WikiLeaks website again offline after company cuts DNS service

[geriatrickid]

Guess what?

The 2010 TIME 100 Poll

The day Julian Assange turned himself in in London, his name disappeared from the TIME list where he was # 3, just 2 days ago*.

It's not explained by TIME why Mr. Assange disappeared from the list.

They've now on #1 Iranian Opposition leader Mr. Mir-Hossein Mosavi.

http://www.time.com/...1976159,00.

It looks like the influence and paranoid behavior of the American Authorities has no boundaries.

Time now belongs to the growing list of companies like Amazon, Ebay/PayPal, Credit Card companies, Twitter, Facebook and the like, all bowing to the Powerplay and Pressure of the American Authorities.

Poor "First Amendment"...Poor Freedom of Speech.....Poor America

* Cast your votes for the leaders, artists, innovators and icons who you think are the most influential people in the world.

LaoPo

Your post does not make any sense.You are making an unsubstantiated and nonsensical accusation in respect to the behaviour of publicly held companies. Please substantiate your statement that the companies you have named have "bowed" to American Authorities. You cannot can you? You do not have any evidence to back up your claim, So why do you insist on making childish statements?

Where does the 1st Amendment come into this? All of the companies you cite have terms of use statemnts that users must comply with. I have already provide you with the Paypal TOU and you have ignored that document. The TOU clearly states that the facilities of these companies are not to be used for activities that violate the terms of use, such as illegal activity. The respective legal counsels of these companies obviously have the opinion that wikileaks is engaging in activities that violate the terms of use. Was Mr. Assange or Wikileaks forced to use the services of these companies? If people want, they can send their donations via money orders, or by cheques or give cash donations if they want. Did someone put a gun to your head and say use Paypal or else? If you are unhappy with the conduct of the companies you can file a legal action or if you are shareholder, then go and express your views at the shareholder meeting. None of the companies has engaged in an illegal act nor harmed anyone. Maybe in your world you can force people and companies to follow your orders, but in the real world you cannot. If you feel so strongly, go get your bucket and stand on a corner collecting money for Mr. Assange. You can then send it to him c/o his attorney.

[hammered]

Guess what?

The 2010 TIME 100 Poll

The day Julian Assange turned himself in in London, his name disappeared from the TIME list where he was # 3, just 2 days ago*.

It's not explained by TIME why Mr. Assange disappeared from the list.

They've now on #1 Iranian Opposition leader Mr. Mir-Hossein Mosavi.

http://www.time.com/...1976159,00.

It looks like the influence and paranoid behavior of the American Authorities has no boundaries.

Time now belongs to the growing list of companies like Amazon, Ebay/PayPal, Credit Card companies, Twitter, Facebook and the like, all bowing to the Powerplay and Pressure of the American Authorities.

Poor "First Amendment"...Poor Freedom of Speech.....Poor America

* Cast your votes for the leaders, artists, innovators and icons who you think are the most influential people in the world.

LaoPo

Your post does not make any sense.You are making an unsubstantiated and nonsensical accusation in respect to the behaviour of publicly held companies. Please substantiate your statement that the companies you have named have "bowed" to American Authorities. You cannot can you? You do not have any evidence to back up your claim, So why do you insist on making childish statements?

Where does the 1st Amendment come into this? All of the companies you cite have terms of use statemnts that users must comply with. I have already provide you with the Paypal TOU and you have ignored that document. The TOU clearly states that the facilities of these companies are not to be used for activities that violate the terms of use, such as illegal activity. The respective legal counsels of these companies obviously have the opinion that wikileaks is engaging in activities that violate the terms of use. Was Mr. Assange or Wikileaks forced to use the services of these companies? If people want, they can send their donations via money orders, or by cheques or give cash donations if they want. Did someone put a gun to your head and say use Paypal or else? If you are unhappy with the conduct of the companies you can file a legal action or if you are shareholder, then go and express your views at the shareholder meeting. None of the companies has engaged in an illegal act nor harmed anyone. Maybe in your world you can force people and companies to follow your orders, but in the real world you cannot. If you feel so strongly, go get your bucket and stand on a corner collecting money for Mr. Assange. You can then send it to him c/o his attorney.

