WikiLeaks website again offline after company cuts DNS service

[venturalaw]

It would certainly hypocritical of Assange to complain about the leaking of any documents. On the other side of the coin though, it would seem reasonable, in the name of upholding standards, that those calling for Assange to be charged over WL also call for a full investigation and, charging if possible under the law, those responsible for any leaks directed at Assange. Fair play....

If you are referring to those that provided Assange with the documents that he published, I agree. All involved should be subject to investigation and prosecution.

Edited December 19, 2010 by venturalaw

[chuckd]

All of this wailing and gnashing of teeth that the US has not pressed charges against Assange is somewhat silly.

There is no statute of limitations in cases involving espionage. Assange, along with any co-conspirators, can be charged in one month or ten years. He is liable for his alleged crime until his death.

The next President may even have to do it.

[JUDAS]

Yep, Sarah will nail him

[Carib]

Yep, Sarah will nail him

Now just imagine that all these " precious" state secrets would be available to a person like that. Leaks on the other hand wouldn't be necessary anymore, the arrogance and ignorance displayed in them would then be in view on a daily basis. god or buddah or who/whatever help us.

[LaoPo]

Yep, Sarah will nail him

Now just imagine that all these " precious" state secrets would be available to a person like that. Leaks on the other hand wouldn't be necessary anymore, the arrogance and ignorance displayed in them would then be in view on a daily basis. god or buddah or who/whatever help us.

..I doubt if she would even know where the Embassies of her country are......let alone to decide what to do with the "state secrets", already known by millions...

But, of one country she's sure....it's opposite her state.

LaoPo

[Credo]

The government will act very carefully. First priority is to make communications more secure. Documents are leaked all the time and many people writing books and historical accounts eventually get access to them. Eventually they are all de-classified.

Second, the government has to assess the damage and all things told, I don't think there is all that much damage. When a US diplomat meets with a diplomat of another country, they know the essence and information will be passed on to Washington. Does anybody think they don't do the same thing?

The damage must be real and a real law has to be broken. Espionage seems pretty far fetched and the 1st Amendment provides a lot of protection to Assange. They will, if they decide to go after him, get one chance, so it needs to be something that will stick. In the end, though, the government knows that getting Assange is like bailing out the Titanic with a teaspoon. The water will keep coming in, just a different player.

Edited December 19, 2010 by Credo

[whybother]

It pretty much should go without saying that a perpetrator is immediately jailed pending a hearing not for punishment, but solely for the purpose of protecting the public from continuing violations. It is for the purpose of protecting potential victims from a perpetrator who has violated the law at least once, and therefore capable of hurting others.

It pretty much should go without saying, that that is a stupid idea.

Stupid idea? Oh really now.

One fifth of murder suspects 'committed crime while on bail.

Richard Edwards, Crime Correspondent 3:32PM GMT 23 Mar 2008 Almost one in five murder suspects in Britain last year were alleged to have committed the offence while on bail, it has emerged. http://www.telegraph...le-on-bail.html

As a general statement, Yes, a stupid idea. What this is saying is that anyone accused of a crime has to go to jail until they can prove that they are innocent.

If Ventura had said "anyone with previous convictions", or "anyone with clear evidence against them", then it wouldn't be so stupid.

[metisdead]

Please note:

30) Do not modify someone else's post in your quoted reply, either with font or color changes, added emoticons, or altered wording.

Some quotes have been edited to return to original font.

[chuckd]

It pretty much should go without saying that a perpetrator is immediately jailed pending a hearing not for punishment, but solely for the purpose of protecting the public from continuing violations. It is for the purpose of protecting potential victims from a perpetrator who has violated the law at least once, and therefore capable of hurting others.

It pretty much should go without saying, that that is a stupid idea.

As a general statement, Yes, a stupid idea. What this is saying is that anyone accused of a crime has to go to jail until they can prove that they are innocent.

If Ventura had said "anyone with previous convictions", or "anyone with clear evidence against them", then it wouldn't be so stupid.

Venturalaw isn't saying that anyone accused of a crime has to go to jail until they can prove that they are innocent. That is your interpretation of what he actually said.

What he said was..."It pretty much should go without saying that a perpetrator is immediately jailed pending a hearing not for punishment, but solely for the purpose of protecting the public from continuing violations."

A perpetrator is held in jail upon his arrest for possible criminal activity pending a hearing to determine if he will be permitted bail or held in jail until his trial. The preliminary hearing determines if he is a continuing threat to society or whether he can be released on bail.

