Slashdot Mirror
Wikileaks Donations Account Shut Down
Scrameustache writes "The whistleblowing group WikiLeaks claims that it has had its funding blocked and that it is the victim of financial warfare by the US government. Moneybookers, a British-registered internet payment company that collects WikiLeaks donations, emailed the organisation to say it had closed down its account because it had been put on an official US watchlist and on an Australian government blacklist. The apparent blacklisting came a few days after the Pentagon publicly expressed its anger at WikiLeaks and its founder, Australian citizen Julian Assange, for obtaining thousands of classified military documents about the war in Afghanistan."
At this point, is US government hatred of freedom and democracy even news?
They continue to shoot the messenger. It wouldn't surprise me if the intelligence community turned that phrase literal.
'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
The best way is to set up a nonpartisan, unbiased website that releases such documents without the ridiculous commentary and shifty editing.
Assange has done a severe disservice to WL with his emphasis on injecting over the top editorial into the stories on the site.
get people killed by releasing it with out at least removing names
Who? Has anyone documented a case where this happened? from what I read WL were pretty careful in vetting the material.
Without names and places this is FUD.
Three Squirrels
I hear that said, but I hear politicians say these kinds of things all the time - PROVE to me that someone(s) got hurt/killed due to this release and I may feel otherwise, but for now, I believe they are being targeted for "pissing off" the powers that be.
I can get behind Wikileaks, but not Assange. He is egotistical tool.
Gone!
The US government is keeping so many facts and events classified, it simply can not function as a democratic government anymore.
When people don't have access to important information, they can't vote correctly. And when they can't vote correctly, the government can't make the right decisions. I understand sometimes secrecy is necessary for safety, but too much simply kills a democracy. Wikileaks is the expression of that idea, as they fight the excessive secrecy of governments and try to provide citizens with information that citizens should have.
Arguably though, the best way to avoid putting Afghan civilians and US troops out of harm is to have US troops go back to the US.
Im not totally on Wikileaks side because they didn't take enough care to protect peoples names in the content they released. Its one thing to release content for the world to see but its another thing to get people killed by releasing it with out at least removing names. That totally turned me off from Wikileaks.
How about the government taking care to protect innocent people by getting the fuck out of Afghanistan?
It is one thing to go after the 9/11 perps, but it another thing to try and win a ground war without any plan for victory and idiotic rules of engagement like 'patrol only where you aren't likely to encounter the enemy' and 'don't shoot back at someone if they're firing from a mosque.'
My feeling exactly. Wikileaks has conflated the public "right to know" with an imaginary "need to know," and decided that this right is more important than the lives of the people named in the documents. IMAO, they've consistently shown a complete lack of common sense and a reckless disregard for the danger they're exposing people to. The fact that something is classified as Secret or Top Secret isn't enough of a reason to leak it; it should only be leaked (Again, IMAO.) if it's been classified for all the wrong reasons. Yes, we all know of times when things have been classified because that's the easiest way to cover up mistakes, and things like that deserve leaking, but leaking the names and locations of people who are helping the US to fight terrorists is Simply Wrong.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
Its not really treason since the owner isn't from the US. He's Australian.
If you put it that way, leaking ANY information about ANYONE should be illegal? Why should he be in prison? As far as I know, no law was broken.
The US soldier who leaked the information in the firstplace - yes, you could call that treason. And yes that's illegal.
The real criminals are the ones classifying evidence of war crimes to bury the information from ever seeing the light of day.
You are just shooting the messenger.
Dude, where the hell have you been? Rich mutha fuckers and corporations, which is more rich mother fuckers and Zionists have stolen our democracy from us I'm not sure what you could possibly mean with "protecting democracy." Unless you count voting for a guy from one of two-corporation sponsored parties democracy. Many of our leaders should be in prison instead. GWB for crimes against humanity for one. Where's YOUR outrage?
99.9% of the time, information is classified in order to protect a source (human, etc)..
[Citation Needed]
Information is also classified when you want to perform atrocities or "its not good for morale", or its dissemination will cause the main plan not to work.
The My Lai Massacre was 'classified' for a year or so before it became public knowledge.
The names in the leaked documents aren't half as important as the actions they committed.
That's only if you believe the troops NEED to be in Afghanistan to begin with.
As far as I'm concerned - the amount of danger Wikileaks put on soldiers pales in comparison to the amount of danger Bush has put on them. They'd be far safer on US Soil protecting the actual US Borders instead of it's foreign interests;
It's like me breaking into your house and complaining that your dog pointed me out.
