Prism Leaker Is A Hero Says Julian Assange

Hantu Laut

For the U.S.government, it is humanely right for them to intrude into other people's privacy, spy on others, demolish governments they don't like and declare war as they wish, but others can't do same to them, they will destroy you through covert or overt operations. 

They control the Internet and can do what they like, others are pawns in the game. Whistleblowing is now 'act of treason' in the country. Read in the Guardian.

In Malaysia trying to remove a duly elected government by forceful mean is not treason! Read what Rafizi Goebbels says here.



Watch what Julian Assange of Wikileaks has to say about him.



It appears the US government is the biggest criminal.

Anwar Cakap Tak Serupa Bikin.

Hantu Laut

When the going gets tough, the tough gets going.

The "tough" is not Anwar, it's Raja Petra, who had from the very beginning says he is prepared to face Anwar.

You can see the sheepish grin on Anwar's face when he tried to avoid the controversy surrounding his demand for Wikileaks to drop Raja Petra from the forum and of him, subsequently, being called a chicken by Raja Petra.

Raja Petra stripped naked his hypocrisy and falsehood.Anwar deemed himself so powerful, unconsciously, he already behaving worse than the devil he wanted to get rid off to bring more freedom to this country.

Though, I hate to use this somewhat idiotic American phrase which is gaining popularity among Malaysian politicians and writers such as he did not "WALK THE TALK", or "WALK THE WALK", or "TALK THE TALK". What's wrong with the original and proper English version of "TALK IS CHEAP" or "ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THEN WORDS", or "PRACTICE WHAT YOU PREACH"

I prefer the one in Malay, sounds more euphonious and appropriate "CAKAP TAK SERUPA BIKIN"

What did he do? As versatile as a chameleon he quickly changed colour to suit his surroundings, out of the blue, asking Najib to be included in a debate on the Wikileaks sponsored forum.

His mistake of demanding the exclusion of Raja Petra sank his big fat bullshit about making Malaysia "land of the free" The abrupt turnaround is definitely his attempt to try to "tutup malu" by diverting attention.The man doesn't have a single grain of sincerity and honesty in him.In the first place, Najib was never invited, why should he bring Najib into the picture now.

This is the kind of cunningness Anwar possessed.

Unfortunately, to scatterbrained Malaysians he is right, he is the hero, the saviour, the infallible and the man who is going to save Malaysia from clutches of evils.

Anwar is unsuitable to be leading this nation, a person who can tell one story to one community and a different story to another community.



I must admit he is a good orator that can impress the uninitiated.If you care to look deeper and analyse his actions and speeches you would be surprise how inconsistent and contradictory the man is.

He had never impressed me from the day he became active in UMNO when his political speeches were full of bombastic Malay words I have never heard of before.His earlier speeches were designed to impress rather than for want of delivering the substance.

Anwar loves the world stage where he can show off his oratory articulation and show the whole wide world his chamelonic skills.









A picture speaks a thousand words.Only in Malaysia where leaders can shake your hand and look the other way.Most Malaysians don't mind this kind of rudeness, my grandfather would have flogged you to death.

It is Najib prerogative to participate or not.Political debate has never been a tradition in Malaysia.Why now!

A good orator does not necessary make a good leader.

As an employer before, I have met those who excel at interviews just because they can talk better but turned out to be pretty useless on the job.

Don't judge a book by its cover, it's the inside pages that matter.

Latest!Breaking News:

Cops say scuffle did not involve Nazri’s son

Leak At Wikileaks

A Dispatch Disaster in Six Acts

By Christian Stöcker

Getty Images

Some 250,000 diplomatic dispatches from the US State Department have accidentally been made completely public. The files include the names of informants who now must fear for their lives. It is the result of a series of blunders by WikiLeaks and its supporters.

In the end, all the efforts at confidentiality came to naught. Everyone who knows a bit about computers can now have a look into the 250,000 US diplomatic dispatches that WikiLeaks made available to select news outlets late last year. All of them. What's more, they are the unedited, unredacted versions complete with the names of US diplomats' informants -- sensitive names from Iran, China, Afghanistan, the Arab world and elsewhere.

SPIEGEL reported on the secrecy slip-up last weekend, but declined to go into detail. Now, however, the story has blown up. And is one that comes as a result of a series of mistakes made by several different people. Together, they add up to a catastrophe. And the series of events reads like the script for a B movie.

