28 Nov 2010
Index on Censorship has obtained copies of correspondence between whistleblowing website Wikileaks and the US embassy in the United Kingdom, which took place between Friday and Sunday. They reveal Wikileaks editor in chief’s last-minute attempt to seek the cooperation of the United States government in redacting information from the latest controversial release of documents.Mark Stephens of Finers Stephens Innocent, who represents Julian Assange in the UK, is a trustee of Index of Censorship.
26 NovemberJulian Assange, Editor in Chief, WikiLeaks
to
US Ambassador to London, Louis Susman
Subject to the general objective of ensuring maximum disclosure of information in the public interest, WikiLeaks would be grateful for the United States Government to privately nominate any specific instances (record numbers or names) where it considers the publication of information would put individual persons at significant risk of harm that has not already been addressed. PDF
27 NovemberHarold Hongju Koh, Legal Adviser, United States Department of State
to
Julian Assange, Editor in Chief, WikiLeaks
We will not engage in a negotiation regarding the further release or dissemination of illegally obtained U.S. Government classified materials. PDF
28 NovemberJulian Assange, Editor in Chief, WikiLeaks
to
US Ambassador to London, Louis Susman
I understand that the United States government would prefer not to have the information that will be published in the public domain and is not in favour of openness. That said, either there is a risk or there is not. You have chosen to respond in a manner which leads me to conclude that the supposed risks are entirely fanciful and you are instead concerned to suppress evidence of human rights abuse and other criminal behaviour. PDF
|
|
 WikiLeaks domain 'killed'
Reported by One News Page Staff on Friday, 3 December 2010 (4 hours ago) |
 by Alice Monroe -Whistle-blowing website WikiLeaks has gone off-line after the U.S. company which hosts its domain name withdrew its support and caused the website to disappear into obscurity.Everydns.net cut the wikileaks.org domain off at 3am GMT on Friday (10pm EST on Thursday) after a number of unknown hackers persistently attacked the controversial intelligence site using "distributed denial of service" (DDOS) methods. According to the internet domain firm, the cyber attack affected other everydns.net customers and forced the company to take the wikileaks.org domain off-line after giving WikiLeaks 24 hours of notice.
Access to the WikiLeaks site will not be possible until it gets a new DNS service. DNS services facilitate the translation of domain names (e.g. wikileaks.org) to numeric internet IP addresses - a critical requirement for accessing any website.
WikiLeaks issued a tweet on social networking site Twitter three hours after the support for its domain name was removed, stating: "WikiLeaks,org domain killed by US everydns.net after claimed mass attacks KEEP US STRONG https://donations.datacell.com/".
State Department bans employees enter Wikileaks
State Department bans employees enter Wikileaks
 A report o f The Christian Science Monitor reveals that the U.S. State Department has barred its staff throughout the world to navigate through the website Wikileaks, who since Sunday has made the greatest revelation of classified documents in history from reports leaked communications between U.S. Foreign Ministry and its embassies. The passage of the Department of State continues to the same decision by the Pentagon following the recent publication in the same place incriminating papers on the U.S. war in Iraq. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who has become a spokeswoman for the use of new technologies to subvert the governments of other nations, has issued this statement closed the site and ordered off their military network entity where information means were obtained from the leaked documents.
Big Brother is telling us what we can look at. The thought Police are real and are working diligently.Free speech is NOT for Everyone. These acts were done in the name of the American people but we are not allowed to see what was done in our name with our money.
We should hold the SAME standards for ourselves as we try to hold the rest of the world. I believe in a better way, a better world.
Why would I post this here? Because this is a grande display of what we teach our children to fight against. Censorship, Ignorance, Apathy, Ethnocentrism, Imperialism, and Arrogance
Besides, we have seen this sort of thing before, The Pentagon Papers . Those that can not remember the past are doomed to repeat it.
<div攀
28 Nov 2010
Index on Censorship has obtained copies of correspondence between whistleblowing website Wikileaks and the US embassy in the United Kingdom, which took place between Friday and Sunday. They reveal Wikileaks editor in chief’s last-minute attempt to seek the cooperation of the United States government in redacting information from the latest controversial release of documents.
Mark Stephens of Finers Stephens Innocent, who represents Julian Assange in the UK, is a trustee of Index of Censorship.
26 November
Julian Assange, Editor in Chief, WikiLeaks
to
US Ambassador to London, Louis Susman
Subject to the general objective of ensuring maximum disclosure of information in the public interest, WikiLeaks would be grateful for the United States Government to privately nominate any specific instances (record numbers or names) where it considers the publication of information would put individual persons at significant risk of harm that has not already been addressed. PDF
27 November
Harold Hongju Koh, Legal Adviser, United States Department of State
to
Julian Assange, Editor in Chief, WikiLeaks
We will not engage in a negotiation regarding the further release or dissemination of illegally obtained U.S. Government classified materials. PDF
28 November
Julian Assange, Editor in Chief, WikiLeaks
to
US Ambassador to London, Louis Susman
I understand that the United States government would prefer not to have the information that will be published in the public domain and is not in favour of openness. That said, either there is a risk or there is not. You have chosen to respond in a manner which leads me to conclude that the supposed risks are entirely fanciful and you are instead concerned to suppress evidence of human rights abuse and other criminal behaviour. PDF
|
|
|
|
I'm writing a thesis on Public Trust in WikiLeaks, the Media and the Government and need to know what your opinions are. The online survey is multiple choice and will take approximately 10 minutes to complete. Please follow the link: http://www.kwiksurveys.com/?s=ILLLML_9669e09d. Would be great if you would encourage others to do the survey also.
ReplyDelete