raspberry to paypal

[Pure]

BERLIN (AP) - Online payment service provider PayPal says in a company blog it has cut off the account used by WikiLeaks to collect donations.

The company said in a blog posting the move was prompted by a violation of its policy, "which states that our payment service cannot be used for any activities that encourage, promote, facilitate or instruct others to engage in illegal activity."

no one has been able to say what law assange has broken, with his publishing most nonclassified material. this doesn't matter to paypal, it seems.

anyone know of alternatives to paypal's services? not so much to pay assange, as for other purposes.

 

[sr71plt]

Good for PayPal.

You could contact the authorities in the States and Sweden and go contribute to him directly as he's being hauled off on his rape charges.

 

[Pure]

the rape charges were trumped up, and were already dropped, once.

also notice i said "no one can say what law assange broke *WITH WIKILEAKS [activity]*..." sexual indiscretions are not relevant.

 

[sr71plt]

the rape charges were trumped up, and were already dropped, once.

also notice i said "no one can say what law assange broke *WITH WIKILEAKS [activity]*... sexual indiscretions are not relevant.

I agree Wikileaks hasn't broken any law. Also PayPal and a Web host won't break any law by deciding to cut him off from their services.

What Wikileaks has done, though, is endanger lives and try to undermine governments. So, I guess the answer to Assange is, then, to take him out before he gets people killed and nations at war. Perhaps you would prefer that.

 

[Pure]

sr71 [assange's activity is his] try to undermine governments.

hmmm. check with the tea partiers on this. clamp them and Coulter in jail?

in the US, i believe, it's protected "free speech." it's no more 'undermining' than the ellsberg papers were during the vietnam war.

in the US, you'd have to show, additionally, breaching national security and/or inciting of involving violence. since the docs were mostly not 'classified,' not to say 'secret' or 'top secret', one infers their revelation does not seriously affect the US national security.

 

[sr71plt]

sr71 [assange's activity is his] try to undermine governments.

hmmm. check with the tea partiers on this. clamp them and Coulter in jail?

in the US, i believe, it's protected "free speech." it's no more 'undermining' than the ellsberg papers were during the vietnam war.

in the US, you'd have to show, additionally, breaching national security and/or inciting of involving violence. since the docs were mostly not 'classified,' not to say 'secret' or 'top secret', one infers their revelation does not seriously affect the US national security.

Apples and oranges.

The tea partiers aren't doing anything like this (and would be unlikely to do anything like this. They probably are calling it treason, even though Assange isn't American. Is he? If so, then "off with his head" on national security grounds--he received stolen property and used it.)

Coulter is a dingbat but she's not doing anything like this.

The Ellsberg Papers were domestic--but they were still theft and theft of sensitive information. And they deserved being stopped and going for jail for it. That those involved did society a service just meant those involved were nice martyrs for the cause. It was still theft and misuse. The end doesn't justify the means.

There isn't anything either nefarious or illegal about the content of the material stolen and used by Wikileaks. It's the way governments collect honest appraisal so that they can formulate the best possible international policies.

Publishing diplomatic correspondence for the purpose of mucking up the works is terrorism. I'd handle Wikileaks like I'd handle any terrorist effort. I'd snuff it out if/when I could.

 

[DeeZire]

....Publishing diplomatic correspondence for the purpose of mucking up the works is terrorism. I'd handle Wikileaks like I'd handle any terrorist effort. I'd snuff it out.

SR71 - why do you hate freedom?

Here are links to two interesting op eds on the wiki leaks issue. Their main point is that government transparency is more in keeping with our quaint concepts of "Democracy" and "Freedom" than the censorship and lies practiced by the power elite in Washington.

...The horror over WikiLeaks, which is being expressed mostly by inept diplomats, is disingenuous in the extreme. The consistent claims that lives are being endangered by the information borders on the hilarious. How many lives have been lost to erroneous, yet secret information that led to our invasion of Iraq? If WikiLeaks had been around in 2003 the public might have been well armed with information to create political resistance to W's folly in the ancient deserts....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-moore/wikileaks-and-the-myth-of_b_791740.html

http://www.nationaljournal.com/colu...trust-if-it-invaded-our-privacy-less-20101202

 

[sr71plt]

SR71 - why do you hate freedom?

I hate any word that goes over six characters. That's the size of a word in Bill Gates's world, so it's good enough for me. Any word longer than that should be snuffed out when/if we can.

And, yes, I don't think that individual Americans (or anyone else) has the need to know simply everything (Like Internet instructions on how to build a bomb and the what the most vulnerable points in the fabric of our security are). They certainly haven't shown the ability to absorb and use what they already have been told with any good sense.

 

[Liar]

the rape charges were trumped up, and were already dropped, once.

And even if they're true, it has nothing to do with the legality or not of WikiLeaks.

 

[Weird Harold]

our payment service cannot be used for any activities that encourage, promote, facilitate or instruct others to engage in illegal activity."

no one has been able to say what law assange has broken, with his publishing most nonclassified material. this doesn't matter to paypal, it seems.

Assange hasn't broken any laws. He has violated Paypal's terms of service by ecouraging others to engage in illegal activity.

Whether all of the documents leaked were unclassified is irrelevant -- as long as a single document WAS classified the leaker "engaged in illlegal activity" by leaking it to Assange; who I'm relatively certain does not have a US security clearance.

 

[colddiesel]

Publishing diplomatic correspondence for the purpose of mucking up the works is terrorism. I'd handle Wikileaks like I'd handle any terrorist effort. I'd snuff it out if/when I could.

I would be interested to know under what law you define Assange's work as terrorism and when and how you expect to make a charge that will stick.Jurisdiction alone is a difficult issue. I suspect that the foolishly vindictive administrators should they ever get Assange into court are going to end up looking very silly.

It is a constant amusement to the rest of the world how Americans like you constantly prate about free speech or freedom of information yet no nation is quicker or more vindictive to deny those freedoms when it comes to dealing with non-nationals.

America is in danger of converting a twerp, Assange, into a martyr. The best thing to do with Assange was not to take him seriously but to mock him, to laugh at him. Regrettably the American political class is so full of its own self importance that it cannot see this.

 

[sr71plt]

I would be interested to know under what law you define Assange's work as terrorism and when and how you expect to make a charge that will stick.Jurisdiction alone is a difficult issue. I suspect that the foolishly vindictive administrators should they ever get Assange into court are going to end up looking very silly.

It is a constant amusement to the rest of the world how Americans like you constantly prate about free speech or freedom of information yet no nation is quicker or more vindictive to deny those freedoms when it comes to dealing with non-nationals.

America is in danger of converting a twerp, Assange, into a martyr. The best thing to do with Assange was not to take him seriously but to mock him, to laugh at him. Regrettably the American political class is so full of its own self importance that it cannot see this.

Americans like me? Got some names to give since you think you know me so well?

I'll wait right here going through the laws so we can talk when you come back with those Americans like me.

Beyond that I don't think you have much of a grasp of the issue--you certainly don't seem to have a grasp on what I've posted about the issue--and I don't fell compelled to bring you up to snuff on it.

 

[Boxlicker101]

BERLIN (AP) - Online payment service provider PayPal says in a company blog it has cut off the account used by WikiLeaks to collect donations.

The company said in a blog posting the move was prompted by a violation of its policy, "which states that our payment service cannot be used for any activities that encourage, promote, facilitate or instruct others to engage in illegal activity."

no one has been able to say what law assange has broken, with his publishing most nonclassified material. this doesn't matter to paypal, it seems.

anyone know of alternatives to paypal's services? not so much to pay assange, as for other purposes.

I say "HOORAY FOR PAYPAL!!" The documents provided to Wikileaks were stolen, and the theft and publication might or might not equal treason. One member of the US military is in deep doodoo over this, and others may be. If Assange paid these people through Paypal, he has violated the spirit and word of their restrictions, and they should cut him off.

ETA: Here is a link to the rape allegations: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/sep/01/sweden-julian-assange-rape-investigation

I don't know if he is guilty or not, and I doubt anybody on this forum does either. I would believe the legal authorities much sooner than I would believe Assange's lawyers. It might be a matter of definition as to what constitutes rape in Sweden as opposed to Australia.

 

[sr71plt]

If Assange paid these people through Paypal, he has violated the spirit and word of their restrictions, and they should cut him off.

I think the issue was that much of the money that keeps Wikileaks going was coming from contributions registered through PayPal. The transactions cut off were going the other way from what you are querying.

 

[Pure]

American law: 'terrorism'

http://terrorism.about.com/od/whatisterroris1/ss/DefineTerrorism_5.htm

Definition of Terrorism under U.S. Law

United States Law Code – the law that governs the entire country – contains a definition of terrorism embedded in its requirement that Annual Country reports on Terrorism be submitted by the Secretary of State to Congress every year. (From U.S. Code Title 22, Ch.38, Para. 2656f(d)
(d) Definitions

As used in this section—
(1) the term “international terrorism” means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than 1 country;
(2) the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;
(3) the term “terrorist group” means any group, or which has significant subgroups which practice, international terrorism;
(4) the terms “territory” and “territory of the country” mean the land, waters, and airspace of the country; and
(5) the terms “terrorist sanctuary” and “sanctuary” mean an area in the territory of the country—

(A) that is used by a terrorist or terrorist organization—
(i) to carry out terrorist activities, including training, fundraising, financing, and recruitment; or

(ii) as a transit point; and
(B) the government of which expressly consents to, or with knowledge, allows, tolerates, or disregards such use of its territory and is not subject to a determination under—
(i) section 2405(j)(1)(A) of the Appendix to title 50;
(ii) section 2371 (a) of this title; or
(iii) section 2780 (d) of this title.
==


American Heritage dictionary,
terrorism

(tĕr'ə-rĭz'əm)
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

===


the application of this law to either Assange OR the leaker himself, is obviously preposterous.

---
I would that the question of a crime *committed by the leaker* is also obscure. the antiquated 'espionage act,' rarely used, has been cited, which to me suggests a desperate search for a legal recourse.

there were no charges of espionage in connection with the Ellsburg papers, afaik.

 

[sr71plt]

Yeah, like we really are controlled by definitions like this in real life. The truth of the matter is that there aren't any governments that think this is a good thing and they're going to put a stop to it as soon as they can. And they do put this in their "terrorism" category because it's the most convenient angle they have to work on it. (And this doesn't have a thing to do with what I think should happen.)

You can live in your lalaland on textbook definitions as you like--because you won't be any part of what they do and how they do it.

Sorry to speaking reality again on the forum. I know how much a lot of people here don't like that.

 

[Weird Harold]

I would that the question of a crime *committed by the leaker* is also obscure. the antiquated 'espionage act,' rarely used, has been cited, which to me suggests a desperate search for a legal recourse.

Just because a law has been on the books for a long time and seldom gets violated, doesn't mean that it is no longer the law and can be violated freely.

The applicable law in at least one case is the Uniform Code Of Military Justice, not US civil law; the one person incarcerated in conjunction with leaked papers is a military member charged under the UCMJ. I'm not sure exactly what he's charged with, but compromising classified documents is undoubtedly included.

 

[Pure]

espionage act

Do the actions of the leaker or of Assange fall under the Espionage act?

a key element is that there is intent to injure the US. supposing the leaker is a patriot? (he's leaking, in his own mind, at least, for the *betterment* of the US: bringing dirt and skullduggery to light, so that these situations can be improved.).



http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/37/793
Search 18 U.S.C. § 793 : US Code - Section 793: Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

(a) Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting
the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the
information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to
the advantage of any foreign nation, goes upon, enters, flies over,
or otherwise obtains information concerning any vessel, aircraft,
work of defense, navy yard, naval station, submarine base, fueling
station, fort, battery, torpedo station, dockyard, canal, railroad,
arsenal, camp, factory, mine, telegraph, telephone, wireless, or
signal station, building, office, research laboratory or station or
other place connected with the national defense owned or
constructed, or in progress of construction by the United States or
under the control of the United States,[...]

(b) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, and with like intent or
reason to believe, copies, takes, makes, or obtains, or attempts to
copy, take, make, or obtain, any sketch, photograph, photographic
negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance,
document, writing, or note of anything connected with the national
defense; or

(c) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, receives or obtains or
agrees or attempts to receive or obtain from any person, or from
any source whatever, any document, writing, code book, signal book,
sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map,
model, instrument, appliance, or note, of anything connected with
the national defense, knowing or having reason to believe, at the
time he receives or obtains, or agrees or attempts to receive or
obtain it, that it has been or will be obtained, taken, made, or
disposed of by any person contrary to the provisions of this
chapter; or


(d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control
over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book,
signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint,
plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the
national defense, or information relating to the national defense
which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used
to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any
foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or
causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to
communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated,
delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to
receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it
on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled
to receive it; or
[...]
[...]
(g) If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the
foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such
persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of
the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment
provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.

 

[Huckleman2000]

Am I the only one who finds it a bit strange that it's since Assange started talking about leaking internal bank documents that these companies are cracking down? Not to be too much of a conspiracy nut, but the State Dept docs released so far have been a bit of a yawn. Bringing down a bank, in this economy? That could do some damage.

