I don't understand. The site is visible via http://wikileaks.ch (announced by Wikileaks via Twitter) and according to whois the NS for that is provided by EveryDNS.
Meanwhile, http://wikileaks.com is pointing to a Godaddy blank page and whois reports that the name being provided by DomainControl.
I don't see any evidence presented backing up the notion that the US government "killed" wikileaks' DNS. What I see is that their DNS provider discontinued service due to wanting to avoid fallout of the continuing DDoS attack on their other customers.
At this point I assume that the implication is that the US government is behind the DDoS attack, which is at best speculation without evidence.
This whole wikileaks spectacle has led to a whole hell of a lot of emotional foofaraw, considering the actual "revelations" from anything that wikileaks has done to date have been rather underwhelming (mostly confirming what had been widely speculated before, typically).
You can use that line of reasoning to believe in anything.
I haven't stopped paying attention, I'd like to know who's responsible for the DDoS attacks against wikileaks, but I don't see any evidence that the US government is responsible. Nor has DDoS ever been the modus operandi of government agents in the US.
Similarly, the extent to which the Russian federal government is (allegedly) beholden to the the biggest organised crime network on Earth, well - that was news to me too.
(1) the U.S. military formally adopted a policy of turning a blind eye to systematic, pervasive torture and other abuses by Iraqi forces;
(2) the State Department threatened Germany not to criminally investigate the CIA's kidnapping of one of its citizens who turned out to be completely innocent;
(3) the State Department under Bush and Obama applied continuous pressure on the Spanish Government to suppress investigations of the CIA's torture of its citizens and the 2003 killing of a Spanish photojournalist when the U.S. military fired on the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad (see The Philadelphia Inquirer's Will Bunch today about this: "The day Barack Obama Lied to me");
(4) the British Government privately promised to shield Bush officials from embarrassment as part of its Iraq War "investigation";
(5) there were at least 15,000 people killed in Iraq that were previously uncounted;
(6) "American leaders lied, knowingly, to the American public, to American troops, and to the world" about the Iraq war as it was prosecuted, a conclusion the Post's own former Baghdad Bureau Chief wrote was proven by the WikiLeaks documents;
(7) the U.S.'s own Ambassador concluded that the July, 2009 removal of the Honduran President was illegal -- a coup -- but the State Department did not want to conclude that and thus ignored it until it was too late to matter;
(8) U.S. and British officials colluded to allow the U.S. to keep cluster bombs on British soil even though Britain had signed the treaty banning such weapons, and,
(9) Hillary Clinton's State Department ordered diplomats to collect passwords, emails, and biometric data on U.N. and other foreign officials, almost certainly in violation of the Vienna Treaty of 1961.
Meanwhile, http://wikileaks.com is pointing to a Godaddy blank page and whois reports that the name being provided by DomainControl.
This seems to contradict the Guardian article at http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-k... which says that EveryDNS has dropped them.