WikiLeaks website again offline after company cuts DNS service

[KhunAussie52]

JULIAN Assange has received a glimmer of hope in his battle against sexual abuse allegations, with a British judge saying the WikiLeaks founder may be released from jail next week unless Swedish prosecutors produce evidence in London to back up their allegations.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/breaking-news/jailed-assanges-glimmer-of-hope-as-judge-wants-sweden-to-produce-rape-evidence/story-e6freonf-1225967928811

Justice will prevail!!!

[KhunAussie52]

US launches bid to get hands on Assange

BACKING: A collection of the rich and famous have pledged financial support for Wikileaks founder Julian Assange. Source: Getty

http://www.courierma...p-1225967875445

I looked I could not find the rich and famous who have pledged support. Are you dreaming?

My god,that is miraculous. You spend 5 minutes online trying ascertain who has pledged support.

When this was only released online an hour ago.

How do you do it?

I take it your sarcastic answer means you have no idea who is rich and famous. If you were not telling a falsehood please list the rich and famous who have pledged support.

As an Australian,i was speaking my mind.

Do i have to spell it out for you.This is breaking news.

In the days ahead.i will eagerly await more news, as to who the donors are.

I support the right of freedom of speech and expression.

That is why i support Julian Assange.

Let keep this civil,even if we are on apposing sides!!

Edited December 8, 2010 by KhunAussie52

[SergeiY]

From the Chomsky effect.

His objective, like that of the Catalonians earlier this century, is nothing other than a radical overturning of society as we know it today. He stands therefore at the opposite end of the spectrum from the so-called ‘public intellectuals’ who are regularly summoned by elites to legitimize or explain unpopular repressive legislation to those deemed too ignorant or stupid to understand that whatever is best for elites is, and should be, the law of the land.

Many people who are unfamiliar with anarchist movements express surprise when they learn that that Chomsky views are this radical, are “anarchist”, because they’ve come to equate anarchy with violence and chaos, or with some brand of unattainable, and therefore undesirable idealism. Chomsky persistently emphasizes the anti-capitalist, pro-cooperative and spontaneous roots of anarchism, and the many ties it has, especially in the United States, to the history of the working class.

If Chomsky’s anarchy has been cause for confusion, his Judaism and Israel have been for many persons a source of veritable bewilderment. Once again, though, Chomsky’s views on Israel and Palestine hearken back to a corpus of early radical Zionist works which promoted bi-nationalism and free association of the type that came to be associated with certain Kibbutzim.

Faurisson affair and France was an interesting chapter in his history.

Go back and edit your post and take out Chomsky. He is not a good person to name in support of a cause that is for the most part rational. Unless, of course you want people to think you are an ultra left wing, anarchist nut.

Please start to indicate what are your own words and what you copied from somewhere else and please name in a proper manner your source in case of a quote.

Funny is that you wanna "expose" Chomsky with the words of a pretty pro-Chomsky author who supports Chomsky and defend him against his critics.

Was that the first google hit that came up when you searched 'Chomsky+anarchy+bad+bad+radical+evil'?

Chomsky amongst others signed a petition/letter to the Australian PM in support of Assange. So what. Do you think that his name on the list spoils everything? Should he be send to Gitmo?

[luckizuchinni]

From the Daily Telegraph.Sydney.Australia

NO one believes Julian Assange is now sitting in a British jail cell because he is a rapist.

http://www.dailytele...0-1225967839278

To mix metaphors, if you pull the tail of a tiger, you better make sure your ducks are in line.

Assange pulled the tail of a number of tigers here, and of course he is going to be under scrutiny. They will nab him for any thing he has done wrong. John Dillinger was jailed for tax evasion, not for his mob activities.

If he is innocent, he should be set free based on this charge. But he can expect his life to be under a microscope now, so he's better keep clean.

[KhunAussie52]

From the Daily Telegraph.Sydney.Australia

NO one believes Julian Assange is now sitting in a British jail cell because he is a rapist.

http://www.dailytele...0-1225967839278

To mix metaphors, if you pull the tail of a tiger, you better make sure your ducks are in line.

