Tuesday, February 19, 2008
U.S. Judge Yanks Whistleblower Wikileaks At Behest of Cayman Is. Bank
They say anything can happen in the good old U.S.A. and, while most of us weren't paying attention, it did: A federal judge in California (San Francisco) ordered Dynadot, the U.S.-based hosting company for Wikileaks.org, not just yank the whistleblower site off the U.S. web but also roll over all related domain names and other info:
This frightening (and perhaps unconstitutional) order was issued by U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White who's not know for being much of a friend to the free press. A few facts about Judge White (aside from that he's an '02 Bush appointee):
* He sentenced the reporters who blew open the drugs in baseball scandal to 18 months in prison for failing to reveal their sources
* He also fined the San Francisco Chronicle $1000/day until the names
were turned over to the court
Another way to look at this is how attorney Julie Turner, who was counsel Wikileaks in another matter, said it in Wired.com "It’s like saying that Time magazine published one page of sensitive material so (someone can) seize the entire magazine and put a lock on their presses."
Doesn't that kind of sum up the ridiculous nature of this--but it's not just ridiculous, it's frightening. Esp. Dynadot rolling over and handing over all sorts of information.
The bank in question Bank Julius Baer, based in the Cayman Islands, is facing litigation in Switzerland. The documents were posted by a former vice president, Rudolf Elmer and purport to show that the Cayman Islands bank helped customers hide assets and launder funds.
Wikileaks.org--that posted info on Guantanamo Bay and the situation in Kenya-- has an inter-continental audience stretching all the way out to Australia, where the story was reported in the Sidney Morning Herald. The SMH reminds us that "counts Australians among its volunteers." The article also gives us a bit of a lesson in U.S. censorship history(from a Wikileaks.org statement):
In this case, however, if it goes as far as the Supreme Court, we may have a bit of a tough time getting a 6-3 decision.
Think about it.
Further important info: find the Baer documents in a zip file at cryptome.org and at http://88.80.13.160/wiki/Wikileaks
Also The NYTimes quotes David Ardia the director of the Citizen Media Law Project at Harvard Law School: “There is no justification under the First Amendment for shutting down an entire Web site.”
The agreement came in a lawsuit brought by bank Julius Baer, the parent company of the accused Cayman bank. After trying unsuccessfully to get Wikileaks to remove the documents, Swiss-based Julius Baer went after Dynadot, which according to this copy of the court order, agreed to roll over in exchange for the suit against it being dismissed. Dynadot also agreed to turn over records related to Wikileaks, including "IP addresses and associated data used by any person, other than Dynadot, who accessed the account for the domain name".
This frightening (and perhaps unconstitutional) order was issued by U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White who's not know for being much of a friend to the free press. A few facts about Judge White (aside from that he's an '02 Bush appointee):
* He sentenced the reporters who blew open the drugs in baseball scandal to 18 months in prison for failing to reveal their sources
* He also fined the San Francisco Chronicle $1000/day until the names
were turned over to the court
Another way to look at this is how attorney Julie Turner, who was counsel Wikileaks in another matter, said it in Wired.com "It’s like saying that Time magazine published one page of sensitive material so (someone can) seize the entire magazine and put a lock on their presses."
Doesn't that kind of sum up the ridiculous nature of this--but it's not just ridiculous, it's frightening. Esp. Dynadot rolling over and handing over all sorts of information.
The bank in question Bank Julius Baer, based in the Cayman Islands, is facing litigation in Switzerland. The documents were posted by a former vice president, Rudolf Elmer and purport to show that the Cayman Islands bank helped customers hide assets and launder funds.
Wikileaks.org--that posted info on Guantanamo Bay and the situation in Kenya-- has an inter-continental audience stretching all the way out to Australia, where the story was reported in the Sidney Morning Herald. The SMH reminds us that "counts Australians among its volunteers." The article also gives us a bit of a lesson in U.S. censorship history(from a Wikileaks.org statement):
"To find an injunction similar to the Cayman's case, we need to go back to Monday, June 15, 1971, when The New York Times published excerpts of Daniel Ellsberg's leaked 'Pentagon Papers' and found itself enjoined the following day," Wikileaks said in its statement.
"The Wikileaks injunction is the equivalent of forcing the Times' printers to print blank pages and its power company to turn off press power.
"The Supreme Court found the Times censorship injunction unconstitutional in a 6-3 decision"
In this case, however, if it goes as far as the Supreme Court, we may have a bit of a tough time getting a 6-3 decision.
Think about it.
Further important info: find the Baer documents in a zip file at cryptome.org and at http://88.80.13.160/wiki/Wikileaks
Also The NYTimes quotes David Ardia the director of the Citizen Media Law Project at Harvard Law School: “There is no justification under the First Amendment for shutting down an entire Web site.”