Further, when he does go to trial he is not required to prove his innocence. The state is required to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Your second paragraph is rather interesting. Are you claiming anyone with prior convictions is automatically a threat to society and anyone without prior convictions is not? Isn't that what the preliminary hearing is all about? Following the arrest and jailing of the perpetrator.

People are normally not arrested without "clear evidence" against them.

[whybother]

It pretty much should go without saying that a perpetrator is immediately jailed pending a hearing not for punishment, but solely for the purpose of protecting the public from continuing violations. It is for the purpose of protecting potential victims from a perpetrator who has violated the law at least once, and therefore capable of hurting others.

It pretty much should go without saying, that that is a stupid idea.

As a general statement, Yes, a stupid idea. What this is saying is that anyone accused of a crime has to go to jail until they can prove that they are innocent.

If Ventura had said "anyone with previous convictions", or "anyone with clear evidence against them", then it wouldn't be so stupid.

Venturalaw isn't saying that anyone accused of a crime has to go to jail until they can prove that they are innocent. That is your interpretation of what he actually said.

What he said was..."It pretty much should go without saying that a perpetrator is immediately jailed pending a hearing not for punishment, but solely for the purpose of protecting the public from continuing violations."

A perpetrator is held in jail upon his arrest for possible criminal activity pending a hearing to determine if he will be permitted bail or held in jail until his trial. The preliminary hearing determines if he is a continuing threat to society or whether he can be released on bail.

Further, when he does go to trial he is not required to prove his innocence. The state is required to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Your second paragraph is rather interesting. Are you claiming anyone with prior convictions is automatically a threat to society and anyone without prior convictions is not? Isn't that what the preliminary hearing is all about? Following the arrest and jailing of the perpetrator.

People are normally not arrested without "clear evidence" against them.

I suppose we'll need ventura to come back and clarify what he meant.

Given that it's standard practice to be held in jail until the bail hearing, I don't understand what the point of his statement was if it is to be interpreted as you say.

[animatic]

Well the one thing in this story that is clear:

The chattering classes and talking heads are yapping and typing in overdrive with the biggest story of this 15 minute repeating news cycle, and those on both sides of the philosophical argument are cleaving their opinions to the nearest, somewhat similar, morsels of supposed truth, and reference points.

This does tend to make 80% of the subjectively under-informed opinions to be approaching utter worthlessness, simply because of lack of a complete picture, though many imagine they are in sole possession of the complete picture...

Application of 1st amendment rights to forigners not in the USA would not apply, so no protections, but espionage laws might, application of other nations laws would not apply to Manning in any way, but might to Assange in an extradition fight, but only as such. The lawyers for other trials in the Euro Court of Human Justice, will of course say anything they think might help their clients, and the chattering classes of course will cleave to them at web-speed, and parse each possible nuance with the authority of ones who supposedly are, or at least believe that they are, 'a reference for reality'. But may just be someone simply told to make another 1,000 words in the paper's philosophical style, to get more papers sold, and keep up their editors point of view. Which is often, nakedly, the one selling the most papers in a dying market place. And the Web editors are even more narrowly focused to their niche market which has homed into their style, like a modern mantra of philosophical purity. Divide and conquer the market place, by staking out a point of view, and hammering it home to a niche of the like minded.

In other words, your emotional responses to much of this story are being manipulated by the press, and people with vested interests, as much, and likely much more, than any of the governments involved were influencing each other by their diplomatic discussions of; what if's, wherefores, he said she said's, and maybe we can's, that are the main substance of the Wikileaks releases. In short many of the amateur commentators here, and other places, are being played for their preexisting prejudices, by several sides, and may hardly even realize it. But have no qualms about stating what someone told them, as if it were gospel truth, or anti-gospel truth; if they distrust all gospels etc ad infinitum.

Edited December 19, 2010 by animatic

[Ulysses G.]

If Ventura had said "anyone with previous convictions", or "anyone with clear evidence against them", then it wouldn't be so stupid.

How about anybody in the military who has already admitted violating their oath and knows that they are going to jail for most of their life? Why would such a person - with nothing to lose - get bail?

Edited December 19, 2010 by Ulysses G.

[Wallaby]

All of this wailing and gnashing of teeth that the US has not pressed charges against Assange is somewhat silly.

There is no statute of limitations in cases involving espionage. Assange, along with any co-conspirators, can be charged in one month or ten years. He is liable for his alleged crime until his death.

The next President may even have to do it.

With all the jumping up and down going on about how damaging the leaks are and how terrible Assange is I somewhat doubt the US govt would be willing to wait 10 years to charge him. Surely if the leaks are as bad as they are saying then they would want to charge him as urgently as possible, even if it was just a 'simple' charge that would allow them to hold him for a while whilst they further investigate more serious charges.

