Print 105 comment(s) - last by iiiears.. on Dec 12 at 3:08 PM

Wikileaks has lost its domain name and is now only reachable by direct IP. It has lost virtually all its primary sources of funding.

An hacker activist has helped make Wikileaks difficult to reach, even before the recent domain name takedown.  (Source: Vimeo)

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has been arrested in England on supposedly unrelated charges.  (Source: AP Photo)
Site's options continue to shrink

Wikileaks aired hundreds of thousands of classified documents on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars that were stolen from the U.S Military, and shared 250,000 stolen classified U.S. State Department cables with The New York Times and other news organizations worldwide. The website certainly irritated the governments of U.S., China, Britain and many other organizations worldwide.  They moved to cut off the site's funding, first convincing Amazon to throw it off its hosting platform, then working with Paypal to sever its primary source of funding.  

But when 
Wikileaks yesterday published a list of top targets to hurt U.S. national security, the site seemingly sealed its own fate.  Its Swiss bank account was closed, and Wikileaks reportedly lost the money in it (the bank contended that Wikileaks founder Julian Assange lied in the paperwork, saying he resided in Switzerland, which he does not).

Now the DNS Company, the web listing organization which provided 
Wikileaks with the right to use the domain name "", has terminated its affiliation with the site.  That means that attempts to reach the site by domain name no longer succeed.

The site also lost another hosting service -- -- and has jumped to a mix of Swiss and French hosting at the present.  But France's government is already moving to ban the site from its nations servers.

Meanwhile the site is under a distributed denial of service attack from a "hacktivist" who goes by the moniker The Jester – or "th3 j35t3r".  On his Twitter feed, The Jester writes, "TANGO DOWN - for attempting to endanger the lives of our troops, 'other assets' & foreign relations."

An earlier attack exceeded a modest 2-4 Gbps, but a Tuesday attack was even more potent, reaching a mean 10 Gbps.

About the only way to get to Wikileaks these days is via a Google search, which comes up with its direct IP address, which is occasionally reachable, depending on the current volume of fake service requests.

Facing the possibility of his masterwork being taken offline and complete loss of funding,
Wikileaks founder Julian Assange surrendered to authorities in Britain on Swedish rape charges unrelated to the recent leaks.  He has warned his followers that if anything happens to him while he is imprisoned, that a secret key will be released which will unlock a distributed archived file containing all the site's unreleased secrets.

One of Mr. Assange's accusers in the Swedish sex crimes trial coincidentally has ties to the CIA.  Mr. Assange was denied bail, as he is to be extradited to Sweden for questioning on outstanding allegations of rape, molestation and unlawful coercion.  When asked if he understood the ruling, he commented, "I understand that and I do not consent."

Apparently the matter was not left up to his determination.

Comments     Threshold

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

I'm conflicted...
By MrBlastman on 12/7/2010 11:22:10 AM , Rating: 5
I'm a patriot. I love my country. I love this wonderful Constitution and Bill of Rights my founding fathers put in place and most importantly, I honor, respect and cherish the sacrifice my citizens have made at the helm of arms in defense of our way of life.

I also cherish our right to free speech. I certainly recognize it applies to all of our citizens. I feel it is utmostly important to preserve this right as it gives us a tremendous advantage that people all around the world die for daily--die because they spoke out about something that some dictator, despot or communist leader deemed they did not like, so they make those people "dissapear." That can't and should not happen here in America, as it was designed when our parent documents were ratified.

I also recognize the sheer amount of disinformation we put up with as the American public that comes out of Corporate America and more importantly our own politicians and Government. As a wise citizen, it is our duty to recognize this dissonance and strive to find the real truth in things and not simply accept them as they are told to us.

With the internet, this has become easier as it provides us a forum to discuss items and issues and, due to our great Bill of Rights, not fear imprisonment or worse. Wikileaks originally started out as a good idea. It was a place to release information that people potentially wanted to know. I think forums like it are a good place that need to exist and shudder at the idea of them all going away.

This would leave us all in the dark again and that certainly is not a friendly place when you think about it.

However, I think there is a line--yes a line that separates where we are free to speak our minds (well, we are always free to speak our minds) and a point where it could cost people their individual lives or worse, groups of people their lives. I think Wikileaks has crossed this line. The release of potential targets, while not directly damaging, was more a flag in our faces that, "hey, we can help guide those who really want to hurt you in how to hurt you." This I think, was going to far. Shame on Julian and shame on Wikileaks for doing this. There comes a time when we have to protect our citizens and that time is now.

Anytime you possess knowledge that can potentially change the course of the world, it needs to be used responsibly. It can not just be shoveled out freely without any fear of it being used in the wrong way. Thinking like this also borders on that very same "Freedom of Speech" that our fathers wanted to preserve.

What I fear most due to all of this outcry against Wikileaks is not what will happen to Julian or what will happen to his website--it is what will happen to our Freedom of Speech. I wish not to have it poached from our arms and sent into the nethers of yonderyear--I wish it to be protected and preserved. I also don't want it tarnished but instead, would love for society to take this as a time for discussion as to the pro's and con's of it all and not let it be taken lightly one bit.

We are treading upon a dangerous precident here and it is not a light matter one bit. Right, wrong or neutral, I think every stance has a point in this matter and regardless of my stance on Wikileaks and Julian himself, what is more important is how this might effect our future rights as citizens of this country--and the message heard around the world.

RE: I'm conflicted...
By MrBlastman on 12/7/2010 11:27:31 AM , Rating: 4
As a side note, I realize Julian is not a US Citizen nor is Wikileaks US property. Our rights bestowed upon our citizens do not apply to him. However, the concepts of our rights are what potentially is at stake based on the mentality of our populace on this issue. It is simply grounds for deeper reflection on the full gravity of what may or may not happen.

RE: I'm conflicted...
By VitalyTheUnknown on 12/7/2010 11:34:11 AM , Rating: 5
It's basically what James Madison said in circa 1811.

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.

RE: I'm conflicted...
By xkrakenx on 12/7/10, Rating: -1
RE: I'm conflicted...
By MrBlastman on 12/7/2010 11:53:09 AM , Rating: 5
I'm not showing him love at all; Please re-read what I wrote.

RE: I'm conflicted...
By xkrakenx on 12/7/10, Rating: -1
RE: I'm conflicted...
By ClownPuncher on 12/7/2010 2:08:32 PM , Rating: 5
Face it, a rational response doesn't pander to the mob mentality of either side. Being a moderate fucks you.

RE: I'm conflicted...
By MrBlastman on 12/7/2010 2:25:26 PM , Rating: 2
That is so true. :) Well said.

RE: I'm conflicted...
By dsumanik on 12/11/2010 5:25:13 AM , Rating: 3
Our nation needs drastic change, and mr assange is ushering the public to think beyond what is fed to them on the television by corrupt politicians and biased media.

All of you would be singing a completely different tune if these leaks pertained to chinese military/diplomatic secrets. Youd be loving this guy.

Well guess what, this dirty laundry is all American this time around.....and it all happened because the citizens of this country fell asleep at the wheel eating mcdonalds and paying for it with maxed out credit cards.

Wake up folks, our great country the USA is not a darling angel anymore and in the last 2 decades we have caused more harm than any other country on the planet from both a military and economic standpoint....why do you think out of all the places that could have been targeted in the world, it was new york on sept 11 2001? Just bad luck?

We pissed alot of people off, they is that simple.

Leaking these "sensitive targets" is nothing that terrorists dont already know.




RE: I'm conflicted...
By iiiears on 12/12/2010 2:51:54 PM , Rating: 2
"Remember the Maine!"