Act One: The Whistleblower and the Journalist

The story began with a secret deal. When David Leigh of the Guardian finally found himself sitting across from WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, as the British journalist recounts in his book "Inside Julian Assange's War on Secrecy", the two agreed that Assange would provide Leigh with a file including all of the diplomatic dispatches received by WikiLeaks.

Assange placed the file on a server and wrote down the password on a slip of paper -- but not the entire password. To make it work, one had to complete the list of characters with a certain word. Can you remember it? Assange asked. Of course, responded Leigh.

It was the first step in a disclosure that became a worldwide sensation. As a result of Leigh's meeting with Assange, not only the Guardian, but also the New York Times, SPIEGEL and other media outlets published carefully chosen -- and redacted -- dispatches. Editors were at pains to black out the names of informants who could be endangered by the publication of the documents.Read more.

Wikileaks Has The Pandora's Box On Bank Of America

Hantu Laut

If you have dealt with BOA (Bank Of America) you get an inkling of what they are capable of doing.

They are so big even the U.S. government wouldn't dare to touch them or if they did, an imminent disaster, another financial meltdown which the U.S can't afford right now.

Read what I wrote here a few days ago and read this published today.

Another big embarrassment for the Obama's administration should Wikileaks decides to release the documents.

Wikileaks:Britain, Another Big Bully

Hantu Laut

Just like they created Israel out of Palestine, partitioned India into East and West Pakistan and made Sabah,Sarawak and Singapore to join Malaya to form a new nation, they are prepared to deny sovereignty of a nation if it serves its own interests or the interests of any of its allies.

Britain colluded with the U.S. to take the Chagos islands which include Diego Gracia away from Mauritius long before it gave independence.

See the photo why the U.S wants it as their naval base.

When Mauritius gained independence, Britain severed the island from Mauritius, evicted the settlers and gave it to the U.S as naval base.

The American spent zero sum to develop the harbour, it's a natural sheltered harbour, isolated and away from any immediate military threat.

If you want to know how Britain (formerly Great Britain) made and lost its empire read Niall Ferguson's "Empire" (How Britain Made The Modern World).Read it some 5 years ago and it's a book I would recommend all Federal leaders to read.

They can't call themselves 'great' anymore, having only scattered atolls all over the world as its colonies.

WikiLeaks cables: Mauritius sues UK for control of Chagos islands

Leaked document shows Foreign Office official told US that marine reserve would end evicted islanders' claims

Diego Garcia, the largest island in the Chagos archipelago and the site of a US military base. Photograph: Reuters

The prime minister of Mauritius has accused Britain of pursuing a "policy of deceit" over the Chagos islands, its Indian Ocean colony from where islanders were evicted to make way for a US military base. He spoke to the Guardian as his government launched the first step in a process that could end UK control over the territory.

Navinchandra Ramgoolam spoke out after the Labour government's decision to establish a marine reserve around Diego Garcia and surrounding islands was exposed earlier this month as the latest ruse to prevent the islanders from ever returning to their homeland.

A US diplomatic cable dated May 2009, disclosed by WikiLeaks, revealed that a Foreign Office official had told the Americans that a decision to set up a "marine protected area" would "effectively end the islanders' resettlement claims". The official, identified as Colin Roberts, is quoted as saying that "according to the HMG's [Her Majesty's government's] current thinking on the reserve, there would be 'no human footprints' or 'Man Fridays'" on the British Indian Ocean Territory uninhabited islands."

A US state department official commented: "Establishing a marine reserve might, indeed, as the FCO's Roberts stated, be the most effective long-term way to prevent any of the Chagos Islands' former inhabitants or their descendants from resettling in the BIOT."

Nearly a year later, in April this year, David Miliband, then foreign secretary, described the marine reserve as a "major step forward for protecting the oceans". He added that the reserve "will not change the UK's commitment to cede the territory to Mauritius when it is no longer needed for defence purposes".

"I feel strongly about a policy of deceit," Ramgoolam said , adding that he had already suspected Britain had a "hidden agenda".

Asked if he believed Miliband had acted in good faith, he said: "Certainly not. Nick Clegg said before the general election that Britain had a "moral responsibility to allow these people to at last return home". William Hague, now foreign secretary, said that if elected he would "work to ensure a fair settlement of this long-standing dispute".

Ramgoolam said he believed the government was adopting the same attitude as its predecessor. Mauritius has lodged a document with an international tribunal accusing Britain of breaching the UN convention on the law of the sea. It says Britain has no right to establish the marine zone since it was not a "coastal state" in the region, adding that Mauritius has the sole right to declare an "exclusive zone" around the British colony.

