Assange says signed 1.1 million pounds in book deals

[chefdennis]

WikiLeaks given $1.3m in 2010, and Julian Assange pays himself two thirds of the salary budget

By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 12:20 AM on 26th December 2010
WikiLeaks given $1.3m in 2010, and Julian Assange pays himself two thirds of the salary budget | Mail Online

The main financial arm of online whistleblower WikiLeaks, the Germany-based Wau Holland Foundation, says it has collected about $1.3 million in donations in 2010, according to a new report from the Wall Street Journal.

Wau Holland is the major financial provider for WikiLeaks, the Journal reports.

It has established a Greenpeace-like system of salary payments, as WikiLeaks attempts to legitimise its organisation by moving away from purely volunteer-based work.
The Wall Street Journal reports that the move towards salaried employees came after a year-long intense internal debate about whether to do so.

Founder Julian Assange has raked in around $86,000 in salary this year, and Wau Holland has paid more than $130,000 in salaries to the entire WikiLeaks staff.While it appears that Mr Assange is taking the bulk of the money, the Wall Street Journal is quick to point out that Wau Holland is not WikiLeaks' sole monetary provider. Under the Greenpeace salary structure, department heads are paid about $7,200 in monthly salary, a Wau Holland spokesman said.

Among the many revelations from the journal report are several indications that donations to WikiLeaks have dropped off significantly in the second half of the year.

By August, WikiLeaks had raised just over $1m, which means it has only raised about $300,000 since then.
Last summer, WikiLeaks said it operated on just under $200,000 a year. Now, however, the foundation says it has paid about $500,000 in WikiLeaks expenses, with some invoices for the year still unprocessed.

Some of that total is for hardware, Internet access and travel, a Wau Holland spokesman said.

But a big factor in the leap is a recent decision to begin paying salaries to staff.

WikiLeaks had also allegedly promised to contribute half of the estimated $100,000 it will cost for the legal defense of Bradley Manning.

Recently, however, a WikiLeaks spokesman said it would only donate around $20,000.

The Wau Holland Foundation is awaiting advice from its lawyers on whether the donation would be legal under German law, a spokesman told the journal.

 

[Pilgrim]

I didn't say he was guilty of treason, I said he was engaged in it. If he is obtaining classified information from military personnel, he is clearly engaged in it. I don't believe that can be just dismissed as a public service announcement.

From the US Constitution, Article III, Section 3:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

It would be a reasonable conclusion to say that PFC Manning committed treason (since he has admitted it) and Assange could easily be found guilty of the Espionage Act of 1917. The exasperating thing about this whole ordeal is watching the feckless Obama administration dithering away, having not charged either of these clowns with anything. Considering that FDR is supposed to be one of BHO's heros, the boy president would do well to re-acquaint himself with the way some would-be German terrorists were handled when caught sneaking into the US during WW2; they were tried and convicted by military tribunal within a matter of weeks, and six were executed within a period of two months.

FBI — George John Dasch and the Nazi Saboteurs

Of course it will now take an extended period of time to get Assange extradited, but there's no reason to waste any more time arranging the due process for Manning.

 

[LDB]

An individual who has done things harmful to the United States, almost cretainly prosecutable, is a cult hero and thought deserving of all monies available to him while those doing important work to stop terrorists are found objectionable and the idea of a pledged defense fund for them also objectionable. There's something wrong with that picture and with the souls of any U.S. citizen who support it.