RE: I'm conflicted...
By Suntan on 12/7/10, Rating: -1
RE: I'm conflicted...
By VitalyTheUnknown on 12/7/2010 12:54:06 PM , Rating: 4
I totally disagree, I think the Wikileaks cables reveal the crux of our problems and struggles. It's absolutely necessary for Public to know this; clandestine actions and obscured policies that endanger everyone. This one for example:

WikiLeaked Cable Confirms U.S.’ Secret Somalia Op

"Three years later, it’s clear the Ethiopian invasion was a bad idea. The attack rallied Somalis of all stripes and politics against the invaders, ultimately boosting support for fringe Islamic groups that now had a clear enemy in the Ethiopians and their suspected American puppet-masters. Violence mounted as the Ethiopians settled in for a bloody, two-year occupation.

When the Ethiopians withdrew in 2009, the Islamists rushed to fill the vacuum. A year later, the Al Shabab Islamic group, successor to the Islamic Courts, conducted its first international terror attack. Last month, a Somali-born American teen plotted to explode a bomb in Portland. Today, U.S. Special Forces continue to target terrorists in Somalia. There are arguably more of them than ever, thanks in part to the botched Ethiopian invasion. “We’ve made a lot of mistakes and Ethiopia’s entry in 2006 was not a really good idea,” U.S. diplomat Donald Yamamoto said in March."

RE: I'm conflicted...
By ValorMorghulis on 12/7/2010 1:44:32 PM , Rating: 3
Vitaly, I agree with you on that specific example. There are things that we as the public need to see. However, once it becomes clear that actions you are making are hurting SPECIFIC individuals, you have an obligation to stop. When terrorist organizations are thanking you for what you've done you've crossed the line.

Even though we as a country believe in free speech, there still are types of speech that are prohibited. You can't yell fire in a crowded room. Why? Because it leads to imminent physical harm to other people. Thats exactly Assaunge is doing. His actions are putting people in IMMEDIATE physical danger. This isn't an abstract situation of "oh he's hurting our credibility". There are immediate direct and often fatal consequences of his actions. That is not acceptable and shouldn't be.

RE: I'm conflicted...
By VitalyTheUnknown on 12/7/2010 3:31:36 PM , Rating: 5
I was going to write a more extensive reply, but my friends just informed me that Julian Assange has published his new article,
"Don't shoot messenger for revealing uncomfortable truths", this article essentially reflects my position om this controversy in more coherent style.

RE: I'm conflicted...
By xkrakenx on 12/7/10, Rating: 0
RE: I'm conflicted...
By Suntan on 12/7/10, Rating: -1
RE: I'm conflicted...
By Samus on 12/7/2010 4:13:52 PM , Rating: 3
Of all the things leaked, the cables are of the least concern. Those don't neccessarily endanger lives. Releasing classified mainland terrorist The nail in the coffin, if you will.

RE: I'm conflicted...
By Luticus on 12/7/2010 11:48:31 AM , Rating: 2
There is a difference between free speech/press and releasing information that could hurt a lot of people. They aren't giving their opinion on something, they aren't calling the president a jerk, they are releasing ideas on how to best hurt an entire group (country) of people. I don't think our rights are at stake on this one. I think this goes far above and beyond any right someone has. This is akin to someone going into your house and grabbing all your financial records and releasing them online, then trying to hide behind free speech. We wouldn't stand for that would we?

I'm ok with them exposing wrong doing, war crimes, and other dumb stuff like that, but what they are doing now is just hurtful and doesn't help anyone but those who would do wrong. This is a great example of "good concept, bad execution". The idea of a site where you can go to report wrong doing and blow whistles and such is great but when it become a medium to hurt people then it becomes something that i feel needs to be shut down.

Now as for Julian not being a citizen of the USA, I believe that everyone regardless of what nation they belong to or what part of this rock they were born on, deserves all the rights we enjoy here. People are no less human because they were born in a different hemisphere. It's not so much that i believe that our (America's) way is perfect or somehow better than that of other countries, i just simply believe that as someone who values and holds the right of free speech i should impart onto other people of the world the same respect and courtesy that i am given as a citizen of the US. The declaration of independence reads that "all men are created equal", not "all citizens of the United States". But that's just my take on it.

RE: I'm conflicted...
By MozeeToby on 12/7/2010 12:39:27 PM , Rating: 2
No one has ever been successfully prosecuted in the US for publishing leaked documents. Lots and lots of people have been convicted for performing the actual leak, but there has never been a case in which a journalist was convicted for publishing material he received from a source. The handful of cases where it went to trial, the case was quickly thrown out of court. Throwing journalists in jail for publishing information that they receive is a very slippery slope to start down. The courts have always realized this in the past, and it's quite likely that they would do the same in this case.

As for the 'rape' accusations, it is not any definition of rape that you would be familiar with, the sexual assault laws in Sweden are, shall we say, rather liberal in their interpretations; and even then there are conflicting reports even of what the women said. For one thing, one of them has openly stated to the media that she was not raped, that Assange is not violent, and that she never wanted to press charges. The other woman cooked him breakfast the next morning and left him alone in her apartment. Both women had friendly, public contact with him after the alleged rape occurred. Neither women reported anything until they found out about each other. That makes the man an asshole, no doubt, but it hardly makes him a rapist.

RE: I'm conflicted...
By BZDTemp on 12/8/10, Rating: -1
RE: I'm conflicted...
By foolsgambit11 on 12/7/2010 4:29:06 PM , Rating: 2
He may not be a US Citizen, but the principles on which the United States was founded are inherently the rights of all, not just Americans. This is best stated in Jefferson's immortal words from the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
So while the US Government may not have an obligation to ensure these rights for non-Americans, it would be against its founding principles to actively infringe on anyone's fundamental human rights.

RE: I'm conflicted...
By jonmcc33 on 12/7/2010 6:53:11 PM , Rating: 2
He may not be a US Citizen, but the principles on which the United States was founded are inherently the rights of all, not just Americans.

Wrong. If you want American rights then you become American. They clearly do not apply to any other country in the world.

RE: I'm conflicted...
By Starcub on 12/8/2010 11:10:15 PM , Rating: 2
Wrong. If you want American rights then you become American.


RE: I'm conflicted...
By Reclaimer77 on 12/7/2010 8:02:57 PM , Rating: 2
He may not be a US Citizen, but the principles on which the United States was founded are inherently the rights of all, not just Americans.

Be careful, some would say that smacks of Imperialism. Forcing our Constitution and way of life on everyone regardless of weather they agree or want it.

A fair bit of the Constitution and Amendments deals with citizenship. So you aren't even close, no offense.

Our rights are indeed for all. All who wish to come here and become a citizen.

RE: I'm conflicted...
By Targon on 12/8/2010 3:42:42 AM , Rating: 2
There is a key concept that many people just don't seem to grasp. Just because the IDEALS should promote these concepts does not mean that the entire world is PROTECTED by these concepts. This means that a non-citizen is NOT protected by our laws, but US citizens are still required to follow them.

In short, those from other countries do not have the rights of citizens, but they can report illegal activities and expect illegal activities(under US law) by US citizens to be punished. This means that in theory, non-citizens do not have the right to start lawsuits under US law for a "crime", but they can expect any wrongdoing to be punished.

RE: I'm conflicted...
By Lugaidster on 12/8/2010 9:52:15 AM , Rating: 1
According to your logic then if a tourist kills another tourist while being in the United States, it won't matter?

RE: I'm conflicted...
By FITCamaro on 12/7/2010 12:16:43 PM , Rating: 1
Knowingly and intentionally releasing information that is classified and potentially aids our enemies is not covered under the freedom of speech.