Tableau Software admitted it was Lieberman who intimidated them into withdrawing support. Lieberman bragged it was he who forced Amazon to withdraw support. I dont think anyone is seriously going to believe the pressure didnt come from ****** (as one of the redacted to protect wikileaked cables leaves hanging exactly who killed Hariri according to US estimates;)) Not that in this case I would assume it was the same entity. The corporate sudden finding of other reasons is utterly ridiculous. The just dont want to admit to giving in to poltical pressure. Shame for the US government that egomanical lunatic ZLieberman counldnt help but admit it in amn orgasmic bid at self promotion as a total denier of freedom.

[KhunAussie52]

Pay pals Acceptable use policy

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
3. relate to transactions that (a) show the personal information of third parties in violation of applicable law, support pyramid or ponzi schemes, matrix programs, other "get rich quick" schemes or certain multi-level marketing programs, © are associated with purchases of real property, annuities or lottery contracts, lay-away systems, off-shore banking or transactions to finance or refinance debts funded by a credit card, (d) are for the sale of certain items before the seller has control or possession of the item (such as pre-sale items, click here to learn more), (e) are by payment processors to collect payments on behalf of merchants, (f), are associated with the following Money Service Business activities: the sale of traveler's checks or money orders, currency exchanges or cheque cashing, or (g) provide certain credit repair or debt settlement services
4. involve the sales of products or services identified by government agencies to have a high likelihood of being fraudulent
5. violate applicable laws or industry regulations regarding the sale of (a) tobacco products, or ( prescription drugs and devices
6. involve gambling, gaming and/or any other activity with an entry fee and a prize, including, but not limited to casino games, sports betting, horse or greyhound racing, lottery tickets, other ventures that facilitate gambling, games of skill (whether or not it is legally defined as a lottery) and sweepstakes unless the operator has obtained prior approval from PayPal and the operator and customers are located exclusively in jurisdictions where such activities are permitted by law.

Section 5 states that no tobacco or alcohol will be sold on Ebay.

Hers is a link to there allowed sales of cigarettes

http://collectibles....d=p3286.c0.m282

You can buy them.for collectible purposes only.....................!!!!

12.485 listings..........!!!!

section B.( drug paraphernalia,...........available on Ebay!!!!!

hypocrites!!!! :jap:

Edited December 8, 2010 by KhunAussie52

[geriatrickid]

Tableau Software admitted it was Lieberman who intimidated them into withdrawing support. Lieberman bragged it was he who forced Amazon to withdraw support. I dont think anyone is seriously going to believe the pressure didnt come from ****** (as one of the redacted to protect wikileaked cables leaves hanging exactly who killed Hariri according to US estimates;)) Not that in this case I would assume it was the same entity. The corporate sudden finding of other reasons is utterly ridiculous. The just dont want to admit to giving in to poltical pressure. Shame for the US government that egomanical lunatic ZLieberman counldnt help but admit it in amn orgasmic bid at self promotion as a total denier of freedom.

No. Let's deal with the facts and just the facts.

1. Senator Joe Lieberman in his capacity as Chairman of the U.S. Senate Homeland Committee made a public statement as to his views that he did not believe it appropriate that companies facilitate wikilekas release of confidential U.S. government information. Mr. Lieberman did not call Tableau Software, nor did he threaten anyone. He asked that companies consider the nature of the information and how it was obtained and to respond accordingly. The Senator was acting in his capacity as an elected representative of his state and was giving voice to the concerns expressed by his constituents. He had every right and I would add, a duty to speak out.

This is how democracy works. The elected representative, represents the constituents views.

2. What did Tableau actually say?

by Elissa Fink on December 2, 2010

Wednesday afternoon, Tableau Software removed data visualizations published by WikiLeaks to Tableau Public. We understand this is a sensitive issue and want to assure the public and our users that this was not an easy decision, nor one that we took lightly.

We created Tableau Publica free service that enables anyone to make interactive graphs from their data and share them onlinebecause we recognized the need for strong analytics tools in a data-driven world. Given the controversy around the WikiLeaks data, we've closely followed the debate about who actually has the rights to the leaked data.

Our terms of service require that people using Tableau Public do not upload, post, email, transmit or otherwise make available any content that they do not have the right to make available. Furthermore, if we receive a complaint about a particular set of data, we retain the right to investigate the situation and remove any offending data, if necessary.

Our decision to remove the data from our servers came in response to a public request by Senator Joe Lieberman, who chairs the Senate Homeland Security Committee, when he called for organizations hosting WikiLeaks to terminate their relationship with the website.

