backtop


Print 154 comment(s) - last by StevoLincolnit.. on Dec 9 at 11:39 PM


  (Source: Orion Pictures)

Wikileaks' campaign against the U.S. has resulted in the termination of its primary hosting account, on Amazon's EC2, and its primary donations account, on Paypal.  (Source: AP/AFP)

Paypal claims Wikileaks is supporting crime. It terminated the site's account, Wikileaks primary source of donations.  (Source: MRR2)
Payment service says Wikileaks supports crime

Wikileaks, a rebellious site which shares the stolen secrets of powerful businesses and governments, has long enjoyed a steady stream of funding from donors in the U.S. and abroad.  While the site is largely staffed by volunteers, that funding pays for serving costs and small payments to a skeleton staff of regulars.  According to some, it also helps finance a lavish lifestyle for site founder Julian Assange who is known for his expensive fashion tastes and constant travel, which he has stated is in an effort to escape prosecution for his site's activity.

But the happy days of steady funding may be at an end for the site.  Its primary funding source -- a Paypal account -- has been terminated.  In a blog post, Paypal says that it became aware of the account, which was in violation of its terms of service "which states that our payment service cannot be used for any activities that encourage, promote, facilitate or instruct others to engage in illegal activity."

Information War With the U.S.

While some contend that Wikileaks carries out a Robin Hoodesque campaign of "just crime", the site relies largely on information theft to fuel its cyperespionage campaign.  Some nations like the U.S. grant leniency to whistleblowers who reveal government wrongdoing.  However, recent leaks go well beyond that, sharing secrets that have little to do with government wrongdoing, but are harmful to international diplomacy. Thus the U.S. and other nations have contended that Wikileaks and its allies indeed are conducting themselves in a criminal fashion.

Allies of Wikileaks contend that the site is not targeting the U.S. specifically, but is rather combating misconduct worldwide.  Statistics clearly disagree.

Over 95 percent of the materials published on the site are stolen U.S. documents.  Over the past few years the site has almost wholeheartedly directed its campaign of information warfare against the U.S.  Of the remaining 5 percent, most of it comes from Middle Easter allies of the U.S., such as Afghanistan and Iraq.

The site's highest profile leaks have been the release of 250,000 classified U.S. State Department cables and 90,000 Afghanistan war memos.  Leaders of Afghanistan's Taliban insurgency have praised Wikileaks for releasing this information, which they say can be used to hunt down and murder allies of the U.S.

Wiklieaks has announced its intention to next target the American business sector, releasing embarrassing details on a major American bank.

The U.S. Governments, Businesses Strike Back

In its campaign against the U.S., Wikileaks, may have bitten off more than it can chew, though.

Earlier this week the site was dumped from Amazon's EC2 hosting service, after a Homeland Security official complained to Amazon.  The site is now hosted Bahnhof, a Swedish hosting service housed inside an unusual lair-like cave.  The MIT Technology Review writes:
If Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is trying to turn himself into a Bond villain, he's succeeded: the ongoing distributed denial of service attack against Wikileaks has forced his minions to move the site to a fortified data center [Bahnhof] encased in a cold war-era, nuke-proof bunker encased in bedrock. Really.
Now its funding has been cut. 

The Paypal account was not in the name of Wikileaks, but rather in the name of The Wau Holland Foundation.  The foundation was named after a deceased German hacker of the same name, who found the infamous Chaos Computer Club (CCC) in 1981. The Wau Holland Foundation president Winfried Motzkus recently stated that the account had been used to funnel €750,000 ($1M USD) into the site.

Now that the Paypal account is down, Wikileaks' donors are only left with a handful of options -- sending money through the mail to an Australian post office box, making a bank transfer to an account in Switzerland, Germany or Iceland; or sending funds to a "credit card processing partner" in Switzerland."

Those who considering sending money may want to think twice.  Given that the U.S. has accused Wikileaks of criminal activity, mail and bank donations may be terminated en route.  And those who give large amounts may find themselves part of the broad investigation into Wikileaks criminal wrongdoing.

To top off its funding and hosting troubles, Wikileaks' prime government informant, U.S. Army Spc. Bradley Manning, is currently sitting in military prison awaiting treason charges.  Mr. Manning is responsible for the State Department and military leaks.  He made the leaks after becoming bitter following a demotion.  Without the help of its best informant it remains to be seen if the Wikileaks can continue to find stolen information from the U.S. government.

The site was certainly brazen when it decided to target the world's most powerful nation.  But its boldness has been punished, leaving the site with a bitter taste in its mouth. Its informant rests in prison, its funding is being cut off, and it has been forced onto unstable hosting.  Given these issues, the site may have trouble continuing to grab attention in the international spotlight.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Treason and Capital Punishment
By MWCORE on 12/4/2010 7:41:11 PM , Rating: 1
Manning committed treason and his punishment should be death. Anyone who steals classified documents and disperses them with disregard should suffer the same fate. All other arguments are moot in this context.




RE: Treason and Capital Punishment
By StevoLincolnite on 12/4/2010 11:34:58 PM , Rating: 1
Considering he is an Australian citizen... I Assume he could be deported if he was ever caught by the US or other countries.
If that did happen... Then he would simply be sent to jail, there is no Death penalty here.


RE: Treason and Capital Punishment
By Norseman4 on 12/6/2010 9:07:05 AM , Rating: 2
Please see my comments to sprockkets below.


By StevoLincolnite on 12/9/2010 11:39:25 PM , Rating: 2
Considering I posted mine a day earlier...


RE: Treason and Capital Punishment
By sprockkets on 12/5/10, Rating: 0
RE: Treason and Capital Punishment
By Norseman4 on 12/5/2010 5:45:07 PM , Rating: 5
Manning was born in Crescent, Oklahoma.

Note that Manning is not spelled A s s a n g e.

I've seen posts on more than a couple articles where an original post was about Manning being treasonous/traitorous, and replies saying he isn't a US citizen.


RE: Treason and Capital Punishment
By sprockkets on 12/5/2010 9:09:34 PM , Rating: 2
Apparently us above posters are all FAIL on reading comprehension. We assumed since this is an article about assange that he was talking about it.

But why post about Manning on a article about Assange?


RE: Treason and Capital Punishment
By espaghetti on 12/5/10, Rating: 0
By sprockkets on 12/5/2010 11:25:31 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Wise man told me once :


Give credit where due, don't be a dumb a.

http://thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=epic

For that matter, I didn't use EPIC and obviously are playing off the fail blog and ridiculous catspeak language:

http://failblog.org/


By Norseman4 on 12/6/2010 9:05:23 AM , Rating: 2
There was a paragraph in the original article concerning Assange's source for the leaked cables. The line you quoted even included the name Manning.

I've quickly read articles in the past and have posted on those articles, erroneously, in the past. When I was corrected I've gone back to the article and my post in question. If I found I was wrong, I'd admit it. (My history had been on other forum sites) It's not hard to note that you had misread.

As for your comment about making assumptions ...


Despicable
By Ard on 12/4/2010 8:38:12 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, clearly the US government will go to any means to keep this under control. And if you don't think the US is the one behind Amazon and Paypal, I've got some nice property I'd like to sell you. So much for freedom of speech...oh, that's right, it only applies when you're saying something that the US government agrees with. Might as well be living in China...




RE: Despicable
By ayat101 on 12/4/2010 8:51:47 PM , Rating: 2
In a generation or two moving to China may be good for your freedom... they are moving forward on democracy and the USA is moving backwards. No matter - the USA is not the sum of all the world. Earth will keep on spinning if it disappears and democracy will live on without it, it has been so before and it will be so again.


RE: Despicable
By MightyAA on 12/6/2010 10:25:20 AM , Rating: 2
There's also a distinction. If you catch the US doing something wrong yourself, you are a whistle blower. Like those Iraquis videotaping events and publishing them to the web and news agencies.

That is a lot different than if you are using people within the government to steal classified information so you can distribute them. Wikileaks has taken it to a new level.


RE: Despicable
By Skywalker123 on 12/5/2010 5:08:01 AM , Rating: 2
Be quiet, you'll rouse the flag wavers.


RE: Despicable
By ekv on 12/6/2010 2:07:00 AM , Rating: 1
Nah, just Hillary 8)


RE: Despicable
By AntiM on 12/6/2010 9:37:32 AM , Rating: 2
I agree somewhat. I say to the government, just like I've heard some Senators remark,... if you're not doing anything wrong, they you don't have anything to hide.


RE: Despicable
By Spivonious on 12/6/2010 10:29:32 AM , Rating: 2
Nice conspiracy theory, but it's obvious that these companies just want to avoid any bad press. There's no telling what Wikileaks will release next, so distance yourselves while you can.


RE: Despicable
By Ammohunt on 12/6/2010 2:57:11 PM , Rating: 2
This coming from the same type of person that complians that facebook doesn't do enough to protect personal information. This type of logic is the same as having all your personal inforamtion readily available on the internet to include your SSN(if you have one) and credit card info with pin #'s. Nation have personal information as well its labeled TOP SECRET.