 

[sr71plt]

Am I the only one who finds it a bit strange that it's since Assange started talking about leaking internal bank documents that these companies are cracking down? Not to be too much of a conspiracy nut, but the State Dept docs released so far have been a bit of a yawn. Bringing down a bank, in this economy? That could do some damage.

More likely a time warp in governments deciding what to do and putting it in motion.

 

[R. Richard]

A Private First Class (strange title for someone with no class) stole US government classified documents. There are two violations of US law:
1) Theft
2) Security violation.

The thief then gave/sold (???) the documents to another party.
3) Receiving stolen property. (It doesn't matter that the receiver wasn't a US citizen, receiving stolen property is still a US crime and also a crime almost everywhere in the civilized world.)

The receiver then published stolen information. Since the receiver is in the business of publishing information, it is obvious that the thief knew that the receiver would use the furnished stolen information.
4) Conspiracy.

Finally, we come to the matter of the thief being a member of the US military. Thus, the thief has a chain of command. It is the responsibility of an officer in a command posiiton to ensure that his subordinates obey orders and the law. At best, we see negligence.

 

[Pure]

republicans

call for blood. similar talking point to some posters above. note also that the fellow, McConnell, isn't quite certain that a law was broken!!

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell is calling the founder of the online site WikiLeaks a "high-tech terrorist" for releasing classified material from the U.S. government.

McConnell says that the online release of secret diplomat exchanges has done "enormous damage" to the country and to its relationship with its allies.

McConnell tells NBC's "Meet the Press" that he hopes WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange will be prosecuted for the disclosures. And he says that if it's found that Assange hasn't violated the law, then the law should be changed.

Of Assange, McConnell says, "I think the man is a high-tech terrorist."

 

[Pure]

note to r richard

RR A Private First Class (strange title for someone with no class) stole US government classified documents. There are two violations of US law:
1) Theft


why exactly is it theft. if i'm visiting your house, and unknown to you, make a copy of your Soldier of Fortune magazine, which i then post, have I *stolen* anything? from you?

define 'theft'.

NOTE: hardly any of the docs were classified, iirc, less than 5%. nice try, though.

 

[sr71plt]

You keep being irrelevant to the issue, Pure--like you can't get your head out of Internet research and assume the "documents" you find in there will set the parameters for this. (This is sort of you on everything, actually.)

Try to get reality into your head. This Wikileaks business is something that no government in the world wants or will tolerate for any longer than they possibility have to.

They all recognize the need to have their diplomatic communications inviolate from public scrutiny (while, of course, being happy to secretly get their hands on each other's communications take).

So, they're going to get it shut down. You may not see how it really happens and you may not see any trials at all. But it's gonna happen.

And your regurgitating the Internet back to us isn't going to make a hill of beans. The real world isn't to be found in your Internet crawling (or anyone else's).

We're not taking a vote on this.

I personally don't have any strong feelings on this Wikileak business. What I find irritating is the incredible naivete you and others here exhibit.

 

[Boxlicker101]

call for blood. similar talking point to some posters above. note also that the fellow, McConnell, isn't quite certain that a law was broken!!

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell is calling the founder of the online site WikiLeaks a "high-tech terrorist" for releasing classified material from the U.S. government.

McConnell says that the online release of secret diplomat exchanges has done "enormous damage" to the country and to its relationship with its allies.

McConnell tells NBC's "Meet the Press" that he hopes WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange will be prosecuted for the disclosures. And he says that if it's found that Assange hasn't violated the law, then the law should be changed.

Of Assange, McConnell says, "I think the man is a high-tech terrorist."

It's my understanding that most of what was stolen and posted was emails or other diplomatic communication and was mostly snide gossip about other diplomats or heads of state or high-ranking military officers. Because this is likely to have a negative effect on military alliances involving the US, it would seem to be in violation of this part of what you posted earlier:

Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, receives or obtains or
agrees or attempts to receive or obtain from any person, or from
any source whatever, any document, writing, code book, signal book,
sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map,
model, instrument, appliance, or note, of anything connected with
the national defense, knowing or having reason to believe, at the
time he receives or obtains, or agrees or attempts to receive or
obtain it, that it has been or will be obtained, taken, made, or
disposed of by any person contrary to the provisions of this
chapter

Assange did the same thing before, and he saw the result, so he must have known the same thing would happen again.

I would be very hesitant to call the man a "terrorist" but I would respect the opinion of any person who calls him one.