Is he even a US citizen either? If not, he isn't covered under our right to free speech.

RE: I'm conflicted...
By MrBlastman on 12/7/2010 12:25:52 PM , Rating: 2
Nope, he's not a citizen. He's Australian, actually. I'm quite sure that if he released Australian information, their oppressive parliament would have him thrown in jail indefinitely. Freedom of Speech as far as I'm concerned is dead there. It died when they started censoring their pipe to the internet for the whole country.

But yes, I'm with you and it falls under "being used responsibly." The information he released was classified and aids our enemies in routing out the guys in their countries who are aiding us. People have died as a result of these postings.

At some point, Julian should have asked himself, "Gee, is this information I'm about to release going to cause someone to die as a result--someone who is tertiary to the information but as a indirect result, I've jeopoardized their position?" He then should have followed up that question with: "Am I willing to die as a result of releasing this information in place of others who might die because of it?"

If his answer to the question was: "No," then he should have not released it. If his answer was "Yes," then he should now be willing to stand up in front of a firing line and take a bullet for his cause.

I really, honestly, think Julian has gone about this in an incredibly wreckless manner. I don't want to see the freedom for information exchange to die also, though.

RE: I'm conflicted...
By kerpwnt on 12/7/2010 1:37:01 PM , Rating: 2
I feel like wikileaks walks a fine line with horrible balance. On one hand, they expose war crimes and shady operations that destabilize countries and further anti-American sentiment in hostile regions. On the other hand they publish internal U.S. investigations, exposing potential 'weak spots' for terrorist attacks.

RE: I'm conflicted...
By thurston on 12/7/2010 7:09:01 PM , Rating: 2
No he is not a US citizen. Can you not find this out on your own? Why are you commenting when you don't even know the basic facts?

RE: I'm conflicted...
By rdawise on 12/7/10, Rating: -1
RE: I'm conflicted...
By chick0n on 12/7/10, Rating: -1
RE: I'm conflicted...
By rdawise on 12/8/2010 7:27:35 PM , Rating: 1
So it is ok to hurt other people to protect US Citizens

You do realize that is the definition of war correct? But, where did you see me endorse that?

I'm dare to say 99% of the DT readers never actually read the docs on Wiki leaks. Most of u got the ideas of "hurting US Citizens" from Fox or some other US biased media group.

Yes, i did see some (not all of the documents) and they are hurtful because they contained intel (though some of it already know) that put our allies in danger. A better question would be did you read it? Please don't lump me in with people who watch Fox, I like to think for myself...

Try to read some of them first b4 u talk again

Try taking your own advice...

RE: I'm conflicted...
By Hieyeck on 12/7/2010 1:30:17 PM , Rating: 2
This summarizes what the average person is feeling, but with these feelings, there shouldn't be conflict.


Let's think back to WW2. France just got rolled over by the German machine. Its people suppressed. But there were those who refused to be supressed and their Resistance helped rebuild thier nation. The nation survived.

China, early 1900s. Opium arrives, government eager to please everyone else, gives up its Confucian ideals. Falls into civil unrest leading to Boxer Rebellion and eventually civil war. The China then has never existed since.


A nation is an ideal and the community that strives to reach that ideal. A nation exists in the hearts of its people. Give up the nationalism and the nation still lives. Give up the ideals - and especially the will to speak those ideals, and the 'nation' just becomes a shell.

I am not American, but I would still call myself a patriot to your nation - to the ideals of America. The ideals dictated by your founding fathers: life; liberty; and the pursuit of happiness.
</idealistic rant>

<personal opinion>
I think wikileaks is a good thing. There's too much fake in this world. The airbrushed magazine covers, the knockoff baby formula - it's all too much. So much that nations that are supposed to be more than allies can't be honest with each other. Worst of all, nations can't even be honest with themselves. The US government isn't even actually 'The US' anymore, or Jon Stewart's march wouldn't have gained any traction. World needs some more honesty.

RE: I'm conflicted...
By Solandri on 12/7/2010 2:37:06 PM , Rating: 3
I think wikileaks is a good thing. There's too much fake in this world. The airbrushed magazine covers, the knockoff baby formula - it's all too much. So much that nations that are supposed to be more than allies can't be honest with each other. Worst of all, nations can't even be honest with themselves. The US government isn't even actually 'The US' anymore, or Jon Stewart's march wouldn't have gained any traction. World needs some more honesty.

This, of course, assumes that everything published on Wikileaks is honest truth (including no deception by omissions).

Spotting fakes and deception is a difficult skill all of us have to learn as we go through life. There's just no easy way to do it, no magic website which shovels out pure, unfiltered truth. I'm very careful about my personal info, but even I get taken in by the occasional fraud (got an eBay phishing scam email coincidentally just after I won the bid on an eBay item).

I think a site like Wikileaks can be useful to have in the grand scheme of things. But only as a potential threat to those who would improperly hide secrets. Something to make them think there's less chance that they could get away with it. Not as a reliable source of leaked information. I'm under no illusion that Wikileaks is somehow immune to the same forces of corruption which make us question the honesty of governments and other organizations.

For one, I'd like to see them apply their principles to themselves. Make available who their members are, how they operate, how they decide what to release and what not to release, the number of leaks they get by industry/government/country and how many of them they publish or decide not to publish, where their funding comes from (hey, everyone complains about researchers getting funding from corporations causing bias, what's good for the goose is good for the gander), etc.

RE: I'm conflicted...
By FITCamaro on 12/7/2010 4:35:56 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. The idea of a group in the world that brings out corruption is one thing. One who's mission it is to expose national secrets is another.

There are definitely things in the world that it's better if the public doesn't know. One good example I heard was fighting terrorism in Pakistan. Pakistan might want to go after a certain group but be unable to. So they might want the US to go do it for them but still take credit. This was the kind of thing released in the leaked cables. It makes Pakistan look bad as well as shows our covert actions.

The fact that the world isn't perfect and involves a lot of backroom dealing on the international scene should be no surprise to anyone. And by and large the world doesn't need to know about it. The only dealings I want to know about are things like talks between the US and the UN to essentially undermine US sovereignty. Or talks withing my own government on domestic issues that affect what products I can buy, how much I'll be taxed, etc. What deal we make with another country to do something or buy something is none of my business. I can see the result in the end and if I don't like it I can vote my opinion to try and change who's doing that negotiating or dealing.

RE: I'm conflicted...
By gorehound on 12/7/2010 4:12:19 PM , Rating: 2
I for one am glad to read the information which shows the other side of things.
1. you got the news media got the real government files.

now you can see for yourself if you have a decent government or is it a big lie.

RE: I'm conflicted...
By Mudhen6 on 12/7/2010 6:34:33 PM , Rating: 3
I for one am glad to read the information which shows the other side of things.
1. you got the news media got the real government files.

now you can see for yourself if you have a decent government or is it a big lie.

At the expense of undermining U.S. diplomatic efforts (the other half of foreign relations, the not-war half) and compromising the safety of various intelligence assets and other high value targets/lives important to American interests.

Get your head out of your ass. I'd love to know all about the government too, but if that stuff gets declassified, then EVERYONE knows, not just me.

It's completely hypocritical to expect the United States government to be completely transparent but not holding the governments of other nations to the same standard (China, Russia, North Korea and the two hundred or so other countries?). How can you possibly have a workable diplomatic relationship if only one country is transparent?

