Wikileaks is not and has never been a non-profit organization
Julian assange is a slippery character and so is his organisation. What do we really know about wikileaks. Not very much. It is an organisation that encourages whistleblowing and the leaking of secrets. Wikileaks says of itself "WikiLeaks is a non-profit media organization dedicated to bringing important news and information to the public... We publish material of ethical, political and historical significance while keeping the identity of our sources anonymous, thus providing a universal way for the revealing of suppressed and censored injustices." By its very nature it is a murkey organisation so how much can we trust it?
Please cast your vote after you've read the arguments.
You can also add to the debate by leaving a comment at the end of the page.
Wikileaks is lying about being a non profit
A true non-profit organization, regardless where it is registered, either in Australia, Sweden, Iceland or United States, has some important characteristics. A true non-profit organization is registered, transparent, accountable, responsible and abides by law. Wikileaks aka Julian Assange aka SUNSHINE PRESS PRODUCTIONS EHF are nothing of that.
Both Julian Assange and the company SUNSHINE PRESS PRODUCTIONS EHF, lie on their websites to be a non-profit organization: http://wikileaks.ch/About.html where they state: "WikiLeaks is a not-for-profit media organisation". The suffix EHF in Iceland means "private limited company" and such company is forbidden to claim to be a non-profit organization. Private limited companies with shareholders may not be called "non-profit" organizations.
The business purpose of his WikiLeaks company, aka SUNSHINE PRESS PRODUCTIONS EHF in Icelandic say that the company's purpose is the production, editing and distribution of media content, video content, language and print media, web design and hosting industry, retailers and wholesalers, real estate and business lending and related activities. Full company documents are to be found here: http://wikileakscriminalorganization.com
Funds and support for wiki-leaks come from everywhere, those who siphon in money to keep the process going are not the process itself. [[http://wn.com/sunshinepress?orderby=published]]
The argument on the left is akin to stating that if a bunch of doctors sent debatewise funds through their clinic, then debatewise is not a non-profit organization but a hospital.[[http://www.sunshinepress.com/]]
Sponsors and organizations are separate entities.
Needless to state, there are many many companies named "Sunshine press" but only one claims a link with wikileaks. [[http://www.facebook.com/pages/Sunshine-Press/109174195782437]]
and that sunshine press is non-profit. [[http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/06/wikileaks]]
Wikileaks is not registered.
Wikileaks have been sending press releases and promoting itself as an international non-profit organization, at the time when it was not an entity organized or registered under any law. To claim in public to be non-profit organization may be alone a criminal act in many of related countries, including Australia, Iceland, Sweden and United States.
A company or organization tends to scion from a person or a group of people, called 'a founder or founders'.
Obviously, before any company or organization(NPO in this case) is registered it is just an idea and a person or group of people.
Wikileaks is not transparent
Wikileaks is further deceiving the public, by claiming it is a non-profit organization, and don't want to disclose, that the company has four shareholders, which are:
Julian Paul Assange, with 470,000 Icelandic Kronas in share capital;
Kristinn Hrafnsson, from Reykjavik with 10,000 Icelandic Kronas in share capital;
Ingi R. Ingason, Mosfellsbaer with 10,000 Icelandic Kronas in share capital;
Gavin MacFadyen, U.S. citizen, living in London, with 10,000 Icelandic Kronas in share capital;
Wikileaks business model is based on supposed transparency of the government, while they directly fail to provide its own transparency.
Or any non government non profit organization that protects the identities of victims or clients is not non-profit because...
um... a little insight: "A nonprofit organization (abbreviated as NPO, also known as a not-for-profit organization) is an organization that does not distribute its surplus funds to owners or shareholders, but instead uses them to help pursue its goals." - [[The Nonprofit Handbook: Everything You Need to Know to Start and Run Your Nonprofit Organization (Paperback), Gary M. Grobman, White Hat Communications, 2008]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-profit_organization#cite_note-1]]
"Schools don't pay sales tax on supplies because they have nonprofit status."- [[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nonprofit]] [[http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:nonprofit&sa=X&ei=kilETa2IKJOxhQfamIGzAQ&ved=0CBoQkAE]]
Operated as nearly as possible at cost; an organization not seeking profit and which does not disgorge excess income to its members, in the form of dividends or otherwise." -[[http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/N/Nonprofit.aspx]] as in zero/no premium/ordinary shareholders.