This will inevitably be met with mixed reaction. However, our terms of service were created to ensure responsible use of data.

Wikilieaks has not established that it had the right to transmit the confidential information that belonged to the U.S. Government. The information was stolen.

Wikileaks violated its terms of use agreement with tableau. What part of a TOU do you not understand?

Edited December 8, 2010 by geriatrickid

[TAWP]

geriatrickid>> Re-posting Tableau's lies doesn't say much for your sourcing-ability. The data used with their tools was not illegal nor copyrighted by someone else in any shape or form. If I walk into a shop and count how many red and blue shoes they have for 5 days and make a graph over that, the data is mine and the visualization is based on data that is NOT illegal or owned by someone else.

The statement is a proven lie - they didn't even verify if the data was 'stolen' or original research.

[TAWP]

Has release of Wikileaks documents cost lives?

By Katie Connolly BBC News, Washington

/../

Much of the criticism of Wikileaks, though, revolves around the notion that releasing such information risks lives.

Identities of informants could be compromised, spies exposed, and the safety of human rights activists, journalists and dissidents jeopardised when information of their activities is made public, the argument goes.

/../

On Saturday, US state department legal adviser Harold Koh wrote in a letter to Wikileaks that the most recent document dump "could place at risk the lives of countless innocent individuals" as well as "ongoing military operations".

He accused Wikileaks of endangerment "without regard to the security and the sanctity of the lives your actions endanger".

But is there any real evidence of this peril?

/../

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

Edited December 8, 2010 by TAWP

[geriatrickid]

'KhunAussie52' y ou provided the Paypal TOU and then you referenced Ebay. Although Ebay owns Paypal, they operate as two distinct companies.

You do realize that right? They have two separate and distinct mandates.

More importantly, the TOU in respect to Tobacco is because of government rules in some jurisdictions such as the USA. This is to ensure that governments collect their excise taxes. Tobacco collectibles are exempt in someU.S. jurisdictions and allowed in some international markets. If Ebay or Paypal adopted the same requirements in foreign markets you would probably be screaming about evil colonial oppressors attempting to impose their views on others.

Your post is therefore misleading and nonsense. Please try again.

Edited December 8, 2010 by geriatrickid

[geriatrickid]

geriatrickid>> Re-posting Tableau's lies doesn't say much for your sourcing-ability. The data used with their tools was not illegal nor copyrighted by someone else in any shape or form. If I walk into a shop and count how many red and blue shoes they have for 5 days and make a graph over that, the data is mine and the visualization is based on data that is NOT illegal or owned by someone else.

The statement is a proven lie - they didn't even verify if the data was 'stolen' or original research.

I note your claims that the information was not illegal. However, I suggest you read the Tableau representative's position on that.

However we do have terms of use that state a user must have rights to the data they publish. In this situation, that wasn't the case. We didn't make an editorial decision but we do respond to complaints.

That's clearcut to me.

Think about what you are saying; they didn't even verify if the data was 'stolen' or original research.

Do you expect a small organization to spend time and money verifying the data? Why is the onus on them? Why do they have to assume the burden? Wikileaks was taking advantage of a free service. Apparently Tableau's legal counsel disagrees with your assessment.

You are offering a statement that is not substantiated in law. Tell you what, maybe you are right. However, if there are legal issues that arise, are you going to reimburse Tableau for the costs of its litigation? Why do you expect Tableau to stick its neck out on this? It's a free market right? According to your views they have a right to operate their business as they see fit. that's what they have done. As well, the principals do not want to be involved with wikileaks. What are you going to do? Force them because you think they should do it? When you pay their salaries and the operating expenses over at Tableau, then you can make that business decision for them.

I am surprised at your position here. Aren't you the Libertarian that is forever saying that there should be self regulation and that the market will decide? Well, the market decided. the group paying for the resources and providing the tools said f*ckit, Wikileaks can go and mooch off of someone else. Tableau had the right to remove Wikileaks.

[KhunAussie52]

'KhunAussie52' y ou provided the Paypal TOU and then you referenced Ebay. Although Ebay owns Paypal, they operate as two distinct companies.

You do realize that right? They have two separate and distinct mandates.

