WikiLeaks

[pqdace]

PayPal is being used to fund Wikileaks?? 

This makes them complicit .

[edagro]

C'mon, folks, let's keep this forum on ways to counter PP's caving in to government pressure and preventing us from supporting Wickileals and Assange. There are other forums around the watercooler where posts about bad business practices in general would get greater traction.

[edagro]

Until Paypal comes to its senses and reinstates the wikileaks account, one of the safe alternatives to support wikileaks is xipwire dot com . Just select from the choices under "nonprofit" and "xip2give campaigns". You'll have to register with xipwire but that takes only a minute.

I believe that PP has at leastr reinstated the Bradley Manning support accout. In any case folks can contribute to Mannig's defense at , couragetoresist  dot org

[tonobo]

Money Talks...

[Raveninred]

Ohmigod, does no one read or keep UP with information anymore, or do you all just pile on because it;s the trendy thing to do?

Wikileaks did not abide by the Standard Business practices of PayPal. The WikiLeaks Defense fund was TEMPORARILY turned off because they refused to provide a bank account associated with the PayPal account. Since that first announcement, a bank account has been provided and the account HAS BEEN RE-OPENED.

Yeah, close your accounts so you can't contribute to the legal fund. That's a good idea. WTH?

There is a reason things happen - simple, explainable reasons. And once they're fixed, everything's right as rain. Assange is a not nice person, in my humble opinion, backed by evidence from former members of his own team, and has access to a buttload of money from his rich "freedom of speech" supporters in London who are letting him stay on a Mansion estate while awaiting news on his extradition hearing, and really doesn't need the dough from anyone else, and there are no provisions for what the money will go to if not used for his legal defense (lining his pockets much?), so...you might want to hold off on that self-righteous "I can't contribute" thing, unless you want to put money directly into his pockets. He isn't hurting for funds.

[edagro]

Um, Ravininred, unless I'm mistaken you've confused wikileaks and Assange with Courage to Resist and Bradly Manning. Look up wikileaks, you'll see there's no notice of reinstaement. Or ask PP.

Sorry you're so bent outta shape, it's got you missing the forest for the trees. The issue is the secretive, abusive, and dictatorial parts of the US government and the cowardice of the owners of PP. Can it be that you'd rather trust those sorts of rulers than the testimony of folks who resist these crimes? Did you ever take the time to watch "Collateral Murder"?

[MonkeeRench]

I too have never seen any official PP announcement about retracting the idiotic and counter-productive WikiLeaks policy, only the retraction with respect to "Courage to Resist" and Manning transactions.  If anyone has any verified source to the contrary, I would appreciate seeing it.  PP has never responded to my requests for clarification or justification with respect to WikiLeaks transactions.

---

@edagro wrote:

Um, Ravininred, unless I'm mistaken you've confused wikileaks and Assange with Courage to Resist and Bradly Manning. Look up wikileaks, you'll see there's no notice of reinstaement. Or ask PP.

[Raveninred]

---

@MonkeeRench wrote:

I too have never seen any official PP announcement about retracting the idiotic and counter-productive WikiLeaks policy, only the retraction with respect to "Courage to Resist" and Manning transactions.  If anyone has any verified source to the contrary, I would appreciate seeing it.  PP has never responded to my requests for clarification or justification with respect to WikiLeaks transactions.

---

@edagro wrote:

Um, Ravininred, unless I'm mistaken you've confused wikileaks and Assange with Courage to Resist and Bradly Manning. Look up wikileaks, you'll see there's no notice of reinstaement. Or ask PP.

---

Sorry, sorry - you're both right, I was confusing Manning's legal defense fund with Assange's plea for help with legal fees.

I won't discuss my personal reasons for disliking Assange. Yes, I've seen Collateral Murder. It's horrific.

However, I belive the publication of ANY (National) State's Secrets is illegal, no matter in which country you reside; so there is reason for termination of services. Not simply "pressure" from the CIA or the US Gov't. Many Countries have seen the publication of their private conversations, or their State's private documentation; I believe this is illegal in all countries, not just the US.

I've said my piece, I respect others who may think differently; Let's leave it at that.

Raven

[MonkeeRench]

As I understand military justice, to the extent it exists, when an inductee takes his/her oath, one swears (religious/non-religious option to affirm?) to uphold the CONSTITUTION of the United States, not the particular current policies of the Administration, Congress, or the SCOTUS (e.g. slavery, Jim Crow laws, segregation, poll tax enforcement, etc.).  When he/she personally chooses to carry out this oath by violating rules and regulations set out according to superior officers and exercizing personal peaceful civil disobedience, the consequences of the violation are currently faced under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (which has supposedly but disputably incorporated the protections of the U.S. Constitution [hmm, the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments too?]). 

Manning should be handled with equal treatment without prejudice toward particular current policies (e.g. irrational extra-judicial application of the "War Against Terror") and without non-judicial punishment by superior officers over their subordinates for minor breaches of discipline.  These punishments are limited to reduction in rank, loss of pay, restrictions of privileges, extra-duty, reprimands, and, aboard ships, confinement.  Those officers and their civilian superiors who have violated Manning's rights should also face the consequences of THEIR actions according to the Constitution.

PayPal is a corporate business and arguably (i.e. my personal opinion) has no rights or standing of  Personhood (contrary to the current irrational SCOTUS policies interpreting law) intervening in this process to the prejudice against Manning.  The individuals owning and managing  PayPal can of course speak and individually promulgate their personal (read Personhood) opinions to the extent of the law as THEY personally choose to obey or peacefully disobey (opening their own personal issue of Constitutionality).  The slow and EVOLUTIONAL back-and-forth process of our unique, truly ingenious and messily-representative constitutionally-"democratic" republic grinds on.

[dclaire77]

PayPal claims to be "Like any good friend."

My good friends don't exert control over what I think, see, feel. PayPal is just another thug corporation - throwing the weight of its cash around to control the masses. Now, in addition to blocking WikiLeaks from receiving contributions, PayPal is blocking money for Bradley Manning's legal defense.

Despicable. Anti-Democratic. Un-American.