WikiLeaks website again offline after company cuts DNS service

[Ulysses G.]

We can all claim sources we dont like are BS

That is true but the Huffington Post is just sinking too low.

[philw]

From:

http://www.huffingto...5_b_794912.html

Anything from HuffPo is an instant trigger for most rational peoples' bullshit detector, and of course mine is spot on as usual.

You elected to opt out from posting this excerpt, so allow me:

"It's hard to believe that the founding fathers could have ever imagined the possibilities of ... a journalist like Julian Assange ...."

On the latter phrase, Assange is hardly a journalist. He is a disseminator of stolen property. He is the cyber-world version of a fence (and don't kid yourself that there isn't money involved).

You may remember the scene from "Carlito's Way" when lawyer Dave crossed the line and murdered a mobster client. Carlito said to Dave, you're not a lawyer any more, you're a gangster now.

Assange is no different. Whatever he may have been to himself and others at one point, he has crossed the line and there is no going back. He is a criminal and should expect to be treated as such for the rest of his life.

On the former, the 1st Amendment applies to US citizens of which Assange is not. Regardless, the 1st Amendment offers no individual protection from consequences of illegal activities, and Assange possession and dissemination of stolen property is clearly an illegal activity.

This guy is making enemies faster that he is making friends, which is never a good thing, especially along the road he chose. As I said before, this guy is looking to go down hard and several nations are in the process of trying to accommodate him.

You are of course entitled to your view, but in my opinion Assange has done a clear public duty exposing these documents, many of which give the lie to what our leaders and elders want us to believe.

Your argument that he is culpable for receiving stolen goods has no merit.

He is a publisher and journalist.

[mark45y]

I guess the US should be very thankful for the leg up in democratic reform since 99% of the WikiLeaks are from America. Although some may say since 99% of the leaks are aimed at the USA perhaps it is an attack instead of a help for democracy.

Why would anyone not want to know what their government were doing unless of course they had total faith in them and maybe there are people in every country that have faith in the government and never want to question it or know what it is doing in their name

What is that game of global conquest? Risk.

Lets say we are playing a game of Risk with four players.

One player has to make a full disclosure of his plans and ideas and the other three can keep secret all of their ideas.

Do you think that is fair?

This isnt about a game of global conquest or world domination, it is about people and rights of freedom of speech and information. It is also something that goes beyond notion states and their elites agendas.

In a perfect world you are correct and you also express an admirable sentiment.

But that is not the real world. To demonstrate this simply list the number of WikiLeaks that have been posted on line (or waiting to be posted) that are from the US ________ as opposed to the number of WikiLeaks that have been posted on line that are from other countries ________?

I think the total leaks released and waiting to be released is something like 300,000 from the US and less than 1000 from other countries. Feel free to correct me. 300,000 plus from one country and less than 1000 from other countries seems a little bit one sided to me. I don't even see anything wrong with posting 300,000 leaks from the US (except those that deal with national security or are a danger to individuals in wartime) but lets call a spade a spade. WikiLeaks is involved in a campaign against the US. And the reason Thai Visa has multiple threads running on this issue is because people on Thai Visa like reading information damaging to the US. To compare it to a news organization it would be like the BBC today during the news hour running three separate stories on WikiLeaks. I don't see anything wrong with that and don't mistake my observations for criticism because it is not. It is only an observation. If I had a bar and people liked cider, I would have at least three kinds of cider. I don't see three kinds of cider as redundant it is variety in a narrow segment of the market.

[SweeneyAgonistes]

Carlito's Way...risk....unhelmeted cops...receiving stolen goods...'Fire.

Assange's greatest crime is provoking a stream of truly dire analogies.

[JUDAS]

marky. You have, IIRC, mentioned in another post also the high percentage of leaks published on Wiki that are directed at the USA. The following is opinion interspersed with my speculation, feel free to correct me. I would guess that the US has the world's largest intelligence gathering network, partly due to it's high tech capabilities making it much more likely to be involved in some way in the content of the leaks? Massive personnel access to classified documents must surely increase the likelihood of leaks, agreed? Why are classified materials being leaked to Wiki? is it financial gain? I have seen no mention of that but could be wrong. Perhaps a question of morals, those leaking may feel the actions of their govt is intolerable? This could be nothing more than publishing what they have been given and not a deliberate targeting of the USA.

[softgeorge]

From:

http://www.huffingto...5_b_794912.html

Anything from HuffPo is an instant trigger for most rational peoples' bullshit detector, and of course mine is spot on as usual.

