Thanks for hat-tipping Qwest on the warrantless wiretapping of yore. That their company, under indictment though their CEO was, stood up for us - well, I don't mind paying for their goddam broadband as a result.

Daniel Elsbergh (pentagon papers whistleblower) calls for an amazon boycot: http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2010/12/02/d…

I'm not saying that Amazon didn't actually just bow to public or government pressure, but I thought their reasoning (as they presented it) was sound. Not because of the copyright issue (which as you say, is fuzzy for a myriad of other reasons) but because the documents put lives in jeopardy.On NPR the other day, someone from the NYT was saying that they plan to run stories from the leaked documents, but are carefully going through them to redact truly sensitive information and the names of anyone whose lives would be at risk from publication. This is responsible journalism. What wikileaks is doing (wholesale publication, without vetting)... not so much.

@Christy O...show me one ounce of proof that ANY life is in jeopardy over these leaks. Don't buy the hype. It isn't true.

Mr. Constant, I think it would help if you were to write 500 words on the topic, "What Amazon Is."

I read these Amazon posts of yours and I don't see quite what you think of them as. Are they a public library? Are they the phone company? Are they a book store? Are they a university? A government agency? A non-government benevolent society? If you could explain what Amazon is and what they are not, your commentary would start to make sense.

Personally I think investing them with the duty to "share information" as you put it would be like saying it's Wal-Mart's duty to inform the electorate or educate the young. Like in Idiocracy where you go to Costco to learn history or earn a law degree? Absurd.

We shouldn't let ourselves sink into the mire of depending on companies like Amazon for things that run counter to their function or ability.

I'm happy letting Amazon fiddle with trying to make a profit, or failing to, as the case may be, and let appropriate institutions play appropriate roles.

@3 - Wrong. They are vetting. Which is why they are so slow about releasing each cable. The entirety has never been wholesale released on their website.

@4 - You are right. There has not yet been even one instance of a problem yet.

Will the government arrest people who donate money to Wikileaks? Ive been itching to paypal them 20$, but not unless they decide to brand me a terrorist sympathizer.

@3 - I too think this "lives in jeopardy" is a canard. You know what puts lives in jeopardy? 100,000 lives, specifically? Massive illegal wars engaged in by the US. How are these wars furthered? By state secret keeping and obscured goals.

Ok, I'll concede a little: It is possible that a *few* lives are put in jeopardy. But the US has killed approximately 100,000 people in Iraq, and many more in Afghanistan. To say nothing of the heinous, illegitimate torture our state has enacted upon people both innocent and guilty.

Secrecy enables the unjust exercise of power.

Amazon is a pile of weak knees. I'm glad I've bought nothing from them. Fuck you Bezos, lily-livered wuss. You capitulate when they pour hot lead in your ear, not before.

@8 - Do it. We're all Spartacus. I'll donate too.

"They need to issue a brief, clear statement on their information policies so consumers know where they stand with Amazon."

Meh. This would be worthless. There will always be exceptions to any such statement in unusual cases, and clearly Amazon considers WikiLeaks an unusual case. Who cares what a retailer claims as its "values"? If you don't like their behavior, don't buy stuff from them.

Optionally, Amazon could keep doing whatever the hell it wants. It's a definite possibility.

@5 - You raise very good points. The answers to which I could not give at this time. However I'll say that if corporations can pretend to be "citizens" for operational purposes, then perhaps they should be imbued with "citizen responsibilities" to accompany the benefits they receive as "citizens".

Additionally, Amazon was hosting Wikileaks well after the "collateral murder" video was posted. And well after the "Afghanistan Logs" were published. All leaked, "copyrighted" state secret documents. Amazon had no problems then.

But NOW they bail.

Amazon defended the pedophilia publication under the aegis of "free speech." Yet, they caved on the WikiLeaks. This makes perfect sense. Who would you rather piss off, a bunch of hippies on Facebook or the senior staff of the Death Star? And by Death Star, I mean the Pentagon.

@8 - I did it today. Give me your number and if I get arrested you will be my one phone call.

*i know you get more than one - i am being silly*

@14 - I wish Amazon had done the opposite (remove pedophilia and keep Wikileaks)!!

@8 - I was scared too actually... But I figure at worst (i hope) I would go to jail or something but they are actually having death threats, etc. So I decided to step up...

Treacle @ 13: They do have "citizen responsibilities". Like paying taxes and honoring contracts. No citizen has a responsibility to host or disseminate any particular content, or even to have any consistent policy on which content he will host or disseminate. And neither does Amazon.

@8 & @10 - If Wkileaks get deemed a terrorist org - don't use your credit card:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/feds-…

Well, since Bezos donated $100,000 to defeat 1098 I think we know where they stand regarding poor people. That in itself is enough for me to boycott them.

@14,

They pulled the pedophilia book.

Next thing you know people will be boycotting Amazon because their husband is too fat, their kids can't read at grade level, and Saddam didn't have WMDs.

@17 - Well, I'd debate you about the 'paying taxes' part. Corporations pay less than their share. That's was being a part of a neo-fascist state is all about.

Responsibilities: Per the state, citizens have the responsibility to be good sheep. Per humanity, citizens have the responsibility to stand against injustice.

That's *what* being a part....

@20, That book may have been pulled by the author. Amazon never (to my knowledge) claimed to have pulled the book. Their only statement on the matter was defending the choice to publish the book.