Wikileaks Is Running Out Of Cash

"And you suggest he should be transparent with his sources. "

Reread the grandparent's comment. He's not saying Wikileaks should reveal it's sources but that it should release its source material. As opposed to editorialize. As opposed to becoming yet another dishonest filter of information.

I'm impressed by the amount of comments here that point out some (perceived) hypocrisy in the actions of Wikileaks or Assange. This isn't the point.

I myself don't really know what to think of Wikileaks. I, however, do know that major banks and financial institutions find it perfectly okay for you to send money to all kinds of horrible organisations (say, the Ku Klux Klan, clubs that campaign for underage sex, Westboro Baptist Church, whatever you can come up with, and they probably have a bank account), but not to Wikileaks.

I can't imagine how Wikileaks can be considered a so much more evil organisation than Stormfront (http://www.stormfront.org/forum/announcement.php?a=63, all cards accepted) that the first needs to be blocked and the latter does not.

It can only be that at least this part of what Wikileaks is saying is true: Major banks and businesses, a scarily small number of organisations that control a large part of the world's financial transactions, want to control to who you give your money. This means that they want to control who gets money and what they do with it. This shit is NONE of their business, and the fact that they can do this without serious legal issues scares the shit out of me.

I like to believe that western governments are out to serve their citizens and protect their freedoms, but I cannot explain how that fits with what these banks are doing and how the governments just let it happen. This has absolutely nothing to do with the nature of Wikileaks as an organisation.

Really, this fact alone makes me want to send money in an envelope to Wikileaks, despite how ridiculous I thought Cablegate was.

Edit: If Wikileaks were a terrorist organisation (blowing up buildings and people and whatnot), I'd understand governments to force a ban. Not banks banning them on their own initiatives, but governments forcing it. If you genuinely feel that Wikileaks is as bad as Al Qaeda and Hamas and the alikes, then I'll understand if you disagree with me, although even then I hope you agree that it should've been a government decree, and not banks solo-piloting their sense of morality. In all other cases, really, I can't wrap my mind around it.

I am pretty tired of this meme (incidentally, often misattributed to Gandhi, but appears to actually come from some guy called Nicholas Klein: * First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. And then they attack you and want to burn you. And then they build monuments to you. And that, is what is going to happen to the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America.*" [1])

Anyway, the classic duelling-quotes response:

"They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." -- Carl Sagan

[1] I find it amusing that not only did Mr Klein never did get the monument he wanted, he is now remembered purely for a comment he made which has been popularly reattributed to someone more famous.

Wait, what? Mandela is not a murderer. It's kind of difficult to qualify Castro of being a murderer with so much certainty. You have got to be a troll.

In his "60 Minutes" interview, Assange acknowledged that governments and corporations have privacy rights as well. His position is that Wikileaks provides a way for whistle-blowers to publicize information that they feel is being ignored or suppressed by the authorities within the organization.

In other words, he describes Wikileaks as a last-resort channel for addressing institutional wrong-doing.