WikiLeaks gags staff, threatens leakers with $20 million penalty

[Playinghardball]

Source: Raw Story
By Eric W. Dolan

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange requires WikiLeaks staff to sign a confidentiality agreement that claims the organization's collection of leaked documents is "solely the property of WikiLeaks," according to a published report.

The confidentiality agreement says that unpublished documents leaked to the organization are "valuable proprietary commercial information, the misuse or unauthorized disclosure of which would be likely to cause us considerable damage."

The legal agreement was leaked to the New Statesman and published Wednesday .

Clause 5 of the confidentiality agreement imposes a penalty of 12 million British pounds, nearly $20 million, on anyone who breaches this legal gag, claiming the extraordinary penalty is based on "a typical open market valuation."

More at: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/05/11/wikileaks-gags-staff-threatens-leakers-with-20-million-penalty/

[ecstatic]

1. Ironic nt

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pnwmom]

3. So they OWN the documents that are illegally leaked to them?

:rofl:

[Vanje]

4. That is Ironic nt

[MineralMan]

5. Uh-huh....the real motive emerges, I think.

Julian Assange is all about himself. There are no lofty ideals in him, I'm afraid.

I've noticed that the hero worship has died down. I think his 15 minutes are about done.

[joshcryer]

25. This is long known about. This is not particularly new.

Yeah, the underlying contract details are new, but it's been well known that Wikileaks has been trying to sell their leaks.

[sabrina 1]

40. No it is not, the exact opposite is true. I see you have fallen

for the lies, lies already debunked long ago. I would expect you to produce something to back up that irrresponsible statement, especially since this is an old allegation. But then again, smear campaigns rarely feel the need to provide proof of the lies, just 'put it out there' and see what sticks. Unfortunately so far, all attempts to spread these stories have been foiled.

[ecstatic]

50. What I don't get is your constant attempts to defend those people

Seriously, I don't get it. What's in it for you?

[NavyDem]

6. This thread makes me LOL. N/T

[MineralMan]

7. I guess that explains his lack of support for Private Manning, then.

Defending him would cost Assange some of his precious money. My instincts appear to have been correct from the beginning. He's just another avaricious attention whore trying to line his pockets. Oh, well...

[Forkboy]

11. Working the bait hard in his thread.

[sabrina 1]

13. Fun to watch though, isn't it?

:-)

[EFerrari]

45. Yes. It's like a Hugo Chavez thread about Wikileaks.

lol

[sabrina 1]

12. No, it doesn't but it explains how much danger he is in from

this government. You have something to back up that 'opinion' with? That Assange cares so much about money? Because the facts, over the course of his entire life prove that the exact opposite is true.

He is extremely popular all over the world, and I guess those who fear their corruption being exposed will be working overtime on the usual Rovian smear jobs against anyone who threatens exposure of their dark secrets.

It's kind of fun to watch, though, as the reaction to the smears also reveal a whole lot, probably unintentionally.

[joshcryer]

28. This is *not* controversial:

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/01/vf-wikieaks/

[sabrina 1]

41. From 'Wired'?? January?

You really are behind the news on this story. You need to start doing some research on what happened regarding Wired since last January. It is clear you have zero knowledge about the events that followed that story which is ancient history as far as the developments that have occurred since then. Wired disgraced itself on the Wikileaks/Manning story and did eventually acknowledge that, to some extent.

But I suppose you can't be blamed since our media will not cover this important story for fear of exposing this government's campaign against Wikileaks. Anonymous, however, blew the story wide open and thanks to independent journalists, the facts are available and the story IS still developing. I think Wired will be more careful after its embarrassing participation in the smearing, now exposed thoroughly, of Wikileaks.

[cbdo2007]

8. "valuable proprietary commercial information" - yep, that about sums it up ($$$)

And people at DU still worship this organization??

[sabrina 1]

14. What money is Wikileaks going get, or have

they received as a result of this alleged agreement with employees? Can you provide some info on that?

And if they were in it for the money, why did those news organizations they released their material to, like La Monde eg, state that there was no money exchanged, that no money asked for by Wikileaks?

This is nothing but another attempt to silence Wikileaks which still has hundreds of thousands of documents which would no doubt expose more of the crimes of the Bush gang. And we now know, again thanks to Wikileaks, that this administration is committed to protecting Bush and his cabal of criminals.

[joshcryer]

26. Wikileaks is fine at silencing itself. Less than 5% or so of the Manning Files have been released.

Why is that? Oh. I know. Because Wikileaks is using it for funding, not for transparency. Keep leaking the files slowly rather than all at once, and pow, there you go. Years of publicity every time a cable is released with big info.

[sabrina 1]

39. Wow, you are so off base and so uninformed about this story

I would not know where to begin to start correcting your wild theories. To begin with, the 'slow' leaking was not due to Wikileaks, it was due to the media who need time to sort through literally tens of thousands of the documents they received from Wikileaks.

They have SPOKEN about the work involved, and Wikileaks left it to them to do that work. They had redactions and people who needed to be called, in various governments around the world etc. You know, actual journalism.

Have you ANY idea of the amount of documents that Wikileaks received, there were hundreds of thousands just of the Iraq and Afghanistan War logs. As those in the media with access to just that 5% of them have said, it will take YEARS to go through just what they saw. And that is the reason why Wikileaks went to those news organizations to get help with publishing them and all that that entailed.

You have made a wild accusation with virually zero basis in fact and made it clear that you have not followed this story even minimally. Granted it is a huge story requiring many, many hours and days of work just to follow it and to follow the fallout from it. But your remarks demonstrate that you have not even begun to do that, your false statements are shameful, frankly.

The government-backed smear campaign will be fierce, that was expected. But hopefully good Democrats like Hank Johnson will at least put a dent in it now that we have the revelations from the Anonymous attack on HBGary and their tens of thousands of extremely revealing emails.

[Arctic Dave]

9. Oh dog, NTSA.

Facepalm.

[comtec]

10. Makes sense...

think about it. no documents that he has released have endangered lives.
that means that wikileaks IS being responsible about what they release.
embarrassing a country is one thing, endangering the lives of covert operatives is another.
and the us military has said that no documents so far have directly endangered anyone's life.
but that's me.
i do believe in what this guy is doing, and I think he's going about it the right way.
what do I know, im some nutter online aren't i?

[stevenleser]

24. Assange himself has admitted that Wikileaks has cost lives. MANY lives

He didn't mean to admit it, but he did when he said that Wikileaks inspired the Middle East uprisings.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/16/assange-wikileaks-cables-middle-east-protests_n_836462.html

And Chomsky agrees

http://www.disinfo.com/2011/01/noam-chomsky-on-wikileaks-middle-east-uprisings-and-more/

At least 150 people died in the Egyptian uprisings alone. On one day in Syria, ie the good friday uprisings, 75 people died. Those numbers do not include Tunisia, Libya or Yemen or the rest of the protests in Syria.

The latest iteration of Wikileaks releases have resulted in the deaths of hundreds of people.

[Leopolds Ghost]

27. Wait, so you're angry about the Middle Eastern uprising? By that logic, ending VN War cost lives

Why isn't the Administration seeking to put Daniel Ellsberg on trial for treason and murder?

[stevenleser]

47. Nope, not angry, quite the opposite. But the fact is that wikileaks has resulted in deaths.

And, quite frankly, I am completely OK with that. In fact, this is one of the few good impacts of Wikileaks. But for defenders of wikileaks, I find they are not willing to accept either of these premises:

1. Wikileaks caused deaths
2. Those deaths are part of something productive happening.

[girl gone mad]

29. So you think the uprisings were a bad thing?

Interesting.

[stevenleser]

52. No I don't. See my #47

[sabrina 1]

32. Wikileaks has stated openly that Wikileaks contributed to the

Arab Spring when it released the Tunisian Documents proving the corruption of the Ben Ali regime. Others have actually challenged that assertion, claiming Wikileaks is taking the credit that belongs solely to the Tunisian revolutionaries.

Nearly 800 people or more, died in the Egyptian revolution. Members of the Mubarak regime are currently being charged with causing those deaths. Not one Egyptian or Tunisian that I know of blames anyone but the Brutal Regimes who are responsible for those deaths. This truly is desgraceful.

Especially considering the fact that we now know, thanks to Anonymous, that BOA hired firms to smear Wikileaks as a way to discredit them should they release documents showing corruption in that bank.

Additionally, because the DOJ appears to have been involved along with the DOD in those plans, Rep. Hank Johnson has asked for an investigation into who was behind this plot to smear anyone who was likely to reveal damaging information about BOA.

It seems the fact that the plot to smear Wikileaks was exposed, has not stopped it.

[stevenleser]

53. None of what you wrote changes the basic fact. Without wikileaks, those revolutions would not have

occurred. In fact, you agree with me on that point. You cannot take credit for starting revolutions and then back away from any responsibility for the deaths that occurred in those revolutions. I happen to think the revolutions were good things as I have written several times in this thread.

At the same time, wikileaks has blood on its hands and Assange and crew are not willing to assume responsibility for it. He and his supporters want to weave this illusion around him and his organization that nothing bad could possibly come from what they do. This is part of the reason I have such a big problem with Wikileaks and their supporters. They are not smart enough to understand that there are unintended consequences for their acts and they refuse to be accountable for them. This is all a big game to them and when things blow up in their faces, they act like they are innocent doves. They aren't.

[comtec]

43. death by revolution is not the same as outing a undercover agent

people die in revolutions.
without wikileaks those revolutions may never have happened!
I guarantee that if you asked every person who died if they blamed "wikileaks" would say "NO!"

false equivalent much?

and to be cold blooded about it, those are death resulting from actions taken based on actions taken (murdered by their own government for wanting freedom) NOT directly from that information being released.

Next canard please.

[stevenleser]

48. You can attempt to try to spin it away any way you like. Wikileaks still caused deaths

And, quite frankly, I am completely OK with that. In fact, this is one of the few good impacts of Wikileaks. But for defenders of wikileaks, I find they are not willing to accept either of these premises:

1. Wikileaks caused deaths
2. Those deaths are part of something productive happening.

[Fla_Democrat]

15. Bwahahaha

:evilgrin:




:smoke:

[renegade000]

16. lol n/t

[Kaleko]

17. If I was a whistleblower with a major cache of documents to disclose,

I would certainly make sure to release it ONLY to an outfit that has severe penalties in place for its staff so as to discourage them from selling me out.

Think about it from any whistleblower's perspective and you'll find that Assange has done the right thing, or perhaps not even enough yet to ensure a measure of security for people going up against major powers in government and industry.

[ohbill]

18. Name one whistleblower who has made a similar demand.

Demanding £12 million as a penalty for leaking documents (read: not charging media outlets for them) is a greedy thing to do.

[Kaleko]

19. Whistleblower's names are kept completely secret from WikiLeaks

such that even Assange doesn't know their identities. The measures put in place to ensure that WL staff won't breach any leaker's trust is one reason why WL has been entrusted with so many explosive scoops.

Try to think it through.

[sabrina 1]

21. Wikileaks has not taken money from media outlets and that has

been verified by the media to whom they released the documents, La Monde stating that they were never asked for money for the right to publish the material, among others. So I don't where you are getting this from.

[Robb]

22. Le Monde, no. But BBC 4 paid £50,000. Al Jazeera £100,000.

This was for video, of course, not paper documents.

[sabrina 1]

34. That appears to be an allegation that was not true.

Wikileaks Pay to Play

To: infothebureauinvestigates.com
From: John Young <jyapipeline.com>
Subject: Pay Wikileaks to Play
Date: 15 December 2010

Cryptome.org has an account of what was asked from a major media outlet for payment, NDA and bond to assure deal compliance for access to Wikileaks files. The media outlet is an international organization headquartered in New York City which does not wish to be identified. In one instance this was said to be the arrangement:

"An intermediary asked for $100k for 'production costs.' We declined. We investigated but could not prove the money was to go to Julian Assange or Wikileaks. It seems a British public interest production company produced news pieces for BBC and Channel 4 based on access to the material. Al Jazeera paid 60k British pounds. BBC paid 100k, Channel 4 160k. Again, we couldn't prove any of it went to Assange."

Is The Bureau of Public Investigation the public production company referenced or did you work with the company? If so, can you confirm the arrangement described? If not, could you suggest a candidate?

This will be published on Cryptome.org.

Regards,

John Young
Cryptome.org
US 212-873-8700

15 December 2010

15 December 2010.

A representative of The Bureau of Public Investigation, name withheld by request, telephoned John Young to explain what "production costs" entail, principally for producing film based on the Wikileaks material.

The final cost of the production exceeded funds raised and required funding from persons involved. If necessary proof of expenditures will be provided.

No payment was asked for access to the Wikileaks material. The Wikileaks material was not offered, only the film production.

No payment of funds was made to Wikileaks or Julian Assange.

Emphasis mine. I have searched and can find no other reference to these allegations.

[sabrina 1]

20. Me too. But we are in the process of smearing Wikileaks, so shhh

Anonymous's revelations that HBGary and other firms were contracted to smear Wikileaks and that the DOJ was involved should have prepared people for these kinds of strategically planted stories.

Rep. Hank Johnson recently asked Congress to look into those allegations, stating that the government paying for these kinds of smears to deceive the public are illegal and what he called a scandal that is screaming for investigation and that it was so important to do that, he was ready to do it himself.

Named as targets for smearing in the emails were Wikileaks and anyone who was defending them, like Glenn Greenwald eg. So, we can take this 'story' with a grain of salt and hope that Hank Johnson gets some results.

[joshcryer]

31. It is not a smear to point out facts.

[sabrina 1]

36. And the facts are? What money did Wikileaks receive as a result

of this 'confidentiallity agreement'? Where is the money? Other allegations regarding payments made to Wikileaks have been proven false.

The smear campaign is documented now, the Anonymous revelations, that BOA hired firms to smear Wikileaks before they reveal evidence of corruption in their banking practices, have led to a Congressional request for an investigation into who was responsible for hiring the firms, HBGary eg, to conduct a smear campaign against Wikileaks and others, Glenn Greenwald eg.

So what are the facts? I must be missing the money somewhere since try as I have, I can find no evidence of millions of dollars going to Wikileaks. I hope Rep. Hank Johnson's Committee gets the information they requested on who in the DOD and the DOJ were involved in these plans to smear Wikileaks.

So, again, what money went to Wikileaks?

[Kaleko]

33. I'm amazed to see Raw Story run with such a sloppy attempt at a "scoop".

The whole article is based on some scribe who either willfully or ignorantly twists the meaning of the confidentiality clause in the WL contract.

Quote from Raw Story:

New Statesman's David Allen Green said the confidentiality agreement was a sign that WikiLeaks perceived itself as a commercial organization that intends to make a profit off the materials others leak to it.

"One suspects that the various brave and well-intentioned people who have provided the leaked information would be quite unaware of – and perhaps horrified by – the express commercial intentions of WikiLeaks, as evidenced by this document," he noted.

So, Mr. Green "suspects", sees "signs" and sagely "notes" whatever suits his fancy and Raw Story simply parrots all of it?

WTF.

[sabrina 1]

37. I agree, very transparent attempt at a smear. I guess HBGary's

downfall left the field open for others to take up the contract to smear Wikileaks. But they really are going to have to do better than this. And yes, I am surprised that Rawstory picked up this piece of garbage. Could they be getting money maybe? Sad to say, money does seem to 'talk' and not everyone is immune sadly.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

23. he had a right to want to protect people who are leaking this stuff

in the first place

the next manning is grateful

[Leopolds Ghost]

30. Let me get this straight: WikiLeaks staff leaked an order prohibiting them to leak WikiLeaks?

[SidDithers]

35. Well, that's awkward...nt

Sid

[sabrina 1]

38. Yes, a very awkward attempt at a smear. HBGary's exposure

for having the contract to smear Wikileaks has apparently left the job to less 'experienced' dirty tricksters. This is a very feeble attempt. I guess the money wasn't as good this time, at least not as good as HBGary was going to paid for smearing Wikileaks and Glenn Greenwald among others.

[Rex]

42. Funny how people use/abuse rawstory when it suits their needs.

[sabrina 1]

44. Rawstory simply copied and pasted the ridiculous piece of

garbage published in the New Statesman. Maybe they don't read what they publish? Otoh, there is a lot of money available to anyone who is willing to smear Wikileaks as we now know from the Anonymous exposure of BOA's hiring of firms to go after Wikileaks.

You need to read those emails, plotting the best way to discredit Wikileaks in a frantic attempt to stop the release of internal memos exposing corruption at what they thought, (were they guilty of something?) was their Bank.

Too bad people don't bother to find the facts before accepting blindly a piece of obvious trash like this. Even if I did not know what was in thos emails, I would find this 'opinion' piece without merit. It is embarrassing what passes as legitimate 'news'. We don't expect any standards anymore, standards of proof, or any kind of investigative journalism. Fortunately though, independent journalists are digging into these stories so the facts are available, to those who want facts.

[Forkboy]

46. It was awkward watching the OP try to discredit Wikileaks, I agree.

[stevenleser]

51. But what is more awkward are the wikileaks' defenders trying to explain this away.

But its pretty funny too.

[Incitatus]

49. Maybe they have some documents that shouldn't be released.

Could this be to prevent them from leaking documents that expose the identities of agents like Valerie Plame and other things vital to national security.