I believe the Iraqi people can release over 100,000 names of people killed by US troops. Oh, that's not the issue here is it.
I'm totally on Wikileaks side. I know it's PC to damn Wikileaks for accidentally releasing some names in the 75,000 reports that were leaked recently, but I find it's always good to keep some perspective. The wars in the middle east have cost tens of thousands of lives, and part of the reason they're still going is the tight lipped attitude of the government with regards to any kind of transparency. If the administration weren't in the habit of releasing reports that are entirely blacked out, or flat out refusing FOIP requests altogether, then the task of providing a clear picture of how the war is progressing wouldn't befall a volunteer organization like Wikileaks. And when Wikileaks requested the help of the Pentagon in redacting the names, that request was of course ignored.
Perhaps some people suffered as a result of that leak, but I find that no more tragic than the dozens of people who die to IED's and suicide bombings every other day in those same countries.
Murphey's fighting Occam, and we're in the stands.
They released documents that put Afghan civilians and US troops at risk.
No, they released documents that showed that US policy routinely massacres Afghan civilians and puts US troops at risk.
The pentagon said "releasing these documents puts the lives of the people we bomb at risk", it's transparent bullshit, but the sheeple say "baaaa". Do you remember that lil' Vietnamese girl that got napalmed and then spectacularly photographed, and the pentagon spent over a decade saying she got burned in a kitchen mishap? Did you believe their kitchen mishap cover story as much as you believe their "the truth is the enemy" cover story?
Remember how they told you Pat Tillman was shot by Taliban, and it turns out there were no Taliban there that day? Did you believe them when they told you a soldier in Afghanistan was shot by Taliban? Was it a believable lie?
How about the cute little blonde soldier that got knocked out in an attack on her convoy and the pentagon said she had fought valiantly to the last bullet of her sidearm, they attacked a hospital that had been trying to hand her over to "rescue" her, made up stories about the Iraqis treating her badly... did you believe that too?
Don't you think you should be less gullible and more informed?
This isn't protecting democracy, it's treason.
Yeah! Those Swedes are committing treason in the united states by letting that Aussie publish those documents! TREASON! And you don't sound like an idiot at all when you say that. Not at all.
You can't take the sky from me...
get people killed by releasing it with out at least removing names
Who? Has anyone documented a case where this happened? from what I read WL were pretty careful in vetting the material.
Without names and places this is FUD.
And more important, STUPID FUD. The same military asskissers that are worried about informants couldn't give two shits about the "collateral damage" that actually happens out there. Apparently it's bad to get a Taliban informant killed, but "accidentally" bombing a house full of children is OK as long as there were "reports" of "insurgent activity".
I don't like him at all. I believe he is doing things for the wrong reason. He isn't releasing all this classified information because it is for the public good, he is doing it because it is an ego trip and makes him important, and because it hurts the US and he doesn't like the US. Now that doesn't mean that his actions are ultimately bad, you can very well feel that indeed this release DOES serve the public interest. I just don't think HIS reasons are the good ones he claims.
They really need a more moral spokesman, and they need to get some rules that they follow for what they do and don't release. If the rule is "Any and everything," ok fine but make that up front and known. Say "We release anything, without regard for what harm that it may cause or if the information is of value to the public." However if that's not what you want to do, if you want to decide if things are important enough to release and to try to not cause any harm, then that's fine too, but you need to have a policy to that effect and stick to it. In the case of the classified cables that would mean only releasing those that showed something of public interest, and redacting names and so on. Ya that's a lot of work but that is what it takes to be responsible about it.
As it stands Assange seems to want to play at being the good guy, but he's just a jackass that likes to pump his ego and get egg on teh face of those he doesn't like. That degrades Wikileaks as a whole.
Unfortunately it is his baby, so I don't really think anyone can kick him out and he's way too egotistical to realize that it would be much better off if he stepped down.
I do think the world needs things like Wikileaks, however it needs them run by people who actually care about the public good. Who release secrets only because they need to be released, not just because they happen to have gotten their hands on them.
result in the deaths of Afghan civilians and US/coalition soldiers
Wikileaks has killed no one, the people accusing them of doing so have killed tens of thousands: Use your head, figure out the FUD.
You can't take the sky from me...
No, by editing video before releasing it. If wikileaks is about leaking information so the truth can be heard, it behooves them to release the *whole* truth, not just the parts they think are the most titillating.
No, by editing video before releasing it. If wikileaks is about leaking information so the truth can be heard, it behooves them to release the *whole* truth, not just the parts they think are the most titillating.
