Update: This story has been updated to show that PayPal shut WikiLeaks' account after reading a letter sent to WikiLeaks by the US government. Wikileaks.org has reappeared in the US of A, after American outfit Dynadot picked up the site's DNS service. On December 3, WikiLeaks' primary URL vanished after its previous DNS …
"illegally seized material"
shouldn't that be illegally _leaked_ material? Or material protected by security policies which now seem so lax as to be criminally negligent?
It's good that Wikileaks' main URL is back up and that it's still being hosted, but the USA will continue to lash out until it gets satisfaction (well, until Assange is dead). And that's probably a pretty bad thing.
While I'm on that subject, what's happened about the guy who did the actual leaking? The American military man who fed this classified data to a foreign website with the express purpose of making it available for download? We haven't heard any stories about him yet...
RE: "illegally seized material"
".....We haven't heard any stories about him yet..." Private Manning is already locked up and singing like a canary. Seeing as he was in very obvious breach of his military regulations pertaining to not feeding classified info to Australian egomaniacs, there wasn't much delay to the actual arrest and processing once Manning had been identifed (probably through download logs or USB useage logs). He's been safely tucked up in a military prison in Kuwait since May and will probably be kept there, well away from the press, until his court martial some time in 2011. At this point, Wikileaks has not provided any money to Manning's defence fund as promised (Assange is probably saving it to buy stronger condoms). Whilst Assange probably faces - at worst - a few years if successfully extradited and prosecuted under the Espionage Act, Manning faces up to fifty-two years in a military prison (definately not the easy option). Manning will still be locked up long after Assange has finished his sentence, done Oprah, and been forgotten.
Um, Bradley Manning?
Hes called Bradley Manning. He's gay. Lots of right wing foamers are saying that he did it because he's an angry gay, and gays shouldn't be trusted (and nonsense like that)
Channel 4 news did a special report on him yesterday. Not for the first time. Where have you been?
People are calling for his execution.
His name is Manning.
He has been thrown under a bus in this whole thing, despite being the guy who actually took all the risks. If you feel like helping him out here is where you should start:
Please do not donate towards his defence by donating to Wikileaks.org. At current, the monies donated to Wikileaks in support of Manning have yet to make their way to actually helping Manning's defence. Please donate towards the defence at http://www.bradleymanning.org.
If you don't feel like helping out Mr. Manning, but want to support a Wikileaks-alike cause without the omnipresent Drama Llama, I would like to suggest http://www.cryptome.org. They have been around for quite some time, have leaked some very important information and in my opinion run a far more professional operation.
Very soon there will also be http://openleaks.net/, formed from a splinter group who have left Wikileaks due to personality conflicts, funding questions and organisational issues.
That said, of all the people currently on the stage asking for monies to support their vision of free speech, I would like to once more put my personal plug in for Bradley Manning's defence fund. He's the guy who right now, at this very moment is in trouble and needs our help. he is the one who took the risks to leak the materiel. I don't deny that what he did was probably a crime in the US...one he most likely will not escape some form of punishment for. Given what he is up for though, it might be the difference (literally) between life and death, or at the very least the difference between "the rest of his life in prison" and "getting out of jail before he's old and infirm."
>>"At current, the monies donated to Wikileaks in support of Manning have yet to make their way to actually helping Manning's defence."
I was wondering about that.
It really doesn't seem like a great PR move for Wikileaks, but could it be that, if one potential weakness of Assange's position is openness to accusations of collusion with Manning *before* the event, there's a fear that Wikileaks giving money to his defence fund might be spun as evidence of yet more involvement?
Possibly. Either way, it does at the moment look to me a little too much like "promising to help the man and then throwing him under a bus."
As such, I donated to Manning's defence fund. 2011 will consist of trying to find ways to support Cryptome and OpenLeaks. Just leak the info folks, no Drama Llama required.
Re: "shouldn't that be illegally _leaked_ material?"
Hush! You're not allowed to say that, otherwise people might start asking the US Government about all the other leaks of politically sensitive material to the media and the word "hypocrites" start being bandied about...!
I knew Bradley Manning was supposed to be the one who leaked the data, but didn't know anything after that. I figured he was on the run somewhere and the Yanks were taking the easier option going after the foreigner who handed himself in...
If he's been caught and locked up in Kuwait since May then that explains it!
I don't watch TV that much- when I do watch it, a lot of it's just depressing crap apparently designed to sap your will to live (or do anything aside from sit on your arse and watch TV). I'll see if I can find the special on 4od or something
>>"Possibly. Either way, it does at the moment look to me a little too much like "promising to help the man and then throwing him under a bus.""
It does, but I do like to look for at least possible alternative explanations.
As it is, even if Wikileaks was being totally mercenary, unless there was some other reason, I'd still have thought it'd be a smart move in the long run to be seen to be being helpful.
Though one might wonder why they wouldn't say something like "We'd love to help but we've been advised by our lawyers that that might be used against both of us. If people want to donate directly, go to...."
I gather that Bradley Manning was exposed by a former hacker called Adrian Lamo. The gist is that he disagreed with Bradley handing over all and sundry to Wikileaks and therefore grassed him up.
I can only imagine what the board thinks about that.
What he meant to say was
"WikiLeaks’ illegal, outrageous, and reckless acts have compromised our national security and put lives at risk around the world. And that's actually our job."
People believe what they want
Disclosure of secret documents is a very serious matter. People will die as a result of these intentional disclosures of classified documents. Those who think the leakers are heros may have a different perspective if one of their friends or family members dies as a result.
No government is perfect but little if any good can come from divulging these documents. We live in a very fragile world where one nut-job can push the nuke button at any time. Giving these deranged people any reason to act is insane. These leaks will cause international relations to be severely compromised for decades and it only took a couple nut-jobs to leak the docs.
That's a mighty convenient assertion
People will die if we reveal the dirty games governments play!
It must be hell living in fear like you, constantly wondering which nut-job is going to push the button this week.
The truth is that more open government, more accountable government with less secrets, would have to behave better. Yes, there is a need for secret communication between ambassadors and central government, there's even a good case for espionage. What there's not a good case for is the sealing of anything and everything, for decades. because it might cause someone some embarrassing, or it might reveal that the way our governments run things does not live up to our ethical expectations.
Yes, I'm sorry, I do have a moral code, and anyone getting my vote needs to demonstrate at least a significant overlap with that.
To be able to cast my vote responsibly I need to know what's going on, unless there is an immediate and compelling security reason not to. Most of the stuff released by wikileaks does not meet that criterion.
Or are we just supposed to vote for people on the strength of what they say and how they appear?
Are we to continue to be treated as children by those in power?
And if so, what is democracy but a game used by the empowered way to put down revolution?
secret documents - serious matter
AC: "We live in a very fragile world where one nut-job can push the nuke button at any time"
Sounds to me like you're in the USA.
My perspective (in Britain) is that (edited slightly) "People MIGHT POSSIBLY die as a result of these intentional disclosures of classified documents" (btw really crap security); however, if the people of Britain had similar access to secret documents before Blair took us to war because he 'knew it was right' we wouldn't be in the ...um, to simplify let's call it... totally shit position we are now with hundreds of brave service men dead and crippled - all because of official lies pushed with no real scrutiny.
So, let's look at the scores:
- leaks MAY cause deaths (so far zero announced but I'm sure MIB are trying);
- UK Government cold-blooded and self-serving secrets HAVE caused the deaths and suffering of thousands - but, to be fair, Tony is a lot, lot richer.
Yet another follower of the fat-bellied neoconazi party line.
"Those who think the leakers are heros may have a different perspective if one of their friends or family members dies as a result."
It's really amazing that argument is never made about drone kills. Or illegal wars. Or sudden "accidents" in Gitmo. Or "revolutions" coming out of US embassies. Or financing of "our" terrorists for the goals of regime change. Or cruise missile liberalism. Or "crippling trade sanctions".
"No government is perfect but little if any good can come from divulging these documents."
All government is shite and lots of good can come of it. Hell, we can already identify obedient party toers just by the sound they make.