RE: I'm conflicted...
By Shadowmaster625 on 12/7/2010 4:24:27 PM , Rating: 1
Wow you just wasted 3000 characters worshipping your beloved cancerous tumor known as The State. If you are a patriot, you dont rationalize with it. You dont compromise with it. It is diseased and the disease must be cut from it before it consumes us all. If the disease cannot be cut without killing it, then it must be killed. If you arent willing to take that stand then you have no business calling yourself a patriot.

RE: I'm conflicted...
By Mudhen6 on 12/7/2010 6:41:34 PM , Rating: 3
Wow you just wasted 3000 characters worshipping your beloved cancerous tumor known as The State. If you are a patriot, you dont rationalize with it. You dont compromise with it. It is diseased and the disease must be cut from it before it consumes us all. If the disease cannot be cut without killing it, then it must be killed. If you arent willing to take that stand then you have no business calling yourself a patriot.

Rhetoric is the best you got? Hey guess who else spoke in rhetoric to garner support by spreading FUD?

BTW, Hitler called, and he wants his speech back.

RE: I'm conflicted...
By Dug on 12/7/2010 6:29:34 PM , Rating: 2
Freedom of speech has nothing to do with releasing stolen documents. That is aiding and abetting a criminal. (To assist and/or incite another to commit a crime)

To tell us he will release all documents if he goes to jail which will probably harm others is blackmail, a threat, and terrorism all in one.

"Don't shoot the messenger"
He was never elected the messenger. He made himself a messenger, therefore he should take the consequences of his own election.

He is not reporting, or relaying information. He has become the worst tattle tale in the world. Around here, if you are a tattle tale that causes harm to others, you get a blanket party. And believe me, you won't do it again.

RE: I'm conflicted...
By Reclaimer77 on 12/7/2010 7:58:24 PM , Rating: 2
I think you are WAY overblowning this issue. Precedent? No "dangerous precedent" is being set here. And our Freedom of Speech is NOT in jeopardy at all. This is just a website being shut down. That happens all the time, honestly, and nobody cries about fascism and our freedom of speech then. Why is this different?

Assange isn't even a citizen. Technically our "freedom of speech" doesn't apply to him. And it sure as hell doesn't cover a "freedom" to upload stolen documents of a sensitive and potentially dangerous nature.

I think every stance has a point in this matter and regardless of my stance on Wikileaks and Julian himself, what is more important is how this might effect our future rights as citizens of this country

Again, how? No new government legislation is being proposed that will change our freedoms due to this. And again, he's not a citizen. How are OUR future rights being threatened here?

RE: I'm conflicted...
By VitalyTheUnknown on 12/7/2010 8:38:28 PM , Rating: 2
"Again, how? No new government legislation is being proposed that will change our freedoms due to this."

You will get it, just wait for a couple more months for this to happen.

Here are the first signs of the true demon.

December 07, 2010
The US government is clamping down on scientists’ ability to discuss and surf freely as part of its response to the release of classified cables by Wikileaks.

Steven Aftergood of the Federation for American Scientists says the actions appear intended to respond to an Office of Management and Budget memo that reminds agencies that bringing classified information onto a non-classified system may breach agency regulations. But, he adds, many agencies are going further than they have to by blocking sites entirely. He says that doesn’t make sense when much of the information is already freely available from newspapers such as The New York TImes and The Guardian. “The government has locked itself into a contradictory position that threatens mission performance,” – the idea that government employees should do the best job they can with the information they can obtain, he says.

RE: I'm conflicted...
By Reclaimer77 on 12/7/2010 8:49:02 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry but please take off the tinfoil hat. That is just detailing a procedural change of how the Government will internally handle things now due to a MASSIVE security leak scandal. Things like this happen all the time. And honestly, changes obviously DO need to be made if someone can steal so many documents so easily.

This is just the old Potomac two step man. Someone screwed up or a screw up happened under someones watch. Heads roll, changes get made, political grandstanding and so on and so forth.

To say this is sign of impending legislation threatening our rights is fearmongering.

RE: I'm conflicted...
By VitalyTheUnknown on 12/7/2010 9:36:39 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe you are right who knows, maybe you're not, but to keep freedom we must always be on guard. What I know for certain is that lack of interest or concern is not a solution.

RE: I'm conflicted...
By tmouse on 12/8/2010 8:43:30 AM , Rating: 3
Please, you keep using Steve Aftergood as some sort of godlike bastion of moral superiority. He is not nor does he speak for anyone other than himself and SOME of the people of the federation. The OMB memo is not the start of some “slippery slope” it simply states it is a violation of contractual obligations for any government contractor to post or host classified documents on their servers. Whether the information is available elsewhere is totally irrelevant. Classified information is not automatically declassified by its release. It certainly loses its value but it still is classified and as such releasing it still has ramifications (whether it’s worth it to follow through or not is up to the government). Whether they do or not also does not grant automatic rights to break contractual regulations. Just because nature prints a commentary letter does not mean it should have any more weight than a letter to Playboy, Ladies home journal or any other magazine. We are not talking about science here; discussion of wikileaks does NOT in ANY way shape or form limit scientific discussion. For your information there are MANY regulations in government labs that can lead to immediate dismissal for actions many would consider trivial. These rules are in place to protect the mission of the labs and often touch on issues of security, physical safety and integrity of data. You might like to know that viewing porn can even bust tenure in most universities, same for using your affiliation in a way that implies the view could be the universities. Now; no one is stopping them from using their home accounts (on their own time) to view, discuss or post on ANY site. Do it from work and you could download harmful viruses, expose your institute to DOS attacks due to your post ect. Given the trust relationships many terminals have within and without the lab these actions could be very damaging indeed. Again the OMB does not give any specific instructions, this is up to the labs administration and it should stand to reason when at work you may bring your own pail and shovel but you are playing in their sandbox.

NO ONE is stifling ANYONE in the mission of their duties.
SCIENTIFIC discourse is NOT being clamped down on.

RE: I'm conflicted...
By MrBlastman on 12/8/2010 12:12:08 PM , Rating: 2
Again, how? No new government legislation is being proposed that will change our freedoms due to this. And again, he's not a citizen. How are OUR future rights being threatened here?

No new legislation right now... Yet. You forget who we have running our country right now and the agenda they have? Things like this give them further reason to limit our rights and freedoms.

What I'm more concerned about is the mentality of our people. Just thinking: "Throw them all in jail, how dare they release any secret information," as a blanket statement is as bad as the zero tolerance laws that plague our system. It isn't as black and white. Not everything Wikileaks has done has been wrong. They just so happened here to finally cross the line.

RE: I'm conflicted...
By BZDTemp on 12/8/2010 4:02:28 AM , Rating: 1
I think it's wrong to think Wikileaks is just releasing anything. They are working with journalists all over the globe to ensure they are not being used to carry misinformation and there is also steps to ensure info which may put individuals in risk being handled.

From what I understand the stories about people in Afghanistan mentioned on Wikileaks being targeted are simply a fabrication. Essentially stories to try and stop Wikileaks.

RE: I'm conflicted...
By Argon18 on 12/8/2010 2:40:33 PM , Rating: 2
Why the conflict? This has nothing to do with freedom of speech. This has to do with stolen documents, and classified material. How is "leaking" a document that points out national security flaws and vulnerable locations of benefit to anyone? The only people that benefits are those who would want to harm the country and its citizens. Shall I steal all of your personal emails, income tax records, etc. and "leak" them on the internet in the name of transparency? That isn't a leak - that is a theft.

By VitalyTheUnknown on 12/7/2010 11:07:23 AM , Rating: 2
Kristinn Hrafnsson said it would not stop release of more secret files and told Reuters on Tuesday: "Wikileaks is operational. We are continuing on the same track as laid out before.

