以下为阿桑奇文章全文：《不要枪毙说真相的人》

1958年，《阿德莱德日报》的所有者和编辑、年轻的鲁伯特 默多克(Rupert Murdoch)写道：“在秘密和真相的赛跑中，真相总是会不可阻挡地获得胜利。”

他的这番言论或许正是继承了他的父亲基思 默多克(Keith Murdoch)的意志。基思 默多克曾揭露了澳大利亚加里波第战役的残酷真相：由于英国统帅的无能，无数的澳大利亚军人在加里波第战役中作出了不必要的牺牲。英国试图将基思 默多克禁言，但默多克并未就此沉默。最终，基思 默多克的努力促成了损失惨重的加里波第战役的终结。

在将近一个世纪之后，维基解密也在无所畏惧地公布那些应该得到公开的事实。

我成长于昆士兰州的一个乡下小镇，那里的人们从来都是直言不讳。他们不信任“大政府”，因为他们认为如果监管不得当，大政府很容易出现腐败。在菲茨杰拉尔德调查(Fitzgerald inquiry，译者注，澳大利亚80年代的一起警方腐败案)之前，昆士兰州腐败盛行的黑暗时期正是政治控制媒体压制真相的恶果。

我将这些历史谨记于心。维基解密正是建立在这些核心价值观之上的。还在澳大利亚的时候，我产生了利用互联网技术报道真相的想法。

维基解密创立了一种全新的新闻理念：科学的新闻理念。我们与其他媒体的合作既能向大众传播新闻，同时也帮助证实了新闻的真实性。科学的新闻理念允许读者阅读一篇新闻，然后点击鼠标，在网上找到产生新闻的原始文件。这样，读者就能够自行判断：这篇新闻是否真实？记者的报道是否准确？

民主社会需要强势的媒体，而维基百科正是这种媒体的一部分。媒体可以使政府更加诚实。维基解密已经公布了一些有关伊拉克和阿富汗战争的残酷的真相，以及有关企业腐败的新闻。

有些人说我是反战主义者：但从记录上来看，我不是。有时候，国家之间需要进行战争，战争是事实存在的。但一个政府能犯下的最大的错误，莫过于向民众隐瞒战争的真相，并要求这些民众为谎言付出生命或税收的代价。如果政府真的拥有发动战争的合理理由，那么它应该公布真相，让人民决定是否支持战争。

如果你读过任何维基解密公布的阿富汗战争或伊拉克战争记录，或任何一条美国外交电报，或任何一个维基解密报道的新闻，你应该能够理解媒体能够自由报道这些事件有多么重要。

维基解密并不是唯一一个报道美国外交电报的媒体。其他媒体机构，包括英国《卫报》、《纽约时报》、西班牙《国家报》和德国《明镜周刊》都公布了相同的编辑过的电报。
然而，维基解密是其他这些媒体的统筹机构，也是遭到最多美国政府及其他国家攻击和批评的机构。尽管我是一名澳大利亚人而不是美国人，却被美国指责犯下叛国罪。美国国内要求特务“干掉我”的呼声不断。萨拉·佩林(Sarah Palin)说我应该“像萨达姆那样被围捕”，共和党向美国参议院提出议案，试图将我列入“跨国威胁”名单，并依照跨国威胁分子予以处分。加拿大总理办公室的顾问在国家电视台呼吁刺杀我。一名美国博客作者甚至呼吁，到澳大利亚绑架并伤害我20岁的儿子，目的仅仅是为了抓到我。

澳大利亚人民应该看得到，茱莉雅·吉拉德(Julia Gillard)总理和她所掌管的政府正在无耻地迎合这些言论。在是否取消我的澳大利亚护照，或监控、羞辱维基解密支持者方面，澳大利亚政府的权利似乎已经完全被美国所支配。澳大利亚首席检察官正在竭尽所能地帮助美国人进行一项调查，目的显然是绑架澳大利亚公民并将其送往美国。