Scary
By DarkPhoenix on 12/6/2010 11:49:18 AM , Rating: 5
I don't know what I think is scarier: The fact that information like this is being spread or simply the amount of people that support that this type of information is spread like it is...going as far as calling the guy a "hero" for doing it...

Why is he a "hero" ? Do you know the definition of hero ? A hero is an altruistic person, that can even risk his/her own life to protect others. I'm sure even those supporting this guy know, that what he's doing is the exact opposite of being a hero, since he's actually putting people's lives at risk, just so he can be famous...

It's impressive (in the worst possible way) how people's priorities work. At first this type of information doesn't influence them at all and they have that anarchist persona within them, that wants to see governments fall or be embarrassed. But then, information like this refers to weak points in some country, which can be a target for terrorist attacks, which will kill innocent people. Then the priorities change...especially if it affects them directly.

What exactly is wrong with people supporting this ? Do you know that wars have started for less than this ? Do you care about anything other than the area surrounding you ?




Is it my imagination?
By surt on 12/5/2010 2:40:13 PM , Rating: 1
Or is the editorializing here getting further and further right wing? I'm getting ready to abandon both daily tech and Anandtech over this, frankly. I'll find a site with a neutral tone.




RE: Is it my imagination?
By xkrakenx on 12/6/2010 9:33:55 AM , Rating: 3
its called sensationalism. garner page hits, get attention, make nerds get their panties all in a twist, etc.

carry on kiddies! first though : I'd like to see one of you idiots define 'freedom' without copypasta the dictionary or wikipedia. since we are so up in arms about freedom, what is it?


PayPal sux.
By ayat101 on 12/4/2010 7:58:46 PM , Rating: 3
They screw customers over... do not refund fradulent payments. They STEAL money... most recently I filed a dispute over a payment through PayPal and was notified that I lost... so now I have NO item I paid for, and I lost the money... PLUS the company to which I paid for the fradulent item claims they do not have the money either (the money got taken out of my account, upon dispute initiation did not get to the company but disappeared into PayPal somewhere) ... and the company id demanding a SECOND payment from me for something I did not get... insult heaped upon injury many times over.

Now PayPal is starting to get into politics and supporting Big brother... my reponse to this? Screw PayPal (google search for a website with this name). There are alternatives to PayPal... they are not as good as PayPal... not yet anyway... However, with the major annoyance factor PayPal is creating, I am going to pay for E-Bay purchases through bank desposits and the rest through alternatives.

Perhaps this is the end of PayPal instead... or at least the creation of alternatives.




RE: PayPal sux.
By ayat101 on 12/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: PayPal sux.
By Lerianis on 12/5/2010 11:23:33 PM , Rating: 1
Personally, I would stop using e-Bay period if I were you. e-Bay is OWNED by the same company that owns Paypal, so you are not going to get a fair shake when you have a dispute about 'money disappeared in the bowels of Paypal'.

Just use Amazon.com, they have the same stuff and as good/better prices.


Oops...
By Beenthere on 12/4/2010 8:56:37 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe Wikileaks pizzed off the wrong people? I suspect the dud will be in prison soon for rape so it's all moot but I support cutting off any funding for a corrupt website that endangers the lives of people by disclosing confidential data.




RE: Oops...
By andrinoaa on 12/6/2010 3:35:28 AM , Rating: 1
It hasn't put anyone in danger, it just embarrassed the bejesus out of the man. Just shows , saving face isn't just an asian thing, lol


You guys are hillarious
By killerclick on 12/5/2010 9:16:51 AM , Rating: 3
LOL @ anyone who thinks this can be stopped in any way.
1. it's on the Internet, ok? It's done.
2. so many governments are interested in what the cables say so funding won't be a problem.
3. the reason Assange was not charged with any crimes relating to the leaks is that he didn't break any laws in the opinion of people that matter. So we have this molestation and rape charges (although not what would be considered rape in the US) which may or may not be true but the timing is very convenient.




I suggest a compromise...
By inperfectdarkness on 12/4/2010 9:27:42 PM , Rating: 2
Paypal turns back on the account for wikileaks in exchange for making public the accounts of all persons which have donated funds to it.

now THERE'S a wikileak.




Worth mentioning...
By Thats Mr Gopher to you on 12/5/2010 1:01:22 AM , Rating: 2
... that all this information was being stolen anyway regardless of Wikileaks involvement. So if it wasn't for Wikileaks, this information would most likely be sold to the 'enemies' of the US anyway.
Wikileaks publishing information that is getting out anyway merely exposes the gaping holes in the security systems on what is supposedly top secret documents.




business as usual
By rudy on 12/5/2010 6:07:00 AM , Rating: 2
Payment systems and credit card processors always have pretty tight TOS agreements with clients. If they become worried that legal actions might take place or there may be increased risk of charge backs they ditch the client.

This if fine and pretty normal the good news for wiki leaks is that there are many other processors who will take risky clients of course it will cost more.




Where did he find it? :)
By PrinceGaz on 12/5/2010 1:18:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Paypal account was not in the name of Wikileaks, but rather in the name of The Wau Holland Foundation. The foundation was named after a deceased German hacker of the same name, who found the infamous Chaos Computer Club (CCC) in 1981.

It should be "founded".




imagine a world
By xkrakenx on 12/6/2010 9:31:23 AM , Rating: 2
imagine a world where wikileaks outs some secret Apple documents. Oh, mick would be in heaven and the page hits would be epic.




By AEvangel on 12/6/2010 10:51:44 AM , Rating: 2
“In some areas, a radical distinction between private persons and government officials is acknowledged in existing law and opinion. Thus, a private individual’s ‘right to privacy’ or right to keep silent does not and should not apply to government officials, whose records and operations should be open to public knowledge and evaluation. There are two democratic arguments for denying the right to privacy to government officials, which, while not strictly libertarian, are valuable as far as they go: namely (1) that in a democracy, the public can only decide on public issues and vote for public officials if they have complete knowledge of government operations; and (2) that since the taxpayers pay the bill for government, they should have the right to know what government is doing. The libertarian argument would add that, since government is an aggressor organization against the rights and persons of its citizens, then full disclosure of its operations is at least one right that its subjects might wrest from the State, and which they may be able to use to resist or whittle down State power.”




Bias
By Robear on 12/6/2010 11:15:54 AM , Rating: 2
Thank you for posting a reply. It's nice to see you do read the comments.

I appreciate the hard work and effort you put into your articles. I'm sure it's not easy.

I'd caution you in setting your editorial standards by those of other major publications. Stating, "I've allowed my emotions and opinions to bias my work because everyone else is doing it" is a statement that lacks personal integrity. Set your own standards, which should reflect unbiased news reporting. Allowing opinion into news reporting is dangerous because it's rarely easy to distinguish between fact and opinion. You are in a position of both power and responsibility.

I'd like to see DT take a position of a higher moral standard, reporting news as news. Opinions belong in blogs. We need more editorial responsibility in our media here in the US.

Mass media has a profound effect on swaying the population in one direction or another. For this reason, responsible news reporting reports only the facts and allows a person to draw their own conclusion. You are a prominent member of this community, representing independent news journalism: you set the standard as much as you follow it. Do you truly believe in the motives of the examples you're following?

I feel misled. Wikileaks has exposed some pretty horrific actions by the US, of which I've not read about except in the comments of your article and not the body. This has caused me to go "digging for facts." These "facts" are buried in opinionated dribble from nearly every major news source.

Please don't be swayed by "what everyone else is doing" or state "it's impossible not to take sides," because however difficult, it's not impossible.




By cruisin3style on 12/6/2010 4:09:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The U.S. Governments, Businesses Strike Back




ok
By sprockkets on 12/4/2010 7:13:58 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Paypal says that it became aware of the account, which was in violation of its terms of service "which states that our payment service cannot be used for any activities that encourage, promote, facilitate or instruct others to engage in illegal activity."


But its perfectly ok for you to be engaged in ripping customers off and giving them the finger while you allow others to hack your system and empty out their checking accounts.




This article is a joke...
By Edmond Dantes on 12/4/2010 9:28:45 PM , Rating: 1
I love how you use the caption: "Wikileaks' campaign against the U.S. has resulted in the termination of its primary hosting account, on Amazon's EC2, and its primary donations account, on Paypal." and then place it under a photo of the Taliban...what a joke!




By ipay on 12/5/2010 9:47:20 AM , Rating: 1
Sorry to break it up to you but... there is no Santa Clause and China is now the most powerful nation.

But of course, you may still keep the beloved title in exchange for the US dept and subservience.




Gimme a break
By AstroGuardian on 12/5/2010 11:29:42 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
The site was certainly brazen when it decided to target the world's most powerful nation.


LOL!! LO-hooo-LL!

Far from true




EPIC FAIL
By BZDTemp on 12/5/2010 12:41:40 PM , Rating: 1
I'm betting Paypal is closing the account due to political pressue after we are not seeing Paypal closing the accounts. Else they should also close the accounts of all the newsmedia reporting from the content of the leaks!

Maybe we should all close our Paypal accounts.




