In Free Speech Flap, Calif. Judge Orders Web Site to Shutter
The Law Blog loves the Orwellian nature of a good free speech spat, particularly when the First Amendment clashes with mass media. And a real doozie of a case out in California came to a head on Friday.
Wikileaks.org, a site we’re sad we didn’t know existed until today, was developed as an Internet forum for posting leaked materials. Its stated goal is discouraging “unethical behavior” by corporations and governments. According to this NYT article, the site has posted documents said to show the rules of engagement for American troops in Iraq, a military manual for the operation of the detention center at Gitmo, and other evidence of what it has called corporate waste and wrongdoing. But on Friday, a federal judge in San Francisco issued a permanent injunction shutting the site down.
The plaintiff in the case was Cayman Islands-based Julius Baer Bank and Trust. According to reports, the bank claimed that a disgruntled ex-employee “engaged in a harassment and terror campaign,” providing stolen documents to Wikileaks in violation of a confidentiality agreement and banking laws. According to Wikileaks, “the documents allegedly reveal secret Julius Baer trust structures used for asset hiding, money laundering and tax evasion.”
But how effectual is ordering a Web site to shut down, anyway? The Times suggests that “locking the front door” of the website is akin to a game of whack-a-mole: closing one avenue to the site leaves plenty of other avenues available to the savvy Web user.
In a statement on its site, Wikileaks compared the injunction to ones eventually overturned by the Supreme Court in the Pentagon Papers case. There, the government tried to enjoin publication by The Times and The Washington Post of a secret history of the Vietnam War.
David Ardia, the director of the Citizen Media Law Project at Harvard Law School, told the NYT that the injunction is clearly unconstitutional, and that “There is no justification under the First Amendment for shutting down an entire Web site.”
Forget this - I want to know if Palmer Reifler is as much a scummy, one-step-below-ambulance-chasers as they appear to be in the article on shoplifters? Anyone know?
The site is still up, it has mirrors in Europe and elsewhere, http://wikileaks.be/wiki/Wikileaks, what is particularly amusing is that they are also posting all of the opposing counsel’s correspondence, didn’t he see that one coming?
The web is becoming a powerful medium for leaks / attacks etc because of the implicit anonimity is supposedly provides. I am all for free speech - but I do not think that free speech was supposed to be granted to anonymous entities (I mean whose free speech?)
Lawsuits will solve precious little (as already pointed out.) Once something is out there is cyberspace, there’s no taking it off. The only way to tackle this is to ensure that go after whoever provides anonimity to the ‘leaker.’ If its criminal - fine - come forward and leak it out. Removing the anonymous mask will also cut down on false claims.
The anonymity issue needs to be urgently addressed, without which the web is increasingly becoming an uncontrollable monster. This is one for the technology gurus to figure out. We dont need unknown jobless people posting crap about others just as we dont need unknown terrorists posting beheading videos online.
While I have no problem publishing documents de-classified from war’s and conflicts of the past - i.e. Vietnam, etc. publishing documents of a timely nature, and engagement of the enemy while still in progress is out of the question. The times have proven again and again that they are anti-government and anti-american at times. What do you expect a Harvard Law Professor to say anyway? He is as liberal as the day is long. Give me a break.
Very funny, Mr. Anonymous.
Don’t forget this. Public scrutiny is a fact of life in the information age. If you don’t have any dirty laundry it cannot be aired. This business of using the courts to protect crime and skullduggery is somewhat characteristic of most things Californian, happening there before it becomes a national tragedy with just another Federal Judge to trod upon the Bill of Rights. It’s NOT defamation if it’s TRUE. I’m glad they have a few mirrors readily available, too bad one of them isn’t out of the Cayman Islands. Bravo !
How interesting that the previous post on anonimity and free speech was post by “Anonymous”. I’m guessing the founding fathers might disgree with him as well since they spent a great deal of time and effort hiding their identity in their writings advocating rebellion.
I cant help but notice the person demanding that the anonymous posting be eliminated is posting anonymously him/herself. Personaly, i agree with u Anon, but practice what you preach or dont post stuff as a hypocrite.
Anonymous complains about the problems of publishing leaks anonymously? And forgets that anonymous publications were a fundamental part of the “free speech” movement of the 1760’s and 1770’s critical of the king and British rule.