"These leaks will cause international relations to be severely compromised for decades and it only took a couple nut-jobs to leak the docs."
You mean to say the US can't have as much pull when the man behind the curtain is exposed. Hopefully the tape with the really secret stuff falls off a Fed Truck soon.
"People will die as a result of these intentional disclosures of classified documents."
Prove it or STFU.
I'm sick of reading/hearing that line. Nobody's been surprised by anything so far and the only people facing death are Bradley Manning and possibly Julian Assange (if extradited and prosecuted under the Espionage Act 1907, this actually DOES look likely).
If you're going to parrot nonsense, at least find some amusing nonsense.
It's a collection of gossip from US diplomats around the world.
As someone who's been acting as ambassador to my boss on contract negotiations with the EU, the whole feel of these diplomatic cables gives me deja vu.
The boss (for whatever reason) cannot attend the mid-level meeting. He can read the minutes. But what he really needs is a feel for how the meeting went. That's what these thumbnail portraits (of foreign worthies) and gossip (the stuff that's not minuted) really represents.
And with few exceptions, what we see is that US diplomacy in private is virtually identical to what it says in public. And that's a jolly good thing.
"People will die"
People have died already. Tens of thousands.
Please read and watch.
Oh, you mean as a result of the leaks?
Yes, they are heroes.
>>"It's a collection of gossip from US diplomats around the world."
And apparently also of vital public interest, since it tells people things that they already knew.
Great post. Great, great, post.
Re: People believe what they want
"We live in a very fragile world where one nut-job can push the nuke button at any time. Giving these deranged people any reason to act is insane. "
Then you better stay hidden under your bed, little girl.
I wish people would grow some backbone rather than quivering on their knees like the terrorists want them too.
People are already dying
As a result of the war crimes being committed by the dark forces that have taken over the US & UK. War crimes that are exposed in these leaks,
War crimes which if they are not confronted openly as a criminal matter will inspire terrorism,
Although war crimes are only of interest if they are manufactured to provide an opportunity for more military spending not less.
Obviously the people who are currently dying don't count in your world because you are a long way away from them but the increase in terrorism should matter to you if you have some understanding of enlightened self interest.
It was my understanding that Wikileaks has a policy where they disclose to the foreign governments which cables have landed in their lap and in turn request if any of the names listed in the documents would result in blowing an undercover operative. If anything these cables have proven that there needs to be a closer eye and transparency with those we have in office. They should be held accountable for poor choices made as well as misrepresenting the population in which they are speaking for.
"and in turn request if any of the names listed in the documents would result in blowing an undercover operative. "
So any government can actually trust Wikileaks enough to give them a comprehensive list of all the most sensitive names in a huge list of documents, knowing that they won't go any further?
Who works at Wikileaks - some clutch of perfect people above any suspicion or possibility of ulterior motives or affiliations?
People believe what they want
I will not have a different perspective if one of my friends or family members dies as a result of these leaks. If they are stupid enough to obey illegal governemt orders to go to far off lands to kill innocent civilians they deserve to die.
>>"If they are stupid enough to obey illegal governemt orders to go to far off lands to kill innocent civilians they deserve to die."
And if Assange is stupid enough to be in contact with someone *before* they lift information for Wikileaks...
Still, it's all good - I can fail to care about whoever I want, since anything that happens is their own stupid fault.
It's not as if there aren't other whistleblowing sites around.
>>"We haven't heard any stories about him yet..."
Terms of service?
Nothing has disappointed me more in this conflict than organizations like Amazon, Paypal, and other hiding behind dubious contract violations as a basis for refusing to do business with Wikileaks. Companies have the right to refuse service, but how can Amazon claim Wikileaks does not own rights to the diplomat cables, when all works of US federal employees produced in the course of their duties are in the public domain by law? How can Paypal claim Wikileaks was turned away for facilitating illegal behaviour when no charges have been pressed? Worse yet is these companies abandoning their own contractual obligations to provide due notice when disconnecting service. Just once, I want to see a company come out and say "we disagree with Wikileaks' activities as a moral matter and for this reason refuse to provide service." Would that really be so hard?
@Terms of service
>>"when all works of US federal employees produced in the course of their duties are in the public domain by law? "
I think the legal interpretation of 'works' there is 'publications', in the sense of things made public by the legal rights holders.
I don't think it covers 'all the work of' in the sense of 'every word that someone actually writes in the course of their work'.
>>"Just once, I want to see a company come out and say "we disagree with Wikileaks' activities as a moral matter and for this reason refuse to provide service." Would that really be so hard?"
Wouldn't that be likely to attract more attacks from the Anonymous lot?
If someone actually did think Wikileaks was at least partly in the wrong, and wanted to stop doing business with them, wouldn't it be easier to let everyone assume they'd been coerced into it?
There is also the (para)phrase:
'I think that what you say is is wrong, but I'll defend your right to say what you like.' (well - as long as it's not promoting violence anyway).
What I find is sad is that Paypal and Amazon seem to be so keen to jump on the band wagon, and while I think that Assange is a bit of an attention whore it's still true that democracy just cannot happen under a cloak of secrecy - it's no different from any other form of tyranny.
'Land of the Free' indeed - I'm sure the founding fathers of the USA would be proud of their decendants behaviour.
"Wouldn't that be likely to attract more attacks from the Anonymous lot?"
Ooh, I get to answer this one.
The answer is "it depends". If WikiLeaks approached a company and refused service on moral grounds, no, Anonymous would probably not have too much of an issue with that. If a company took WikiLeaks money for months and THEN said "no, we don't like you, you're mean and our friend Hillary says you smell" then you could reasonably expect Anonymous to be a little pissed off.
Hope that helped.
"If a company took WikiLeaks money for months and THEN said "no, we don't like you, you're mean and..."
What if a company took them on when they were nobly releasing important public interest stuff like helicopter videos, and then had second thoughts when it turned into a deluge of irrelevant shite, along with the possibility of stuff coming out that was actually a security issue?
If they turned round and said they though Wikileaks was going downhill and turning into rumour whores or getting reckless, you think Anonymous would have approved of *that*?
I can imagine that even the possibility of stuff getting released that could be spun by the government as harmful to individuals, or even worse, to US citizens, (whether it actually was or not) might be something Amazon would look at as a potentially bigger PR loss than stopping business with Wikileaks.
"you think Anonymous would have approved of *that*?"
as the Anon that you're questioning, it's only polite to answer.
Based on previous reactions by Anonymous, it seems likely a situation such as you describe would split the focus of Anonymous and lead to dissent among the assembled anons. Some would want to take action, others would argue vigorously against doing so. That has happened before.
When Fox News were busy lying their collective asses off about Anonymous last week, there was a lot of impetus to make this a personal revenge-based issue but luckily, even though Anonymous has almost no collective attention-span and is easily distracted, a few older and wiser Anons managed to seize control of Hivemind and kill any attacks on Fox which were called for. A few individual anons may still have gone after Fox but the majority remained focussed on Paypal.
I suspect your hypothetical situation would see a repeat of that scenario.
disclosure of "secret materials"
So far has shown not much we didn't already suspect, except to show:
1: The USA is fairly moderate and restrained in its dealing with other countries.
2: Some USA military individuals need to be hauled in front of war crimes courts
3: As do some US military commanders
4: Hilary Clinton is a very nasty piece of work.
If it wasn't Bradley Manning it would have been somebody else. Having the intelligence system THAT open meant that it wasn't a matter of if, but WHEN it happened.
US intel services dropped the ball bigtime. Shooting the messenger is the favoured pastime when caught having screwed up this badly - but it's clearly seen for what it is.
"1: The USA is fairly moderate and restrained in its dealing with other countries."
This is the same USA that has murdered millions of innocent people around the world in the past few decades, right? Thank heavens that's them being "fairly moderate and restrained" then - goodness knows what they'd do if someone gave them a national wedgie.
Compared to your other posts this is quite moderate for you. But remind me again what part of Langley you work for?
100,000 people dead because of your lying, imperialist leaders is "fairly moderate"?