A legal document seen by the Guardian and submitted to an international tribunal says that in 1965 Britain "dismembered Mauritius by purporting to establish a so-called 'British Indian Ocean Territory'". Eight years later, it "forcibly removed the entire indigenous population of the Chagos archipelago, comprising a community of approximately 2,000 persons calling themselves Ilois or Chagossians", the document says.

Referring to the leaked US cable, it adds that the UK has "violated the 1982 [UN] convention and rules of general international law …" It says Mauritius is basing its claims on additional international rules including "the principle of permanent sovereignty over natural resources".

Ramgoolam said: "We have a strong case". Asked if the move paves the way to the end of the British Indian Ocean colony, he replied: "We have a broad strategy." Mauritius would adopt a "step by step" approach. He added that the Americans at present needed the Diego Garcia base for reasons of "international security".Read more.

Assange:The Rape, A "Honeytrap" ?

Hantu Laut

Read the article below and judge for yourself. The CIA has used this method before as entrapment to blackmail their victims.

I am a supporter of Julian Assange and Wikileaks and will make space for any news related to him and Wikileaks.

I support in what he did as most of the documents leaked were not of national security as claimed by the U.S but were kept secret to hide the trickery, treachery and dirty tactics of the U.S administration and to hide embarrassing vilification and bad-mouthing of world leaders by its diplomats.More documents will reveal how the U.S condoned and protected some corrupt regimes so long as they supported the U.S.

The Western powers particularly the United States must be exposed and vilified

of their double standard, double-dealing, espionage, murders, plots, conspiracies, bad behaviour and other wrong-doing. Some American lawmakers have even called for his murder and assassination, coming from so-called civilised and morally uplifted society, it makes one wonder, with such mentallity, are they really such creatures.

Who are the whistle blowers? Americans who are fed up with their own government double standard, hypocrisy and arrogance.A powerful state that goes around the world bullying small, poor and defenceless nations.

With the powers they have they are now using the banking system to destroy Wikileaks.Most major credit card companies,Pay Pal and lately Bank of America has withdrawn all dealings with Wikileaks.

I believe Wikileaks has documents to prove that BOA could be implicated in some shady dealings within the bank which the US government knew off but refrained from taking action.It's the biggest bank by assets and second biggest by market capitalisation.It has almost 100% relationship with Fortune 500 companies and a global and extensive private banking network that source funds globally for its clients' investments.Some of the funds may have come from undesirable sources.

Unseen police documents provide the first complete account of the allegations against the WikiLeaks founder

The Guardian

Documents seen by the Guardian reveal for the first time the full details of the allegations of rape and sexual assault that have led to extradition hearings against the WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange.

The case against Assange, which has been the subject of intense speculation and dispute in mainstream media and on the internet, is laid out in police material held in Stockholm to which the Guardian received unauthorised access.

Assange, who was released on bail on Thursday, denies the Swedish allegations and has not formally been charged with any offence. The two Swedish women behind the charges have been accused by his supporters of making malicious complaints or being "honeytraps" in a wider conspiracy to discredit him.

Assange's UK lawyer, Mark Stephens, attributed the allegations to "dark forces", saying: "The honeytrap has been sprung ... After what we've seen so far you can reasonably conclude this is part of a greater plan." The journalist John Pilger dismissed the case as a "political stunt" and in an interview with ABC news, Assange said Swedish prosecutors were withholding evidence which suggested he had been "set up."

However, unredacted statements held by prosecutors in Stockholm, along with interviews with some of the central characters, shed fresh light on the hotly disputed sequence of events that has become the centre of a global storm.

Stephens has repeatedly complained that Assange has not been allowed to see the full allegations against him, but it is understood his Swedish defence team have copies of all the documents seen by the Guardian. He maintains that other potentially exculpatory evidence has not been made available to his team and may not have been seen by the Guardian.

The allegations centre on a 10-day period after Assange flew into Stockholm on Wednesday 11 August. One of the women, named in court as Miss A, told police that she had arranged Assange's trip toSweden, and let him stay in her flat because she was due to be away. She returned early, on Friday 13 August, after which the pair went for a meal and then returned to her flat.

Her account to police, which Assange disputes, stated that he began stroking her leg as they drank tea, before he pulled off her clothes and snapped a necklace that she was wearing. According to her statement she "tried to put on some articles of clothing as it was going too quickly and uncomfortably but Assange ripped them off again". Miss A told police that she didn't want to go any further "but that it was too late to stop Assange as she had gone along with it so far", and so she allowed him to undress her.

