Wikileaks Suspends Publishing Of Cables Due To "Financial Blockade"

lee1 writes "Wikileaks has had to cease publishing classified files due to what the organization calls a 'blockade by US-based finance companies' that, according to Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has 'destroyed 95% of our revenue.' Assange also opined that 'A handful of US finance companies cannot be allowed to decide how the whole world votes with its pocket.' According to Assange the group was taking 'pre-litigation action' against the financial blockade in Iceland, Denmark, the UK, Brussels, the United States, and Australia. They have also filed an anti-trust complaint with the European Commission."

Comments

Wikileaks done in by its own leak

[concealment]

Public opinion swung hard against Wikileaks after the accidental release of the un-redacted cables. That leak put many people in harm's way, including a lot of people trying to help overthrow oppressive regimes or criminal enterprises. If we are able to ask "who watchers the watchers?" we have to ask "who watches the watchers of the watchers?" and the answer is that, in Wikileaks' case, big problems of credibility exist.

Re:Wikileaks done in by its own leak

[Anonymous Coward]

Public opinion swung hard against Wikileaks after the accidental release of the un-redacted cables. That leak put many people in harm's way, including a lot of people trying to help overthrow oppressive regimes or criminal enterprises. If we are able to ask "who watchers the watchers?" we have to ask "who watches the watchers of the watchers?" and the answer is that, in Wikileaks' case, big problems of credibility exist.

Eh what? You affirm the info they release was accurate and that the only problem with it was that it wasn't partially censored ("redacted") to protect someone or another who's probably not so innocent themselves (gov't sponsored thugs, foreign dignitaries, informants, etc).

But what they released was true. This word "credibility" ... I don't think it means what you think it means.

Maybe you think they should have more restraint but it isn't a matter of credibility.

As for myself, I say fuck 'em. You sign up with shady organizations like the CIA or most military contractors or the Taliban or whatever, I have no sympathy when your chickens come home to roost. Next time don't associate with liars and murderers and their cloak-and-dagger bullshit and you won't be so afraid of the truth and the whole truth.

Re:Wikileaks done in by its own leak

[Enderandrew]

It was so accidental that Assange said in an interview that if people wanted names redacted, then they needed to give him more money. And it was so accidental that Amnesty International blasted Assange for repeated leaks where he didn't redact civilian volunteer names, leading to civilian volunteers coming under death threats.

Amnesty International calls out government corruption and human rights violations. They don't demand money from people. They act with good conscience. Assange operates with zero transparency. He has been saying for at least a year that he is sitting on tons of documents tied to Bank of America and the financial collapse, but won't release them unless you give him more money.

Let's stop treating Assange like a hero. If you just want to support the ideals of calling out government abuse, then support institutions like Amnesty International.