I agree, but let’s remember that a person could post ANYTHING on this website, true or no. That’s what happened in this case. Note that it was a disgruntled ex-employee and that the information was (supposedly) false. If a regular newspaper published that sort of material, they could be sued for libel.
Free speech does not mean you have the right to smear people’s reputations.
Let’s post anything and let public opinion and “history” sort it out. Thank god for the internet, it is the modern day equivalent of soapbox and the commons,
What I find interesting, and of little note by commenters, the bank in question has not, to my knowledge, claimed that any of the facts are false. They have not denied their wrong doing. They just seem upset that their confidential documents revealing their wrong doing have been made public.
Of course, I don’t expect anything less from American judges or politicians. All of whom seem to have the new catch phrase, “Constitution? We don’t need no stinkin’ Constitution!”
I`m suprized that nobody had anything to say about this.
This is the funniest thing I have seen all day. Whack-a-mole!!! Lol that is so funny! Special interest groups have been trying to gain legal power to orchestrate the internet. This isn’t new.
Dear Bob,
RE your comment: “I’m guessing the founding fathers might disgree with him as well since they spent a great deal of time and effort hiding their identity in their writings advocating rebellion” — well, they signed the Declaration of Independence, didn’t they? An act that was worthy of hanging at the time…
this website is exactly what is needed to keep corrupt a-holes in line .
they should investigate the caymen island banks not this website. idiot politicians always go after the small guy instead of the real problem
It raises an important issue, not only do we need good conservative judges who will enforce the law, not make new law themselves, but we need strong conservative judges who will rigorously enforce the law. When a company has its private documents posted on the web, without its consent, mind you, and, after going to all that trouble to set up in the Cayman Islands where there aren’t any silly banking or securities restrictions to hamper its activities, it needs a judge who will not only penalize those who attack it with embarrassing disclosures, it needs a judge with energy, a judge who will shut them up, and if shutting down their web site doesn’t do the trick, well, we’ll just need to shut down the archives of their site, and shut down anyone who houses their site, and shut down anyone who tries to retransmit their site. What are all these sophisticated data mining devices the government has actually for, anyway?
this is a perfect example of “soft fascisism”, the business and politics cartel in action
Wikileaks sounds a lot like the “super worm” in the novel “Shockwave Rider”. It ferreted out all secrets, government and otherwise, and posted them in public forums.
You can still visit Wikileaks on a non-U.S. server:
It may not work, but we do respect a right to privacy in this society; and if your tax returns and SSANs and other interesting items were posted, how then would you feel and act? The glorification and protection of theft and economic espionage is to be lamented; and if you think it is ok if done for the “right reasons” then wait until tomorrow and the tables are turned.
the Truth shall set you free
and that’s why they don’t want the Truth to be told
but in fact, web servers can be located anywhere on the internet, in any country, and as long as we have no “great Firewall of China” here in the USA, we will have ways to get to whatever we want
The concept of freedom of speech is great. The issue is that too frequently opinion is reported as fact. Add to this that many readers cannot distinguish between fact and fancy. If what is being reported fits with the reader’s mindset, then it obviously is fact. Remember, just because it’s on the web gives it zero credibility.
The average web reader feels that there is nothing wrong with yelling “FIRE!” in a crowded theater just for amusement.
Anonymous says above, “I am all for free speech - but I do not think that free speech was supposed to be granted to anonymous entities (I mean whose free speech?)”
HAHA! What an idiot. Anonymous speech is a Constitutionaly protected RIGHT, affirmed by the Supreme Court. In fact, anonymous pamphleters were an integral part of the American Revolution.
You faux “conservatives” and your “lawsuit” abuse reflexes can kiss my anonymous ass and move to Russia where your authoritarianism is appreciated. This goes for your opposition to leaked military documents that show illegal activities, too. Such leaks are as American as General Washington, you facistic cryptofags.
By the way, Wired News is reporting “”…Despite the ruling, Wikileaks continues to host the sensitive documents from servers located outside the U.S. Coincidentally, or not, the organization’s hosting center in Sweden was also struck by a denial-of-service attack, after which a fire erupted in the center as well. ”
It appears that in addition to money laundering and tax evasion, Julius Baer Bank and Trust may also be guilty of internet crimes and arson.