According to the statement, Miss A then realised he was trying to have unprotected sex with her. She told police that she had tried a number of times to reach for a condom but Assange had stopped her by holding her arms and pinning her legs. The statement records Miss A describing how Assange then released her arms and agreed to use a condom, but she told the police that at some stage Assange had "done something" with the condom that resulted in it becoming ripped, and ejaculated without withdrawing.

When he was later interviewed by police in Stockholm, Assange agreed that he had had sex with Miss A but said he did not tear the condom, and that he was not aware that it had been torn. He told police that he had continued to sleep in Miss A's bed for the following week and she had never mentioned a torn condom.

On the following morning, Saturday 14 August, Assange spoke at a seminar organised by Miss A. A second woman, Miss W, had contacted Miss A to ask if she could attend. Both women joined Assange, the co-ordinator of the Swedish WikiLeaks group, whom we will call "Harold", and a few others for lunch.

Assange left the lunch with Miss W. She told the police she and Assange had visited the place where she worked and had then gone to a cinema where they had moved to the back row. He had kissed her and put his hands inside her clothing, she said.

That evening, Miss A held a party at her flat. One of her friends, "Monica", later told police that during the party Miss A had told her about the ripped condom and unprotected sex. Another friend told police that during the evening Miss A told her she had had "the worst sex ever" with Assange: "Not only had it been the world's worst screw, it had also been violent."

Assange's supporters point out that, despite her complaints against him, Miss A held a party for him on that evening and continued to allow him to stay in her flat.

On Sunday 15 August, Monica told police, Miss A told her that she thought Assange had torn the condom on purpose. According to Monica, Miss A said Assange was still staying in her flat but they were not having sex because he had "exceeded the limits of what she felt she could accept" and she did not feel safe.

The following day, Miss W phoned Assange and arranged to meet him late in the evening, according to her statement. The pair went back to her flat in Enkoping, near Stockholm. Miss W told police that though they started to have sex, Assange had not wanted to wear a condom, and she had moved away because she had not wanted unprotected sex. Assange had then lost interest, she said, and fallen asleep. However, during the night, they had both woken up and had sex at least once when "he agreed unwillingly to use a condom".

Early the next morning, Miss W told police, she had gone to buy breakfast before getting back into bed and falling asleep beside Assange. She had awoken to find him having sex with her, she said, but when she asked whether he was wearing a condom he said no. "According to her statement, she said: 'You better not have HIV' and he answered: 'Of course not,' " but "she couldn't be bothered to tell him one more time because she had been going on about the condom all night. She had never had unprotected sex before."

The police record of the interview with Assange in Stockhom deals only with the complaint made by Miss A. However, Assange and his lawyers have repeatedly stressed that he denies any kind of wrongdoing in relation to Miss W.

In submissions to the Swedish courts, they have argued that Miss W took the initiative in contacting Assange, that on her own account she willingly engaged in sexual activity in a cinema and voluntarily took him to her flat where, she agrees, they had consensual sex. They say that she never indicated to Assange that she did not want to have sex with him. They also say that in a text message to a friend, she never suggested she had been raped and claimed only to have been "half asleep".

Police spoke to Miss W's ex-boyfriend, who told them that in two and a half years they had never had sex without a condom because it was "unthinkable" for her. Miss W told police she went to a chemist to buy a morning-after pill and also went to hospital to be tested for STDs. Police statements record her contacting Assange to ask him to get a test and his refusing on the grounds that he did not have the time.

On Wednesday 18 August, according to police records, Miss A told Harold and a friend that Assange would not leave her flat and was sleeping in her bed, although she was not having sex with him and he spent most of the night sitting with his computer. Harold told police he had asked Assange why he was refusing to leave the flat and that Assange had said he was very surprised, because Miss A had not asked him to leave. Miss A says she spent Wednesday night on a mattress and then moved to a friend's flat so she did not have to be near him. She told police that Assange had continued to make sexual advances to her every day after they slept together and on Wednesday 18 August had approached her, naked from the waist down, and rubbed himself against her.

The following day, Harold told police, Miss A called him and for the first time gave him a full account of her complaints about Assange. Harold told police he regarded her as "very, very credible" and he confronted Assange, who said he was completely shocked by the claims and denied all of them. By Friday 20 August, Miss W had texted Miss A looking for help in finding Assange. The two women met and compared stories.

