Using what is supposed to be a kind of utility, a cloud service, does not qualify as "trying to hide behind", or else that applies to everyone else who uses it, nor does it mean that Amazon was involved in the mess any more than a phone company is, when they carry whatever communications, nor does it mean that it puts any of Amazon's customers at risk. An army of straw men will not make a point more valid. On the contrary, it is an implied threat against any of Amazon's customers, that if they are not politically popular the same fate may befall them too. It was an act of political censorship, pure and simple, and serves notice that anyone else that does not toe the establishment line will have their toes stepped upon. What gutless wonders are these Amazon folks, in a world where people are dying every day to protest censorship.

"Amazon is a personification of the spirit of the Internet, which is one of true democracy"

Isn't Amazon one of those nasty companies that banned Wikileaks from their servers? Qaddafi could explain democracy this way, but who else would be so innocent?

I don't see much news on charging anti-Wikileaks DDoS'ers.

How about Obama making a cameo appearance with Julian Assange at a Wikileaks press conference once Julian is sprung? The old Mythbusters is getting repetitive. The new reality show version of myth busting is more exciting and has more real drama. Julian can introduce Obama in case people have forgotten who Obama is. :-)

Clearly the purpose of the order is so that the data trail remains clean. If the info is not endlessly duplicated throughout military computers everywhere, then places where it does show up may be signs of the path it took. They want to finish the forensics before everyone downloads it. Obviously the technicality of it not being officially declassified is a red herring. The absurdity of it is not the problem in itself. It is the clue to the real reason. The clue that you were looking for!

Absurd not to blame Adrian. If he was afraid of the relationship all he had to do was to break off the chat as soon as it headed towards things he didn't want to be part of. Looks like he is working for the "man". He is probably blackmailed by threats of further prosecutions for his original transgressions or further ones that they know about, and promised to hold off if he produced results for them. Possibly they got hold of his initial chats with Manning, and gave him an ultimatum. Could be he will still be charged for some transgression somewhere. All he cares about now is saving his own skin. Quite a yellow streak in the boy.

This legislation is primarily focused at killing Wikileaks. The rest is just a smokescreen.

There is no international law against exposing US government secrets. So unless the US government decides to exert their law outside the USA, which is essentially an act of war, then you would have to refer to the law of the country in which Wikileaks is hosted. Even the favorable comments here seem to way to much US centric.

A bit of suspense makes it more interesting. Also it provokes a reaction from the government, and thereby shows to what lengths they will go to suppress it. That itself then becomes news. We need to be reminded how hard the government will try to cover up their crimes, until we act to clip its talons. Otherwise we end up like China, where every government blunder is covered up.