"Any development with regards to Julian Assange will not change the plans we have with regards to the releases today and in the coming days."

If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.

You want proof? Its right here:

RE: Wiki
By Chaser on 12/7/2010 11:19:26 AM , Rating: 2
They are now cannon fodder. Their online acessibility, finances, revenue streams, almost complete support infastructure and their fearless patriot leader is on ice. Their big statement is going to be a unnoticable, insignificant whisper now.

au revoir.

RE: Wiki
By 91TTZ on 12/7/2010 11:38:04 AM , Rating: 2

Their only claim to fame was their ability to release information. They're still able to do that. The cat is out of the bag, and that information will no longer be secure.

They have already succeeded at what they wanted to do. The spread of that leaked information can no longer be stopped.

RE: Wiki
By Solandri on 12/7/2010 2:45:23 PM , Rating: 2
They have already succeeded at what they wanted to do. The spread of that leaked information can no longer be stopped.

That's not the OP's point. The spread of that leaked (past tense) info can no longer be stopped. But if their operations get shut down, the spread of future leaked info has been stopped, at least through them.

Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for life. OP's point is that it looks like Wikileaks' impact on geopolitics will be of the "for a day" kind.

RE: Wiki
By xkrakenx on 12/7/2010 11:40:00 AM , Rating: 2
journalists who remember the serious leaking of relevant docs in the 70s thumb their nose at this twit and his attention getting org.

to call assuange a hero is an embarrassment to people who do actually work to fight tyranny.

RE: Wiki
By mcnabney on 12/7/2010 12:19:23 PM , Rating: 4
Dead on.

The Pentagon Papers were direct refutations of lies being actively pandered to the American public. Exposing those politically motivated lies was an act of whistleblowing.

To tell you the truth, releasing Colateral Murder was fine. It was a documentation of what really happened and was glossed-over at the time.

But the massive leak of diplomatic documents and battle reports from Afghanistan weren't acts of whistleblowing. They were straight out spying. And the 'target list' is pretty much tantamount to supporting terrorism. Informing the world, and hostile agents, of infrastructure weaknesses has nothing to do with exposing corruption. It is arming the terrorists with intelligence.

I think everyone involved should be tried as spies (not treason, treason is for Americans). Unlike the recently uncovered Russian spy-ring (almost completely unsuccessful), nobody is going to trade to get them back...

RE: Wiki
By iiiears on 12/12/2010 3:08:49 PM , Rating: 2
If you are right I think they will charge him with murder. also the NY Times, The Guardian, and many others. In essence what they have done so far is convict him in public without a trial AND denied him the resources to defend himself.

I am very sorry to see the destruction of a very useful wiki and the U.S. government decide to redefine the word Freedom.

Hillary Clinton "Internet Freedom"

"On their own, new technologies do not take sides in the struggle for freedom and progress. But the United States does. We stand for a single internet where all of humanity has equal access to knowledge and ideas. And we recognize that the world's information infrastructure will become what we and others make of it.

This challenge may be new, but our responsibility to help ensure the free exchange of ideas goes back to the birth of our republic. The words of the First Amendment to the Constitution are carved in 50 tons of Tennessee marble on the front of this building. And every generation of Americans has worked to protect the values etched in that stone.

Franklin Roosevelt built on these ideas when he delivered his Four Freedoms speech in 1941. At the time, Americans faced a cavalcade of crises and a crisis of confidence. But the vision of a world in which all people enjoyed freedom of expression, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear transcended the trouble of his day. "

It seems more likely to me that those in charge DO value freedom and will come to understand and respect Julian Assange for his actions - though never forget the discomfort it has brought them. It seems likely to me that this issue too shall fade and wikileaks will be restored and revered. If the nobel prize is worth it's title he will be given one.

RE: Wiki
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 12/7/2010 11:44:33 AM , Rating: 2
I thought that was just for Jedi masters, not web sites.

Corporate/Govt powers are flexing their muscles now.
By jabber on 12/7/2010 12:34:58 PM , Rating: 5
I feel the corporate overlords have decided to make some calls and told certain puppet Govts. (i.e. most of them) to make an example of this guy.

Essentially make this guy's life total hell so no one else dare step out of line and upset the global applecart.

The last thing they want is whistleblowing to become a 'positive global phenomenon'. They need to make sure everyone knows their life will be hell if they step out of line.

Also it will help them bring in new censorship laws to curb more forms of dissent and unrest.

In the end it will play into the hands of the corporate overlords.

By jabber on 12/7/2010 3:50:37 PM , Rating: 2
I'm 40, employed and a mortgage holder. I also own a passport and travel.

So I know a little about the world. Seems your summary of me seems more applicable to you.

Corporations are a necessity, they help fulfil our wants and needs. However, their power needs to be curtailed somewhat if we ever wish to believe we live in a truly democratic society.

We elect a government but the unelected corporations dictate what that govt can and cannot do.

By myhipsi on 12/8/2010 10:36:26 AM , Rating: 2
But who's to blame? Corporations for taking advantage of a corruptible government, or a corrupt government that allows corporations to dictate it's policy?

I believe it's the latter.

If government was reduced in size and scope to its basic constitutional role, its corruptibility would be nearly eliminated.

I blame big government for 99% of all that is wrong with capitalism, because it is government (politicians) that allows itself to be lobbied, bribed, financially coerced, and otherwise guided by corporate power.

Corporations (and its shareholders) in their natural motivation for profit are opportunists and will take advantage of a corrupt government in order to increase its profits, eliminate its competition, or otherwise give itself an unfair advantage over its competition.

Big government is the problem, not the corporations.

By jabber on 12/8/2010 12:05:00 PM , Rating: 2
Oh indeed. Corporations are there to make money at all costs.

If all it takes to help them do that, is to pass on through corporate lobbyists, fat brown envelopes of cash to senators and congressmen to get what they want then you cant blame them. But how is it that process has been allowed to develop?

As you say a lot to western Govts (the US especially) need to radically change. They need to throw out a lot of this lobbying from the corporates, shut the door on them.

Look at Obama's health care reform. The most powerful man in the world (supposedly), with at the time a decent level of power to get through his legislation. But by the time the corporations involved had told him what he could and couldnt do, it was watered down to just a glimmer of what he intended. How is that democratic?

Government of the people, by the people, for the people is what we need to get back to.

Not Government of the people, by the corporations, for the corporations.

It's going to take some balls to do it though.

By Solandri on 12/7/2010 2:59:54 PM , Rating: 5
The last thing they want is whistleblowing to become a 'positive global phenomenon'. They need to make sure everyone knows their life will be hell if they step out of line.

Also it will help them bring in new censorship laws to curb more forms of dissent and unrest.

In the end it will play into the hands of the corporate overlords.

You're on the right track. The fundamental problem to wide-scale whistle-blowing is that it's a self-defeating phenomenon.

In general, an entity (person, corporation, government) which keeps secrets is at an advantage over one which does not. When you leak an entity's secrets, that puts them at a competitive disadvantage, and they lose influence (market share, stature, influence, etc). Who gains? Other entities who are better at keeping secrets .

To make whistle-blowing work, you have to walk a fine tightrope between encouraging the leak of bad secrets (stuff that shouldn't be secret), while discouraging the leak of good secrets (stuff that the public is better off if not everyone knows). That way, only corruption is discouraged, meaning that open societies which naturally leak more info are better able to combat corruption, leading to open entities operating more efficiently.

Wikileaks doesn't seem to be making much effort to discriminate between these two types of secrets. As a result, its current MO will tend to put open societies like the U.S. and Western European democracies at a disadvantage compared to closed societies like China.