Harold has independently told the Guardian Miss A made a series of calls to him asking him to persuade Assange to take an STD test to reassure Miss W, and that Assange refused. Miss A then warned if Assange did not take a test, Miss W would go to the police. Assange had rejected this as blackmail, Harold told police.

Assange told police that Miss A spoke to him directly and complained to him that he had torn their condom, something that he regarded as false.

Late that Friday afternoon, Harold told police, Assange agreed to take a test, but the clinics had closed for the weekend. Miss A phoned Harold to say that she and Miss W had been to the police, who had told them that they couldn't simply tell Assange to take a test, that their statements must be passed to the prosecutor. That night, the story leaked to the Swedish newspaper Expressen.

By Saturday morning, 21 August, journalists were asking Assange for a reaction. At 9.15am, he tweeted: "We were warned to expect 'dirty tricks'. Now we have the first one." The following day, he tweeted: "Reminder: US intelligence planned to destroy WikiLeaks as far back as 2008."

The Swedish tabloid Aftonbladet asked if he had had sex with his two accusers. He said: "Their identities have been made anonymous so even I have no idea who they are. We have been warned that the Pentagon, for example, is thinking of deploying dirty tricks to ruin us."

Assange's Swedish lawyers have since suggested that Miss W's text messages – which the Guardian has not seen – show that she was thinking of contacting Expressen and that one of her friends told her she should get money for her story. However, police statements by the friend offer a more innocent explanation: they say these text messages were exchanged several days after the women had made their complaint. They followed an inquiry from a foreign newspaper and were meant jokingly, the friend stated to police.

The Guardian understands that the recent Swedish decision to apply for an international arrest warrant followed a decision by Assange to leave Sweden in late September and not return for a scheduled meeting when he was due to be interviewed by the prosecutor. Assange's supporters have denied this, but Assange himself told friends in London that he was supposed to return to Stockholm for a police interview during the week beginning 11 October, and that he had decided to stay away. Prosecution documents seen by the Guardian record that he was due to be interviewed on 14 October.

The co-ordinator of the WikiLeaks group in Stockholm, who is a close colleague of Assange and who also knows both women, told the Guardian: "This is a normal police investigation. Let the police find out what actually happened. Of course, the enemies of WikiLeaks may try to use this, but it begins with the two women and Julian. It is not the CIA sending a woman in a short skirt."

Assange's lawyers were asked to respond on his behalf to the allegations in the documents seen by the Guardian on Wednesday evening. Tonight they said they were still unable obtain a response from Assange.

Assange's solicitor, Mark Stephens, said: "The allegations of the complainants are not credible and were dismissed by the senior Stockholm prosecutor as not worthy of further investigation." He said Miss A had sent two Twitter messages that appeared to undermine her account in the police statement.

Assange's defence team had so far been provided by prosecutors with only incomplete evidence, he said. "There are many more text and SMS messages from and to the complainants which have been shown by the assistant prosecutor to the Swedish defence lawyer, Bjorn Hurtig, which suggest motivations of malice and money in going to the police and to Espressen and raise the issue of political motivation behind the presentation of these complaints. He [Hurtig] has been precluded from making notes or copying them.

"We understand that both complainants admit to having initiated consensual sexual relations with Mr Assange. They do not complain of any physical injury. The first complainant did not make a complaint for six days (in which she hosted the respondent in her flat [actually her bed] and spoke in the warmest terms about him to her friends) until she discovered he had spent the night with the other complainant.

"The second complainant, too, failed to complain for several days until she found out about the first complainant: she claimed that after several acts of consensual sexual intercourse, she fell half asleep and thinks that he ejaculated without using a condom – a possibility about which she says they joked afterwards.

Read more

Also read:New York Times

Keeping Assange For Uncle Sam ?

Hantu Laut

Julian Assange has been released on bail.His hearing for extradition to Sweden on highly suspicious rape charges would takes months if not years.Since when having sex without using a condom becomes a crime.Was it a setup?

The question is was Sweden really interested in him or was it infuriated Uncle Sam that wanted him badly?

Assange's Wikileaks has communicated to the entire world some very unflattering and embarrassing documents that cried out loud and clear the arrogance and condescending ways of the U.S. administration and its atrocious and boggy foreign policy.

Uncle Sam looked at the rest of the world with disdain, particularly less developed countries.

Already dozens of U.S. lawmakers were screaming for his blood some asking him to be charged under the Espionage Act.This act provides for capital punishment and hefty jail term on those found guilty.Some have called for his assassination.