吉拉德总理和美国国务卿希拉里·克林顿没有对其他媒体机构进行半个字的批评。这是因为，《卫报》、《纽约时报》和《明镜周刊》资格老且势力较强，而维基解密既年轻又弱小。

我们现在是被压迫者。吉拉德政府试图枪毙说出真相的人，因为它不希望它的外交和政治交易等真相被人揭露。

在我和其他维基解密员工遭遇无数公共暴力威胁的时候，澳大利亚政府的回应在哪里？澳大利亚人或许会以为，总理应该保护她的公民免受这些伤害，但政府给出的只有尚未证实的非法指控。澳大利亚总理和首席检察官本应独立于事件本身，以有尊严的方式履行他们的职责。但他们不会，他们只想挽回自己的面子。

每一次维基解密公布美国机构滥用职权的真相，澳大利亚政客们都会追随美国国务院的论调：“你会置众多生命于安危！国家安全！你会威胁军队的安全！”然后，他们却又说维基解密公布的内容并不重要。问题是，这两种说法不能同时成立。到底哪种说法才对呢？

两种说法都不对。维基解密已有4年的历史，这段时间里，我们改变了整个政府的运作方式，但正如所有人都知道的一样，没有一个人因此受到伤害。相反，在澳大利亚政府的默许之下，美国在过去的几个月时间里就杀死了数千人。

美国国防部部长罗伯特·盖茨(Robert Gates)在一封写给美国参议院的信中承认，没有任何敏感情报来源或途径因维基解密公布的有关阿富汗战争的文件而中断。美国国防部称，没有任何证据证明，维基解密的报道导致了任何人在阿富汗受到伤害。北约驻喀布尔人员向CNN表示，没有发现任何一个需要保护的个人。澳大利亚国防部的表态如出一辙。没有任何澳大利亚军队或情报人员因为我们公布的材料而受到伤害。

然而，这并不意味着我们公布的信息不重要。美国外交电报向我们揭露了众多令人震惊的事实：

美国违法了国际条约，要求其外交官窃取联合国和人权组织官员的个人材料和信息，包括DNA、指纹、虹膜扫描、信用卡号码、网络密码和身份证照片等。澳大利亚驻联合国官员可能也被美国外交官当做窃取目标。

沙特阿拉伯国王阿卜杜拉请求美国攻击伊朗。
约旦和巴林官员希望以任何可能的方式停止伊朗的核计划。
英国的伊拉克战争调查计划要求必须保护“美国的利益”。
瑞典是北约的隐藏成员国。

美国正在要求其他国家接收关塔那摩监狱释放出来的囚犯。奥巴马甚至表态，除非斯洛伐尼亚愿意接收一名囚犯，否则不会会见斯洛伐尼亚总统。美国还曾提出给澳大利亚邻国基里巴斯数百万美元，要求其接收关塔那摩关押的囚犯。

在1967年的“五角大楼文件”一案中，美国最高法院曾说过，“只有一个自由和不受限制的媒体环境，才能有效拆穿政府的谎言”。维基解密今天所陷入的漩涡风暴，恰恰再次表明了捍卫媒体报道真相的权利的必要性。

短片中的这艘中国拖网渔船，是9月一起事件的焦点——该事件使得中日关系降至2005年以来的冰点。上周泄露的这段短片，意在展现一艘中国渔船在钓鱼岛周边水域撞击日本海上保安厅舰艇的画面。钓鱼岛在日本被称为尖阁列岛(Senkaku )，这些岛屿无人居住，但中日两国争夺激烈。这一段视频的泄露，再度点燃了围绕日本拘捕中方船长时间的争议——此次事件引发了中日外交角力。由于中国政府施加了强大的政治压力，日本检察机关以担心中日关系为由释放了中国船长，没有对其提出起诉。
The featured Chinese trawler is at the centre of a September incident that brought Sino-Japanese relations to their lowest point since 2005. The footage, leaked last week, purports to show a Chinese boat ramming a Japanese coastguard ship in waters close to uninhabited, but fiercely contested, islands known as Senkaku in Japan and Diaoyu in China. Its release has reignited controversy over Japan’s arrest of the captain, which set off a diplomatic shoving-match between Beijing and Tokyo. So intense was the political pressure from Beijing that Japanese prosecutors released the captain without pressing charges, citing concerns about Sino-Japanese ties.

