ZNAK SAGITE — više od fantastike — edicija, časopis, knjižara...

Pa nešto gadno mjkmu im!!

Rad je najgora stvar koju mogu da zamislim.

Quote from: Lord Kufer on 30-11-2010, 20:57:15
Rad je najgora stvar koju mogu da zamislim.

Jes, vala... Svako ko mi kaze da voli da radi, ja ga pitam a sto posle trazi pare za to. Ako volis, radi bre za dzabe.

Roboti će nas uskoro zameniti... Ti što vole da rade - najebali su

Znači pustiće neki roboaids!!!!!!!!!!

Biće svetska revolucija. Radnici hoće da rade. Želim im dug i težak rad...

Živeo drug Staljin i svetska revolucija!

Живео!!! опс, увек се зајебем...

Svi ćete dobiti sapun, idete na dezinsekciju a zatim na tuširanje...

Genocidan neki kufer,navalio na tuširanje...

Ma, to je samo prividno

Mikelanđelo, Rob - buđenje

Jakako...

WikiLeaks' Next Target: Bank of America?

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2010/11/30/wikileaks-next-target-bank-of-america/?src=busln

Kakva drama, čoveče 

QuoteWall Street was atwitter late on Monday when WikiLeaks' founder, Julian Assange, disclosed in a Forbes interview that the organization's next target was a major American bank, with a major data reveal to come early next year.

Of course, he didn't specify which bank; Mr. Assange is, among other things, skilled at building up suspense for his organization's massive data dumps. But in this case, he may have let the cat out of the bag a year ago.

Toliko su pokrali i izvarali da više pojma nemaju šta da rade,pa ko prave frku-paniku.

20 godina po dogovoru sprovode pljačku i nepoštovanje zakona. Sad će da okrenu list
Znači samo jedno, nova tehnološka revolucija kojoj treba istorijski prevrat...
Zaista se nešto gadno sprema, a priča je prva spremna.

Amerika je na ivici propasti, evo i žene su pomolile glavu i traže jednaka prava:

QuoteBy MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Mark Sherman, Associated Press – Mon Dec 6, 10:26 pm ET

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court will consider whether to keep alive the largest job discrimination case in U.S. history, a lawsuit against Wal-Mart that grew from a half-dozen women to a class action that could involve billions of dollars for more than a half million female workers.

Wal-Mart is trying to halt the lawsuit, with the backing of many other big companies concerned about rules for class-action cases — those in which people with similar interests increase their leverage by joining in a single claim. Class actions against discount seller Costco and the tobacco industry are among pending claims that the high court's decision might alter.

The suit against Wal-Mart Stores Inc. contends that women at Wal-Mart and Sam's Club stores are paid less and promoted less often than men. The case the high court accepted on Monday will not examine whether the claims are true, only whether they can be tried together.

Estimates of the size of the class range from 500,000 to 1.5 million women who work or once worked for Wal-Mart.

Wal-Mart, based in Bentonville, Ark., is appealing a ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco that the class-action lawsuit could go to trial.

Tobacco giant Altria Corp., Bank of America Corp., Dole Food Company Inc., General Electric Co., Intel Corp., Pepsico Inc. and United Parcel Service Inc. are among the companies that also called for high court review of the case.

Wal-Mart praised Monday's Supreme Court intervention.

"The current confusion in class action law is harmful for everyone — employers, employees, businesses of all types and sizes, and the civil justice system," Wal-Mart said in a statement. "These are exceedingly important issues that reach far beyond this particular case."

Lawyers representing the women said they are eager to resolve procedural issues that have delayed the trial.

They said they "welcome the U.S. Supreme Court's limited review of the sex discrimination case and are confident that the court will agree that the women of Wal-Mart are entitled to their day in court."

Wal-Mart employs 1.4 million people in the United States and 2.1 million workers in 8,000 stores worldwide. The company said the women should not be allowed to join together in the lawsuit because each outlet operates as an independent business. Wal-Mart argued that it doesn't have a companywide policy of discrimination, and therefore women alleging gender bias should file individual lawsuits against individual stores.

The plaintiffs contend that the company was aware that it lagged behind other employers in terms of opportunities for women and that Wal-Mart imposes uniform rules and tight controls over its stores.

