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."
How should people help wikileaks? (Score:4, Interesting)
"Official US Watchlist" (Score:1, Interesting)
Plenty of stories repeat this "official US watchlist" phrase, but without providing details. What watchlist? What's it called? How does it work?
Breaking the Stalemate? (Score:5, Interesting)
At this point its just pointless bickering, if this guy releases the rest of what he's got, the US will have no real interest in him anymore I would think - because even if he 'mysteriously dies when his server mysteriously explodes', the copies of the document would have still been spread around like wildfire.
Re:Breaking the Stalemate? (Score:4, Interesting)
The sweet irony (Score:5, Interesting)
It is funny (and, in a way sad) that the same country that sponsored all those radio stations I used to listen to as a young girl for (freedom-)free information during the Cold war years from behind the Iron curtain is now trying to stomp out a website that does exactly the same.
Ah, dreams of my youth, when did you wither away?
Re:Wikileaks puts lives at risk (Score:1, Interesting)
I have served as an intelligence analyst for 9 years and I know with 100% certainty that the parent post is correct.
99.9% of the time, information is classified in order to protect a source (human, etc). I am amazed by the ignorance of people's analysis of the data that wikileaked poured out -- they are completely missing the point.
Wikileaks actions WILL get innocent people killed.
The even sweeter irony (Score:3, Interesting)
I have noticed that the US government is really taking the wrong approach to this, personally, whenever I hear about wikileaks in the news I always go and browse there for a while (and if I had the cash I'm donate), but otherwise I honestly don't even remember its there.
Re:Wikileaks puts lives at risk (Score:3, Interesting)
They released documents that put Afghan civilians and US troops at risk.
War puts lives at risk. If anything negative actually happened as a result of the release, well, [citation needed]. And if it's not a primary source, [citation needed] all the way down until it goes no farther, and then we can evaluate the legitimacy of the information.
This isn't protecting democracy, it's treason.
Do you even understand the definition of treason in the United States Constitution? Or the dictionary definition, for that matter?
Wikileaks is giving aid to the enemy.
Again, [citation needed].
The founder should be in prison, and slashdot is whining about the donation page getting shut down?
Put up hard information, or shut your authoritarian piehole.
Re:Uh (Score:3, Interesting)
Meanwhile, we still have troops in Iraq and Afghanistan....
Bill of Attainder (Score:2, Interesting)
Creating a list of companies & people, and then grabbing their assets is called a "Bill of Attainder"
This is illegal under Article 1, Section 9 of the US Constitution.
I can not say more or I would be subject to such a bill.
Re:Breaking the Stalemate? (Score:3, Interesting)
These leaks don't do anything to stop the war. Most of the stuff that it had wasn't anything of use. That anyone with with an IQ more then 20 would knows that that stuff went on. The problem is releasing names, that puts people in danger.
Here is an example say platoon x was involved in a fight that had high civilian casulities, it happens the wrong people get killed. So now this unit goes to a new area that knows about it. What happens, the civilians will be extra scared of this platoon and probably do something to preemptively protect themselfs and cause a conflict that may not have happened causing military and civilian casulaties.
Re:Uh (Score:2, Interesting)
Not real sure freedom and democracy can coexist with any success.
We know the government seeks power through enslavement by program.
So we can be sure then that they hate freedom. As near as I can tell they are trying to infect other countries with this democracy virus, tho.
I believe the government has hated freedom since the Wilson administration, certainly since Roosevelt.
It's O.K. to say we are a Republic not a Demockrasy. Hillary isn't listening.
Re:They need a better spokesperson (Score:3, Interesting)
No, I never said "not listen". I read and have read wikileaks and, for the most part, it does a great service. I have read editorials by Assange. I've seen interviews. I can form my own opinions without the help of CNN.
Piss off.
Re:How should people help wikileaks? (Score:1, Interesting)
Simple. Leak some secret that makes Obama look bad. Then all these bleeding-hearts that are whining about putting people at risk (with a total lack of any evidence) will suddenly become the most pro-Wikileaks characters you've ever seen...
Re:They need a better spokesperson (Score:5, Interesting)
I have read editorials by Assange. I've seen interviews. I can form my own opinions without the help of CNN.
Piss off.
You say "Assange. He is egotistical tool", you say you believe that opinion to be your own. Can you say why you believe what you believe, aside from claiming that you can?
You made two claims, prove t me you know what you believe:
1- What has Julian Assange done that proves he is egotistical? How is he demonstrably selfish and self-centered?
2- To whom is he a tool? Who holds that tool and to what purpose?
One more story (Score:5, Interesting)
My brother, a combat medic, was with a group that was being attacked. He was in the room when a sergeant told a soldier to stick his head out the window to see what was up. The kid stuck his head out the window and got a bullet to the face, and the sergeant turned without a word and walked into the other room. My brother had to clean the mess up.
If you google the name of the deceased soldier the reports say he was killed by an IED. His family does not know the truth of how he died.
Talk to any soldier that has seen action and ask them if they saw anything get covered up, I'm willing to bet you won't find any soldier who has been deployed that can say "no".
