Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 8th Dec 2010 12:16 UTC
Internet & Networking It looks like several companies are learning what happens when you mess with the internet - and they're learning it the hard way. Several major companies have been hit by the collective powers of Anonymous after 4chan launched several distributed denial-of-service attacks. What many have been predicting for a long time now has finally happened: an actual war between the powers that be on one side, and the internet on the other. Update: PayPal has admitted their WikiLeaks snub came after pressure from the US government, and Datacell, which takes care of payments to Wikileaks, is threatening to sue MasterCard over Wikileaks' account suspension. Update II: Visa.com is down due to the attack. Update III: PayPal has caved under the pressure, and will release the funds in the WikiLeaks account.
Permalink for comment 452872
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Completely disagree
by lemur2 on Thu 9th Dec 2010 00:28 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Completely disagree"
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

" Wikileaks 'attacked' first. This is nonsense. WikiLeaks didn't do anything illegal. The person sharing the information did. He's in custody.
This is in fact not true. Under U.S. law, knowingly receiving classified documents for which you are not cleared, possessing classified documents for which you are not cleared, and distributing classified documents for which you are not cleared to parties that are not cleared are all crimes. Any one of which can get you prosecuted for treason. Whether you believe it's moral or not - which is debatable, certainly - handling classified material for which you are not cleared is unambiguously a serious federal crime, with grave consequences. Now, Assange isn't a U.S. citizen, and I really don't know how these laws would affect him (international legal relations are extremely complex). However, a strong legal case can be made that any U.S. entity that operates in support of Assange (i.e. provides hosting or funding) is acting in support of treason, and thus would potentially be liable. Now, the ethics of this particular situation are up for discussion -- and highly subjective. But certain aspects of the legal situation are crystal clear. "

Indeed. One of the aspects of the legal situation that is utterly crystal clear is that US laws about treason do not apply to Julian Assange, because he is not a US citizen.

Another aspect of the situation that is crystal clear is that any U.S. entity that operates in support of Assange (i.e. provides hosting or funding) is not acting in support of treason, because Assange himself cannot be guilty of treason.

Also another aspect of the situation that is perfectly clear is that if the US has requested help from other sovereign nations in its various military endeavours, during which non-US military personnel have been killed in action, and then it transpires that the US has lied about those selfsame military operations to the people of other nations (think WMD), then the US government itself is guilty of murder, and should be brought to justice.

Edited 2010-12-09 00:28 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2