You elected to opt out from posting this excerpt, so allow me:

"It's hard to believe that the founding fathers could have ever imagined the possibilities of ... a journalist like Julian Assange ...."

On the latter phrase, Assange is hardly a journalist. He is a disseminator of stolen property. He is the cyber-world version of a fence (and don't kid yourself that there isn't money involved).

You may remember the scene from "Carlito's Way" when lawyer Dave crossed the line and murdered a mobster client. Carlito said to Dave, you're not a lawyer any more, you're a gangster now.

Assange is no different. Whatever he may have been to himself and others at one point, he has crossed the line and there is no going back. He is a criminal and should expect to be treated as such for the rest of his life.

On the former, the 1st Amendment applies to US citizens of which Assange is not. Regardless, the 1st Amendment offers no individual protection from consequences of illegal activities, and Assange possession and dissemination of stolen property is clearly an illegal activity.

This guy is making enemies faster that he is making friends, which is never a good thing, especially along the road he chose. As I said before, this guy is looking to go down hard and several nations are in the process of trying to accommodate him.

You forget one thing Assange is not an American citizen and is NOT BOUND by American laws. As Australian politicians have stated he has not broken any laws in relation to wikileaks. US laws and the US constitution were created for US citizens and not designed for people of other countries. U.S laws have absolutely no duristiction in Australia and Australians are not required to obey the laws of America unless in the U.S. I can just see some copper from America come knocking on my door in Melbourne saying you have been driving on the left hand side of the road and in America that is illegal so you have to come with me son.

You alledge that he is in the possession of stolen property, in what country did he allegedly handle this stolen property was it in the U.S if not then he has not broken any laws in the U.S. If I received stolen property in Melbourne under what law will I be charged, U.S or Australian law? Again U.S law has no juristiction in Australia.

He may be making enemies in the U.S.A alone because this has been incited by U.S politicians such a Palin calling for the general population to hunt him down and MURDER him. Yes he may be unpopular in America but god only knows what the average American has been fed by the Politicians. His popularity is growing elsewhere, (Check Facebook and the likes) as he stands for democracy and freedom of speech which countries like Australia cherish.

[SweeneyAgonistes]

300,000 plus from one country and less than 1000 from other countries seems a little bit one sided to me

Wikileaks publishes what it gets. It's put out stuff on other countries - two that related to Britain that immediately come to mind are the list of BNP members and Trafigura's crimes - but since for almost all of the american media, overseasistan exists only in so far as it's somewhere americans are currently bombing or invading or might be interested in bombing or invading, this stuff doesn't get reported. As for the current crop, the most damaging revelations are not about the american government, though with their usual stupidity, their dreadful handling of events has obscured that fact and they seem to be going out of their way to prove to the world that they really are repressive fascists. And if a private in Iraq - and 3,000,0000 other people - can lay his hands on military intelligence from Afghanistan and diplomatic cables from around the world, don't blame Assange.

[softgeorge]

I would like to pose a question. Is it illegal for say the CIA or what ever American Agency (don't pick fluff from feathers) to steal sensitive or secret documents from other governments around the world? Is it illegal for certain American politicians to receive this information. Yes/No. I guess under American law it would be totally legal. Is it legal for equivalent organisations from other governments to steal information from the American government Yes/NO. I guess under American law it is not. Why is that? Aren't both do exactly the same? Basically this law applies to non American citizens.

I know it is a little off topic.

[flying]

Lying is Not Patriotic

Ron Paul's Questions to consider:

1. Do the American people deserve to know the truth regarding the ongoing war in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen?

2. Could a larger question be: how can an Army Private gain access to so much secret material?

3. Why is the hostility mostly directed at Assange, the publisher, and not our government’s failure to protect classified information?

4. Are we getting our money’s worth from the $80 billion per year we spend on our intelligence agencies?

5. Which has resulted in the greatest number of deaths; lying us into war, or WikiLeaks’ revelations or the release of the Pentagon Papers?

6. If Assange can be convicted of a crime for publishing information, that he did not steal, what does this say about the future of the First Amendment and the independence of the internet?

7. Could it be that the real reason for the near universal attacks on WikiLeaks is more about secretly maintaining a seriously flawed foreign policy of empire than it is about national security?

8. Is there not a huge difference between releasing secret information to help the enemy in the time of a declared war—which is treason—and the releasing of information to expose our government lies that promote secret wars, death, and corruption?