They did release the whole video, they also released an edited version that cuts out the long boring bit where nothing happen.
Now, since you say editing is bad, tell me of one news item you've seen where you were showed video that was not edited, go ahead, name the news item where they showed the whole video, not just the interesting bit. I'd like to know of that mythical time that happened that it seems you have witnessed. Or a newspaper you know that doesn't have an editor, maybe?
You see, editing video is not only normal, it's required. What you need to look for is misleading editing. BIG difference.
You can't take the sky from me...
They did release the whole video
Yes, after they were caught editing the video. You may think that's fine. I don't.
Now, since you say editing is bad, tell me of one news item you've seen where you were showed video that was not edited
Woah woah... so you're saying Wikileaks is under no obligation to rise above the likes of FOX News and MSNBC? Really??
And that's ignoring the fact that Wikileaks *isn't a news organization*. They've said so themselves *multiple* times. Furthermore, editing releases like that flies right in the face of their very mission, and is *deeply* hypocritical.
Frankly, I'm shocked you're even trying to justify this behaviour.
What laws has Wikileaks failed to comply with?
Dilbert RSS feed
Its not really treason since the owner isn't from the US. He's Australian.
It's against Australian law to reveal the secrets of Australia's allies.
Still not treason.
You can't take the sky from me...
The radio stations of which you speak were a propaganda tool
Well, to those who listened to them, they were mostly a very valuable alternative source of information, and a strong message that it can be free ;)
It is the loss of this message that makes me sad, because it is a worthy ideal to have.
meant to weaken the communism regimes and recruit internal supporters.
Haha. I like this phrasing, it is straight out of the newspapers on the other side. It wasn't true then, and it isn't true now. The "recruit internal supporters" part is not even interesting to comment.
As for "weaken the regime", well, any regime that does things, which it wants to hide, deserves all the exposure and "weakening" it can handle.
US government was smart enough to realize that exposing "bad" information is a powerful weapon.
They ought to be smart enough to realize that trying to stomp bad news out will work as well for them, as it worked for the evil communists.
To me, that wasn't a surprise at all. Divide et impera was not invented by the British, but they certainly perfected it.
Hell, most of the current Middle East mess is, if not directly caused, then largely precipitated by the British policies in the region prior to them losing their status as a world power to the US after WWII.
Still, by Thatcher time, Britain didn't have the clout to influence international politics that much, and the Germans wouldn't have cared anyway.
Maybe the reception of Deutche Welle was better in Berlin than the BBC :D
I guess the US is just discrete about trying to overthrow (or prop-up) governments...
The French and British mostly just sent over the troops (see the history of the middle east conflicts like the suez canal in egypt, vietnam, cambodia, ivory coast, central africa, rwanda, chad, iran, iraq, mexico, etc, etc).
Even the french provided covert aid to the US colonies to overthrow the government and install a new government...
I guess the rule is don't write things down ;^)
unlike you, I'm adult enough
Calling me "not an adult" is not the action of an adult. You now say you dislike "their actions" but those actions are fictions. Grow up and learn to admit your mistake; when you believed and repeated a lie you were told, once you've learned that it was a lie, stop defending it.
And stop being the kind of petty little shit that moves the goalposts to "what my bile was directed at", you know damn well that's irrelevant, what's important is "was wikileaks reckless or diligent". The truth is they redacted documents for review in order to avoid causing harm to innocents, the lie is that they didn't. You believed and repeated and are now defending the lie, you should be ashamed of yourself.
You can't take the sky from me...
They held back 15 thousand pages to protect people's names while they tried to sort through them. Google it.
They asked the pentagon to tell them which name to remove, the pentagon told them to go to hell.
See this kind of statement doesn't make sense to me. Why is it reasonable to steal documents from the Pentagon and then go back to them and say "Hey, we stole so much that we care to look through ourselves so go redact this for us"?
That does indeed make no sense. What actually happened makes sense, though: They were given documents, they reviewed them, identified thousands and thousands of pages that they were uneasy about releasing because they contained information that could be used to harm innocent people, and they asked the one source that knows who's who in these papers to tell them who to protect.
The pentagon decided that instead of helping protect innocent people, they would lie and say that wikileaks didn't even try to protect innocent people, and that wikileaks is putting people in danger. Because the pentagon is very good at propaganda, and doesn't mind one bit if innocent people get killed, so long as they get away with killing them scott free.
You can't take the sky from me...
Misleading editing? You mean like how wikileaks edited out they guys carrying RPGS?
The simplest explanation usually the correct one....
