posted December 07, 2010 11:09 PM            

As to PFC Manning, I guess no one will know. He put everything out there even knowing DADT existed. I know more than a few Soldiers that served well in this Military even though they were gay. In reality, no one in the Army cares unless it is so put out there that you can't help but say something. Bear and I have personally known gay and lesbian Soldiers and we accept them no matter their sexual orientation, as does many in the Military. However, if it interferes with their job, then it becomes an issue. The same is true for heterosexual people that are compromised by their relationships (domestic violence, promiscuity that results in STD's) or illegal behavior that will compromise the mission.

I enjoy how we discuss things Abs. I know we don't meet eye to eye on everything but I absolutely value your opinion. When you were going through everything, I will never forget how you reached out to Bear while he was deployed the first time. You always checked in on how we were doing, even when his family and some of my own didn't.

BTW.. totally off topic, I didn't sent you the addy for the Squadron people I worked for because they are in a few crazy areas that don't get mail as they should. I haven't even sent anything because I am worried they won't get it (and for good reason). Once they get settled, I will send you the info.

posted December 08, 2010 05:02 AM            

Ditto for whoever the treasonous bast@rd is who downloaded secret files and passed them to this miserable little bast@rd.
>>

posted December 08, 2010 10:26 AM            

Dow Chemical had nothing whatsoever to do with the disaster in India...Bhopal. That chemical plant was an Indian subsidiary of Union Carbide...named Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL), operated by Indian engineers, managed by Indians and almost 50% owned by Indians.

As for the Taliban, there was no such group in 1980. There was a loose confederation of Afghans and Arabs who were engaged against the old Soviet Union which had invaded Afghanistan and were busily attempting to take over the country after installing a Soviet puppet regime. The United States gave those Soviet Union resisters who were fighting for their country....Stinger Missiles to use against Soviet attack aircraft which were straffing and bombing civilian enclaves. All in all, the US assistance was minimal but crucial to driving Soviet forces out of Afghanistan.

Have you ever heard the phrase..."the enemy of my enemy is my friend"? That was the situation in the middle east after the radical Iranian Islamic regime took American diplomats hostage and held them more than 400 days. But, Saddam didn't need any urging to go to war with Iran. Saddam despised the Ayatollah Khomeini and everything he and his radical regime stood for...especially the fact Khomeini was fomenting Islamic revolution all across the middle east. If you want someone to blame for building up Saddam's military forces, you should look to the old Soviet Union...which supplied the tanks, jet aircraft, mortars, cannon and small arms...along with the French.

Pakistan was involved in 9/11 IQ? Really IQ? That's not what the record shows. Surely, as an Indian you can put away your antipathy for Pakistan and at least attempt to keep your fact straight.

Now, if you insist on someone to punish with a head shot for most of the Middle East conflicts since the 1970s...I give you Jimmy Carter, the worst President in US history...that is until Barack Hussein O'Bomber eclipses his record.

Now, how about this IQ? How about you attempting to read with comprehension? Note the qualifier I supplied with my commentary.

posted December 08, 2010 11:15 AM            

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange speaks during a press conference in London on Oct. 23.

By Robert Scheer

All you need to know about Julian Assange’s value as a crusading journalist is that The New York Times and most of the world’s other leading newspapers have led daily with important news stories based on his WikiLeaks releases. All you need to know about the collapse of traditional support for the constitutional protection of a free press is that Dianne Feinstein,

getty ing

the centrist Democrat who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee, has called for Assange “to be vigorously prosecuted for espionage.”

Writing in The Wall Street Journal, Feinstein, who strongly supported the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, has the audacity to call for the imprisonment of the man who, more than any other individual, has allowed the public to learn the truth about those disastrous imperial adventures—facts long known to Feinstein as head of the Intelligence Committee but never shared with the public she claims to represent.

Feinstein represents precisely the government that Thomas Jefferson had in mind when he said, in defense of unfettered freedom of the press, “[W]ere it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.”

In the 1787 letter in which he wrote those words, Jefferson was reflecting the deep wisdom of a political leader who often had been excoriated by a vicious press that would make the anarchist-inflected comments of an Assange seem mild in comparison. More than 35 years later, after having suffered many more vitriolic press attacks, Jefferson reiterated his belief in a free press, in all its vagaries, as the foundation of a democracy. In an 1823 letter to Lafayette, Jefferson warned: “The only security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted to be freely expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure.”

It is precisely that agitation that so alarms Feinstein, for the inconvenient truths she has concealed in her Senate role would have indeed shocked many of those who voted for her. She knew in real time that Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack, yet she voted to send young Americans to kill and be killed based on what she knew to be lies. It is her duplicity, along with the leaders of both political parties, that now stands exposed by the WikiLeaks documents.

That is why U.S. governmental leaders will now employ the massive power of the state to discredit and destroy Assange, who dared let the public in on the depths of official deceit—a deceit that they hide behind in making their claims of protecting national security. Claims mocked by released cables that show that our puppets in Iraq and Afghanistan are deeply corrupt and anti-democratic, and that al-Qaida continues to find its base of support not in those countries but rather in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates, the very nations we arm and protect. The notion that the official tissue of lies enhances our security is rejected by the growing strength of radical Islam in the region, as evidenced by the success of Iran, the main benefactor of our invasion of Iraq, as the leaked cables make clear.

The pretend patriots who use the national security argument to gut what remains of our most important security asset—our constitutional guarantees of a truly free press—are just what President George Washington feared when in his farewell address he warned “against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the Impostures of pretended patriotism. …”

The pretended patriotism of Feinstein, the first Democrat to co-sponsor the bill extending the U.S. Patriot Act, represents the death of the Democratic Party as a protector of our freedoms. As a California resident, I will not vote for her again, no matter how dastardly a right-wing Republican opponent she might face. There is no lesser evil to be found in one who would so cavalierly imprison practitioners of a free press.

That is the issue here, pure and simple. It is unconscionable to target Assange for publishing documents on the Internet that mainstream media outlets have attested had legitimate news value. As in the historic case in which Daniel Ellsberg gave The New York Times the Pentagon Papers exposé of the official lies justifying the Vietnam War, Assange is acting as the reporter here, and thus his activities must be shielded by the First Amendment’s guarantee of journalistic freedom.

Actually Ellsberg’s position, as morally strong as it was, was weaker than that of Assange, in that the former Marine and top Pentagon adviser was working at the government-funded Rand Corp., where he had agreed to rules about the handling of classified information, including the Pentagon Papers. Assange operates under no such restraints and is an even clearer example of the journalist who ferrets out news and attempts to report it. He had no special clearance that provided him access, and what he did was no different from what the editors of The New York Times did in publishing news that was fit to print.

posted December 08, 2010 11:16 AM            

Jonathan Bernstein

President, Bernstein Crisis Management, Inc
Posted: December 7, 2010 11:44 AM
BIO Become a Fan
Get Email Alerts Bloggers' Index
WikiLeaks Déjà Vu
digg
facebook Twitter stumble reddit del.ico.us
Read More: Julian Assange , Wikileaks , WikiLeaks Cables , Wikleaks State Department , World News

The ongoing release of formerly secret U.S. government documents by WikiLeaks has hit home with me on multiple fronts: as a former military intelligence operative, a former investigative reporter and -- for the past 28 years -- as a crisis management PR professional.

In early 1973, while deployed as a young (22-year-old) military policeman in Stuttgart, Germany, a strange series of events led to my being co-opted to work undercover against a front group for the infamous Baader Meinhof Gang. That gang was believed to have been behind bombings at military bases and its front group was actively engaged in recruiting disaffected GI's to commit acts of treason against the military. They thought I was such a disaffected GI and, working with my handlers from the 66th Military Intelligence Group, I was quite successful in my mission -- until my cover was blown. It was blown by a military signals officer who, knowing only that there was a code-named American (me) regularly going from Stuttgart to the seemingly innocuous front group's offices in Heidelberg, thought that "oh, gosh, we're spying on a legitimate civilian organization and on GI's who just want to talk to them, that's wrong" and leaked the information to the front group. Since I was the only guy coming from Stuttgart, they knew who it was, and if my fast-acting handlers from the 66th MI hadn't intercepted me at the train station, I would have been heading into a trap. Even so, there were threats on my life. My wife and infant son were evacuated from Germany ahead of me, and I remained in an armed environment until my departure for formal military intelligence training.

Thereafter, while working for the US Army Intelligence Agency, I became aware of dozens of Iranian military officers killed after the overthrow of the Shah because they had agreed to be sources for the Agency -- and that information was leaked because the security officer at the US Embassy in Tehran hadn't destroyed secret documents when the Embassy was overthrown.

I also remember our frustration in MI when information we saw labeled as SECRET appeared on the front pages of the Washington Post so, transitioning to civilian life in 1977, one of the first articles I worked on for my boss, investigative reporter/columnist Jack Anderson, was about the systemic failure of my former employer to account for hundreds of secret documents in audit after audit. My goal in doing so was to urge a much higher level of security and accountability in military intelligence; apparently, more than 30 years later, that level still hasn't been achieved.

As a crisis management professional, I have helped many clients deal with information leaks by well-meaning whistleblowers, by vengeful ex-employees, and even by Internet extortionists. With the exception of whistleblowers that, at one time, had legitimate access to confidential information, the leaks occurred because of inadequate security. The amount of damage incurred depended both on the nature of the information and on the organization's ability to rapidly engage in damage control.

At this juncture, I remain disgusted by the irresponsibility of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, because I have little doubt that innocent people have died and more are yet to die as a result of his actions, simply because they were being helpful to the United States. Others will have their careers and/or lives ruined in different ways. Do I think that our government should engage in a higher level of transparency? Absolutely. But not ever at the expense of lives.

At the same time, I am also dismayed that it was possible for so many documents to be compromised. I am guessing that those responsible for internal security at the affected agencies will lose their jobs -- but their replacements will do no better if they don't get support, at the highest level, for security changes that will, no doubt, be expensive.

Finally, I am not surprised, but saddened, that so many organizations worldwide continue to underestimate their vulnerability to information leaks that can have massive negative impact on their reputation, bottom line and ability to carry out their mission. Leaks that typically occur for one of more of these reasons:

* Failure to understand that information security is everyone's responsibility, not just an IT or HR matter, and should be practiced at the office, at home, at a restaurant, at an airport, etc. I have heard astoundingly confidential information being discussed at airports by executives using their Bluetooth device as if it surrounded them with a sound-deadening bubble.

* Lack of budgetary support to implement effective information security practices -- ignoring the reality that the cost of not doing so will ultimately be far higher.

* Lack of appropriate policies -- regarding computer use, use of mobile devices, use of storage devices, etc.

* Lack of training for said policies. Any policy without training and refresher training is useless.

* Lack of enforcement for said policies. If no one gets sanctioned for their violations, why should they comply?

* Lack of an anonymous system by which employees can report suspicious behavior by their peers. Employees will use a system like this when afraid to "snitch" in a more public manner.

* Lack of monitoring for leaks via all possible channels, online and offline. It's the 21st Century, folks, I can leak your information to YouTube, Facebook and Twitter -- from my Blackberry -- in seconds.

posted December 08, 2010 11:33 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by BearsArcher:
LOL.. I hear ya Abs.. I think that with the two deployments and working for a Regiment that has lost over 100 Soldiers, I've calmed down with time. It is easier to discuss things after what Bear and I have been through.

As to PFC Manning, I guess no one will know. He put everything out there even knowing DADT existed. I know more than a few Soldiers that served well in this Military even though they were gay. In reality, no one in the Army cares unless it is so put out there that you can't help but say something. Bear and I have personally known gay and lesbian Soldiers and we accept them no matter their sexual orientation, as does many in the Military. However, if it interferes with their job, then it becomes an issue. The same is true for heterosexual people that are compromised by their relationships (domestic violence, promiscuity that results in STD's) or illegal behavior that will compromise the mission.

I enjoy how we discuss things Abs. I know we don't meet eye to eye on everything but I absolutely value your opinion. When you were going through everything, I will never forget how you reached out to Bear while he was deployed the first time. You always checked in on how we were doing, even when his family and some of my own didn't.

BTW.. totally off topic, I didn't sent you the addy for the Squadron people I worked for because they are in a few crazy areas that don't get mail as they should. I haven't even sent anything because I am worried they won't get it (and for good reason). Once they get settled, I will send you the info.

Take care and lots of love to you Thank you for all that you do and have done.

---

I really had no idea Bears. I just so wanted to reach out and to do something meaningful.

I know we don't see eye to eye on everything, and well, wouldn't it be a shame if we WERE clones I appreciate your point of view too.

I want to thank you for the sacrifices you make on my behalf. I really don't think I have what it takes to do what you and other family members do.

posted December 08, 2010 01:05 PM            

For some airheads there's the asinine concept that whatever the government is doing or whatever the government knows should be splashed across the front pages of newspapers....without regard to the damage it would do the nation.

I suppose that would extend to publishing on the front page of the Treason Times engineering drawings of the nuclear trigger used in nuclear devices in 1945...or the method of separating weapons grade material from Uranium. Wonderful.

I suppose that would also extend to publishing in the Treason Times the fact the Allies were reading the German's mail in World War II having broken the encryption of Germany's Enigma machine.

I suppose that would also extend to publishing in the Treason Times the fact America was also reading the Japanese mail having broken their encryption codes.

I know there must have been much cheering by American America haters when the Treason Times published the means by which the Bush Administration was locating, tracking, capturing and/or killing al-Qaeda terrorists...through their cell phones.

How lucky for the Treason Times publisher, editor and reporter who broadcast to the terrorists how we were finding them that I was not President. Their sorry as$es would still be in a federal prison...as would the treasonous idiot who gave the Treason Times the top secret information.

What arrogance it must take to believe you must be privy to everything the government knows or is doing.

posted December 08, 2010 01:39 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by jwhop:
What trash. This is not about press freedom. This is about a pimple on the ass of humanity named Julian Assange releasing secret documents he obtained illegally.

...[the] concept that whatever the government is doing or whatever the government knows should be splashed across the front pages of newspapers....without regard to the damage it would do the nation.

What arrogance it must take to believe you must be privy to everything the government knows or is doing.

---

i don't generally agree with with you jwhop but i have to say i think you got bang on with this...

on a side note - i just calculated julian assanges number and they're not good... not good at all... i personally don't trust his motives are altruistic even if he claims to be exposing the "truth"... there is something quite amiss here

posted December 08, 2010 11:24 PM            

"but i have to say i think you got bang on with this"

Well, that's a positive step in the right direction then!

posted December 08, 2010 11:35 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by jwhop:

Well, that's a positive step in the right direction then!

---

admit it.. you did a little happy dance didn't you

Assange's numbers - his given name adds to 38 and his birthdate is 28...
how familiar are you with chaldean numerology?

posted December 08, 2010 11:59 PM            

Yeah, how did you know?

"how familiar are you with chaldean numerology?"

Some, but I don't know the significance of those numbers.

posted December 09, 2010 04:07 AM            

Dear Friends

The massive campaign of intimidation against WikiLeaks is sending a chill through free press advocates everywhere.

Legal experts say WikiLeaks has likely broken no laws. Yet top US politicians have called it a terrorist group and commentators have urged assassination of its staff. The organization has come under massive government and corporate attack, but WikiLeaks is only publishing information provided by a whistleblower. And it has partnered with the world's leading newspapers (NYT, Guardian, Spiegel etc) to carefully vet the information it publishes.

The massive extra-judicial intimidation of WikiLeaks is an attack on democracy. We urgently need a public outcry for freedom of the press and expression.

WikiLeaks isn't acting alone -- it's partnered with the top newspapers in the world (New York Times, The Guardian, Der Spiegel, etc) to carefully review 250,000 US diplomatic cables and remove any information that it is irresponsible to publish. Only 800 cables have been published so far. Past WikiLeaks publications have exposed government-backed torture, the murder of innocent civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, and corporate corruption.

The US government is currently pursuing all legal avenues to stop WikiLeaks from publishing more cables, but the laws of democracies protect freedom of the press. The US and other governments may not like the laws that protect our freedom of expression, but that's exactly why it's so important that we have them, and why only a democratic process can change them.

Reasonable people can disagree on whether WikiLeaks and the leading newspapers it's partnered with are releasing more information than the public should see. Whether the releases undermine diplomatic confidentiality and whether that's a good thing. Whether WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has the personal character of a hero or a villain. But none of this justifies a vicious campaign of intimidation to silence a legal media outlet by governments and corporations.

Ever wonder why the media so rarely gives the full story of what happens behind the scenes? This is why - because when they do, governments can be vicious in their response. And when that happens, it's up to the public to stand up for our democratic rights to a free press and freedom of expression. Never has there been a more vital time for us to do so.

With hope,
Ricken, Emma, Alex, Alice, Maria Paz and the rest of the Avaaz team.

SOURCES:

Law experts say WikiLeaks in the clear (ABC) http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2010/s3086781.htm

WikiLeaks are a bunch of terrorists, says leading U.S. congressman (Mail Online) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1333879/WikiLeaks-terr orists-says-leading-US-congressman-Peter-King.html

Cyber guerrillas can help US (Financial Times) http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d3dd7c40-ff15-11df-956b-00144feab49a.html#axzz17QvQ4Ht5

Amazon drops WikiLeaks under political pressure (Yahoo) http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101201/tc_afp/usdiplomacyinternetwikileakscongressamazon[/ URL]

"WikiLeaks avenged by hacktivists" (PC World): [URL=http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/212701/operation_payback_wikileaks_avenged_by_hacktivists.html]http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/212701/operation_pay back_wikileaks_avenged_by_hacktivists.html

US Gov shows true control over Internet with WikiLeaks containment (Tippett.org) http://www.tippett.org/2010/12/us-gov-shows-true-control-over-internet-with- wikileaks-containment/

US embassy cables culprit should be executed, says Mike Huckabee (The Guardian) http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/01/us-embassy-cables-executed-mike-huckabee

WikiLeaks ditched by MasterCard, Visa. Who's next? (The Christian Science Monitor) http://www.csmonitor.com/Innovation/Horizons/2010/1207/WikiLeaks-ditche d-by-MasterCard-Visa.-Who-s-next

Assange's Interpol Warrant Is for Having Sex Without a Condom (The Slatest) http://slatest.slate.com/id/2276690/

Support the Avaaz community! We're entirely funded by donations and receive no money from governments or corporations. Our dedicated team ensures even the smallest contributions go a long way -- donate here.

posted December 09, 2010 11:28 AM            

Assange's Interpol Warrant Is for Having Sex Without a Condom

When Interpol issued an arrest warrant earlier this week for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, the international police agency charged him with "sex crimes" but didn't specify the offense any further, prompting rumors that he had been accused of rape. He hadn't. "It turns out," Washington's Blog reports, that "it was for violating an obscure Swedish law against having sex without a condom." During a business trip to Stockholm last August, Assange had unprotected sex with two women (a bizarre and painfully detailed account is available on the Daily Mail's Web site) who upon realizing that they had both slept with him—and that he had blown them both off—jointly approached police about his refusal to take an STD test. At the time, Assange's Swedish lawyer confirmed that "the principal concern the women had about Assange's behavior … related to his lack of interest in using condoms and his refusal to undergo testing, at the women's request, for sexually transmitted disease." (Assange actually did use a condom with one of the women, but it broke.) This, apparently, is hazy legal territory in Sweden. While the "consent of both women to sex with Assange has been confirmed by prosecutors," as a former attorney wrote in an impassioned op-ed, Assange has been charged with something called "sex by surprise," which reportedly carries a $715 fine. According to Assange's London attorney, Mark Stephens, prosecutors have yet to explain the charges or meet with the WikiLeaks chief to discuss them, which he's agreed to do. "Whatever 'sex by surprise' is, it's only an offense in Sweden—not in the U.K. or the U.S. or even Ibiza," Stephens fumed. "I feel as if I'm in a surreal Swedish movie being threatened by bizarre trolls."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Read original story in Washington's Blog | Friday, Dec. 3, 2010
58 Comments

~~~~~~

Comments

"Our president will be sure to be packing his bags for Sveeedennnn!!!"

"Surely this means WikiLeaks can get some massive financial donation from the Vatican".

posted December 09, 2010 11:53 AM            

you're not still dancing are you?

posted December 09, 2010 02:40 PM            

quote:

---

Julian Assange releasing secret documents he obtained illegally.

---

How?
And if there were a case against him for the many, many, other releases he has made in the past- why was he never charged?

allegations are just that- allegations.

quote:

---

from recent news-- Mitch McConnell said we need legislation making what Assange did illegal

---

The question now is:
will this law be retroactively used? Which is moot, as all of the releases will be before the legislation[s] are signed.

THE Australian lawyer for Julian Assange has written to the Attorney-General, Robert McClelland, asking him to take action against prominent North American figures calling for Mr Assange to be harmed.

"High-profile human rights lawyer Geoffrey Robertson will represent WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in his fight against extradition from Britain to Sweden, Robertson’s office said on Wednesday."

Robertson, a barrister who has dual British and Australian nationality, has appeared in some of the highest-profile freedom of speech trials in British history.

home page
part of his lengthy and lauded resume:

quote:

---

Geoffrey Robertson is founder and head of Doughty Street Chambers, the UK’s leading human rights practice, which comprises some 80 barristers and 30 staff. He is a Bencher of the Middle Temple; and a Recorder (part-time judge) in London; an executive Member of Justice, and a trustee of the Capital Cases Trust. He is visiting Professor in Human Rights at Queen Mary College, University of London. He lives in London with his wife, author Kathy Lette, and their two children.

---

If service people had been put at risk these charges would have been prosecuted in August- during those releases.

The people who have levied the greatest risk to Americans are those that built the war [of] lies through lies. Which we already had proof of....now we have incremental proof.

posted December 09, 2010 02:49 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Node:

If service people had been put at risk these charges would have been prosecuted in August- during those releases.

The people who have levied the greatest risk to Americans are those that built the war [of] lies through lies. Which we already had proof of....now we have incremental proof.

---

posted December 09, 2010 11:52 PM            

Exclusive: Sarah Palin Under Cyber-Attack from Wikileaks Supporters in 'Operation Payback'*
December 08, 2010 5:12 PM

The website and personal credit card information of former Gov. Sarah Palin were cyber-attacked today by Wikileaks supporters, the 2008 GOP vice presidential candidate tells ABC News in an email.

Hackers in London that the Palin team believe to be affiliated with “Operation Payback” – a group of supporters of Julian Assange and Wikileaks – have tried to shut down SarahPac and have disrupted Sarah and Todd Palin’s personal credit card accounts, SarahPAC aide Rebecca Mansour said.

“No wonder others are keeping silent about Assange's antics,” Palin emailed ABC News. “This is what happens when you exercise the First Amendment and speak against his sick, un-American espionage efforts.”

Palin has criticized Wikileaks founder Assange, writing on Facebook that his “past posting of classified documents revealed the identity of more than 100 Afghan sources to the Taliban. Why was he not pursued with the same urgency we pursue al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders?...Assange is not a 'journalist' any more than the 'editor' of al-Qaeda's new English-language magazine Inspire is a 'journalist.’ He is an anti-American operative with blood on his hands."

Activist Gregg Housh told the New York Times "that 1,500 people were on online forums and chatrooms including Anonops.net, mounting mass and repeated 'denial of service' attacks on sites that have moved against Mr. Assange and WikiLeaks in recent days."

A cached page from Anonops.net shows Palin's site as a suggested target.

A SarahPAC.com technical aide said that the "DOS attackers, a group loosely known as Anon_Ops, used a tool called LOIC (Lower Orbit Ion Cannon) to flood sarahpac.com. The attackers wanted us to know that they were affiliated with wikileaks.org through an obscure message in our server log file.“

The tech emailed this screenshot to show what he's talking about.

Mansour said that an employee called Todd Palin this afternoon and told him that his and his wife's account had been compromised and that a company in London was involved.

It wasn't clear whether the attack to the Palins' credit card account today was related to the attack on her website.

Anon_Ops describes itself as an "anonymous, decentralized movement which fights against censorship and copywrong." It has enlisted volunteers "create counter-propaganda, organizing attacks (DDoS) on various targets related to censorship (time, date and target will be published by that time)." For that reason, it is difficult to ascertain the exact motivation of any attacker.

Added Mansour, “the governor voiced her opinion knowing full well that she was speaking out against a shady disreputable organization with no regard for laws or human life. This is how they operate. The world should not be intimidated by them.”

posted December 10, 2010 10:52 AM            

sarah palin is always being attacked/hacked/victimized by someone. just because hackers say they are affiliated with wikileaks doesn't mean they are. they may just be sympathetic, or using wikileaks' high-profile name as justification.

there is an awful lot of blame being slung around without a SINGLE CHARGE having been made.