> "The Pentagon has claimed that they could have shut Wikileaks down if they wanted to, but decided not to"
WikiLeaks the organisation, or WikiLeaks the site? I bet they can shut the site down for most of the world simply by messing with internet routing in crucial points. But then, what would it do? The information is sent to news organisations directly before the public release. Torrents don't depend on their site. Everything works like before.
If they meant WikiLeaks the organisation - that would be interesting. Who exactly would they stop and how? I don't believe they know every source, or there would be no serious leaks to begin with. Also, I believe that J.A. is the same to WikiLeaks, like J.Wales is a to Wikipedia - a face, creator of some guidelines and the ultimate moderator. Even if he disappeared, we'd see some new leaks. He's probably not even reachable for the original sources - if he was, finding him would be trivial, wouldn't it?
WikiLeaks the organisation, or WikiLeaks the site? I bet they can shut the site down for most of the world simply by messing with internet routing in crucial points. But then, what would it do? The information is sent to news organisations directly before the public release. Torrents don't depend on their site. Everything works like before.
If they meant WikiLeaks the organisation - that would be interesting. Who exactly would they stop and how? I don't believe they know every source, or there would be no serious leaks to begin with. Also, I believe that J.A. is the same to WikiLeaks, like J.Wales is a to Wikipedia - a face, creator of some guidelines and the ultimate moderator. Even if he disappeared, we'd see some new leaks. He's probably not even reachable for the original sources - if he was, finding him would be trivial, wouldn't it?