More importantly, the TOU in respect to Tobacco is because of government rules in some jurisdictions such as the USA. This is to ensure that governments collect their excise taxes. Tobacco collectibles are exempt in someU.S. jurisdictions and allowed in some international markets. If Ebay or Paypal adopted the same requirements in foreign markets you would probably be screaming about evil colonial oppressors attempting to impose their views on others.

Your post is therefore misleading and nonsense. Please try again.

PayPals acceptable use policy-

https://cms.paypal.com/au/cgi-bin/?&cmd=_render-content&content_ID=ua/AcceptableUse_full&locale.x=en_AU

Ebay- acceptable use policy

http://pages.ebay.com/help/policies/items-ov.html

Both clearly state that tobacco products are banned...........amongst many others that are also sold and paid for using Pay pal!!!!

[KhunAussie52]

'KhunAussie52' y ou provided the Paypal TOU and then you referenced Ebay. Although Ebay owns Paypal, they operate as two distinct companies.

You do realize that right? They have two separate and distinct mandates.

More importantly, the TOU in respect to Tobacco is because of government rules in some jurisdictions such as the USA. This is to ensure that governments collect their excise taxes. Tobacco collectibles are exempt in someU.S. jurisdictions and allowed in some international markets. If Ebay or Paypal adopted the same requirements in foreign markets you would probably be screaming about evil colonial oppressors attempting to impose their views on others.

Your post is therefore misleading and nonsense. Please try again.

https://cms.paypal.com/au/cgi-bin/?&cmd=_render-content&content_ID=ua/AcceptableUse_full&locale.x=en_AU

http://pages.ebay.com/help/policies/items-ov.html

do some reading first!!!!:jap:

[beechguy]

'KhunAussie52' y ou provided the Paypal TOU and then you referenced Ebay. Although Ebay owns Paypal, they operate as two distinct companies.

You do realize that right? They have two separate and distinct mandates.

More importantly, the TOU in respect to Tobacco is because of government rules in some jurisdictions such as the USA. This is to ensure that governments collect their excise taxes. Tobacco collectibles are exempt in someU.S. jurisdictions and allowed in some international markets. If Ebay or Paypal adopted the same requirements in foreign markets you would probably be screaming about evil colonial oppressors attempting to impose their views on others.

Your post is therefore misleading and nonsense. Please try again.

PayPals acceptable use policy-

https://cms.paypal.c...&locale.x=en_AU

Ebay- acceptable use policy

http://pages.ebay.co...s/items-ov.html

Both clearly state that tobacco products are banned...........amongst many others that are also sold and paid for using Pay pal!!!!

Why don't you hold off posting until you know what you are talking about. It clearly states under what conditions Tobacco can be posted on the E-bay site. I didn't bother to look at the Paypal site yet, but why would I think you got that correct given your track record.

http://pages.ebay.co...es/tobacco.html

Edit to add information: I took a look at the Paypal site, the way I interpret item 5 is that you could use Paypal for tobacco if you didn't violate applicable laws or industry regulations.

Given the statement in Item 1 of the Paypal TOU, I would say they have every right to suspend service to Wikileaks. They aren't supposed to be used in violation of any law, statute, ordinance, or regulation.

Edited December 8, 2010 by beechguy

[AsiaCheese]

Visa and Mastercard have apparently suspended Wikileaks' accounts. That's totally consistent with this:

Charles Arthur, the Guardian's technology editor, points out that while MasterCard and Visa have cut WikiLeaks off you can still use those cards to donate to overtly racist organisations such as the Knights Party, which is supported by the Ku Klux Klan.

The Ku Klux Klan website directs users to a site called Christian Concepts. It takes Visa and MasterCard donations for users willing to state that they are "white and not of racially mixed descent. I am not married to a non-white. I do not date non-whites nor do I have non-white dependents. I believe in the ideals of western Christian civilisation and profess my belief in Jesus Christ as the son of God."

(source)

Amen.

[hammered]

Tableau Software admitted it was Lieberman who intimidated them into withdrawing support. Lieberman bragged it was he who forced Amazon to withdraw support. I dont think anyone is seriously going to believe the pressure didnt come from ****** (as one of the redacted to protect wikileaked cables leaves hanging exactly who killed Hariri according to US estimates;)) Not that in this case I would assume it was the same entity. The corporate sudden finding of other reasons is utterly ridiculous. The just dont want to admit to giving in to poltical pressure. Shame for the US government that egomanical lunatic ZLieberman counldnt help but admit it in amn orgasmic bid at self promotion as a total denier of freedom.