This is sad.
By Robear on 12/7/2010 1:49:50 PM , Rating: 3
Please consider the following facts.

1) The cables leaked by a young US citizen, not by Wikileaks. Julian Assange is being held accountable for distributing information over the internet, which however immoral, is NOT illegal.

2) The cables could have been released as a whole, but Wikileaks HAS been reviewing and censoring the information.

3) A LOT of cables have been released. Which ones have you heard about? The ones damaging the US or the ones damaging Assange?

4) We believe in Freedom of Speech in the US. Does this not apply to people who are not US citizens? Is this not a universal right we should protect? Or does this only apply when the information doesn't hurt us?

5) The "rape" charges are because Assange's condom broke during sex and he allegedly didn't stop. One of the women has PUBLIC ties to US intelligence.

6) Assange went in for an INTERVIEW with BRITISH authorities. He did not negotiate a SURRENDER. When he went in for his INTERVIEW, he was handed to the Swedes against his will.

I read an article that stated it the best:

'The Wikileaks Cables are plump with evidence of US
doublespeak, proof that "conspiracy-minded" Middle
Easterners are, well, correct on most counts.'

But we don't hear about this. The US has successfully orchestrated a media diversion. You can listen to the media and become an emotional puppet like our very own Jason Mick, or you can look at the facts and draw your own conclusions about whether the actions of OUR GOVERNMENTS are LEGAL. Not JUSTIFIED, but LEGAL. Few of us are qualified to determine if these are JUSTIFIED. This is why we have a LEGAL SYSTEM with COURTS.

The actions taken against ASSANGE by our governments are not only immoral, but ILLEGAL. Nothing Assange has done is ILLEGAL.

The FACTS are out there. All you need to do is google a bit outside of the mainstream US media. Dig through the opinions and find the facts. They're THERE.

I hope that key gets distributed now.

RE: This is sad.
By Cerin218 on 12/7/2010 5:45:01 PM , Rating: 2
The HUFFPO? Seriously? Just going to that anti American site makes your whole post a joke.

RE: This is sad.
By Robear on 12/7/2010 8:45:26 PM , Rating: 2
I got the story from a Google search. If I ignored every bias news report, I wouldn't be here, would I?

Feel free to dismiss any valid points I may have made based on a single hyperlink I included.

RE: This is sad.
By Cerin218 on 12/7/2010 5:47:53 PM , Rating: 2
He accepted STOLEN information. Which he then used in a terroristic fashion. Exactly how doesn't that make him a criminal?

RE: This is sad.
By Robear on 12/7/2010 8:37:58 PM , Rating: 3
By your definition, The New York Times is also a criminal organization. They report on classified material, as well as countless other news organizations.

Define "Used in a terrorist fashion" for me, or is anyone who opposes US interests now a terrorist?
1. The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.

Whatever motives behind the leak of the key US sites of strategic importance, it was not an act of terrorism, nor was it illegal. Have you read any of the other cables released, that actually DO indicate ILLEGAL activities performed by our government? No. You only hear about Assange. It's all noise.

The WORLD HATES the US, and not because they're jealous of our freedom. Why don't you try and guess why? When someone finally stands up to us, we swat him down with whatever illegal means are necessary.

I support our troops. They're taking orders. I don't support our government or in any way condone their illegal and immoral actions in the international community.

RE: This is sad.
By Targon on 12/8/2010 3:53:05 AM , Rating: 2
True reporting involves a healthy respect for what may or may not harm others. To get the information, and report that any inappropriate actions are going on is fine, but to disclose sensitive information is where the line should be drawn.

Only a terrorist or someone who supports terrorism would post the list of targeted terrorists. Aiding those who are in violation of the law is also a criminal act. So, if a government employee illegally shares information, then the person who receives that information is also bound by laws involving the disclosure of that information.

By The Raven on 12/7/2010 2:13:57 PM , Rating: 2
Now if we can just arrest the guy that runs Then we will be safe.

Sarcasm aside, if this guy is a rapist I hope he hangs. But that is a separate issue from the whole idea of a Wikileaks site.

RE: Wonderful
By Robear on 12/7/2010 2:20:33 PM , Rating: 2
But... he didn't rape anyone.

The condom broke and the person ALLEGES she insisted he stop and he didn't.

If everyone that's happened to went to jail, 1/2 the world be incarcerated (more?).

(The other 1/2 doesn't use protection)

RE: Wonderful
By rcc on 12/7/2010 6:36:51 PM , Rating: 2
I don't care if you are in the short strokes. If she says stop, you do.

RE: Wonderful
By thurston on 12/7/2010 7:27:11 PM , Rating: 1
How would she even know it broke till after the fact? I can't imagine that he pulled it out half-way through fucking her and refused to put on a new condom after seeing it was broken. If that was the case why use one in the first place?

RE: Wonderful
By Robear on 12/7/2010 8:26:46 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not debating the definition of rape.

Neither women wanted to pursue charges: they just wanted him to "get tested." The case was going to be dropped until Wikileaks released the cables.

There's a story about it on Reuters.

RE: Wonderful
By The Raven on 12/8/2010 1:20:54 PM , Rating: 2
I think that it is commonly know that during intercourse women often say "no" just before and after saying "yes" ;-)

Also, it is nice to know that Robear was at the scene of the alleged crime to regale us with his first-hand account. :-P

They might send hime to a kangaroo court, but I would trust what comes out of that more than someone commenting on a news article. No offense intended, Robear.

Rape charges?
By Director on 12/7/2010 3:17:34 PM , Rating: 4
Please, I know you yanks are information starved but at least get SOME of the facts right.

"Interpol has issued an arrest warrant for Wikileaks founder Julian Assange for "sex crimes".

Everyone assumed it was for rape.

But it turns out it was for violating an obscure Swedish law against having (consensual) sex without a condom."

And lets take a look at what's really going on here and what passes for U.S. 'justice' these days. He is going to court over having allegedly forced himself on two women, but before he is proven guilty the banks are closing his accounts and governments are doing everything they can to take Wikileaks offline? Or, as this excellent article summarises:

"WikiLeaks has never been charged with a crime, let alone indicted for one or convicted of one. A consensus of legal experts agree that prosecuting the organization or Julian Assange for any of its leaks would be difficult in the extreme. Just look at what the U.S. Government and its friends are willing to do and capable of doing to someone who challenges or defies them -- all without any charges being filed or a shred of legal authority. They've blocked access to their assets, tried to remove them from the Internet, bullied most everyone out of doing any business with them, froze the funds marked for Assange's legal defense at exactly the time that they prepare a strange international arrest warrant to be executed, repeatedly threatened him with murder, had their Australian vassals openly threaten to revoke his passport, and declared them "Terrorists" even though -- unlike the authorities who are doing all of these things -- neither Assange nor WikiLeaks ever engaged in violence, advocated violence, or caused the slaughter of civilians. "

I think it's time he released the password for his 'insurance' package.

Shame Big Brother, shame.

RE: Rape charges?
By Dug on 12/7/2010 6:50:40 PM , Rating: 2
"I think it's time he released the password for his 'insurance' package."

So more people can die? Like I said before, saying he will allow people to die if something happens to him is a form of blackmail and terrorism.

He is aiding criminal activity. If someone robs a bank, but you are the one to distribute the money, you are no better than the bank robber.

By Director on 12/7/2010 4:38:28 PM , Rating: 1

"IN 1958 a young Rupert Murdoch, then owner and editor of Adelaide's The News, wrote: "In the race between secrecy and truth, it seems inevitable that truth will always win."

