shuiend

iTrader: (24)

Amazon will not host wikileaks on their cloud network, but Amazon UK sure are hell will sell the wikileaks on their kindle device.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B...ce-full-site=1

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

Politicians who act morally and tell the truth do not need to fear the media.

shuiend

iTrader: (24)

Ohh **** the most damaging information to come out from Wikileaks so far.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

hahha.

kotomile

iTrader: (24)

I'm seeing classification markings on mt...

My mind must be playing tricks on me.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

You know, as I was reading through the header on that, I was actually thinking to myself "****, where can I relocate this post to, offsite, such that it's accessible (so that I can't be accused of censorship by all you lonely, homosexual deviants) and yet this forum is still safe for folks who actually have a clearance?"

Then I LOLed.

shuiend

iTrader: (24)

I saw it this morning and I immediately burst out laughing and knew I had to post it. It is by far one of the best use of a meme I have ever seen.

Godless Commie

iTrader: (2)

Here's a mail I received today:


Dear friends,

The massive campaign of intimidation against WikiLeaks is sending a chill through free press advocates everywhere.

Legal experts say WikiLeaks has likely broken no laws. Yet top US politicians have called it a terrorist group and commentators have urged assassination of its staff. The organization has come under massive government and corporate attack, but WikiLeaks is only publishing information provided by a whistleblower. And it has partnered with the world's leading newspapers (NYT, Guardian, Spiegel etc) to carefully vet the information it publishes.

The massive extra-judicial intimidation of WikiLeaks is an attack on democracy. We urgently need a public outcry for freedom of the press and expression. Sign the petition to stop the crackdown and forward this email to everyone -- let's get to 1 million voices and take out full page ads in US newspapers this week!

http://www.avaaz.org/en/wikileaks_petition/97.php

WikiLeaks isn't acting alone -- it's partnered with the top newspapers in the world (New York Times, The Guardian, Der Spiegel, etc) to carefully review 250,000 US diplomatic cables and remove any information that it is irresponsible to publish. Only 800 cables have been published so far. Past WikiLeaks publications have exposed government-backed torture, the murder of innocent civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, and corporate corruption.

The US government is currently pursuing all legal avenues it has to stop WikiLeaks from publishing more cables, but the laws of democracies protect freedom of the press. The US and other governments may not like the laws that protect our freedom of expression, but that's exactly why it's so important that we have them, and why only a democratic process can change them.

Reasonable people can disagree on whether WikiLeaks and the leading newspapers it's partnered with are releasing more information than the public should see. Whether the releases undermine diplomatic confidentiality and whether that's a good thing. Whether WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has the personal character of a hero or a villain. But none of this justifies a vicious campaign of intimidation to silence a legal media outlet by governments and corporations. Click below to join the call to stop the crackdown:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/wikileaks_petition/97.php

Ever wonder why the media so rarely gives the full story of what happens behind the scenes? This is why - because when they do, governments can be vicious in their response. And when that happens, it's up to the public to stand up for our democratic rights to a free press and freedom of expression. Never has there been a more vital time for us to do so.

With hope,
Ricken, Emma, Alex, Alice, Maria Paz and the rest of the Avaaz team.

SOURCES:

Law experts say WikiLeaks in the clear (ABC)
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/con...0/s3086781.htm

WikiLeaks are a bunch of terrorists, says leading U.S. congressman (Mail Online)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...eter-King.html

Cyber guerrillas can help US (Financial Times)
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d3dd7c40-f...#axzz17QvQ4Ht5

Amazon drops WikiLeaks under political pressure (Yahoo)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101201...congressamazon

"WikiLeaks avenged by hacktivists" (PC World):
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscente...cktivists.html

US Gov shows true control over Internet with WikiLeaks containment (Tippett.org)
http://www.tippett.org/2010/12/us-go...s-containment/

US embassy cables culprit should be executed, says Mike Huckabee (The Guardian)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010...-mike-huckabee

WikiLeaks ditched by MasterCard, Visa. Who's next? (The Christian Science Monitor)
http://www.csmonitor.com/Innovation/...sa.-Who-s-next

Assange's Interpol Warrant Is for Having Sex Without a Condom (The Slatest)
http://slatest.slate.com/id/2276690/


FYI, I did sign the said petition.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

Wikileaks has no legal authority in publishing our classified documents. This is not freedom of the press, not even close.

KPLAFIN

iTrader: (1)

Not to mention the fact that the guy isn't an American, therefore has no rights guaranteed to him in the Constitution regarding freedom of speech.

kotomile

iTrader: (24)

"Oh, gee, Wikileaks only publishes what's given to them by "whistleblowers". Hurr."

If I had a nickel for every time I'd rolled my eyes at that argument...

Wikileaks set up a site for the sole purpose of encouraging others to release sensitive information. It's not like they're a newspaper that just happens across something classified from time to time, they seek it out, that's what sets them apart, that's what earned them their "intimidation".

kotomile

iTrader: (24)

Would you have if Wikileaks had published something to damage your country?

Oh, that's right, nothing corrupt happens outside of the US, America is the devil, etc.

Godless Commie

iTrader: (2)

I am a US citizen.
The US is my country as much as it is yours.

For the record, I definitely endorse airing the dirty laundry of a bunch of corrupt ********.

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

Your argument is, actually, completely incorrect.

Wikileaks does have the "legal authority" to publish all of the sensitive data they have received, even the most damaging.

It is not illegal to publish classified information, it is only illegal to leak it. Wikileaks didn't leak it.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

Is it?

Serious question, because I honestly don't know.

I do know that just even if classified information has been divulged, it retains its classification. I would think, therefore, that any subsequent retransmission would be criminalized to the same degree as the original leak.

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

Only the person originally leaking it is doing anything illegal under current law, Joe. And I am being completely serious.

People bandy about things with "OMG, Classified info!", but no.

The only reason it is illegal for the leaker to leak it is because they signed certain contracts/documents to not leak it - you can't get access to them without signing these. For that matter, Wikileaks signed nothing, only the leaker did.

Frankly, the government threatening people that read them is probably illegal, but would be almost impossible for someone to take them to court over. They'd have to prove certain things that they couldn't.

(Edit) Let's say that Ensign Brad leaks a document to the NYT. The NYT publishes it. The NYT is fine, Brad broke laws and contracts.
Let's say that Ensign Brad publishes a document. Brad broke the law.

That's what it comes down to. Only the person leaking it is doing anything illegal, and that's due to what is required to get clearance. All of the laws related to classified material and policies follow this arrangement. After the info has been leaked, it's free game. (Edit2) So long as the further retransmission of it is from the NYT, in the example I gave above. It is STILL illegal to leak it again, even if it has already been leaked once.

turotufas

iTrader: (7)

Accomplice.

That word goes a long way.

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

Tell me, Turotufas. And be honest with what I am asking, please.

Why do you think the government was throwing absolutely insane charges at Assange? Treason, being a good example? It is impossible for Assange to engage in treason, he's NOT a US citizen. This is a legitimate question, btw - why do you think the US govt is throwing around any charge they can lay their hands on at Assange, instead of making charges against him and getting him extradited?

What Wikileaks did was perfectly legal under current law. It has been legal since the 1800's and is a part of well-founded law with an enormous amounts of precedents.

People are attacking Wikileaks for what journalists have been doing since the late 1700s in the US, at least. If not earlier. Ultimately, the government is attacking journalists by attacking Wikileaks. People may not agree with what Wikileaks did, but by siding against them, you are sending a message to our journalists, "TOE THE LINE!" This is not a good thing.

KPLAFIN

iTrader: (1)

Its the fact that the site was developed solely for the purpose of publishing leaked classified documents with the intent to damage the United States Government. That being said, in a time of war, that is an ACT OF WAR, and therefore punishable as such. While it may not "technically" be illegal, if you don't think that it's immoral or you think that it should continue to be up without any repercussions you're lieing to yourself, an idiot, or both.

shuiend

iTrader: (24)

The site was not "developed solely for the purpose of publishing leaked classified documents with the intent to damage the United States Government", it has been around since something like 2006 and has leaked documents for a ton of different governments around the world. It just happens that right now it looks like Manning stole a lot of classified documents about the USA and that is what wikileaks is publishing. Do not think that they do not publish classified information about other governments.