WikiLeaks website again offline after company cuts DNS service

[KhunAussie52]

[

I to,am donating money to Wikileaks.I will continue to do so every month!!!

With all the dosh that they are pulling in, I do not doubt it.

So,what is your point?

[KhunAussie52]

Interesting that this US State Dept info which is revealing secrets and discussions regarding heads of state, diplomats, VIPs, rich individuals, etc., seems to be causing much more grief/problems for WikiLeaks than the US Defense Dept info/secrets released several months ago. I guess heads of state, diplomats, VIPs, rich folks, etc., have more more pull/capability in "trying" to silent WikiLeaks than the Defense Dept.

That's exactly whats happening at this time, according to some independant news agencies. The man has tarnished the reputations of many heads of state in several countries including the U.S. War on Terror program. So, Wikileaks is being silenced. Truth hurts.

Mass-mirroring Wikileaks

Wikileaks is currently under heavy attack.

In order to make it impossible to ever fully remove Wikileaks from the Internet, we need your help.

if you have a unix-based server which is hosting a website on the Internet and you want to give wikileaks some of your hosting resources, you can help!

Anybody?

Not here mate.........Wikileaks will prevail.

Long live the truth!!!!

[evanson]

www.wikileaks.ch

It was up and running this morning when I looked at it. I am in Indonesia... not sure if site is available in Thailand

That one seems to be out now.

but here are others:

Thanks Lao Pao. You're last posted link worked for me.

LaoPo

Edited December 5, 2010 by evanson

[evanson]

Interesting that this US State Dept info which is revealing secrets and discussions regarding heads of state, diplomats, VIPs, rich individuals, etc., seems to be causing much more grief/problems for WikiLeaks than the US Defense Dept info/secrets released several months ago. I guess heads of state, diplomats, VIPs, rich folks, etc., have more more pull/capability in "trying" to silent WikiLeaks than the Defense Dept.

That's exactly whats happening at this time, according to some independant news agencies. The man has tarnished the reputations of many heads of state in several countries including the U.S. War on Terror program. So, Wikileaks is being silenced. Truth hurts.

Mass-mirroring Wikileaks

Wikileaks is currently under heavy attack.

In order to make it impossible to ever fully remove Wikileaks from the Internet, we need your help.

if you have a unix-based server which is hosting a website on the Internet and you want to give wikileaks some of your hosting resources, you can help!

Anybody?

Not here mate.........Wikileaks will prevail.

Long live the truth!!!!

'I used to believe that God was truth, I now believe that Truth is god' - Mahatma Ghandi

[geriatrickid]

..and did so again, freezing WikiLeaks account and money without any proven charges or verdict from whatever country, company or ther entity...

They're hiding many accounts and money in small states like Singapore and Luxembourg...now....why would that be?

But, fighting against a $ 38 Billion public listed company, incorporated in Delaware (!) with $ 20 Billion is assets.....is not so easy...especially when the company shares are held for 82% by large Institutionals, not having too many scrupules about eBay/PayPal clients.

They couldn't care less about small clients; they just care about the large Institutions, holding their shares.

It's big money we're talking here and guys who freeze (without any legal backing) accounts overnight.

Would the CEO, Mr. John Donahue, with $ 10.1 Million compensation and another $ 7.7 Million in options care about WikiLeaks....?

He probably has his buddies, somewhere high up in the hierachy...

And, the anti-WikiLeaks posters talk about criminal behavior...yeah right.

LaoPo

You make a claim that the accounts were frozen without an "legal backing". That is an outright false statement. Wiki Leaks did not comply with the terms of service. What part

of the service agreement do you not understand? Read the service agreement and stop making false claims.It is both reprehensible and indicative of someone so obsessed with a view that he cannot recognize actual facts.