No. Let's deal with the facts and just the facts.

1. Senator Joe Lieberman in his capacity as Chairman of the U.S. Senate Homeland Committee made a public statement as to his views that he did not believe it appropriate that companies facilitate wikilekas release of confidential U.S. government information. Mr. Lieberman did not call Tableau Software, nor did he threaten anyone. He asked that companies consider the nature of the information and how it was obtained and to respond accordingly. The Senator was acting in his capacity as an elected representative of his state and was giving voice to the concerns expressed by his constituents. He had every right and I would add, a duty to speak out.

This is how democracy works. The elected representative, represents the constituents views.

2. What did Tableau actually say?

by Elissa Fink on December 2, 2010

Wednesday afternoon, Tableau Software removed data visualizations published by WikiLeaks to Tableau Public. We understand this is a sensitive issue and want to assure the public and our users that this was not an easy decision, nor one that we took lightly.

We created Tableau Public—a free service that enables anyone to make interactive graphs from their data and share them online—because we recognized the need for strong analytics tools in a data-driven world. Given the controversy around the WikiLeaks data, we've closely followed the debate about who actually has the rights to the leaked data.

Our terms of service require that people using Tableau Public do not upload, post, email, transmit or otherwise make available any content that they do not have the right to make available. Furthermore, if we receive a complaint about a particular set of data, we retain the right to investigate the situation and remove any offending data, if necessary.

Our decision to remove the data from our servers came in response to a public request by Senator Joe Lieberman, who chairs the Senate Homeland Security Committee, when he called for organizations hosting WikiLeaks to terminate their relationship with the website.

This will inevitably be met with mixed reaction. However, our terms of service were created to ensure responsible use of data.

Wikilieaks has not established that it had the right to transmit the confidential information that belonged to the U.S. Government. The information was stolen.

Wikileaks violated its terms of use agreement with tableau. What part of a TOU do you not understand?

Thank you for showing the bit whwere they stated they did it in response to Lieberman;) No need to be insulting;) Peace.

Is there really anyone who doesnt think US government pressure isnt casuing a sudden rash of cancellations with wikileaks? Is there anyone that naive? Anyway thanks for posting the verification, I was busy in a meeting and didnt have time to find it myself.

[TAWP]

geriatrickid>> Re-posting Tableau's lies doesn't say much for your sourcing-ability. The data used with their tools was not illegal nor copyrighted by someone else in any shape or form. If I walk into a shop and count how many red and blue shoes they have for 5 days and make a graph over that, the data is mine and the visualization is based on data that is NOT illegal or owned by someone else.

The statement is a proven lie - they didn't even verify if the data was 'stolen' or original research.

I note your claims that the information was not illegal. However, I suggest you read the Tableau representative's position on that.

However we do have terms of use that state a user must have rights to the data they publish. In this situation, that wasn't the case. We didn't make an editorial decision but we do respond to complaints.

That's clearcut to me.

Think about what you are saying; they didn't even verify if the data was 'stolen' or original research.

Do you expect a small organization to spend time and money verifying the data? Why is the onus on them? Why do they have to assume the burden? Wikileaks was taking advantage of a free service. Apparently Tableau's legal counsel disagrees with your assessment.

You are offering a statement that is not substantiated in law. Tell you what, maybe you are right. However, if there are legal issues that arise, are you going to reimburse Tableau for the costs of its litigation? Why do you expect Tableau to stick its neck out on this? It's a free market right? According to your views they have a right to operate their business as they see fit. that's what they have done. As well, the principals do not want to be involved with wikileaks. What are you going to do? Force them because you think they should do it? When you pay their salaries and the operating expenses over at Tableau, then you can make that business decision for them.

I am surprised at your position here. Aren't you the Libertarian that is forever saying that there should be self regulation and that the market will decide? Well, the market decided. the group paying for the resources and providing the tools said f*ckit, Wikileaks can go and mooch off of someone else. Tableau had the right to remove Wikileaks.

Please try to actually read my post before trying to refute it using the same incorrect statement again.

Yes, I am well aware of what Tableau wrote in their post. And as I mention above, is incorrect and a lie. To repost the 'fact' is to further perpetuate that lie.

