed to the public, further perusals of US diplomatic cables have exposed that the Indian govt wasn't really serious about extraditing 26/11 accused David Headley. M K Narayanan is quoted as saying to US officials that his govt merely needed to keep up a false front for the public's consumption, and that Headley's extradition was not being sought.



Will Kasab ever hang? Or Afzal Guru?

[color="#800080"](*Who* is expected to hang Kasab or Mohammed Afzal? The christogovt? Not likely. They need the islamic vote and jihadism to undermine the Hindus - the way the christobrits used it to keep the Hindus' search for autonomy in check. How else - without the leverage of Indian islam - can the minority christians hope to rule India - and christian rule is a prerequisite for India-for-christ.

Consider the clear message the christogovt is sending to islam and jihad in India and the entire subcontinent: "Jihad away. We'll make sure you get away with it scottfree. Remember who to vote for and who to aim your jihad at.")[/color]



Posted by san at 9/03/2011 09:48:00 PM 0 comments Links to this post

Labels: mumbai, terrorism, usa, wikileaks

Reactions

The above links to:



timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/India-was-never-serious-about-Headley-extradition/articleshow/9853260.cms

(With 140 odd comments)

'India was never serious about Headley extradition'

TNN | Sep 4, 2011, 01.10AM IST



NEW DELHI: In December 2009, national security adviser M K Narayanan had told then US ambassador to India Timothy Roemer that New Delhi's demand for extraditing Pakistani-American terrorist David Coleman Headley was mere posturing to mislead the Indian public, and the government was not seeking his extradition "at this time".



A secret cable - which is part of the latest tranche of diplomatic correspondence released by the whistleblowing website WikiLeaks - sent a day after Narayanan's telephonic conversation with Roemer on December 16, 2009 said the Indian government would be "in the hot seat if it were seen as relinquishing extradition" of the Lashkar-e-Taiba operative.



Narayanan said that it was "difficult not to be seen making the effort". He was responding to a demand by Roemer that India should refrain from requesting Headley's extradition.



Roemer explained that US hopes to secure crucial information from Headley, but the latter may clam up because of India's insistence that he be extradited to them. "He (Roemer) explained that the threat of extradition to India could cause Headley's cooperation to dry up, but that allowing the US judicial process to unfold or securing a plea agreement that both reflects his overall culpability and ensures his continued cooperation would maximize our ability to obtain further information from Headley," the cable said.



Headley had pleaded guilty to all charges in a Chicago court last year, and is now awaiting sentence.The extradition treaty's prohibition on an individual being extradited to face trial for the same conduct or offence might be an obstacle, the envoy had told Narayanan. "If Headley were convicted, an extradition request by India would not be considered until his sentence in the United States was fully served, which could be decades, if ever," he had said.



Roemer also complained about the leakage of information on the Headley case provided by the US authorities. "He stressed that the Indian government's discretion in protecting this sensitive information was of critical importance, calling attention to recent media speculation containing details of the FBI briefing sourced to unnamed Indian government officials, which could compromise our ability to obtain further cooperation and information from Headley," the cable added.



Narayanan had dismissed media reports as "preposterous".

[sumishi]

[size="3"][quote name='Husky' date='04 September 2011 - 02:05 PM' timestamp='1315124826' post='112714']

Guessing that this would have been part of the recent Wiki-leak (from previous post)...

...

...Roemer explained that US hopes to secure crucial information from Headley, but the latter may clam up because of India's insistence that he be extradited to them. "He (Roemer) explained that the threat of extradition to India could cause Headley's cooperation to dry up, but that allowing the US judicial process to unfold or securing a plea agreement that both reflects his overall culpability and ensures his continued cooperation would maximize our ability to obtain further information from Headley," the cable said....

[/quote]



Ooooo..! As if threat of extradition would have shut up Headley, and the US authorities would have been left twiddling their fingers 'cause Headly ain't cooperating[/size].



[size="3"]No Siree! Headly is a Central Undy-lligence Agency's operative, and his extradition to India could have led to the exposure of the Central Undy-lligence Agency's behind the scenes string pulling in the terrorist attack on India.



[/size]"[size="3"]...Headley's cooperation to dry up..." my arse!! Unkil uses waterboarding and what not torture techniques. Surely twiddling fingers is not one of 'em.[/size]

[Guest]

Can't trust Narayanan, and worst traitors one can find.