Prohibited Activities

You may not use the PayPal service for activities that:

1. violate any law, statute, ordinance or regulation

2. relate to sales of (a) narcotics, steroids, certain controlled substances or other products that present a risk to consumer safety, ( drug paraphernalia, © items that encourage, promote, facilitate or instruct others to engage in illegal activity, (d) items that promote hate, violence, racial intolerance, or the financial exploitation of a crime, (e) items that are considered obscene, (f) items that infringe or violate any copyright, trademark, right of publicity or privacy or any other proprietary right under the laws of any jurisdiction, (g) certain sexually oriented materials or services, (h) ammunition, firearms, or certain firearm parts or accessories, or (i) ,certain weapons or knives regulated under applicable law

You cannot argue the fact that the distribution of the documents violated the applicable laws in the USA and many other jurisdictions because the documents were illegally obtained. You cannot argue the fact that the release of the documents violates applicable privacy laws in many jurisdictions. The Terms of Use agreements do not require a court order to enforce. Wiki Leaks agreed to the Terms of Use.

For someone that claims a superior moral position in life, you may want to stop and think before posting a morally bankrupt statement likr the following;

freezing WikiLeaks account and money without any proven charges or verdict from whatever country, company or ther entity...

With your logic, no one has the right to stop someone from using stolen data or information until there is a court judgement. Brilliant logic. The credit card and Debit card thieves of the world will love you for that. Did you think before you wrote that or did you just allow your bias to take hold? With your logic,

Are you a shareholder or stakeholder in ebay? If not, then your views on the salary paid the directors and officers of the company are not germane. If you are a stakeholder then you have the right to take action in respect to your vested interest or you can simply stop doing business with them. If you are going to mention the institutional shareholders, then why not make a complete statement, specifically that those institutions are acting on behalf of i) Pension funds both public & private and ii) mutual fund holders. Withdraw your mutual funds (asuming you have any). Complain to to the public unions such as CALPERS, CALMERS, OMERS, CUPEand Teachers etc. These are all unions with longstanding "liberal" views. Maybe they'll withdraw their investments if you tell them. The reason Delaware is selected as a location is because there is a longstanding history of corporate laws and jurisprudence in the Court of Chancery. It is the most favourable location for laws that protect shareholder and director rights. What's your point, or do you even have one?

[Piengrudee]

I am glad they shut the site, after what they post about Wikileaks Thailand

Edited December 5, 2010 by Piengrudee

[Piengrudee]

I think PayPal have nothing to do with Wikileaks. I might be wrong.

[LaoPo]

Mass-mirroring Wikileaks

Now more than 200, worldwide;

Wikileaks is currently mirrored on 208 sites (updated 2010-12-05 19:43 GMT)

http://wikileaks.ch/mirrors.html

Note: a week ago the number of people on Twitter, supporting WikiLeaks was around 200.000.

Now surpassing 800.000 people and growing fast.

LaoPo

Edited December 5, 2010 by LaoPo

[Scott]

Several posts that are personal attacks on other posters have been removed. Please stick to the content of the post you are responding to and not the poster personally.

[geriatrickid]

Mass-mirroring Wikileaks

Now more than 200, worldwide;

Wikileaks is currently mirrored on 208 sites (updated 2010-12-05 19:43 GMT)

http://wikileaks.ch/mirrors.html

Note: a week ago the number of people on Twitter, supporting WikiLeaks was around 200.000.

Now surpassing 800.000 people and growing fast.

LaoPo

What's your point about mentioning wikileaks 800K followers on Twitter? What's it supposed to mean? You do realize that Justin Bieber has 6million+ followers and Lady Gaga has close to 7.3 million, right?. Nick Jonas has 1,6million followers. What is the world coming to when bubble head Khloe Khardashian has 1,8 million followers????

200 mirrorsites you say. So basically 200 locations that are furthering the violation of privacy and assisting in a criminal act. That's fab!!!!

In case you forgot, the information was unlawfully obtained and anyone distributing the stolen goods is supporting the crime. Quite a moral dilemma you are in. If its ok for this violation of privacy and the applicable laws to be broken, then do you have an issue if someone hacks into your PC and shares your correspondence and personal info? What's that you say? The USA is bad and deserves this. MMkay. Well, I'm sure someone somewhere will say the same about you and have a go at your personal info. If and when it happens don't come crying to the big bad government.

