newsletter

Pular para o conteúdo principal

Wikileaks: Brasil rejeitou prisioneiros de Guantánamo

Do WikiLeaks

Brazil - Brasil rejeitou prisioneiros de Guantánamo

Natalia Viana, 3 de dezembro de 2010

Como muitos países, o Brasil também foi procurado pelos EUA para receber prisioneiros de Guantánamo, mas recusou a oferta. É o que mostra um documento enviado a Washington em 17 de outubro de 2005 pelo então embaixador em Brasília, John Danilovitch (CLIQUE AQUI).

Segundo o documento confidencial, os EUA “discutiram o reassentamento de prisioneiros de Guantánamo em diversas ocasiões e em diferentes níveis, incluindo (o subsecretário americano para Assuntos Políticos) Marc Grossman, desde 2003”.

OtelO telegrama descreve a tentativa frustrada de conseguir que o Brasil aceitasse como refugiados prisioneiros uigures, de origem chinesa.

Desde 2002, foram presos em Guantánamo 22 uigures - minoria muçulmana de língua turca do noroeste da China. Eles não podiam repressar à China por receio de que viessem a ser mortos ou torturados.

Em Brasília, a embaixada falou com Márcia Ramos, do departamento de direitos humanos do Ministério de Relações Exteriores (MRE).

“Ramos disse ao nosso assessor político que o governo brasileiro não pode aceitar imigrantes de Guantánamo porque é ilegal designar como refugiado alguém que não está em solo brasileiro. De acordo com o Comitê Nacional para os Refugiados (CONARE), o status de refugiado no Brasil para quem pede do exterior geralmente não é atendido até que ele receba status de refugiado no país onde está (no caso, os EUA)”, explica o documento.

O Itamaraty argumentou que os uigures não se encaixam nessa categora porque o governo americano não os reconhecia formalmente como refugiados.

Danilovitch termina o telegrama dizendo que “não parece que o governo brasileiro vai aceitar os prisioneiros uigures se eles não receberem status de refugiados dos EUA. E mesmo se receberem, esperamos que os brasileiros argumentem que eles deveriam então ser reassentados nos EUA”.

Os EUA procuraram diversos países para pedir que recebessem prisioneiros de Guantánamo, incluindo Bélgica, Kwait, Eslovênia e Iêmen, conforme mostram diversos documentos publicados pelo WikiLeaks nos últimos dias.

Refugiados cubanos

Outros dois telegramas obtidos pelo WikiLeaks mostram que o Itamaraty manteve o mesmo discurso quando procurado para receber cubanos que fugiram do regime de Fidel Castro.

Em maio de 2005, o Brasil recusou dar status de refugiados para cubanos e haitianos que fugiram para a Baía de Guantánamo, controlada pelos EUA.

Na ocasião, a embaixada procurou os departamentos de organizações internacionais e o de direitos humanos do MRE. Também falou com o representante da agência da ONU para refugiados, Luis Varese.

Os Estados Unidos até se ofereceram para custear a visita de oficiais brasileiros a Guantánamo para verificar de perto a situação. Mas ouviu que a proximidade com o regime cubano seria um grande empecilho.

“A diretora do departamento de direitos humanos Márcia Ramos disse que a relação próxima do governo brasileiro com o cubano faria com que fosse impossível aceitar os refugiados”, diz o relato (CLIQUE AQUI).

Perguntada se o Brasil aceitaria imigrantes do Haiti, ela respondeu que não poderiam aceitar nenhum imigrante de Guantánamo.

Já Varese explicou que a posição do CONARE era a mesma – o Brasil só aceitaria refugiados que já tivessem este status no país onde estão vivendo – e não mudaria no futuro.

Em 2009, já sob o governo de Barack Obama, a embaixada voltou à carga. Contactou Gilda Mattos Santos Neves, chefe do departamento da ONU do MRE, que deu a mesma explicação das tentativas anteriores.