Wikileaks is not accountable
Wikileaks hasn't published so far any public balances, profit and loss statements or any publicly audited books and accounts. Where does money go? Only Julian Assange may know.
They openly ask for donations, to be sent in the option one, to SUNSHINE PRESS PRODUCTIONS EHF, Icelandic private limited company, with bank account in Iceland, with the Iceland Landsbanki bank. But they decline to say openly to public that any such donations to Wikileaks are not tax deductible because Wikileaks is not a non-profit organization. It is a private limited company subject to corporate tax rate of 18% in Iceland. Any "donations" that arrive to bank account of SUNSHINE PRESS PRODUCTIONS EHF, are subject to corporate income and taxation, provided they have an accountant to honestly report the profits.
Any donations which arrive through the German foundation WAU HOLLAND, are not transparent and this foundation has so far failed to provide financial accounts for Wikileaks. As one may read here: http://cryptome.org/0001/wikileaks-audit.htm the foundation has been asked by Wikileaks insiders to provide financial accounts, but they grossly failed in their promises. Further, WAU HOLLAND foundation has been denied Paypal account for the reason that they support "illegal activities".
Wikileaks fails in showing where the money goes? Does it truly go to humanitarian purposes? Or it ends up in the Julian Assange's pockets and bank accounts?
Public has been deceived in large that Wikileaks is non-profit organization, yet, it is nothing but an intelligently organized scam and fraud, earning profits under the name of non tax deductible donations.
Sunshine press, is a company and does not pretend not to be. Is wikileaks, sunshine press? Uh no.
Sunshine press aides to start up a lot of organizations, all kinds of organizations... wikileaks might be one of them but it's like saying a book/author is a publishing house.
This is the postal address on their website :
Australia Post Office - University of Melbourne Branch
The Ehf in Iceland(A.K.A Iceland's Datacell EHF) is the European humanist federation [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Humanist_Federation]]
Wikileaks is not responsible
Publishing the information that does not belong to Wikileaks, without any care for the people affected by such information is irresponsible and psychotic.
Ah yes, we should all be wary of the many many 'pathetic computer experts' lurking in our midst. True production, sure or do you mean 'truth' production?
But hang on, the premise behind this debate was your claim that wiki-leaks is not an NPO, and now you're backtracking on that pronouncement by stating you don't know? no one knows?
I believe this sort of buffoonery is not helping your case; not at all.
So I'm curious, how do feel about debate-wise publishing your nonsensical tirade?
I'm guessing...and this a long shot; that "wikileaks_crime" is not your real name? Talk about lack of transparency...
Wikileaks does not abide by the law
To abide by the law, one shall come onto the important information by lawful means. There exists laws such as Freedom of Information Act in United States which may be used to provide more government transparency.
One has to assume that every government, every company and every individual, do have some secret information. Having secret information is nothing wrong and may be legitimate. One does not go online with army officers such as Bradley Manning to get onto the secret information, and truly let that person suffer in jail. Driving someone onto criminal acts is criminal act itself.
And that is why Julian Assange is afraid. He is a coward who knows that is not able to live in a society of law and order.
Julian Assange is struggling to fight being extradited to Sweden on sexual assault and rape allegations.
if a child commits a crime s/he is still a child.
If a doctor murders his wife, he is still a doctor.
if a clown steals from you then the clown has not transformed into a non-clown.
Whether laws have been broken, will and should be decided in court.
The true purpose of making money, yes right, you seem to be suggesting that everyone else lives on air and air alone.
People don't 'suffer in jail' unless courts find them guilty of whatever they are accused of. Wiki-leaks is not a court/judge and does not sentence anyone to anything.
So witnesses should 'never' come forward without revealing their identities? how do you feel about witness protection programs?
Why do you want squealers to be punished?
Why do you want criminal activity to be secret?
'Allegations', which according to you by the grace of wiki-leaks 'anyone' can make about anyone. On the one hand you make issue with any accusation being made against anyone, because you claim it's a non-transparent breach of privacy (which in itself is oxymoron-ic) and on the other hand you tout the 'allegations' against Assange as if they are unquestionably true.
Published submissions on wikileaks are not 'rumours'
Material we accept
Abiding by the law is a contradiction in terms
What do you think?