Wal-Mart said that allowing the large number of claims to go forward would set off an avalanche of similar class-action lawsuits in California and the other Western states overseen by the 9th Circuit. Class-actions increase pressure on businesses to settle lawsuits because of the cost of defending them and the potential for very large judgments.

But the lawyers representing the women who are suing Wal-Mart say there have been only eight such suits nationwide — and none within the 9th Circuit — since the first appeals court ruling in favor of the women nearly four years ago. "This threatened landslide of class-action litigation has not materialized," the lawyers said in legal papers filed with the Supreme Court.

Patty Edwards, chief investment officer at Trutina Financial, a wealth investment and management company in Bellevue, Wash., said that if the case is allowed to be pursued as a class-action suit, it could hurt Wal-Mart's image, which she said has greatly improved in recent years. In 2009, Wal-Mart created a women's leadership council made up of senior executives from the more than dozen countries it operates in.

The lawsuit was first filed by six women in federal court in 2001. The 9th Circuit has three times ruled that the case could proceed as a class action.

In its latest decision, in April, the appeals court voted 6-5 in favor of the plaintiffs. Judge Michael Daly Hawkins said that the number of women involved is large, but "mere size does not render a case unmanageable."

Judge Sandra Ikuta's blistering dissent said the female employees failed to present proof of widespread discrimination. Without such evidence, Ikuta said, "there is nothing to bind these purported 1.5 million claims together in a single action."

The case will be argued in the spring.

The case is Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes, 10-277.

Bem ti, a šta će biti sa Kviki-Martom?!

Inside WikiLeaks (2010)



Ovaj čovek, Julian Assange, je samo za par dana, a čega smo bili svedoci, postao internacionalni heroj i outlaw na svim mogućim nivoima, i to ne samo iz razloga što je objavljivanjem tajnih depeša na svom sajtu pokazao pravo lice američke dimplomatije, nego i ovako, jer je mnogim ljudima  širom sveta dao nadu da taj licemerni sistem vrednosti na kojem počivaju ne samo SAD nego i većina modernih država uključujući naravno i Evropsku Uniju, može i mora pasti.  Ljudi bre, pa on je ovom svojom akcjom, ako ćemo iskreno, naneo SAD daleko veću štetu nego navodni Bin Laden.  Alal mu vera. Dakle, sloboda za Asanža, smrt državi !

http://abraxas365dokumentarci.blogspot.com/2010/12/inside-wikileaks-2010.html

Si ti, neki, anarho...sindikalac?

http://www.enterprisecorruption.com/

Kake veze to ima leba ti, sa anarhizmom ?

Nihilizam je kljucna rec !!! 

Ma, kako ti kažeš!

De Mortibus Nihil Nihi Bene.....

Vidi, vidi, oće pandrkne Holbruk. Lepo.

Quote from: Steva Lazin Ljuštikin on 12-12-2010, 20:39:11
Vidi, vidi, oće pandrkne Holbruk. Lepo.

Really? jadan on, kako ga nije stra' da pandrkne... 

Obamina reforma zdravstva naletela na prvu BAŠ VELIKU prepreku - jedan od sudija je proglasio jedan od elemenata predloga zakona neustavnim:

Big legal setback for Obama's health care overhaul

QuoteBy MARK SHERMAN and ERICA WERNER, Associated Press Mark Sherman And Erica Werner, Associated Press – Mon Dec 13, 9:44 pm ET
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's historic health care overhaul hit its first major legal roadblock Monday, thrown into doubt by a federal judge's declaration that the heart of the sweeping legislation is unconstitutional. The decision handed Republican foes ammunition for their repeal effort next year as the law heads for almost certain eventual judgment by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson, a Republican appointee in Richmond, Va., marked the first successful court challenge to any portion of the new law, following two earlier rulings in its favor by Democratic-appointed judges.

The law's central requirement for nearly all Americans to carry insurance is unconstitutional, well beyond Congress' power to mandate, Hudson ruled, agreeing with the argument of Virginia's Republican attorney general — and many of the GOP lawmakers who will take control of the U.S. House in January. Hudson denied Virginia's request to strike down the law in its entirety or block it from being implemented while his ruling is appealed by the Obama administration.