“Neves não levantou nenhuma questão política ou diplomática sobre o reassentamento de cubanos no Brasil”, relatou a Ministra Conselheira da embaixada Lisa Kubiske em um telegrama não classificado em 30 de outubro de 2009 (CLIQUE AQUI).

Os documentos fazem parte de mais 2855 telegramas enviados pela representação americana no Brasil para o Departamento de Estado americano entre 1989 e 2010 que vão ser publicados pelo WikiLeaks nas próximas semanas.

Média: 4.6 (7 votos)
21 comentário(s)

Comentários

Comentar

O conteúdo deste campo é privado e não será exibido ao público.
+21 comentários

Sergio Morales e Mariazinha representam o desespero dos fundamentalistas a favor do império...

Sem argumentos (pq contra provas não há argumentos), continuam c/a velha tática tacanha q levou no Brasil, José Serra a acachapante derrota eleitoral neste 2010, a d acusar os outros d prática própria, no caso d acusam Assange d ser agente do império, Patético...

 

Aqui há uma matéria publicada no New Yorker´s em junho/2010 sobre Assange. Apesar de ser de alguns meses atrás, me parece relevante - e previsível:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/06/07/100607fa_fact_khatchadourian?currentPage=all

Copiando e colando parte dela aqui, já que é longa:

A REPORTER AT LARGENo SecretsJulian Assange’s mission for total transparency.by Raffi Khatchadourian

june 7 / 2010

The house on Grettisgata Street, in Reykjavik, is a century old, small and white, situated just a few streets from the North Atlantic. The shifting northerly winds can suddenly bring ice and snow to the city, even in springtime, and when they do a certain kind of silence sets in. This was the case on the morning of March 30th, when a tall Australian man named Julian Paul Assange, with gray eyes and a mop of silver-white hair, arrived to rent the place. Assange was dressed in a gray full-body snowsuit, and he had with him a small entourage. “We are journalists,” he told the owner of the house. Eyjafjallajökull had recently begun erupting, and he said, “We’re here to write about the volcano.” After the owner left, Assange quickly closed the drapes, and he made sure that they stayed closed, day and night. The house, as far as he was concerned, would now serve as a war room; people called it the Bunker. Half a dozen computers were set up in a starkly decorated, white-walled living space. Icelandic activists arrived, and they began to work, more or less at Assange’s direction, around the clock. Their focus was Project B—Assange’s code name for a thirty-eight-minute video taken from the cockpit of an Apache military helicopter in Iraq in 2007. The video depicted American soldiers killing at least eighteen people, including two Reuters journalists; it later became the subject of widespread controversy, but at this early stage it was still a closely guarded military secret.

Assange is an international trafficker, of sorts. He and his colleagues collect documents and imagery that governments and other institutions regard as confidential and publish them on a Web site called WikiLeaks.org. Since it went online, three and a half years ago, the site has published an extensive catalogue of secret material, ranging from the Standard Operating Procedures at Camp Delta, in Guantánamo Bay, and the “Climategate” e-mails from the University of East Anglia, in England, to the contents of Sarah Palin’s private Yahoo account. The catalogue is especially remarkable because WikiLeaks is not quite an organization; it is better described as a media insurgency. It has no paid staff, no copiers, no desks, no office. Assange does not even have a home. He travels from country to country, staying with supporters, or friends of friends—as he once put it to me, “I’m living in airports these days.” He is the operation’s prime mover, and it is fair to say that WikiLeaks exists wherever he does. At the same time, hundreds of volunteers from around the world help maintain the Web site’s complicated infrastructure; many participate in small ways, and between three and five people dedicate themselves to it full time. Key members are known only by initials—M, for instance—even deep within WikiLeaks, where communications are conducted by encrypted online chat services. The secretiveness stems from the belief that a populist intelligence operation with virtually no resources, designed to publicize information that powerful institutions do not want public, will have serious adversaries.