9. Was it not once considered patriotic to stand up to our government when it’s wrong?

Thomas Jefferson had it right when he advised: “Let the eyes of vigilance never be closed.”

[mark45y]

300,000 plus from one country and less than 1000 from other countries seems a little bit one sided to me

Wikileaks publishes what it gets. It's put out stuff on other countries - two that related to Britain that immediately come to mind are the list of BNP members and Trafigura's crimes - but since for almost all of the american media, overseasistan exists only in so far as it's somewhere americans are currently bombing or invading or might be interested in bombing or invading, this stuff doesn't get reported. As for the current crop, the most damaging revelations are not about the american government, though with their usual stupidity, their dreadful handling of events has obscured that fact and they seem to be going out of their way to prove to the world that they really are repressive fascists. And if a private in Iraq - and 3,000,0000 other people - can lay his hands on military intelligence from Afghanistan and diplomatic cables from around the world, don't blame Assange.

I am not blaming him for anything except in the few examples where names and places should have been removed to protect people.

I am only saying, call it like it is. He is, because of the volume of secrets he is releasing from one country, engaged in a campaign against that country. In this case the US.

Your point about he is releasing only what he gets is valid but he is playing with a man who set out to harm the US. By acting in concert with him he becomes his partner in that goal.

If I am a taxi driver and I see a man on the side of the road loaded up with automatic weapons, hand grenades and rocket launchers and I drive that man to an area of political tension, am I responsible for his actions? No, I guess not. Or am I?

[Wallaby]

He has also released documents relating to other governments but I don't see it as being an attack on them either. He's just releasing what he is given, from any country. If he was just after the US he wouldn't release to the docs from other countries.

But I don't see it as Assange being against anyone in particular, however the person that initially leaked the docs from the US could be seen as that.

Our govt spokespersons in Australia have said and continue to say that nothing they have seen in the leaks is of any real concern.

[mark45y]

I would like to pose a question. Is it illegal for say the CIA or what ever American Agency (don't pick fluff from feathers) to steal sensitive or secret documents from other governments around the world? Is it illegal for certain American politicians to receive this information. Yes/No. I guess under American law it would be totally legal. Is it legal for equivalent organisations from other governments to steal information from the American government Yes/NO. I guess under American law it is not. Why is that? Aren't both do exactly the same? Basically this law applies to non American citizens.

I know it is a little off topic.

I don't know much about American spy law but the Brits are quite upset about Katia Zatuliveter right now. Maybe someone with some information about that could help you answer your question.

[mark45y]

He has also released documents relating to other governments but I don't see it as being an attack on them either. He's just releasing what he is given, from any country. If he was just after the US he wouldn't release to the docs from other countries.

But I don't see it as Assange being against anyone in particular, however the person that initially leaked the docs from the US could be seen as that.

Our govt spokespersons in Australia have said and continue to say that nothing they have seen in the leaks is of any real concern.

300,000 leaked documents from the US and you don't see him being against anyone in particular! How many leaked documents from other countries?

[SweeneyAgonistes]

I am not blaming him for anything except in the few examples where names and places should have been removed to protect people.

Which?

I am only saying, call it like it is. He is, because of the volume of secrets he is releasing from one country, engaged in a campaign against that country. In this case the US.

But he's not. If you look at the contents of the cables, they are much more damaging to other countries, and other non-state actors. To be fair, I should say that - for reasons that I won't go into here - I f*cking hate america so I'm all for anyone having a go at them but the cables just aren't that damaging for them. I think the worst so far was Clinton and the UN, perhaps the Ugandan stuff, and the telling porkies about Iranian capabilities (have I missed anything? Maybe.) Compare that to comments on Putin and Berluscoini, for example. Where the americans have acted outrageously is in the use of corporate entities (Visa, etc) to project state power. This is, I think, a far more significant event than the release of the cables itself.

If I am a taxi driver and I see a man on the side of the road loaded up with automatic weapons, hand grenades and rocket launchers and I drive that man to an area of political tension, am I responsible for his actions? No, I guess not. Or am I?

I'm going to skip this one - these completely gratuitous and completely <deleted> attempts at thought experiments are seriously misguided.

Edited December 11, 2010 by SweeneyAgonistes

[JUDAS]

He can only leak what he's given. Fairly simple really.

[SweeneyAgonistes]

300,000 leaked documents from the US and you don't see him being against anyone in particular! How many leaked documents from other countries?

