Your Weekend WikiLeaks News Roundup

1. Amazon's decision to expel WikiLeaks from its servers hasn't kept the site offline. Not only has the operation found a new base, but a distributed effort has already produced 355 mirror sites and counting.

2. PayPal, moving yet further from its founding vision, has stopped handling donations to WikiLeaks, which in turn is promoting other conduits for fans who'd like to help support it.

3. Politicians continue to grandstand against the site, with Sen. Mitch McConnell calling WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange "a high-tech terrorist." The Huffington Post reports that "a State Department official warned students at Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs" that anyone "who will be applying for jobs in the federal government could jeopardize their prospects by posting links to WikiLeaks online, or even by discussing the leaked documents on social networking sites."

4. Interesting stories continue to emerge from the leaked cables themselves, including the U.S. role in shaping Spanish copyright law, the spark that set off China's war on Google, and the dark side of global climate negotiations.

5. Marvel Team-Up of the year: WikiLeaks and Anonymous.

Comments

[Fist of Etiquette]

If I was a business, and unless I catered solely to an anarchist customer base, I definitely would never have gotten into bed with WikiLeaks in the first place. It makes no sense risking the alienation of a considerably large block of consumers. Let someone else save the world.

[Hugh Akston]

Are consumers really going to get bent out of shape about Amazon and PayPal doing business with Wikileaks? Do they care enough about it to stop using either service? Somehow I doubt it.

[Paul]

Are consumers really going to get bent out of shape about Amazon and PayPal doing business with Wikileaks?

The Federal Government will, and PayPal probably doesn't want any of that action.

[Fist of Etiquette]

It's not just grandstanding politicians getting all up in my grill and making it that much more difficult to conduct business (but that's obviously a huge concern).

It doesn't make sense to risk it with customers, either. The Dixie Chicks debacle seems like a good example. I wouldn't want to give people any reason to vote with their dollars for my competitor.

[dbcooper]

Jeff?

[Hugh Akston]

Since Amazon and PayPal are such large institutions, they are in a unique position here to show some leadership and say that they may not agree with Wikileaks on this particular move, but they aren't going to deny service any more than they will cease selling the Chronicles of the Elder Zion or facilitating transactions to porn websites.

I doubt that the consumers are going to give much concern to the debate either way.

[Tara]

The bit mistake that Amazon & PayPal made here is that they have essentially now said, "we are not common carriers, completely neutral of the content we deal with."

The extension of that is that they are now essentially ENDORSING every last thing they touch. Because in every case, you can ask, "why censor WikiLeaks but not this?"

[Lost_In_Translation]

Eh, Wikileaks will get its money one way or another. The Cayman Islands always has some company willing to give the finger to the foreign governments. The real question is how long until you're investigated by the FBI for donating to wikileaks (because obviously you're funding cyber-terrorism according to politician (ignorant fellow citizen) X.

[boomshanka]

it think it's a very real concern for anyone considering supporting wikileaks, financially or otherwise. and there's no doubt it has a large chilling effect.

[Lost_In_Translation]

I'm sure I'll find a way to donate.

THAT'S RIGHT CARNIVORE. I'M DONATING TO WIKILEAKS!

[Typical Politician]

I don't understand your reasoning. You mean I don't need to make you do it?

[Hugh Akston]

Linking to one jpg urging anons to go on the offensive doesn't mean it's gonna happen. Anyone who expects it to produce any action doesn't know 4chan.

[JOhnny MAckson]

My ears were burning. Did you call? Once I 'borrow' mom's credit card, I'll totally help out. After I buy some pron. LOL

Jess
http://www.anon4u.com

[Johnny Longtorso]

More on the warming stuff

http://wattsupwiththat.com/201.....te-cables/

[Gray Beard]

Frequently updated list of mirrors here.

[Paul]

a State Department official warned students at Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs" that anyone "who will be applying for jobs in the federal government could jeopardize their prospects by posting links to WikiLeaks online

How would they know?

[Hugh Akston]

They'll get their classmates to inform on them.

[Ska]

The government isn't the only employer that looks at facebook pages of prospective hires.

[Lost_In_Translation]

One should wonder that, but not be surprised by any answer.

[Some other guy]

amazon and paypal stopped supporting wikileaks? I'm boycotting them both until I really really need their services.

[Vernunft]

For every animal you don't eat, I'm eating three.

[Tara]

I'm going to not eat three whole cows a day, just so I can watch you eat nine.

[Vernunft]

Europe's been the historical leader in strict copyright protection. Ever heard of moral rights?

Between this blog's anti-property stance and the glee at the Wikileaks douchebag, where's a guy to go for actual libertarian thought?

[Lil' Help]

I think this is what you're looking for Peikoff: http://www.libertarians4aggression.com/

[heller]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/?

Nah, too lefty for you.

Here ya go buddy:

http://www.redstate.com/

[hmm]

Why ask here?

[Cytotoxic]

I hear ya.

[IceTrey]

Assange is not the "founder" of Wikileaks.

The site claims to have been "founded by Chinese dissidents, journalists, mathematicians and start-up company technologists, from the US, Taiwan, Europe, Australia and South Africa". The creators of WikiLeaks have not been formally identified.- Wikipedia

[Al Gore]

(meekly raises hand)

[Contemplationist]

How awesome is it that the leaks generally seem to comport with libertarian beliefs?

[Anonymous Coward]

"a State Department official warned students at Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs" that anyone "who will be applying for jobs in the federal government could jeopardize their prospects by posting links to WikiLeaks online, or even by discussing the leaked documents on social networking sites."

First Amendment? What First Amendment?

General welfare, necessary and proper, commerce. All you need to know about the Constitution.

[Since when..]

... did libertarians believe one has a 'right' to a government job?

[Butler T. Reynolds]

Sure! Starve the beast!

[Hobo Chang Ba]

In other words, libertarians should hope that every public policy student across the country blogs about and links to Wikileaks, so the government has no qualified candidates to fill its ranks.

[BG]

Politicians continue to grandstand against the site, with Sen. Mitch McConnell calling WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange "a high-tech terrorist." The Huffington Post reports that "a State Department official warned students at Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs" that anyone "who will be applying for jobs in the federal government could jeopardize their prospects by posting links to WikiLeaks online, or even by discussing the leaked documents on social networking sites."

Why must they compound the embarrassment of the leaks with idiocy in their reaction? The information is "out there" already. If any foreign power's intelligence services want the information (and didn't have it already) they can get it regardless of whether or not federal employees are allowed to link to it. So who will be prevented from seeing leaked documents because of this policy? It seems that nobody will, except people who are vaguely curious about them, but not motivated or internet savvy enough to find a link to them unless they happen to encounter one while browsing a social networking site.

And whatever may be said of Julian Assange, he is obviously not a terrorist. He doesn't murder people, or even destroy property; and he is not a member of an organization dedicated to using those tactics against civilian targets.

[Hugh Akston]

And whatever may be said of Julian Assange, he is obviously not a terrorist. He doesn't murder people, or even destroy property; and he is not a member of an organization dedicated to using those tactics against civilian targets.

That's more than you can say about the US government.

[BG]

Well, I don't really object to the US government killing Taliban or Al-Qaeda members or destroying their property. Also, I don't consider killing Taliban or Al-Qaeda militants on the battlefield to be "murder". I'd say it is justified homicide.

[SM]

Battlefield "earth."

Nice...gotta love this. Not a libertarian, are you?

[BG]

No. I consider myself more of a Classic Liberal than a Libertarian.

At any rate, I don't really see any problem with the comment you are responding to. Afghanistan and some parts of Pakistan are currently battlefields. Killing non-surrendered Taliban and Al-Qaeda forces on that battlefield is an act of killing enemy militants in a just war. Ergo, it is justified homicide.

If you disagree with anything I've said feel free to point it out.

[SM]

I do not agree with invading other countries and murdering their people anymore than i agree with them invading ours and murdering us.

That is the part i disagree with.

[BG]

I do not agree with invading other countries and murdering their people anymore than i agree with them invading ours and murdering us.

That is the part i disagree with.

So are there any circumstances at all, even in principle, when you think it would be justified to send US troops in to a foreign country for war? How about during World War 2, for example: do you think the US was justified sending troops into Axis Power countries to force those countries to surrender? And do you consider that it was "murder" to kill German, Italian, and Japanese troops during that war?

Also, if you don't think the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan was justified, what do you think the US should have done in response to the 9/11 attacks?

[SM]

I do not have a rigid ideology - i think that if one countries army attacks another country, that we could help defend them - and i really don't care what the same of the first country is.

As for comparing a country like germany invading other countries during WWII to a group of worldwide terrorists...well, i think you need to brush up on your history a little bit...and stop with the false equivocation...

...like i said...you people view the entire world as a battlefield...never-ending wars...i have no interest in that.

[SM]

PS, i meant "name of the first country is," not "same of the first country is."

[BG]

I do not have a rigid ideology - i think that if one countries army attacks another country, that we could help defend them - and i really don't care what the same of the first country is.

OK, so do you think it was acceptable for the US to help defend Kuwait in 1991? And do you think containment policies against Saddam Hussein afterwards were justified (since Saddam had clearly demonstrated that he could not be trusted)? Because Al-Qaeda's main "grievance" with the US stems from such actions.

As for comparing a country like germany invading other countries during WWII to a group of worldwide terrorists...well, i think you need to brush up on your history a little bit...and stop with the false equivocation...

I am assuming you wanted to say "false equivalence" rather than "false lack of clarity". While there are important strategic and tactical differences, the idea of defending oneself and others through war applies in both cases. And while Al-Qaeda may have cells all over the world, the Taliban was the only regime that allowed them to operate openly.

...like i said...you people view the entire world as a battlefield...never-ending wars...i have no interest in that.

I never said that the entire world should be considered a battlefield, or that this war will never end. You are putting words in my mouth.

[boomshanka]

and the thousands of innocent civilians we also kill in the process? justifiable homicide?

[Valawe]

But is it really any different to kill involuntary draftees than civilians who are being forced to help the war effort.

[Cytotoxic]

Not our moral burden. This is the moral burden of aggressors like AQ and the Taliban.

[BG]

and the thousands of innocent civilians we also kill in the process? justifiable homicide?

No. The status of those deaths depends on the circumstances. It may be negligent homicide in some cases, if the military fails to take reasonable measures to minimize the risk of civilian casualties. Or it may be a non-criminal accident.

The only time when it would qualify as "murder" would be those exceedingly rare cases when US forces actually knowingly and deliberately target innocent civilians. Of course, it is not US policy to do so, and when US soldiers are found to have done so, they are prosecuted.

[boomshanka]

Intent to commit an act knowing it will result in the death of another is murder. It doesn't really matter if the civilian is THE intended target if a military drops a bombing knowing it will kill that person. You're playing semantic games when the question is a moral one.

[BG]

Intent to commit an act knowing it will result in the death of another is murder. It doesn't really matter if the civilian is THE intended target if a military drops a bombing knowing it will kill that person.

Not necessarily. One has to consider the justification (or lack thereof) that the military has in firing at the enemy target who is near a civilian; as well as what other options were available. If a bunch of Taliban militants are shooting at you, you are not automatically required to refrain from shooting back - even if you know that there are civilians nearby and it is probable that some will be killed.

In addition, military personnel generally don't "know" that dropping any specific bomb or shooting at a specific target will result in civilian death(s). They know that there is a possibility of that happening, and that possibility exists even if one tries to minimize it. Given that a lot of bombing and shooting is necessary to win a war, the probability of conducting a war without causing civilian casualties asymptotically approaches zero.

I would be interesting to know: what do you think the US should have done in response to the 9/11 attacks (assuming you don't think invading Afghanistan was the right decision)?

[SM]

I would be interested to know: what do you think the US should have done in response to the attacks that were plotted in the united states, germany, malaysia, yemen, saudi arabia, the UAE, kuwait, and afghanistan?

What do i personally think we should have done? First, I wouldn't have given them their reason for hating us - our worldwide military empire. That's called "prevention." Second, be happy that pakistan collared KSM, the architect of the plots. Third, accept the taliban's offering of turning over bin laden and other al qaeda members in exchange for not invading their country. Fourth, realize that no matter what, there will ALWAYS be another country to invade where someone dislikes us.

That would provide for a good start...

I'm pretty sure "carpet bomb one of the dozen or so countries" would not have been high on the list...

[BG]

I would be interested to know: what do you think the US should have done in response to the attacks that were plotted in the united states, germany, malaysia, yemen, saudi arabia, the UAE, kuwait, and afghanistan?

Well, given that the terrorist organization that carried it out was headquartered in Afghanistan, and given that (contrary to your post) the Taliban refused US demands to shut down Al-Qaeda bases, invading Afghanistan and kicking out the Taliban was an appropriate part of the response. The other countries on that list had an Al-Qaeda presence at some point during the plotting, but they had to operate under the radar. Unlike the Taliban, the governments of those countries did not have a policy of allowing them to set up overt bases.

I would not have invaded Iraq in 2003, and I would have concentrated more resources and troops on Afghanistan. If and when Taliban and Al-Qaeda leadership escaped to Pakistan, I would make it my main diplomatic goal to pressure Pakistan into either seriously cracking down on Taliban & Al-Qaeda forces, or letting NATO forces into their territory to do it.

It may be necessary at this point to negotiate with the Taliban, but I don't think it is acceptable to offer them the opportunity to regain control of 95% of the country as they had before October 2001. We could work out some kind of peace deal where they lay down their arms and accept the elected Afghan government in exchange for amnesty and possibly the opportunity to run in future Afghan elections. But allowing them to retake control of the country would be both a human rights disaster and a slap in the face to those Afghans who helped us. Keeping the Taliban out of power is also part of punishing bin Laden and his ilk (since bin Laden considered the Taliban the only property Islamic government on the planet, he clearly didn't want them to lose power).

What do i personally think we should have done? First, I wouldn't have given them their reason for hating us - our worldwide military empire. That's called "prevention."

What aspect of our "military empire" was Osama bin Laden upset about? Answer: The US was projecting power on the Arabian Peninsula, first by leading a coalition to kick Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait, and then with postwar containment policies (based, no-fly zones, etc). The US had the consent of the Saudi and Kuwaiti governments to establish bases in those counties. And maintaining no-fly zones to keep a genocidal dictator in check was fully justified. It was the Baathist regime, not the US, which was the aggressor in that situation.

So should the US have stayed out of it when Saddam Hussein tried to annex Kuwait? Should secular countries avoid confronting aggressors just because somebody might have this irrational idea that certain parts of the ground are "holy lands" and would be "desecrated" by the presence of infidels?

Second, be happy that pakistan collared KSM, the architect of the plots.

I am happy about that, though I wish a lot more Al-Qaeda leaders would also be collared (or killed).

Third, accept the taliban's offering of turning over bin laden and other al qaeda members in exchange for not invading their country.

Again, the Taliban refused to hand over bin Laden to the US (proposing instead to have him tried in Afghanistan or Pakistan according to Islamic law) and they refused the other demands of the US such as fully closing down Al-Qaeda bases and giving US authorities full access to training camps for inspection.

Fourth, realize that no matter what, there will ALWAYS be another country to invade where someone dislikes us.

"Someone disliking us" is not the reason the US invaded Afghanistan, and not something I would consider a sufficient reason for invading a country.

I'm pretty sure "carpet bomb one of the dozen or so countries" would not have been high on the list...

It is not on my list either, but I think we have different definitions of "carpet bombing".

[TrickyVic]

""I don't consider killing Taliban or Al-Qaeda militants on the battlefield to be "murder". I'd say it is justified homicide.""

What if the people killed are neither?

[BG]

What if the people killed are neither?

See my comment at 11:13 AM above.

[SM]

Which is worse? A government that taxes to provide a "security" bureaucracy that instead turns into this lying, murdering mess...

...or a government that taxes to provide healthcare and a pension to its citizens...

I know, "both"...but for this intellectual exercise....pick one.

[Tara]

Except that "both" is exactly what we've got.

[Hugh Akston]

Precisely, we never got that choice.

[SM]

Two-fisted in the butt without lube?

....or one-fisted but using Michelle Obama's arm?

I know, "both"...but.,..for,,,this....__intellectual exercise....pick.....nose.

[SM]

I am not faced with that option being alive on planet earth...

...the scenario i describe? You are. Every day. Unless you reduce the population of this planet to one, other people will have an effect on your "life" "liberty" "freedom" "property" etc...whether you want them to or not, even in libertopia. The only questions are, how, and to what degree?

So, which is it? People are going to do things that cost you your "liberty" (or whatever it is you call money now a days) - so would you rather pay now, or pay more later - if these are the options?

PS. The only way of getting out of paying is to kill yourself. I will allow you that option...you see, i too can be a libertarian!

[SM]

I'm asking if you'd prefer a ron paul/barney frank alliance...or what you get now?

I'm saying, if you people could jettison all the "property is freedom" stuff for a while...we could probably build a large coalition of libertarians and progressives that would agree to hate this...

...but as it is...both sides hate the other over their disagreements. So what do we get instead? Congress.

[0x90]

Congress is not what it is because people disagree; it is what it is because it can be. To demonstrate, consider a hypothetical (as you seem apt to do), in which the collection of taxes is no longer enforced. No other changes are to be made in this scenario; simply, failure to file or pay will no longer be prosecuted.

Now, x-amount of tax is collected currently. In the absence of collection enforcement, we might expect that number to drop. Should we assume it will approach zero? If so, why? If not, what percentage of current receipts should we expect to see? How will Congress' use of taxes surrendered affect future receipts?

(naturally, this is complicated by the government's claim to monopoly over currency; ostensibly it would simply make up the difference that way. But let's ignore that for now, as the point is to consider the people's willingness, absent physical threats, to fund the activities of their government)

[SM]

I would assume it would drop, because there are a lot of people out there, including the libertarians, that assume everything is done for free...and the majority of money is wasted. The assumptions you guys make - that there will be a way to get around, people will still get educated, that there will be a skilled workforce, etc, are astounding.

I know you like to base the foundations of libertopia off of what we currently have - and that's fine, it does exist - but to pretend it would exist if libertopia was what we chose instead of democracy...well...again, the height of folly.

I'm thinking dirt, snow covered roads.

In fact, we can look at foreign countries that don't have a government that collects enough taxes to pave roads, and this is exactly what you see.

Obviously there would be some good - get rid of the never ending wars. But there is more than one way to skin that cat, so i suggest we all work together on that first...before we get rid of roads, schools, healthcare, pensions, etc.

Would you prefer half your tax money back, or none of it?

[0x90]

Well, that was a rather roundabout way of stating that receipts would go to zero.

The point, since you so clearly missed it, was: voting alone does not provide an effective feedback mechanism. Think about that for awhile and let me know what you come up with.

[cynical]

Progressives seem pretty comfortable working with the warmongers, actually. They just want to make sure the right people are running the war.

[SM]

I consider myself "progressive" and am less comfortable working with warmongers than i am libertarians.

Now if we could get that through your think skulls...maybe we could actually put an end to some of this nonsense.

[Steve Smith]

STEVE WANT TO SEE BARNEY FRANK RAPE SM. STEVE LOVE SM AND DOES IT EVERY SATURDAY NIGHT BEFORE RAPING JEFF BEZOS.

[SM]

while watching you suck off ron paul...obviously...

does your boy ron paul like his "private time" with barney?

Do you all condemn him now that they work together on some issues?

[Cy Nickelfuque]

a State Department official warned students ... that anyone "who will be applying for jobs in the federal government could jeopardize their prospects by

subscribing to Aviation Week Leak.

[robc]

So, anyone want to explain why US writing foreign laws should be labeled *secret* to begin with?

[Hillary Clinton]

Not if I could avoid it. I mean, who would?!

[R C Dean]

How awesome is it that the leaks things the State wants to hide generally seem to comport with libertarian beliefs?

Awesome, but not surprising.

[Yonemoto]

What, no Ron Paul defends assange? cmon jesse.

[alaamiah]

at Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs" that anyone "wh