WikiLeaks offline & funding blocked

It's started



WikiLeaks says funding has been blocked after government blacklisting

 

Clone, I'm sorry if I go against half the privacy forum and you, but I can't support the organization as long as it is run by Julian Assange, so, for now, I'm glad they've been crippled for a while. His own people have been walking out the door in recent months because of him, and he needs to go.

 

WikiLeaks will be back up - it truly is a scheduled maintenance and housecleaning in preparation for THE biggest bombshell of all.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39690010/ns/us_news-security/

In regards to Julian Assange. He has been forced to live a rather unorthodox lifestyle due to threats on his life. Nobody is perfect. Has anybody here done as much as Julian Assange to show the duplicity of policy regarding so many issues? Does anybody here have the GUTS to put on display info he's received instead of just gripe on an Internet forum?

From Wikileaks Twitter feed within the hour - a link to a fascinating LA Times article:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-rowley-wikileaks-20101015,0,5616717.story

It's easy to throw stones seeking perfection in everything any given group or person does, but WikiLeaks has given governments cause to pause. Who knows what WL has prevented?

I argue WikiLeaks has done more than Google and Facebook and all the social networks combined in changing the world. One day - we'll appreciate it and look back in awe at the courage.

 

With all due respect Lockbox, perhaps instead of labeling others "gripers" in a derogatory way, maybe take a moment to think about why they might be "griping". Is there an Afghan complaining because maybe he or she has family, friends that are against the Taliban? Are there Iraqis or Afghans complaining because either they or people they know trying to help get rid of these extremists? Are there families with U.S or other coalition soldiers that are overseas that are put at risk by these releases?

Just like the EFF and other groups, Wikileaks isn't always right. In fact, they have been reckless. Wikileaks as a whole, is a group to be proud of. It takes courage to do what they have done in the past. However, lately it seems Assange is on some sort of mission, has some agenda. Going by some of the things said, some of the chat logs between him and others, the group is starting to become about him and not about the goal they originally had. That is my concern. I don't think of Wikileaks ITSELF as a dangerous, self-serving, reckless organization. Assange himself, that is an entirely different story in my mind.

Edit: To add to this, remember that attempts to shut these people up WILL eventually affect the normal citizen as well. Not that that wasn't already being started of course, but the more the group "goes big" without caution, the sooner we get to the point that not only will Wikileaks die, but it will make it that much harder to find the truth amongst all of the media groups, interest groups, and governments giving us what they want us to know.

 

@ dw426

Yes he's an unusual character, but at least he's actually done something in his life by providing the means for people to out the REAL crooks behind a Lot of what's wrong in the world. Without WL "They" would have an easier time of getting away with more than they already have/do. And when the time comes, which it will sooner than They realise, ALL that evidence is there to hang them with =

Another similar www is - http://cryptome.org - which also has been and is an excellent source of stuff "They" wish you didn't know.

@ LockBox

It's good to see items like that the LA Times article in mainstream media, so Thanks for the link I felt craigbhill's comment hit the target, in more ways than one.

 

I love the idea of Wikileaks and I think an organization like this is needed, especially in light of the growing Orwellian system the U.S. government is placing on the world. However, I agree with dw in that Assange himself has an axe to grind with the U.S. -- he loathes the U.S. and everyone in it. He has made this very clear. He is a typical Scandinavian socialist who thinks all things Western are evil and all those who fight the West are heroes. Indeed, this is typical sentiment amongst a lot of self-loathing Europeans.

I have no problem with exposing corruption and law breakers, but I do have a problem with exposing the names of informants who are just people trying to do what they feel is right or their country (I'm talking about the Afghani's who now have to fear for their family's lives because of Assange's leaks).

And Bradley Manning. Oh boy. I would hate to be in that guy's shoes right now. He is a traitor. There is no doubt his life in military custody is no fun right now.

 

Slight detour:

Not exactly sure what that somewhat cryptic comment means.
Not sure if the Oz gov has a 'black list" in action yet.

The Australian "Clean Feed Filter" is not yet up and running afaik.
I will see what I can find.

There has been tremendous opposition to the clean feed/filter here.
Moneybookers may have been included in the rather pathetic first attempt at imposing filters in OZ ( quick link here: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/03/wikileaks-expos/ ) which was thankfully leaked to Wikileaks at the time.

More up to date info re Oz: http://www.efa.org.au/category/censorship/mandatory-isp-filtering/

Moneybookers may be implicated by involvement with online gambling ??

One could suppose that any support offered to Wikileaks will lead to all sorts of potential grief for any commercial operation, particularly if registered in any USA allies.

EDIT: @chronomatic, your voice is your own and I don't mean any disrespect; while I have some uncertainties about the complexities around wikileaks I am a supporter as it seems you are. This may get modded and many discussions have taken place about Assange and wikileaks.

Just for the record: a traitor is one who has committed treason -
At times, ( this is as good a description as any I guess, poached from Wikipedia) the term "traitor" has been levelled as a political epithet, regardless of any verifiable treasonable action. In a civil war or insurrection, the winners may deem the losers to be traitors. Likewise the term "traitor" is used in heated political discussion – typically as a slur against political dissidents, or against officials in power who are perceived as failing to act in the best interest of their constituents.
cf "Class "Traitor"

The US constitution defines treason as:

You are right, I bet Manning's circumstances are fraught.
Hopefully enough people will see what he did as a good thing but military law will likely prevail.

If that NBC article is to be believed:

No charges yet ??

Of course that would never be admitted even if it was true.

But they would have to say that ??

Remember when Daniel Ellsberg was the "most dangerous man on the planet" ??

Who do we trust. ??
Confronting times.

 

I don't know where to start with these antagonistic posts aganst Julian Assange. But I'll start with the one that shows (chronomatic) knows NOTHING about the guy.

1. He was born in a small town in Queensland, Australia.
2. He was raised in Australia.
3. He went to the University of Melbourne studying physics, math, and neuroscience.
4. He wrote many software programs while working in Melbourne.
5. He's considered a "hacker" for what it's worth. For 18 years of the 'white hat' variety.
6. He made his first-ever visit to Europe in March of 2010.
7. He doesn't hate the United States. That's nothing short of absurd.
8. Daniel Ellsberg supports him 100%.

Mistaken identity, chronomatic? He's certainly no Scandanavian with all the insults you threw their way.

To other posters, he's done everything he can to NOT make WikiLeaks about himself. He's merely the editor and spokesperson. Yes, he has enormous influence on the board - and, NO, there's no "internal squabbles." Frankly, I'm shocked, that thinking people here have accepted the disinformation campaign against WL and Assange -- hook, line, and sinker.

I also find it odd to find posters so concerned with Afghans who side against the Taliban and fear for their well-being because of any WL disclosures, while not being concerned about the brutal killings by soldiers against these very people that were disclosed by -- WikiLeaks! That makes no sense whatsoever. It shows a severe lack of understanding as to what were in those thousands of pages of documents and why the disinformation campaign against JA and LW is as full force as it is.

So much misinformation on JA and one of the great websites of our time. I'll say it again - one day, WL will be given the praise it deserves for daring to let the people know the truth. How dare them. And to knock them because it might "out" sources, covert ops, etc. is just plain silly. I'd worry more about what the documents actually said - that's a 1000 times worse than any fallout certain disinfo elements would have you believe.

Oh, and you ain't seen nothin' yet.

 

I think a similar thread was started and closed down sometime ago.

 

Thank you all for your comments.