Thanks Jason!
By rickon66 on 12/5/2010 11:32:22 PM , Rating: 1
Good job Jason, great balanced article even if the anti-USA crowd did not like it.




Thanks for the Fascism
By Shadowmaster625 on 12/6/2010 10:21:24 AM , Rating: 1
So you were warned about Fascism for years yet did nothing. Notice how the mechansims of Fascism can turn against anyone for any reason. There is no rule of law in any of this. The government is so big and bloated and already lawless itself, it can do nothing but beget more lawlessness. Then you have these companies that can basically do whatever they want. These same companies can turn around and crush any individual or group to suit the purposes of the corrupt state. One day companies like amazon could be shipping the cheap plastic coffins used to bury the bodies of millions of disposable peons who were just too stupid to care about the system they were helping to create.




Censorship
By seraphim1982 on 12/6/2010 4:01:25 PM , Rating: 1
He's just assisting in censorship of the internet...sad, as I personally believe he's helping the world. People are failing to understand that NO ONE POLICES THE POLICE... governments / people in power are running around doing whatever they feel "want" is neccessary.

We need a bigger info bomb dropped.....

Net Neutrality is now dead....

Additionally, I find it strange now that every single country is trying to censorship and are looking for ways to cut his support. Obviously, they believe he has more information that could be far more damaging. Shut up him now, before he releases stuff, that can't be explained.

The voice of the internet is dead. The world has become a police state and this is a prime example of it. All done in the name of security and prevention of terrorism. We are leaning toward a revival of McCarthyism.... just replace communist with terrorist. Just now there is no limitation on race or country... it can apply to anyone.




Excellent Journalism
By thurston on 12/4/10, Rating: 0
what about him
By Murloc on 12/5/10, Rating: 0
Can't Hide all their skeletons......
By THEfog on 12/5/10, Rating: 0
is this the right move?
By superPC on 12/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: is this the right move?
By superPC on 12/4/2010 6:26:18 PM , Rating: 2
read this link : http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/world/29cables.h...

wikileaks provided press the whole leaked data but only publishes 220 document (out of about 250000) that has been redacted by the press.

if wikileaks are criminals or information terrorist why would the do that? they just release the whole document and not have a care in the world.


RE: is this the right move?
By SKiddywinks on 12/4/2010 7:09:21 PM , Rating: 2
That's a very interesting quote there, thank you.


RE: is this the right move?
By Cypherdude1 on 12/5/2010 12:40:10 AM , Rating: 3
While I've known about WikiLeaks for at least a year, I've never bothered to visit their site. Today, out of curiosity, I tried to access their site. I could not get on. LOL. It appears as though either the new host cannot handle the traffic or somehow the wikileaks.org domain no longer functions. LOL, your tax dollars at work. I found this hilarious.

While these tactics may work in the short-term, they will hardly be effective in the long-term. It's impossible to stop information from being disseminated. After all, that's what the 'Net is designed for. WikiLeaks could actually function without a website at all. They could simply upload their documents over Newsgroups and then they would be impossible to delete. Newsgroups is an older arm of the 'Net and is maintained by many different servers. In fact, if WikiLeaks gravitated towards Newsgroups, it would actually be free to disseminate their documents.

Finally, WikiLeaks spokesman Julian Assange now finds himself mysteriously under the cloud of 2 rape charges:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange#Swedis...

These charges had better be legit. If they turn out to be bogus, it's going to kill any credibility the USA has left in the world.


RE: is this the right move?
By mindless1 on 12/5/2010 7:00:22 AM , Rating: 3
How is it hilarious? You seem to be trolling? It's quite simple to pull the domain name, though last I checked they still had alternate names and IP addresses.

These tactics can indeed be effective, because you don't have to *kill every last soldier* to win a war. You don't have to keep every last citizen from reading something, most aren't zealots and many are against what wikileaks did. Others will take notice when kids who think they are hidden start going to prison.

Newsgroups these days are subject to governmental pressure, in the end you have to route to them and this will tell you enough origin to get the wheels in motion to apply some pressure.

Think about it, who is a (foreign) government going to side with, a website that likes to expose government secrets or one of the world's superpowers with strong influence and allies?

Remember the government can and does make up the rules as they go along. Wiretaps illegal? Nope, government has a reason. Internet traffic tapping illegal? Nope, it's already been done for years.

Lastly, if the rape charges aren't legit it does nothing to "kill any credibility" the USA has. If two women make false charges it is their shame for doing so. The government could just make an assassination look like a botched robbery attempt, no need for all the drama and lengthly proceeds of rape charges.


RE: is this the right move?
By Skywalker123 on 12/6/2010 2:57:03 AM , Rating: 2
"Lastly, if the rape charges aren't legit it does nothing to kill any credibility" the USA has."

The USA HAS no credibility.


RE: is this the right move?
By andrinoaa on 12/6/2010 3:45:47 AM , Rating: 2
So if Assange is murdered, does that make America right or just a bunch of hypocrites ?


RE: is this the right move?
By mindless1 on 12/9/2010 7:14:03 PM , Rating: 2
Written like someone who is really jealous.


RE: is this the right move?
By Reclaimer77 on 12/5/2010 9:40:50 AM , Rating: 2
Look this is how the world works. If someone steals money or goods and I knowingly accept it, I'm a criminal.

Assange published documents that he KNEW were stolen from the United States Government. Sorry, that's criminal behavior. No matter how justified people think he was, it's now time to face the consequences.

quote:
If they turn out to be bogus, it's going to kill any credibility the USA has left in the world.


That's rich. If you really think the United States wanted him out of the way, why use rape charges? Hell we can barely get rape convictions to stick in the United States for our own citizens. If we wanted him out of the way, he would have a mysterious heart attack, a car accident, a mugging gone wrong. Or he would just be found in the woods having "taken his own life".

But a rape charge to damage his credibility and image? Ummm think about this for a minute. Do you believe he's actually held in such high regard that the U.S needs to attack his image with rape charges? I propose to you that his public image wasn't that great to begin with, and it's getting worst fast all on it's own.


RE: is this the right move?
By dsumanik on 12/5/2010 12:29:32 PM , Rating: 5
While it is possible mr assange is a rapist, it is also very possible he is the subject of a smear campaign. Whether the US, or some other intelligence agency is behind it, mr assange is waging an information war...so exactly how does one fight an information war?

By discrediting your adversary.

Ever been to court? Lawyers will exploit the most minor details/insignificant occurrences and make them sound like the end of the world, holding witnesses and defendants to hypocritical standards of morality in order to twist the appearance of truth and win a case.

And already this "smear campaign" is working...why?

Because what everyone is beginning to forget here, is that whether or not he is a multiple rapist, is truly irrelevant. This has no bearing on the credibility of the information released. The one thing the US govt has not done, is deny the validity of any of the information wikileaks has provided.

Just because a pedophile witnessed who shot someone at a liqour store robbery, doesnt mean the evidence he presents in court is false, or should be ignored.

So dont forget the real culprit here and please....you tell me whats worse:

mr assange being a rapist or the GI JOE American hero helicopter pilot that shot up a bunch of journalists and children just so he could finally get some action to brag to his buddies back home....

I mean seriously did you hear the guy on that tape???

"dont bring your kids to a warzone" or something like that

MORE LIKE DONT WAGE WAR ON OTHER COUNTRIES YOU FUQQING PRICK. MAN WHEN I HEARD THAT I WANTED TO KILL HIM. IF WE WERE DEFENDING OUR BORDERS, IT WOULD BE A DIFFERENT STORY. BUT AMERICA IS 100% THE AGRESSOR, WAGING POINTLESS WAR.

All EXCUSED in the name of finding weapons of mass destruction.

Remember when we all bought that line from our president?

Maybe if wikileaks had released the information that the CIA knew there were no nukes in iraq and that the war was actually the perfect excuse to secure future oil interests...we could have avoided the whole mess and had some more money to deal with this ridiculous recession. Or maybe some new nuclear power plants. Secure the border against mexico. Electric vehicles. Proper Medicare. I dont know, ANYTHING would have been better. You tell me exactly what the war in iraq has purchased for the american people.

Oh yeah, and how have gas prices been since we went over there to secure the oil?

What an absolute mess.

Maybe if wikileaks had released information about what these wall street maniacs had been scamming for so many years, the recession could have been avoided, or reduced. Maybe the upcoming bank info will shed some further light on this, or prevent something similar from happening.

Seriously, we need to wake up america...we must hold our nations leaders accountable, not mr assange.

If these leaks had been all about china we would be singing such a different tune, praising him as a hero....but now....FINALLY...we can see how the rest of the world views america, and why.

Our government has committed disgusting, ignorant, and violent acts of foreign policy and military conquest meanwhile brainwashing us all at home that it was done in the name of "freedom" and "terror"...while seriously erroding the very rights and freedoms our nation was founded on.

What a horrible decade this has been.

We'd never even have solid proof if it wasnt for mr assange....so you know what:

He is probably a real life antisocial, weak spined, thieving weasel who would date rape his best buddies girlfriend...but what he has done has bettered our world, and opened our nations eyes.