Same with Pak originated terrorism. Congress Government is just doing look other way.

[Guest]

wiki leaks links are not working.

Any links to working site?

[ravish]

[size="4"][/size]There is no pint in taking whatever is coming out in these cables to be gospel truth. Many of the diplomats while sending dispatches to the home government, often present their own views and understanding of a particular issue. However, in doing so some diplomats sound it as if it is the view of some important functionary of the foreign government .

So there is no point in jumping to conclusions on anything based solely on what has been written in these diplomatic dispatches. In some cases it may be possible that the person to whom the statement is attributed may not have said anything on that particular issue. While sending the dispatch the author never thought that his writings will one day come out on the electronic or print media. So there was no fear of any contradiction or other fall out.

[dhu]

[url="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Congress-panders-to-Islamists-Digvijay-told-US-envoys/articleshow/9877034.cms"]Congress panders to Islamists, Digvijay told US envoys[/url]



[url="http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-09-04/india/30112651_1_cable-notes-development-programmes-congress-leader-rahul-gandhi"]Reclusive Rahul opened up to US diplomats[/url]

[Husky]

^

Congress panders to Islamists, Digvijay told US envoys



Reclusive Rahul opened up to US diplomats

What, cryptochristist Digvijay Singh is not pleased with the means adopted by the (obviously) more foresighted cryptochristist KKKangress to subdue the Hindoos?





Wanted this in my sig, but it's too long. It belongs everywhere especially in the KKKangress and KKKristianism threads.

(Marcus Tullius) [color="#0000FF"]Cicero:

"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague."[/color]

If I'd known this Kikero quote to have existed, I need never have wasted so many words.

[Capt M Kumar]

LONDON: Hitting back at Mayawati who wants him to be put in a "mental asylum", WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange today said the UP Chief Minister needs to take up her case with the US if she has a problem with the contents of American diplomatic cables that painted her as an "egomaniac."



His statement came hours after Mayawati slammed him over the US diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks last week that described how the BSP supremo once allegedly dispatched her empty private jet to fetch her favourite sandals from Mumbai. http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news...886748.cms

[Husky]

[quote name='Mudy' date='05 September 2011 - 10:30 AM' timestamp='1315198326' post='112724']

wiki leaks links are not working.

Any links to working site?

[/quote]



Does it work now?

http://wikileaks.org/cablegate.html



Left column says:

Currently released so far... 251287 / 251,287

At the bottom of the cablegate page is the downloads section:

Downloads

Click here to download full site in single archive.

[...]

And that first links to: 88.80.16.63/torrent/cablegate/cablegate-[color="#0000FF"]20110830[/color]0212.7z.torrent

So the torrent appears dated 30 Aug 2011.



Which means it may or may not contain the latest, since the Guardian published the following on the 1st Sep (2 calendar days later):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep...les-online

Unredacted US embassy cables available online after WikiLeaks breach

Guardian denies allegation in WikiLeaks statement that journalist disclosed passwords to archive

James Ball The Guardian,

[color="#0000FF"]Thursday 1 September 2011[/color]

http://www.smh.com.au/world/nothing-left...1jxn0.html

Nothing left to leak?

September 8, 2011



WikiLeaks' controversial release of secret US cables shook politics and diplomacy everywhere. But is it now a spent force? Philip Dorling reports.



ONE figure says it all. On the WikiLeaks website's ''Secret United States Embassy cables'' page, an inconspicuous counter reads: ''Currently released so far … 251,287/251,287'', which means that all of the US diplomatic cables leaked to the whistleblower group founded by Australian Julian Assange are now posted on the world wide web.

This bit is interesting (and relevant to the subtitle to the Guardian link):

Assange nonetheless felt duty bound to adhere to the process of slowly vetting the cables, with WikiLeaks either making its own judgments or drawing on advice from its media partners to identify sensitive information and recommend redactions and deletions from the published texts.



That has now all changed following the dramatic disclosure last week that the entire US cables database could be found on the internet in an encrypted file that could be opened with a password published in a book by Guardian journalists David Leigh and Luke Harding.



Who is responsible for this extraordinary security lapse is hotly disputed between Assange and The Guardian.



But having witnessed The Guardian's dealings with WikiLeaks at a meeting in London last November, I was appalled at the newspaper's treatment of the group that delivered it such an astonishing bounty of information. The personal contempt of senior Guardian journalists for Assange - whom one referred to as ''a source, nothing more'' - was all too clear.