Do you realy think the US govt would want to wait any longer than necessary to charge him if they had the choice? Wouldn't the fair and reasonable action be to charge him now if they have the evidence? According to many in the US it would certainly save many lives if he was charged now.

[Ulysses G.]

Well the one thing in this story that is clear:

The chattering classes and talking heads are yapping and typing in overdrive with the biggest story of this 15 minute repeating news cycle, and those on both sides of the philosophical argument are cleaving their opinions to the nearest, somewhat similar, morsels of supposed truth, and reference points.

This does tend to make 80% of the subjectively under-informed opinions to be approaching utter worthlessness, simply because of lack of a complete picture, though many imagine they are in sole possession of the complete picture...

Is someone casting aspersions on the learned sentiments of the Thai Visa intelligentsia?

[whybother]

If Ventura had said "anyone with previous convictions", or "anyone with clear evidence against them", then it wouldn't be so stupid.

How about anybody in the military who has already admitted violating their oath and knows that they are going to jail for most of their life? Why would such a person - with nothing to lose - get bail?

I think admitting guilt falls into the category of "clear evidence against them'.

But, it's too broad a statement to apply in all cases.

[Ulysses G.]

Do you realy think the US govt would want to wait any longer than necessary to charge him if they had the choice? Wouldn't the fair and reasonable action be to charge him now if they have the evidence? According to many in the US it would certainly save many lives if he was charged now.

The sensible thing to do is wait until they have the strongest case possible. After all, the damage is already done and arresting him has not stopped his comrades from releasing more of the stolen documents. At this point, the real purpose for charging Assange is to make an example of him so other will hesitate to do such a thing in the future.

My guess is that the government will procede at the pace that will best accomplish this goal.

Edited December 20, 2010 by Ulysses G.

[Ulysses G.]

If Ventura had said "anyone with previous convictions", or "anyone with clear evidence against them", then it wouldn't be so stupid.

How about anybody in the military who has already admitted violating their oath and knows that they are going to jail for most of their life? Why would such a person - with nothing to lose - get bail?

I think admitting guilt falls into the category of "clear evidence against them'.

Excellent point!

[mark45y]

All of this wailing and gnashing of teeth that the US has not pressed charges against Assange is somewhat silly.

There is no statute of limitations in cases involving espionage. Assange, along with any co-conspirators, can be charged in one month or ten years. He is liable for his alleged crime until his death.

The next President may even have to do it.

With all the jumping up and down going on about how damaging the leaks are and how terrible Assange is I somewhat doubt the US govt would be willing to wait 10 years to charge him. Surely if the leaks are as bad as they are saying then they would want to charge him as urgently as possible, even if it was just a 'simple' charge that would allow them to hold him for a while whilst they further investigate more serious charges.

Do you realy think the US govt would want to wait any longer than necessary to charge him if they had the choice? Wouldn't the fair and reasonable action be to charge him now if they have the evidence? According to many in the US it would certainly save many lives if he was charged now.

I don't follow your reasoning. WikiLeaks will go on whether Assange is there or not. What difference would it make when they charged him?

[chuckd]

All of this wailing and gnashing of teeth that the US has not pressed charges against Assange is somewhat silly.

There is no statute of limitations in cases involving espionage. Assange, along with any co-conspirators, can be charged in one month or ten years. He is liable for his alleged crime until his death.

The next President may even have to do it.

With all the jumping up and down going on about how damaging the leaks are and how terrible Assange is I somewhat doubt the US govt would be willing to wait 10 years to charge him. Surely if the leaks are as bad as they are saying then they would want to charge him as urgently as possible, even if it was just a 'simple' charge that would allow them to hold him for a while whilst they further investigate more serious charges.

Do you realy think the US govt would want to wait any longer than necessary to charge him if they had the choice? Wouldn't the fair and reasonable action be to charge him now if they have the evidence? According to many in the US it would certainly save many lives if he was charged now.

You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. Read the attached article and find out if the US government has a long memory or not.

http://www.dm.usda.gov/ocpm/Security%20Guide/Spystory/Lipka.htm

[animatic]

Well the one thing in this story that is clear:

The chattering classes and talking heads are yapping and typing in overdrive with the biggest story of this 15 minute repeating news cycle, and those on both sides of the philosophical argument are cleaving their opinions to the nearest, somewhat similar, morsels of supposed truth, and reference points.

This does tend to make 80% of the subjectively under-informed opinions to be approaching utter worthlessness, simply because of lack of a complete picture, though many imagine they are in sole possession of the complete picture...