His observation perhaps reflected his father Keith Murdoch's expose that Australian troops were being needlessly sacrificed by incompetent British commanders on the shores of Gallipoli. The British tried to shut him up but Keith Murdoch would not be silenced and his efforts led to the termination of the disastrous Gallipoli campaign.

Nearly a century later, WikiLeaks is also fearlessly publishing facts that need to be made public.

I grew up in a Queensland country town where people spoke their minds bluntly. They distrusted big government as something that could be corrupted if not watched carefully. The dark days of corruption in the Queensland government before the Fitzgerald inquiry are testimony to what happens when the politicians gag the media from reporting the truth.

Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.

End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.

These things have stayed with me. WikiLeaks was created around these core values. The idea, conceived in Australia, was to use internet technologies in new ways to report the truth.

WikiLeaks coined a new type of journalism: scientific journalism. We work with other media outlets to bring people the news, but also to prove it is true. Scientific journalism allows you to read a news story, then to click online to see the original document it is based on. That way you can judge for yourself: Is the story true? Did the journalist report it accurately?

Democratic societies need a strong media and WikiLeaks is part of that media. The media helps keep government honest. WikiLeaks has revealed some hard truths about the Iraq and Afghan wars, and broken stories about corporate corruption.

People have said I am anti-war: for the record, I am not. Sometimes nations need to go to war, and there are just wars. But there is nothing more wrong than a government lying to its people about those wars, then asking these same citizens to put their lives and their taxes on the line for those lies. If a war is justified, then tell the truth and the people will decide whether to support it.

If you have read any of the Afghan or Iraq war logs, any of the US embassy cables or any of the stories about the things WikiLeaks has reported, consider how important it is for all media to be able to report these things freely.

WikiLeaks is not the only publisher of the US embassy cables. Other media outlets, including Britain's The Guardian, The New York Times, El Pais in Spain and Der Spiegel in Germany have published the same redacted cables.

Yet it is WikiLeaks, as the co-ordinator of these other groups, that has copped the most vicious attacks and accusations from the US government and its acolytes. I have been accused of treason, even though I am an Australian, not a US, citizen. There have been dozens of serious calls in the US for me to be "taken out" by US special forces. Sarah Palin says I should be "hunted down like Osama bin Laden", a Republican bill sits before the US Senate seeking to have me declared a "transnational threat" and disposed of accordingly. An adviser to the Canadian Prime Minister's office has called on national television for me to be assassinated. An American blogger has called for my 20-year-old son, here in Australia, to be kidnapped and harmed for no other reason than to get at me.

And Australians should observe with no pride the disgraceful pandering to these sentiments by Julia Gillard and her government. The powers of the Australian government appear to be fully at the disposal of the US as to whether to cancel my Australian passport, or to spy on or harass WikiLeaks supporters. The Australian Attorney-General is doing everything he can to help a US investigation clearly directed at framing Australian citizens and shipping them to the US.

Prime Minister Gillard and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have not had a word of criticism for the other media organisations. That is because The Guardian, The New York Times and Der Spiegel are old and large, while WikiLeaks is as yet young and small.

We are the underdogs. The Gillard government is trying to shoot the messenger because it doesn't want the truth revealed, including information about its own diplomatic and political dealings.

Has there been any response from the Australian government to the numerous public threats of violence against me and other WikiLeaks personnel? One might have thought an Australian prime minister would be defending her citizens against such things, but there have only been wholly unsubstantiated claims of illegality. The Prime Minister and especially the Attorney-General are meant to carry out their duties with dignity and above the fray. Rest assured, these two mean to save their own skins. They will not.

Every time WikiLeaks publishes the truth about abuses committed by US agencies, Australian politicians chant a provably false chorus with the State Department: "You'll risk lives! National security! You'll endanger troops!" Then they say there is nothing of importance in what WikiLeaks publishes. It can't be both. Which is it?

It is neither. WikiLeaks has a four-year publishing history. During that time we have changed whole governments, but not a single person, as far as anyone is aware, has been harmed. But the US, with Australian government connivance, has killed thousands in the past few months alone.

US Secretary of Defence Robert Gates admitted in a letter to the US congress that no sensitive intelligence sources or methods had been compromised by the Afghan war logs disclosure. The Pentagon stated there was no evidence the WikiLeaks reports had led to anyone being harmed in Afghanistan. NATO in Kabul told CNN it couldn't find a single person who needed protecting. The Australian Department of Defence said the same. No Australian troops or sources have been hurt by anything we have published.

But our publications have been far from unimportant. The US diplomatic cables reveal some startling facts:

? The US asked its diplomats to steal personal human material and information from UN officials and human rights groups, including DNA, fingerprints, iris scans, credit card numbers, internet passwords and ID photos, in violation of international treaties. Presumably Australian UN diplomats may be targeted, too.

? King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia asked the US to attack Iran.

? Officials in Jordan and Bahrain want Iran's nuclear program stopped by any means available.

? Britain's Iraq inquiry was fixed to protect "US interests".

? Sweden is a covert member of NATO and US intelligence sharing is kept from parliament.

? The US is playing hardball to get other countries to take freed detainees from Guantanamo Bay. Barack Obama agreed to meet the Slovenian President only if Slovenia took a prisoner. Our Pacific neighbour Kiribati was offered millions of dollars to accept detainees.

In its landmark ruling in the Pentagon Papers case, the US Supreme Court said "only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government". The swirling storm around WikiLeaks today reinforces the need to defend the right of all media to reveal the truth.

Julian Assange is the editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks."

By tmouse on 12/8/2010 9:08:15 AM , Rating: 3
I think quoting Rupert Murdoch alone completely removes any shred of integrity in the rest of the discourse. It’s clear he holds to Murdoch's values which are quite frankly none. Murdoch's companies have been involved with actions which make many of the things reported in wikileaks look tame. He is the architect of the methods used by RIAA and others pioneered from his extortion campaign when he owned Direct TV. At one time 20% of all federal cases in the US court system were brought by his company and 99% were dropped or discharged by the courts costing us millions. His Israeli owned software company which supplies the encryption algorithms for many commercial satellite broadcasters has been implicated in many releases of the information to hackers which dropped the stock of those companies and guess who bought them up? He is cleaver enough to have never been caught or rich enough to buy himself out. The journalistic integrity of many of his publications is slightly below toilet paper. He is a strong supporter of the principle that you should pay for every piece of information on the net (hardly a freedom of information guy). If this is one of Assange idols it's not surprising the direction wikileaks has taken.

By YashBudini on 12/8/2010 8:22:27 PM , Rating: 2
Gotta love the Rupert Murdoch version of fair and balanced.

You might say...
By ThatNewGuy on 12/7/2010 12:06:45 PM , Rating: 2
That this leak was plugged.

RE: You might say...
By kerpwnt on 12/7/2010 1:41:44 PM , Rating: 2

Couldn't upvote you, so I felt it had to be done.

By PAPutzback on 12/7/2010 12:44:41 PM , Rating: 2
China, Russia et al. any country with a computer has this data entered and is cross referencing it with passports, postal hotel reservation, every system imaginable. They will be able to build profiles and put together backgrounds for numerous agents. I imagine most of the governments had a lot of this data prior to it being leaked, they just didn't want the embarrassment of it being public.

These leaks would of had been just as effective had they been released via torrents and will most likely be the delivery system moving ahead.
I think Assange just wanted notoriety, well he's got it now and but it won't mean anything in prison. I don't see his scrawny @$$ lasting long there.

The Dark Side
By The0ne on 12/7/2010 2:57:38 PM , Rating: 2
Millions love living in the dark. Leave them be. If they know, they be like Republicans and Democrats, protesting and heaven forbid fighting for a cause.