P.s.

If you dont like american soldiers being shot killed or otherwise compromised because of these documents, here's a real simple solution:

WE NEED TO STOP WAGING POINTLESS AND EXPENSIVE WAR AND GET OUR FUQQING TROOPS BACK ON HOME SOIL. POST EM ALL ON THE MEXICAN BORDER I SAY AND KILL SOME DIRTBAG DRUGRUNNERS.


RE: is this the right move?
By andrinoaa on 12/6/2010 3:48:12 AM , Rating: 2
Does that go for your tabloid press as well for publishing the papers? I don't see any moral outrage against them.


RE: is this the right move?
By roykahn on 12/6/2010 7:51:03 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Assange published documents that he KNEW were stolen from the United States Government. Sorry, that's criminal behavior. No matter how justified people think he was, it's now time to face the consequences.


It is certainly not criminal behaviour. Many news sources have also reported on the information leaked via Wikileaks. You're clearly not an expert on this subject and probably know very little of the actual steps that Wikileaks and the selected media companies went through when releasing their stories.

The US government has tried to silence the media in situations like this before. The only illegal acts are that of people like Bradley Manning who ACTUALLY leak information. Yes, his acts were illegal, but it is beyond a shadow of a doubt that they were in the best interests of the 99.99% of the world's population. If you believe otherwise then you have lost your humanity and are probably brainwashed by your corrupt government and mass media.

The only people who should face the consequences are evil government leaders and military personnel who hold the public in contempt and have little interest in democracy. These leaks should also shed some light on how the US government and media have manipulated their own public into believing Iran is a military threat.

Attacking Assange's reputation with the rape accusations is the standard thing for the US government and media to do. Ask any public relations company what they think. Deflecting the news story from the information that was leaked to a character smearing exercise is just bread and butter for the media. It's also a childish exercise that politicians excel at.


RE: is this the right move?
By BZDTemp on 12/5/2010 2:10:13 PM , Rating: 1
US credibility - sorry that all went away with the Bush presidents. Rendition, lies about WMD in Iraq, the use of torture, the not US concept for Guantanamo, laws which allows grabbing non-US citizens and holding them secretly and without legal representation, spying upon allies, ECHELON, not abiding to UN rules with regards to War crimes... this list is endless.

You guys need to make some serious changes. But hey, with China and the OPEC countries owning much of everything in the states maybe they'll make it happen.


RE: is this the right move?
By superPC on 12/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: is this the right move?
By JasonMick (blog) on 12/5/2010 1:08:08 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Mr Jason Mick. could you be any less neutral to wikileaks? i know you're just a blogger not a true journalist but journalistic integrity should count for something. comments like the above have no place in a neutral news coverage. have you read the link i provided above (this one http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/world/29cables.h... )? wikileaks is really careful about the information they released.


I'm sorry you didn't like the article.

I tried to present the information, with a bit of analysis.

Really it is impossible to write on this issue without taking sides. Virtually every news story I read on the topic, either praised Wikileaks or blasted them to varying degrees.

I feel the points I made in my article were backed by facts, so I don't feel I erred here.

You can fault me for what I wrote, but when you have top publications like Newsweek writing far more critical commentary, or Time magazine lavishing the site with blush-worthy praise, I think I deserve a bit of slack for whatever analysis I injected.

The whole idea is to discuss the story and if you don't agree with my analysis, I welcome your commentary here.

quote:
they haven't release the full document to the internet. they have given them to the world press to be cross check and redacted of any harmful information and release them after the press redacted them.


You and several others raised this argument. Its possible, but I'd like to point out that there's other possible less benific motives for Wikileaks not posting all the cables yet.

First, consider those it did select to publish didn't necessarily have anything to do with the Iraq or Afghani war efforts, but they all cast the U.S. in a negative light or showed it saying controversial things about other nations.

I am convinced that the site's chief goal is to discredit the U.S. government in a world arena. You can disagree with me on this point, but just look at the sheer volume of documents posted -- over 95 percent pertain to the U.S. and its Middle Easter allies.

Thus there's a strong possibility that Wikileaks merely leaked the most damaging of the cables that it could find, to further its effort to discredit the government.

Another strong possibility is that it's hanging on to the remaining cables because it doesn't have much information to steal the spotlight with anymore. It already aired both chopper cam videos. It released the 90k Afghani logs. And its now burning through it stock of diplomatic cables. What does it have after that? Incriminating info on BP/Bank of America? That's hardly as impactful, given the negative perceptions surrounding both of those companies from the start.

It makes sense that Wikileaks would want to ration the cables, slowly releasing them to try to stay in the spotlight for as long as possible.

Let me just say that I personally don't have a problem with the premise of Wikileaks; I have a problem with its execution. There's always the need for whistleblowing, because who's watching the watchers?

But I have major issues with the fact that the site's campaign clearly targets the U.S., at least from a statistical basis. If the site's goal is to whistleblow on wrongdoing, I doubt that 95 percent of the world's wrongdoing is perpetrated by the U.S.

Secondly, I have a problem with the lack of transparency and oversight from the site. For a site that preaches transparency and exposure, it practices precious little. It operates in the shadows, sneaking around, acting just like those it criticizes.

Third, if you're going to go for full disclosure, publish the whole thing. You can't go halfway. That's an interesting thing to note about the Afghani war logs. Wikileaks did redact portions, likely in an effort to protect tribal locals from death. But in doing so, the site is essentially admitting that there is a need for secrecy.

The end result is that it appears that Wikileaks thinks it can steal info and then play God about what's safe to reveal and what's not. But how can Wikileaks forsee the effects that the release of thousands of intricate documents can have? It can't. The site effectively promotes the need for secrecy by its actions, which reduce its campaigns to mere attempts to grab attention. It's no more or less transparent than its adversaries.

I just can't buy a site that preaches transparency and then sneaks around. I think Wikileaks could someday be a worthwhile journalistic vehicle, but I think it needs a major leadership change, starting at the top.

And that is just my opinion, and I welcome you to disagree.


RE: is this the right move?
By dreddly on 12/5/10, Rating: 0
RE: is this the right move?
By mindless1 on 12/5/2010 7:25:19 AM , Rating: 5
I had no intention of writing so much but you are so utterly wrong as to have gone down a rabbit hole you can't even see out of at this point.

This is a tech news site, short infobits at that. The standard you are trying to hold him to is utterly ridiculous.

That you disagree or feel he did not provide enough information is not a proof of being uninformed. Ironically enough neither did you provide any such "informed" rebuttal, so all you've done is given a long winded version of "I disagree but I'm not basing it on any facts at all".

Your summary judgments are both vague and incorrect, your opening argument on the topic implies we need to believe your view on diplomacy which is nonsense, that we then "need" to make the leap that we want a liberal democracy, then make the next leap that diplomacy has no place.

Diplomacy between foreign countries is absolutely essential. What did you think could happen when cultures with different values, laws, and goals meet? Are we going to poll everyone in each country every time anything needs to be done?

Then you make another huge leap that somehow wikileaks is serving the purpose of reducing or preventing unchecked power, next the leap that unchecked power is actually present. Just because you, personally, do not know about something does not mean the people involved are acting without any limitations or oversight.

Then the next big leap, "evil" people. Evil by whose standards exactly? Evil because they are selfish perhaps, like you, I, and most citizens worldwide which haven't resigned themselves to live in a religious temple with no personal belongings.

Next the leap that we are allowing government to have unchecked power. NEWS BRIEF - Any remotely intelligent person knows that governments have classified documents and accepts that as a wise operating policy.

Lastly, it is a bit of a joke that you refer to pushing remnants of imperial power out of the contemporary world. The US is at the forefront of the contemporary world you allude to, while you pretend there is some nirvana elsewhere that the US needs to become more like.

Overall, your logic has made so many huge leaps there's nothing left to do except scrap it all and accept that those who know more than you about the content of cables chose to keep them confidential and classified.

If you don't like the people chosen to do this you have a voice to make change by writing to the appropriate parties awarding these positions and to vote for political candidates you prefer. Any more than that is just being an armchair quarterback who insists everyone else needs to change to suit you, not your imaginary "contemporary world", a world that since it doesn't exist, cannot be assumed to function any better than the one we have presently.


RE: is this the right move?
By superPC on 12/5/2010 9:14:37 AM , Rating: 1
even in your reply you're biased. have you even read the NYT article i quoted? that's the most neutral news report about wikileaks i've read. it simply stated fact and give neutral opinion.

i'd say this again: wikileaks only released document that have been redacted and cross check by press. nothing else. NYT admit they have recieved the whole 250,000 document and examine them as fast as they can. that's fact. if you can't be neutral at least stick to the fact Mr Jason Mick.

PS: how would you run something like wikileaks? just release every leaks you recieve without a care in the world? or do it like what they did: cross check them and redacted them of any information that can harm a person? about why 95% of the stuff they release is about the US i don't have an answer for that. maybe US has a lot more educated and concered people in it, that they're more inclined to release data they consider morally wrong. or maybe the US has a system where information can flow freely among groups of people but not other groups. therefore once something nasty found in those information it is easier to disseminate them. there are a million explaination about why 95% of the leaks is connected to the US somehow. including that the US has many enemy inside and outside and they see wikileaks as a means to weaken it through information. somehow you never mention all this possibilites and always see that wikileaks is the bad guys.


