21 thoughts on “Send Wikileaks Some Love (and Cash) – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.

  1. all 4chan does is irritate people…their dns attacks dont last long enough to cause permanent damage

    and richard, its a mistake to glorify manning, unless you believe that treason and damaging the cause of getting rid of “dont ask, dont tell” is something that needs glorifying

    1. How much damage do you think is done to Amazon, Paypal, Mastercard or Visa when their sites are down an hour or a day? How many billions are lost? DNS attacks on targets that large cause lots of damage in the pocketbooks & technical infrastructure.

      Accuse Bradley Manning of treason once more here & you’re gone. Don’t tempt me.

      1. sorry….should have said…alleged treason…he has been charged, not convicted

        and i also mistyped….it should read dos, not dns…which is short for dynamic name server….not denial of service

        but manning is still no hero

        and both anonymous and wikileaks shoulda stuck with attacking scientology

        1. He hasn’t been charged with treason. You can seem to get anything write can you?

          Manning has done a very important thing. I don’t really believe in heroes. But he’s up there. Certainly more a hero than you’ll ever be.

  2. It should not be criminal to whistle blow on the United States government for violating the Nuremberg Principles, the Geneva and Hague Conventions, the Geneva Protocol and numerous subsequent treaties, principles of distinction and proportionality and customary international law.

    It shouldn’t be criminal to facilitate the whistle blowing of these violations either.

    Surviving the above, one must still be cautious about the type and scope of support they provide to WikiLeaks, given that it is in the bullseye of the Federal Government, which since 2001 has been acting less and less Democratic, and more and more like a Police State dictatorship. I am not trying to scare anyone or to deter anyone from following through on their wishes. Simply, I want everyone to be informed of the arena and domain of laws with which they may become entangled. And of course, let us not forget that opportunity always favors the prepared mind.

    In New York Times Co. v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that the government’s injunction on the New York Times, a publisher, was an unconstitutional abrogation of the New York Times First Amendment rights. 403 U.S. 713 (1971). Daniel Ellsberg’s Pentagon Papers, Justice Brennan opined, did not cause an immediate and inevitable harm to the Armed Forces of the United States, and therefore did not overcome the “heavy presumption against” restraining the press from releasing the papers.

    While many so-called legal analysts have tried heavily to separate Julian Assange from the New York Times, particularly Jeffrey Toobin of CNN, the reality is that Julian Assange is a member of the free press and that any guilt associated with the release of the leaked documents go against the tenor and spirit of our Constitution, and indeed, the case law and history of the most Supreme Court in the land.

    Richard Silverstein earns the same protection as the New York Times for publishing the information that he retains from his sources.

    As for donations and support for WikiLeaks, of concern is that the rendering of donations may be construed as “material support” for potential terrorist activities or to an organization that may fall under the catch-all for terrorist organizations under the current law. In particular, I am referencing Title 18 of the US Code, §§ 2339A-B.

    18 U.S.C. § 2339A, generally, makes it a federal crime to knowingly provide material support or resources in preparation for or in carrying out specified crimes of terrorism. 18 U.S.C. §2339B, generally speaking, forbids knowingly providing material support to a foreign terrorist organization.

    These have, like conspiracy charges, become a new kind of “prosecutor’s darling” because they can be filed against a huge pantheon of alleged suspects with relative success. Indeed, the substantive nature of the offenses allows them to be combined with conspiracy charges.

    ***These provisions can also be used to impose punishment that for conduct that often involves minimal and outwardly non-criminal acts, like making a donation to WikiLeaks.***

    Before anyone sets up a mirror, donates substantially, or encourages someone to donate substantially, the above should be at least analyzed by a lawyer more competent in Counter-terrorism law than me. This is not to say that the Department of Justice will issue arrest warrants for the thousands of Americans likely to have violated the Title 18 catch-alls. They may, however, do so for the 40 or so individual who set up mirrors for the website within the US and/or are making money off of the traffic and/or ads.

    The important part to remember is that in criminal law, examples are made out of people. The best particular way to avoid that from happening is to swim amongst the bigger school of fish, hoping to hide in the swarm from the Federal sharks that lurk.

    That said, everyone has a good argument to make for their defense. Here is mine: my donation went towards Julian Assange’s legal defense for the charge of “Sex by Surprise” and that it had nothing to do with WikiLeaks.

    Take that, Sweden!!

    1. PersianAdvocate’s caveat should be taken seriously. Remember, Obama can now kill people (Americans) on the mere suggestion that they might be suspected of committing a terrorist act or supporting such an act – without trial or proof. If you are supporting WiliLeaks with donations, keep an eye looking over your shoulder. I should hope that PA’s argument would hold up in court.

