Killing the messenger

Wikileaks is shut down by a judge. Several mirror sites have gone up in response.

Paul Kiel of TPM:

As for why this California judge ordered the whole site taken down over a few documents, that's not clear. As the BBC reports, "The case was brought by lawyers working for the Swiss banking group Julius Baer. It concerned several documents posted on the site which allegedly reveal that the bank was involved with money laundering and tax evasion." Why didn't the judge just didn't order the documents taken down instead of the whole site? We hope to get some expert guidance on the question.

Update: Just spoke with Steve Aftergood of the Project on Government Secrecy, who offered a clue. "My hunch is that the action was dictated by the practical options. [The judge and Julius Baer] don't know who wikileaks.org is or who the responsible parties are upon whom a court order could be served. What they did know was the U.S. based internet service provider." So they got the ISP to shut the site down. "If they had known who to serve the order to – who represents Wikileaks --, then they might have chosen a more targeted action." Nevertheless, he thought the judge's move was "extraordinary," based as it was on the bank's contention that these were legally protected documents.

A large number of mirror sites have sprung up to counter the judge's move -- sites mirroring not only wikileaks, but also the Julius Baer documents at issue.

"Wikileaks had boasted that they were impervious to censorship," Aftergood told me. "This is the most serious test they've faced in their year-long existence. They may lose their current website, but dozens of mirrors around the world will endure. And I expect they will regroup."

Corporations over people, business over justice. We need to protect our whistleblowers like Sibel Edmonds, Mark Klein, and places like Wikileaks.

It's what good patriots do, right?

Catapult the propaganda?

"Wikileaks reports that US armed forces personnel at Guantanamo have conducted propaganda attacks over the Internet. (The story has been picked up by the NYTimes, The Inquirer, the New York Daily News, and the AP.) The activities documented by Wikileaks include deleting Guantanamo detainees' ID numbers from Wikipedia, posting of self-praising comments on news websites in response to negative articles, promoting pro-Guantanamo stories on the Internet news focus website Digg, and even altering Wikipedia's entry on Cuban President Fidel Castro to describe him as 'an admitted transsexual' (misspelling the word 'transsexual'). Guantanamo spokesman Lt. Col. Bush blasted Wikileaks for identifying one 'mass communications officer' by name, who has since received death threats for 'simply doing his job — posting positive comments on the Internet about Gitmo.'"

I mean... rice pilaf! And lemon herbed chicken! What's not to like? Like this boy here. He was 15 when he was brought to Gitmo. FIVE years ago. That's a lot of rice pilaf!:

Detained at age 15 in July 2002 by US Forces in Afghanistan, the Canadian Omar Khadr, Guantanamo detainee #766, has been held for over 5 years without trial. Omar was one of at least three detainees who had their ID numbers covertly deleted from Wikipedia on Nov 1 and Nov 2, 2007 by Guantanamo staff.

Five years without trial. And they're trying to erase his name. What are they planning to do with him, disappear him? After five years, is he functional and able to be let go? Are they ever going to let him go?

Or are these lucky lemon-herbed-chicken-eating guys prisoners for life just because?