The irony is, in spite of the U.S. having Freedom of Information Act that allow full or partial disclosure of unreleased information and documents controlled by the government it can simply chose any document including non-sensitive but embarrassing information as classified items.

Are some of its communiques between its embassies and the State Department that portrayed world leaders in a bad light justified being classified information or were they kept classified to avoid embarrassment?

The world is watching how Britain handles the extradition.The U.S has not formally asked for his extradition.Most extradition are for serious crime or felony.Assange alleged crime is likely to be of political nature for which no extradition is available.

Britain may or may not extradite him to Sweden unless the Swedes have infallible case built against him.

Uncle Sam has already worked out how to get Assange to its soil.

Sweden may be easier to bully than Britain.

Also read:Sudanese President Stashed $9 billion in UK bank accounts

Lee Kuan Yew's Psychopathic North Korean.

From Wikileaks

"They are psychopathic types, with a 'flabby old chap' for a leader who prances around stadiums seeking adulation," said the document, classified as secret.

In the document detailing a conversation between Lee and US deputy secretary of state James B. Steinberg in May last year, Singapore's elder statesman said he would be surprised if the North Koreans agreed to give up their nuclear weapons.

Singapore's founding father Lee Kuan Yew called North Koreans "psychopathic" and leader Kim Jong-Il a "flabby old chap" who craved public worship, a US diplomatic cable released by WikiLeaks said.

Singapore's first prime minister who now holds the title of minister mentor in the cabinet compared the plight of North Koreans to his experiences living through the Japanese occupation of his country during World War II.

"MM Lee noted that he had learned from living through three and a half years of Japanese occupation in Singapore that people will obey authorities who can deny them food, clothing and medicine," the leaked document read.

Nuclear-armed North Korea might also give up its "first-strike capacity" but would keep its atomic weapons "in case the USG (US government) decides to seek a regime change," the cable read.

Lee also said he believed that Japan may "go nuclear" in response to North Korea's actions.

Lee told Steinberg that China would prefer a nuclear-armed North Korea than a North Korea that has collapsed because it sees the country as a buffer state.

"If China has to choose, Beijing sees a North Korea with nuclear weapons as less bad for China than a North Korea that has collapsed," Lee said, according to the account.

If North Korea failed, South Korea "would take over in the North and China would face a US presence at its border," the cable said of Lee's views.

Cry Rape:The Most Wanted Man Who Raped America Naked.

Hantu Laut

If it were to happen anywhere in Asia or Africa, the West would be screaming their heads off calling it blatant violation of human rights, state abuse of the free flow of information and judiciary running a kangaroo court.

What happened to Julian Assange?

Was he given a fair hearing? Did the English court adhere to the rules of law and natural justice.What happened to the English legal doctrine that protects against arbitrary exercise of power by ensuring fair play.

The English legal system clearly stated that no accused, or a person directly affected by a decision, shall be condemned unless given full chance to prepare and submit his case and rebuttal to the opposing party's arguments.

Why was Assange refused bail for a presumptuous and highly suspicious rape charges that manifested only after the release of Wikileaks documents to the world that have embarrassed the United States government and its allies.

The American are known for hiding wrongdoings of its military in war zones.

The famous "My Lai Massacre" during the Vietnam War was one such atrocities that prompted widespread outrage throughout the world.Mass murder conducted by a unit of the U.S. Army on defenceless civilians majority of whom were women, children and the elderly.Many of the victims were sexually abused, beaten and tortured.

If you believe in American justice than you may be the greatest fool and an incurable idiot.Of all the soldiers involved only one was convicted and the sentence ??? .....3 years under house arrest.

These are the very same people who killed innocent civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, trampled on the Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners whom they conveniently decide to brand as terrorists instead of as prisoners of war and accorded them the rights under the Convention.

These are the same people who make noise about the sodomy trail of Anwar Ibrahim and accused Malaysia of violation of human rights.

Was Assange given sufficient chance to present his case before he was found guilty by the court by denying him bail for what normally is a bailable offence. Was his crime any worse than murder where if the police or court deemed fit, bail was never denied. Many suspected rapists have been released on bail while awaiting their court cases.What makes Assange's case any different from the rest?

Assange has blown wide open to the world the cloak of secrecy, hypocrisy and double standards of the Western powers and he'll have to pay a heavy price for his intrusion into their secret and wicked domain.

For going against the powers that be, their dirty works, their scandalous manipulations of third world leaders and world politics, murder and blatant abuse of human rights in the war zones and their murderous wars to re-colonise certain parts of the world under the pretext of fighting terrorism, even the prestigious English court has succumbed to the hegemonic influence of the United States. The pre-trail detention of Assangee is unconstitutional.Is he such a dangerous criminal that justified denial of his rights.

Even worse, in his recent hearing for bail the English court after allowing him bail refused to release him while awaiting appeal from the prosecution which they claimed would come in the next 48 hours.

Isn't it absurd that after having given bail you can still detain a person? Was it flawed English law or a judge flawed in judgement?

Most suspected rapists get bail but Assangee crime seems worse than normal rape cases. Look at what the English court decision on what should have been the rule of law...a man is innocent until proven guilty.... but Assangee, who voluntarily surrendered to the police, is considered worse than a dangerous felon.

Bail was set at $310,000.Assange must spend every night at his given address and will be electronically tagged so the police can track his movements, subjected to curfew every day from 10 p.m to 2 a.m and from 10 a.m to 2 p.m and is required to report daily to the police from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m.The police have also taken away his passport as under the terms of his bail he is not allowed to travel abroad.

Now, you can scorn the British judges, for succumbing to America's pressure that Assangee is a dangerous threat to the world, a kind of rapist/terrorist who raped naked the most powerful nation on earth.

Obviously, looking at the detention order, Mr Assange is held for treason and not for rape?

Now, you can also laugh at the West for what is clearly their double standards and hypocrisy?

Sweden was only a tool to get Assange on what obviously was a politically motivated crime made against him.The real culprit is the United States.

We should thanks Julian Assange and Wikileaks for exposing the misdeeds, murders and atrocities committed by the the rich and powerful nations particularly the United States.

Release on Bail of WikiLeaks Founder Is Delayed by Appeal

By RAVI SOMAIYA and ALAN COWELL

Published: December 14, 2010

LONDON — After a week in detention facing possible extradition,Julian Assange, the founder of the WikiLeaks antisecrecy group, was ordered released on $310,000 bail by a court on Tuesday as he challenges a Swedish prosecutor’s demand that he return to Stockholm for questioning about alleged sex offenses.

However, Mr. Assange remained in custody pending a hearing on an appeal by the prosecutor, which would take place within the next 48 hours.

In granting bail, Judge Howard Riddle ordered that Mr. Assange appear again in court on Jan. 11. He also said that between then and now he must reside at Ellingham Hall, a Georgian mansion in Bungay, in eastern England, owned by Vaughan Smith, the founder of a club for journalists. Mr. Assange must spend every night at the mansion and will be electronically tagged so the police can track his movements, the judge said. Read more.

Wikileaks Never Mentioned Malaysian Special Branch As The Source

M'sia ex deputy PM Anwar Ibrahim 'did commit sodomy' - WikiLeaks

Ningbo/Shanghai Daily

Singapore's intelligence services as well as its minister mentor Lee Kuan Yew believe that opposition leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim "did indeed commit the acts for which he is currently indicted".

This was revealed by WikiLeaks through a release of a US State Department cable issued in Nov 2008.

The cable was exclusively released to the Australian tabloid, The Sun-Herald, and was widely reported by other Australian newspapers yesterday.

WikiLeaks is a website that publishes anonymous submissions and leaks of sensitive governmental, corporate, organisational or religious documents, while attempting to preserve the anonymity and untraceability of its contributors.

The US State Department cable that dealt with Anwar's sodomy case, dated Nov 2008, and was released exclusively to The Sun-Herald by WikiLeaks, had stated: "The Australians said that Singapore's intelligence services and (Singapore elder statesman) Lee Kuan Yew had told Australia's Office of National Assessments (ONA) in their exchanges that opposition leader Anwar 'did indeed commit the acts for which he is currently indicted'."

In the newspaper report, it said the document stated that the Singaporeans told ONA that they made this assessment on the basis of "technical intelligence", which was likely to relate to intercepted communications.

In a posting on Twitter yesterday, Anwar denied the allegations.

Hantu Laut's comment.

(Anwar was quick to jump the gun and blamed the Malaysian Special Branch for the exposure, which was never mentioned in Wikileaks released documents.It mentioned "technical intelligence" related to intercepted communication" and former Singapore Premier Lee Kuan Yew's assertion with ONA (Australia's Office of National Assessment) about Anwar's indiscretion.

When you are going to be the next prime minister of a nation you wouldn't know who is interested in your extracurricular activities and putting you under surveillance.

Most Western nations have their sleuth-hounds all over the place tracking world leaders and would-be world leaders.

Singapore, have all the reasons for sleuthing on our leaders, their peaceful future and co-existence rest on level-headed leaders running the country.

Also read Raja Petra's "Why I am A Loose Cannon"

Hantu Laut does not necessary endorse their views.

Wikileaks;what the US embassy files say about world leaders

Silvio Berlusconi is "feckless, vain and ineffective" while Dmitry Medvedev is "Robin to Putin's Batman", according to secret memos sent by diplomats.

Among hundreds of thousands of documents released on Sunday night by Wikileaks, the whistle-blower website, are US embassy cables detailing private impressions of a host of world leaders written by ambassadors and ministers across the globe.

Here is a round-up of what the documents say about some of the world's most influential figures, as reported by the newspapers given advanced access to the material; The New York Times, The Guardian, Der Spiegel, Le Monde and El Pais.

Muammar Gaddafi, Libyan leader

Gaddafi "cannot travel" without what one diplomat described as his “voluptuous blonde” Ukrainian nurse.

The report, from the US embassy in Tripoli, disclosed that Colonel Gaddafi appeared to be afraid of staying on upper floors and disliked flying over water.

He enjoyed horse racing and flamenco dancing and was upset when he was refused permission to pitch his Bedouin tent in New York City.

Dmitry Medvedev, Russian President

Medvedev is officially the senior partner to Vladimir Putin in the Russian government, but American documents painted the balance of power in Moscow as quite different.

According to one diplomat's cable in late 2008, shortly after Medvedev assumed power, Mr Putin behaves like “Batman” while Medvedev “plays Robin”.

Vladimir Putin, Russian Prime Minister

Vladimir Putin was described as "alpha dog", while diplomats suggested his macho and authoritative image had helped him develop a “remarkably close” relationship with his Italian counterpart, Silvio Berlusconi.

The pair reportedly exchanged “lavish gifts” and US officials were concerned that Berlusconi was becoming “the mouthpiece of Putin” in Europe.

Silvio Berlusconi, Italian Prime Minister

Mr Berlusconi was described as “physically and politically weak” at home, and “feckless, vain, and ineffective” European leader.

His “frequent late nights and penchant for partying hard mean he does not get sufficient rest", one observed.

US diplomats in Rome also raised concerns over contracts between Italy and Russia and a “shadowy” Russian-speaking Italian who acted as a go-between.

Nicholas Sarkozy, French President

The French President was referred to as an “emperor with no clothes” in an American memo.

The diminutive leader was seen as “thin-skinned”, and “authoritarian” in his personal style, with a tendency to rebuke his senior team repeatedly for their alleged shortcomings, according to the US embassy in Paris.

Angela Merkel, German Chancellor

A leaked American cable claimed that Merkel “avoids risks and is rarely creative”. She was also repeatedly referred to as Angela “Teflon” Merkel because nothing sticks to her.

Memos betray the American perception that Merkel approaches international relations with the aim of making as much domestic profit as possible.

Hamid Karzai, Afghan president

Mr Karzai was painted as paranoid and feeble in a dispatch from Kabul.

It portrayed Karzai as “an extremely weak man who did not listen to facts but was instead easily swayed by anyone who came to report even the most bizarre stories or plots against him”.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iranian President

Concerns over Iran were a major theme in the cables, one of which compared the Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to Adolf Hitler.

The documents report that King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia repeatedly urged America to take military action against Iran so as to destroy its nuclear programme and “cut the head off the snake”.

Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwean President

The controversial Zimbabwean leader was caricatured as “the crazy old man” by a minister in the South African government, according to a US report from Pretoria.

A dispatch from the embassy in Harare entitled “The End is Nigh” describes Mugabe as “ruthless” and “a brilliant tactician”, but adds that he is hampered by “his ego and his belief in his own infallibility”.

Kim Jong-il, North Korean leader

The ailing dictator of North Korea was portrayed as a “flabby old chap” who had suffered “physical and psychological trauma” as a result of his stroke.

Documents also disclose that American and South Korean officials have discussed the potential for a unified Korean nation, in the event the North were to collapse.

Ali Abdullah Saleh, Yemeni President

The leader of Yemen was viewed by diplomats as “dismissive, bored and impatient” during a meeting he held with John Brennan, a senior adviser to the US President on national security.

In a meeting with General David Petraeus, the former American commander in the Middle East, Saleh reportedly said: “We’ll continue saying the bombs are ours, not yours”.

The Telegraph