This is Anon@9:48 again,
Look guys, I quit posting ‘views’ online under the real name a long time ago simply because I am scared of everything being brought up at some later day - and you can be rest assured that it will be brought up in the wrong light.
All the same, all I am expressing is an ‘opinion’, not libel or information.
And in case you missed the news, of late the freedom-loving college students have also have been trying to muzzle campusvoice.com or something like that which has been posting personal details about college student (and people are rightly appalled).
I am also part of closed community groups where everyone’s true identity is known. The discussions there are definitely much more respectful.
And ‘freedom’ lovers - very soon we may start seeing neighborhood forums posting how many times you had sex with your wife last week and how much time you spent in the bog (trust me, manhattan apartment walls arent all that soundproof). Would love to see you enjoy those posts.
Anon@9:48 once again.
.
Read the post@10.47. I quote “HAHA! What an idiot….. You faux “conservatives” and your “lawsuit” abuse reflexes can kiss my anonymous ass …..”
.
On the closed community groups I was talking of where no one is anonymous and people know wach other, we would NEVER talk to anyone so disrespectfully. I think this is a valif topic with fair points on both side. But is only on anon places that people can spew such bile. I am sure ‘Jeremiah’ (?) is a nicer person in real life.
Why do people want to tear down America by revealing what’s going on? Can’t we all just live in fear and confustion, it would make the government’s job a LOT easier. Revealing truth is Un-American and treachery to the polis: if you are for truth, you are with the terrorists.
folks interested in this story should visit one of the wikileaks sites and read the story of the guy who originally posted those documents to wikileaks, rudolf elmer. he’s not a ‘disgruntled former employee,’ he’s a terrified one who’s had his children stalked by private investigators hired by his former employer.
the link is here: http://wikileaks.be/wiki/Clouds_on_the_Cayman_tax_heaven
it’s not a great translation, and it’s long, but it gives you an idea of who (or what) Bank Julius Baer really is.
dt
Knowledge is free.
We are Anonymous.
We are Legion.
We do not forgive.
WE DO NOT FORGET.
I feel freedom of speech is important. It’s really up to the readers to make a judgement not the courts in cases like these. People who create accounts in Cayman Isles will contintue to do so anyways. If you had a reason to open an account in some off-shore bank account, wouldn’t you? Regardless of what Wikileaks.org may say. I do feel sites like Wikileaks are important. If a document reveals that a dishonest contractor was not removing asbestos properly like they should from an old home they’re renovating, or a document gets posted about how our civil liberties are being violated. It’s worth it. Far as personal information in the neighborhood, I can’t be so insecure that I’d worry about what others think in such trivial matters.
Leaking troop plans is a threat to the military and lives of the military. It should be shut down because free speech doesn’t cover military classified information. Be it true or not that’s classified information and I’d support the military taking down the website by any means necessary to protect the lives of the troops.
Posting on illegal activities is not the same as “posting how many times you had sex”. If those documents are fake, which I have seen no evidence that suggests they are, this is another matter entirely. Yes, people will be a-holes when they’re anonymous; who cares?
As said before, the American Revolution was partly caused by anonymous people. The Declaration of Independence was made after there was already momentum. You can stop a lot of rebellions by shooting the first organizer before he gains support. Ask people in China if they know who “tank man” is.
For those who are against revealing these documents, why not get rid of neighborhood watch and anonymous reporting of crimes? If you’re brazen enough to report someone committing a crime, you can handle a little retribution can’t you?
What’s missing is information on the judge who issued the injunction. ;)
There was an article yesterday on ZDnet that suggested that a) the injunction was changed from permanent to temporary and b) the original injunction was issued based on a false representation by the Caymen Island bank’s attorney.
There’s more here than meets the eye — as always.
I so love the “Streisand effect”. The moment you try to censor information, it receives that much more attention and exposure. Julius Baer Bank should have charges brought on against them. They were also, alledgedly, performing Distributed Denial of Service attacks (DDOS) on the site and related sites before even getting a court order.
While the courts are at it, maybe they should remove that moron of a judge as well. This is the equivilent of completely stopping the press at the WSJ, for example, because of 1 article instead of removing the 1 article.
You can no longer suppress the truth because you have a stockpile of money in your coffers to pay off the right people.
Oh it’s too bad that everyone bit on the Anonymous post about how we need to get ride of anonymity like it was a straw man post and not a satire post.
If there was no wrong-doing, they would not give a damn about their records being publicly exposed. Money laundering & off-shore tax evasion are why the super-rich “take the trouble” to set up accounts in the Cayman Islands. You don’t see the random guy working at WalMart setting up such accounts trying to avoid taxes.
Funny thing is, about the same thing has just been exposed in Germany with their super-rich hiding money in Lichtenstein.
It seems that there are folks all over the world who are just plain sick & tired of getting the shaft while the super-rich are able to get away with illegal activities.
Perhaps the question should be asked, “Who would you like to run the world you live in… those on the side of the common person or those persons only concerned with increasing their own power & financial status on the backs of the common person?”
Free speech, anonymous or not, is the crux of free society. The moment what you say is monitored or censored in any way, you have just lost your freedom. Don’t forget, in America, it’s number one in our Bill of Rights for a reason. We, the People, have the right to say what we want, not the right to steal what we want.
How many MORE people have to die for that right to remain & be rigorously enforced?
9:48, 9:48, 9:48. So much of what you say sounds good — but then when you think about it, every comment above that has been critical of you has been correct. You are right — the web is a monster. The Internet is out of control. It is a criminals’ sanctuary. It is a scammers’ paradise. It is a smut and debauchery magnet. It is a place of danger, threats, and slimeballs. But because it is a breeding ground for EVERYTHING, bad comes with the good — and there is a ton of good. Not the least of which is the ability to post — and thus speak — anonymously and freely. And this Julius Baer Bank and Trust article shows that entities like Wikileaks are using unfortunate innovation to do good. To me, the key question this Julius Baer Bank and Trust article and story raises is what balance need we strike in regulating the Internet? I personally think it is WELL past time that governments and specifically our law enforcement were granted complete control over it. Law enforcement — and ultimately all of us — getting stuck with whack-a-mole scenarios degarades the integrity of the Rule of Law. Its unregulated operation truly undermines important facets of our democracy. Ironically, it does this even as it simulataneously fosters some of the greatest things — like free speech. The Internet’s dangers today, however, have become so serious that it now should be easily controlled by law enforcement, not so much to protect the Paris Hiltons (though even they are entited to protection) but to protect harm, including to consumers, vulnerable, children, etc. The Internet is way too wild westy. It desperately needs to be reigned in. Folks like the ARIN elite need to be dethroned, as do their kindred spirit newly empowered techno geeks. They need to be regulated, not in charge. Such lunatics cannot continue to run this assylum. The Internet is such a force in our national and world economy that it is far beyond the time that our elected governments and law enforcement agencies control it. Yet, we all agree that anonymity has a crucial place and needs somehow to remain. I believe there can be a proper balance, but so far, regulation and control of the Internet have not been our priority — the great loss of tax dollars notwithstanding. Not even trying to find the proper regulatory balance continues to only get us further behind the 8-ball. Mark my word: this anti-regulation of the Internet cannot go on forever. Cases like Julius Baer Bank and Trust show how the courts are rendered useless against the monster that is the Internet. Particularly as tax dollars are lost, governmental interest in controling this will AND SHOULD increase. I for one, am all for it — but with balance to protect the good things the Internet offers.
District Judge White is from New Yorker, as is Judge Restaino (the subject of another lawblog article today, about his locking up everyone in his courtroom to find out the source of a ringing cellphone). Quite a coincidence.
Maybe Judge White can use the Restaino defense, mental derangement, for issuing a website closure order using word for word the order filed by Bank Julius Baer’s attorneys. The Times article did not mention that Wikileaks was only given notice of the Friday hearing a few hours before the hearing, by e-mail, and an attorney in court on an unrelated matter asked permission to represent Wikileaks and was told to mind his own business.
If Judge White got an e-mail from someone in Washington, DC to expedite this hearing, that e-mail is secure, probably made through the Republican National Committee’s e-mail server.
So, ExMilitary… if an invading army personnel forces him/herself into your house, rapes your children, your wife & your mother & then beats &/or kills you &/or members of your family, that should not be publicly exposed?
Just because AMERICANS do it, doesn’t make it right.
Why did GW say that U.S. service personnel & contractors are not obligated to follow the Geneva Convention rules? Why shouldn’t the American public know that the military personnel break the rules of engagement on a regular basis? But then again, why are our men & women being put in harm’s way for another money-making police-action that has, to date, had no declaration of war or even legal rationale given?
Exposure of the illegal activities of our leaders, our military personnel & the super-rich (because they are, ultimately, the ones with the influence & power, NOT the average guy on the street) is the only way to maintain checks & balances if we want to make/keep ours a “free society.”
Do we think that only OUR society is worthy of freedom? I thought “freedom for the people” was the reason we are still in Iraq & Afghanistan (now that wmd are no longer in question).
Renegade governments need to be checked… even (perhaps especially) our own… which is the real reason for the Second Amendment.
It is our patriotic duty to question our representatives & ensure that they are actually acting in our best interests.
Without freedom of speech, that is impossible.
If e-mails are destroyed or documents are shredded or otherwise disposed of after an internal review - who you gonna call. The ideas that a corporation or a government entity is a person or that I have to sue to uphold the Freedom of Information Act is testimony to a tradition of crazymaking
So the BBB has a website where you can look up reported wrong doings by businesses, and I believe the FDA does too. Note that both of these services are totally anonymous. But what it was the business did wrong is NOT listed on the sites. In my opinion corporations should be treated as celebrities: people who have WILLINGLY given their lives up to public scrutiny and the poperazzi (for their own personal gain, of course). Personally I would prefer to see 100 false claims posted to every ONE truthful, than to see ALL claims silenced. To police the internet is a task that’s IMPOSSIBLE, though I wouldn’t be surprised to see the government try, perhaps they start giving out “Libelist tickets” (like speeding tickets) to posters on the net in the future (your IP is linked to almost every thing you do on the net, and the government can impound that info from your ISP…)
On a side note I have reported a business to the BBB in the past for fraud, etc… that was years ago and hundreds of others did the same as me to that company still it is up and running, business as usual (I ended up closing a bank account to get away from the fraudulent company… luckily I could afford to pay off my credit card unlike some peeps. I of course had to pay for the money they “stole” from me.)
I also plan on whistle blowing on a corporation to the FDA, but I may not waste my time seeing how little the government entities seem intersted in helping John Q. public. The sad thing is this company could actually do PHYSICAL harm to others , but why should I risk MY name for others, when I’m just out of college w/ an MBA lotsa debt and no $$$? The big money definitely seems to have us by the short hairs. We seem to be punishing the poor victims and citizens who tried to fix the problem. Just My opinions of course. (plz officer don’t hold me libel!)
BTW I had sex w/ my wife 3x’s last week, and yes this is soft fascism. But if I was you all I would be more worried about our Fiat money than this shinnanigans. KEEP YOUR EYE ON THE BALL!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_money
Regulate the Web… you are saying that you want your own rights to be removed. In a nutshell: “Go ahead, take my rights. I don’t really want them.”
So go live in China.
You are definitely in the wrong country.
Benjamin Franklin said, “The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either.”
According to our Constitution (which you might consider reading before spewing such rubbish as you posted), even fools such as yourself are free to speak their opinions, no matter how foolish.
Get your head out of your butt.
This is the United States of America.
Our society was fought & died for on the basis of freedom… ESPECIALLY freedom of speech.
Try using your internet connection for something productive… like reading history & the Constitution you are so willing to have destroyed.
Dudes,
Three things:
1.Reading this piece of news is not the same as truly understanding the facts which lead to it: here only the ACCUSER is shrouded in anonimity (mistery, really), while the ACCUSED, wistle-blower (acivity protected by law in our country) Rolf Elmer is an ex senior financial officer of a Swiss bank in CI doing the type of business there that is harder to do in Switzerland or the US, for example.
2.Secrecy (anonimity) facilitates illegal activity by diminishing the fear of exposure and retribution, (e.g. AlQaida).
3.Respect for the law is not at all an exclusive conservative or liberal characteristic; it has to do with personal ethics, not political alignment. How could one reconcile invoking his own right to privacy so he can commit tax evasion or money laundering solely based on political afinity??? Choosing the laws we like to obey and ignoring the rest does not make us more moral then others no matter how loud our chest pounding and name-calling.
I applaud the American courts who rightly shut down that website. I appeal to your President George Bush to help us recover our stolen tax cheaters data from the Germans.
First it was the Church of Scientology - next it will be Julius Baer Bank and Trust.
We are Anonymous.
We are Legion.
Anybody find it… “odd” that a bank specializing in anonymous offshore accounting is going after offshore anonymous leaks? ;)
Jake,
I am nicer in real life, you have a valid point there. I’m impassioned about freedom and have no problem arguing these points in sensible terms, online or offline. But, when I read anonymous posts that offend American principles of Freedom and Liberty, I don’t really feel the need to play nice. Living in Texas as a Constitution loving, former Republican - I get a lot of practice, and frankly I’m sick of the basic ignorance expressed in these cases. There is a differance between truly private data (like consented sex acts and financial information), anonymous speech and whistleblowing where illegal activities are exposed. The fact that a foriegn bank could be awarded a crushing injunction like this in a case where they are accused of violating US and international law is disgusting.
Remember Betsy, beauty fades, but dumb is forever. And you and your 12:41 missive are both dumb. But that’s OK — I like to see dumb views like yours aired with good ones like mine so the marketplace of ideas can choose to buy mine and not yours. You see, Besty, allowing even the dumbest — like you — to post anonymous dumb statements like yours is good. And that’s the beauty of the anonymous free speech I was talking about. That free speech is good and I think the Internet should continue to foster it in the way only it can. However, I do think the Internet requires regulation. It should be subject to law enforcement’s ability to control it so they do not play whack-a-mole when a judge orders a site shut down. We need to do something about it when a site defrauds, exploits, etc. You like our Constitution? So do I. Don’t forget it provides for a judicial and an executive branch that the wild westy unregulated Internet too often undermines as much as it serves. So save the flag-waving, dude. Save the China crap, too. While I’d be tempted to say China is more for you too, that would be hypocritical. And anyone that espouses the virtue of our Constitution should only feel the same.
There is no other way to expose these crooks. The only was is anonymlously via the Internet. I am in support of a ‘whistleblower’ bill which would protect these courageous individuals. Did you know the guy who exposed Zyprexa and cost them a billion dollars in lawsuits had to pay $100,000 of his own money? He is a hero he should be paid $100,000!!
I haven’t checked out the actual government docs posted on the website yet. Here’s my rule of thumb: if its classified, don’t post it. If it isn’t, feel free. When I was serving in the sandbox, the rules of engagement were FOUO (for official use only) -that means next to nothing, so post away. Honestly, they weren’t that helpful anyway - unless they’ve changed them recently. They’re basically written in legalese terms that serve to cover the commander’s rear (Sir, I briefed my troops about what they can or cannot do in a combat zone! Here’s the powerpoint presentation and the sign-in roster to prove it!!) in case any of his soldiers go on a rampage. I’ll be impressed if any insurgent gets any use out of them. I sure didn’t. I’ll weigh in on the Gitmo stuff later.
Now the website if 8x stronger than before this case. Even if all mirrored sites were taken down anonymous or ported IP addresses and servers could be used to create a similar site with a couple dozen separtely branded and located websites all outside the united states. This would take about 2 long weekends for an 18 year old webmaster to setup. Running a blog myself I am surprised at how many business leaders are still living in the 1950’s when it comes to what you can link to and can’t link to online. I wrote a positive recommendation once to a online compliance resource and got a call from their lawyers within 24 hours asking me to take the link down because it implies a relationship between our two websites…1950s…
- Richard
Hedge Fund
Puerile insults and vaguaries get you nowhere. Don’t you get the real issue — Wikileaks may be a great thing in theory (kudos Kevin at 1:36) but the Internet should be social, not antisocial. Allowing it to run roughshod over our laws renders free speech almost entirely moot. We need law and we need rule or law to maintain order. Without regulation — reasonable but effective regulation — we end up with prisoners running the prison.
Read this blog link to see more about how the guys running this web site and other worse ones like it have no scruples, morals, or modesty about their ambition to make society’s laws meaningless: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/20/wikileaks-site-has-a-friend-in-sweden/?hp
I think we need the Internet regulated. Why have cops if they have no ability to do anything about crime?
Cranky Vet,
I’m browsing through some of the US Military leaks on Wikileaks. One of the most interesting is the battle reports from Fallujah. The marks on the reports state that the documents are not be shared with allies and are exempt from standard 25-year declassification standards. The reports basically say that political pressure from the Bush Administration accerlated the initiation of the Fallujah battle and impeded “shaping operations” to clear the battlefield of civilians. The result, according to the report, was a battlespace full of civilians and Arab journalists which resulted in a informational and politcal LOSS despite clear military victory. That sort of imformation is exactly why it is patriotic to leak classified information. It may offend Republicans who would rather not highlight the fact that Bush is a disasterous Commander in Chief, but the country is ultimately better served by having such information in the public domain. Republicans would feel differant if it were Hillary Clinton as Commander in Chief, of course.
For some clarification, the judge shut down the US DNS entry, not the website, like Dan Slater suggested.
Also, Julius Baer Bank is based in Switzerland, (with a branch in Cayman Islands), as opposed to what Dan Slater suggested.
Just wanted to clarify some facts.
2:43PM said, “…the Internet should be social, not antisocial. Allowing it to run roughshod over our laws renders free speech almost entirely moot. We need law and we need rule or law to maintain order. Without regulation — reasonable but effective regulation — we end up with prisoners running the prison.”
Take your Orwellian doublespeak and blatant authoritarianism to Russia where it is appreciated. You were born in the wrong country.
I guess nobody here cares to protect their documents? It’s the banks fault for letting it out. Be more careful with your papers. It does not take a lawyer to figure that one. Then hold the source of the leak liable under whatever agreement you have with them.
Uber liberal idiots should be allowed free speech, and as your post illustrates, they are. And don’t worry, one day you will build a vocabulary beyond your fifth grade reading assignments. Well, then again, maybe not. Still, hang around. We need people like you to make people like me look so good.
Ha! time-out for you JINA, take a nap and come back when you feel less nasty.
Julius Baer Bank and Trust appears to have admitted in their pleading that they were facilitating criminal activities and that the exposure of conspiracy to facility such crimes is what the judge was talked into suppressing. Should any government in the world ever allow anyone to do business with such criminal conspirators again?
Sushi,
.
Your forgot to tell Julius Baer that they should make certain that they never hire another honest man if they want to keep their corrupt secrets hidden. I’m sure that some other bank will be happy to facilitate the lawbreakers who fear exposure at Bank Julius Baer.
I think several people need to cool down and stop with the insults.
@2:43 PM:
I can’t say I support the Pirate Bay’s piracy, but I actually find their defiance of the law entertaining. It’s getting to the point where the court room is the weapon of the companies, rather than a tool to protect the weak. This is just an example of this. I would argue that sites like wikileaks and anonymity promote free speech. If anything they take it too far rather than making it moot.
Thank you Tiber! And if Pirate Bay’s piracy were as bad as it gets, I too would think it somewhat entertaining. HOwever, there are LOTS worse. FAR worse, in fact. Today there are way WAY too many scammers out there using the web’s anonymity to steal. Granted, caveat emptor, etc. as to dumb people who should know better before buying something over the Internet, but the fraud committed using this anonymous medium only grows each year. Trust me, I’m no big brother, but when anyone can cook up a criminal or illegal scam using the web and then rely on endless privacy protections to keep their illegal activities private, reform is needed. Plus, do you know what a HUGE problem it is for law enforcement to do anything about the crime over the Internet? And no, I’m not saying law enforcement should NOT have an easy time searching and seizing against the US of A Constitution and constitutions of our states, but the Internet stuff is so much harder for many reasons, including jurisdiction, “whack-a-mole” syndrome (I love that expression!), difficulty tracking the people who are in charge of the websites, etc. At the end of the day, the harm cannot be ignored just because the web offers so much good. So please know I agree STRONGLY in free speech and anonymity, but the Internet needs to be changed — drastically. Call me what you will, except anti-American, but for now I am…
can you take free speech too far? really isn’t the point of free speech to say what you want without fear of government retribution? Now I realize there is a difference between free speech and printing libelous material and passing it off as news, however keeping people from posting things on an international public venue such as the internet because someone doesn’t like it being exposed is ludicris and un-american. As the saying goes “I may not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.”… this should hold true especially if it’s information regarding criminal activity or activity that will endanger the public. God knows we can’t expect the government to punish the same companies that contribute to their campaigns and help hide crooked politicians’ money.
Maybe I said that wrong. I don’t mean that wikileaks takes it too far, I just mean that on the radical “right to free speech” or radical censorship spectrum, they are more on the former side. As for the whole internet reform thing, I’m kinda on the fence. I am a strong supporter of net neutrality, think too little is done about internet scams, and think putting spyware on people’s computers (even non-malicious) without any disclaimer should be illegal. At the same time, I don’t want ads that know every site I’ve visited, even if their database only knows me by ip, and I’m against the RIAA’s bittorrent lawsuit escapades. Maybe I just want it both ways, I don’t know. Either way, I think people need to learn what kind of ball game the internet is, particularly those who are supposed to be setting policies for it.
Since this site caters only to exposing government agencies and corporations I am totally ok with laws being bent to bring corporate criminals to justice. The fact that the corporate criminals can hide behind legal documents (kinda like defending the hollocaust, saying it was brought to public light by a defective agent performing an illegal act, which some how nullifies the states illegal/immoral act.) is absolutely incredulous. For example minor criminals who rat out MAJOR criminals are given legal leniancy. That is the case here. There was no legal route to blow the whistle, the legal catch 22 ‘n all. Especially if you believe the only legal people you can rat out to are the very people who don’t want the info known! If you corporate owners out there are still worried, then there should be a legal judiciary comittee to review a corporations leaked documents; and if it’s a forgery fine remove it. But it must be shown to be a fake beyond all reasonable doubt!!! Otherwise tough luck. And in the case of leaking government documents, they should never be removed; unless it is a direct risk to national security. The government doesn’t have customers to worry about running away, so if its a forged document… TOO BAD!
Note: that none of what I said above should be applied to individual citizens (UNLESS they are government officials!).
Yes, the Catholic Church locked away documents of Copernicus and Galilao during the Spanish Inquisition in hope to protect the church’s wealth, power, and prestige. That all changed as human evolution which is far to crafty and smarter in large numbers outwitted the few and greedy. Yes, the internet age will prove to be more troubling for the unseen criminals for many years to comes. So yes, they should be worried — very worried indeed because the truth is closer to them they think. and, if they think that it was hard to shut down Napster — just wait to tell the average middle class kids who really worked their way up in the world to shut it down when they are functioning off idealism and hope. Nope, there are just way to many smart people armed with a weapon called the internet and i am sure as hell am not just talking about myself here.
More information on WikiLinks here. Worth checking out. Very interesting company/project. Def. makes me reconsider what level of exposure is needed for accountability: Wikilinks
fmpvjZ hi great site thx http://peace.com
Simply Shocking!
Great discussion. It is blogged about here
Yawn. Wikilinks is about as important as a gnat farting in the grand scheme of things don’t you know. I wish I personally knew some of the naive posters of replies on here. I could make a fortune off of them given their obvious mental deficiencies. If only wikileaks would publish their SSN’s, full legal names, bank account numbers, etc.
As many of yesterday and today’s newspaper articles have pointed out, Bank Julius Baer with the help of their naive celebrity lawyers and the very strange Judge Jeffrey S. White have done themselves — and most especially their clients — a disservice. Those clients should have known by now that offshore trusts, Stiftungs, Anstalts and the rest are constantly being leaked to tax authorities: the current LGT scandal, with the German tax authorities paying EUR 4 million to a whistleblower to reveal the names and accounts of German tax evaders is just one more example. But foreign bank employees have been subpoenaed by the IRS when passing through the US; presumed tax evaders and scammers have been jailed indefinitely until they repatriate funds from supposedly “impenetrable” foreign asset protection trusts. Bank Julius Baer has brought this on itself through the type of business they have solicited. And reading through the Wikileaks documents proves that the Bank knew the risk.
It’s happened before. See a list of links to cases at http://tinyurl.com/ypfcfn
Sometimes the tax trap is an accident: Estate of Swan, 247 F.2d 144 (2d Cir. 1957). More often the motivation is pure tax evasion.
Without world legal agreement on regulating the internet, the only other way our government can completely control the internet is to close us off from the rest of the world.
Of course, wiretapping with the right pressure applied in the right places on the right people could probably achieve the same result more discretely. Wonder why computers were required to be built with unique ID codes many years ago?