Is someone casting aspersions on the learned sentiments of the Thai Visa intelligentsia?

Is that possible?

[animatic]

If Ventura had said "anyone with previous convictions", or "anyone with clear evidence against them", then it wouldn't be so stupid.

How about anybody in the military who has already admitted violating their oath and knows that they are going to jail for most of their life? Why would such a person - with nothing to lose - get bail?

I think admitting guilt falls into the category of "clear evidence against them'.

Excellent point!

Yes, it certainly is.

[Ulysses G.]

You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. Read the attached article and find out if the US government has a long memory or not.

http://www.dm.usda.g...story/Lipka.htm

Convicted after 20 years. I am not surprised.

Robert Lipka was arrested 22 years after he stopped spying for the Soviets. Anyone who crosses the line must look over their shoulder for the rest of their life, as the statute of limitations does not apply to espionage.

Lipka: No Statute of Limitations

Former National Security Agency employee Robert Stephan Lipka was arrested and charged with espionage in 1996. This was 30 years after Lipka stopped working for NSA and 22 years after his last contact with the KGB. The arrest was possible because the statute of limitations does not apply to espionage. No matter how long ago an offense occurred, a traitor can still be prosecuted. Lipka was sentenced in 1997 to 18 years in prison.

[animatic]

All of this wailing and gnashing of teeth that the US has not pressed charges against Assange is somewhat silly.

There is no statute of limitations in cases involving espionage. Assange, along with any co-conspirators, can be charged in one month or ten years. He is liable for his alleged crime until his death.

The next President may even have to do it.

With all the jumping up and down going on about how damaging the leaks are and how terrible Assange is I somewhat doubt the US govt would be willing to wait 10 years to charge him. Surely if the leaks are as bad as they are saying then they would want to charge him as urgently as possible, even if it was just a 'simple' charge that would allow them to hold him for a while whilst they further investigate more serious charges.

Do you realy think the US govt would want to wait any longer than necessary to charge him if they had the choice? Wouldn't the fair and reasonable action be to charge him now if they have the evidence? According to many in the US it would certainly save many lives if he was charged now.

You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. Read the attached article and find out if the US government has a long memory or not.

http://www.dm.usda.g...story/Lipka.htm

No you can't, but you can prosecute for squeezing the tube,

and as an object lesson to someone else with a security clearance

to think twice about being so treasonously stupid.

There is no chance a USA security person will not be tried,

and convicted if the evidences is there. Manning made the greatest mistake

of his now greatly truncated life. He may imagine he did good,

but will live and regret it soon enough, and for a long time.

[chuckd]

With all the jumping up and down going on about how damaging the leaks are and how terrible Assange is I somewhat doubt the US govt would be willing to wait 10 years to charge him. Surely if the leaks are as bad as they are saying then they would want to charge him as urgently as possible, even if it was just a 'simple' charge that would allow them to hold him for a while whilst they further investigate more serious charges.

Do you realy think the US govt would want to wait any longer than necessary to charge him if they had the choice? Wouldn't the fair and reasonable action be to charge him now if they have the evidence? According to many in the US it would certainly save many lives if he was charged now.

You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. Read the attached article and find out if the US government has a long memory or not.

http://www.dm.usda.g...story/Lipka.htm

No you can't, but you can prosecute for squeezing the tube,

and as an object lesson to someone else with a security clearance

to think twice about being so treasonously stupid.

There is no chance a USA security person will not be tried,

and convicted if the evidences is there. Manning made the greatest mistake

of his now greatly truncated life. He may imagine he did good,

but will live and regret it soon enough, and for a long time.

One of the biggest impacts all this will have is the security clearance issue for civilian and military employees alike. It has been difficult enough in recent years for civilians to get security clearances and I can now see a lengthy delay in even obtaining one. The bar has now been raised in the granting of clearances.

It certainly won't help the unemployment situation

[LaoPo]

WikiLeaks cables: UK businessmen 'overeducated' says Richard Branson

Virgin chief critical of British education system during discussion of entrepreneurship at Beijing business lunch

Amelia Hill

guardian.co.uk, Monday 20 December 2010 21.30 GMT

The US ambassador reported that Branson believed 'schooling does not prepare one for entering the business world.' Photograph: Charles Rex Arbogast/AP

Perhaps it's because he left school at 15 and ran his own business while his peers were still studying. But Richard Branson believes that the British education system does not serve budding businessmen and women well, according to a US diplomatic cable. ***

Branson touched on the subject at a lunch held in January 2008 by Chinese businessmen in Beijing. During the event, titled What Makes a Good Entrepreneur?, the Chinese criticised British entrepreneurs as being "overeducated, too conservative, lacking passion for entrepreneurship and too afraid of failure".

Instead of countering their criticisms, the US ambassador Clark Randt reports that "British billionaire Richard Branson agreed that British entrepreneurs are overeducated and that schooling does not prepare one for entering the business world". The Chinese also criticised their own education system as inadequate to prepare people for entrepreneurship.

Continues:

http://www.guardian....richard-branson

*** http://www.guardian....ocuments/139255 US Diplomatic Cable

LaoPo

[mark45y]

A storage facility housing Yemen's radioactive material was unsecured for up to a week after its lone guard was removed and its surveillance camera was broken, a secret U.S. State Department cable released by WikiLeaks revealed today.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1340173/I-locked-paedophiles-child-killers-WikiLeaks-boss-Julian-Assange-tells-prison-hell.html#ixzz18qp71aIQ

Terrorists would not want to know that. I am sure they already knew. But what if they didn't? Woops.

[KhunAussie52]

Assange to become MEAA member

December 23, 2010, 7:44 am

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is set to become a member in good standing of the Australian journalists' union, the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA).

ACTU president Ged Kearney will present a membership card to Mr Assange's Australian lawyer, Rob Stary, at a ceremony in Melbourne on Thursday morning.

Victorian MEAA branch secretary Louise Connor said Mr Assange had contacted the Alliance in November just as the "cablegate" story began to break.

She said he noted at the time that his credit card had been cancelled and he might not be able to pay his union dues.

It had been decided to waive his union dues, she said.

"Julian Assange has been a member of the Media Alliance for several years. Clearly, with banking corporations freezing his accounts, his situation is quite extraordinary," she said in a statement.

"We've drawn up a new union card for him and offer him the full support of his union and professional association."

Australian-born Mr Assange remains in the UK on bail over Swedish sexual assault allegations.

WikiLeaks continues to progressively release 250,000 leaked US diplomatic cables, as promised.

Ms Kearney said Mr Assange and WikiLeaks deserved support.

"WikiLeaks is simply performing the same function as media organisations have for centuries in facilitating the release of information in the public interest. Mr Assange's rights should be respected just the same as other journalists," she said in a statement.

"WikiLeaks has broken no Australian law and, as an Australian citizen, Julian Assange should be supported by the Australian government, not prematurely convicted."

http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/mp/8554858/assange-to-become-meaa-member/

[mark45y]

Assange to become MEAA member

December 23, 2010, 7:44 am

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is set to become a member in good standing of the Australian journalists' union, the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA).

ACTU president Ged Kearney will present a membership card to Mr Assange's Australian lawyer, Rob Stary, at a ceremony in Melbourne on Thursday morning.

Victorian MEAA branch secretary Louise Connor said Mr Assange had contacted the Alliance in November just as the "cablegate" story began to break.

She said he noted at the time that his credit card had been cancelled and he might not be able to pay his union dues.

It had been decided to waive his union dues, she said.

"Julian Assange has been a member of the Media Alliance for several years. Clearly, with banking corporations freezing his accounts, his situation is quite extraordinary," she said in a statement.

"We've drawn up a new union card for him and offer him the full support of his union and professional association."

Australian-born Mr Assange remains in the UK on bail over Swedish sexual assault allegations.

WikiLeaks continues to progressively release 250,000 leaked US diplomatic cables, as promised.

Ms Kearney said Mr Assange and WikiLeaks deserved support.

"WikiLeaks is simply performing the same function as media organisations have for centuries in facilitating the release of information in the public interest. Mr Assange's rights should be respected just the same as other journalists," she said in a statement.

"WikiLeaks has broken no Australian law and, as an Australian citizen, Julian Assange should be supported by the Australian government, not prematurely convicted."

http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/mp/8554858/assange-to-become-meaa-member/

Kind of makes one wonder if Julian loves Australia that much and if the Aussies love him that much why the F*** does he not go back to Australia to live.

[flying]

Kind of makes one wonder if Julian loves Australia that much and if the Aussies love him that much why the F*** does he not go back to Australia to live.

Makes me wonder if you hate the US & the US hates you? Or do you have freedom of choice as to where you live & Assange does not?

Edited December 23, 2010 by flying

[JUDAS]

Kind of makes one wonder if Julian loves Australia that much and if the Aussies love him that much why the F*** does he not go back to Australia to live.

Makes me wonder if you hate the US & the US hates you? Or do you have freedom of choice as to where you live & Assange does not?

What a strange statement 45. I'm sure he would be happy to have at least the choice at the minute, though the British legal system might have a few objections