该视频的泄露，似乎是为了支持日本的说法：即该国别无选择，只能在本国控制的岛屿附近，拘捕故意冲撞日本舰艇的中国渔船船长。中国政府始终否认这艘渔船主动挑衅，尽管许多中国网民正是因此而把船长奉为英雄。
Tokyo’s apparent climbdown in releasing the captain provoked a backlash at home. Even Yoichi Funabashi, editor-in-chief of the Asahi Shimbun, Japan’s most liberal mainstream newspaper, published an anguished letter in which he decried Beijing’s actions. “If China continues to act as it has, we Japanese will be prepared to engage in a long, long struggle with China.”

日本政府释放船长，显然是一种退让，这在日本国内引发了强烈反响。甚至日本最开明的主流报纸《朝日新闻》(Asahi Shimbun)的主编船桥洋一(Yoichi Funabashi)，也悲愤地发表了一封信件，谴责中国政府的举动。“如果中国继续这么做，我们日本人将准备与中国进行长期斗争”。

通常温文尔雅、会讲汉语的船桥洋一强烈抨击中国政府采取的报复性措施，包括中方否认的对日出口稀土禁令。他预言，事实将证明，对日本而言，“尖阁列岛冲击”(Senkaku shock)要比1971年的“尼克松冲击”(Nixon shock)强烈得多——当时，美国总统尼克松在日本政府不知情的情况下，与中国恢复了正常邦交。

这些小岛的归属权究竟为何引起如此大的争议？的确，这里涉及到一些存亡攸关的重大战略问题。东中国海附近海域盛产鱼类，石油和天然气储藏可能也非常丰富。它们还毗邻重要的航道。但是，要想真正弄清楚这起争端的本质，人们需要回头看看历史——这种情况在亚洲非常普遍。

中国政府宣称，这些岛屿自明朝（1368年-1644年）以来，就是中国的一部分——当时的国际地图证明了这一点。在中国政府看来，钓鱼岛是台湾的一部分——中国在1894-1895年的甲午战争中战败后，台湾沦为日本的殖民地。因此，当日本在战后放弃台湾时，也应该就放弃了这些岛屿。

而日本的说法则完全不同，这并不令人感到意外。日本表示，它在1885年勘察了尖阁列岛（钓鱼岛），证实它们“无人居住，且没有曾处于中国控制之下的任何迹象”。日本表示，这些岛屿不是台湾的一部分，而是冲绳岛的延伸，因此在1971年回归日本无可厚非。

对于哪一方的法律主张更有力，我不发表意见。但我怀疑这涉及一些更深层次的问题。在西方人将枪炮和鸦片带到东亚地区之前，国家政府的观念尚未完全确立。韩国首尔国际关系专家Min Gyo Koo表示：“当时，人们实际上还没有主权观念，而只是宗主观念。”他表示，不言而喻，中国当时是占据主导地位的文明国家，因此，它获得了周边王国的朝贡，比如琉球国(Ryukyu)——后来被日本兼并后，成为了冲绳群岛。

研究中国的历史学家乔纳森•芬比(Jonathan Fenby)这样描述中华帝国与尖阁列岛/钓鱼岛之间可能存在的关系：“在现实中对一个岩石丛生的岛屿行使主权，这样的事情并不重要。只要人们人们承认中国体制的固有的优越性，就足够了。”

关键在于，最全面地吸收了欧洲的主权和政府观念的国家是日本。在1868年明治维新时期，日本推翻了半封建的幕府，建立了议会体制。它同时接纳了西方的观点：要成为一个伟大的国家，就必须获得控制权。这促使日本开始了地区扩张主义的悲剧性运动。

中日两国政府从不同角度看待尖阁列岛/钓鱼岛问题。中国将自身对钓鱼岛的领土主张，视为一个更广泛使命的组成部分：让东亚地区恢复到西方（及其日本“继子”）搅局之前的状态，从而纠正历史性错误。对中国政府而言，此次纠纷（以及南中国海的其它类似纠纷）不过是洗刷150年屈辱历史行动的一部分。相反，日本政府把中国的日益自信，视为对其自二战结束以来建立的法律和行政标准的挑战。在日本看来，这是个法律问题；而对中国来说，它事关尊严。目前尚不清楚怎样调和这两种观点。
The normally mild-mannered Mr Funabashi, a Chinese speaker, complained bitterly about retaliatory measures by Beijing, including a non-acknowledged ban on the export of rare earths. The “Senkaku shock”, he predicted, would prove to be a much bigger blow to Japan than the “Nixon shock” of 1971 when the US president normalised relations with Beijing behind Tokyo’s back.