Read this again: The information used to render the visualization is not illegal nor owned by anyone other than the representative that put it together and used the tool.

You will find no lawyer that successfully can argue otherwise.

Yes, ofcourse Tableau should - and add it to their EULA - have the right to remove any free user if they are taxing the companies bandwidth too much etc. I didn't say that they don't have a right to remove them. They have. And we have a right to protest and boycott when the reason they give is false [possibly slanderous] and not honest.

That is a customers right. Past or future.

[philw]

Visa and Mastercard have apparently suspended Wikileaks' accounts. That's totally consistent with this:

Charles Arthur, the Guardian's technology editor, points out that while MasterCard and Visa have cut WikiLeaks off you can still use those cards to donate to overtly racist organisations such as the Knights Party, which is supported by the Ku Klux Klan.

The Ku Klux Klan website directs users to a site called Christian Concepts. It takes Visa and MasterCard donations for users willing to state that they are "white and not of racially mixed descent. I am not married to a non-white. I do not date non-whites nor do I have non-white dependents. I believe in the ideals of western Christian civilisation and profess my belief in Jesus Christ as the son of God."

(source)

Amen.

Nice one.

Well spotted and thank you.

Assange has done a public service and instead of being vilified should be applauded.

We are entitled to know what our assumed lords and masters think.

Information is a two way street.

[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.

[philw]

Rudd is right.

Might be rare, but at least a breath of truth.........

[moetownblues]

Don't shoot messenger for revealing uncomfortable truths

• Julian Assange
• From: The Australian
• December 08, 2010 12:00AM

• 

Elizabeth Cook's artist impression of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange's appearance at Westminster Magistrates Court in London, where he was denied bail after appearing on an extradition warrant. Source: AP

WIKILEAKS deserves protection, not threats and attacks.

IN 1958 a young Rupert Murdoch, then owner and editor of Adelaide's The News, wrote: "In the race between secrecy and truth, it seems inevitable that truth will always win."

His observation perhaps reflected his father Keith Murdoch's expose that Australian troops were being needlessly sacrificed by incompetent British commanders on the shores of Gallipoli. The British tried to shut him up but Keith Murdoch would not be silenced and his efforts led to the termination of the disastrous Gallipoli campaign.

Nearly a century later, WikiLeaks is also fearlessly publishing facts that need to be made public.

I grew up in a Queensland country town where people spoke their minds bluntly. They distrusted big government as something that could be corrupted if not watched carefully. The dark days of corruption in the Queensland government before the Fitzgerald inquiry are testimony to what happens when the politicians gag the media from reporting the truth.

Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.

End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.

These things have stayed with me. WikiLeaks was created around these core values. The idea, conceived in Australia, was to use internet technologies in new ways to report the truth.

WikiLeaks coined a new type of journalism: scientific journalism. We work with other media outlets to bring people the news, but also to prove it is true. Scientific journalism allows you to read a news story, then to click online to see the original document it is based on. That way you can judge for yourself: Is the story true? Did the journalist report it accurately?

Democratic societies need a strong media and WikiLeaks is part of that media. The media helps keep government honest. WikiLeaks has revealed some hard truths about the Iraq and Afghan wars, and broken stories about corporate corruption.

People have said I am anti-war: for the record, I am not. Sometimes nations need to go to war, and there are just wars. But there is nothing more wrong than a government lying to its people about those wars, then asking these same citizens to put their lives and their taxes on the line for those lies. If a war is justified, then tell the truth and the people will decide whether to support it.

If you have read any of the Afghan or Iraq war logs, any of the US embassy cables or any of the stories about the things WikiLeaks has reported, consider how important it is for all media to be able to report these things freely.

WikiLeaks is not the only publisher of the US embassy cables. Other media outlets, including Britain's The Guardian, The New York Times, El Pais in Spain and Der Spiegel in Germany have published the same redacted cables.

Yet it is WikiLeaks, as the co-ordinator of these other groups, that has copped the most vicious attacks and accusations from the US government and its acolytes. I have been accused of treason, even though I am an Australian, not a US, citizen. There have been dozens of serious calls in the US for me to be "taken out" by US special forces. Sarah Palin says I should be "hunted down like Osama bin Laden", a Republican bill sits before the US Senate seeking to have me declared a "transnational threat" and disposed of accordingly. An adviser to the Canadian Prime Minister's office has called on national television for me to be assassinated. An American blogger has called for my 20-year-old son, here in Australia, to be kidnapped and harmed for no other reason than to get at me.

And Australians should observe with no pride the disgraceful pandering to these sentiments by Julia Gillard and her government. The powers of the Australian government appear to be fully at the disposal of the US as to whether to cancel my Australian passport, or to spy on or harass WikiLeaks supporters. The Australian Attorney-General is doing everything he can to help a US investigation clearly directed at framing Australian citizens and shipping them to the US.

Prime Minister Gillard and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have not had a word of criticism for the other media organisations. That is because The Guardian, The New York Times and Der Spiegel are old and large, while WikiLeaks is as yet young and small.

We are the underdogs. The Gillard government is trying to shoot the messenger because it doesn't want the truth revealed, including information about its own diplomatic and political dealings.

Has there been any response from the Australian government to the numerous public threats of violence against me and other WikiLeaks personnel? One might have thought an Australian prime minister would be defending her citizens against such things, but there have only been wholly unsubstantiated claims of illegality. The Prime Minister and especially the Attorney-General are meant to carry out their duties with dignity and above the fray. Rest assured, these two mean to save their own skins. They will not.

Every time WikiLeaks publishes the truth about abuses committed by US agencies, Australian politicians chant a provably false chorus with the State Department: "You'll risk lives! National security! You'll endanger troops!" Then they say there is nothing of importance in what WikiLeaks publishes. It can't be both. Which is it?

It is neither. WikiLeaks has a four-year publishing history. During that time we have changed whole governments, but not a single person, as far as anyone is aware, has been harmed. But the US, with Australian government connivance, has killed thousands in the past few months alone.

US Secretary of Defence Robert Gates admitted in a letter to the US congress that no sensitive intelligence sources or methods had been compromised by the Afghan war logs disclosure. The Pentagon stated there was no evidence the WikiLeaks reports had led to anyone being harmed in Afghanistan. NATO in Kabul told CNN it couldn't find a single person who needed protecting. The Australian Department of Defence said the same. No Australian troops or sources have been hurt by anything we have published.

But our publications have been far from unimportant. The US diplomatic cables reveal some startling facts:

► The US asked its diplomats to steal personal human material and information from UN officials and human rights groups, including DNA, fingerprints, iris scans, credit card numbers, internet passwords and ID photos, in violation of international treaties. Presumably Australian UN diplomats may be targeted, too.

► King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia asked the US to attack Iran.

► Officials in Jordan and Bahrain want Iran's nuclear program stopped by any means available.

► Britain's Iraq inquiry was fixed to protect "US interests".

► Sweden is a covert member of NATO and US intelligence sharing is kept from parliament.

► The US is playing hardball to get other countries to take freed detainees from Guantanamo Bay. Barack Obama agreed to meet the Slovenian President only if Slovenia took a prisoner. Our Pacific neighbour Kiribati was offered millions of dollars to accept detainees.

In its landmark ruling in the Pentagon Papers case, the US Supreme Court said "only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government". The swirling storm around WikiLeaks today reinforces the need to defend the right of all media to reveal the truth.

Julian Assange is the editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks.

[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

Edited December 8, 2010 by KhunAussie52

[geriatrickid]

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

Of course not. It is because he was unable to meet the conditions for bail. Had he answered the judge's simple questions in an honest and forthright manner, it would have helped The fact that he was an undocumented entrant to the UK wasn't inhis favour as well.

[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

Edited December 8, 2010 by KhunAussie52

[mark45y]

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.

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.

[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

Of course not. It is because he was unable to meet the conditions for bail. Had he answered the judge's simple questions in an honest and forthright manner, it would have helped The fact that he was an undocumented entrant to the UK wasn't inhis favour as well.

He would have had to provide an address when entering the U.K

Scotland yard new he was staying in the South east of the country

For the record,what are his conditions of bale?

[geriatrickid]

geriatrickid>> Re-posting Tableau's lies doesn't say much for your sourcing-ability. The data used with their tools was not illegal nor copyrighted by someone else in any shape or form. If I walk into a shop and count how many red and blue shoes they have for 5 days and make a graph over that, the data is mine and the visualization is based on data that is NOT illegal or owned by someone else.