"An individual's personal decision to purchase — or decline to purchase — health insurance from a private provider is beyond the historical reach of the Commerce Clause," said Hudson, a 2002 appointee of President George W. Bush.

Nevertheless, the White House predicted it would prevail in the Supreme Court, although it may be a year or two before the health care law gets there. The next step for the Virginia lawsuit is the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, where Democratic-appointed judges hold a majority.

In an interview with television station WFLA in Tampa, Fla., on Monday, Obama emphasized that other judges had either found the law constitutional or dismissed lawsuits against it.

"Keep in mind this is one ruling by one federal district court. We've already had two federal district courts that have ruled that this is definitely constitutional," Obama said. "You've got one judge who disagreed. That's the nature of these things."

But in the short term, the latest court ruling hands potent ammunition to GOP opponents as they prepare to assert control in the new Congress with promises to repeal the law. Obama in turn has promised to veto any repeal legislation and appears likely to be able to prevail since Democrats retain control of the Senate. Republicans also have discussed trying to starve the law of funding.

Whatever the eventual outcome, Monday's ruling could create uncertainty around the administration's efforts to gradually put into effect the landmark legislation extending health coverage to 32 million uninsured Americans. And it can only increase the public's skepticism, which has not significantly receded in the months since the law's enactment, defying Obama's prediction that it would become more popular as the public got to know it.

Obama aides said implementation would not be affected, noting that the individual insurance requirement and other major portions of the legislation don't take effect until 2014.

Underscoring the potential for Hudson's ruling to become a political cudgel for the new Republican House majority, incoming House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, quickly cautioned states against "investing time and resources in Obamacare's implementation now that its central mandate has been ruled unconstitutional."

"Republicans have made a pledge to America to repeal this job-killing health care law, and that's what we're going to do," said Boehner. Calls to repeal the law were a staple of tea party campaign rallies this year.

Other lawsuits are going forward, including one by 20 states that gets under way Thursday in Florida. That suit also challenges whether the federal government can require states to expand their Medicaid programs.

The suit that was decided on Monday had gained a high profile because it was pursued by Virginia's outspoken attorney general, Ken Cuccinelli. The two earlier cases decided in favor of the administration were brought by little-known legal entities.

In his ruling, Hudson largely agreed with Cuccinelli's argument that Congress exceeded its authority, and he dismissed the Justice Department's argument that the insurance-buying requirement would come under the definition of regulating interstate commerce, a power given to Congress by the Constitution.

The mandate for people to buy insurance "is neither within the letter nor the spirit of the Constitution," the judge said.

Hudson limited his ruling to striking down the so-called individual mandate, leaving intact other portions of the law — something supporters cast as a victory. But administration officials and outside analysts agree that important provisions of the legislation could not go forward without the requirement for everyone to be insured. That's because insurers need to have large pools of healthy people, who are cheap to insure, or it is not financially tenable for them to extend coverage to anyone with a pre-existing condition or guarantee certain policies to nearly all comers.

Some provisions of the law took effect in September, six months after its passage, including free preventive care, an elimination of lifetime limits on coverage and a requirement for insurers to allow adult children to stay on their parents' health plans until age 26.

Hudson recognized that his would not be the last word on the subject.

"The final word will undoubtedly reside with a higher court," he wrote.

White House health reform director Nancy-Ann DeParle said the administration is encouraged by the two other judges — in Virginia and Michigan — who have upheld the law. She said the Justice Department is reviewing Hudson's ruling.

In contrast to Hudson's ruling, the judges in Michigan and Virginia, both appointed by President Bill Clinton, said the purchase requirement was allowable under the Constitution.

Nju Jork Tajms se oglašava na istu temu:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/14/health/policy/14assess.html

Pogubljen sredstvom za uspvljivanje živitinja
Politika - Pre 43 minuta
Usled nestašice uobičajenog hemijskog proizvoda, u SAD je prvi put jedan osuđenik na smrt pogubljen sredstvom za uspavljivanje životinja, prenose američki mediji.

Džon Dejvid Đuti (58) pogubljen je sinoć u Oklahomi uz pomoć anestetika koji se obično koristi za uspavljivanje životinja jer su sve zalihe "natrijum thiopentola", barbiturata u sastavu smrtonosne injekcije koja se daje osuđenima na pogubljenje, bile iscrpene.