The dark side is nice, it's cool, it's damp, it's soothing, it FEELS safe. Leave the millions alone!

I like knowing so the dark suck balls.

In the interest of facts...
By Robear on 12/7/2010 5:48:50 PM , Rating: 2

Official Reuters Story on the rape charges. It would be good to know where Mick got his information on Assange living a "lavish" lifestyle. According to Reuters, he sleeps at friends' houses.

It's a good day...
By Beenthere on 12/7/2010 6:28:19 PM , Rating: 2
If this guy is guilty of rape and other crimes then I hope he rots in prison. Fighting extradition would suggest he is in denial?

By Shuxclams on 12/9/2010 1:02:06 PM , Rating: 2
Look, Freedom is dangerous business, it's a dangerous world. Nothing that WikiLeaks released made the world safer or more dangerous. It certainly made it uncomfortable for those who run Gov't, esp America. But who is to say this won't happen to other countries or businesses? And so what if it does, it only shows to all people what those in power are doing and that is a GOOD thing, keeps things in balance. the more secrecy the more temptation to do crappy things to those with no power.

I think it's a crime that those in power seek to take out people who would expose them. That is what Julian Assange is about, that is what WikiLeaks is about. If you aren't for Freedom and find your safe warm fuzzies in Security given to you by others then you are a subject. All this talk of 'patriots' and all your 'freedom loving' comments are empty. More like true examples of DoubleThink so commonly found in the Authoritarian Personality. You can't have Security AND Freedom without losing parts of either, its a trade off.

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." ~ Thomas Paine


Lets let our informants die
By bfellow on 12/7/2010 4:15:30 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah release all the names of our informants and allies and have their friends and families butchered because this arrogant rapist wants to be judge Dredd.

We Must Trust The Government
By sh3rules on 12/7/10, Rating: -1
RE: We Must Trust The Government
By smackababy on 12/7/2010 11:14:45 AM , Rating: 2
I know right! Because locations, names of undercover agents, and sensitive material should be available for everyone to view. Who cares about the endangerment of people who might work for said evil government, or even just live in said country where evil government resides...

RE: We Must Trust The Government
By xrodney on 12/7/2010 11:33:34 AM , Rating: 2
As far as I know in all previously released documents, names were removed.

RE: We Must Trust The Government
By bug77 on 12/7/2010 11:53:08 AM , Rating: 2
True. For instance look at the following sentence: "The American ambassador to Afghanistan, mr. [CENSORED] said this and that." No way you can identify the person.

Of course, the above is just a simplistic example. Just to show that removing names is not foolproof.

By Wiggy Mcshades on 12/7/2010 8:22:19 PM , Rating: 2
unfortunately even without names it would be pretty easy to figure out who said what because it still states the position the person occupies and unfortunately those lists are not long enough to rule out doing some guess work.

RE: We Must Trust The Government
By Flunk on 12/7/2010 11:17:06 AM , Rating: 5
That's a very glib interpretation of this situation. Most of the information Wikileaks has released, particularly recently. Isn't useful to the people at all, it's mostly just a list of poorly defended infrastructure targets.

Free speech is fantastic, choosing to use it for seditious means is treasonous.

RE: We Must Trust The Government
By kerpwnt on 12/7/2010 1:55:42 PM , Rating: 2
There's that word again. For those that don't know, wikileaks is not American and thus can not commit treason against America. Shouting treason every time the words 'wikileaks' or 'Assange' come up is misguided and wreckless.

Sorry about the rant, but it really bugs me.

RE: We Must Trust The Government
By surt on 12/7/2010 3:38:51 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, only about 10% of posts seem to correctly label it espionage.

RE: We Must Trust The Government
By Cerin218 on 12/7/2010 5:52:15 PM , Rating: 2
It's not theft, it's copy right infringement.

RE: We Must Trust The Government
By rcc on 12/7/2010 6:43:46 PM , Rating: 2

RE: We Must Trust The Government
By xkrakenx on 12/7/2010 11:34:44 AM , Rating: 2
'They' just dont want 'You' to read them. because the conspiracy is centered on you and your little tinfoil hat. Cant have you knowing whats up.

RE: We Must Trust The Government
By torpor on 12/7/2010 2:32:11 PM , Rating: 2
The cables published by Wikileaks and leaked by the traitor Bradley Manning are not, in any way, a description of "what's going on". They are a one-sided perspective of whatever the individual message concerns itself with.

Could you characterize a healthy relationship as one where one side is completely, totally truthful and exposed, and the other side keeps every secret? This is what this "leak" has turned the global political scene into. Every contry with a relation to the US - and that is practically all of them - now has a lopsided relationship.

As you would expect in the personal relationship, having one completely exposed and one not exposed at all, can only lead to trouble.

Assange did not commit treason against the USA; as has been sufficiently shown, he cannot.

Assange (and through him, Bradley Manning) has committed a crime against world peace.

RE: We Must Trust The Government
By FITCamaro on 12/7/2010 12:24:41 PM , Rating: 2
I'm assuming you're joking. Because otherwise you're a moron.

That's not to say classified documents are not classified for a reason. But one is right to be skeptical of the government. However breaking the law and publicly releasing information that IS harmful to the interests of the nation to satisfy and prove your skepticism is not right either.

I think a lot of politicians lie about a lot of things. But that doesn't make it right if I were to hack into their computers to prove myself right.

RE: We Must Trust The Government
By kerpwnt on 12/7/2010 2:05:42 PM , Rating: 2
I totally agree that the latest list of 'easy targets' is a horrible idea that provides no benefit to humanity. I don't think wikileaks has been doing a good job lately and they are probably releasing some of the information only to irritate/damage the US government. That said, I'm sure the US government would say that all of the leaked documents are "harmful" because they are secrets and/or embarrassing. Who gets to determine if information is harmful or not? I can only imagine how hard it would be to walk that line.

RE: We Must Trust The Government
By Goatjoe on 12/9/2010 1:35:22 AM , Rating: 2
But publishing documents that are given to you is valid grounds for treason, er - espinoge? Wikileaks are provided these documents via a 3rd party as well - like the New York Times. Where is the fallout on them? Are they traitors? I think not.

This is a litmus test for our new world, a always connected world where news and information is spread in seconds. Myself, for one, would like to know why we are in Afganistan for 9+ years, and how "geo-politics" are affecting my country. Honestly, the decisions of the few, are affecting the many. These documents are a window on what is really going on in the world - and how the US views other governments. Why do we do we make the decisions we do? These documents will help show us. In my eyes, that is democracy. As a citizen, we need to know why we are involved in other nations issues. Granted, alot of the released documents are based on a diplomat's perception of the situation - it still is some insight that person may have that we are not aware of. This information, taken with a grain of salt, only helps the public complete the picture of what may really be going on in the world.

Wikileaks, or Assange did not hack into anything, they are just acting on what was provided to them. Espionage? I think not. Good gossip? Of course...

In refrence, lets flash back to WW2-Europe. The US based its involvement in that on the "Zimmerman Note" that was intercepted by the US. We were not involved until that came to light. If our government is doing anything that is the equal to that letter, we need to be held responsible. These leaked "cables" are a window into what the US is doing across the globe. If we are so moral and correct, the US would have no shame in these being released.

I love my country, but am saddened by its actions as of late. Many people have died in past wars to ensure the very things that are being denied by todays govt.

RE: We Must Trust The Government
By Goatjoe on 12/9/2010 2:12:33 AM , Rating: 2
My bad, the "Zimmerman Note" was WW1. Let the flames commence.

"If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion." -- Scientology founder L. Ron. Hubbard

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki