... just under assumed names. There's a blizzard of news revolving
around them today: their domain names were yanked by their ISP
(EveryDNS), so "wikileaks.org" is kaput. And of course, chickenshit
Amazon caved to pressure from (Dem.) Sen. Joe Lieberman, among others,
and pulled their web hosting.
These names, however, are reputed to still be operating:
In addition, you can access Wikileaks with a raw naked string of numbers
constituting a static IP address. At least two work (I've been using the
first one, which works):
Oh, and for those red-meat "national security" conservatives out there
who are calling for Julian Assange's head on a pike (as well as Pfc.
Bradley Manning's, even though the guy hasn't even been formally charged
yet, let alone convicted of anything), your flak is expected and will be
ignored. This is for the rest of us who feel that Wikileaks is
performing an important function.
The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring,
with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags.
Strange as it may seem, I agree with you. In my view, Assange got
information from an outside source and published it, same as the New York
Both are reprehensible, but if the Times gets a walk, so should Assange.
What's curious is that the Times refused to publish the leaked
"climate-gate" emails, claiming, inter alia, that they were "private"
communications and, well, gentlemen do not read each other's mail.
Then there's this:
18 USC 798
(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or
otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses
in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or
for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United
States any classified information...Shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing the NY Times imprisoned for ten years...
The Plame affair, as you call it, was a deliberate act of sabotage by
Bush's puppet masters. It resulted in the loss of decades of faithful
work by Valerie Plame IN THE US NATIONAL INTEREST. It also resulted
in uncountable deaths of agents left naked when Plame was
not allowed to contact her sources to warn them.
I should by now be inured to the sheer ignorance -- nay, MALEVOLENCE
-- of such as the writer, but it still shocks me that these people
have their heads in the sand -- or perhaps in a darker, smellier place
-- out of sheer partisan rancor.
Ackshooly, I'm surprised to see you write that, Bub. I really am.
After all, without the NYT and especially its Iraq war cheerleader,
Judith Miller*, we might not have even *had* Iraq War II. No further
chances for all those red-blooded American "tips of the spear" to give
those goddamned ragheads their tickets to kingdom come. I'm assuming
this would have been a terrible disappointment to you.
Don't tell me you buy that garbage about how the NYT is the exemplar of
the "liberal media" ...
* Not to mention her editor, Bill Keller, who only bleated pathetic
excuses when Miller was fired.
Heh! I guess it's possible that President Bush took into consideration what
the NY Times had to say on the matter before he made his decision to invade.
*I* would never do that. Heck, they describe themselves that way.
"Is the New York Times a liberal newspaper? Of course it is. " Daniel
Okrent, Ombudsman, New York Times, July 25, 2004.
Others do too.
A 2007 Rasmussen survey found that 40% of respondents believed the NY Times
to be a liberal newspaper (10% thought it to be too conservative). In 2004,
a UCLA study gave the NYT a score of 73 (out of 100) on the
I know that progressives believe the NY Times is a "mainstream,
middle-of-the-road" publication, possibly because the NYT is only (according
to UCLA) three-quarters of the way toward complete liberalism.
The fact that he doesn't consider the NY Times to be a liberal
just how far to the left this nut job is.
As for this gem:
"This is for the rest of us who feel that Wikileaks is
performing an important function. "
How about the rest of us who consider guys like you and harry, who
constantly start off topic
threads here about some BS that is almost always anti-American, a
bunch of annoying idiots?
And since he agrees that what Assange did is illegal, I'm sure he'll
have no problem when and if
they track him down and he gets 20 years, 10 for sexual assault and
the other 10 for espionage.
Given the current administration's interest in enforcing laws, I
wouldn't hold my breath. Perhaps
some other pissed off country who has troops on the ground in the war
on terror will have the guts
to dispatch some agents to take care of the problem. If I were
president, at the very least I'd have
black cars sitting outside the house of assange's parents, family,
friends, and everyone that works at his
website. Sending a message that just maybe we can reach out and touch
Only a true anarchist loon would think that what this scum bag did was
"an important function". In
one case, they identified an Iranian who had provided the US with info
down to the fact that he
was a former fencing champion. Oh, but wait, they redacted his name,
so that makes it OK and
he's in no danger, right? Just imagine the chilling effect will
this have on the collection of intelligence in
the war against terrorism, Think citizens or govt officials in
places like Iran are going to tell the US critical
information or opinions when they know it's going to be on the web the
Also, isn't a curious thing that guys like assange, harry, and david
always focus their vitriol at the USA?
Where are the Wikileaks on Russia, China, Iran and North Korea?
On 12/4/2010 8:41 AM, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Mostly from foreigners. Don't know why they constantly dig up dirt on
the US as most of us in the US couldn't care less about the messes in
We all know what the Russians would have done if it involved them ;)
"Frank" wrote in message
IF OUR GOVERNMENT REALLY WANTS TO KEEP OUR NATION'S TOP SECRETS
CLASSIFIED, THEY SHOULD BE KEPT IN THE SAME PLACE THAT OBAMA'S COLLEGE
TRANSCRIPTS AND BIRTH CERTIFICATE ARE KEPT.
I'm not a fan of off-topic posts and I'm not an American either but I have
to say this joke was funny.
Oh? We don't "care about the messes in their countries"? So that's
why we invaded the country of that vicious dictator, Saddam Hussein,
but never invaded about ten other Asian and African countries with
dictators that made Saddam look like a boy scout?
List is easy to find by inputting some ordinary search terms.
Ooops...excuuuuuuse me....those other criminals didn't have OIL, and
weren't as stupidly over-confident as Saddam, whose plan was to
destroy OPEC and denominate oil in Euros rather than Dollars. Uh,
oh...hic jacet lepus, as they say in Latin... We couldn't allow our
cozy relationship with the Saudis to be endangered. Let them cut off
people's hands, persecute and segregate women, rip off the country
while spending fortunes on the luxurious life style of the huge "royal
family", refuse to permit any other religions to exist, etc.etc. In
exchange for which they agreed long ago to keep the price and supply
of oil stable.
They used to call this kind of deal a "devil's bargain".
It wasn't, unless you count Liebestraum. Do you think England made a
defensible decision in declaring war on Germany?
The Dutch East Indies was where the oil was. The Japanese hated the Chinese
and the Koreans.
I don't know about the others, unless they somehow insulted the Japanese by
not going along with the "The Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere'.
"Face," you know.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.