Iceland was a natural place to develop Project B. In the past year, Assange has collaborated with politicians and activists there to draft a free-speech law of unprecedented strength, and a number of these same people had agreed to help him work on the video in total secrecy. The video was a striking artifact—an unmediated representation of the ambiguities and cruelties of modern warfare—and he hoped that its release would touch off a worldwide debate about the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. He was planning to unveil the footage before a group of reporters at the National Press Club, in Washington, on April 5th, the morning after Easter, presumably a slow news day. To accomplish this, he and the other members of the WikiLeaks community would have to analyze the raw video and edit it into a short film, build a stand-alone Web site to display it, launch a media campaign, and prepare documentation for the footage—all in less than a week’s time.

Assange also wanted to insure that, once the video was posted online, it would be impossible to remove. He told me that WikiLeaks maintains its content on more than twenty servers around the world and on hundreds of domain names. (Expenses are paid by donations, and a few independent well-wishers also run “mirror sites” in support.) Assange calls the site “an uncensorable system for untraceable mass document leaking and public analysis,” and a government or company that wanted to remove content from WikiLeaks would have to practically dismantle the Internet itself. So far, even though the site has received more than a hundred legal threats, almost no one has filed suit. Lawyers working for the British bank Northern Rock threatened court action after the site published an embarrassing memo, but they were practically reduced to begging. A Kenyan politician also vowed to sue after Assange published a confidential report alleging that President Daniel arap Moi and his allies had siphoned billions of dollars out of the country. The site’s work in Kenya earned it an award from Amnesty International.

Assange typically tells would-be litigants to go to hell. In 2008, WikiLeaks posted secret Scientology manuals, and lawyers representing the church demanded that they be removed. Assange’s response was to publish more of the Scientologists’ internal material, and to announce, “WikiLeaks will not comply with legally abusive requests from Scientology any more than WikiLeaks has complied with similar demands from Swiss banks, Russian offshore stem-cell centers, former African kleptocrats, or the Pentagon.”

 

Duas coisas a notar:

Primeiro, é a aparente ingênua crença de Assange de que a mídia corporativa respeita os princípios liberais que propagandeia. Que a mídia do capital é "independente". Os revolucionários da velha guarda - sejam socialistas ou anarquistas - não tinham essas ilusões!

Segundo, mesmo considerando que Assange e a Wikileaks sejam realmente independentes, mas ingênuos. O que eles publicam é o que vaza das correspondências oficiais. Eles não têm como autenticar que esses vazamentos não misturam material de contrainformação propositalmente inserido para legitimar os objetivos das potências dominantes ou de setores desses governos. E ainda que todos sejam autênticos, o máximo que revelam são opiniões. É como examinar um arquivo do DOPS. Se lá diz que determinado guerrilheiro fez tal coisa, não é possível, somente com base nesta informação, concluir que ele realmente o fez. 

O Wikileaks tem divulgado informações importantíssimas (em meio a muita informação irrelevante). Mas essa informação é só uma base para a análise e a reflexão. Parece que foi o historiador francês Georges Duby que disse que os textos mentem tanto quanto os homens. A função do historiador e do jornalista (na verdade, de qualquer pessoa racional e interessada) é analisar criticamente a informação dos textos.

 

Os E.U.A. queriam que o Brasil se tornasse cúmplice do crime internacional que cometem em Guantánamo.

 

É de se ficar boquiaberto com tanta audácia dos manipuladores do mossad. Já conheço o 'modus faciendi" dos buches sionistas: toda essa informação escorreu com o consentimento deles. Querem criar inimizades e balbúrdia nas relações entre países e dentro de países. É assim que funcionam: criam a confusão e tiram dela, proveito. São semeadores de discórdia,  mentirosos, além de fofoqueiros; como diz LULA, nada do que não exista em outros países. É como temos aqui o  jobim,cerra, fhc&cia.

http://www.voltairenet.org/article164453.html

 

Podia rolar um troca-troca com o Beira-mar.

