Wikileaks Donations Account Shut Down 725
Scrameustache writes "The whistleblowing group WikiLeaks claims that it has had its funding blocked and that it is the victim of financial warfare by the US government. Moneybookers, a British-registered internet payment company that collects WikiLeaks donations, emailed the organisation to say it had closed down its account because it had been put on an official US watchlist and on an Australian government blacklist. The apparent blacklisting came a few days after the Pentagon publicly expressed its anger at WikiLeaks and its founder, Australian citizen Julian Assange, for obtaining thousands of classified military documents about the war in Afghanistan."
Re:How should people help wikileaks? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:"Official US Watchlist" (Score:2, Informative)
FYI
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/nsb/tsc/tsc_faqs [fbi.gov]
Re:"Official US Watchlist" (Score:4, Informative)
One possibility is the SDN list: http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/sdn/ [ustreas.gov]
Re:I dont feel sorry for Wikileaks (Score:5, Informative)
Im not totally on Wikileaks side because they didn't take enough care to protect peoples names in the content they released.
They held back 15 thousand pages to protect people's names while they tried to sort through them. Google it.
They asked the pentagon to tell them which name to remove, the pentagon told them to go to hell.
Its one thing to release content for the world to see but its another thing to get people killed by releasing it with out at least removing names.
They did remove names, and they got no one killed. Try to find someone they got killed: You can't. The people who said they were gonna get people killed are the people who actively do indeed actually kill real people, have been for years, plan on doing it for years still. They fed you FUD, and you ate it all up.
That totally turned me off from Wikileaks.
Mission accomplished.
Re:Citation Needed (Score:2, Informative)
Information is also classified when you want to perform atrocities or "its not good for morale", or its dissemination will cause the main plan not to work.
It is specifically against the law to classify something for such a reason.
There are legal procedures to have such things declassified.
Assange didn't want to go through those procedures, because it wouldn't make him famous. He's finding out that he made a mistake in choosing fame over doing the right thing.
Re:How should people help wikileaks? (Score:4, Informative)
It still would be shut down. That and they would flat out lie if such documents revealed trumped up evidence (WMDs?), coverups (Pat Tillman, Jessica Lynch), outright lawbreaking (Ilario Pantano shooting two detained Iraqis, Abu Ghraib torture), and suspicious circumstances (billions of dollars in cash sent to Iraq and can't be accounted for).
Re:How should people help wikileaks? (Score:5, Informative)
a problem with pogo.org is they are in inside the US.. so they are subject to National Security letters and gag orders.. if they had gone there - none of this stuff would have made the light of day except as a rumor before it was shut down.
Re:I dont feel sorry for Wikileaks (Score:5, Informative)
My feeling exactly. Wikileaks has conflated the public "right to know" with an imaginary "need to know," and decided that this right is more important than the lives of the people named in the documents. IMAO, they've consistently shown a complete lack of common sense and a reckless disregard for the danger they're exposing people to.
You obviously don't know that they held back fifteen thousand pages because they contained names that ma or may not be innocent people. You hate them for something they're not guilty of. You've been successfully manipulated by well crafted propaganda, but don't feel bad, it happens to millions of people every day.
Yes, we all know of times when things have been classified because that's the easiest way to cover up mistakes, and things like that deserve leaking, but leaking the names and locations of people who are helping the US to fight terrorists is Simply Wrong.
And that is why wikileaks did not do that, but the pentagon says they did. So you'll hate them and refuse to listen. And it works sooooo well.
Re:Good riddance to wikilinks! (Score:4, Informative)
Reading, sharing, and publishing classified information is not against the law unless you have a security clearance. Obviously the classified documents passed into the public domain by someone who obtained them by having the proper clearance, and that person (those people) are the ones that should be punished for the release. And if someone without clearance broke into the place where they were stored, they may be guilty of burglary or theft, but the person who failed to physically secure the docs is responsible for the unlawful dissemination of classified information.
If you don't have a security clearance, you are not bound by the rules governing their access. Your access is the result of someone with a clearance (and thus bound by the rules) failing to secure them.
It's like if I reveal trade secrets to someone not employed by my company, they are under no obligation to prevent the spread of those secrets. Since I am employed by that company, I am responsible.
WikiLeaks is doing nothing wrong. They are acting honorably.
Re:Uh (Score:1, Informative)
Wasn't there some hoohah about someone in the US government releasing details concerning an active undercover agent? What's good for the goose and all that.
