More USA documents get released by Wikileaks

[Dupin]

The difference is publicity, but I agree that it is bad.

 

On bloodstains post about sites not being allowed to host news and articles on the anon attacks, it is what should happen. Anon are basically internet terrorists. They are stopping companies from doing business, therefore hurting their income. They are trying to spread fear in this manner. You would not think twice if a site which supported Taliban activities was taken down.

Yes, we would. It's called freedom of speech, and as long as there isn't any sort of call to action, it's completely legal.

[Danqazmlp]

So if a website which openly supported Al Qaeda was censored in the US you would stand up in protest? Id you would that is noble of you, but I doubt as many would as who stand blindly by anonymous attackers.

[Dupin]

So if a website which openly supported Al Qaeda was censored in the US you would stand up in protest? Id you would that is noble of you, but I doubt as many would as who stand blindly by anonymous attackers.

I don't like anonymous, and I am sitting down right now about Assange. But yes, a site that supports a terrorist organization has a right to existence as long as it does not directly aid or encourage violence.

[Bloodstain]

Heh, eat it Mastercard and Visa. Wikileaks hits back

 

 

http://wikileaks.ch/articles/2010/Test,32.html

 

United States - Visa and Mastercard beneficiaries of State Department lobbying effort

 

WikiLeaks Staff, 8 December 2010, 14.00 GMT

More articles ...

- U. S. Empire Secret Shopping List

 

Visa and Mastercard both received lobbying support from the Department of State under President Obama, the latest Cablegate release reveals.

 

A cable from the Moscow embassy, dated 1st February 2010, details a new Russian card processing law which the embassy said would disadvantage U.S businesses, and urged senior US officials to take action. (click here).

 

This draft law continues to disadvantage U.S. payment card market leaders Visa and MasterCard, whether they join the National Payment Card System or not, it said.

 

Russia was considering whether to implement a new system of card payments (called NPCS), which would create a new payment processor run by Russias state banks. This would then handle all processing for domestic banking in the country.

 

The fees for these services are estimated at Rb 120 billion ($4 billion) annually...the vast majority of Visas business in Russia is done with cards issued and used in Russia; with earnings from processing going to NPCS, Visa would no longer profit from these transactions.

 

When discussing possible causes of the restrictive legislation, a senior Visa employee in the country told embassy officials he believed the move was due to Russian suspicions that Visa and Mastercard passed information to the US government.

 

[Redacted] believes that, at least at the Deputy Minister level, MinFins hands are tied. Implying that Russian security services were behind this decision, [redacted] said, There is some se-cret (government) order that no one has seen, but everyone has to abide by it." As described reftel, credit card company and bank representatives have told us that GOR (government of Russia) officials apparently assume that US payment systems routinely share data associated with payment transactions by Russian cardholders with intelligence services in the US and elsewhere.

 

The embassys economic officer, Matthias Mitman, concluded his cable by calling for action.

 

While the draft legislation has yet to be submitted to the Duma and can still be amended, post will continue to raise our concerns with senior GOR officials, he said.

 

We recommend that senior USG officials also take advantage of meetings with their Russian counterparts, including through the Bilateral Presidential Commission, to press the GOR to change the draft text to ensure U.S. payment companies are not adversely affected.

[sees_all1]

I read the above, but there's nothing shocking or out of the ordinary. You'll see the exact same thing happens with Boeing, or GM, or any other large American corporation.

[Bloodstain]

I read the above, but there's nothing shocking or out of the ordinary. You'll see the exact same thing happens with Boeing, or GM, or any other large American corporation.

 

Can you prove that? Because I'd like to see your proof.

[das1330]

MasterCard and Visa reportedly stopped transactions for those wishing to donate money to WikiLeaks, due to a "technicality". But anyone who wants to donate to the Ku Klux Klan can still whip out their plastic or do some Christmas shopping and buy "Klan Novelties" like this lovely little ceramic tchotchke:

 

 

The "Knight's Party" makes it clear they are the Ku Klux Klan (or at least what's left of it). They aren't hiding it.

 

White Sheet -- $10

Burning cross -- $50

Veneer of respectability -- Priceless

There are Some Things Money Can't Buy. For Everything Else, there's HTTP Error 408 Request Timeout

 

The Klan did not steal private documents and publish them for no reason other then to damage the United States.

[Dupin]

MasterCard and Visa reportedly stopped transactions for those wishing to donate money to WikiLeaks, due to a "technicality". But anyone who wants to donate to the Ku Klux Klan can still whip out their plastic or do some Christmas shopping and buy "Klan Novelties" like this lovely little ceramic tchotchke:

 

 

The "Knight's Party" makes it clear they are the Ku Klux Klan (or at least what's left of it). They aren't hiding it.

 

White Sheet -- $10

Burning cross -- $50

Veneer of respectability -- Priceless

There are Some Things Money Can't Buy. For Everything Else, there's HTTP Error 408 Request Timeout

 

The Klan did not steal private documents and publish them for no reason other then to damage the United States.

Wikileaks' intention is not to damage the US, it's to expose corruption and protect freedom of information. It wouldn't be damaging to politicians if they hadn't been, well, politicians to begin with. And I don't see it damaging the United States as a whole either - on the contrary, it's helpful as it allows citizens to see the truth about things the government would rather keep secret.

[magekillr]

The Klan did not steal private documents and publish them for no reason other then to damage the United States.

 

Your adherence to the U.S. Government no matter what they do simply because they're the U.S. Government aside, Wikileaks did not steal private documents, they published them. So, would you be advocating that no one be able to purchase a newspaper if the leaker went to them instead? Wikileaks is not hacking into the Pentagon; they are providing a necessary service that our Mainstream Journalism will not. If Bradley Manning gave the documents to the Times instead, this is the only logical conclusion I can come to. I can only use logic to make this inference, but from this statement it would appear you're defending Visa/Mastercard's decision. Why don't you take that to the next reasonable step: any newspaper that leaks classified documents, such as was done with Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers, should be shut down and no subscriptions using plastic can be made.

 

As will_holmes said, the fact that all of these PRIVATE companies are giving into what the U.S. Government says is absolutely terrifying, and regardless of anyone's opinion of Wikileaks, I'd at least expect that much common ground where we can agree. Apparently, I can't.

 

As I stated earlier, it is reasonable to be of the opinion that the recent leaks are not helpful but harmful, but one's view of Wikileaks as a whole in the negative light says one thing: daddy government knows best, and its authority should not be challenged.

 

They're not just damaging the U.S., either. They have documents on corporations and other governments, too. Russia is basically a crime syndicate according to one leak, for example. And they're not just releasing them all at once. We haven't even seen 0.1% of the cables yet, let alone what other goodies they have. However, perhaps the U.S. Government officials should stop lying about their war in Yemen, for example?

 

QUESTION: On the conflict in Yemen, Houthis say that U.S. warplanes have launched airstrikes in northern Yemen. Is the U.S. involved in any military operations in Yemen?

 

MR. CROWLEY: No.

 

QUESTION: No?

 

MR. CROWLEY: But we -- those kinds of reports keep cropping up. We do not have a military role in this conflict.

 

Oh really, Mr. Crowley:

 

President Obama has approved providing U.S. intelligence in support of ROYG [Republic of Yemen government] ground operations against AQAP targets, General Petraeus informed Saleh. . . . Saleh lamented the use of cruise missiles that are "not very accurate" and welcomed the use of aircraft-deployed precision-guided bombs instead. "We'll continue saying the bombs are ours, not yours," Saleh said, prompting Deputy Prime Minister Alimi to joke that he had just "lied" by telling Parliament that the bombs in Arhab, Abyan, and Shebwa were American-made but deployed by the ROYG.

 

And guess who fed this lie? The New York Times:

 

Yemeni fighter jets, acting on intelligence provided in part by the United States, struck what the Yemeni government said was a meeting of operatives from Al Qaeda early Thursday morning, and officials suggested that a radical cleric linked to the suspect in the Fort Hood shootings might have been among the 30 people killed. . . . The statement said the radical cleric, Anwar al-Awlaki, was “presumed to be at the site.”

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/25/world/middleeast/25yemen.html?_r=1

 

That's why Wikileaks is so important.

[Alg]

As I stated earlier, it is reasonable to be of the opinion that the recent leaks are not helpful but harmful, but one's view of Wikileaks as a whole in the negative light says one thing: daddy government knows best, and its authority should not be challenged.

Really.

I dislike Wikileaks as a whole not because I'm pro-government, but because I don't trust any organization with that kind of power, let alone an individual. The fact that they released information on Visa and Mastercard after the two companies boycotted the site is evidence of how it could be used for blackmail, or when someone involved in the leaks has something to gain. And to me that's more horrifying than a government with secrets.

Basically, the same "support us or we'll ruin you" [cabbage] that Anonymous is infamous for. You know, the guys that support free speech by DDoSing everyone that doesn't agree with them.

 

Yeah, governments need to be more open, yeah atrocities are a bad thing. This, I think, is the worst way to go about doing it.

[Dupin]

As I stated earlier, it is reasonable to be of the opinion that the recent leaks are not helpful but harmful, but one's view of Wikileaks as a whole in the negative light says one thing: daddy government knows best, and its authority should not be challenged.

Really.

I dislike Wikileaks as a whole not because I'm pro-government, but because I don't trust any organization with that kind of power, let alone an individual. The fact that they released information on Visa and Mastercard after the two companies boycotted the site is evidence of how it could be used for blackmail, or when someone involved in the leaks has something to gain. And to me that's more horrifying than a government with secrets.

Basically, the same "support us or we'll ruin you" [cabbage] that Anonymous is infamous for. You know, the guys that support free speech by DDoSing everyone that doesn't agree with them.

 

Yeah, governments need to be more open, yeah atrocities are a bad thing. This, I think, is the worst way to go about doing it.

Is there a better way you would like to discuss? When the newspapers are not doing their job, someone needs to step up. It's more horrifying for a government to have that sort of power legally than for Wikileaks to have it illegally.

[Bloodstain]

The fact that they released information on Visa and Mastercard after the two companies boycotted the site is evidence of how it could be used for blackmail, or when someone involved in the leaks has something to gain.

 

Those documents would have been released regardless, he merely pushed up the date they were released

 

 

 

 

From the Guardian

quote:

 

Luke Harding has a great new line: Russia has suggested that Julian Assange should be awarded the Nobel peace prize, in an unexpected show of support from Moscow for the jailed WikiLeaks founder.

quote:

 

In what appears to be a calculated dig at the US, the Kremlin today urged non-governmental organisations to think seriously about 'nominating Assange as a Nobel Prize laureate'.

 

"Public and non-governmental organizations should think of how to help him," the source from inside president Dmitry Medvedev's office told Russian news agencies. Speaking in Brussels, where Medvedev was attending a Russia-EU summit yesterday, the source went on: "Maybe, nominate him as a Nobel Prize laureate."

 

Russia's reflexively suspicious leadership appears to have come round to WikiLeaks, having decided that the ongoing torrent of disclosures are ultimately far more damaging and disastrous to America's long-term geo-political interests than they are to Russia's.

Look out for the full story later.

 

 

ALSO ONE OF THE RAPE ACCUSERS IS NOT COOPERATING/FLED THE COUNTRY

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/anna-ardin-stops-cooperating-in-assange-prosecution-2010-12

[Danqazmlp]

But they were pushed forward.

 

 

The one thing that I'm seeing from this whole ordeal is that this won't change the American Gov. It will make it worse. The reason is that it isn't the American people standing up in protest, going to the capital and rioting for change. It is a foreigner. If people want a more open government, they will take much more notice if they act for themselves than letting somebody else do it. People won't get off their lazy arses and actually do something which means the government has nothing to worry about. Once all this dies down, people won't have changed, they may vote slightly different but they won't have made any change for the better because they aren't doing anything.

[sees_all1]

I read the above, but there's nothing shocking or out of the ordinary. You'll see the exact same thing happens with Boeing, or GM, or any other large American corporation.

 

Can you prove that? Because I'd like to see your proof.

 

Its called lobbying. Most companies do it.

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=7856

[Dupin]

snip

The Russia thing: it seems to assume that Russia is out to get the US. Still, it's strange that after Assange accused the Russian gov't of being responsible for multiple crime rings throughout Europe they would support him.

 

Assange trial: The plot thickens. That is rather interesting, and I look forward to more information. Maybe Assange can leak it for us.

 

But they were pushed forward.

 

 

The one thing that I'm seeing from this whole ordeal is that this won't change the American Gov. It will make it worse. The reason is that it isn't the American people standing up in protest, going to the capital and rioting for change. It is a foreigner. If people want a more open government, they will take much more notice if they act for themselves than letting somebody else do it. People won't get off their lazy arses and actually do something which means the government has nothing to worry about. Once all this dies down, people won't have changed, they may vote slightly different but they won't have made any change for the better because they aren't doing anything.

We'll see. People wouldn't have the option to change things if they were unaware of the information in the documents, and if it doesn't change things, then it can't be harmful.

 

I read the above, but there's nothing shocking or out of the ordinary. You'll see the exact same thing happens with Boeing, or GM, or any other large American corporation.

 

Can you prove that? Because I'd like to see your proof.

 

Its called lobbying. Most companies do it.

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=7856

Agreed, to a certain extent.

 

In other news, the whole Anon ddos'ing Mastercard, Paypal, and Amazon is in today's New York Times. They don't specifically say it's Anonymous, they just say it's a group of internet Assange sympathizers.

[Alg]

The fact that they released information on Visa and Mastercard after the two companies boycotted the site is evidence of how it could be used for blackmail, or when someone involved in the leaks has something to gain.

 

Those documents would have been released regardless, he merely pushed up the date they were released

And the fact that he chooses what to release based on who opposes him doesn't worry you at all?

 

Now Anonymous is attacking organizations that oppose the leaks, apparently in the name of free speech. Their actions are terrorism. If any group opposes the leaks they can expect a DDOS. Now how does that support freedom of speech again?

[Dupin]

The fact that they released information on Visa and Mastercard after the two companies boycotted the site is evidence of how it could be used for blackmail, or when someone involved in the leaks has something to gain.

 

Those documents would have been released regardless, he merely pushed up the date they were released

And the fact that he chooses what to release based on who opposes him doesn't worry you at all?

 

Now Anonymous is attacking organizations that oppose the leaks, apparently in the name of free speech. Their actions are terrorism. If any group opposes the leaks they can expect a DDOS. Now how does that support freedom of speech again?

You are confusing freedom of speech and freedom of action. I don't support anon, but these organizations acted out harmfully against Wikileaks. This is not speech or information, it is action.

[Danqazmlp]

Everything they did was within their rights as companies and any Wikileaks accounts set up would have had to agree to the terms and conditions. But just as you say what they did was freedom of action, so then can I say what wikileaks have done, and what Anon have done. They are online terrorists, and it is hard to argue otherwise.

[Range_This11]

Everything they did was within their rights as companies and any Wikileaks accounts set up would have had to agree to the terms and conditions. But just as you say what they did was freedom of action, so then can I say what wikileaks have done, and what Anon have done. They are online terrorists, and it is hard to argue otherwise.

Clearly this is not the first time that WikiLeaks has released sensitive material and I'm sure that they've broken terms of service many times before without any action taken against them. Those companies just folded because they didn't want to be on the bad side of the U.S. government. Classic case of you rub my back, I'll rub yours.

[Skeptical]

Anon launched an attack on Caribou Barbie for speaking out against Assange? That's as wrong as you can get: she has as much right to free speech as any other moron.

 

http://213.251.145.96/support.html

 

Cash is in an envelope ready to be mailed: help keep freedom of speech alive. Assange is fighting for us - the least we can do is get off the computer, and send some cash and a couple of letters to officials in your country.

[Danqazmlp]

If you show me when they have broken terms of service prior I will agree, but unless you can, saying they folded to U.S pressure means nothing. I'd also like to ask for proof of this U.S pressure. From where I stand, (outside of America) publicity of the wikileaks leak has been very large. Being associated with the person who started it all is bad publicity for any company. It would be more likely to be a business decision that any pressure from the government. But as I say, they are in their rights to cease 'trading' with whoever they want.

 

Thinking outside of the box, this is a great publicity wave to get Assange rich. Wonder if that could have been his plan all along? I have seen crazier things before.

[Skeptical]

If you show me when they have broken terms of service prior I will agree, but unless you can, saying they folded to U.S pressure means nothing. I'd also like to ask for proof of this U.S pressure. From where I stand, (outside of America) publicity of the wikileaks leak has been very large. Being associated with the person who started it all is bad publicity for any company. It would be more likely to be a business decision that any pressure from the government. But as I say, they are in their rights to cease 'trading' with whoever they want.

 

It is certainly within their "right" (as much as a corporation can have any rights) to cease dealing with another institution. However, I am very dissapointed to see that these companies are willing to simply walk away from profits in an effort to silence a dissenting voice.

[Dupin]

Wikileaks has done nothing illegal and nothing close to terrorism. In addition, they are an international organization and don't answer to US laws, even if those laws should be protecting them anyways.

[Bloodstain]

The Russia thing: it seems to assume that Russia is out to get the US. Still, it's strange that after Assange accused the Russian gov't of being responsible for multiple crime rings throughout Europe they would support him.

 

Assange trial: The plot thickens. That is rather interesting, and I look forward to more information. Maybe Assange can leak it for us.

 

Well the documents so far have been far more damaging for the US Gov than the Russians, so it seems like they're doing it to piss off the Americans. It's pretty hilarious too

 

As for the trial, the British judge gave the prosecutors until next week to present evidence relating to the case and his extradition, if they can't provide sufficient evidence he'll be released.

[Danqazmlp]

dupin, I don't think anybody did call wikileaks terrorists. Anon who support them are though. However, they are answerable to U.S law if they practice in the U.s and their branches within should be.

 

Skeptical, i don't think the companies want to silence him, they simply don't want to be associated with him. They are walking away from his profits to save the rest of their profits.