Đuti, koji je osuđen na smrt zbog ubistva zatvorenika sa kojim je delio ćeliju, proglašen je mrtvim svega šest minuta od početka ubrizgavanja pentobarbitala, jakog veterinarskog anestetika.

Smrtonosni koktel koji se obično ubrizgava u venu osuđenika na smrt sadrži tri proizvoda - tiopental, koji uspavljuje, pankuronijum, koji parališe mišiće i zaustavlja disanje i kalijum hlorid, koji zaustavlja rad srca.

Od septembra, međutim, u Oklahomi, kao i u nekoliko drugih američkih država, došlo je do nestašice tiopentala, anestetika čija upotreba ima odobrenje Vrhovnog suda.

Budući da će tiopental ponovo početi da se proizvodi tek od 2011, vlasti američkih države su morale da se dovijaju na razne načine kako ne bi morale da odlože zakazana pogubljenja.

Mislim da Đuti trenutno nije u stanju da napiše kongresu žalbu na takav "nehuman" postupak. Sumnjam čak da mu je svejedno ćime su ga otpremili na onaj svet.

Šalu na stranu, nisam znao da jedna od tih injekcija zaustavlja disanje. Zar osuđenik ne doživljava agoniju, guši se? Bez obzira što je uspavan? Polazim od toga da se svako iz sna budi kad mu neko drugi začepi nos i usta... (Paz' sad kad ispadnem pakGlu...)

Verovatno niko nije imao prilike da se požali...

Mada, ko zna, ako je jak taj anestetik možda i ne osetiš, pogotovo što taj pankuronium bromid deluje tako što ti mišiće opušta do te mere da više ne možeš da ih koristiš, pa time zaustavlja disanje. Dakle, u teoriji, toliko se opustiš da umireš... Neprijatno.

pankuronijum kaže sve...

Leči sve?

PAN! K'o panslavizam.

Jeza...

Nije Amerika, ali je dobroooo

'Who the Hell You Think You Are?' Nigel Farage throws egg in Eurocrat faces

Ovi Amerikanci uvek za korak ispred drugih, makar u bizarnim odlukama:

Kidney parole condition raises ethical questions

QuoteBy HOLBROOK MOHR, Associated Press Holbrook Mohr, Associated Press – Thu Dec 30, 6:33 pm ET
JACKSON, Miss. – A debate is unfolding over an unusual offer from Mississippi's governor: He will free two sisters imprisoned for an armed robbery that netted $11, but one woman's release requires her to donate her kidney to the other.

The condition is alarming some experts, who have raised legal and ethical questions. Among them: If it turns out the sisters aren't a good tissue match, does that mean the healthy one goes back to jail?

Gov. Haley Barbour's decision to suspend the life sentences of Jamie and Gladys Scott was applauded by civil rights organizations and the women's attorney, who have long said the sentences were too harsh for the crime.

The sisters are black, and their case has been a cause celebre in the state's African-American community.

The Scotts were convicted in 1994 of leading two men into an ambush in central Mississippi the year before. Three teenagers hit each man in the head with a shotgun and took their wallets â€" making off with only $11, court records said.

After 16 years in prison, Jamie Scott, 36, is on daily dialysis, which officials say costs the state about $200,000 a year.

Barbour agreed to release her because of her medical condition, but 38-year-old Gladys Scott's release order says one of the conditions she must meet is to donate the kidney within one year.

The idea to donate the kidney was Gladys Scott's and she volunteered to do it in her petition for early release.

National NAACP President and CEO Benjamin Todd Jealous thanked Barbour on Thursday after meeting him at the state capital in Jackson, calling his decision "a shining example" of the way a governor should use the power of clemency.

Others aren't so sure.

Arthur Caplan, the director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, has studied transplants and their legal and ethical ramifications for about 25 years. He said he's never heard of anything like this.

Even though Gladys Scott proposed the idea in her petition for an early release and volunteered to donate the organ, Caplan said, it is against the law to buy and sell organs or to force people to give one up.

"When you volunteer to give a kidney, you're usually free and clear to change your mind right up to the last minute," he said. "When you put a condition on it that you could go back to prison, that's a pretty powerful incentive."