Re:Uh (Score:4, Informative)
That sort of information is redacted by Wikileaks. This is the main reason it takes them so long to release information after it has been given to them.
Re:Uh (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Good riddance to wikilinks! (Score:5, Informative)
Regardless of what you might think, the US law doesn't apply worldwide.
Re:Good riddance to wikilinks! (Score:3, Informative)
there was such a rush to publicize them without proper redaction and editing. PROVE to me that
You're spreading FUD. Read this instead:
A lawyer representing the whistle-blowing Web site WikiLeaks says
U.S. government officials have been given codes and passwords granting them online access to official U.S. government documents that WikiLeaks so far has not published. [newsweek.com]
Timothy Matusheski, a lawyer from Hattiesburg, Miss., who says he represents whistle-blowers and has been in touch with both WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and at least one government official involved in investigations of WikiLeaks, said the site had set up a “secure channel” through which authorized users could access the unpublished material. He said credentials for using this channel had been forwarded to representatives of the U.S. government whom he did not identify. Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Re:The even sweeter irony (Score:3, Informative)
Mirror: http://mirror.wikileaks.info/ [wikileaks.info]
To add a bit about blowback (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The sweet irony (Score:4, Informative)
Ah, dreams of my youth, when did you wither away?
For me, about the same time I found out that Margaret Thatcher didn't want the Berlin Wall to come down [timesonline.co.uk].
"Even 20 years later, her remarks are likely to cause uproar. They are all the more explosive as she admitted that what she said was quite different from the West’s public pronouncements and official Nato communiqués. She told Mr Gorbachev that he should pay no attention to these.
“We do not want a united Germany,” she said. “This would lead to a change to postwar borders, and we cannot allow that because such a development would undermine the stability of the whole international situation and could endanger our security.” "
Mrs Thatcher - TEAR DOWN THIS WALL!
Re:Uh (Score:5, Informative)
There was no names nor pictures leaked... WikiLeaks actually went through the reports as best they could to censor that kind of information.
But go ahead, troll harder for the great of America.
Re:How should people help wikileaks? (Score:1, Informative)
Indeed, the National Security letters which are secret and you can't even disclose you received one (let alone what for) could suggest that pogo.org is much like pogo.com: fun and games and no damage. Circumstantial evidence is that this is the first time I heard of pogo.org and that I haven't seen government officials with foam on their mouths screaming that pogo.org is 'irresponsible' (after being caught with their pants down).
After all the hullabaloo around Iraq/Afghanistan, I hope wikileaks can go back to the roots and get documents out about the big ole megacorps in banking, energy, communications, chemistry/pharmaceuticals, etc. (which, assuming from the name, pogo.org does not cover).
Re:Uh (Score:2, Informative)
Cry me a fucking river.
We don't belong in Afghanistan.
Re:Uh (Score:4, Informative)
e-lic-it/i`lisit/Verb
1. Evoke or draw out (a response or fact) from someone by actions or questions: "their moves elicit exclamations of approval".
2. Draw forth (something that is latent or potential) into existence: "war elicits all that is bad in us".
il-lic-it/i`lisit/
Adjective: Forbidden by law, rules, or custom: "illicit drugs"; "illicit sex".
Re:Uh (Score:5, Informative)
For Christ's sake all the US Govt did was put him on a watch list
No, the LATEST thing the US did was put them on watchlists, causing them to lose access to their money. It's not the only thing they've done.
Re:Uh (Score:2, Informative)
Extraordinary rendition by the United States [wikipedia.org]
Wikileaks held back fifteen thousand pages! (Score:5, Informative)
AIUI, those documents contain the names of people in Afghanistan who are giving information to the US. Publishing the documents without redacting the names tells the Taliban exactly who to kill. Does that answer your question?
Publishing the names without redacting them WOULD HAVE told the Taliban who to kill. But they DID REDACT AS MANY NAMES AS THEY COULD.
Re:Uh (Score:5, Informative)
Fact check:
wikileaks did not facilitate the theft of a large number of confidential military documents.
wikileaks facilitated the distribution of a large number of confidential military documents that had been stolen.
Re:Citation Needed (Score:5, Informative)
This is what the source of the information should have done. Instead of burning a CD and sneaking it out, he should have gone to the Inspector General at the level above the unit that had the illegally classified information and reported its existence.
You are so, so very naive: After word leaked that one soldier (presumably Winfield) had spoken to military police, several platoon members retaliated. They confronted the informant and beat him severely - punching, kicking and choking him, then dragging him across the ground. As a last warning, Gibbs menacingly waved finger bones he had collected from Afghan corpses. [whistleblower.org]
Re:Uh (Score:2, Informative)
Re:To add a bit about blowback (Score:2, Informative)
We not only didn't do anything about it, it later turned out that the U.S. was an official advisor for the program which has been claimed to have killed over 100k people though 60k is the more commonly cited number.
The message was clear and influential in my education as I am sure it has been for others. Any accusation may be shown to be true at any time against an organization of a certain size, but the U.S. government on balance is the nearest thing to a global 'final solution' actor since the U.S.S.R. went down.
The saddest part is it seems there are many people that honestly believe it is within our rights to organize and empower political holocaust. I can only hope hell is real, because pacifism is my dedication here on earth so I won't ever get the chance to show these punks what *I* learned from Artichoke & Paperclip. Now if only they would stop trotting out all the things they learned from the Nazis we might be able to get somewhere.
Re:Uh (Score:2, Informative)
I live and volunteer overseas (Middle East) with an American missionary program. My bank, a CU, has denied me access to my own money because I live in a country that has connections to terrorism. When pushed about it they first replied that it was due to the US laws making it illegal to do business there...yet larger banks and financial companies (Visa, HSBC, AmEx, Wachovia/Suntrust, Bank of America, etc) were not being blocked, I know this because I know other Americans that hold accounts with those companies. So I pushed this and they said it was illegal and they were prohibited and couldn't speak for larger banks. I researched the "law" they claimed and it did mention something about financial transactions in said country, but it didn't block it. There was a specific watch list of people and organizations that were blocked but the entire country wasn't. My host country also has a reputation as a hotbed for fraud so that was also mentioned.
In the long run I figured out that the CU just didn't want to take the risk and used some law related to terrorism to block all transactions (legal and legit) to, from, and within this country. I moved all but the min. money from my accounts and opened a new account at an American Mega Bank that does allow business here. If the CU is going to prevent me from having access to my money AND LIE about the reasons they deserve to not have my business. I'd close the account down completely but I've had it for too long.
The financial institution in the story here likely wants to get rid of as much risk as it can and distance itself from companies or individuals the US and other places are upset with.
Re:Uh (Score:5, Informative)
Have you seen the process for a FOIA request? You need to know the exact title and location of the document that you want. You can't just ask for documents relating to the cover-up of the bombing of a wedding party, you need to ask for US Army Action Report 172047a, CIA Predator Flight 2491 Operator Transcripts, and NATO After Action Report 1772-Q42. If the information that you actually need is in Flight 2490 Operator Transcript instead you need to start the process all over again (if you ever find out where it really is). Making things worse, generally the indexes themselves are classified, and if you manage to get access to one it will be so highly redacted as to be useless.
Re:Uh (Score:4, Informative)
Seems to me the US military has been whining on an epic level compared to WikiLeaks... Except you probably don't see it as whining.
Re:To add a bit about blowback (Score:1, Informative)
And Bin Laden was trained by US forces as a weapon against Russia. Starting to see a pattern here?
Re:Uh (Score:3, Informative)
Bullshit, RTFA. Wikileaks was put on a blacklist, so Moneybookers decided to stop doing business with them. The US never contacted Moneybookers and did not put them on a watchlist. They are free to do business with anyone they want, but chose not to do business with a blacklisted Wikileaks. It's akin to Bob getting detention and Fred deciding not to hang out with him anymore.
They could be lying, but then we're just playing conspiracy games and anything could be correct.
-John
Re:To add a bit about blowback (Score:3, Informative)
Re:To add a bit about blowback (Score:3, Informative)
HE wasn't but enough others in Afganistan were to come back and bite us. At least Charlie Wilson lived long enough to know that he will burn in hell with the blood of US troops on his hands for that bit of stupidity.
Actually, we knowingly trained lots of his people. But that aside, we also funded him, under the hand of Bush we sent a BILLION dollars to the Taliban to "halt heroin production" which happened for one year (a little less actually) and then it picked up not just where it left off, but with most of what was not supposed to be produced any more but which had clearly simply been stockpiled being released as well. Interestingly the Bush family made its initial fortune by funding Hitler's S.S. The more things change...