The statement is a proven lie - they didn't even verify if the data was 'stolen' or original research.

I note your claims that the information was not illegal. However, I suggest you read the Tableau representative's position on that.

However we do have terms of use that state a user must have rights to the data they publish. In this situation, that wasn't the case. We didn't make an editorial decision but we do respond to complaints.

That's clearcut to me.

Think about what you are saying; they didn't even verify if the data was 'stolen' or original research.

Do you expect a small organization to spend time and money verifying the data? Why is the onus on them? Why do they have to assume the burden? Wikileaks was taking advantage of a free service. Apparently Tableau's legal counsel disagrees with your assessment.

You are offering a statement that is not substantiated in law. Tell you what, maybe you are right. However, if there are legal issues that arise, are you going to reimburse Tableau for the costs of its litigation? Why do you expect Tableau to stick its neck out on this? It's a free market right? According to your views they have a right to operate their business as they see fit. that's what they have done. As well, the principals do not want to be involved with wikileaks. What are you going to do? Force them because you think they should do it? When you pay their salaries and the operating expenses over at Tableau, then you can make that business decision for them.

I am surprised at your position here. Aren't you the Libertarian that is forever saying that there should be self regulation and that the market will decide? Well, the market decided. the group paying for the resources and providing the tools said f*ckit, Wikileaks can go and mooch off of someone else. Tableau had the right to remove Wikileaks.

Please try to actually read my post before trying to refute it using the same incorrect statement again.

Yes, I am well aware of what Tableau wrote in their post. And as I mention above, is incorrect and a lie. To repost the 'fact' is to further perpetuate that lie.

Read this again: The information used to render the visualization is not illegal nor owned by anyone other than the representative that put it together and used the tool.

You will find no lawyer that successfully can argue otherwise.

Yes, ofcourse Tableau should - and add it to their EULA - have the right to remove any free user if they are taxing the companies bandwidth too much etc. I didn't say that they don't have a right to remove them. They have. And we have a right to protest and boycott when the reason they give is false [possibly slanderous] and not honest.

That is a customers right. Past or future.

I did read the passages you say I did not read. You claim that Tableau's position is a lie and incorrect. You have provided your unqualified legal opinion and have not acknowledged the legal implications. The legal counsel that advised Tableau disagrees with you. Are you going to reimburse Tableau for its defense costs when it is sued for its involvement? That's the issue. It's great that you call Tableau liars and incorrect, but where is your legal brief to show otherwise. You are asking Tableau to accept the risk of not acting to defend its asset. I bet that many people here complaining about business decisions do not have a business or their own assets at risk. If you disagree, that is your right. Take the risk with your own assets.

Edited December 8, 2010 by geriatrickid

[KhunAussie52]

(Belga) The Swedish prosecutor in charge of the investigation of rape against the founder of Wikileaks Julian Assange, arrested Tuesday in London, assured that she had no intention of extraditing the Australian to the U.S. once in Sweden.

"I have not issued a European arrest warrant against him to be extradited to the United States," said Marianne Attorney Ny Tuesday during a press conference in Gothenburg in the southwest Sweden, according to news agency TT. "The criminal investigation has nothing to do with Wikileaks. It is concerned he (Assange) personally," she also said, according to the newspaper Aftonbladet. Sunday, Mrs. Ny had told AFP that Julian Assange could not be extradited from Sweden to the United States while his case was referred by the Swedish judicial procedure. The Swedish Bar Association and British-Australian have all said they would oppose any attempt to extradite from the United Kingdom. Julian Assange, 39, is the subject of an international arrest warrant issued by Sweden for cases of "rape, sexual assault and coercion" committed on two women, facts that have occurred in the Nordic countries August. (MPK)

Translated using Google

from french

http://www.skynet.be/actu-sports/actu/detail_assange-procureur-suedois-assure-quelle-veut-pas-lexpulser-aux-usa?id=731494

[Ulysses G.]

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

If you think that left-wing bomb throwers like John Pilger are "rich and famous", you might think that they can defend him against charges of espionage too.

[mark45y]

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?

[KhunAussie52]

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

If you think that left-wing bomb throwers like John Pilger are "rich and famous", you might think that they can defend him against charges of espionage too.

I do not think he is leaving the UK. Based on the latest reports.

The US cannot have him.

And will not succeed in having him extradited to the US.

[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?

[mark45y]

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.