So what happens if she decides, minutes from surgery, to back off the donation?

"My understanding is that she's committed to doing this. This is something that she came up with," said Barbour's spokesman, Dan Turner. "This is not an idea the governor's office brokered. It's not a quid pro quo."

What happens if medical testing determines that the two are not compatible for a transplant? Turner said the sisters are a blood-type match, but that tests to determine tissue compatibility still need to be done.

If they don't match, or if she backs out, will she be heading back to prison?

"All of the 'What if' questions are, at this point, purely hypothetical," Barbour said in a statement from his office late Thursday. "We'll deal with those situations if they actually happen."

Legally, there should be no problems since Gladys Scott volunteered to donate the kidney, said George Cochran, a professor at the University of Mississippi School of Law who specializes in constitutional matters.

"You have a constitutional right to body integrity, but when you consent (to donate an organ) you waive that" right, he said.

Other experts said the sisters' incarceration and their desire for a transplant operation are two separate matters and should not be tied together.

Dr. Michael Shapiro, chief of organ transplants at Hackensack University Medical Center in New Jersey and the chair of the ethics committee at the United Network for Organ Sharing, said the organ transplant should not be a condition of release.

"The simple answer to that is you can't pay someone for a kidney," Shapiro said. "If the governor is trading someone 20 years for a kidney, that might potentially violate the valuable consideration clause" in federal regulations.

That clause is meant to prohibit the buying or selling of organs, and Shapiro said the Scott sisters' situation could violate that rule because it could be construed as trading a thing of value — freedom from prison — for an organ.

Putting conditions on parole, however, is a long-standing practice. And governors granting clemency have sometimes imposed unusual ones, such as requiring people whose sentences are reduced to move elsewhere.

In 1986, South Dakota Gov. Bill Janklow commuted the sentences of 36 criminals, but only on the condition that they leave his state and never come back. In Florida, the governor and members of his cabinet voted in 1994 to reduce a convicted killer's sentence as long as he agreed to live in Maryland.

Whatever the legal or ethical implications of Barbour's decision, it thrust him back into the spotlight, after his recent comments in a magazine article about growing up in the segregated South struck some as racially insensitive.

In the article, Barbour explained that the public schools in his hometown of Yazoo City didn't see the violence that other towns did, and attributed that to the all-white Citizens Council in Mississippi.

Some critics said he glossed over the group's role in segregation. He later said he wasn't defending the group.

The Scott sisters' attorney, Chokwe Lumumba, said people have asked if Barbour, who is mentioned as a potential presidential contender in 2012, suspended their sentences for political reasons.

"My guess is he did," Lumumba said, but he still said the governor did the right thing.

Mississippi Rep. George Flaggs, an outspoken Democrat in the state legislature and an African-American, scoffed at suggestions that Barbour's motive was political and said the decision wasn't an attempt to gloss over the magazine comments.

Flaggs said Barbour suspended the sentences "not only to let this woman out of prison, but to save her life.

"If she doesn't get a kidney, she's going to die," he said.

Fašističkim Amerikancima čak ni privatnost na Twitteru nije sveta:

WikiLeaks: US demanding Twitter account info

QuoteBy RAPHAEL G. SATTER, Associated Press Raphael G. Satter, Associated Press – 34 mins ago
LONDON – WikiLeaks' Twitter account details have been subpoenaed by U.S. officials, the secret-spilling site announced Saturday, adding that it suspected other American Internet companies were also being asked to hand over information about its activities.

In an e-mail statement, WikiLeaks said that U.S. investigators had gone to the San Francisco-based Twitter Inc. to demand the private messages, contact information, and other personal details of founder Julian Assange and three people associated with the secret-spilling website.

WikiLeaks blasted the court order, saying it amounted to harassment.

"If the Iranian government was to attempt to coercively obtain this information from journalists and activists of foreign nations, human rights groups around the world would speak out," Assange said in statement.

A copy of the court order, dated Dec. 14 and posted to Salon.com, said that the information sought was "relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation" and ordered Twitter not to disclose its existence to Assange or any of the others targeted.

The order was unsealed "thanks to legal action by Twitter," WikiLeaks said in its statement. Twitter has declined comment on the claim, saying only that its policy is to notify its users, where possible, of government requests for information.

U.S. officials have been examining possible charges against WikiLeaks and its staff following a series of spectacular leaks which have embarrassed officials and tarnished Washington's image. The U.S. State Department has said that the website's latest leak — the disclosure of thousands of confidential diplomatic cables — has harmed U.S. diplomacy and could put human rights activists and others at risk.

WikiLeaks denies that charge, saying that Washington is acting out of embarrassment over the revelations contained in the cables.

___

Michael Liedtke in San Francisco contributed to this report.

Srećom, tu su komenatari poštene inteligencije:

QuoteForget WikiLeaks, what about the rights of regular people. How dare they take Twitter accounts, etc and read them? There's no privacy and this is just another excuse to have us all take off our UNDERWEAR, hand over our phone communications and Twitter "PRIVATE" emails, and put a darn CAMERA in the BATHROOM under the toilet to see if we're SPILLING any liquids that the government could tax. Pisses me off (no pun intended).

QuoteThis is a result of a power hungry government (ours) circling the wagons to protect itself by attacking the messenger. They got caught saying a bunch of things it wanted hidden. I think ALL should be revealed and not hidden.

If some diplomat says that another country or leader is an idiot, it should be publicized. Why hidden? Be honest and dont say what you arent willing to stand behind.

QuoteThe more that comes out about our government's backdoor dirty dealing, the better. That B/S about National Security is just that, B/S. They throw that word around any time they want to pull something over the public's eyes, and the neo-nazi right-wing in this country fall for it every time. Why, because most of them originate from the South, where their ancestors thought that they were fighting a NOBLE cause in preserving Slavery.

QuoteRelease the ufo files while u still have the chance omg... for once do the most patriotic thing anyone has done in this country... give everyone the truth

QuoteAssange you are real democrat. It is not the Govt. but the Govt's. run by idiotic people try to revenge you.

You are in our hearts for ever. You could have blown the lid off their money hidden everywhere too.Could that happen even now????

Assange my HERO!

QuoteIf Iran wanted the twitter account of a Terrorist the US and UK would protect him as guest of honor. And you are not even ashamed of doing this under the sun. Because you have become drunk of ill-gotten wealth from slave labour and bullying of smaller nations. We need more leaks!

Nastavak iste priče:

U.S. orders Twitter to hand over WikiLeaks records

QuoteA U.S. court has ordered Twitter to hand over details of the accounts of WikiLeaks and several supporters as part of a criminal investigation into the release of hundreds of thousands of confidential documents. Skip related content
The December 14 subpoena obtained by the U.S. Department of Justice and published by online magazine Salon.com on Friday said the records sought from the microblogging website were "relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation."

It ordered Twitter to provide account information on WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and Bradley Manning, the U.S. Army intelligence analyst suspected of leaking Pentagon documents made public last year by WikiLeaks.

The information sought by the government includes all connection records and session times, IP addresses used to access Twitter, email and residential addresses plus billing records and details of bank accounts and credit cards.

The subpoena included the accounts of WikiLeaks supporters Jacob Appelbaum, Rop Gonggrijp and Birgitta Jonsdottir, a former WikiLeaks volunteer and member of Iceland's parliament.

"WikiLeaks strongly condemns this harassment of individuals by the U.S. government," WikiLeaks said in a statement issued to Reuters by its London lawyer, Mark Stephens.

Iceland's Foreign Minister Ossur Skarphedinsson told Icelandic media on Saturday his government planned to lodge a protest on Monday with the U.S. ambassador in Reykjavik.

Speaking on state radio, Skarphedinsson said the U.S. authorities' behaviour was unacceptable and his government would do everything in its power to protect Jonsdottir.

The U.S. government is examining whether criminal charges can be brought against Assange for helping to make public hundreds of thousands of confidential U.S. diplomatic cables that embarrassed Washington and several of its allies.

WikiLeaks said three of the four individuals targeted by the U.S. Department of Justice had never worked for WikiLeaks and were private citizens who supported its public disclosure work voluntarily as activists or politicians.

Two of them were instrumental in helping WikiLeaks make public the Pentagon video that showed a U.S. helicopter crew firing on Iraqi civilians, the statement said. WikiLeaks is instructing its U.S. lawyers to oppose the subpoena, he added.

Jonsdottir, a member of Iceland's foreign relations committee wrote on Twitter that she was seeking legal advice and had spoken to Iceland's minister of justice, who was looking into the case.

Speaking to Sky News on the telephone from Reykjavik, she said the U.S.'s actions were outrageous.

"I have not conducted any criminal activity. I find it to be troublesome because the vice president of the United States has labelled WikiLeaks as a cyber-terrorist organisation," she said.

The subpoena gave Twitter Inc three days to provide the records and ordered the San Francisco-based company not to inform the users under investigation.

A federal judge unsealed the order on January 5 after Twitter requested the right to inform the people involved.

A Twitter spokesperson declined to comment on the subpoena but added: "To help users protect their rights, it is our policy to notify users about law enforcement and governmental requests for their information, unless we are prevented by law from doing so."

In its statement, WikiLeaks said the legal step taken by Twitter had made public the existence of a criminal investigation by the U.S. government into the website's work.

WikiLeaks called on Facebook and Google to unseal any similar subpoenas requesting information about its operations.

Stephens said the subpoena showed that the U.S. authorities were having difficulty putting together a case "criminalizing the actions of a journalistic source" as they try to identify the source of the leaked documents.

"What they are trying to do is hoover data up to see if anything can identify the source," the lawyer told Reuters.

Washington has accused WikiLeaks of acting without regard for the safety of those named in classified cables containing candid remarks about foreign leaders and governments.

The State Department said on Friday it has warned several hundred people worldwide it believes may be imperilled and has helped a handful relocate to safer places.

Link to subpoena: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/01/07/twitter/subpoena.pdf

(Writing by Anthony Boadle, reporting by Stefano Ambrogi in London and Dan Whitcomb in Los Angeles and Omar Valdimarsson in Reykjavik; Editing by Paul Simao)

Jel' te to iznenađuje demokratija?

Sigurno si me pomešao sa nekim.

Jesam. Ja uvek pomešam nekoga sa nekim.

Mora da se meša, da ne zagori, poštujem.

A u SAD covek uze pistolj i krene da puca! Ubije gomilu ljudi! I pritom upuca senatorku point blank execution style u glavu ... A ova prezivi!

Veliki, veliki narod!

Po onome sto sam procitao mislim da imamo novog heroja 
Oklahoma was only the beginning...

Posle Tom Sojera i Haklberi Fin 'zaglavio' u novim američkim izdanjima. Po izbacivanju iz programa većine US škola zbog manjka 'političke korektnosti', srednji put je nađen u prepravljanju iz 'crnac' u 'rob'. Ponosnije zvuči, šta već...

Klemense, Klemense, đubre ono jedno!

'nigger' nije 'crnac', bliže bi bilo 'čamuga'.

Ali da, 'ispravljanje' je idiotsko.

http://blog.bookviewcafe.com/2011/01/08/everything-old-is-new-again/

"Nigger" jeste u početku označavalo crnca, i to ne u pežorativnom smislu. Naravno, davno se to uvrištalo, već početkom 17. veka taj pojam se koristi isključivo za robove.

"Negro" je označavalo crnca. "Nigger" je uvek služio za nipodaštavanje.

Šta ćemo sa rekom Niger i sa Nigerijom?

Potpuno je nebitno kako se kad ko robom nazivao. Menjati Tvena je kao belilom prepravljati fotografije.

Vikipedija kaže da je reka Niger dobila takvo ime najverovatnije zbog toga što se reč "niger" nalazi u nazivu "egerew nigerewen" koji su Tuarezi koristili za reku, a pošto "niger" znači "crno" na latinskom, došlo se do zgodnog imena za reku.

Vikipedija takođe kaže da reč "nigger" nije baš uvek bila korišćena za nipodaštavanje. Otprilike kao da kažeš za čoveka da je stoka, ali to nije nipodaštavanje ako je čovek za tebe zaista stoka, pa kad osloviš svog roba sa nigger ispada da si mu tepao "magare moje malo". Po meni tu imamo grešku u rasuđivanju, pa kad se pođe od pogrešne premise da čovek nije čovek nego stoka, vrlo lako može da se dođe do pogrešnog zaključka da reč nigger ne služi za nipodaštavanje.