      1. Thanks, Gene. The other important thing to remember is that the best legal arguments in the world won’t help you if you’re taken as an “enemy combatant” and put into one of our lovely detention centers “outside of the United States”. Indeed, the Supreme (handpicked) group of nine robed ones have already ruled against your Constitutional rights in that instance without much dissent.

        As I said, some ways to overcome this obstacle is via solidarity. That is, I highly recommend that no one stand in front of the crowd to proclaim themselves a hero (read: cannon fodder) either by their own actions or by crowd election. WikiLeaks, the organization, is finally realizing the virtues of this line of thinking (and just in time…not). Take Julian for example. He wanted the spotlight and had plenty of good legal arguments to make. His lawyer even accompanied him to the courthouse where he was supposedly going to “speak” with police about the supposed “Sex by Surprise” charge. Did he get a chance to make any arguments? His lawyer complained that it was a “persecution, not a prosecution”, but I thought the entrapment was rather obvious and his lawyer, perhaps, someone who has been already given an offer they couldn’t refuse to convince Julian that it was a good idea to go to there in person. From the get go, I could not think of a single reason why that was a good idea. Therefore, I stick with my inference.

        Another way, less effective because it requires that someone actually hear your argument in good faith, would be to tailor your intent from the get-go, giving no one a chance to point the finger at you. Criminal law is very peculiar in that regard.

        My intent here was to contribute to Julian Assange’s legal fund, specifically towards the defense of the charge of “Sex by Surprise”, an arcane Swedish law that has served to fundamentally abridge Julian’s due process. As an attorney (and/or American), I cannot stand for this deduction of fair play and justice.

        As for Richard, he is protected as a publisher per the court ruling in the Pentagon Papers trial. The above is in accordance with much of what I wrote in this reply and the original posting.

      2. In a good society a king with his judiciary would be allowed to order the execution of anyone who sexually abuses a child. The world of jurisprudence is incredibly topsy turvy at the moment. Some redemption, i.e. counter-balancing is required.

        1. In a good society a king with his judiciary would be allowed to order the execution of anyone who sexually abuses a child.

          Are you insane? I suppose you’re talking about King Moshiach since it appears you’re a Lubavitcher?

        2. That’s the equivalent of killing someone based on merely anecdotal evidence. We have already seen the results of a king and his judiciary (Alberto Gonzales and the DOJ) ordering the execution of anyone believed to be a “terrorist”.

          The counter-balance, therefore, would be to expand the writ of habeas corpus, allow maximum due process, and hold those responsible who forced such a requirement.

  3. Thank you Richard. No other site has given out this payment information that I have seen. And I may take Persian’s advice on the notation on the check.

    Also, please help the Midwest activists who are under subpoena for a grand jury for doing solidarity work with the people of Colombia and Palestine. There is a call-in today to the State Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald asking him to cease and desist these investigations. This is another serious threat to our work to persuade our governments to quit the killing all over the world.

    stopfbi.net (stop fbi) is the website where you can get the number for the call-in. oh, here it is.

    Call U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald at
    312-353-5300, then dial 0 (zero) for operator
    and ask to leave a message with the Duty Clerk (paralegal).

    You could say: “My name is __________, I am from _______(city), in ______(state). I am calling U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald to demand that he call off the Grand Jury and stop FBI repression against the anti-war and international solidarity movements. I oppose political repression and defend the right to free speech and right to assembly of the 19 activists subpoenaed.”

    1. Just as a caveat to the above message: this donation information appears on many, many websites. Richard is merely republishing it.

  4. “Assange Calls For Obama’s Resignation If Confirmed President Approved UN Spy Ring”

    This is like a foot soldier calling for Ulysses S. Grant to resign during the Appomattox campaign of 1865. President Obama is keeping a steady hand on the till of world affairs. Julian Assange is acting like an anarchist gossip merchant.

    I repeat…

    Some things must remain private and confidential. In any organisation whether it be a corporation, government, defence force or charity there is a hierarchy of awareness and responsibility. Certain people are invested with executive decision making. Obviously these people should be employed on merit. Pure anarchic openness of all information sources leads to mass confusion, as people are unable to prioritise and process the data. A happy child trusts his parents to make good decisions on his/her behalf. That is why we need command and control structures in place around the world. When people feel that their confidences can be betrayed at the click of a mouse they are loathe risking authentic connections with others. I’m sure that Mr.Assange and his associates have a problem with the word “sovereignty”. We actually need more respect for intellectual property and healthy boundaries everywhere right now, not less.

    P.S. What does it say about Mr.Assange’s respect for healthy boundaries and the concept of sovereignty that he very recently had casual unprotected sex ?

    1. “A happy child trusts his parents to make good decisions on his/her behalf. ”

      That says all we need to know about your views. The rest was pretty silly as well.

Leave a Reply

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

Share via
Copy link