Re:How should people help wikileaks? (Score:2, Interesting)
Well the US army knows what information was released, so they can go and protect the people whose names were revealed (and their families). Or is spending some money only justified when it results in a high bodycount of 'terrorists'.
Re:How should people help wikileaks? (Score:5, Interesting)
To be fair to Wikileaks, they actually let you see all of the source documents if you don't like their shitty editing.
There's nothing preventing people from going all "answers.com" and using Wikileaks' material as sources for their reports.
If they didn't summarize things at all and were just a clearinghouse of information, would as many people read it? Would you read Slashdot if there was no summary, just a title and a link? (You may now proceed to make fun of Slashdot's editorial quality.)
Are donations to Wikileaks tax deductable? (Score:3, Interesting)
....if not they should be.
Bad! BAD! BAD! (Score:3, Interesting)
No trial, no hearing, no law, just the same old anti American action taken by an arm of government.
Re:Uh (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:How should people help wikileaks? (Score:5, Interesting)
They did release the whole video
Yes, after they were caught editing the video. You may think that's fine. I don't.
Why do you think it is not fine to edit video? What did they edit out of the video that was wrong to take out?
And what link do you have that proves that they provided the unedited video only after being 'caught' doing what every other news video have had done in the whole entire history of news video? Because I call bullshit on that too.
Re:Uh (Score:2, Interesting)
You forgot:
1962 Uganda
1964 Bolivia
1965 Rhodesia
1967 Greece
1967 Bolivia
1971 Uganda
1971 Bolivia
1973 Chile
1974 Portugal
1975 Angola
1975 Mozambique
1979 Uganda
1980 Bolivia
1980 Zimbabwe
1983 Grenada
1985 Uganda
1989 Panama
1989 Poland
1989 Czechoslovakia
1989 Bulgaria
1989 Romania
1989 Yugoslavia
1992 Albania
1992 Peru
1994 South Africa
After all, there's no doubt that any regime change anywhere in the world was sponsored by the CIA, right?
Re:How should people help wikileaks? (Score:2, Interesting)
The guy in the military wasn't a "whistle blower", he was a traitor, and will spend the rest of his life in jail. The morality of sites like Wikileaks is interesting to debate, but a serving member of the military who helps the enemy doesn't have a leg to stand on, period.
Re:Too much secrecy kills a government (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Uh (Score:3, Interesting)
If they also put the new york times and the guardian newspapers on that same watchlist, sure.
And any other half decent newspapers too.
Re:Uh (Score:5, Interesting)
Again and again and again I hear this claim.
The only concrete example I've ever seen was one local warlord who was named and later killed.
of course lots of people were being executed before that because of rumors of being informants, and people were killed after that over rumors of being informants.
The taliban don't really care about being accurate.
They're happy to kill anyone as long as it send the message "don't collaborate with the americans"
Australian Govt Blacklist? (Score:3, Interesting)
Ok well that's piqued my interest, never intended on donating before, now I do. How can I go about this?
Re:How should people help wikileaks? (Score:5, Interesting)
right. for information to be safe and free, it has to be outside (jurisdictionally) of US borders.
my god. who would have thought we would be saying or thinking this. 10, 20, 30 years ago I never would have imagined.
from this generation onward, kids will grow up totally assuming they are being tapped, bugged and wire-sniffed. we really didn't have that feeling decades ago (I'm old enough to know). there was phone tapping and bugging, but not blatantly and not widespread. now its totally in-your-face. gag orders: how much more in-your-face can you be? the very concept of a 'you cant even talk to your lawyer' is so unamerican it just would not be believed 20 yrs ago. no one would take you seriously; they'd say that the 50's and mccarthyism is long behind us.
sigh.
Make your own opinion. Don't believe in everything (Score:1, Interesting)
The fact is Wikileaks serves a good purpose. Unlike what so many people want you to believe Wikileaks doesn't have an "US agenda".
They have systematically leaked information on all sort of cases such as corporate wrong doings, political corruption and so on from all over the world and all sorts of nations.
The irony is if the leaked documents and the registered wrong doings were from other not so democratic nations those criticizing Wikileaks would probably have a different position now.
Wikileaks may be controversial but still the information they post is the truth and provides a valuable service so that the people realize what is really going on backstage.
I fail to understand why so many fail to mention other valuable information Wikileaks leaked over the time and that had such a positive impact. Stuff like the documents of "Kenya: The Cry of Blood – Extra Judicial Killings and Disappearances".
In this day and age people are so used to consume information in quick bursts and never get deep into what everything is really all about.
If there is a cool guy on TV that has such a good argument against Wikileaks thousands simply accept his view and don't even care about getting the facts straight.
I urge people to at least read the Wikileaks page on Wikipedia to get a grasp of what this guys have made over the years and what they had to deal with.
And please, pay the site a visit at least while its available and make your own conclusions.
Many people may not feel comfortable with the US leaked documents, but so what? It is part of history.
What you should be more worried about is in protecting your freedom, and democracy. You should not take anything for granted. "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance". Wikileaks may not be perfect, but it does help YOU in your vigilance.
Some examples.
2008 Peru Oil Scandal, Toxic dumping in Africa and so on and on and on
Re:Uh (Score:3, Interesting)
Afghanistan was not invaded under false pretenses. Al Qaeda was running the government of Afghanistan. Al Qaeda actually attacked the United States of America at least three times that was reported. The first two times (attempted bombing of the trade center using a car bomb in a parking garage and running a boat into a battleship and killing 30+ soldiers). President Clinton didn't do anything - even when he had a sniper with his gun trained on Osama's head. The third time brought down two Trade Center towers and several smaller buildings and you know the story. We were justified in going in and whipping a few butts in Afghanistan.
Iraq is a little murkier. To be sure, GW Bush wanted to finish what his father couldn't. Also hindsight is 20-20 and we now know that Saddam was less worried about the US and more worried about Iran. But due to that last statement, he was telling the Western world "I have no WMDs!" But he was sending signals that Iran could pick up... and thus the rest of the world's security personnel were reporting to their leaders that "Yes, Iraq does have WMDs." It didn't help that some French companies were breaking embargo by sending suspicious materials to Iraq. So, when Russia, Britain, the US, and several other countries' are saying Iraq presents a present danger, it was difficult not to invade. And remember, Democrats and Republicans agreed. Unfortunately, the war in Iraq got mired by politics, similar to Vietnam.
Saddam was a bad man. Toppling Iraq was a good thing, but may have empowered Iran. Certainly, our current President's world wide apology tour and inability to voice outrage at Iran's human rights violations has empowered Iran's leadership more. But our citizenry is very war weary. The problem is that Iran really wants to wipe Israel out. But, if anyone hasn't gotten the memo yet, under our current administration, Israel is no longer an ally.
Re:Uh (Score:1, Interesting)
You've avoided the entire point Bigjeff5 was making: they published documents that they did not own. They obtained those documents illegally. They broke the law. Do you understand what this means? You can justify their actions as much as you want but it was illegal no matter how you look at it. To do something illegal means you have a high likelihood of receiving punishment especially when you do something of this magnitude.
You piss of the military and government of the USA and bad things will happen. Sure some good came of these leaks, but to deny that there is some gray area just makes you sound fanatical. Speaking of fanatical; implying the US Government will assassinate peoples' families because of some leaked war documents is just FUD.
Re:Uh (Score:4, Interesting)
Toppling Saddam Hussein was a completely idiotic thing to do. It was done so unter falsificated facts for the false reasons given. The main reasons given were Iraq's WMDs, which the weapon's inspectors told again and again wouldn't exist, and which failed to materialize afterwards, and for an allegedly collaboration with al-Qaida, which didn't materialize either, and which everyone (except in the U.S. apparently) was knowing was a figment of imagination. Saddam Hussein was during most of his reign an outspoken non-religious dictator, affiliated with the Ba'ath party which grew out of a christian founded, nationalistic-arab, socialist movement (ba'ath is arab and means "people") -- everything but a muslim fundamentalist. After 1991 he tried to steer away from Socialism to a more traditionalist arab ideology including embracing Islam, but no one was taking it serious, and he still hat christian people in his inner circle, like Tariq Aziz (christian name: Mikhail Yuhanna).
So the arab and the islamic world, knowing the WMDs were nonexistant and the link to al-Qaida fabricated, came to the conclusion, that only two reasons were valid: control of Iraqi Oil, and battling Islam at all cost -- not the way you make friends in the region. The U.S. and its allies were seen as the aggressors, taking on everything arab and islamic -- arab property, arab traditions, arab nationality, arab pride.
But -- you say, toppling a murderous dictator is right? Wrong. Helping the Iraqi people to get rid of Saddam Hussein on their own would have been right. Supporting the insurgencies in the southern part of Iraq would have been right. With the kurdish North it worked, Northern Iraq was no longer ruled by Saddam Hussein by 2003. But the South was neglected, and arab people saw themselves abandoned -- so it was natural for them to see the U.S. as primarily anti-arab.
If the U.S. would have waited another few years, Saddam Hussein would have been toppled anyway -- by the Iraqis themselves. Saddam Hussein was powerless already. He had nothing anymore to bribe his own ruling junta. He had to play games to reserve some street cred with his neighbours, but had to cave in whenever the Security Council of the U.N. was getting serious. The next big insurgence would have brought him down, either by the insurgents or by his own inner circle trying to hold on power on their own and sacrifying him as a scapegoat.
What are the lessons for the dictators around him? Caving in to UN sanctions and giving up on your weapons will make you weak and prone to the next invasion. Caving in to demands to stop the development of WMDs will make you weak and prone to the next invasion. If you want to stay in power, it is important to get WMDs as soon as possible, at all cost. North Korea and Iran have learned their lessons. North Korea is nuclear power since 2005, and the Iran is apparently doing everything to become one. Saudi-Arabia has an option to buy atomic bombs from Pakistan. The other Gulf states signed a contract in 2006 to develop civilian atomic facilities. Great job, United States!