Acho que não iam topar.

 

Entrevista com internautas.

fonte: 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2010/dec/03/julian-assange-wikileaks

_______________

 

Fwoggie
I'll start the ball rolling with a question. You're an Australian passport holder - would you want return to your own country or is this now out of the question due to potentially being arrested on arrival for releasing cables relating to Australian diplomats and polices?

Julian Assange small

Julian Assange:
I am an Australian citizen and I miss my country a great deal. However, during the last weeks the Australian prime minister, Julia Gillard, and the attorney general, Robert McClelland, have made it clear that not only is my return is impossible but that they are actively working to assist the United States government in its attacks on myself and our people. This brings into question what does it mean to be an Australian citizen - does that mean anything at all? Or are we all to be treated like David Hicks at the first possible opportunity merely so that Australian politicians and diplomats can be invited to the best US embassy cocktail parties.

girish89
How do you think you have changed world affairs?
And if you call all the attention you've been given-credit ... shouldn't the mole or source receive a word of praise from you?

Julian Assange small

Julian Assange:
For the past four years one of our goals has been to lionise the source who take the real risks in nearly every journalistic disclosure and without whose efforts, journalists would be nothing. If indeed it is the case, as alleged by the Pentagon, that the young soldier - Bradley Manning - is behind some of our recent disclosures, then he is without doubt an unparalleled hero.

Daithi
Have you released, or will you release, cables (either in the last few days or with the Afghan and Iraq war logs) with the names of Afghan informants or anything else like so?
Are you willing to censor (sorry for using the term) any names that you feel might land people in danger from reprisals??
By the way, I think history will absolve you. Well done!!!

Julian Assange small

Julian Assange:
WikiLeaks has a four-year publishing history. During that time there has been no credible allegation, even by organisations like the Pentagon that even a single person has come to harm as a result of our activities. This is despite much-attempted manipulation and spin trying to lead people to a counter-factual conclusion. We do not expect any change in this regard.

distrot
The State Dept is mulling over the issue of whether you are a journalist or not. Are you a journalist? As far as delivering information that someone [anyone] does not want seen is concerned, does it matter if you are a 'journalist' or not?

Julian Assange small

Julian Assange:
I coauthored my first nonfiction book by the time I was 25. I have been involved in nonfiction documentaries, newspapers, TV and internet since that time. However, it is not necessary to debate whether I am a journalist, or how our people mysteriously are alleged to cease to be journalists when they start writing for our organisaiton. Although I still write, research and investigate my role is primarily that of a publisher and editor-in-chief who organises and directs other journalists.

achanth
Mr Assange,
have there ever been documents forwarded to you which deal with the topic of UFOs or extraterrestrials?

Julian Assange small

Julian Assange:
Many weirdos email us about UFOs or how they discovered that they were the anti-christ whilst talking with their ex-wife at a garden party over a pot-plant. However, as yet they have not satisfied two of our publishing rules.
1) that the documents not be self-authored;
2) that they be original.
However, it is worth noting that in yet-to-be-published parts of the cablegate archive there are indeed references to UFOs.

gnosticheresy
What happened to all the other documents that were on Wikileaks prior to these series of "megaleaks"? Will you put them back online at some stage ("technical difficulties" permitting)?

Julian Assange small

Julian Assange:
Many of these are still available at mirror.wikileaks.info and the rest will be returning as soon as we can find a moment to do address the engineering complexities. Since April of this year our timetable has not been our own, rather it has been one that has centred on the moves of abusive elements of the United States government against us. But rest assured I am deeply unhappy that the three-and-a-half years of my work and others is not easily available or searchable by the general public.

CrisShutlar
Have you expected this level of impact all over the world? Do you fear for your security?

Julian Assange small

Julian Assange:
I always believed that WikiLeaks as a concept would perform a global role and to some degree it was clear that is was doing that as far back as 2007 when it changed the result of the Kenyan general election. I thought it would take two years instead of four to be recognised by others as having this important role, so we are still a little behind schedule and have much more work to do. The threats against our lives are a matter of public record, however, we are taking the appropriate precautions to the degree that we are able when dealing with a super power.

JAnthony
Julian.
I am a former British diplomat. In the course of my former duties I helped to coordinate multilateral action against a brutal regime in the Balkans, impose sanctions on a renegade state threatening ethnic cleansing, and negotiate a debt relief programme for an impoverished nation. None of this would have been possible without the security and secrecy of diplomatic correspondence, and the protection of that correspondence from publication under the laws of the UK and many other liberal and democratic states. An embassy which cannot securely offer advice or pass messages back to London is an embassy which cannot operate. Diplomacy cannot operate without discretion and the
protection of sources. This applies to the UK and the UN as much as the US.
In publishing this massive volume of correspondence, Wikileaks is not highlighting specific cases of wrongdoing but undermining the entire process of diplomacy. If you can publish US cables then you can publish UK telegrams and UN emails.
My question to you is: why should we not hold you personally responsible when next an international crisis goes unresolved because diplomats cannot function.

Julian Assange small

Julian Assange:
If you trim the vast editorial letter to the singular question actually asked, I would be happy to give it my attention.

cargun
Mr Assange,
Can you explain the censorship of identities as XXXXX's in the revealed cables? Some critical identities are left as is, whereas some are XXXXX'd. Some cables are partially revealed. Who can make such critical decisons, but the US gov't? As far as we know your request for such help was rejected by the State department. Also is there an order in the release of cable or are they randomly selected?
Thank you.

Julian Assange small

Julian Assange:
The cables we have release correspond to stories released by our main stream media partners and ourselves. They have been redacted by the journalists working on the stories, as these people must know the material well in order to write about it. The redactions are then reviewed by at least one other journalist or editor, and we review samples supplied by the other organisations to make sure the process is working.

rszopa
Annoying as it may be, the DDoS seems to be good publicity (if anything, it adds to your credibility). So is getting kicked out of AWS. Do you agree with this statement? Were you planning for it?
Thank you for doing what you are doing.

Julian Assange small

Julian Assange:
Since 2007 we have been deliberately placing some of our servers in jurisdictions that we suspected suffered a free speech deficit inorder to separate rhetoric from reality. Amazon was one of these cases.

abbeherrera
You started something that nobody can stop. The Beginning of a New World. Remember, that community is behind you and support you (from Slovakia).
Do you have leaks on ACTA?

Julian Assange small

Julian Assange:
Yes, we have leaks on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, a trojan horse trade agreement designed from the very beginning to satisfy big players in the US copyright and patent industries. In fact, it was WikiLeaks that first drew ACTA to the public's attention - with a leak.

people1st
Tom Flanagan, a [former] senior adviser to Canadian Prime Minister recently stated "I think Assange should be assassinated ... I think Obama should put out a contract ... I wouldn't feel unhappy if Assange does disappear."
How do you feel about this?

Julian Assange small

Julian Assange:
It is correct that Mr. Flanagan and the others seriously making these statements should be charged with incitement to commit murder.

Isopod
Julian, why do you think it was necessary to "give Wikileaks a face"? Don't you think it would be better if the organization was anonymous?
This whole debate has become very personal and reduced on you - "Julian Assange leaked documents", "Julian Assange is a terrorist", "Julian Assange alledgedly raped a woman", "Julian Assange should be assassinated", "Live Q&A qith Julian Assange" etc. Nobody talks about Wikileaks as an organization anymore. Many people don't even realize that there are other people behind Wikileaks, too.
And this, in my opinion, makes Wikileaks vulnerable because this enables your opponents to argue ad hominem. If they convince the public that you're an evil, woman-raping terrorist, then Wikileaks' credibility will be gone. Also, with due respect for all that you've done, I think it's unfair to all the other brave, hard working people behind Wikileaks, that you get so much credit.