Keep sending your boys to kill and die in the name of "protecting our freedom". I hope your "national security" is worth it. Oops, I mean oil and government contract dollars.
I forget the more accurate figure...
But I think the war has cost about 1 million lives ???? and the US led sanctions against IRAQ, in the preceeding 5 or 9 years, cost about 500,000 lives.
Stopping shit like medicines, and tons of other nuclear reactor building shit getting through.
Bill Clinton signed off on that - and now his arsehole wife is ordering the spying on everyone in the UN....
Clinton = shit sandwich.
Two different things going on here
Yes, it's a shame about Manning, but I'm sure he knew the risks etc.
The thing with Assange and Wikileaks as a whole, it isn't about what they've actually done themselves, it's not about what information they've released - and I don't think it ever was. I think it's far more important to see what the different nations have done about it, and the US in particular - in other words, he smacked them on the nose and waited to see what they would do.
Trouble is... they're lashing out like a petulant child, and not yet realising that the parents in the room are ignoring the petulance - that nations aren't going to just bend over and take it.
>>"in other words, he smacked them on the nose and waited to see what they would do."
>>"Trouble is... they're lashing out like a petulant child..."
Seems more like he punched a bulldog on the nose, and now it's growling and seriously contemplating clamping its jaws around his bollocks, unless he's quick enough to get out of the way.
There are logs out there that explain how and why Manning did what he did. He joined the military to do some good, found out it was doing things it wasn't supposed to do, and he put the information out there. He didn't sell it, he didn't reveal battle plans, he just leaked questionable military behaviour. The least important of which would be the diplomatic cables that everyone got so excited over. Seriously, the Manning/Lamo logs are very enlightening, and that's just what's been released. I recommend anyone give them a Google. Honestly, if I found a video of US soldiers behaving questionably, then found a New York Times article about the event that was a total fabrication, I'd seriously want to get the word out too. I'm hoping as more people find out the facts that Manning will get some more support. This guy only shed some light on a shady situation.
Are we infiltrated?
Is it me or is the (US) troll count high in these comments. I am recognising some post as good as verbatim from other pro US propaganda pieces.
I suggest you lot sort out your homeland security first before pointing the finger at wikileaks. You lots only care because you have been rumbled. What free speech in this world, yeah right only as long as it doesnt embarras you nor is backed up with facts.
I think the US should be stopped from international military operations if they can't even keep their own secrets.
zOMG Julian Assange is teh evilz!!!!!!1
Yes, they're easy to spot. They're the all the red-thumbs down ratings. Written with the intelligence of Sarah Palin
I guess only El Reg staff can see their IPs. Wonder if they are from the Hexagon. They should go back to crying into their cornflakes.
Dear idiots, with today's technology and communication, you can NEVER suppress information. The unintended consequences of your continue to be delicious. Ever more copies are created and yet more interest is generated.
Assange and Wikileaks are replaceable. It is now harder than ever to hide corruption. (didums!)
US Agency Fiddy Center's
"Yes, they're easy to spot. They're the all the red-thumbs down ratings. Written with the intelligence of Sarah Palin"
Every single last one of them.
That's because anyone who doesn't think the sun shines uninterruptedly out of Julian's arse must be being paid to think that, or be sworn Enemies of Freedom.
The really funny thing is, I'm sure that the most brainless of Palin's worshippers think precisely the same way about anyone who disagrees with *them*.
After all, there's no such thing as a middle ground, or space for non-group opinions.
Being undecided on anything, even in the absence of evidence, is a sign of weakness.
.cc is the Cocos Islands, plural, often called the Cocos (Keeling) Islands to distinguish them from Cocos Island, which is a different place.
Three cheers for Dynadot !
If we don't at least attempt to defend our freedom of information, we shall soon find that even the little that we still possess has disappeared, and those running «our» governments will continue unhindered to kill people all over the world in order to buttress their profits and their power, all the while doing it in the name of our security....
This whole thing looks to me like the US Govt is just a spoilt child trying to piss on everyone who doesn't agree with them.
You could replace "US Govt" with "Julian Assange" and the point would be equally valid.