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?
Wikileaks is a great project, but its not too clear how people can help them.
Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
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
Why doesn't this guy just yell "Banzai", leak out the rest of the documents, and survive for 5 minutes while hundreds of copies are made on the internet?
At this point its just pointless bickering, if this guy releases the rest of what he's got, the US will have no real interest in him anymore I would think - because even if he 'mysteriously dies when his server mysteriously explodes', the copies of the document would have still been spread around like wildfire.
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.
FYI
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/nsb/tsc/tsc_faqs
I can get behind Wikileaks, but not Assange. He is egotistical tool.
Gone!
One possibility is the SDN list: http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/sdn/
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.
It is funny (and, in a way sad) that the same country that sponsored all those radio stations I used to listen to as a young girl for (freedom-)free information during the Cold war years from behind the Iron curtain is now trying to stomp out a website that does exactly the same.
Ah, dreams of my youth, when did you wither away?
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.
Im not totally on Wikileaks side because they didn't take enough care to protect peoples names in the content they released.
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.
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.
They did remove names, and they got no one killed. Try to find someone they got killed: You can't. The people who said they were gonna get people killed are the people who actively do indeed actually kill real people, have been for years, plan on doing it for years still. They fed you FUD, and you ate it all up.
That totally turned me off from Wikileaks.
Mission accomplished.
You can't take the sky from me...
I have noticed that the US government is really taking the wrong approach to this, personally, whenever I hear about wikileaks in the news I always go and browse there for a while (and if I had the cash I'm donate), but otherwise I honestly don't even remember its there.
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.
They released documents that put Afghan civilians and US troops at risk.
War puts lives at risk. If anything negative actually happened as a result of the release, well, [citation needed]. And if it's not a primary source, [citation needed] all the way down until it goes no farther, and then we can evaluate the legitimacy of the information.
This isn't protecting democracy, it's treason.
Do you even understand the definition of treason in the United States Constitution? Or the dictionary definition, for that matter?
Wikileaks is giving aid to the enemy.
Again, [citation needed].
The founder should be in prison, and slashdot is whining about the donation page getting shut down?
Put up hard information, or shut your authoritarian piehole.
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".
Creating a list of companies & people, and then grabbing their assets is called a "Bill of Attainder"
This is illegal under Article 1, Section 9 of the US Constitution.
I can not say more or I would be subject to such a bill.
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.
Hey,
Would you help us redact some names from these stolen classified documents?
I'm not exactly sure how they were in a position to agree and assist. Assisting, would really be acknowledging that wikileaks had a right to the information and the release of said data was approved. It's complete rubbish to assume that anyone inside the government would agree to anything like that. It's such a horse shit move to continue to cite that reasoning as why its ok to release classified data.
The documents are what they are and if you want more transparent government we have a clear system for changing things. Just because we might not agree with something does not make it ok to not comply with the current laws.
With that said... if you had an organization which possess tons of leaked classified documents you would immediately treat them as hostile and react as such. You would do anything that is within your power to condemn such an organization. It's the plain and simple truth of what is going on here.
"You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
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...
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.
You obviously don't know that they held back fifteen thousand pages because they contained names that ma or may not be innocent people. You hate them for something they're not guilty of. You've been successfully manipulated by well crafted propaganda, but don't feel bad, it happens to millions of people every day.
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.
And that is why wikileaks did not do that, but the pentagon says they did. So you'll hate them and refuse to listen. And it works sooooo well.
You can't take the sky from me...
Reading, sharing, and publishing classified information is not against the law unless you have a security clearance. Obviously the classified documents passed into the public domain by someone who obtained them by having the proper clearance, and that person (those people) are the ones that should be punished for the release. And if someone without clearance broke into the place where they were stored, they may be guilty of burglary or theft, but the person who failed to physically secure the docs is responsible for the unlawful dissemination of classified information.
If you don't have a security clearance, you are not bound by the rules governing their access. Your access is the result of someone with a clearance (and thus bound by the rules) failing to secure them.
It's like if I reveal trade secrets to someone not employed by my company, they are under no obligation to prevent the spread of those secrets. Since I am employed by that company, I am responsible.
WikiLeaks is doing nothing wrong. They are acting honorably.
My brother, a combat medic, was with a group that was being attacked. He was in the room when a sergeant told a soldier to stick his head out the window to see what was up. The kid stuck his head out the window and got a bullet to the face, and the sergeant turned without a word and walked into the other room. My brother had to clean the mess up.
If you google the name of the deceased soldier the reports say he was killed by an IED. His family does not know the truth of how he died.
Talk to any soldier that has seen action and ask them if they saw anything get covered up, I'm willing to bet you won't find any soldier who has been deployed that can say "no".
Regardless of what you might think, the US law doesn't apply worldwide.
Dilbert RSS feed
there was such a rush to publicize them without proper redaction and editing. PROVE to me that
You're spreading FUD. Read this instead:
A lawyer representing the whistle-blowing Web site WikiLeaks says
U.S. government officials have been given codes and passwords granting them online access to official U.S. government documents that WikiLeaks so far has not published.
Timothy Matusheski, a lawyer from Hattiesburg, Miss., who says he represents whistle-blowers and has been in touch with both WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and at least one government official involved in investigations of WikiLeaks, said the site had set up a “secure channel” through which authorized users could access the unpublished material. He said credentials for using this channel had been forwarded to representatives of the U.S. government whom he did not identify. Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
You can't take the sky from me...
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...
....if not they should be.
Remember guys that the government that was installed in Chile with a lot of US help was the same one that later set off a car bomb in Washington D.C. to get rid of an exiled political opponent.
No trial, no hearing, no law, just the same old anti American action taken by an arm of government.
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...
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
AIUI, those documents contain the names of people in Afghanistan who are giving information to the US. Publishing the documents without redacting the names tells the Taliban exactly who to kill. Does that answer your question?
Publishing the names without redacting them WOULD HAVE told the Taliban who to kill. But they DID REDACT AS MANY NAMES AS THEY COULD.
You can't take the sky from me...
Ok well that's piqued my interest, never intended on donating before, now I do. How can I go about this?
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*
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/
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.