A) Yes, but I hadn't read any article that indicated that was the reason. I just looked at some articles in google news and I found one saying he didn't give a "permanent address", which depending on what that means might not be really surprising since he doesn't live in the UK.

B) If Wikileaks's actions are illegal in the US (I got the impression you didn't agree with that earlier) they would just tell Paypal to shut them down, period. They wouldn't need to threaten or send an informative letter...

Wired -Why WikiLeaks Is Good for America

BBC -Wikileaks: Australia FM blames US, not Julian Assange

I consider them, good reads.

Edit: Mastercard website is down, lol

I don't particularly think their actions are illegal in the US.  Someone in the state department did though, told Paypal they thought it might be illegal and so paypal shut them down.

I don't see any pressure there.  Like you said, quite the opposite since they didn't just tell paypal to shut them down.  They gave paypal the option.

I don't really care about what aides say about other political leaders. In fact no one really should if we are being serious. The only people who would care are egotistical politicians and dictatorial monarchs. What I do care about is the blatent contempt for democracy the leaks reveal.

The nuclear negotiations weren't going well way before the current leaks at all so I'm not sure what your point is. And why should we go to war? If the public had a say with a fair free press at the helm with all the facts laid out on the table in front of them without the usual bullshit propaganda and double standards then I very much doubt anyone would want war. In fact even with all the anti Iran rhetoric the world wide public is still anti war.

I'm not sure what your point is about WW1 deals. A time when women couldn't vote in most countries and ethnic groups were treated as second class citizens. We've moved on from then, we are much more civilised and better informed. And for your information Germany was still very severly punished (which in some ways lead to WWII), Ottomon Empire was broken up and distributed amongst the victors (the effects of which are still being felt today) and the Austrian Hungary empire was no more. So not sure what concessions the victorious Allies made to the defeated Axis powers.

Unlike you I think people should have a say in what deals our elected representatives make. We are not all war mongerers, that's the politicians and the mainstream corporate media.

People are condeming wikileaks specifically for publishing things like how absassadors refer to eladers, and as you said... those leaders do care... and it does effect neogtations.

And no... we havent moved on from there.  If all negotiations were purley open, we'd never make deals... at all... and yes people would be for going to war with Iran.  Right now the only reason people DON'T support bombing Iran is because they expect the negotiations to go well.   If they don't go well?  Guess what will happen?

Guess how impossible negotiations would be, if we had to do it in public where they even refuse to admit what they are doing?

You are naive if you don't think 70-80% of the stuff wikileaks is releasing only makes diplomacy harder, and conflict more likely.

Also, you do realize that opinion poles that most people DO favour and attack on Iran if they don't give up their program right?

http://www.zogby.com/news/readnews.cfm?ID=1379

This is without the american people being fully informed about all those extra steps that Iran is doing to make Nuclear weapons like the russian rockets document wikileaks released and this was before we knew they had state of the art advanced power plants, back when we thought they were 1970's era plants.

There are plenty of other polls in general that show if Iran refuses to give up it's weapons most people support attacks.

I'm pretty sure that US stealing the diplomats' credit card numbers, figner prints, dna, email passwords, etc... are far more damaging to negotiations than US' opinions of them.

True. The fact that the cables are getting leaked in the first place is surely also a bigger problem, since it makes foreign diplomats distrust the US with their secrets.

Ironically, one of the leaked cables actually says that this distrust already existed for German diplomats, and that was of course before the leaks:

http://wikileaks.ch/cable/2010/02/10BERLIN180.html

"

I don't see your point.

Finding out that I'm stealing from my company is more damaging then the public posting of a hacked email account where I call my boss a tool.

The email where I called my boss a tool still shouldn't be released to the public.

Here are your sexual charges -.-

"The two Swedish women who accuse WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange of sexual misconduct were at first not seeking to bring charges against him. They just wanted to track him down and persuade him to be tested for sexually transmitted diseases, according to several people in contact with his entourage at the time." -Reuters-

Just because you don't want to charge someone for a crime doesn't mean the state won't charge someone for a crime.  If you assault someone in an alleyway and they turn out to be a sadomaschist and not mind... you still committed a crime... and chances are the police will still prosecute you.

Just because a victim doesn't want to press charges doesn't mean the state won't.  Which is why all the "CIA conspiracy and she works with them" stuff always made me laugh... as did the "They want to get back at him! wild accusatsions" when all evidence pointed to the fact that they reported what happened not even sure it counted as a crime.

People are just making up wild and outlandish stories because they want to protect the guy because he's famous.

When they should let him just go to court, likely be cleared of the rape charges even though what he's accused of is rape and there doesn't seem to be much arguement about the situation, and let the whole thing go.