RE: is this the right move?
By surt on 12/5/2010 2:43:48 PM , Rating: 2
I posted a similar complaint about your article, but since you responded to this one:

If you want to be viewed as a journalist, just learn to divide fact from opinion. For example was it your opinion that people should avoid donations, or was that backed by some factually reference-able source?


RE: is this the right move?
By Touche on 12/6/2010 4:53:31 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
I am convinced that the site's chief goal is to discredit the U.S. government in a world arena.


Wake up, the U.S. government IS the world arena!

quote:
But I have major issues with the fact that the site's campaign clearly targets the U.S., at least from a statistical basis. If the site's goal is to whistleblow on wrongdoing, I doubt that 95 percent of the world's wrongdoing is perpetrated by the U.S.


Except the majority is (maybe not 95%, but exact percentage is irrelevant) and even if you take whatever percentage you want, you can't argue that it isn't the most influential wrongdoing in the world.

quote:
Secondly, I have a problem with the lack of transparency and oversight from the site. For a site that preaches transparency and exposure, it practices precious little. It operates in the shadows, sneaking around, acting just like those it criticizes.


Really? I wonder why they have to do that...Are you really that naive?

quote:
Third, if you're going to go for full disclosure, publish the whole thing. You can't go halfway. That's an interesting thing to note about the Afghani war logs. Wikileaks did redact portions, likely in an effort to protect tribal locals from death. But in doing so, the site is essentially admitting that there is a need for secrecy.


Option A: Don't publish anything
Option B: Publish everything
Option C: Publish enough to disclose what's important without needles endangerment

Hard choice...

I don't see you bashing on US news publications that actually published the information, or any paper, TV, anymedia in the world for that matter. How are they different? Wikileaks didn't steal those documents, they were given to them. NY Times got the documents and published the information. I don't see you campaigning against them.


RE: is this the right move?
By Robear on 12/6/2010 11:13:31 AM , Rating: 2
Thank you for posting a reply. It's nice to see you do read the comments.

I appreciate the hard work and effort you put into your articles. I'm sure it's not easy.

I'd caution you in setting your editorial standards by those of other major publications. Stating, "I've allowed my emotions and opinions to bias my work because everyone else is doing it" is a statement that lacks personal integrity. Set your own standards, which should reflect unbiased news reporting. Allowing opinion into news reporting is dangerous because it's rarely easy to distinguish between fact and opinion. You are in a position of both power and responsibility.

I'd like to see DT take a position of a higher moral standard, reporting news as news. Opinions belong in blogs. We need more editorial responsibility in our media here in the US.

Mass media has a profound effect on swaying the population in one direction or another. For this reason, responsible news reporting reports only the facts and allows a person to draw their own conclusion. You are a prominent member of this community, representing independent news journalism: you set the standard as much as you follow it. Do you truly believe in the motives of the examples you're following?

I feel misled. Wikileaks has exposed some pretty horrific actions by the US, of which I've not read about except in the comments of your article and not the body. This has caused me to go "digging for facts." These "facts" are buried in opinionated dribble from nearly every major news source.

Please don't be swayed by "what everyone else is doing" or state "it's impossible not to take sides," because however difficult, it's not impossible.


RE: is this the right move?
By BZDTemp on 12/5/2010 12:35:33 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
if wikileaks are criminals or information terrorist why would the do that? they just release the whole document and not have a care in the world.


Exactly. They are working with the press in order to verify as much as possible. Wikileaks is trying to make sure what they release is not fabricated so they need journalists checking things out before the world gets its hands on the material.


RE: is this the right move?
By The Insolent One on 12/4/2010 6:42:58 PM , Rating: 3
I've never heard that they asked for any input from the US govt on anything. However even if that was correct wouldn't it be a good idea to remove people's names from whatever you release? After all, you know that someone is going to be killed because their name is mentioned as being an informant for the US.

Even if the US govt ignored you would you make those people who aren't one of your targets suffer? That sounds like a childish game, with the stakes being other people's lives.

I'm all for flipping the bird to the man, but when a peasant in a 3rd world country dies because you were careless, that is unacceptable.


RE: is this the right move?
By VitalyTheUnknown on 12/4/2010 6:59:01 PM , Rating: 2
Justification for secrecy" [BBC}

After the release of an enormous haul of US defence department documents in August, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell told the Washington Post: "We have yet to see any harm come to anyone in Afghanistan that we can directly tie to exposure in the Wikileaks documents."

After this latest release a Pentagon official, who wished to remain anonymous due to the sensitive nature of the material involved, told the McClatchy newspaper group that even three months later the US military still had no evidence that people had died or been harmed because of information gleaned from Wikileaks documents

Daniel Ellsberg, the former military analyst who in 1971 released the Pentagon Papers which detailed government lies and cover-ups in the Vietnam War, is sceptical of whether the government really believes that lives are at stake.

He told the BBC's World Today programme that US officials made that same argument every time there was a potentially embarrassing leak.

"The best justification they can find for secrecy is that lives are at stake. Actually, lives are at stake as a result of the silences and lies which a lot of these leaks reveal," he said.

"The same charges were made against the Pentagon Papers and turned out to be quite invalid."


RE: is this the right move?
By mcnabney on 12/6/2010 10:13:31 AM , Rating: 2
That isn't what is happening with the latest dump.

I don't have a problem with Collateral Murder being released, because it really does reveal wrongdoing.

Revealing that China and the US are negotiating to allow North Korea's Dear Leader to be replaced under a unified Korean peninsula under the ROK government. All that does is tip-off a psychopath.

Revealing that the leadership of Yemen likes to drink alcohol is only going to serve to further destabilize the government and allow even more room for Al Qaeda in the Arabian peninsula to operate.

Revealing that the US and Pakistani government has been negotiating to secure their weapons-grade fissile material has already infuriated the populace. What happens if that already shakey government falls and a pro-Taliban government replaces it. What will become of their nuclear arsenal?

Wikileaks is run by a bunch of Anarchists and they are targetting the US because we continue to be the stumbling/bumbling source of Order.


RE: is this the right move?
By snyper256 on 12/6/2010 8:53:17 PM , Rating: 2
Anarchists?
Where does that label come from?
Being against secrecy doesn't mean being anti-government.
Unless it does, in which case there is clearly a problem.

Nothing released by WL has harmed any real people at all whatsoever.


RE: is this the right move?
By ekv on 12/7/2010 2:58:09 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Being against secrecy doesn't mean being anti-government.
This is dum b thing to say. So having a secret is bad? How are you going to hide the identity of somebody in witness protection? What about whistleblowers? What about so-called delicate diplomatic negotiation?

Re: anarchists. Assange admits to it, e.g.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboa...

Btw, Taliban has promised to go through all the leaks in order to find actionable information. Tribal leaders and any others who've collaborated will likely perish, thanks to Assange.

http://www.dailytech.com/Taliban+Murders+Afghan+El...


RE: is this the right move?
By MWCORE on 12/4/10, Rating: 0
RE: is this the right move?
By superPC on 12/4/2010 8:06:35 PM , Rating: 5
the watergate scandal is all about obtaining and dissminating an illegaly obtained document. are you against that also?


RE: is this the right move?
By MWCORE on 12/4/2010 8:19:46 PM , Rating: 2
I don't doubt there are inherent problems with supporting and not supporting information releases like this one and Watergate. In the end Watergate revealed actual criminal activity and these documents reveal no such activity. I supported Wikileaks when they were an establishment for the whistleblowing of corporate, military and government offenders. However, they have essentially become a money horde for Assange and a place for him to carry out some assault on the U.S.. So to answer your question I supported Watergate because of criminal activity and do not support this because it originates from something other than.


RE: is this the right move?
By superPC on 12/4/2010 9:39:45 PM , Rating: 1
no one even read the whole 250000 documents yet. how can anyone know that there isn't any information about some criminalistic behaviour? it has to be out in the open first then be judge by the general public. much like watergate.

if there is no leak then there is no watergate and no criminal investigation. same thing in this case.

and please. assault? wikileaks ask opinion about the document they obtained. they ask it from the goverment and the press. they only release 220 document that has been confirmed and redacted by the press. that's no way to assault. if wikileaks wants to assault they just release the whole document come hell or high water. please read this first : http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/world/29cables.h...


RE: is this the right move?
By mindless1 on 12/5/2010 8:08:20 AM , Rating: 3
It is irresponsible for a news organization to release only one side of a story and so it is for wikileaks to selectively decide what and when to release what they do.

Think about what an assault is. Do you just run up to someone flailing about? No. If it's the military do you just send in every tank, jeep and footsoldier all at once in a disorganized manner? No.

They are not just receiving and releasing all info they acquire, nor in a timely manner, rather they are acting according to their own agenda, even acting counter to their own described mission and making up excuses why as they go along.