Assange pulled the tail of a number of tigers here, and of course he is going to be under scrutiny. They will nab him for any thing he has done wrong. John Dillinger was jailed for tax evasion, not for his mob activities.

If he is innocent, he should be set free based on this charge. But he can expect his life to be under a microscope now, so he's better keep clean.

Julian Assange is squeaky clean................he will be released soon!!!!

[luckizuchinni]

Source Channel seven News Australia

SYDNEY (AFP) - Australian Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd Wednesday said the United States, not WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, was to blame for the leak of secret cables, pointing to a "core problem" with its diplomatic security.

Rudd, himself the focus of embarrassing memos recently released by the whistleblowing site, said "the unauthorised release of these things by the US system" was the core problem, not WikiLeaks or Assange.

"When you've got a quarter of a million cables pecking around out there, and on top of that you have people who have had access in the US system to these sorts of cables in excess of two million people, that's where the core of the problem lies," Rudd told commercial radio.

"In terms of the dissemination in the information, you know, around the region or around the world, whether it's by WikiLeaks, by the Melbourne Age (newspaper), or by anybody else, well that's an entirely separate matter."

"But my view is the core problem lies with the US protection of its own diplomatic communications."

Rudd's comments come just days after Prime Minister Julia Gillard accused WikiLeaks of "grossly irresponsible" conduct and said the information published on the site was gathered through an "illegal act".

Assange, an Australian citizen who was arrested in Britain Tuesday on Swedish sex charges, has accused Canberra of "disgraceful pandering" to his foes in a bid to protect its own interests.

Rudd said Australian authorities would investigate whether Assange, 39, had broken any domestic laws but stressed that was at "political arms length from what the business of government is about."

He also vowed to offer Assange the same consular assistance and support as any other Australian citizen in strife abroad, adding that "we intend to do that without fear or favour."

An open letter calling on Gillard to support Assange and protect his basic rights was flooded by so much traffic Wednesday it caused the server to crash, with thousands of signatures including US academic and activist Noam Chomsky.

Rudd is correct, and I am sure that the US government will address this issue. BUt that does not get Assange off the hook. If I leave my car door unlocked with a Rolex sitting on the dashboard, then it is pretty much my bust when it gets stolen. But the person who stole the watch is still a thief, and the pawn shop owner (Assange) who buys the stolen property, knowing it is stolen is also culpable.

[luckizuchinni]

From the Daily Telegraph.Sydney.Australia

NO one believes Julian Assange is now sitting in a British jail cell because he is a rapist.

http://www.dailytele...0-1225967839278

To mix metaphors, if you pull the tail of a tiger, you better make sure your ducks are in line.

Assange pulled the tail of a number of tigers here, and of course he is going to be under scrutiny. They will nab him for any thing he has done wrong. John Dillinger was jailed for tax evasion, not for his mob activities.

If he is innocent, he should be set free based on this charge. But he can expect his life to be under a microscope now, so he's better keep clean.

Julian Assange is squeaky clean................he will be released soon!!!!

And you know this ...how?

[SergeiY]

US launches bid to get hands on Assange

BACKING: A collection of the rich and famous have pledged financial support for Wikileaks founder Julian Assange. Source: Getty

http://www.courierma...p-1225967875445

I looked I could not find the rich and famous who have pledged support. Are you dreaming?

My god,that is miraculous. You spend 5 minutes online trying ascertain who has pledged support.

When this was only released online an hour ago.

How do you do it?

I take it your sarcastic answer means you have no idea who is rich and famous. If you were not telling a falsehood please list the rich and famous who have pledged support.

Julian Assange's celebrity supporters stake reputations on case

Raggle-taggle of 'household names' offered big sums towards WikiLeaks founder's failed bail plea

The already curious case of Julian Assange took another bizarre twist yesterday when the court learned that a raggle-taggle of "household names" were prepared to stake their reputation in his case, offering sureties to the court with a total value of £180,000.