The problem with your assumptions is that you assume the US government is WAY more capable and competent than it actually is.
What is closer to the truth Assange is a reckless narcisstic jackass who got put on watchlists for leaking US intelligence, along the way
he probably pissed off some women with his narcisstic jackass ways which caused them to accuse him of various misdeeds. Moneybookers cut him off because Moneybookers is a company based in Bahrain about to do an IPO and does not need the drama that his pitifully small accounts brings with them. Moneybookers wants to do things that are far less likely to bring them trouble like online gambling, international money transfers,etc,etc
http://www.ecommerce-journal.com/node/30006
I watched the full version first and that was shortly after the story broke, if they released it later it was by a matter of hours or at most days.
stop bullshitting and outright lying.
"Woah woah... so you're saying Wikileaks is under no obligation to rise above the likes of FOX News and MSNBC? Really??"
you're obviously too dense to understand this but he was pointing out that editing is normal. normal because people don't watch an hour long video where 90% of it is nothing but the droning of an engine and shaky footage of nothing in particular.
they released both the full video and a shorter version with the most important bits.
deal with it.
Exactly FUD. I love the argument though, very looney toons. It's ok to kill innocent people left and right when you were aiming at 'the bad guys' ... but if you hypothetically threaten their lives with information then that's crossing the line!
Maybe their just greedy, and don't want to share the civilian deaths with the enemy.
*DrugCheese rants*
"AS MANY NAMES AS THEY COULD." Even you are implicitly admitting they did not succeed in redacting them all, and as a consequence, Wikileaks told the Taliban who to kill.
"It is a good thing for an uneducated man to read books of quotations..." -Winston Churchill
After WWII Russia didn't even have enough fuel to drive their tanks home, they used Horses & Mules. Russia never was and never would be a threat to anyone. We made them a threat because Truman was afraid without a strong enemy our economy would stagnant like it is now (e.g. all the wealth gathered into the hands of 1% of the populace). In his own sick little way he was helping the average joe by creating what we call the Military Industrial Complex.
As for 'Soviet style communism', Russia never was a communist country. It was a dictatorship using Marx's Rhetoric. For Americans communism == socialism == evil stuff we learned about in school. Thing is, all that 'socialism' is the only thing between the average American and the 'nasty, brutal and short' life of the 1800s. Maybe you're one of the 'haves'. Maybe you've got a trust fund and you're set for life. But if not, you're a freakin' idiot, and you're part of the problem. The socialists want to protect you (and themselves, they're realists, not altruists). The capitalists want to grind you into hamburger. Of course, you're probably too busy planning on being they guy cranking the grinder to notice they've got your arm in it.
Moron.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
So who has actually been harmed by any of it? Just one name, please.
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
He helped the enemy fight us (attacking the will to fight a war is just as useful as killing soldiers or sabotaging material)
Oh hell fucking no. You didn't just go there. I won't argue whether the action of the soldier was justified or not, because that's a story for a different thread. But to argue that merely providing information that tarnishes the image of the country as being the same as actively sabotaging installations and killing people is exactly what lead to the Kent State shootings, and enabled Hitler to rise to power in Germany.
That argument is bullshit of the highest degree, because it not only makes it impossible to have a rational discussion about a war, but it also is a pretext to qualify anybody who questions the war as being a legitimate target for killing. I have seen the effects of that kind of logic, and it directly leads to killing anybody who is deemed objectionable by the one in power.
Get the fuck out my country. You are the enemy.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Oh, wait.
They don't have to watch us all. We can all be intelligent and capable thinkers expressing ourselves well and not be saying one original thing between us.
They watch using theories of organization.
when he starts picking on nations known to remove people who offend them. He picks on a target that cannot afford to take him down. While the US has its flaws it is far far from being the worst of the lot when it comes to the strong countries of this world. The difference is that most of the others would have no fear of dealing with him.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Again, there's a difference in expected behavior for a civilian and a serving member of the military.
That argument didn't work during the Nuremberg trials, and for good reason. For one, it's because the only difference in the expected behavior of a civilian member and that of a serving member of the military is that they are supposed to contact different organizations in case of issues. Being part of a hierarchical organization doesn't absolve people from crimes they committed, helped commit, or helped bury.
Many good (and silly) complaints about how the military works have surfaced from retiring colonels and generals who have do this the right way.
Do you know why a lot military types wait until retirement before complaining, especially if they're higher ranked? You can't get your pension cut if you embarrass your superiors. Or beaten to a pulp. Or hung out to dry during a firefight. It's a basic economic calculation.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.