WikiLeaks suspends leaks, and may close by end of the year.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Slayven

Member
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/25/w...s-may-force-its-end-julian-assange-warns.html

LONDON — Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, said on Monday that his Web site could be forced to shut down by the end of the year because a 10-month-old “financial blockade” had sharply reduced the donations on which it depends.


Calling the blockade a “dangerous, oppressive and undemocratic” attack led by the United States, Mr. Assange said at a news conference here that it had deprived his organization of “tens of millions of dollars,” and warned, “If WikiLeaks does not find a way to remove this blockade, we will not be able to continue by the turn of the new year.”

Since the end of 2010, financial intermediaries, including Visa, MasterCard, PayPal and Western Union, have refused to allow donations to WikiLeaks to flow through their systems, he said, blocking “95 percent” of the Web site’s revenue and leaving it to operate on its cash reserves for the past 10 months. An aide said that WikiLeaks was now receiving less than $10,000 a month in donations.

Mr. Assange said WikiLeaks had been forced to halt work on the processing of tens of thousands of secret documents that it had received, and to turn its attention instead to lawsuits it had filed in the United States, Australia, Scandinavian countries and elsewhere, as well as to a formal petition to the European Commission to try to restore donors’ ability to send it money through normal channels.

WikiLeaks receives and publishes confidential documents from whistle-blowers and leakers, who are eager to see the site continue with the publishing sensations that drew worldwide attention last year. WikiLeaks released and passed to news organizations huge quantities of secret United States military and diplomatic cables on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and other subjects. Among the organizations the group worked with were The New York Times; Der Spiegel, a German newsmagazine; and The Guardian, a British newspaper.

Mr. Assange held the news conference while on a brief break from his effective house arrest on a country estate 100 miles outside London. Limits on his movements are part of the bail conditions imposed on him last year while British courts decide whether to extradite him to Sweden. The authorities there want him to answer questions related to accusations that he sexually abused two women during a visit to Stockholm in the summer of 2010. A British appeals court ruling on the extradition, pending for months, is expected at any time.

At the news conference on Monday, Mr. Assange said he and WikiLeaks were victims of a “conspiracy to smear and destroy” them, led by the United States Treasury, American intelligence agencies and “right-wing” forces in the United States, including powerful corporations led by Bank of America and Visa. He said the attack had also included “high-level calls” to assassinate him and other WikiLeaks associates, but offered no specifics to support the allegation.

The finances of WikiLeaks, and of Mr. Assange personally, have been part of the controversy that has swirled around the organization for the past year. Internal disputes have prompted several of Mr. Assange’s closest associates to quit the organization, and one of the issues they have raised concerns the tight, even secretive, control he maintained over its money.

This year, the Wau Holland Foundation, an organization that has operated as a channel for WikiLeaks donations and as a keeper of the organization’s books, issued a report saying that WikiLeaks raised $1.8 million in 2010, and spent slightly more than $550,000, leaving an apparent surplus of about $1.3 million at the start of 2011. A representative of Wau Holland who appeared with Mr. Assange on Monday at the Frontline Club in London said that its work for WikiLeaks had also been halted by the American financial measures. Asked in an e-mail after the news conference for details of WikiLeaks’ current financial status, Wau Holland said it would respond by the end of the week.

A signal that WikiLeaks was in increasing financial distress came last month when a collection of memorabilia associated with Mr. Assange was put up for sale to raise money for WikiLeaks. The items included a sachet of prison coffee he said he had smuggled out of the Wandsworth jail, where he was briefly held last year before bail was set in the extradition case, and an “exclusive” photograph of Mr. Assange at Ellingham Hall in eastern England, where he has lived since then.

One standout item in the sale was a laptop computer said to have been used in the preparation of the secret American government cables that WikiLeaks released; it was posted at a “buy it now” price of more than $550,000, with the highest early bid coming in at $6,000, according to a BBC report at the time. In a Twitter posting, WikiLeaks vaunted the attractions of the laptop, telling potential buyers, “In this exclusive auction item, you will get the full set of WikiLeaks cables, the WikiLeaks computer and its passwords.”