Against that background, I found it unsurprising that The Guardian ignored Assange's most basic security instructions - never reveal the key to encrypted material that is or has been, however fleetingly, publicly available - and it must bear ultimate responsibility for the leak of the entire unredacted database.



In these circumstances, Assange's decision last Friday to publish the US cable archives on the WikiLeaks website may well have conformed with his personal inclinations, but it was also entirely justified.



Thanks to The Guardian, the horse had bolted, not merely into the next paddock but around the globe.



Assange set out his reasoning in media interviews this week: it was a simple fact that the cables were already circulating widely online after their location and the link with the published password had been identified and disseminated, allegedly by former WikiLeaks member Daniel Domscheit-Berg.



''Let us look at this case properly,'' Assange said, ''The Guardian newspaper revealed the entire encryption password including that component they were instructed never to write about, and did so in breach of their contract.''

However, as federal Attorney-General Robert McClelland's resumption of verbal hostilities confirmed last week, the federal government has no sympathy for Assange and may go out of its way to make his life uncomfortable.



[color="#0000FF"]But more seriously, nearly a year after critical software was removed by Domscheit-Berg and another WikiLeaks defector, WikiLeaks' confidential submission mechanism remains out of action.[/color]

Assange says the facility will be up and running soon and that WikiLeaks has more startling information in its secure servers, but this remains to be seen.

http://wikileaks.org/

Bank of America using Private Intel Firms to Attack Wikileaks

[color="#0000FF"]2011-02-02[/color]

In a document titled "The WikiLeaks Threat" three data intelligence companies, Plantir Technologies, HBGary Federal and Berico Technologies, outline [color="#0000FF"]a plan to attack Wikileaks[/color]. They are acting upon request from Hunton and Williams, [color="#0000FF"]a law firm working for Bank of America. The Department of Justice recommended the law firm to Bank of America[/color] according to an article in The Tech Herald. The prosed attacks on WikiLeaks according to the slides include these actions:

• Feed the fuel between the feuding groups. Disinformation. Create messages around actions of sabotage or discredit the opposing organizations. Submit fake documents and then call out the error.
  
  
• Create concern over the security of the infrastructure. Create exposure stories. If the process is believed not to be secure they are done.
  
  
• Cyber attacks against the infrastructure to get data on document submitters. This would kill the project. Since the servers are now in Sweden and France putting a team together to get access is more straightforward.
  
  
• Media campaign to push the radial and reckless nature of WikiLeaks activities. Sustain pressure. Does nothing for the fanatics, but creates concern and doubt among moderates.
  
  
• Search for leaks. Use social media to profile and identify risky behavior of employees.
  
  

[Guest]

[quote name='ravish' date='06 September 2011 - 12:06 AM' timestamp='1315247282' post='112733']

[size="4"][/size]There is no pint in taking whatever is coming out in these cables to be gospel truth. Many of the diplomats while sending dispatches to the home government, often present their own views and understanding of a particular issue. However, in doing so some diplomats sound it as if it is the view of some important functionary of the foreign government .

So there is no point in jumping to conclusions on anything based solely on what has been written in these diplomatic dispatches. In some cases it may be possible that the person to whom the statement is attributed may not have said anything on that particular issue. While sending the dispatch the author never thought that his writings will one day come out on the electronic or print media. So there was no fear of any contradiction or other fall out.

[/quote]

Well, it provide us with insight of Morons/traitors who are ruling India and how India ruling elites are bunch of scums.



Wikileaks are gems, what these babus and Morons ruling elites say to public and in reality do differently.

But, as we know , babus and ruling class are shameless, they can sell their own family in exchange of loot.

No different than Princely states before India's independence.

[Guest]

Mudyji,



Pl. don't drag princely states into your arguments. You will unwittingly fall into the mischievous machinations Indira Gandi.

[Capt Manoj Singh]

[quote name='Mudy' date='07 September 2011 - 07:34 PM' timestamp='1315423571' post='112769']

Well, it provide us with insight of Morons/traitors who are ruling India and how India ruling elites are bunch of scums.



Wikileaks are gems, what these babus and Morons ruling elites say to public and in reality do differently.

But, as we know , babus and ruling class are shameless, they can sell their own family in exchange of loot.

No different than Princely states before India's independence.

[/quote]



I have always wondered if Democracy, Parliament and legal systems that we inherited from the the British Raj were in fact appropriate to our country. If the so called Babus, morons and scums that you mention have shamelessly continued to run the country for a greater part of 64 years isn't it about time we start to question the very system that allows them the privilege to govern the country?

[sumishi]

[quote name='Capt Manoj Singh' date='08 September 2011 - 02:40 AM' timestamp='1315429360' post='112774']

I have always wondered if Democracy, Parliament and legal systems that we inherited from the the British Raj were in fact appropriate to our country. If the so called Babus, morons and scums that you mention have shamelessly continued to run the country for a greater part of 64 years isn't it about time we start to question the very system that allows them the privilege to govern the country?

[/quote]

[size="3"]

How true, but isn't a question like whether democracy is appropriate for our country (and whether other forms of governance will better serve) based on the faulty assumption that forms of governance we know of are the final end products, and we have a choice among them? They are NOT the final end-products -- they are outcomes of political philosophies, evolving, with warts and all.



Its all about checks and balances to contain the natural tendency of unfair transgressions by one small set of privileged humans (by birth, accident or mandate) into the "well-being" of the rest of society.



IMO, one glaring mistake that the framers of our constitution made was that they assumed that the political class, in times to come, would be as "nationalistic" and realtively "vice-free" as they were.[/size]

[Husky]

Related to stuff in the later part of post #149



Good to read in full - which is why I'm not highlighting.



www.truth-out.org/getting-assange-and-smearing-revolution/1317922597

found via VijayVaani

The "Getting" of Assange and the Smearing of a Revolution

Friday 7 October 2011

by: John Pilger, Truthout | News Analysis



Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks, leaving the Royal Court of Justice on July 13th, 2011. (Photo: acidpolly / Flickr)



The High Court in London will soon decide whether Julian Assange is to be extradited to Sweden to face allegations of sexual misconduct. At the appeal hearing in July, Ben Emmerson, Queen's counsel for the defense, described the whole saga as "crazy." Sweden's chief prosecutor had dismissed the original arrest warrant, saying there was no case for Assange to answer.



Both the women involved said they had consented to have sex. On the facts alleged, no crime would have been committed in Britain.



However, it is not the Swedish judicial system that presents a "grave danger" to Assange, say his lawyers, but a legal device known as a Temporary Surrender, under which he can be sent on from Sweden to the United States secretly and quickly. The founder and editor of WikiLeaks, who published the greatest leak of official documents in history, providing a unique insight into rapacious wars and the lies told by governments, is likely to find himself in a hell hole not dissimilar to the "torturous" dungeon that held Pvt. Bradley Manning, the alleged whistleblower. Manning has not been tried, let alone convicted, yet on 21 April, President Barack Obama declared him guilty with a dismissive, "He broke the law ..."



This Kafka-style justice awaits Assange whether or not Sweden decides to prosecute him. Last December, the Independent disclosed that the US and Sweden had already started talks on Assange's extradition. At the same time, a secret grand jury - a relic of the 18th century long abandoned in this country - has convened just across the river from Washington, in a corner of Virginia that is home to the CIA and most of America's national security establishment. The grand jury is a "fix," a leading legal expert told me: reminiscent of the all-white juries in the South that convicted blacks by rote. A sealed indictment is believed to exist.



Under the US Constitution, which guarantees free speech, Assange should be protected, in theory. When he was running for president, Obama, himself a constitutional lawyer, said, "Whistleblowers are part of a healthy democracy and must be protected from reprisal." His embrace of George W. Bush's "war on terror" has changed all that. Obama has pursued more whistleblowers than any US president. The problem for his administration in "getting" Assange and crushing WikiLeaks is that military investigators have found no collusion or contact between him and Manning, reports NBC. There is no crime, so one has to be concocted, probably in line with Vice President Joe Biden's absurd description of Assange as a "hi-tech terrorist."



Should Assange win his High Court appeal in London, he could face extradition direct to the United States. In the past, US officials have synchronized extradition warrants with the conclusion of a pending case. Like its predatory military, American jurisdiction recognizes few boundaries. As the suffering of Bradley Manning demonstrates, together with the recently executed Troy Davis and the forgotten inmates of Guantanamo, much of the US criminal justice system is corrupt if not lawless.



In a letter addressed to the Australian government, Britain's most distinguished human rights lawyer, Gareth Peirce, who now acts for Assange, wrote, "Given the extent of the public discussion, frequently on the basis of entirely false assumptions ... it is very hard to attempt to preserve for him any presumption of innocence. Mr. Assange has now hanging over him not one but two Damocles swords, of potential extradition to two different jurisdictions in turn for two different alleged crimes, neither of which are crimes in his own country and that his personal safety has become at risk in circumstances that are highly politically charged."



These facts and the prospect of a grotesque miscarriage of justice have been drowned in a vituperative campaign against the WikiLeaks founder. Deeply personal, petty, perfidious and inhuman attacks have been aimed at a man not charged with any crime, yet held isolated, tagged and under house arrest - conditions not even meted out to a defendant presently facing extradition on a charge of murdering his wife.



Books have been published, movie deals struck and media careers launched or kick-started on the assumption that he is fair game and too poor to sue. People have made money, often big money, while WikiLeaks has struggled to survive. On 16 June, the publisher of Canongate Books, Jamie Byng, when asked by Assange for an assurance that the rumored unauthorized publication of his autobiography was not true, said, "No, absolutely not. That is not the position ... Julian, do not worry. My absolute number one desire is to publish a great book which you are happy with." On 22 September, Canongate released what it called Assange's "unauthorized autobiography" without the author's permission or knowledge. It was a first draft of an incomplete, uncorrected manuscript. "They thought I was going to prison and that would have inconvenienced them," he told me. "It's as if I am now a commodity that presents an incentive to any opportunist."



The editor of The Guardian UK, Alan Rusbridger, has called the WikiLeaks disclosures "one of the greatest journalistic scoops of the last 30 years": indeed, this is part of his current marketing promotion to justify raising The Guardian UK's cover price. But the scoop belongs to Assange not The Guardian UK. Compare the paper's attitude toward Assange with its bold support for the reporter threatened with prosecution under the Official Secrets Act for revealing the iniquities of Hackgate. Editorials and front pages have carried stirring messages of solidarity from even Murdoch's Sunday Times. On 29 September, Carl Bernstein was flown to London to compare all this with his Watergate triumph. Alas, the iconic fellow was not entirely on message. "It's important not to be unfair to Murdoch," he said, because "he's the most far seeing media entrepreneur of our time" who "put The Simpsons on air" and thereby "showed he could understand the information consumer."



The contrast with the treatment of a genuine pioneer of a revolution in journalism, who dared take on rampant America, providing truth about how great power works, is telling. A drip feed of hostility runs through The Guardian UK, making it difficult for readers to interpret the WikiLeaks phenomenon and to assume other than the worst about its founder. David Leigh, The Guardian UK's "investigations editor," told journalism students at City University that Assange was a "Frankenstein monster" who "didn't use to wash very often" and was "quite deranged." When a puzzled student asked why he said that, Leigh replied, "Because he doesn't understand the parameters of conventional journalism. He and his circle have a profound contempt for what they call the mainstream media." According to Leigh, these "parameters" were exemplified by Bill Keller when, as editor of The New York Times, he co-published the WikiLeaks disclosures with The Guardian UK. Keller, said Leigh, was "a seriously thoughtful person in journalism" who had to deal with "some sort of dirty, flaky hacker from Melbourne."



Last November, the "seriously thoughtful" Keller boasted to the BBC that he had taken all WikiLeaks' war logs to the White House so the government could approve and edit them. In the run-up to the Iraq war, The New York Times published a series of now notorious CIA-inspired claims that weapons of mass destruction existed. Such are the "parameters" that have made so many people cynical about the so-called mainstream media.



Leigh went as far as to mock the danger that, once extradited to America, Assange would end up wearing "an orange jump suit." These were things "he and his lawyer are saying in order to feed his paranoia." The "paranoia" is shared by the European Court of Human Rights which has frozen "national security" extraditions from the UK to the US because the extreme isolation and long sentences defendants can expect amounts to torture and inhuman treatment.



I asked Leigh why he and The Guardian UK had adopted a consistently hostile attitude toward Assange since they had parted company. He replied, "Where you, tendentiously, claim to detect a 'hostile tone,' others might merely see well-informed objectivity."



It is difficult to find well-informed objectivity in The Guardian UK's book on Assange, sold lucratively to Hollywood, in which Assange is described gratuitously as a "damaged personality" and "callous." In the book, Leigh revealed the secret password Assange had given the paper. Designed to protect a digital file containing the US embassy cables, its disclosure set off a chain of events that led to the release of all the files. The Guardian UK denies "utterly" it was responsible for the release. What, then, was the point of publishing the password?



The Guardian UK's Hackgate exposures were a journalistic tour de force; the Murdoch empire may disintegrate as a result. But with or without Murdoch, a media consensus that echoes, from the BBC to the Sun, a corrupt political, war-mongering establishment.



Assange's crime has been to threaten this consensus: those who fix the "parameters" of news and political ideas and whose authority as media commissars is challenged by the revolution of the internet. The prize-winning former Guardian UK journalist Jonathan Cook has experience in both worlds. "The media, at least the supposedly left-wing component of it," he writes, "should be cheering on this revolution ... And yet, mostly they are trying to co-opt, tame or subvert it [even] to discredit and ridicule the harbingers of the new age. ... Some of [the campaign against Assange] clearly reflects a clash of personalities and egos, but it also looks suspiciously like the feud derives from a more profound ideological struggle [about] how information should be controlled a generation hence [and] the gatekeepers maintaining their control."





This work by Truthout is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.

What happens when you become US' Public Enemy #1.

Who said China was the only ruthless power? It just doesn't play the hypocrite: pretending that free speech and democracy are what it stands for. The US is no different, except that it will pretend it's a great ideal nation. Tssss. But it's the same nation today - same mentality - that it was when it genocided the native Americans, stole their land and then started pretending that it was theirs ever since.





Some of the [color="#0000FF"]comments at the Truthout link[/color] are useful: the ones by Australians and Brits talking about how their govts have essentially turned into spineless lackeys of the US. Then again, the "Hague Tribunal" (for trying war crimes) has turned into another such circus - don't know if it was ever otherwise - looking after the interests of US/NATO.

(Hague Tribunal is like the old "Secular Arm" of the church: the European govts and US don't want to be seen character assassinating their enemies before removing these from the scene - remember the controversial death of Slobodan Milosevic under the Hague's watch? - so they have a "secular arm", a judge/jury system in place that is supposedly outside their own petty jurisdictions, but that actually follows their script to a T).



But who's betting Assange's unauthorised autobiography (mentioned above as being in the works for publishing) will suddenly find itself with all sorts of unlikely twists and "admissions", if/when Assange is permanently locked up in AmeriKKKa's torture chambers? After all, being locked away, he will not be able to defend himself and say "hey, I didn't write that bit, they inserted it". It's called suiciding someone. AmeriKKKa is good at that. They've done that to entire nations.



"Interesting" - but not at all unexpected - turn by the Guardian, isn't it. But then, communists are hypocrites of the first order (Guardian UK is a leftist paper).

(NYT has long been known to the public as an opportunist: as I recall, it Lied, Lied and Lied Again on behalf of the US govt about Yugoslavia...)



It's strange to see the Great Terror going after European-origin people too now.



The application of "disappearing" tactics are no longer restricted to the heathen nations: victims are to number more than framed heathen swamis - never to be heard from again (Swami Aseemananda, anyone?) - or framed brave innocent heroic Hindoo cubs like Dara Singh, or fearless selfless Swami Lakshmanananda. And AmeriKKKan baptist money funding christoterror against Hindoos in Bharatam's NE (I'm betting USAID was funding it too).

[sumishi]

[size="3"][url="http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article2567884.ece?homepage=true"]WikiLeaks fights back in the face of financial blockade and arm-twisting[/url] : The Hindu, October 24, 2011



[url="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/uk/Whistleblower-website-WikiLeaks-shuts-down-operations-for-now/articleshow/10482644.cms"]Whistleblower website WikiLeaks shuts down operations, for now[/url] : TOI, Oct 25, 2011[/size]

[ramana]

Maybe job is done and hence being shut down?

[Guest]

[quote name='ramana' date='25 October 2011 - 09:06 AM' timestamp='1319513317' post='113472']

Maybe job is done and hence being shut down?

[/quote]

Shortage of money, After they announced they will expose Bank of America and list of hidden assets of "Rich and Famous", they are under financial pressure. Liberals are scared of him or their agenda is in trouble.

Today, Times-Now showed Assange's latest interview.

I think we may see big news again.