...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/08/julian-assange-celebrity-supporters

[KhunAussie52]

From the Daily Telegraph.Sydney.Australia

NO one believes Julian Assange is now sitting in a British jail cell because he is a rapist.

http://www.dailytele...0-1225967839278

To mix metaphors, if you pull the tail of a tiger, you better make sure your ducks are in line.

Assange pulled the tail of a number of tigers here, and of course he is going to be under scrutiny. They will nab him for any thing he has done wrong. John Dillinger was jailed for tax evasion, not for his mob activities.

If he is innocent, he should be set free based on this charge. But he can expect his life to be under a microscope now, so he's better keep clean.

Julian Assange is squeaky clean................he will be released soon!!!!

And you know this ...how?

Read the latest reports.There is very little evidence to support the extradition of Julian Assange.

There was no rape,nor sexual assault.

The British judge,has stated that the Swedes will have to have to produce very good evidence to support there allegations.

We are an intuitive lot in Australia.

A drovers dog,could see ,he is being set up!!!!!!

[KhunAussie52]

Source Channel seven News Australia

SYDNEY (AFP) - Australian Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd Wednesday said the United States, not WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, was to blame for the leak of secret cables, pointing to a "core problem" with its diplomatic security.

Rudd, himself the focus of embarrassing memos recently released by the whistleblowing site, said "the unauthorised release of these things by the US system" was the core problem, not WikiLeaks or Assange.

"When you've got a quarter of a million cables pecking around out there, and on top of that you have people who have had access in the US system to these sorts of cables in excess of two million people, that's where the core of the problem lies," Rudd told commercial radio.

"In terms of the dissemination in the information, you know, around the region or around the world, whether it's by WikiLeaks, by the Melbourne Age (newspaper), or by anybody else, well that's an entirely separate matter."

"But my view is the core problem lies with the US protection of its own diplomatic communications."

Rudd's comments come just days after Prime Minister Julia Gillard accused WikiLeaks of "grossly irresponsible" conduct and said the information published on the site was gathered through an "illegal act".

Assange, an Australian citizen who was arrested in Britain Tuesday on Swedish sex charges, has accused Canberra of "disgraceful pandering" to his foes in a bid to protect its own interests.

Rudd said Australian authorities would investigate whether Assange, 39, had broken any domestic laws but stressed that was at "political arms length from what the business of government is about."

He also vowed to offer Assange the same consular assistance and support as any other Australian citizen in strife abroad, adding that "we intend to do that without fear or favour."

An open letter calling on Gillard to support Assange and protect his basic rights was flooded by so much traffic Wednesday it caused the server to crash, with thousands of signatures including US academic and activist Noam Chomsky.

Rudd is correct, and I am sure that the US government will address this issue. BUt that does not get Assange off the hook. If I leave my car door unlocked with a Rolex sitting on the dashboard, then it is pretty much my bust when it gets stolen. But the person who stole the watch is still a thief, and the pawn shop owner (Assange) who buys the stolen property, knowing it is stolen is also culpable.

So,your saying Julian Assange and Wikileaks, paid for the information?

[whybother]

Rudd is correct, and I am sure that the US government will address this issue. BUt that does not get Assange off the hook. If I leave my car door unlocked with a Rolex sitting on the dashboard, then it is pretty much my bust when it gets stolen. But the person who stole the watch is still a thief, and the pawn shop owner (Assange) who buys the stolen property, knowing it is stolen is also culpable.

So,your saying Julian Assange and Wikileaks, paid for the information?

He didn't buy it, but he is in possession of it - just as bad. BUT, there are plenty of reporters that get hold of stolen documents and use them for news stories. They don't usually get done for possession of stolen proterty do they?

[LaoPo]

Rudd is correct, and I am sure that the US government will address this issue. BUt that does not get Assange off the hook. If I leave my car door unlocked with a Rolex sitting on the dashboard, then it is pretty much my bust when it gets stolen. But the person who stole the watch is still a thief, and the pawn shop owner (Assange) who buys the stolen property, knowing it is stolen is also culpable.