Mr. Assange responded brusquely on Monday when a reporter asked whether donations to WikiLeaks had been used to finance his extradition battle, with legal bills running into hundreds of thousands of dollars. A posting on the WikiLeaks Web site invites donations to the WikiLeaks and Julian Assange Defense Fund, but Mr. Assange said that no money intended for WikiLeaks had been used for his legal defense.

Last month, Canongate Books, based in Edinburgh, published a 340-page biography of Mr. Assange based on 50 hours of interviews he gave to a writer, Andrew O’Hagan, that were initially intended to yield a memoir. Mr. Assange later repudiated his book contract and, according to newspaper reports, refused to return a $650,000 advance; sales of the book have been sluggish.
 
Good, the leaks will keep coming they just won't go through a complete dickshit like Assange. The man is a lunatic.
 
Why should this stop leaks? Why did they need millions in funding?

Once you put something on the internet it isn't going to go away and I'm not sure why that requires a ton of money to do.
 
Karma Kramer said:
lol why? cause he "raped" someone?

I don't give a shit about those bullshit allegations. The man is a loon. He's an egomaniac and is just a twat with a twisted view on freedom of information that extends to everybody but himself.
 
XMonkey said:
Why should this stop leaks? Why did they need millions in funding?

Once you put something on the internet it isn't going to go away and I'm not sure why that requires a ton of money to do.

Not that Assange isn't a money/fame hog, he likely requires some degree of funding to pay his staff to comb through the documents day after day and to maintain the servers, especially as they've been said to be under attack pretty often.

And then there's the legal fees, which I'm fairly certain are an attrition tactic to eventually wear him down.

So yeah, I'm pretty sure money is required. Millions? Who knows, maybe he does need that much to keep pouring out more legal tape to push back his inevitable arrest by the Americans.
 
963506840.jpg


King of Gerbils Victorious!
 
XMonkey said:
Why should this stop leaks? Why did they need millions in funding?

Once you put something on the internet it isn't going to go away and I'm not sure why that requires a ton of money to do.
Aren´t they blacking out names in the documents? If so - someone has to do it.
 
sankt-Antonio said:
Aren´t they blacking out names in the documents? If so - someone has to do it.

Wasn't the whole thing of the last couple of leaks was that they HAVEN'T been blacking out names and people have been pissed off?
 
Ushojax said:
I don't give a shit about those bullshit allegations. The man is a loon. He's an egomaniac and is just a twat with a twisted view on freedom of information that extends to everybody but himself.

US propaganda machine really did a number on some of you. They be good at their job.
 
Zaraki_Kenpachi said:
Wasn't the whole thing of the last couple of leaks was that they HAVEN'T been blacking out names and people have been pissed off?
Those documents had already been leaked by the dude who ran off to create openleaks, and then completely exposed to the world when a journalist with the guardian released the passkey in his book.


Ushojax said:
I'm English, not American, and the only 'propaganda' I'm basing my opinion on is documented, rambling exchanges that Assange has had with the editor of Private Eye and various other journalists. The man has gone soft in the head, however noble his original goals were.
Probably the result of all the pressure he's been under since he started Wikileaks. I think it's fine and somewhat expected for him to be a bit eccentric.
 
Ushojax said:
I'm English, not American, and the only 'propaganda' I'm basing my opinion on is documented, rambling exchanges that Assange has had with the editor of Private Eye and various other journalists. The man has gone soft in the head, however noble his original goals were.

I'm confused. This is the only quote from Assange i could find in that article:

"WikiLeaks promotes the ideal of "scientific journalism" – where the underlaying evidence of all articles is available to the reader precisely in order to avoid these type of distortions. We treasure our strong Jewish support and staff, just as we treasure the support from pan-Arab democracy activists and others who share our hope for a just world."

What's the problem with this quote? Are you conflating Assange with Israel Shamir?
 
Ushojax said:
I'm English, not American, and the only 'propaganda' I'm basing my opinion on is documented, rambling exchanges that Assange has had with the editor of Private Eye and various other journalists. The man has gone soft in the head, however noble his original goals were.


Separate Assange from wikileaks. The guy could be crazy, but the org is not. That is like saying bush is an idiot so all americans are idiots, or the queen is a cunt so all british are cunts.

Also, being detained for 330 days with no charge, called to be killed by important people, being difamated again and again would tend to make you an asshole I guess. I know I would be pissed off if it was me.
 
WikiLeaks cables and the Iraq War

From a CNN report on why the Iraqi Government rejected the Obama administration’s conditions for keeping U.S. troops in Iraq beyond the 2011 deadline:

U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and other top brass have repeatedly said any deal to keep U.S. troops in Iraq beyond the withdrawal deadline would require a guarantee of legal protection for American soldiers.

But the Iraqis refused to agree to that, opening up the prospect of Americans being tried in Iraqi courts and subjected to Iraqi punishment.

The negotiations were strained following WikiLeaks’ release of a diplomatic cable that alleged Iraqi civilians, including children, were killed in a 2006 raid by American troops rather than in an airstrike as the U.S. military initially reported.

http://www.salon.com/writer/glenn_greenwald/

Is it not clear how poorly the news media has become and how corrupt our governments have become that transparency is more important than ever?

--

Week long stories about a missing child in America, but the travesties and destruction caused by an illegitimate war.. na
 
assange_zuckerberg.jpg


But seriously, Assange being snubbed is one thing, but why Zukerberg of all people? Why not Mohamed Bouazizi? They had some strange names on that list
 
Ushojax said:
I'm English, not American, and the only 'propaganda' I'm basing my opinion on is documented, rambling exchanges that Assange has had with the editor of Private Eye and various other journalists. The man has gone soft in the head, however noble his original goals were.

Indeed. It's worth tracking down the original published correspondence from Private Eye (is it available online?) and their stories on him to see quite why I think people should be cautious about supporting Assange the man, rather than the principles he does/did stand for.
 
Meus Renaissance said:
But seriously, Assange being snubbed is one thing, but why Zukerberg of all people? Why not Mohamed Bouazizi? They had some strange names on that list

What's your point? What does that have to do with this thread at all? Why would you put that much stock in who time magazine thinks "the man of the year" is?
 
Assange is not the crusader we hoped for..

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/sep/18/julian-assange-wikileaks-nick-cohen

You did not have to listen for too long to Julian Assange's half-educated condemnations of the American "military-industrial complex" to know that he was aching to betray better and braver people than he could ever be.

As soon as WikiLeaks received the State Department cables, Assange announced that the opponents of dictatorial regimes and movements were fair game. That the targets of the Taliban, for instance, were fighting a clerical-fascist force, which threatened every good liberal value, did not concern him. They had spoken to US diplomats. They had collaborated with the great Satan. Their safety was not his concern.

David Leigh and Luke Harding's history of WikiLeaks describes how journalists took Assange to Moro's, a classy Spanish restaurant in central London. A reporter worried that Assange would risk killing Afghans who had co-operated with American forces if he put US secrets online without taking the basic precaution of removing their names. "Well, they're informants," Assange replied. "So, if they get killed, they've got it coming to them. They deserve it." A silence fell on the table as the reporters realised that the man the gullible hailed as the pioneer of a new age of transparency was willing to hand death lists to psychopaths. They persuaded Assange to remove names before publishing the State Department Afghanistan cables. But Assange's disillusioned associates suggest that the failure to expose "informants" niggled in his mind.

It is hard to believe now, but honest people once worked for WikiLeaks for all the right reasons. Like me, they saw the site as a haven; a protected space where writers could publish stories that authoritarian censors and libel lawyers would otherwise have suppressed.

James Ball joined and thought that in his own small way he was making the world a better place. He realised that WikiLeaks was not what it seemed when an associate of Assange – a stocky man with a greying moustache, who called himself "Adam" – asked if he could pull out everything the State Department documents "had on the Jews". Ball discovered that "Adam" was Israel Shamir, a dangerous crank who uses six different names as he agitates among the antisemitic groups of the far right and far left. As well as signing up to the conspiracy theories of fascism, Shamir was happy to collaborate with Belarus's decayed Brezhnevian dictatorship. Leftwing tyranny, rightwing tyranny, as long as it was anti-western and anti-Israel, Shamir did not care.

Nor did Assange. He made Shamir WikiLeaks's representative in Russia and eastern Europe. Shamir praised the Belarusian dictatorship. He compared the pro-democracy protesters beaten and imprisoned by the KGB to football hooligans. On 19 December 2010, the Belarus-Telegraf, a state newspaper, said that WikiLeaks had allowed the dictatorship to identify the "organisers, instigators and rioters, including foreign ones" who had protested against rigged elections.

The proof of Assange and Shamir's treachery was strong but not conclusive. Given Shamir's history, there were reasonable grounds for fearing the worst. But even now, you cannot show beyond reasonable doubt that the state has charged this pro-democracy politician or that liberal artist with treason or collaborating with a foreign power because WikiLeaks named names.

One can say with certainty, however, that Assange's involvement with Shamir is enough to discredit his claim that he published the documents in full because my colleagues on the Guardian inadvertently revealed a link to a site he was meant to have taken down. WikiLeaks put the cables on the web last month with evident relish, and ever since I have been wondering who would be its first incontrovertible victim. China appeared a promising place to look. The authorities and pro-regime newspapers are going through the names of hundreds of dissidents and activists from ethnic minorities. To date, there have been no arrests, although in China, as elsewhere, the chilling effect WikiLeaks has spread has caused critics of the communists to bite their tongues.

In Ethiopia, however, Assange has already claimed his first scalp. Argaw Ashine fled the country last week after WikiLeaks revealed that the reporter had spoken to an official from the American embassy in Addis Ababa about the regime's plans to intimidate the independent press. WikiLeaks also revealed that a government official told Arshine about the planned assault on opposition journalists. Thus Assange and his colleagues not only endangered the journalist. They tipped off the cops that he had a source in the state apparatus.

Once we have repeated Orwell's line that "so much of leftwing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot", there is work to do. First, there needs to be relentless pressure on the socialist socialites and haggard soixante-huitards who cheered Assange on. Bianca Jagger, Jemima Khan, John Pilger, Ken Loach and their like are fond of the egotistical slogan "not in my name." They are well-heeled and well-padded men and women who know no fear in their lives. Yet they are happy to let their names be used by Assange as he brings fear into the lives of others.

We need also to question the motives of the wider transparency movement. Anti-Americanism is one of its driving inspirations and helps explain its perfidies. If you believe that the American "military-industrial complex", Europe or Israel is the sole or main source of oppression, it is too easy to dismiss the victims of regimes whose excesses cannot be blamed on the west. Assange's former colleagues tell me that the infantile leftism of the 2000s is not the end of it. Never forget, they say, that Assange came from a backwater Queensland city named Townsville. He's a small-town boy desperate to make the world notice.

The grass or squealer usually blabs because he wants to settle scores or ingratiate himself with the authorities. Assange represents a new breed, which technology has enabled: the nark as show-off. The web made Assange famous. It allows him to monitor his celebrity – I am told that even the smallest blogpost about him rarely escapes his attention. When he sees that the audience is tiring, the web provides him with the means to publish new secrets and generate new headlines. Under the cover of holding power to account, Assange can revel in the power the web gives to put lives in danger and ensure he can be what he always wanted: the centre of attention.
 
The guardian is in a legal battle with wikileaks after they published the code that let leak thousands of documents either due to miscommunication or actual sabotage (will have to await trial). OF COURSE they are going to be actively discredit wikileaks/assange. The propaganda machine is strong with this one.

darthVader.jpg
 
Meus Renaissance said:
http://coto2.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/assange_zuckerberg.jpg

But seriously, Assange being snubbed is one thing, but why Zukerberg of all people? Why not Mohamed Bouazizi? They had some strange names on that list
Zuckerberg remains one of the primary figures in tech news today & Facebook is a cultural force whether one likes it or not.

It made more sense to make him Man of the year, which does not need to be a flattering portrayal, overn Assange by far (Who really just got lucky by getting the info from a soldier destined for a minimum of life in prison), but also just period over everyone else- going by Time's guidelines at least.
 
JGS said:
Zuckerberg remains one of the primary figures in tech news today & Facebook is a cultural force whether one likes it or not.

It made more sense to make him Man of the year, which does not need to be a flattering portrayal, overn Assange by far (Who really just got lucky by getting the info from a soldier destined for a minimum of life in prison), but also just period over everyone else- going by Time's guidelines at least.
Without Manning, nobody would know who Assange was.
 
Meus Renaissance said:
[MG]http://coto2.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/assange_zuckerberg.jpg[/IMG]

But seriously, Assange being snubbed is one thing, but why Zukerberg of all people? Why not Mohamed Bouazizi? They had some strange names on that list

Person of the Year means "most influential person", not "best". Adolf Hitler got POTY in '38, and Stalin got it twice in '39 and '41.
 
Zaraki_Kenpachi said:
What's your point? What does that have to do with this thread at all? Why would you put that much stock in who time magazine thinks "the man of the year" is?

I thought the point was obvious. Ever since that helicopter video was leaked last year, there has been a debate - often using legality - on whether an organisation like Wikileaks was harmful or good. But one thing that was largely agreed on in my experience was that there was a shared perception of it being 'rogue'. And perception is arguably the one thing that was driving opinion on both sides. Despite institutions like Amazon and PayPal having lifted the rug under their feet, the organisation still has plenty of public support - for the principle of their leaks if not Assange himself. The TIME vote is relevant in that sense. They gave the public the chance to vote for their Man of the Year and they did so overwhelmingly for WikiLeaks/Assange, but instead they awarded it to an obscure selection amongst a pile of irrelevant names in contrast. It was another example of this dramatic polarisation between people and/or institutions and thus Wikileaks being financially in difficulty isn't unrelated or irrelevant, but the opposite.

IMO of course.

ThoseDeafMutes said:
Person of the Year means "most influential person", not "best". Adolf Hitler got POTY in '38, and Stalin got it twice in '39 and '41.

I obviously understand that, but what influences did Zukerberg have that compared to the influences WikiLeaks/Assange and especially Bouazizi? According to TIME, he won it "for connecting more than half a billion people and mapping the social relations among them (something that has never been done before); for creating a new system of exchanging information that has become both indispensable and sometimes a little scary; and finally, for changing how we all live our lives in ways that are innovative and even optimistic". In lamen terms, he won it because he created Facebook. You would think they'd award to someone relevant to that particular time frame like they did with Bernanke in 2009, or Obama with 2008, or with Putin in 2007 during his last year as President or in 2006 when they awarded it to, well everyone, for the popularity of social networking.
 
ThoseDeafMutes said:
Person of the Year means "most influential person", not "best". Adolf Hitler got POTY in '38, and Stalin got it twice in '39 and '41.
Are you seriously comparing Zuckerberg to Hitler and Stalin?
 
Even after all this time people still try to cite one or two examples of Wikileaks actually whistle blowing to justify the needless, reckless wholesale release of information.
 
Karma Kramer said:
The guardian is in a legal battle with wikileaks after they published the code that let leak thousands of documents either due to miscommunication or actual sabotage (will have to await trial). OF COURSE they are going to be actively discredit wikileaks/assange. The propaganda machine is strong with this one.

darthVader.jpg
Please, I dislike the Guardians left bias at times, but to condemn a newspaper as great as the Guardian like as simple propaganda because they're involved in legal battlecap with this nutter is ridiculous.
 
Manos: The Hans of Fate said:
Please, I dislike the Guardians left bias at times, but to condemn a newspaper as great as the Guardian like as simple propaganda because they're involved in legal battlecap with this nutter is ridiculous.

So investigations into this are unwarranted simply because of the historic greatness of the Guardian. I see how you function. You don't question power.
 
KHarvey16 said:
Even after all this time people still try to cite one or two examples of Wikileaks actually whistle blowing to justify the needless, reckless wholesale release of information.

even after all this time the loonies are still trying to suggest that "there were only one or two important leaks anyway". It's funny :P
 
OriginalThinking said:

Did you actually read that? They first smear the shit out of Assange, saying he is in with some anti-Semitic dude, and then 6 paragraphs in they come out with "The proof of Assange and Shamir's treachery was strong but not conclusive." Oh, ok.

Then it goes on to claim "Assange has already claimed his first scalp." but then follows up with how some journalist fled Ethiopia because of the leaked cables without redaction's. Keep in mind that Wikileaks did not intend for those to get released in that way.

I would also like to touch on another point. Some of you are saying that Assange sounds like a nut in interviews? I have found him to be the complete opposite. He can speak clearly and concisely for long periods without a teleprompter, cue cards, etc. It is all 100% him.

Long live Wikileaks and Julian Assange.
 
Lax Mike said:
Are you seriously comparing Zuckerberg to Hitler and Stalin?
I think Pol Pot would be a better comparison to Zuckerberg, but Hitler and Stalin ain't bad.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom