Have you donated to Wikileaks? Should they make their donor names public?

[cbdo2007]

Seems fair for the sake of transparency, for us to know who is supporting Wikileaks financially and to know how much money they're bringing in from all of this.

With most of the documents released meant to damage the United States, I can only assume Wikileaks is primarily funded by our enemies

[Violet_Crumble]

1. I definately will be. It must cost a fortune to run those servers n/t

[EFerrari]

2. You're conflating damaging dishonest actors with damaging the nation.

But it's a good suggestion. I will be after the first of the year.

[abelenkpe]

3. you know what they say about assumptions yeah? nt

[Freetradesucks]

4. I have not donated, nor will I.

But I am all for making public the names of those who have.

After all, this is all about transparency and accountability right? Right??

[Luminous Animal]

9. I'll donate to DU if all the names of its donors are made public.

[cbdo2007]

16. Don't all of the DU donaters have a star next to their name??

That would be a public disclosure, but in comparison to wikileaks, DU is not an organization based on transparency and leaking sensitive documents of governments and private corporations. Wikileaks is.

[Luminous Animal]

18. Names. Not nicks. Who said Wikileaks is based on transparency? They are based on leaks & exposing

the secrets of the powerful. If we want transparency from those who wield power over the rest of us, we have to demand it.

[LiberalFighter]

5. Are they accepting tax monies?

Are they campaigning for candidates?
Are they a non-profit entity?
Are contributions to them tax deductible?
Are they subject to US laws?

[bluedigger]

6. I will donate to Wikileaks the day they practice full financial disclosure.

Or are only governments required to do that?

[Luminous Animal]

10. I feel the same about DU. By the way, what is your real name and how much have you donated to DU.

[bluedigger]

13. You first.

[Luminous Animal]

14. Do you think that DU should reveal the names of its donors? And if not, why should Wikileaks?

[bluedigger]

15. Gee, I don't know.

Perhaps I think a group that advocates complete transparency in society should live by it's own dogma, or risk being called out on it's hypocracy? Let me know where that is a principle here at DU.

[Luminous Animal]

19. So. Should news orgs release the names of their subscribers? What about people who buy fun mags?

Or ZMagazine? Wikileaks defines itself as a news organization and their members as journalists.

By the way, Wikileaks does not advocate for complete transparency. In fact, they've edited from the current crop of information facts that they have determined would put individuals at risk or would harm national and international security.

"WikiLeaks is a not-for-profit media organisation. Our goal is to bring important news and information to the public. We provide an innovative, secure and anonymous way for sources to leak information to our journalists (our electronic drop box). One of our most important activities is to publish original source material alongside our news stories so readers and historians alike can see evidence of the truth. We are a young organisation that has grown very quickly, relying on a network of dedicated volunteers around the globe. Since 2007, when the organisation was officially launched, WikiLeaks has worked to report on and publish important information. We also develop and adapt technologies to support these activities. "

[davidinalameda]

7. makes perfect sense to me

who is financing this

[Violet_Crumble]

8. Yeah, it's gotta be the Ground Zero mosque Muslims!!!

I don't remember such hysteria and demands to see finances since the hysteria over that...

[Skip Intro]

11. no, and yes, nt.

[Better Believe It]

12. No! Do you want their names to be put on government enemies or "terrorist" lists?

The CIA and other domestic and foreign spy agencies would love to have that information.

"I can only assume Wikileaks is primarily funded by our enemies"

Would that be Reagan's "evil empire" or Bush's "axis of evil"?

The documents released haven't hurt me or this nation.

In fact, by removing the veil of secrecy WikiLeaks is performing a great service and enabling us to learn the truth about international relations and policies.

WikiLeaks should be applauded, not smeared.

[cbdo2007]

17. You don't think the United States has enemies?? You seem to emply

that's a Republican ideology, yet I'm sure every Democrat you've ever voted for would disagree with you on that.

There is no veil of secrecy exposed in any of the things they've released so far. In fact I have yet to see anything groundbreaking, because i'm 99% sure they can't get ahold of any real important information. The "truth about international relations and policies" is exact what everyone expects it is - nitpicking and name calling and money shuffling. None of which was really that much of a secret before, that it existed, but will hurt our relationships based on some of the specifics that have now been released for no reason.

I think you would be shocked how many names who fund wikileaks are ALREADY on the terrorist watch lists. You think it's my grandma and Kucinich paying for the release of this info??? ha ha, nope it's the terrorists and anyone else with an interest in watching us implode.

[Luminous Animal]

20. Terrorists and the LA Times & AP (both which donate to Wikileaks.)

[sudopod]

21. Everyone who contribute to wikileaks are terrorists?

GTFO. You are the cancer that's killing America.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

22. Who are our enemies?

Name them, please. Specifically.