Why on earth is ownership of these tiny rocks so explosive an issue? Certainly, there are important strategic matters at stake. Nearby waters in the East China Sea are teeming with fish and potentially rich in oil and gas. They are also near important shipping lanes. But really to get at the heart of the dispute, as so often in Asia, one needs to peel back layers of history.

Beijing claims the islands have been part of China since the Ming Dynasty era (1368-1644), when, it says, international maps confirmed its ownership. From Beijing’s perspective they are part of Taiwan, which Japan colonised after defeating China in the Sino-Japanese war of 1894-95. As such, they should have been relinquished when Japan gave up Taiwan after the war.

Not surprisingly, Japan’s account is entirely different. It says it surveyed the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands in 1885, confirming they had “been uninhabited and showed no trace of having been under the control of China”. They were not part of Taiwan, it says, but were run from Okinawa and thus rightly returned to Japan in 1971.

I offer no opinion as to whose legal claim is stronger. But I suspect that something deeper is at stake. Before westerners brought their guns and opium to east Asia, the idea of a nation state was not well established. “Back then, people didn’t really have the concept of sovereignty, rather there was suzerainty,” says Min Gyo Koo, an expert in international affairs in Seoul. China was self-evidently the dominant civilisation, he says. As such, it collected tribute from surrounding kingdoms, such as Ryukyu, which later became known as Okinawa when it was annexed by Japan.

Jonathan Fenby, a historian of China, puts imperial China’s likely relationship with the Senkaku/ Diaoyu islands thus: “Things like exercising practical sovereignty over a rocky island didn’t matter.

So long as people recognised the innate superiority of the Chinese system, that was enough.”

Crucially, the country that most thoroughly absorbed European concepts of sovereignty and the nation state was Japan. In the Meiji Restoration of 1868, it overhauled its semi-feudal shogunate, replacing it with a parliamentary system. It also took on board the western notions that, to be a great nation, it must acquire an empire. That set it off on its tragic campaign of regional expansionism.

Beijing and Tokyo peer at the Senkaku/Diaoyu through a different lens. China views its claim as part of a broader mission to right historical wrongs by returning the region to the way it was before the west – and its Japanese stepchild – messed things up. For Beijing, the dispute, and others like it in the South China Sea, is nothing less than part of a campaign to overturn 150 years of humiliation. Tokyo, by contrast, regards China’s growing assertiveness as a challenge to the legal and administrative norms that have held since the war. For Japan it is a matter of law, for China, one of respect. It is not obvious how these two views can be reconciled.

作者：英国《金融时报》专栏作家 戴维•皮林 , 译者/何黎

读者boss6tg 来自北京市评论：
日本炸了美国的珍珠港，美国给了日本两颗原子弹，美国和日本之间的账目早就算清楚了，也算公平。但是中国和日本的战争，中国吃亏吃的太多了，受的灾难太深重了，这笔账不是那么容易算清楚的。也许中国目前还没有能力跟日本算账，但是这并不表示这笔账目已经勾销。我是和平主义者，但是日本除外，我希望在有生之年看到日本遭到报应！

匿名读者评论：
哈哈，我想起来了，作者很对，那个视频确实不错，一条美国狗，骑着一个日本人边玩滑板，边看奥巴马作“获诺贝尔和平奖”宣言。这段关于狗的视频，和美国政治家的宣言一直在YOUTUBE排名中各领风骚，好看的很。

??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

????????????????????????????????(???????????????????????????????????)??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

????????????????????????????????????“??”??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
I grew up in a small house on a hill in Cincinnati, Ohio, with 11 brothers and sisters. My dad ran a bar, Andy’s Cafe, that my grandfather Andrew Boehner opened in 1938. We didn’t have much but were thankful for what we had. And we didn’t think much about Washington.

That changed when I got involved with a small business, which I eventually built into a successful enterprise. I saw firsthand how government throws obstacles in the way of job-creation and stifles our prosperity. It prompted me to get involved in my government, and eventually took me to Congress.

Millions Buy Clomid Online Pharmacy No Prescription Needed of Americans have had a similar experience. They look at Washington and see an arrogance of power. They see a Congress that doesn’t listen, that is ruled by leaders who seem out of touch and dismissive, even disdainful, of the anger that Americans feel toward their government and the challenges they face in an economy struggling to create jobs.

The political landscape Buy lamprene has been permanently reshaped over the past two years. Overreaching by elected officials — in the form of pork-laden ‘stimulus’ spending, permanent bailouts, and policies that force responsible taxpayers to subsidize irresponsible behavior — has awakened something deep in our national character. This has led to a surge of activism by citizens demanding smaller, more accountable government and a repudiation of Washington in Tuesday’s elections.

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????112????????????????????????????????????????????????

????????????????????????????????

????????(earmark)?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????(A Pledge to America)????????????????

????“???”?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????“???”?????????

???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Tired of politicians who refuse to listen, Americans who previously were not involved or minimally involved in the political process are now helping to drive it. While their backgrounds are as diverse as the country itself, their message to Washington is the same: Government leaders are servants of the people; the people are not servants Online Pharmacy of their government.

The members of the 112th Congress must heed this message if there is to be any hope of repairing the shattered bonds of trust between the American people and their elected leaders. And that begins with the speaker of the House, who as leader of the institution must lead by example.

Accordingly, there are several steps I believe the next speaker should be prepared to take immediately. buy prescription drugs Among them:

No earmarks. Earmarks have become a symbol of a broken Washington, and an entire lobbying industry has been created around them. The speaker of the House shouldn’t use the power of the office to raid the federal Treasury for pork-barrel projects. To the contr ary, the spe Levitra generico aker should be an advocate for ending the current earmark process, and should adhere to a personal no-earmarks policy that stands as an example for all members of Congress to follow.

I have maintained a no-earmarks policy throughout my time of service in Congress. I believe the House must adopt a moratorium on all earmarks as a signal of our commitment to ending business as usual in the spending process.

Let Americans read bills before they are brought to a vote. The speaker of the House should not allow any bill to come to a vote that has not been posted publicly online for at least three days. Members of Congress and the American people must have the opportunity to read it.

Similarly, the speaker should insist that every bill include a clause citing where in the Constitution Congress is given the power to pass it. Bills that can’t pass Buy aldactone this test shouldn’t get a vote. House Republicans’ new governing agenda, ‘A Pledge to America,’ calls for the speaker to implement such reforms immediately.

No more ‘comprehensive’ bills. The next speaker should put an end to so-called comprehensive bills with thousands of pages of legislative text that make it easy to hide spending projects and job-killing policies. President Obama’s massive ‘stimulus’ and health-care bills, written behind closed doors with minimal public scrutiny, were the last straw for many Americans. Viagra reviews The American people are not well-served by ‘comprehensive,’ and they are rightly suspicious of the adjective.

No more bills written behind closed doors in the speaker’s office. Bills should be written by legislators in committee in plain public view. Issues should be advanced one at a time, and the speaker should place an emphasis on smaller, more focused legislation that is properly scrutinized, constitutionally sound, and consistent with Americans’ demand for a less-costly, less-intrusive government.

The speaker of the House, like all members of Congress, is a servant of the American people. The individual entrusted with that high honor and responsibility should act accordingly. A speaker’s mission should not be to consolidate power in the speaker’s office, but rather to ensure that elected officials uphold their oath to defend the Constitution and the American people we serve. If a speaker carries out that mission successfully, the result should be legislation that better reflects the considerable challenges we face as a nation.

The American people deserve a majority in Congress that listens to the people, focuses on their priorities and honors their demands for smaller, more accountable government. Accountability starts at the top, in the office of the speaker.

???????•??(JOHN BOEHNER)???????????????????????????