There are always two sides to a story and they choose only to present one side in the court of public opinion. Surely you can see why that doesn't meet the requirements to achieve the lofty purpose or ultimate end some would hope they intend.


RE: is this the right move?
By Lerianis on 12/5/2010 11:39:12 PM , Rating: 2
No, they haven't 'shown only one side'. The fact is that they have released ALL the papers online through torrents, and people are still sifting through them.

Need I remind that the CONSENSUS viewpoint was that most of these papers that were classified (it was only about 20% of the papers, the rest were UNclassified) should not have been classified in the first place.

It's time to realize that government DOES NOT NEED SECRETS, except for very short periods when they are doing an ongoing operation.


RE: is this the right move?
By mindless1 on 12/9/2010 7:30:00 PM , Rating: 2
1) You have no basis to conclude they have released "ALL" documents they have acquired, only their claim (which serves their own fake agenda).

2) When they release documents, they do so in a manner trying to cause subjective judgment. For example, if a helicopter shoots someone, you could say they are random killers or you could say the person was due for a darwin award for carrying what could look like a weapon while hanging out in a war zone, while helicopters are flying around shooting people.

3) It does not matter if you subjectively feel something shouldn't be classified. It was. Period. Similarly if you find a law unjust you can choose to disobey it but you are in no less trouble than if you didn't feel the law was unjust.

4) Government does need to withold information in some cases. Why? Because like anyone or anything else you succeed (in life) through a strategy and your strategy is no good if everyone knows about it ahead of time.

You wrote "except for very short periods w hen the are doing an ongoing operation". Governmental operations are seldom very short periods and diplomacy between nations, or wars, do tend to be perpetual operations. Even when one agreement between nations is met and time has passed, spreading ill will can countermine good relations in the future.

Back to the main topic here, wikileaks is targeting the US in seeking and releasing info about the US it feels is damaging. Does wikileaks also seek and release all info about positive things the government does? Does wikileaks seek and release on an equal basis the documents of other foreign governments?

Does wikileaks have any justification to release documents classifed? No, that is the whole point of the classification. If wikileaks cannot understand that then they need to find a line of work or mission they can understand.


RE: is this the right move?
By foolsgambit11 on 12/4/2010 10:35:36 PM , Rating: 4
The abuse of classification authority is a crime in some cases, and probably should be a crime in all cases. If the release of these documents didn't lead to any deaths and didn't damage national security, then it shouldn't have been classified in the first place (at least according to military classification guidelines, State Department guidelines may be somewhat different, I not familiar with them). Of course, the government should err on the side of caution when deciding whether to disseminate information, but if these leaks were really as non-damaging as reports suggest, then the government needs to reevaluate its classification guidelines to reduce the 'caution buffer'. The withholding of information by a democratic government is a privilege. When the government withholds information on civilian deaths during war, there is not justification other than preventing embarrassment - which is no justification at all.


RE: is this the right move?
By roykahn on 12/6/2010 8:19:05 AM , Rating: 2
I like your comment. However, you'd do well to learn more about the details of the recent leaks.

When Wikileaks recently released classified information relating to Iraq and Afghanistan, they asked the Pentagon whether they should hold back any inforamtion that would harm any individuals. The New York Times did something similar. The Pentagon wrote an internal report saying that no information that was about to be released posed any security risk. After the leaks, the Pentagon also confirmed that no individuals were killed as a result of the leaks. Politicians have NOT reported that and have instead chosen to say the opposite to the public.

All the leaked information has NOT been released to the public. Some documents have been withheld if there's a risk to someone's life. I don't think the filtering efforts have been reported via the mass media.

You're quite right about classified information. There has been major abuses of this. I don't believe the story of Bradley Manning has been properly reported via mass media. He was part of information operations that resulted in innocent Iraqis being tortured. When he reported this to his supervisor(s), he was told to not complain and do as he was told. Now, almost all people in his situation would have done as he was told. However, he did a rare and brave thing and took efforts (illegal though they were) to expose the illegality of the military operations in Iraq and elsewhere at the risk of his own life. So, in a nutshell, a lesser evil was committed to hopefully expose the much greater evils of the world's superpower.

The classification issue is just standard for any military. They don't want everyone knowing what they are doing especially if it is evil or illegal. The more classified information there is, the more suspicion there should be. The military can release the information they want to get out and hide/deny everything else. What do you think happened with journalism in Iraq and Afghanistan? Reporters were embeded with the "allied" forces to get their juicy stories provided that they co-operated with the military. So you ended up with information being filtered by the military and you had the media (whose job it should be to expose the truth) who were basically mouthpieces of the military. Those journalists who were outside of this arrangement were few and many were also killed by "allied" forces. Now we have windows into most of the truth and our opportunity to use this information is being attacked by the established media because it threatens their interests and the interests of the ruling class.


RE: is this the right move?
By knightmike on 12/4/2010 9:13:39 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
The information Wikileaks was dissemenating was illegally obtained and therefore the US government was correct in disuading its use. I read a lot of posts that obviously support Wikileaks and the release of this information, but we must remember that it is illegal to steal classified government documents and give them away.


Who made it illegal? The politicians that have things to hide?


RE: is this the right move?
By phxfreddy on 12/4/10, Rating: 0
RE: is this the right move?
By kyleb2112 on 12/5/2010 12:44:24 AM , Rating: 3
So...because the internet was good for conservatives, they should be cool with massive security breaches?
Forgive me if I don't rush to bookmark your blog.


RE: is this the right move?
By mindless1 on 12/5/2010 8:16:42 AM , Rating: 2
It's very simple. These are illegally obtained documents. If you are a US citizen you have one voice among millions to vote for change in laws. If you are not a US citizen then it's not your concern.

All of the second guessing and altruists notions don't matter. You don't have a crystal ball and can't see what would happen given an alternate outcome nor can a person make such excuses as "what might have been" in order to break the law. That's why they're laws instead of suggestions.

You failed from the get-go though when you tried to lump together all conservatives as if it is one mind leading a bunch of sheep. Same with liberals BTW, just because you hear a few people unified in through it is only a sign of trying to get along within a party and playing the buddy system.

Ultimately people aren't sheep like that, you assume you can group all their thoughts based on a loose idea of a political party but SURPRISE(!!) they are real people with their own individual thoughts on lots of topics.

What seems to escape you is no, you do not become a journalist just because you write something that another person reads on the internet. With journalism comes responsibility and answering to someone higher up, a sanity check if you will instead of just indulging in one's own daydreams.


RE: is this the right move?
By Mouth on 12/4/2010 10:53:15 PM , Rating: 2
How is PayPal the U.S. government? I don't understand this logic.


RE: is this the right move?
By phxfreddy on 12/5/2010 9:51:51 AM , Rating: 1
PayPal has to walk on egg shells in regards the federal government.

You want to understand this story better? Insert "New York Times" everywhere you see "Wikileaks" and read the story over again. What do you think the second time through?


RE: is this the right move?
By AnnihilatorX on 12/5/2010 7:55:28 AM , Rating: 2
Since when whistle blowing is a criminal offense?
Also, Wikileaks is supposed to be a middle man, it did not actively recruit people to conduct espionage.


Discretion is the key
By mikeyD95125 on 12/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: Discretion is the key
By lolmuly on 12/4/2010 7:32:42 PM , Rating: 1
Who exactly do you think is moral or virtuous enough to perform such a task? Assange isn't an A-hole, he simply believes that any form of government secrecy is wrong, who are you to disagree?

Second, if you look into it you will find very little information on US soldiers has actually been released... (i know just by looking at it they took out as many names as they could find)

Finally, as far as the hunting goes, Al Queda has more power now than they did 8 years ago. Trying is a bit of an overstatement, failing miserably might be the phrase you're looking for, just look at the opium trade and the price of heroin, they are after all drug lords.


RE: Discretion is the key
By Uncle on 12/4/2010 8:13:22 PM , Rating: 1
El Queda, I thought the mighty USA after 10 years was still looking for Bin Laden, or have they given up, could be why their still in Iraq, looking for weapons of mass destruction. Oh that's right, the new evil man is Julian Assange.


Careful what you wish for...
By Marlin1975 on 12/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: Careful what you wish for...
By Obujuwami on 12/4/2010 6:04:59 PM , Rating: 2
1) It's spelled "slope"
2) It's probably in their EUA that any terrorist or criminal activities are subject to closure. If there wasn't then they may leave themselves open for liability.

I support the whole transparency thing, but when you start putting people's lives on the line, like Wikileaks did in the spring of this year, there has to be consequences. It was reported that many village and clan leaders who worked or supported the US/British forces were targeted and killed by the Taliban forces in Afghanistan. To me, that's putting people's lives at risk and that's depraved indifference, aka 2nd degree murder in the US.

Also, companies could be distancing themselves from Wikileaks because of the political fallout that is going to come from this. Anyone supporting them will be shown in a bad light if this goes south for Wikileaks.