Sorry for being a stickler for silly little things like facts but there are about 250,000 cables of which less than 1% have so far been released.

[JUDAS]

The whole argument about whether WL is targeting one country, namely the USA, is immaterial really. A poster who likes analogies recently said that if a police man stops you for an illegal act there is no defense is saying "what about the other 3 guys who just rode past without a helmet" Is the police man targeting that individual? maybe. Does it change anything? not at all, the act was illegal and the police man is justified in his actions.

If any of these leaks show illegal actions by the USA govt, are their actions any less illegal because the govt claims it's not fair to be targeted?

[flying]

The whole argument about whether WL is targeting one country,

If any of these leaks show illegal actions by the xxx govt, are their actions any less illegal because the govt claims it's not fair to be targeted?

Correct

Finally someone said it ......

In a classroom if one stands out as the most troublesome is the teacher picking on that one? Discriminating?

At the end of the day it is the wrongful actions that get the most reactions.....TS

Edited December 11, 2010 by flying

[LaoPo]

Note: after this news was reported, yesterday, Assange was transferred to a more tight security imprisonment.

WikiLeaks cables: Vatican refused to engage with child sex abuse inquiry

Leaked cable lays bare how Irish government was forced to grant Vatican officials immunity from testifying to Murphy commission

The Guardian, Saturday 11 December 2010

The Vatican refused to allow its officials to testify before an Irish commission investigating the clerical abuse of children and was angered when they were summoned from Rome, US embassy cables released by WikiLeaks reveal.

Requests for information from the 2009 Murphy commission into sexual and physical abuse by clergy "offended many in the Vatican" who felt that the Irish government had "failed to respect and protect Vatican sovereignty during the investigations", a cable says.

Despite the lack of co-operation from the Vatican, the commission was able to substantiate many of the claims and concluded that some bishops had tried to cover up abuse, putting the interests of the Catholic church ahead of those of the victims. Its report identified 320 people who complained of child sexual abuse between 1975 and 2004 in the Dublin archdiocese.

A cable entitled "Sex abuse scandal strains Irish-Vatican relations, shakes up Irish church, and poses challenges for the Holy See" claimed that Vatican officials also believed Irish opposition politicians were "making political hay" from the situation by publicly urging the government to demand a reply from the Vatican.

Ultimately, the Vatican secretary of state, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone (equivalent to a prime minister), wrote to the Irish embassy, ordering that any requests related to the investigation must come through diplomatic channels.

In the cable Noel Fahey, the Irish ambassador to the Holy See, told the US diplomat Julieta Valls Noyes that the Irish clergy sex abuse scandal was the most difficult crisis he had ever managed.

More:

http://www.guardian....e-investigation

LaoPo

[animatic]

Conspiracy To Commit Espionage is a crime in most countries.

And covered by extradition treaties.

If Assange accepted stolen documents and then distributed them,

he is guilty of that conspiracy whether in or out of the country.

If he is arrested on an international arrest warrant outside of his own country,

as he is presently, and a treaty of extradition is in affect, and the crime is

essentially the same under both countries laws, then he can be extradited

to the prosecuting country for trial, regardless of his nation of origin...

And regardless of his nation of origin's objections.

If an Australian national or military personnel

gave or sold me classified national security information or documents,

and I then put them on the web, I have no doubts the Australian government

would fist charge their own national for treason, and charge all his partners

including myself, or those who assisted after the fact, with international espionage.

You couldn't get me to take a Wikileaks insurance file

on my computer for any amount of cash.

Edited December 11, 2010 by animatic

[KhunAussie52]

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...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.

Ahh okay and good it is.

Wikileaks just found these documents in their mailbox. They didn't stole them from anyone.

that is exactly right...............they stole nothing!!!!

[Ulysses G.]

However, they knew that they were stolen and they flooded the Internet with them.

[softgeorge]

Conspiracy To Commit Espionage is a crime in most countries.

And covered by extradition treaties.

If Assange accepted stolen documents and then distributed them,

he is guilty of that conspiracy whether in or out of the country.

If he is arrested on an international arrest warrant outside of his own country,

as he is presently, and a treaty of extradition is in affect, and the crime is

essentially the same under both countries laws, then he can be extradited

to the prosecuting country for trial, regardless of his nation of origin...

And regardless of his nation of origin's objections.

If an Australian national or military personnel

gave or sold me classified national security information or documents,

and I then put them on the web, I have no doubts the Australian government

would fist charge their own national for treason, and charge all his partners

including myself, or those who assisted after the fact, with international espionage.

