When it works, people demand WikiLeaks be shut down. When it half works, they want to get rid of Assange (who, if he is such an ego maniac, would be necessary to run the organisation, because that’s how it would be organised). And no matter what, it keeps the conversation off what is important: corruption, profiteering, war crimes, etc. Surprisingly, most people have not seen Collateral Murder, which should be required viewing before having any discussion of Manning or Assange – or indeed their personal habits and foibles.
http://www.collateralmurder.com

There are a lot of Leaks organisations now to enhance the functions of Wikileaks. The idea has spread.
http://www.leakdirectory.org/index.php/Leak_Site_Directory

The War on Transparency will undoubtedly be as effective as the War on Drugs and the War of Terror.

You may now return to the discussion in progress.

Of course, it doesn’t work on people who actually follow WikiLeaks or read what Assange has to say, such as when Assange addressed the UN to defend Bradley Manning.

In related news, you need $50 million to operate a website that publishes leaked government documents.

No, but Wikileaks might be able to accomplish quite a bit more if it actually received the money people want to donate to it. The Website and its support apparatus are just what it’s managed to keep going with almost no money and massive legal and political challenges to its existence.

Lieberman is not alone in being a Chicken-Hawk, in fact to close the “Security gap” Dems have been more keen than Republicans of late to press for more sweeping security measures.  So with respect to Assange’s dealings with the US I think “Far Right” is completely appropriate. Hell our President has a kill list, which evidently included 16 year old Americans on it. That seems pretty “Far Right”.

Looking at Lieberman’s record after losing the Democratic primary and being re-elected in ’06, he seems to have moved further to the right on most issues. He endorsed McCain in ’08, leaned towards Rmoney this year, but never formally endorsed either candidate. He worked to undermine both health care reform and finance reform as he pressed for the inclusion of unrelated military and surveillance measures, before caving to pressure, dropping the measures, and begrudgingly voting for both. I guess that’s his special way of saying F@#k you to Connecticut Democrats before he retires.

All in all with respect to the issues directly effecting Assange and others working with Wikileaks, I think it is quite evident that most of the elected and appointed leaders of this country have indeed lurched far to the right.

I have to be honest, I am a bit curious what the $50 million goes towards. Legal team? Security? Or just salaries that ensure Wikileaks can keep their best talent from leaving to work with a competitor (sarcasm).

It also serves to highlight the need for more payment service competition that is also free from political control, as well as having freer (non-political) policies. Any controversy and Visa, Mastercard and Paypal are very quick to cut off services or freeze accounts.

They have the most business now because those are the only three most people think of for money transfers. Now, there’s nothing wrong with that. In fact, I think the approach some people take to try to force them (via government institutions like ECB, etc) to accept certain clients is plain wrong. What’s needed is competition. And we get competition by lowering barriers to entry or deregulating. It is extremely difficult to establish some financial service. Save for bitcoin, all of them are subject to immense political pressure as well

In related news, you need $50 million to operate a website that publishes leaked government documents.

http://cryptome.org/2012/10/WikiLeaks-Expenses-2012-2011.pdf

Assange saying, “the hard-right U.S. politicians were directly behind the extrajudicial banking blockade against WikiLeaks …” is simply the height of narcissism.  How do you survive the pain of dealing with it?  Oh, dear….  it must be killing your fragile sensibilities.

Also, I am always confused when Jules says these things. He knows the U.S. considers the documents in question sensitive and secret. That’s why publishing them can be useful. What does he expect the United States to do when he tries to publish secret documents? It’s game on, Jules. Wear your helmet and no whining.