RE: Careful what you wish for...
By phxfreddy on 12/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: Careful what you wish for...
By drycrust3 on 12/5/2010 2:31:40 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Wikileaks did the same [thing] the NYT did when the published the Abu Graib photos.

I disagree. The Abu Graib photos highlighted the fact Prisoners of War were not being held and treated according to the Geneva Convention, to which the USA is a signatory. Even if the Geneva Convention didn't apply because the war had finished, the prisoners were also not being held and treated in accordance with US law (or at least as I see it on TV (I'm not American)).

quote:
Wikileaks did not endanger anyone.

While much has been made about the content of the messages, which all happened in the past, the real danger isn't what was said, but the fact that what was said was originally encrypted and now isn't. In countries which don't intercept messages from the US Embassy (and I am guessing that there are some), then they have no record of the encrypted message to compare the "Wikileaks" message to, thus they can't gain any insight into the encryption algorithms used; but in countries that do intercept the messages (and I am just guessing that there are some of those too), then they can do a comparison with the transmitted message and some insight into the nature of the encryption algorithms might be gained.


RE: Careful what you wish for...
By Solandri on 12/5/2010 10:36:01 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Wikileaks did the same think the NYT did when the published the Abu Graib photos.

Just a reminder: The U.S. Central Command in Iraq released the Abu Graib photos, not the media. The Army had been investigating it, and finding there was evidence of crimes, went public with it. The media mostly ignored it at first.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_an...

So no, this is nothing like what the NYT did with the Abu Graib photos. The example you were probably searching for was the NYT and the Pentagon Papers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers


RE: Careful what you wish for...
By RW on 12/6/2010 2:29:47 AM , Rating: 1
It seems that in a World full of lies telling the truth is seen as a criminal act.

Very interesting indeed, I didn't knew until now that lies are so fucking precious in this World, now I know, and that means from now on the more I lie the more precious I become.


By VitalyTheUnknown on 12/6/2010 10:21:14 AM , Rating: 1
Oh really?

US media initially showed little interest when the US military first reported abuse. On January 16, 2004, United States Central Command informed the media that an official investigation had begun involving abuse and humiliation of Iraqi detainees by a group of US soldiers. On February 24, it was reported that 17 soldiers had been suspended. The military announced again, on March 21, 2004, that the first charges had been filed against six soldiers.

It was not until late April 2004 that U.S. television news-magazine 60 Minutes II broadcast a story on the abuse. The story included photographs depicting the abuse of prisoners.[16]

The news segment had been delayed by two weeks at the request of the Department of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Richard Myers.

In May 2004, Hersh published a series of articles which described the treatment of detainees by US military police at Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad, Iraq.[16] The articles included allegations that private military contractors contributed to prisoner mistreatment and that intelligence agencies such as the CIA ordered torture in order to break prisoners for interrogations. They also alleged that torture is a usual practice in other US-run prisons as well, e.g., in Bagram Theater Internment Facility and Guantanamo. In subsequent articles, Hersh claimed that the abuses were part of a secret interrogation program, known as "Copper Green". According to Hersh's sources, the program was expanded to Iraq with the direct approval of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, both in an attempt to deal with the growing insurgency there and as part of "Rumsfeld's long-standing desire to wrest control of America's clandestine and paramilitary operations from the C.I.A."[17] Much of his material for these articles was based on the Army's own internal investigations.

Pictures, videos and detailed account of violence and torture were not officially released by United States Army Criminal Investigation Command or United States Department of Defense, they were LEAKED to the media.


RE: Careful what you wish for...
By Skywalker123 on 12/5/10, Rating: -1
RE: Careful what you wish for...
By ekv on 12/6/2010 2:03:29 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
So the Taliban killed traitors?
Ahh, this speaks volumes. You admit the news reports of the Taliban targeting and killing informants, as defined by WikiLeaks, is true. This also admits you have at least a shred of rationality. That small shred I can work with.

It is tempting to decree the fate of traitors as death. It is reasonable. However it is not how we do things in the US. For better or worse we have a system of law. So a traitor will be given a fair trial. If convicted then he will be punished. If the death penalty is sought then there would be yet another trial to determine if such is warranted. If convicted, even then there would be 20 years of appeals and a cushy life on death row.

I sometimes feel that a quick death on the battle-field would be more humane, than to go thru to grinding of the so-called 'justice' system. But there you have it.

I'm afraid the net is closing in on Assange. Maybe he has been watching too many Jason Bourne movies. Whatever the case, his funding drying up spells trouble. I'm reminded, in some ways, of the ancient Assyrians -- feared by many, hated by all.


RE: Careful what you wish for...
By Skywalker123 on 12/6/2010 2:45:00 AM , Rating: 2
didn't you hear? There is now over two hundred mirror sites for wikileaks. Even if he is arrested it won't stop


RE: Careful what you wish for...
By ekv on 12/6/2010 6:34:48 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
didn't you hear?
Even MSNBC, the biggest joke masquerading as journalists, has managed to figure out Assange. To wit, "WikiLeaks publishes list of worldwide infrastructure 'critical' to security of U.S."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40526224/ns/us_news-se...

Assange is nothing but a two-bit shakedown artist, a blackmailer using espionage as his weapon of choice. Despicable.

You are correct though, "it won't stop." Terrorism won't stop, especially with people like you giving support, material or otherwise.


RE: Careful what you wish for...
By mcnabney on 12/6/2010 9:44:49 AM , Rating: 2
Only a madman would want to strike at the diplomatic tools of a superpower.

When diplomacy fails, the remaining option is to DROP FLIPPING BOMBS ON PEOPLE.


RE: Careful what you wish for...
By VitalyTheUnknown on 12/6/2010 11:09:45 AM , Rating: 1
Wikileaks official press release on this cable.

The document, while marked “SECRET//NOFORN”, was placed on SIPRNet, a network accessible by an estimated 2.5 million civilian, military and private sector employees.

Wikileaks spokesman Kristinn Hrafnsson said:

“The latest release from the Embassy Cables reveals US embassies were asked to gather information on key infrastructure and resources without the knowledge of, or consultation with, their host governments.

“This further undermines claims made by the US government that its embassy officials do not play an intelligence gathering role.

“In terms of security issues, while this cable details the strategic importance of assets across the world, it does not give any information as to their exact locations, security measures, vulnerabilities or any similar factors – though it does reveal the US asked its diplomats to report back on these matters.

“This leaked cable was, like the rest of the Embassy Cables, available to 2.5 million people, including civilian, military and private sector personnel – a very wide distribution for information claimed to be of such high sensitivity, and relating to so many foreign governments”.


RE: Careful what you wish for...
By ekv on 12/7/2010 3:08:11 AM , Rating: 1
As if a press release is going to explain away espionage and blackmail?

Where were you during the Valerie Plame 'event'? Plame wasn't even an operative covered by the rules, but the "leak" of her identity causes a rucus. Yet the leak of a tribal elders name by WikiLeaks, who is subsequently murdered, causes you to support ... who? WikiLeaks?

Would you like some more koolaid?


RE: Careful what you wish for...
By tastyratz on 12/6/2010 11:04:00 AM , Rating: 2
doesn't matter. You don't NOT arrest the local cocaine dealer in front of the school because someone else is selling the same. Wikileaks is the biggest one out, and they clearly are not acting in a way we all hoped for.

I would love to see a whistleblowing site TRULY for whistleblowing and held with honesty/integrity. Maybe one of those competitors that spring up will conduct themselves that way.
Nothing released to the internet can be taken back, And there are a hundred more to pop up and replace him - but Julius can be stopped as to prevent specific further incidents at his hand.


RE: Careful what you wish for...
By Skywalker123 on 12/6/2010 2:47:26 AM , Rating: 1
Also I didn't admit that the Taliban killed traitors, I just said that most people would do the same if they were in the same position


RE: Careful what you wish for...
By ekv on 12/6/2010 6:23:51 AM , Rating: 3
What? are you back to doubting the veracity of those reports? I'm disappointed. You must also side with Ahmadinejad in believing the Holocaust never took place. Don't lie.


RE: Careful what you wish for...
By BZDTemp on 12/6/2010 5:47:32 AM , Rating: 1
"It was reported"

From what I understand this was just speculation and spin planted to try and stop Wikileaks!


RE: Careful what you wish for...
By swizeus on 12/6/10, Rating: 0
RE: Careful what you wish for...
By invidious on 12/4/2010 6:10:40 PM , Rating: 5
Its a private company, they can chose to deny service to anyone they want as long as its not based on race, religion, or gender.

And if a legitimate business person is denied access to paypal they will have plenty of other means of legitimate money transfers. It is only the illegitimate businesses that rely on the anonymity of paypal as a sole means of finance.


RE: Careful what you wish for...
By Lerianis on 12/5/10, Rating: -1
RE: Careful what you wish for...
By dqniel on 12/6/2010 2:42:30 AM , Rating: 5
No. That actually has nothing to do with the rights that the first amendment protects. Whether you "agree with that argument" or not doesn't change the fact that it's ludicrous and unrelated.


RE: Careful what you wish for...
By mcnabney on 12/6/2010 9:49:00 AM , Rating: 3
Don't bother arguing with him. He is an idiot.