Julian Assange small

Julian Assange:
This is an interesting question. I originally tried hard for the organisation to have no face, because I wanted egos to play no part in our activities. This followed the tradition of the French anonymous pure mathematians, who wrote under the collective allonym, "The Bourbaki". However this quickly led to tremendous distracting curiosity about who and random individuals claiming to represent us. In the end, someone must be responsible to the public and only a leadership that is willing to be publicly courageous can genuinely suggest that sources take risks for the greater good. In that process, I have become the lightening rod. I get undue attacks on every aspect of my life, but then I also get undue credit as some kind of balancing force.

tburgi
Western governments lay claim to moral authority in part from having legal guarantees for a free press.
Threats of legal sanction against Wikileaks and yourself seem to weaken this claim.
(What press needs to be protected except that which is unpopular to the State? If being state-sanctioned is the test for being a media organization, and therefore able to claim rights to press freedom, the situation appears to be the same in authoritarian regimes and the west.)
Do you agree that western governments risk losing moral authority by
attacking Wikileaks?
Do you believe western goverments have any moral authority to begin with?
Thanks,
Tim Burgi
Vancouver, Canada

Julian Assange small

Julian Assange:
The west has fiscalised its basic power relationships through a web of contracts, loans, shareholdings, bank holdings and so on. In such an environment it is easy for speech to be "free" because a change in political will rarely leads to any change in these basic instruments. Western speech, as something that rarely has any effect on power, is, like badgers and birds, free. In states like China, there is pervasive censorship, because speech still has power and power is scared of it. We should always look at censorship as an economic signal that reveals the potential power of speech in that jurisdiction. The attacks against us by the US point to a great hope, speech powerful enough to break the fiscal blockade.

rajiv1857
Hi,
Is the game that you are caught up in winnable? Technically, can you keep playing hide and seek with the powers that be when services and service providers are directly or indirectly under government control or vulnerable to pressure - like Amazon?
Also, if you get "taken out" - and that could be technical, not necessarily physical - what are the alternatives for your cache of material?
Is there a 'second line' of activists in place that would continue the campaign?
Is your material 'dispersed' so that taking out one cache would not necessarily mean the end of the game?

Julian Assange small

Julian Assange:
The Cable Gate archive has been spread, along with significant material from the US and other countries to over 100,000 people in encrypted form. If something happens to us, the key parts will be released automatically. Further, the Cable Gate archives is in the hands of multiple news organisations. History will win. The world will be elevated to a better place. Will we survive? That depends on you.

logo2

That's it every one, thanks for all your questions and comments. Julian Assange is sorry that he can't answer every question but he has tried to cover as much territory as possible. Thanks for your patience with our earlier technical difficulties.

 

 

__________

Fonte:

 

Proponho que recebamos IMEDIATAMENTE o Sr Julian Assange como Refugiado Politico !

 

ATENÇÃO esta proposta é séria.

 

Ele se não for otário se manda para cá que nem o Ronald Biggs e continuará prestando os excelentes serviços para desmascarar a hipocrisia dos interesses escusos de quem ele tem documentos.

 

sds

 

Como é que prisioneiro pode ser refugiado?? Se estão presos foi por que os americanos os prenderam . Ninguem se oferece para ser preso e ir para  Guatanamo. E se estão presos, então não são refugiados. Se os Estados Unidos querem  asilar os presos, então que lhes deem um Greencard e os soltem na América. Prá que ficar empurrando o problema para os outros?

 

O Brasil rejeitou receber os presos como refugiados, e não como presos, tá pessoal. 

 

Caro Edson,

A manchete demonstra o poder dos USA, mesmo no caso dos vazamentos do Wiki. Acho que a manchete correta seria: USA criaram um beco sem saída ao manter inocentes presos durante anos. Eles que dessem um green card e novos nomes aos incômodos prisioneiros. Ou, melhor ainda, que não prendessem inocentes.

 

Gilberto .    @Gil17

À medida que os servidores e as páginas do WikiLeaks vão sendo hackeados, indisponibilizando as informações, a chuva de informações/contra-informações que não poderão ser confirmadas vai aumentar exponencialmente. Já li, por exemplo, algo sobre as FARC´s extraírem urânio do Brasil e, via Venezuela, enviarem para o Irã.

 

O embaixador dos EU no Brasil, Sobel(seria parente daquele que afanava gravatas na loja Vuitton de Palm Beach?), não seria informado pelo Min. da Defesa do Brasil(?) Jobim.? Ora, claro que seria.  Ou o Jobim não é tão eficiente assim? "Johnbin, take care.  Farcs have dispatched brasilian uranium to Iran and what you did? Nothing!! Nothing!! You are a moron".

 

"Já li, por exemplo, algo sobre as FARC´s extraírem urânio do Brasil e, via Venezuela, enviarem para o Irã":

Eu disse isso pra minha filha quando ela tinha 4 anos e ela respondeu:  "Probabilissimo, oh amado e sabio genitor.  Estais, porventura, descrente?"

Falou!  Eu tenho isso gravado!

 

ECHELON saiu da internet. ECHELON agora esta no seu proprio computador.

Já falava com 4 anos. Nossa! que espertinha!

 

Esta do uranio para o Irã via Venezuela é pra bagunçar de vez, agora regeitar prisioneiros de Guantánar, mas teve a compensaçãodo Battistine que veio de graça da Itália e vive tranquilo numa prisão cinco estrela em alguma práia deste país tropical....

 

Legal o "Quizzes com letras & números".

http://www.advivo.com.br/node/287763

Nassif, teria algo semelhante para ideias precomcebidas e amontoadas ao gosto do freguês?

 

Batistine  já era refugiado na França,  e depois fugiu para o Brasil. Nesse caso está de acordo com as regras do CONRAE (Comissão de refugiados da ONU).

No caso dos prisioneiros de Guatanamo , eles são "prisioneiros" que pelo visto, não cometeram crime algum .Os gringos estavam tentando empurrar o problema humanitário para algum país bobão .  Para mim  é obvio , que gringos  desprezam imigrantes tanto quanto terroristas.

 

 

Algumas páginas não estão abrindo. Tentei agora mesmo as páginas da Embaixada em Tel-Aviv e em Teerã. Dei de cara com uma página dizendo haver algum problema com os servidores onde a página estaria hospedada:

 http://guide.opendns.com/main?url=cablegate.wikileaks.org/origin/9_0.html&servfail=

Há uma meia hora, também não consegui acessar as páginas sobre a Embaixada em Brasília. Mesmo erro.

Estou curioso para ver o que diz a diplomacia norte-americana sobre Israel.

 

 

Ou o Brasil acaba com o PIG, ou o PIG acaba com o Brasil

"There can be no daily democracy without daily citizenship" Ralph Nader

 

Eu estou achando mesmo é que o Wikileaks "salvou" Israel. Por quê, não sei. Tá tudo tão estranho...

Essa história de soltar as informações em conta gotas tá parecendo uma tremenda manipulação. Se publicassem o material todo, bruto mesmo e depois fossem trabalhando sobre ele para nos permitir melhor entendimento, tudo bem. Mas do jeito que fazem, não dá pra confiar, pelo menos até agora.

No outro texto da Natália Viana, ela disse que isso seria uma forma de proteger ou garantir a integridade das informações. Mas... As informações só estariam livres de interferências ou manipulações se o original, o material bruto, fosse publicado inteiro, sem cortes.

Tá esquisito.

 

As vezes eu me pergunto... será que eles publicam TUDO ou são seletivos???