You couldn't get me to take a Wikileaks insurance file

on my computer for any amount of cash.

Files are leaked to the media all around the world and Australian Politicians including the foriegn minister have stated that he has committed NO OFFENCE....... What the Americans are accussing him of is not an offence in Australia as politicians say he not committed an offence. The Americans have turned him into a national hero. I would not give an American citizen the time of day now after what they are doing to great Aussie. No that is not American bashing but just my personal stance. It has turned into America against the Aussies tho.

[KhunAussie52]

However, they knew that they were stolen and they flooded the Internet with them.

Som non na America

[philw]

Note: after this news was reported, yesterday, Assange was transferred to a more tight security imprisonment.

WikiLeaks cables: Vatican refused to engage with child sex abuse inquiry

Leaked cable lays bare how Irish government was forced to grant Vatican officials immunity from testifying to Murphy commission

The Guardian, Saturday 11 December 2010

The Vatican refused to allow its officials to testify before an Irish commission investigating the clerical abuse of children and was angered when they were summoned from Rome, US embassy cables released by WikiLeaks reveal.

Requests for information from the 2009 Murphy commission into sexual and physical abuse by clergy "offended many in the Vatican" who felt that the Irish government had "failed to respect and protect Vatican sovereignty during the investigations", a cable says.

Despite the lack of co-operation from the Vatican, the commission was able to substantiate many of the claims and concluded that some bishops had tried to cover up abuse, putting the interests of the Catholic church ahead of those of the victims. Its report identified 320 people who complained of child sexual abuse between 1975 and 2004 in the Dublin archdiocese.

A cable entitled "Sex abuse scandal strains Irish-Vatican relations, shakes up Irish church, and poses challenges for the Holy See" claimed that Vatican officials also believed Irish opposition politicians were "making political hay" from the situation by publicly urging the government to demand a reply from the Vatican.

Ultimately, the Vatican secretary of state, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone (equivalent to a prime minister), wrote to the Irish embassy, ordering that any requests related to the investigation must come through diplomatic channels.

In the cable Noel Fahey, the Irish ambassador to the Holy See, told the US diplomat Julieta Valls Noyes that the Irish clergy sex abuse scandal was the most difficult crisis he had ever managed.

More:

http://www.guardian....e-investigation

LaoPo

Love it !!

Have a look at todays Guardian ( forgive me if you have already ), It appears that the Vatican have been lobbying American diplomats to keep Turkey out of the EU.

What has that do with either of them ??

[chuckd]

I would not give an American citizen the time of day now after what they are doing to great Aussie. No that is not American bashing but just my personal stance. It has turned into America against the Aussies tho.

Nonsense. I have many Aussie friends and none of them care what happens to Assange or Wikileaks. This problem isn't even a blip on their radar.

I can get the time of day from them so you don't have to stand by for my call.

The only reason I care is because I am retired and sometimes bored so it gives me something to occupy my time. There is also the fact that Assange is such a morally bankrupt creature.

[softgeorge]

Protests in favour of assange.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xNn0oITWJI

Christ died for the truth, Martin Luther King jnr. also died 4 the truth. Today, even those who killed them are celebrating these great men. Julian Assange is a living legend of digital diplomacy,master of the schism of balance of power. Even if the forces of evil will kill him, he has delivered.

[philw]

However, they knew that they were stolen and they flooded the Internet with them.

Som non na America

And they were stolen by an American, repeat American NOT an Australian performing a public service right to know.

[KhunAussie52]

However, they knew that they were stolen and they flooded the Internet with them.

Som non na America

And they were stolen by an American, repeat American NOT an Australian performing a public service right to know.

Exactly.......................long live wikileaks!!!!!

[KhunAussie52]

I would not give an American citizen the time of day now after what they are doing to great Aussie. No that is not American bashing but just my personal stance. It has turned into America against the Aussies tho.

Nonsense. I have many Aussie friends and none of them care what happens to Assange or Wikileaks. This problem isn't even a blip on their radar.

I can get the time of day from them so you don't have to stand by for my call.

The only reason I care is because I am retired and sometimes bored so it gives me something to occupy my time. There is also the fact that Assange is such a morally bankrupt creature.

Well,if you have so many Aussie friends.May i suggest they let us know there thoughts on the subject.Show you some support.Some how i doubt it!!!!

The only place that is morally bankrupt is America.

Assange is a hero!!!!!!!!!