Anyone that believes the 1st amendment speech protections apply to business, please go into you bosses office and tell him that he is an a$$hole. I'm sure you will gain a lot of freedoms before the end of the day.


RE: Careful what you wish for...
By IcePickFreak on 12/4/2010 7:51:56 PM , Rating: 2
So much for that mail-order weed idea I had. :\


RE: Careful what you wish for...
By Omega215D on 12/5/2010 9:35:04 PM , Rating: 2
I am intrigued and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.


RE: Careful what you wish for...
By Uncle on 12/4/2010 8:05:53 PM , Rating: 3
Agree. This is all about Elitist Corporate Economic Blackmail,sponsored by the Government(Corporations) and what can happen to you if you don't play by their rules. Here's the first glimpse of what will happen in a cashless society. So all you people who are narrow minded and have side shields on take heed of what is to come. Civil Disobedience is all we have left and Julian Assange is using it the best way he can.


RE: Careful what you wish for...
By FITCamaro on 12/4/10, Rating: -1
By VitalyTheUnknown on 12/4/2010 11:48:34 PM , Rating: 3
'Sex by Surprise' at Heart of Assange Criminal Probe

http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/sex-by-surpri...


By Skywalker123 on 12/5/2010 5:02:41 AM , Rating: 4
Assange was charged with rape in SWEDEN, not Australia and it was a totally trumped up charge.


RE: Careful what you wish for...
By thurston on 12/5/10, Rating: -1
RE: Careful what you wish for...
By andrinoaa on 12/6/10, Rating: -1
RE: Careful what you wish for...
By Jalek on 12/5/2010 3:52:36 PM , Rating: 5
Google Paypal and any form of account restricted.
You'll find this isn't anything new or even unusual.


RE: Careful what you wish for...
By Lerianis on 12/5/10, Rating: 0
RE: Careful what you wish for...
By MightyAA on 12/6/2010 10:16:37 AM , Rating: 2
Ummm. Yes.
in violation of its terms of service "which states that our payment service cannot be used for any activities that encourage, promote, facilitate or instruct others to engage in illegal activity."

“U.S. Army Spc. Bradley Manning, is currently sitting in military prison awaiting treason charges.”

Sure looks like by publishing illegally obtained documents, they are encouraging, promoting, and facilitating others to do the same. A crime was done and paypal wouldn't want to be associated with those that encourage it.


Of course USA is 90% of leaks
By Source9 on 12/5/10, Rating: -1
RE: Of course USA is 90% of leaks
By Source9 on 12/5/10, Rating: -1
Where's Arnold when we need him?
By carage on 12/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: Where's Arnold when we need him?
By Skywalker123 on 12/5/2010 5:05:45 AM , Rating: 1
Obama has authorized the killing without trial of American citizens. I'm sure he can authorize this, why don't you volunteer cowboy?


RE: Where's Arnold when we need him?
By carage on 12/5/2010 1:23:15 PM , Rating: 1
If I had the skill, this guy is dead already.


RE: Where's Arnold when we need him?
By Skywalker123 on 12/6/2010 3:04:44 AM , Rating: 2
How much skill do you have to have to pull a trigger? go for it, and you'll be Rush's hero.


RE: Where's Arnold when we need him?
By carage on 12/6/2010 7:44:00 AM , Rating: 2
It's more than that. Considering an incident that happened last month in Taiwan, apparently it is still possible that someone can come out alive even when shot in the head at point-blank range.


RE: Where's Arnold when we need him?
By thurston on 12/5/2010 5:59:30 PM , Rating: 2
Please turn off your TV it is turning your brain into mush.


RE: Where's Arnold when we need him?
By carage on 12/5/2010 7:04:25 PM , Rating: 1
Please turn off your NPR liberal nonsense, there are enough idiots in America already.


By thurston on 12/5/2010 8:20:11 PM , Rating: 2
I couldn't tell you the last time I listened to NPR. I know I have listened to Rush, Fox, Hanity, Savage and Beck since I listened to NPR.


Nothing more than oppression
By Robear on 12/5/10, Rating: -1
By DarkPhoenix on 12/6/2010 1:04:40 PM , Rating: 3
Sorry to be so blunt, but you're just one person and you're not being very smart...
I'm all for transparency, but even that needs to have a limit, when dealing with such leaks. The information being "leaked" is not just about disclosing information of things governments did covertly, that can be an embarrassment to them. It's also information that can lead to very dangerous relations between 2 or more countries. That can ultimately lead to conflicts and the loss of human life.
These "leaks" also include information about less secure places, more prone to attacks. Again this can be used by terrorists to kill innocent people.

If it was just evidence of things like China hacking Google servers or what US diplomats said about the Italian or French prime ministers, that's ok. It's not hurting anyone directly and only causing embarrassment to the respective governments.
But those are NOT the only leaks and some of them pose some serious threats. Sometimes the whole truth is better left untold, otherwise consequences will be a lot worse.


History will show Assange is a hero
By Edmond Dantes on 12/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: History will show Assange is a hero
By ayat101 on 12/4/2010 9:18:35 PM , Rating: 3
... why be surprised? The Americans remind me more and more of the Chinese. The same siege mentality in the two. The same parroting of propaganda. The same calling for blood... etc. The Yanks have forgotten that they are supposed to stand for democracy, free speech and freedom. If you want to see an example of what I am talking about, start mentioning the Dalai Lama to mainland Chinese and watch the reactions... don't they remind you of what you see right here? LOL


RE: History will show Assange is a hero
By Kurz on 12/6/2010 9:21:52 AM , Rating: 5
Republic... Republic... Republic... Not Democracy
A rule of the Majority will end up with socialist system that will collapse on itself.

Republic holds the individual rights above the needs of the group. Democracy holds power in the majority. This meaning is that in a Democracy the minorities rights can be infringed while in a Republic the Rights of the Individual is held in higher regard.

This slight difference is an important one.


By ThisSpaceForRent on 12/6/2010 2:26:45 PM , Rating: 2
Thank you! I'm always tired of people stating that the United States is a democracy. Maybe on the local and state level it is, but certainly not on a federal level.


RE: History will show Assange is a hero
By Robear on 12/6/2010 12:38:05 AM , Rating: 5
Thank you for posting this. I wasn't aware of these videos.

Why was this voted down to -1?

OMG.

OMG.

Why is Assange the criminal here?


RE: History will show Assange is a hero
By Beenthere on 12/6/10, Rating: -1
By Skywalker123 on 12/6/2010 3:01:35 AM , Rating: 3
Everyone ends up dead


RE: History will show Assange is a hero
By andrinoaa on 12/6/2010 4:06:02 AM , Rating: 2
I cannot beleive the lack of empathy for a human. All these calls for an assasination? What are you guys on? opps sorry, I forgot, its coming in from mexico!!!( sorry JJ)


By mcnabney on 12/6/2010 10:03:46 AM , Rating: 2
Assange is effectively acting as a spy and almost exclusively argeting a specific nation. The last small cadre of individuals that wielded so much power on the global stage was known to fly passenger planes into buildings.

This is brand-new territory. Never before have poitically unaccountable groups had so much power. One thing it (and the recession) are going to cause is the rollback of Pax Americana. It wasn't perfect, but it worked pretty well.

By causing severe damage to the diplomatic channels, exposing issues in allied governments, and assisting 'real' terrorists by exposing critical targets the odds of real war go way up. When diplomacy fails, war is the remaining option.


RE: History will show Assange is a hero
By DarkPhoenix on 12/6/2010 12:04:33 PM , Rating: 2
I don't get it...So we should have empathy for a "human" that can (and probably already has) put lives at risk (lives as in plural, not just one) ?

Your priorities are quite skewed...Stop thinking about your belly button and look around. It's a big world out there and some of this information being "leaked" can be the cause of terrorist attacks, which will cost the lives of many people.


RE: History will show Assange is a hero
By Kurz on 12/6/2010 12:52:24 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe the reason we get terrorized is because of actions that are described in those leaked Documents.

USA has done its fair share of nation building Or should I say Sabotage. Many Latin countries have felt the interference of USA Government in their politics.

Maybe if we just minded our own damn business we would have nothing to worry about.


RE: History will show Assange is a hero
By DarkPhoenix on 12/6/2010 1:20:48 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe. But "maybes" are not enough to potentially risk other people's lives IMO.

Every big power has its fair share of skeletons in the closet. It's inevitable and these "leaks" are not going to stop it. But they can make things worse.
If it's just to embarrass the governments that did something wrong, fine. Go ahead and leak those. But when we are talking about potentially dangerous info, that puts peoples lives at risk. I draw the line.


By Kurz on 12/6/2010 6:33:30 PM , Rating: 2
No when I mean maybe its because we meddle in other countries.


By adiposity on 12/6/2010 2:56:37 PM , Rating: 2
How can this comment be modded so high, but the comment it praises be modded so low? Well, just for fun, here are the links, un-modded down (for now):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0


"DailyTech is the best kept secret on the Internet." -- Larry Barber














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki