Wrongful Arrest Demonstrates Dangers Of Law Enforcement Listening To Bogus Industry Claims
YouTube Sensation Justin Bieber Blocked From Uploading His Own Music To YouTube By Copyright

Amazon Bows To US Censorship Pressure: Refuses To Host Wikileaks

Free Speech

from the ah,-whatever-ahppened-to-that-first-amendment dept

Wed, Dec 1st 2010 12:45pm -

While the Feds are still trying to figure out if they can take legal action against Wikileaks and Julian Assange, in the short term it appears that the government is resorting to more traditional censorship methods: pressuring companies to silence Wikileaks. Wikileaks had just started using Amazon’s S3 storage, after trying to deal with a constant denial of service attack that started this past weekend, but Amazon has now apparently dumped Wikileaks after getting pressure from Senator Joe Lieberman, who flat out called for censoring Wikileaks and then applauded Amazon for following through:

“(Amazon’s) decision to cut off WikiLeaks now is the right decision and should set the standard for other companies WikiLeaks is using to distribute its illegally seized material,” he said in a statement. “I call on any other company or organization that is hosting WikiLeaks to immediately terminate its relationship with them.”

Anyone have a copy of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that they can send to Lieberman? Or is that not allowed these days? I’ll repeat my earlier comments: Look at who’s complaining the most about Wikileaks and you realize that it’s the people who benefit from not being held accountable for their actions.

Filed Under: , ,
Companies: amazon, wikileaks

269 CommentsLeave a Comment
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Amazon Bows To US Censorship Pressure: Refuses To Host Wikileaks”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
269 Comments
Roger says:

"Censorship" of Wikileaks???

Is it censhorship to try to prevent the publication of documents and communications that were never intended to be made public? How would you feel if your phone conversations were posted online for all to see?

I think it is way improper to describe government efforts to protect sensitive and private communications as “censorship.”

:Lobo Santo (profile) says:

Re: "Censorship" of Wikileaks???

Dictatorship starts with secrets, whispers, censorship, backroom deals.

Best we nip this shit in the bud, if you’re one of the people who your government allegedly represents, then you should know what your government is doing.

Or, to put it another way:
[Citizen to Government] “Hey, you fucking work for me, not the other way around!”

Jon B. says:

Re: "Censorship" of Wikileaks???

How would I feel? I’d be angry at whoever leaked my private information and I would do my best to bring them to justice, but I could not rightly fault a press organization that chose to publish that information as news once it had been leaked. There have been many cases where celebrities have had photos taken illegally – while the photographer may get punished, the press that publishes the photos do not get punished.

Same goes for Wikileaks. You leak classified information? You get in trouble. But once the information is out there, there’s no logical or moral reason to go after the free press.

lux (profile) says:

Re: Re: "Censorship" of Wikileaks???

Same goes for Wikileaks. You leak classified information? You get in trouble. But once the information is out there, there’s no logical or moral reason to go after the free press.

But this doesn’t make sense.

Here’s a sensitive analogy: let’s say a movie was leaked long before it was due in theaters, and this happens occasionally. Now, in all fairness, let’s say this movie was obtained via illegal means, and posted as a torrent for all to access.

Per your argument, is the original copy the only infringing (and illegal) copy? I would suspect not. Therefore, it makes sense for whoever might want their data/documents back to attack or as some here would call it “censor” any server or party that might be harboring the document.

This is of course under the assumption that whatever was obtained and broadcast was in fact illegal.

Dark Helmet (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 "Censorship" of Wikileaks???

I was not aware that Wikileaks had been charged with theft or larceny. Here I thought folks were talking of charging them with espionage, which would render your entire point moot.

If you ain’t going to charge the publishers of the Pentagon Papers, you can’t charge Wikileaks. They’re doing essentially the same thing. The only difference is scale….

lux (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 "Censorship" of Wikileaks???

Here I thought folks were talking of charging them with espionage, which would render your entire point moot.

I suspect they are simply charging him with the crime that would procure the longest sentencing.

If you ain’t going to charge the publishers of the Pentagon Papers

Um, they did. It went to the Supreme Court…Moreover, Ellsburg and his accomplice were charged with the Espionage Act of 1917. However it was declared a mistrial given some illegal evidence gathering by the government’s prosecution.

Dark Helmet (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 "Censorship" of Wikileaks???

“Um, they did. It went to the Supreme Court…Moreover, Ellsburg and his accomplice were charged with the Espionage Act of 1917. However it was declared a mistrial given some illegal evidence gathering by the government’s prosecution.”

Okay, I’m going to assume that I wasn’t clear when I said the PUBLISHERS of the Pentagon Papers. Wikileaks is the publisher, the person who actually leaked the documents is the leaker. In the Pentagon Papers case, Ellsburg is the LEAKER, and the publisher was first the NY Times, and then the Washington Post. THEY WERE NOT CHARGED. Nixon tried to get an injunction barring publication, but the Supreme Court said the case didn’t warrant prior restraint….

lux (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 "Censorship" of Wikileaks???

Ok, we’re splitting hairs here again. A court case was brought about against the NYT:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States

Call it an injunction, or call it the minor step before being charged with the Espionage Act, either way the gov’t tried to stop what was happening. Your previous comment seemed to offer the notion that nothing was ever lodged against the folks behind the PP (publisher or leaker). However, this is not true, both were attacked for generally the same reasons.

Screeley says:

Re: Re: Re:7 "Censorship" of Wikileaks???

“Your previous comment seemed to offer the notion that nothing was ever lodged against the folks behind the PP (publisher or leaker)”

Ummm… No, his previous comment did not offer that notion.

It may have “seemed” (to you) to offer that notion, but your inability to parse prose should be no replacement for what he actually said.

ltlw0lf (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 "Censorship" of Wikileaks???

I was not aware one could steal goods, physical or virtual, and simply provide it to another party, and that qualifies as passing it to the public domain.

Not a good analogy at all. Nobody is suggesting that stealing something and passing it through another party means passing it to the public domain.

Anything produced by the US Government (until recently, when they started giving it to contractors,) is by its very nature, public domain. Your tax dollars paid for its creation, so you should have every benefit of its use.

Nobody, Government or otherwise, can claim copyright on works produced by the US Government. However, if the US Government hires a third-party to produce the work, then the jury is still out on whether the work is public domain or not.

Karl (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 "Censorship" of Wikileaks???

So, when do I get to hop in a Stealth Bomber for a quick jaunt?

When the U.S. Government specifically says that Stealth Bombers are not property. They haven’t yet, but they have done that for government documents:

Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government

– 17 USC P.105

Designerfx (profile) says:

Re: "Censorship" of Wikileaks???

your question is the wrong one.

the question is, since when should the people not be informed, regardless of whether the intent is to be covert or public?

since when did our first amendment rights get trumped by security? Last I checked, that doesn’t exist anywhere in the constitution.

Richard Kulawiec says:

Re: Re: "Censorship" of Wikileaks???

Excellent point

A further one: it’s not the responsibility of journalists — or anyone else for that matter — to keep secrets because others wish they would. What’s not being asked here (and of course it’s not being asked because it would embarrass the wrong people) is why the hell the US set up this system so poorly that it was trivial for someone to stroll off with a bazillion dispatches. And as a followup question, also not being asked, I could add “what possible reason do we have to believe that Wikileaks is the only entity with this data?”

Surely nobody is so pathetically naive as to think that a data system this amazingly weak has only been compromised once. I think it’s far more likely that a much, MUCH larger corpus of documents has long since been in the hands of multiple governments — who are no doubt privately amused that DC is wetting its pants over this trivial incident while much larger leaks go unremarked.

So in one sense, I look at it this way: if these dispatches are being read in Kabul and Moscow and Dublin and Havana and Minsk, then why not here? Hey, unlike all of those folks, I’m a US citizen: I paid for them.

Karl (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: "Censorship" of Wikileaks???

why the hell the US set up this system so poorly that it was trivial for someone to stroll off with a bazillion dispatches.

I believe that the leaked documents usually came from dissenters within the government, the same place most leaked documents come from. In other words, from people who actually had clearance to view them in the first place.

I think it’s far more likely that a much, MUCH larger corpus of documents has long since been in the hands of multiple governments

That’s very likely true. But the point of keeping these things secret has nothing to do with hiding information from, say, North Korea. It’s all about hiding it from the press and public.

tamoustachecunetache says:

Re: "Censorship" of Wikileaks???

You compare the government to an individual. The government is not “someone” and it is not private.
If your employees were using your money to play in your back, you’d be very happy to know about it and you’d take proper actions.

The government is doing exactly this. They take your money and play in your back. You are the employer of the government so stop acting like an obeying slave and stand up and take your responsibilities for once.

Marcel de Jong (profile) says:

Re: "Censorship" of Wikileaks???

The genie is out of the bottle. Good luck putting it back in.
The more the US is struggling against the release of these files the more attention they get.

By taking Wikipedia offline, like Joe “I hate freedom” Lieberman just demanded, he just used the US Constitution as toilet paper. I don’t think the Founding Fathers had that use in mind when they wrote the damn thing.

Eric says:

Re: "Censorship" of Wikileaks???

If my phone bill was paid for by a group of people under the pretext that I was accountable to them and my salary was paid for by them, then yes, they would be justified in snooping in on my phone conversations, and even publishing them.

Don’t be ridiculous. We have a right to know. This is OUR country.

sean says:

Re: "Censorship" of Wikileaks???

Its not the same thing. None of these cables and document invade of these people’s private conversations. These are what they did at work. Do you expect your employer to record and listen in to your conversations while you are at working, supposedly conducting work related tasks? The line we citizens always get from the government regarding illegal wiretaps and patriot act is “If you are not doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to hide.” This is the same thing. Why do they get to do business in secret, backstab friends and allies to get favorable deals and such. This is the public’s right to know. Did you feel this way when you found out what Nixon was up to? Did you feel that you were invading his privacy when you heard the tapes that were made while he sat in the oval office, conducting business when he was elected by Americans? Citizens of all countries that have elected leaders should have transparency and obligation to be open with their constituents. Plain and Simple.

BearGriz72 (profile) says:

Re: "Censorship" of Wikileaks???

“Is it censhorship to try to prevent the publication of documents and communications that were never intended to be made public?“

Yes, Yes it is, especially when the government is covering up it’s own misconduct.

“How would you feel if your phone conversations were posted online for all to see?“

Annoyed? Maybe irritated, depending on who did it I might have grounds to sue. (You know what that is right? a CIVIL proceeding.) Of course there are wiretap laws for that aren’t there? Lose the straw man argument please.

“I think it is way improper to describe government efforts to protect sensitive and private communications as “censorship.”“

So what, I think it is improper to describe government communications as sensitive and private. Next?

el_segfaulto (profile) says:

No secrets

Long time lurker, first time poster… My phone conversations are private, however since my taxes go towards my government’s actions which means I am somewhat responsible for everything they do. This means that as a citizen I demand access to all data (provided it doesn’t put people in danger) and will refuse to deal with a government that doesn’t strive for transparency.

ronalds545 (profile) says:

Re: No secrets

Along the same lines, if you buy stock in a company, you’re an owner and “am somewhat responsible for everything they do.” Thus, your argument is that no company should be allowed trade secrets. We should all know the formula for Coke, Google’s algorithms, and everyone’s unlisted telephone number. And more directly to the point, since the government collects taxes via tax returns, let’s post yours to this website.

cc (profile) says:

Re: Re: No secrets

Not quite the same. It’s more like “no company should be allowed to dump harmful waste in the ocean and be allowed to keep it secret”. Also, there’s what I call the conscientious investor’s dilemma: “would you invest in a company that you know dumps harmful waste in the ocean?”.

At the end of the day, governments are organisations of which we are shareholders by default, and it’s our responsibility to keep them sane and moral. Unlike private companies, countries are based on ideals which governments need to respect and preserve. If they lose sight of those ideals, and we find out, we as the people of the country need to do something about it. If governments keep secrets too many secrets from their people, their people become their soldiers rather than their shareholders.

Christopher (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Actually, I think that we are honestly getting close to the point where we are going to have the second American Civil War, where it will be people who think the corporatocracy we have today is good against the people who think that a more socialistic leaning government (not totally communist, but a balance between capitalism and communism) is better.

Basically, conservative vs. liberal. Contrary to popular belief, those two groups are about equal in the US today.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Panties in a twist? As a REAL American who pays attention to the mechanics of our plutocratic government, I would sincerely hope people (including yourself) find that the faults of our government are grounds for it’s dismissal. The opportunity of a truly democratic body should be enough motivation for people to stand up and fight for it. However, it seems you prefer the status-quo.

Welp, congratulations – They have you right where they want you, Dumbass.

Anonymous Coward says:

Since when does exposing stolen government and military documents for general public consumption including to the originating countries enemies constitute free speech? Since when was Julian Assange a US citizen guaranteed such a right?

If you answer anything other than “Never” to either question, you are just a troll. Including article’s author.

snaxmaster (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

It’s nice how you ignored the fact that you have no proof that Amazon was “ordered” to do a thing. Nor do they have to be. They could simply be doing the right thing or ticked that they are getting flack because WikiLeaks broke their terms of service. It doesn’t matter because Amazon is a private company and can do whatever it is they want.

snaxmaster (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

How bout I just quote the good senator…

“(Amazon’s) decision to cut off WikiLeaks now is the right decision and should set the standard for other companies WikiLeaks is using to distribute its illegally seized material,” he said in a statement. “I call on any other company or organization that is hosting WikiLeaks to immediately terminate its relationship with them.”

Read that quote and tell me where he orders anyone to do anything? And tell me where they were threatened? Because its not clear to me nor many people on here. And if anyone was going to “order” someone do you think it would be Joe Lieberman? Seriously? He’s as imposing as my 90 year old grandmother and she’s in a coma.

cc (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

I can’t help but feel there’s an implicit “, or else!” at the end, which was left unsaid because, well, this is politics.

It’s quite clear that if Amazon sides with Wikileaks, they’ll regret it down the line when the government starts piling on extra taxes and signing contracts with rival companies. It’s not like Amazon or any other company or organization has any choice on this matter..

Jon B. says:

Re: Re:

Since when does exposing stolen government and military documents for general public consumption including to the originating countries enemies constitute free speech?

Not free speech. Free press. Why are government documents exempt from the free press?

Since when was Julian Assange a US citizen guaranteed such a right?

He’s in an EU nation, and the EU nations have press freedoms very similar to that in the US. And while we’re pointing out that he’s outside US jurisdiction, are you at the same time suggesting he should be prosecuted by the US for something?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Some people believe patriotism means standing up for what is right regarding a country and their citizens. Amazon didn’t have to do what they did. They chose to. I appluad that. You people who think this country can remain safe without secrecy are living in a fantasy world… you know.. the one where global warming is real.

Christopher (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

NO, you are living in a fantasy world where you think that secrecy (i.e. lies to the public) needs to exist. It doesn’t, never has needed to exist except for VERY SHORT PERIODS, and never will need to exist except for VERY SHORT PERIODS!

Basically, everything should be DE-classified after, at most, 3 months to a year.

Maybe with some NAMES marked out, but nothing else.

Roger says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

Except the info “stolen” had little to do with government doing “despicable things” and more to do with how governments conduct diplomacy between friends and foes. Often, candor cannot be made public if one party or another is to save face. Saving face is a real need, as when two individuals have to say unpleasant things to one another and yet want to maintain some level of positivity in the relationship. Like, continuing to talk to each other & work together. Like, in a marriage or co-workers, neither of whom wants to quit the relationship.

Eric says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

Roger,

You didn’t even address the point I made. Keep living in your deluded world.

I think the whole situation is hilarious. Good on Assange.

These bureaucrats are tactless and vile. These “public servants” deserve the humility WikiLeaks has called on them. Horrible, horrible, violent, disgusting people – and you’d support them. Your nationalism is blinding your logic here, and if you aren’t mentally retarded you know it, but will probably never acknowledge it.

Tim says:

Re: Re:

Again, the fact that the documents were stolen or millitary is in itself unimportant. What IS important is that these documents were clearly in the public interest and were just begging to be leaked. Seriously, read up on protections for journalists.

As all of you anti-Wikileaks trolls (yes, YOU are the trolls) come out of the woodwork, two questions come to mind:

1. Where were you guys for the last 4 years? Wikileaks is not new. Just seems like you’re rallying now because your rulers in the media and government are saying harsh things about them.

2. Why do you worship power? Ah, must be just like your name says: A coward.

Chris Rhodes (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Since when does exposing stolen government and military documents for general public consumption including to the originating countries enemies constitute free speech?

When did it not?

Since when was Julian Assange a US citizen guaranteed such a right?

First, there’s the philosophical argument that free speech is a right that all humankind shares (a thought shared by our very Declaration of Independence, mind you). Besides, would you suddenly be okay with this if it was a US citizen leaking the same info? I suspect not, which makes the question of Assange’s citizenship nothing more than a distraction on your part.

Second, Amazon is a US company being pressured by the US government.

letherial (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Free speech also includes the ability to read things; true the government wanted to hide it, and they did…for awhile, but once it out, they cannot make it a crime to be read….that being said, its amazons stupidity for falling for this, the blame is on them, the government did not order them to shut it down, therefore, there was no censorship.

Dark Helmet (profile) says:

The truth revealed...

” Look at who’s complaining the most about Wikileaks and you realize that it’s the people who benefit from not being held accountable for their actions.”

Lieberman’s actual name L’ieber Man’Joe, and he is a Bothan, and Wikileaks is a whole mountain-sized storehouse filled with stuff he doesn’t want revealed. At some point, Lieberman destroyed Caamas, and now he’s trying to hide it….

Eugene (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Their servers have actually be decentralized for a long time. The Amazon servers were really just an extra buffer to help when the DDoS (or possibly just extreme traffic due to popularity) knocked them offline for a short time. So don’t worry about wikileaks going down because of this, it’s no big deal in the long run.

Just disappointing that Amazon would cave. That’s all.

Chris Rhodes (profile) says:

Re: Re:

By doing this, Wikileaks is, in a sense, a terrorist organization.

If he was a citizen of the US, it wouldn’t be terrorism? Terrorism depends on your country of origin and not the action? Timmy McVeigh can rest easy in his grave, I guess.

Also, what? Terrorism? Listen kid, terrorism doesn’t mean “something the US government really hates”, despite what the word has been twisted into by the past couple presidencies.

Eugene (profile) says:

Re: Re:

By definition, the bill of rights laid out the fundamental rights of all human beings. The only reason their specific protections don’t extend to foreigners is because that would be an OVER-extension of the US’s sovereignty, and it’s up to other sovereignties to apply those tenets themselves. It doesn’t mean non-citizens don’t have human rights. That’s ridiculous.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Is he advocating violence or an overthrow of the American (or any other) government? Not that I’m aware. Is he making threats to Americans (or anyone else)? Nope, besides letting them know he’ll publish anything pertinent that’s leaked to him.

Terrorists use *terror* to force people to do what they want. He’s not doing anything like that, simply exposing information.

RikuoAmero (profile) says:

Hate to play Devil's Advocate

Mike, can you clarify a couple of things for us. Did the Senator in question actually give a specific order to Amazon, or was it simply a blanket REQUEST (which some may interpret as an order, but legally it is not an order).
Secondly, I recall you yourself stating on many occassions censorship only occurs when its the government doing it. If Amazon decide not to host Wikileaks, that’s their business, it is not censorship and not a violation of the First Admendment.

Chris Rhodes (profile) says:

Re: Hate to play Devil's Advocate

If Amazon decide not to host Wikileaks, that’s their business, it is not censorship and not a violation of the First Admendment.

True enough, but I can imagine how noncompliance with a government “request” might be seen as an admission by Amazon that they were hosting “infringing content”.

“Nice domain you got there . . . be a shame if anything were to happen to it.”

snaxmaster (profile) says:

Re: Re: Hate to play Devil's Advocate

Censorship is suppression of speech or other communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the general body of people as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body

The censorship would be when the U.S. government steps into the offices of Amazon with a warrant and shuts them down for not complying.
A request is not censorship. Its just like me asking you to be quiet and not tell the world about the time I screwed your mom on the living room coffee table. Its not censorship till I tape your mouth closed.

Eugene (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Hate to play Devil's Advocate

So let’s say the government did something outrageous like, i don’t know, shutting down a bunch of domains on a whim. And then someone a site playing host to a group the government doesn’t like sees that and decides to not host that group anymore. Let’s even say they do this without and direct threat. Let’s say they just saw how those other sites were shut down without due process and got scared.

So, according to you, that doesn’t count as censorship, right? That’s perfectly okay and nobody’s doing anything wrong at all apparently?

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Hate to play Devil's Advocate

Mike, can you clarify a couple of things for us. Did the Senator in question actually give a specific order to Amazon, or was it simply a blanket REQUEST (which some may interpret as an order, but legally it is not an order).
Secondly, I recall you yourself stating on many occassions censorship only occurs when its the government doing it. If Amazon decide not to host Wikileaks, that’s their business, it is not censorship and not a violation of the First Admendment.

A sternly worded request from a powerful Senator is not an order, but close enough. Putting political pressure on an organization to silence speech is censorship in my book. Playing games and saying since it was just a request and not an “order” is playing games with reality.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Hate to play Devil's Advocate

A sternly worded request from a powerful Senator is not an order, but close enough. Putting political pressure on an organization to silence speech is censorship in my book. Playing games and saying since it was just a request and not an “order” is playing games with reality.

And trying to read too much into a particular situation is trying to fit a story within the framework of a particular agenda. Perhaps you should stop crying “wolf.”

RikuoAmero (profile) says:

Re: Re: Hate to play Devil's Advocate

While I do respect you a lot Masnick, I’m gonna have to say show me some proof that there was pressure. From what I’ve read about here about Amazon and Wikileaks, the Amazon management saw that someone was DDOS’ing Wikileaks, and didn’t want such a blatant target affecting their servers. All I can see is a business decision, pure and simple.

RikuoAmero (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Hate to play Devil's Advocate

That still isn’t direct proof. All it says is that Lieberman congratulated Amazon after it kicked Wikileaks off its servers. It says nothing of Lieberman contacting Amazon beforehand.
If such an email were leaked, grand, then it would be proof of a US Senator co-ercing a business into censorship. However, all the evidence I have seen is simply a Senator grand-standing and of a company making a business decision.

And for what it’s worth, I support Wikileaks and their whistleblowing operation. I however do not believe that it is censorship for one US company to decide not to host the site.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: A platform

The problem doesn’t lie in Amazon’s decision; they aren’t legally obliged to carry WikiLeaks.

The problem lies in Senator Lieberman acting in his official capacity as a U.S. senator to discourage Amazon from carrying WikiLeaks. From my understanding of the situation, Senator Lieberman did not legally force Amazon to drop WikiLeaks, and if Amazon were willing to push back they would have had at least one legal leg upon which to stand. Senator Lieberman did, however, apply pressure using the authority of his office, which I would construe as an attempt at censorship, though not the worst possible thing he could have done.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: A platform

It’s possible that Amazon didn’t want ICE seizing their domain. After all, he’s chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee…

Amazon can, in fact, do as they please with their business, but as a customer, I can also choose to stop shopping there as a result. There are a lot of choices available, just saying.

r (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 A platform

I, my good sir, am an admitted idiot.

You, my good sir, are less than capable. Amazon, far and away, has average prices and hideous shipping fees.

There now, having typed that, I’m not getting how you equate not believing in freedom of the press etc with choosing not to shop at Amazon because one may disagree with their action.

Anonymous Coward says:

A pity Amazon didn’t stand their ground. I don’t blame them for not wanting to hold onto a heavily targetted site like Wikileaks, but I’m curious as to how things would’ve gone if they had.
Would Amazon have been declared to be “supporting terrorists” and have their domains siezed? I would’ve loved to have seen the uproar from that.

theskyrider says:

Re: Re: fucktard amazon

F.U.C.K. is an acronym. “For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge.”

Back when the world was more….enlightened…when you were caught having sex with somebody whom you weren’t married to; they took you into the square, naked, put you in stocks, and hung a sign over your head. That sign said “F.U.C.K.,” simply because ink was at a premium back then.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: DoS was self imposed

I’m pretty skeptical of that. It can sometimes be difficult to tell the difference between legitimate traffic and malicious traffic, but it can be done, and I would expect the technically apt wikileaks staff to be very good at telling the difference.

One can analyze traffic patterns to determine that traffic from nighttime timezones is, despite scattered, 5000% above normal. Probably an attack. One can see that 30% of their requests are specifically malformed to exploit a minor bug in their webserver that consumes an inordinate amount of computing resources. Not a coincidence. They can analyze the IPs that traffic is coming from and realize that many of the blocks are leased to firms that sell bandwidth and computing time (like CDNs), and thus are not unlikely to have any actual humans driving the traffic.

I’m actually looking forward to when they post more about this DoS after they thoroughly analyze it.

darryl says:

"thats alright, you should hear what we say about you"

Its also not a censorship issue, amazon and many news outlets are withholding the information not out of pressure but out of morals and ethics.

You are aware that it is mainly the NYtimes behind Wiki’s promotion, most others are reporting on that fact. And are backing away from risking national security. and international security.

Also, the people involved, the people who were talked about, state that, that is part of the normal everyday diplomatic process. And that it is a two way street.

And very very few if any took any exception to the comments.

Its not going to start a new world war, but it is going to cost the US heaps of money relocating and re-establishing diplomats over the world..

Guess who pay for that ?? yes, you do..

Thats democracy for you.

Eugene (profile) says:

Re: "thats alright, you should hear what we say about you"

You are aware that it is mainly the NYtimes behind Wiki’s promotion

Where are on earth did you hear this? Do you mean Wikipedia maybe? Wikileaks is completely independent from that. In fact, it’s pretty much completely independent from everything, except maybe Icland who are heavy supporters of the site.

The eejit (profile) says:

Re: "thats alright, you should hear what we say about you"

First off, Amazon has a German arm that the US has no jurisdiction over.

Second, you’re a moron if you think this isn’t a form of censorship.

Thirdly, I wouldn’t be surprised at all to find that then DHS has used Wikileaks before in aiding an investigation. Way to shoot yourself in the foot, dude.

B says:

Re: Re: "thats alright, you should hear what we say about you"

About Amazon.de, you are right, formally?but the US can put pressure on Amazon management to have them ask to their German branch. As far as I can tell, this was done outside of jurisdiction, and is far more related to a possible backlash (from American customers who oppose the leak).

Anonymous Coward says:

I can’t really fault amazon here. If someone hosts information that causes enemies to target someone (informant, spy, military personnel) and that person dies, as a person I would feel responsible for that death.

Amazon turning a blind eye to someone who’s crossed a line between whistle blowing and putting someone in harm’s way is irresponsible in my opinion.

I don’t agree with the government’s response of deflection, because there was some whistleblowing that needed to happen, but when lives are at steak it’s time to plug up the hole.

Eugene (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Go read them yourself and see how many lives are being put at stake. Agents’ names are all redacted.

If you can find me one cable on Wikileaks where the name of a CIA operative is not redacted, I will be 100% on your side. All you need to do is find one. Go ahead, go try. It shouldn’t be that hard, right? Just one. That’s all. I couldn’t make this easier.

letherial (profile) says:

Re: Re:

This is how the government is getting around free speech, instead of saying its a crime, they claim that all these people will die and the country is at stake now. While no censorship realy happens from the goverment companys like amazon panic and dont look at the facts.

Doesn’t really matter, wikileaks could put it on a P2P site and it will get around as long as the media is making a big deal about it, good or bad. all that is lost is business for amazon.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Where do you even draw the line? You say they’re “entitled to have their secrets” without qualification. So you must believe that the government is justified in keeping anything and everything secret from you and everyone else.

How you can have such a naive trust in a government is beyond me. A cursory study of the history of any government, over any period of time, will show that any government is capable of shocking amounts of evil.

What would constitute a secret you think should be justly kept, and what would constitute a secret that should be revealed?

If you think governments should be able to keep all their secrets, then what other mechanism do you think will ensure that the governed can continue to keep their rights? Can you think of any?

Scary Times says:

Quite an entitlement mentality when anytime we don’t get to see others secrets we call it censorship?

To quote the Princess Bride, “You are trying to take what I have rightfully stolen”

The information belongs to the US Government, so they are censoring themselves? No one is trying to keep Assange’s opinion quiet, THAT would be censorship.

How immature…

Nastybutler77 (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Quite an entitlement mentality when anytime we don’t get to see others secrets we call it censorship?

To quote the Princess Bride, “You are trying to take what I have rightfully stolen”

The information belongs to the US Government, so they are censoring themselves? No one is trying to keep Assange’s opinion quiet, THAT would be censorship.

To quote the Princess Bride, “You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means.”

Nastybutler77 (profile) says:

Re: Re: You lose Amazon!

your full of shit, you will be shopping with them tomorrow. They hear this bullshit threat all the time. Take your $20 and shove it up your ass.

What an insightful comment. Thank you for your contribution to the community. In the future you may want to take a moment to proof read your comments so your poor grammer and spelling doesn’t make you look foolish.

Eugene (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Isn’t it more narcissistic to pretend that the information is private? Correct me if I’m wrong, but don’t we pay taxes so that these people can go around being assholes? That makes us their employer, doesn’t it.

Huh. I wonder what employers would say about an “information leak” if the content was non-work related text messages being sent on a company phone by an employee? Or info about an employee using the company car to pick up hookers? Or some supervisor deliberately mismanaging her department for her own personal benefit? I wonder if, instead of firing those employees, the employer would go, “wow I can’t believe this was leaked, we should put that whistleblower in jail for this! My employees’ activities on company time are private, regardless of what they do, even if it loses me money!”

Sounds like an incompetent employer to me.

Christopher (profile) says:

Re: Re:

It is NOT stolen private information. It is ‘stolen’ (if you believe that leaks are stealing) government information. Which means that I as an American citizen and taxpayer, have a right to see it.

Our Founding Fathers would be ROLLING OVER IN THEIR GRAVES with idiots like you who mistake public information (done on the government dime), though classified, for private information.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Let’s speak hypothetically:

Let’s say someone obtained evidence of a nation’s soldiers indiscriminately killing dozens of innocent civilians and nearby reporters, gunning them down without mercy, and then doing the same for the civilians who tried to rescue the wounded. Information about the incident had been requested by the media, and the military was legally obligated to provide it, but had stonewalled the matter indefinitely. The only knowledge obtained was through the leak.

Would you use your same excuse that it is “stolen private information” to justify keeping that information secret? Do you think that preventing dissemination of this information would not be censorship?

What if a known recording system in the office of the president of a nation were to record conversations by that president that revealed presidential authorization of criminal activity against his political opponents? What if this information were so heinous that it would have forced this president to resign or face certain impeachment?

Is keeping that secret the right thing to do because it is “stolen private information”? Can you explain how it is narcissistic to want that information known?

I guess it wasn’t so hypothetical after all. Sorry…

Dazza (profile) says:

US & Aust running scared!

The U.S., Australian and no doubt other governments are trying to hide the atrocities they have been involved in. The information SHOULD be public. If a government has nothing to hide then there is nothing to fear!
The US should look at their own security and where access to such a vast array of so-called “Secret” documents can easily be given to wikileaks or anyone else in the first place.
I commend wikileaks for at least trying to open the worlds eyes to what is REALLY going on!

Nastybutler77 (profile) says:

Re: "Censorship"

How long would they last if they targeted Vladimir Putin or Israel.

Along these same lines I’ve thought it odd that most of what gets headlines on Wikileaks is when something embarasses the US government. How come I never hear of them leaking China or Russian secrets? Or even Panamanian or Peruvian secrets? Don’t know if it’s because their secrets aren’t leaked, or the media just doesn’t report on it. I guess someday I should actually read Wikileaks. On someone else’s computer though so I don’t get put on a watchlist.

a citizen says:

another proof..

This is another proof of what I have discovered for myself no so long ago after being a US citizen for 10 years. Yeah I am slow I know, but for the slower ones: Freedom, Democracy etc — all BS for consumers to cheer about. Nothing has changed much on the planet for centuries. There are people in power and there are others. The 1st group always wants to control the second. In USSR/China it was probably quite direct: you challenge Government – you go to jail. In West/US the control is more sophisticated but just as effective: you challenge People in Power — you’ll be silenced quickly as well. The toolset is more versatile though: money, court-jail, public reputation if you are popular, tragic accident if nothing else helps.. Examples?

Public reputation. Quite many Hollywood celebrities were immediately against the Iraq war. Madonna for example. Yet in a few weeks almost all got silenced somehow. How? You think you will remain popular when branded as terrorist/communist/rapist? People controlling media channels are able to launch an effective campaign against individuals.

Money. Amazon today. Yes you’re free to run your business but.. the Govt may brand you as harboring enemy of the state, do you dare to lose xx% of your “patriotic” customers before XMas?

Court-jail: Rape charges against Assange..

Tragic accident: Death of David Kelly, UN weapons of mass destruction inspector

Free exchange of information (e.g. Internet) is the only hope for mankind to built just(ier) societies IMO..

me says:

why only leaks about US?

Because you only hear US news. Wikileaks released plenty of info about Russia, China, Korea etc too and will be releasing more. It is embarrassing as well. They release what they have I believe. Perhaps shutting down Amazon server doesn’t help here. 🙂 Or maybe it is US Govt plan: instead of you reading the Wikileaks directly you can get a nice FOX/CNN summary instead! Feeling free and protected now?
BTW, why t** f**k someone defends my freedom in Afghanistan/Iraq??? I live here. I walk in my Walmart and see no Afghans/Iraqis trying to keep me in captivity. Anyone cares to explain with sense?

Eugene (profile) says:

Re: To bad

There was an interesting article the other day about this (in a magazine I whose name I sadly can’t recall). How leaks sort of exist outside the bounds of technology. No matter how sophisticated your security is, you can’t effectively protect against the people who are legitimately allowed access to that information.

Granted, the *best* way around this is to just run a government or organization that is open, honest, and stands by its principles. But that of course involves no fun tech gadgets, nor does it involve realistic expectations ;p

TDR says:

There wouldn’t be a need for government secrets if all US intelligence ops were immediately shut down and all military and intelligence personnel recalled to the States and the CIA itself shut down along with the TSA and much of the DHS and FBI. Add to that implementation of an earthly version of the prime directive – complete noninterference in the internal affairs of other nations.

As well as a dramatic change in how the US treats other nations, dropping the bully tactics and honestly working with other countries for the common good. There’s a reason the US has always been such a target for extremists (well, more than one), and part of it lies in how it’s treated other countries. That has to change if the US is ever going to truly move forward.

But I suppose it’s unlikely to happen in reality, at least not without another armed revolution or two here in the States to forcibly strip the elite of their power. Because I think that’s the only way they ever will.

Daemon_ZOGG (profile) says:

"Amazon Bows To US Censorship Pressure: Refuses To Host Wikileaks"

Lieberman’s tiny, idiot brain died years ago.. his head just hasn’t realized it yet. As for amazon not hosting wikileaks.. There’s no need. The CableGate Docs are already on the torrent networks. Plus, there are a lot of NON-US hosting sites that would be willing to host WikiLeaks. I really enjoyed the last sentence: “Look at who’s complaining the most about Wikileaks and you realize that it’s the people who benefit from not being held accountable for their actions.” Well Said! 😉 Long Live WikiLeaks. ;D

Anonymous Coward says:

I'll just leave this here...

I can think of nothing that frames the issue more elegantly and completely that this classic:

The mass of men serve the state thus, not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies. They are the standing army, and the militia, jailors, constables, posse comitatus, etc. In most cases there is no free exercise whatever of the judgment or of the moral sense; but they put themselves on a level with wood and earth and stones; and wooden man can perhaps be manufactured that will serve the purpose as well. Such command no more respect than men of straw or a lump of dirt. They have the same sort of worth only as horses and dogs. Yet such as these even are commonly esteemed good citizens.

Others – as most legislators, politicians, lawyers, ministers, and officeholders – serve the state chiefly with their heads; and, as they rarely make any moral distinctions, they are as likely to serve the Devil, without intending it, as God.

A very few, as heroes, patriots, martyrs, reformers in the great sense, and men, serve the state with their consciences also, and so necessarily resist it for the most part; and they are commonly treated as enemies by it.

-Henry David Thoreau
Civil Disobedience

grimatongueworm says:

Free Enterprise

The hypocrisy stinks for miles. Our pols, willing to fellate big business, who’ll sacrifice the common man every time, who crow and crow about free markets, free enterprise, the evil of government intervention lean on Amazon like the fucking mob.

Sometimes this country makes me really sad when we don’t live up to our potential

Russell Lundberg (profile) says:

More than one issue

Thanks Mike. I agree Lieberman’s intervention was out of line and possibly criminal. When he took office didn’t Joe swear to uphold the constitution?

About the actual publishing of the docs, I can understand the breadth of opinion. Myself, my default position is that more transparency is better, and those advocating secrecy bear the burden of proof.

The amount of press the doc release has gotten has been impressive, as has been the restrained diplomatic responses. Since pretty much every Diplomatic Corps has been implicated, they all seem to be treading softly. Hence, little downside. It seems like a big win all around.

Known Coward says:

Wikileaks

Wikileaks puts its political stamp on its releases. Publish the documents when you believe governments have done wrong, and don’t be so selective about the nations you target. Please dispense with the commentary.

Some of you on here want to have it both ways. You want the US Bill of Rights to apply to the international internet, but you don’t want the US or any other government reaching across borders after certain people are caught with their pants down (Assange and Polanski come to mind).

darryl says:

Study the constitution.

And report back with a short paper regarding free speech in the US.

As per the first amendment.

Then you might want to consider the US considers itself constitutionly at WAR.

Then look up what sedition means, and treason.

that is without even looking at the patriot act, or the military secrets act.

Then find out what happens to someone in the military, in a state of war, who provides information to its enemies !

and if you think the US cannot play the same game as Assange, you wuold be mistaken.

I wonder if wikileaks would post some leaked information about Julian Asange ?

Im sure it would not, Julian would censor it, he would make a determination on your behalf regarding if he felt that information was valuable for you (or more importantly to him).

He would not last 5 minutes in Russia, where they take a dim view of media critical of the government, you can be beaten to death, your fingers cut off, as a warning not to write. And you can rest assured that the government will never find out who did it.. (officially)..

its also not constructive whistleblowing at all, its all just sensational stuff, diplomatic communications have to be frank and honest. They also have to be private.

But wikileaks is getting more and more on the nose to more and more people.. and governments..

He has no first amendment free speech rights, he’s not in the US, he’s not from the US, therefore he is a foreign agent, or combatant.. actively working to subvert the US Government.. and US economy, and international relations.

and for what ? what is the payoff ? Que Bono

Richard (profile) says:

"Censorship" of Wikileaks???

Per your argument, is the original copy the only infringing (and illegal) copy? I would suspect not. Therefore, it makes sense for whoever might want their data/documents back to attack or as some here would call it “censor” any server or party that might be harboring the document. This is of course under the assumption that whatever was obtained and broadcast was in fact illegal.

Anything that came from the US federal Government is (as far as copyright is concerned) in the public domain.

Even for those things that weren’t produced by the US government one or all of the following are likely to apply.

1. The work – not being a creative work – is not covered by copyright.

2. The information in question could be re-expressed totally avoiding copyright – and would still do as much damage

3. Wherever 2) wouldn’t work, quotation (with attribution) of what was said or written – as a means of making that information public would constitute fair use.

.

Copyright is therefore irrelevent.

Anonymous Coward says:

No secrets

You ignored the “provided it doesn’t put people in danger”

I don’t think any sane person would argue that EVERYTHING the government does should be immediately visible to everyone. After all, military operations wouldn’t be very successful if you published them in advance.

However, why should a military operation be kept secret a month, or a year, or a decade after it happened? And certainly the vast majority of what was leaked is not nearly as “dangerous” to the government as giving away the formula for Coke would be to Coca-Cola. What was leaked is more like the private e-mails of the CEO of Coca-Cola, which I bet most investors believe the should have the right to, considering that they are “co-owners” of the company.

Anonymous Coward says:

Censorship

DH, you’re wasting your fingers. Educating people like Bill Pytlovany is a near impossibility.

Sometimes (in my darker moments) I wonder if the quality of education in American public schools is intentionally being allowed to stagnate so that the American populace can be better manipulated … After all, how can someone defend their rights or the rights of others if they don’t understand what those rights are?

nasch says:

Re:

“Socialism” doesn’t mean “more government power”. It is possible to have a socialist economy with a liberal (meaning extensively protecting its citizens’ liberties) government. The problem now is not socialism (IMO) but facism (the merging of government and corporate power). The solution is also not socialism or libertarianism (IMO) but democracy (or republicanism if you prefer).

hegemon13 says:

Re:

I agree that returning to a proper republic is ideal. What I fail to understand is how that differs from libertarianism? I can see how it clashes with the mythical libertarian beliefs (i.e. that libertarians want anarchy), but not the real beliefs. Real libertarian beliefs state that the governments role is to protect life and property and liberty by protecting it’s citizens against the use of force and fraud. Libertarianism does not mean no government. It means a focused government that is very good at a much narrower scope of duties. That is, we basically want a return to the original plan of the US Republic.

I also disagree that socialism does not mean more government power. The more services or entitlements the government is responsible for providing, the more power they have, automatically. That is, until they go bankrupt.

Denise says:

Censorship or protection

I read these comments of people supporting wikileaks and I am terrified. You people, the press and this author don’t care one iota for “the truth”. The press, wikileaks and this author only care about profit and making names for themselves. They, nor do you ignorant buffoons who say “we have the right to know” don’t get it. This isn’t just reporting “the truth” this isn’t just any old classified documents about ‘what the government is up to’ these documents can very well get people killed. People who’s job it is to protect pathetic sheep like you and this “writer”. They can be used by enemies as propaganda to try and stir another attack on this country. But you don’t care do you.

nasch says:

Re:

A democracy or republic would not necessarily vote for libertarian policies.

I also disagree that socialism does not mean more government power. The more services or entitlements the government is responsible for providing, the more power they have, automatically.

That’s a good point, but I think it’s smearing the issue to say they’re the same thing. Certainly you can have a totalitarian government that’s not socialistic at all, so it’s just useful to keep the distinction in mind.

Chargone (profile) says:

Re:

which is a nice solid sign of bad government and the need for change. (real change, not obama’s ‘yeah, we’re just going to continue the status quo with a less moronic face on it’ bullshit)

news flash: the smaller the nation, the less screwed up the government and the easier it is to fix (for given values and scales of all terms.)

of the USA’s problems, the one that makes it Hard to Fix is the fact that it’s most of a bloody continent.

the EU is nicely headed the same way.

for the village, democracy and Communism (for want of a better word). for the city region, republicanism and protectionism. for the nation-state, monarchy and capitalism. for the empire (and make no mistake, the USA is in this category) only two systems work: facsim(for what of a better word) or feudalism. anything large enough will devolve into one or the other. the USA is very much the former. the economic element here is basically the wwhole ‘if it moves, tax it, if it keeps moving, regulate it, and if it stops moving, subsidize it’ thing… with the element of ‘but only if the appropriate bribes are submitted’

a note here: Representative democracy is no democracy at all. It is simply the elite having found an alternative to assassinating each other to decide who gets to run things for the moment, with the added bonus of keeping the people happy by making them Think they control some part of the system.

Russia is also an empire. the British empire at it’s peak went the feudal rout (note that the commonwealth monarchies still have governors as a result of this).

Chargone (profile) says:

Censorship

maybe because they are Americans and have to contend with the fact that you have such a bizarre definition of ‘person’ that it is necessary to specify that you are speaking of a ‘Real Person’ when the law is only meant to apply to, errr… actual people?

then you have your corporations, who are Schroedinger’s persons… or something. both and neither until you open the box… only the box keeps flickering between one and the other anyway…

Chargone (profile) says:

Re:

the entire reason that citizens of the USA have the right (and responsibility, no less) to keep and bear arms, and something about maintaining a functional militia, is so they have the capacity to overthrow their government in the event that it stuffs up as badly as the British government did leading up to the American war of independence. (or revolutionary war. or rebellion. take your pick based on favoured pov.

Chargone (profile) says:

Alleged Censorship

nevermind that any poll short of the complete ‘everyone votes’ level of compulsorily elections is inherently inaccurate, and ANY poll can be made to say anything you like with properly worded questions.

polls are Not evidence. they cannot be used as evidence for Anything, because in that capacity they are pure spin.

they are useful information gathering tools for the people who conduct them if their goal is to gather actual information and they are careful about their questions and sample selection process, mind you.

Charlotte Everett says:

Wikileaks, Constitution, 1st Amendment

Dear Sir,
I totally agree with you. The people that are elected have to be accountable for their actions. We, the people, need to know what they are doing. The First Amendment of our Constitution guarantees freedom of speech. My American History teacher gave each student a booklet entitled The Constitution of the United States of America and the Constitution of the State of California published by THE SENATE 1993-94, California State Senate. It says under Amendment 1, [Section 1] Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Proposed September 25, 1789; ratified December 15, 1791.
This amendment is in our Bill of Rights. These are our rights guaranteed to us. I stand in support of these rights. Charlotte Everett

teka (profile) says:

Study the constitution.

wow.
Just wow.

Thanks for providing the bizarro world/faux news/wacky-fun opinion.

I hardly know where to start! its exciting!

Lets see..
Then you might want to consider the US considers itself constitutionly at WAR.

false.

Then look up what sedition means, and treason.

that is without even looking at the patriot act, or the military secrets act.

Then find out what happens to someone in the military, in a state of war, who provides information to its enemies !

Hysterics and bad understanding of the law aside, Mr Assange is not a member of the military, much less one that is at war. He has never leaked data or information.

There may be legal recourse, actions to be taken against the actual personel responsible for these actions, but as the Publisher of this information he is protected, or should be under the law.

and then you go of into some sort of rant about people getting fingers cut off in russia.. which is not really relevant.

Vanessa says:

Wikileaks Access

Hi – I have been reading some of the information on Wikileaks, that was about 3 hrs ago and now I cannot access the website. I keep getting the standard Internet Explorer “cannot display web page” error. Anyone else having this problem? I don’t have access to another computer to try there. It wouldn’t surprise me if it’s down.

marak (profile) says:

Ok to those who keep insisting that this is risking lives. Get off your high horse, READ the damn documents, you show me where any of these risks someones life?

Not maybe, definatly, as in has put them in danger. Not “if it angers a country we could goto war”, thats not valid reasoning, thats a failure on your diplomats to actually do their job.

Until then, try something new, get a real argument.

And as for charging him, ive seen the trumped up charges that were released today, arrest him, ill step up, many of us will, we will host everywhere, ill put my name to it.

Scare tactics wont bow us, you cannot stop us.

So grow up, grow a pair of balls, whatever it takes but learn to live with your own system. Dont blame us for showing it for what it is.

Lee says:

lieberman and wikileaks

Lieberman’s first concern is of course Israel and how any information release could potentially discredit Israel. Lieberman has an organic inability to understand or support the Anglo-Saxon urge to fight tyranny. Fortunately, in the internet age, there is no way that Lieberman, the U.S., Israel, or even the mighty amazon.com or other big corporations can suppress information. The computer system that was designed to withstand nuclear war will withstand any censorship attempt, including that by the little man Lieberman.

Anonymous Coward says:

Censorship or protection

These are not military documents. These are mostly banal routine communications between diplomats. Even as far as that goes, a large portion was redacted by wikileaks editors themselves before releasing the information.

Have you even read the contents of the cables? Do you have even the smallest notion of what is in them? If you did, I have no idea how you could make the claim that the information is going to “get people killed”.

Look, go read them. Or at LEAST go read 10 good summaries of the highlights. Then come back with some specific examples of information that you think will get people “killed”. Until then your rhetoric is baseless.

Anonymous Coward says:

Censorship or protection

Here, I’ll even help you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cablegate#Contents

Here’s a representative snippet:

A new rail link between Pakistan and Iran would be delayed for the time being, owing to poor conditions, low freight-carrying capacity and unrest from Baloch insurgents in the Balochistan region of both countries.[108] Likewise, a natural gas pipeline agreement was also not expected to be fruitful because “the Pakistanis don’t have the money to pay for either the pipeline, or the gas”.[108]

I challenge you to find even one credible instance of any of this information presenting a clear and direct danger to anyone’s life. If you can’t find it, you should realize your position is purely reactionary, and based on ignorance.

hegemon13 says:

Re:

“news flash: the smaller the nation, the less screwed up the government and the easier it is to fix (for given values and scales of all terms.)

of the USA’s problems, the one that makes it Hard to Fix is the fact that it’s most of a bloody continent. “

Precisely, which is why the Constitution gives much more power to states than to the federal government. Unfortunately, that has been completely reversed, and then some.

hegemon13 says:

Re:

“A democracy or republic would not necessarily vote for libertarian policies.”

I think we are looking at two different definitions of Libertarianism. Libertarian is not the equal or opposite of conservatism. It lies nowhere in the liberal/conservative scale. Libertarianism is the opposite of authoritarianism, and you can be liberal or conservative within Libertarianism.

A republic is the ideal form of government, as a democracy allows the majority to abuse the minority. Current Libertarian philosophy espouses a return to a proper republic, and I don’t see how the two are separable. You can’t have a functional republic without Libertarian philosophies. A republic, by definition, assigns higher power to the state or local levels, who then have representatives at the federal level. The federal government is supposed to serve the states, who in turn serve the people.

You simply cannot have a true republic that is authoritarian because the moment you concentrate power at the federal level, it ceases to be a real republic. A powerful federal government that can ignore state representatives (as we have now in our dramatically overpowered executive branch) means that the republic is broken. A government in which laws restrict liberty to the point that individuals and local governments are effectively powerless (which is where we’re headed if we’re no already there) is also no longer a republic. Like the US, a country can call their government a republic. But if local representation is just for show, they are lying.

nasch says:

Re:

You’re saying if a democratic republic enacted socialistic policies (either at a federal or state level) it would no longer be a republic? I don’t get it. Basically you’re saying it’s not possible for the actual will of the people to be a socialist state. I don’t think that makes sense.

What if there were a country small enough not to need to function as a republic because a single national government is small enough to serve everyone effectively. If it’s a representative democracy, and they elect representatives who favor socialism, are you saying that would then make it not a democracy?

hegemon13 says:

Re:

I’m saying that the will of the people can create a socialist state, but the moment they do, it ceases to be ruled by the will of the people. Why? Because a socialist state requires the use of force. Those who do not want to be a part of the socialist state must be coerced by the state to participate.

On the other hand, the people can certainly create a voluntary socialist system within a free republic. In that case, the system is far more likely to succeed, as it would contain those people who most passionately want to work for it’s success. A voluntary socialist system can exist within a republic. A socialist “state” cannot.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Wrongful Arrest Demonstrates Dangers Of Law Enforcement Listening To Bogus Industry Claims
YouTube Sensation Justin Bieber Blocked From Uploading His Own Music To YouTube By Copyright
Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...