So,your saying Julian Assange and Wikileaks, paid for the information?

He didn't buy it, but he is in possession of it - just as bad. BUT, there are plenty of reporters that get hold of stolen documents and use them for news stories. They don't usually get done for possession of stolen proterty do they?

Do you mean like The New York Post and hundreds of other news sources and Media in the US and thousands around the world publishing the WikiLeaks documents ?

If the US wants to proceed with charging Assange they better build new prisons for all those journalists and media people, publishing the same documents.

It will be busy "inside".

LaoPo

[mark45y]

Rudd is correct, and I am sure that the US government will address this issue. BUt that does not get Assange off the hook. If I leave my car door unlocked with a Rolex sitting on the dashboard, then it is pretty much my bust when it gets stolen. But the person who stole the watch is still a thief, and the pawn shop owner (Assange) who buys the stolen property, knowing it is stolen is also culpable.

So,your saying Julian Assange and Wikileaks, paid for the information?

He didn't buy it, but he is in possession of it - just as bad. BUT, there are plenty of reporters that get hold of stolen documents and use them for news stories. They don't usually get done for possession of stolen proterty do they?

Do you mean like The New York Post and hundreds of other news sources and Media in the US and thousands around the world publishing the WikiLeaks documents ?

If the US wants to proceed with charging Assange they better build new prisons for all those journalists and media people, publishing the same documents.

It will be busy "inside".

LaoPo

From what I read I could hack into LaoPo's computer and steal his financial and personal information and give it to a newspaper and they could publish it. LaoPo could sue the newspaper and he might win but I don't think it is against the law in the US as it stands now. If LaoPo happened to have been an informant of a crime family that dealt in drugs and human trafficking and the crime family killed him as a result of the news story. No harm no foul as I read the US law right now. someone correct me if I am wrong.

[SergeiY]

From what I read I could hack into LaoPo's computer and steal his financial and personal information and give it to a newspaper and they could publish it. LaoPo could sue the newspaper and he might win but I don't think it is against the law in the US as it stands now. If LaoPo happened to have been an informant of a crime family that dealt in drugs and human trafficking and the crime family killed him as a result of the news story. No harm no foul as I read the US law right now. someone correct me if I am wrong.

Again, a false analogy.

You come across secret army documents that seems to be evidence for war atrocities, crimes and attempts to conceal the truth meanwhile the government is telling lies to the public and you decided to leak this documents, same as it was done with the so called Pentagon Papers.

[luckizuchinni]

Rudd is correct, and I am sure that the US government will address this issue. BUt that does not get Assange off the hook. If I leave my car door unlocked with a Rolex sitting on the dashboard, then it is pretty much my bust when it gets stolen. But the person who stole the watch is still a thief, and the pawn shop owner (Assange) who buys the stolen property, knowing it is stolen is also culpable.

So,your saying Julian Assange and Wikileaks, paid for the information?

He didn't buy it, but he is in possession of it - just as bad. BUT, there are plenty of reporters that get hold of stolen documents and use them for news stories. They don't usually get done for possession of stolen proterty do they?

Good point about getting arrested, but they are often sued, and sued successfully.

[luckizuchinni]

Rudd is correct, and I am sure that the US government will address this issue. BUt that does not get Assange off the hook. If I leave my car door unlocked with a Rolex sitting on the dashboard, then it is pretty much my bust when it gets stolen. But the person who stole the watch is still a thief, and the pawn shop owner (Assange) who buys the stolen property, knowing it is stolen is also culpable.

So,your saying Julian Assange and Wikileaks, paid for the information?

He didn't buy it, but he is in possession of it - just as bad. BUT, there are plenty of reporters that get hold of stolen documents and use them for news stories. They don't usually get done for possession of stolen proterty do they?

Do you mean like The New York Post and hundreds of other news sources and Media in the US and thousands around the world publishing the WikiLeaks documents ?

If the US wants to proceed with charging Assange they better build new prisons for all those journalists and media people, publishing the same documents.

It will be busy "inside".

LaoPo

Almost a valid point--it does have legs, at least, and follows some degree of logic.

The difference is that Assange was the one who brought it into the public domain. The other sources merely republished what was now a newsworthy event. Morally, and I think legally, there is a difference.

[luckizuchinni]

From what I read I could hack into LaoPo's computer and steal his financial and personal information and give it to a newspaper and they could publish it. LaoPo could sue the newspaper and he might win but I don't think it is against the law in the US as it stands now. If LaoPo happened to have been an informant of a crime family that dealt in drugs and human trafficking and the crime family killed him as a result of the news story. No harm no foul as I read the US law right now. someone correct me if I am wrong.

Again, a false analogy.

You come across secret army documents that seems to be evidence for war atrocities, crimes and attempts to conceal the truth meanwhile the government is telling lies to the public and you decided to leak this documents, same as it was done with the so called Pentagon Papers.

Ah, but the problem with your analogy is that war crimes are just that, war crimes. The first WikiLeaks and now this one primarily dealt with sensitive, but not illegal acts. The fact that the Saudis and Jordanians wanted the US to take action against Iran is not illegal, but it could be embarrassing. The fact that Ghaddafi likes to travel with his European nurse might be embarrassing to him, but it is once again not illegal.

Now as for leaks which might indicate criminal activity, well, I think that is different and the public does have a right to know, ala the Pentagon Papers.

[mark45y]

From what I read I could hack into LaoPo's computer and steal his financial and personal information and give it to a newspaper and they could publish it. LaoPo could sue the newspaper and he might win but I don't think it is against the law in the US as it stands now. If LaoPo happened to have been an informant of a crime family that dealt in drugs and human trafficking and the crime family killed him as a result of the news story. No harm no foul as I read the US law right now. someone correct me if I am wrong.

Again, a false analogy.

You come across secret army documents that seems to be evidence for war atrocities, crimes and attempts to conceal the truth meanwhile the government is telling lies to the public and you decided to leak this documents, same as it was done with the so called Pentagon Papers.

You miss my point. War crimes or love letters, stolen or not it makes no difference in the States. The newspaper can publish them. Get off your hang up with bashing the US for a minute and read what I am writing. It is not against the law to publish anything in the US whether it is stolen or not. How the newspaper got it is irrelevant. It is not a false analogy. It is a perfect analogy. I unlike you am discussing WikiLeaks and not American war crimes.

[SergeiY]

You miss my point. War crimes or love letters, stolen or not it makes no difference in the States. The newspaper can publish them. Get off your hang up with bashing the US for a minute and read what I am writing. It is not against the law to publish anything in the US whether it is stolen or not. How the newspaper got it is irrelevant. It is not a false analogy. It is a perfect analogy. I unlike you am discussing WikiLeaks and not American war crimes.

I am discussing whistle blowing and you are mistaken when you think its about love letters or that would put lives at risk.

Has release of Wikileaks documents cost lives?

By Katie Connolly

BBC News, Washington 1 December 2010

After the release of an enormous haul of US defence department documents in August, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell told the Washington Post: "We have yet to see any harm come to anyone in Afghanistan that we can directly tie to exposure in the Wikileaks documents."

But, he added: "There is in all likelihood a lag between exposure of these documents and jeopardy in the field."

After this latest release a Pentagon official, who wished to remain anonymous due to the sensitive nature of the material involved, told the McClatchy newspaper group that even three months later the US military still had no evidence that people had died or been harmed because of information gleaned from Wikileaks documents.

Daniel Ellsberg, the former military analyst who in 1971 released the Pentagon Papers which detailed government lies and cover-ups in the Vietnam War, is sceptical of whether the government really believes that lives are at stake.

He told the BBC's World Today programme that US officials made that same argument every time there was a potentially embarrassing leak.

"The best justification they can find for secrecy is that lives are at stake. Actually, lives are at stake as a result of the silences and lies which a lot of these leaks reveal," he said.

"The same charges were made against the Pentagon Papers and turned out to be quite invalid."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11882092

[LaoPo]

Almost a valid point--it does have legs, at least, and follows some degree of logic.

The difference is that Assange was the one who brought it into the public domain. The other sources merely republished what was now a newsworthy event. Morally, and I think legally, there is a difference.

There is little difference apart from the point that the 5 major news agencies in the US and Europe, WikiLeaks has an agreement with and to which WikiLeaks sent the info, checked (next to WikiLeaks) the documents and asked their readers to help them with that since it's impossible for the newspapers to do all the reading and checking themselves.

Is the first receiver of the documents -WikiLeaks- more responsible than the second, third and fiftieth newssources and other media who published the documents also...?

Was The New York Times guilty and thrown in jail when they published the PENTAGON PAPERS, 40 years ago, when Daniel Ellsberg handed them to the NYT ?

If you want to know there's a whole lot of Juridicial info on the net available.

Food for thought.

LaoPo

Edited December 8, 2010 by LaoPo

[LaoPo]

It's hard to keep up.......

Wikileaks is currently mirrored on 1289 sites (updated 2010-12-08 19:07 GMT)

http://wikileaks.tryptamine.net/mirrors.html

LaoPo

[Wallaby]

In addition to defence minister Rudd saying it is the fault of the Americans we also have our ex prime minister saying the leaks are a good thing.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/world/kevin-rudd-john-howard-speak-out-over-wikileaks-julian-assange/story-e6freoox-1225967838974

[flying]

good to download all while they are available.

Small zip 7z file 3mb

Zip file

If you need a free program to unzip it....

http://www.7-zip.org/

Also a free torrent program....

http://www.utorrent.com/?client=utorrent2040

[hammered]

From what I read I could hack into LaoPo's computer and steal his financial and personal information and give it to a newspaper and they could publish it. LaoPo could sue the newspaper and he might win but I don't think it is against the law in the US as it stands now. If LaoPo happened to have been an informant of a crime family that dealt in drugs and human trafficking and the crime family killed him as a result of the news story. No harm no foul as I read the US law right now. someone correct me if I am wrong.

Again, a false analogy.

You come across secret army documents that seems to be evidence for war atrocities, crimes and attempts to conceal the truth meanwhile the government is telling lies to the public and you decided to leak this documents, same as it was done with the so called Pentagon Papers.

Ah, but the problem with your analogy is that war crimes are just that, war crimes. The first WikiLeaks and now this one primarily dealt with sensitive, but not illegal acts. The fact that the Saudis and Jordanians wanted the US to take action against Iran is not illegal, but it could be embarrassing. The fact that Ghaddafi likes to travel with his European nurse might be embarrassing to him, but it is once again not illegal.

Now as for leaks which might indicate criminal activity, well, I think that is different and the public does have a right to know, ala the Pentagon Papers.

I would think the most damaging allegation in the eyes of the US citizens would be that the US government assessed the Saudis as being the biggest funders of terrorism up to and including some high ranking ones, and yet kept this quiet and recently agreed a huge arms deal. That is something I doubt anyone would argue should be kept secret, and is a damning indictment of government as representatives of the people.

[hammered]

It's hard to keep up.......

Wikileaks is currently mirrored on 1289 sites (updated 2010-12-08 19:07 GMT)

http://wikileaks.tryptamine.net/mirrors.html

LaoPo

If we move away form all the "debate" on here for a while, there is a clash of philosophies going on. The internet is all about cross broder non-nationalistic freedom of traffic flow while at governmental and trational media level everything remains as "competing" nation states replete with flowing nationalism and "accepted" controls. It was inevitable there would be a clash and this is building as a big one

[crgram]

"I would think the most damaging allegation in the eyes of the US citizens would be that the US government assessed the Saudis as being the biggest funders of terrorism up to and including some high ranking ones, and yet kept this quiet and recently agreed a huge arms deal. That is something I doubt anyone would argue should be kept secret, and is a damning indictment of government as representatives of the people."

This is hardly news, it's been widely known for years. There have even been numerous news programs about where the money comes from. It's just embarrassing for the diplomats who got caught saying it "in writing".

The most damaging information is mostly what was known or said about other governments....

cr

[mark45y]

You miss my point. War crimes or love letters, stolen or not it makes no difference in the States. The newspaper can publish them. Get off your hang up with bashing the US for a minute and read what I am writing. It is not against the law to publish anything in the US whether it is stolen or not. How the newspaper got it is irrelevant. It is not a false analogy. It is a perfect analogy. I unlike you am discussing WikiLeaks and not American war crimes.

I am discussing whistle blowing and you are mistaken when you think its about love letters or that would put lives at risk.

Has release of Wikileaks documents cost lives?

By Katie Connolly

BBC News, Washington 1 December 2010

After the release of an enormous haul of US defence department documents in August, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell told the Washington Post: "We have yet to see any harm come to anyone in Afghanistan that we can directly tie to exposure in the Wikileaks documents."

But, he added: "There is in all likelihood a lag between exposure of these documents and jeopardy in the field."

After this latest release a Pentagon official, who wished to remain anonymous due to the sensitive nature of the material involved, told the McClatchy newspaper group that even three months later the US military still had no evidence that people had died or been harmed because of information gleaned from Wikileaks documents.

Daniel Ellsberg, the former military analyst who in 1971 released the Pentagon Papers which detailed government lies and cover-ups in the Vietnam War, is sceptical of whether the government really believes that lives are at stake.

He told the BBC's World Today programme that US officials made that same argument every time there was a potentially embarrassing leak.

"The best justification they can find for secrecy is that lives are at stake. Actually, lives are at stake as a result of the silences and lies which a lot of these leaks reveal," he said.

"The same charges were made against the Pentagon Papers and turned out to be quite invalid."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11882092

You insist in seeing something that is not there. It is not at this time illegal for a newspaper in the US to publish documents that are stolen. That is what I am trying to tell you. The content of the documents have nothing to do with the issue. It is a freedom of the press issue. In America newspapers can publish documents that are stolen or against the national interest or anything else. The law is not the same as in England. It has nothing to do with the publics right to know, that is a given and is the basis of the Freedom of Speech laws. Newspapers in America can publish WikiLeaks. No problem. They do not violate the law as it stands now. It has nothing to do with how the WikiLeaks information was obtained.

[mark45y]

"I would think the most damaging allegation in the eyes of the US citizens would be that the US government assessed the Saudis as being the biggest funders of terrorism up to and including some high ranking ones, and yet kept this quiet and recently agreed a huge arms deal. That is something I doubt anyone would argue should be kept secret, and is a damning indictment of government as representatives of the people."

This is hardly news, it's been widely known for years. There have even been numerous news programs about where the money comes from. It's just embarrassing for the diplomats who got caught saying it "in writing".

The most damaging information is mostly what was known or said about other governments....

cr

The most damaging information to the Department of State was Hillary telling the diplomats she wanted them to spy on diplomats from other countries.

[crgram]

"I would think the most damaging allegation in the eyes of the US citizens would be that the US government assessed the Saudis as being the biggest funders of terrorism up to and including some high ranking ones, and yet kept this quiet and recently agreed a huge arms deal. That is something I doubt anyone would argue should be kept secret, and is a damning indictment of government as representatives of the people."

This is hardly news, it's been widely known for years. There have even been numerous news programs about where the money comes from. It's just embarrassing for the diplomats who got caught saying it "in writing".

The most damaging information is mostly what was known or said about other governments....

cr

The most damaging information to the Department of State was Hillary telling the diplomats she wanted them to spy on diplomats from other countries.

Damaging for Hillary's reputation maybe, but don't think it's surprising that this is going on.

cr

[Wallaby]

Yeah that's about the only thing I can find interesting at the moment. Most of the other cables slagging off leaders etc doesn't interest me, except for entertainment purposes. I want the UFO's to come out now.