Edited December 6, 2010 by geriatrickid

[LaoPo]

Mass-mirroring Wikileaks

Now more than 200, worldwide;

Wikileaks is currently mirrored on 208 sites (updated 2010-12-05 19:43 GMT)

http://wikileaks.ch/mirrors.html

Note: a week ago the number of people on Twitter, supporting WikiLeaks was around 200.000.

Now surpassing 800.000 people and growing fast.

LaoPo

What's your point about mentioning wikileaks 800K followers on Twitter? What's it supposed to mean? You do realize that Justin Bieber has 6million+ followers and Lady Gaga has close to 7.3 million, right?. Nick Jonas has 1,6million followers. What is the world coming to when bubble head Khloe Khardashian has 1,8 million followers????

200 mirrorsites you say. So basically 200 locations that are furthering the violation of privacy and assisting in a criminal act. That's fab!!!!

In case you forgot, the information was unlawfully obtained and anyone distributing the stolen goods is supporting the crime. Quite a moral dilemma you are in. If its ok for this violation of privacy and the applicable laws to be broken, then do you have an issue if someone hacks into your PC and shares your correspondence and personal info? What's that you say? The USA is bad and deserves this. MMkay. Well, I'm sure someone somewhere will say the same about you and have a go at your personal info. If and when it happens don't come crying to the big bad government.

LaoPo

[Ulysses G.]

What's your point about mentioning wikileaks 800K followers on Twitter? What's it supposed to mean? You do realize that Justin Bieber has 6million+ followers and Lady Gaga has close to 7.3 million, right?.

Not to mention that Justin Bieber and Lady Gaga are not breaking the law.

[KhunAussie52]

What's your point about mentioning wikileaks 800K followers on Twitter? What's it supposed to mean? You do realize that Justin Bieber has 6million+ followers and Lady Gaga has close to 7.3 million, right?.

Not to mention that Justin Bieber and Lady Gaga are not breaking the law.

I might remind you.The release of all these documents.Were as a direct result of an American citizen,wanting the world to see the Hypocrisy of the American government and military.

Now,who provided those documents to Wikileaks.

An American by the name of Private ?????????????????

Now incarcerated incommunicado.With no access to his legal team or family.

Justice American style!!!!!!

What laws has Wikileaks violated?

And,please provide a source!!!!

[whybother]

<snip>

What laws has Wikileaks violated?

<snip>

Maybe possession of stolen property?

[Wallaby]

Maybe???

The powers that be can't think of a law that has been broken yet. Until then, what Wikileaks is doing should not be stopped.

[Ulysses G.]

Justice American style!!!!!!

Justice MILITARY style. He violated his oath and is being held according to military law.

Wikileaks disseminated stolen government documents and can be charged under:

The Espionage Act of 1917 (USC 18, Pt 1, Ch 37)^[1] is a United States federal law passed on June 15, 1917, shortly after the U.S. entry into World War I.

It prohibited any attempt to interfere with military operations, to support America's enemies during wartime, to promote insubordination in the military, or to interfere with military recruitment. In 1919, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Schenck v. United States that the act did not violate the free speech rights of those convicted under its provisions. http://en.wikipedia....age_Act_of_1917

Wikileaks' deliberate disclosure of these diplomatic cables is nothing less than an attack on the national security of the United States, as well as that of dozens of other countries. By disseminating these materials, Wikileaks is putting at risk the lives and the freedom of countless Americans and non-Americans around the world. --

Joe Lieberman

These documents also may include named individuals who in many cases live and work under oppressive regimes and who are trying to create more open and free societies. President Obama supports responsible, accountable, and open government at home and around the world, but this reckless and dangerous action runs counter to that goal. By releasing stolen and classified documents, Wikileaks has put at risk not only the cause of human rights but also the lives and work of these individuals. --

Robert Gibbs

Edited December 6, 2010 by Ulysses G.

[hammered]

Justice American style!!!!!!

Justice MILITARY style. He violated his oath and is being held according to military law.

Wikileaks disseminated stolen government documents and can be charged under:

The Espionage Act of 1917 (USC 18, Pt 1, Ch 37)^[1] is a United States federal law passed on June 15, 1917, shortly after the U.S. entry into World War I.

It prohibited any attempt to interfere with military operations, to support America's enemies during wartime, to promote insubordination in the military, or to interfere with military recruitment. In 1919, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Schenck v. United States that the act did not violate the free speech rights of those convicted under its provisions. http://en.wikipedia....age_Act_of_1917

Wikileaks' deliberate disclosure of these diplomatic cables is nothing less than an attack on the national security of the United States, as well as that of dozens of other countries. By disseminating these materials, Wikileaks is putting at risk the lives and the freedom of countless Americans and non-Americans around the world. --

Joe Lieberman

These documents also may include named individuals who in many cases live and work under oppressive regimes and who are trying to create more open and free societies. President Obama supports responsible, accountable, and open government at home and around the world, but this reckless and dangerous action runs counter to that goal. By releasing stolen and classified documents, Wikileaks has put at risk not only the cause of human rights but also the lives and work of these individuals. --

Robert Gibbs

When did congress declare war?

[Ulysses G.]

A Military engagement authorized by Congress is covered by the law.

[jayjay0]

What's your point about mentioning wikileaks 800K followers on Twitter? What's it supposed to mean? You do realize that Justin Bieber has 6million+ followers and Lady Gaga has close to 7.3 million, right?.

Not to mention that Justin Bieber and Lady Gaga are not breaking the law.

I might remind you.The release of all these documents.Were as a direct result of an American citizen,wanting the world to see the Hypocrisy of the American government and military.

Now,who provided those documents to Wikileaks.

An American by the name of Private ?????????????????

Now incarcerated incommunicado.With no access to his legal team or family.

Justice American style!!!!!!

What laws has Wikileaks violated?

And,please provide a source!!!!

I would be more interested in your source for no communication with his legal team or family.

The laws they have violated are American ones and may not exist in Oz.

I admit it the States is Paranoid but they do have laws protecting national security. I am surprised Oz dosen't.

Or are you just bashing.

[mark45y]

What's your point about mentioning wikileaks 800K followers on Twitter? What's it supposed to mean? You do realize that Justin Bieber has 6million+ followers and Lady Gaga has close to 7.3 million, right?.

Not to mention that Justin Bieber and Lady Gaga are not breaking the law.

I might remind you.The release of all these documents.Were as a direct result of an American citizen,wanting the world to see the Hypocrisy of the American government and military.

Now,who provided those documents to Wikileaks.

An American by the name of Private ?????????????????

Now incarcerated incommunicado.With no access to his legal team or family.

Justice American style!!!!!!

What laws has Wikileaks violated?

And,please provide a source!!!!

I had two jobs in the Army. One was picking up downed helicopters and the other was writing for an Army magazine and newspaper for the entertainment and information of the troops.

One day we picked up some Thai troops who were fighting in Laos. It was a daring rescue and a chopper went down during the operation.

The Thai troops had performed courageously and the American rescue choppers had gone way beyond the call of duty to get them out. Normal rescue operations under fire are a clusterfu** but the Thai troops had stayed calm and disciplined under fire and were evacuated with minimum loss of life.

It was a good story for both American troops and our Thai allies and I wrote about it.

My boss blew a fuse.

I learned that American troops were not in Laos. Thai troops were not in Laos and even the Bangkok newspapers confirmed that the Thai PM had said there were no Thai troops or American troops in Laos on the very day I wrote my story. (For those who missed it, it was a secret that Thai and American troops were fighting in Laos at the time).

I have to tell you the General was really upset that I wrote the story. But it was a good story and I thought it should be told.

I was under military law. The general could have had me shot. If I had sold the story I might have been shot.

But I had followed the chain of command and wrote the story and gave it to my boss and he killed the story. No harm no foul. I promised I would not do it again.

American troops are now fighting in the field and I really don't see much difference between then and now.

Although I find the Wikileaks interesting I also understand an American soldier can't release classified information to news sources.

Khun Aussie I hope this explains it. I was a small cog in the big wheel of war. I didn't really feel right in making decisions to release information that might effect thousands of peoples lives. I was only 22 at the time. Sure I thought I knew it all. Most guys do at 22 but there was a small doubt in my mind. I opted to go with military law and my commanding officers and all the way up the chain of command. I think you can understand what would happen if every 22 year old in the Army thought he was smarter than the command structure of the United States and how difficult that would make the prosecution of a war.

[KhunAussie52]

Justice American style!!!!!!

Justice MILITARY style. He violated his oath and is being held according to military law.

Wikileaks disseminated stolen government documents and can be charged under:

The Espionage Act of 1917 (USC 18, Pt 1, Ch 37)^[1] is a United States federal law passed on June 15, 1917, shortly after the U.S. entry into World War I.

It prohibited any attempt to interfere with military operations, to support America's enemies during wartime, to promote insubordination in the military, or to interfere with military recruitment. In 1919, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Schenck v. United States that the act did not violate the free speech rights of those convicted under its provisions. http://en.wikipedia....age_Act_of_1917

Wikileaks' deliberate disclosure of these diplomatic cables is nothing less than an attack on the national security of the United States, as well as that of dozens of other countries. By disseminating these materials, Wikileaks is putting at risk the lives and the freedom of countless Americans and non-Americans around the world. --

Joe Lieberman

These documents also may include named individuals who in many cases live and work under oppressive regimes and who are trying to create more open and free societies. President Obama supports responsible, accountable, and open government at home and around the world, but this reckless and dangerous action runs counter to that goal. By releasing stolen and classified documents, Wikileaks has put at risk not only the cause of human rights but also the lives and work of these individuals. --

Robert Gibbs

As reported by Scot Horton.Washington Post

What about the Pentagon claim that WikiLeaks “has blood on its hands,” which the WaPo repeats? When pressed by the Senate Armed Services Committee, Secretary Gates was forced to admit that these claims were hyperbole—“the leak… did not disclose any sensitive intelligence sources or methods.” Gates went on to acknowledge that there was no evidence of any informant being killed or threatened or even requesting protection as a result of the WikiLeaks publications. Why then has the Post editorial page decided to ape agitprop that the Pentagon itself has all but retracted? Maybe they don’t read their own paper.

The best rebuttal to the WaPo editorial page so far comes from Ellen Knickmeyer, who distinguished herself as the Post’s best reporter on the ground through the heart of the Iraq War. After looking through the latest WikiLeaks document dump, she writes that she is now persuaded that “top American leaders lied, knowingly, to the American public, to American troops, and to the world.” Tellingly, her piece appears not in the Post but in the Daily Beast, and she’s supplemented it with a detailed review of the documents involved at Foreign Policy.

http://harpers.org/archive/2010/10/hbc-90007774

[geriatrickid]

[i might remind you.The release of all these documents.Were as a direct result of an American citizen,wanting the world to see the Hypocrisy of the American government and military.

Now,who provided those documents to Wikileaks.

An American by the name of Private ?????????????????

Now incarcerated incommunicado.With no access to his legal team or family.

Justice American style!!!!!!

What laws has Wikileaks violated?

And,please provide a source!!!!

Do you know anything about this man? Do a bit of reading. According to people that know him, he was an immature brat given to temper tantrums. He is also a self admitted drug abuser. The guy was a mental basket case, and Julian Assange used him. That's the part of the story you and others are unaware of. Manning was troubled and Julian Assange exploited that.

The New York Times provided a revealing portrait. Read it and understand. The NYT is also one of the papers carrying the leaks, and it has been sharply critical of the US war in Iraq.

http://www.nytimes.c...=2&pagewanted=2

Private Manning worked as an administration clerk in the intelligence section for the 10th Mountain Division. Apparently, he was having social issues in his unit and had expressed anger/resentment on his facebook page. The pop psychologists are going to have a field day with this. It does explain why he might have cracked. The odd aspect of this story is that the U.S. military knew he was gay and didn't react. Members of his unit described him as immature and a jerk.

And if you think I am making this up, just google him. He wasn't closeted.

Private First Class Bradley Manning currently faces two charges and 12 counts of illegally providing classified information to an unauthorized source. As he voluntarily entered military service, voluntarily swore his oath as follows;

I, Bradley Manning, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

He violated his oath and he acted out of childish anger not out of any noble desire.

[jayjay0]

I would be more interested in your source for no communication with his legal team or family.

PFC Bradley Manning is being held and will be charged and tried under the Uniform Code of Military Justice if the allegations are found to be true. His rights were greatly reduced when he voluntarily enlisted in the US Army.

Read the following link and sub-links to become familiar with the UCMJ.

_______________________________________________________________

Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)

Menu

More of this Feature

• UCMJ Menu

• Punitive Articles of the UCMJ

Join the Discussion

Military Law

Related Resources

• Court Martials

• Nonjudicial Punishment (Art 15)

• Administrative Discharges

• Military Lawyers

• Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM)

From Other Guides

• Crime & Punishment

• Current Events: Law

• Government

• US Government Info

The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) is a federal law, enacted by Congress. Its provisions are contained in United States Code, Title 10, Chapter 47. Article 36 of the UCMJ allows the President to prescribe rules and procedures to implement the provisions of the UCMJ. The President does this via the Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM) which is an executive order that contains detailed instructions for implementing military law for the United States Armed Forces.

Articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice

Sub Chapter 1. General Provisions

Article 1. Definitions

Article 2. Persons Subject to this chapter.

Article 3. Jurisdiction to try certain personnel.

Article 4. Dismissed officer's right to trial by court-martial.

Article 5. Territorial applicability of this chapter.

Article 6. Judge advocates and legal officers.

Article 6a. Investigation and disposition of maters pertaining to the fitness of military judges.

Read more: http://usmilitary.ab...on/l/blucmj.htm

Nice try but no soap

No where does it deny him communication with his legal team.

You are right his rights were reduced when he enlisted.

The operative word is reduced not taken away. BIG difference.

[hammered]

"A whistleblower is a person who raises a concern about alleged wrongdoing occurring in an organization or body of people. Usually this person would be from that same organization. The alleged misconduct may be classified in many ways; for example, a violation of a law, rule, regulation and/or a direct threat to public interest, such as fraud, health/safety violations, and corruption. Whistleblowers may make their allegations internally (for example, to other people within the accused organization) or externally (to regulators, law enforcement agencies, to the media or to groups concerned with the issues).

Whistleblowers frequently face reprisal, sometimes at the hands of the organization or group which they have accused, sometimes from related organizations, and sometimes under law."

From wikipedia

[chuckd]

Nice try but no soap

No where does it deny him communication with his legal team.

You are right his rights were reduced when he enlisted.

The operative word is reduced not taken away. BIG difference.

I posted my original post at 1032 hours and you posted your response within 8 minutes of mine.

I have to assume you are either a speed reader or an expert in Military Justice. Which of these two choices is it?

Do you have any links to support your allegation that he is being held incommunicado?

I was unable top find any reference to it on this link: http://www.bradleymanning.org/

[whybother]

Nice try but no soap

No where does it deny him communication with his legal team.

You are right his rights were reduced when he enlisted.

The operative word is reduced not taken away. BIG difference.

I posted my original post at 1032 hours and you posted your response within 8 minutes of mine.

I have to assume you are either a speed reader or an expert in Military Justice. Which of these two choices is it?

Do you have any links to support your allegation that he is being held incommunicado?

I was unable top find any reference to it on this link: http://www.bradleymanning.org/

I think you guys are arguing FOR the same point.

chuckd - "Do you have any links to support your allegation that he is being held incommunicado?"

jayjay0 - "No where does it deny him communication with his legal team."

They seem to be saying the same thing to me.

[lannarebirth]

No government jobs for students who read Wiki Leaks. Which begs the question; HOW will they know who's read it?

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/students-warned-read-wikileaks-government-job/

Edited December 6, 2010 by lannarebirth

[flying]

http://46.59.1.2/

Still up no problems...Perhaps not updated as often?

Edited December 6, 2010 by flying

[mark45y]

Response to KhunAussie52

I hear what you are saying. A person has a moral responsibility to act morally. If a person thinks the US government is immoral then that person has a responsibility to bring the government down.

I think you think the US government is immoral and you would be in favor of bringing it down.

OK I see that.

But you are pissing in the wind.

[whybother]

Trolling through wikipedia for anti-american info now?

I thought this thread was about wikileaks.

Edited December 6, 2010 by whybother