Wikileaks Says US Pressure Resulted In Donation Account Being Shut Down
from the financial-censorship dept
While it's sometimes difficult to take the claims of persecution from Wikileaks founder Julian Assange seriously, it is interesting to see that Wikileak's donation account with Moneybookers has been shut down, and the company itself told Assange that it was due to the site being added to a US watchlist and an Australian blacklist. It's unclear what "watchlist" the US has for websites, but if this is accurate, it seems like another unfortunate example of US gov't censorship, this time through blocking financial resources.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: blacklists, censorship, donations, pressure, wikileaks
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
0. (Optional) Try another bank; if they reject you, you're on the lists.
1. Sue Moneybookers in whatever country needed in order to procure the evidence that they are on these lists.
2. File FOIA (which will of course be rejected for reasons of "national security") for this information relating to the lists with the US government.
3. Hope that somebody with standing in the US is brave enough to sue the government to get fuller access to info and enjoin the lists' regulations being enforced on foreign banks in their case. On what grounds the latter, I don't know.
4. ???
5. Receive donations again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What did they expect?
If Wiki wants to play hardball, they best be ready for it.
Otherwise get out of the game.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No, I'm afraid, no misinterpretation was possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Its one thing...
I want to see secret Pentagon docs all day, as long as they arent battle plans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Its one thing...
I want to see secret Pentagon docs all day, as long as they don't embarrass the US government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Its one thing...
The video on "Collateral Murder" certainly didn't reveal any "secrets" that would directly endanger American soldiers--other than possibly getting those particular soldiers tried for murder.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The US government should take its own advice
How come this doesn't apply to them in cases like these....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
when THEY do it as a part of millitary operations its collateral damage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't quote me on this...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
US simply taking action against foreign agency
Every national government has the right and duty to restrict access to some of it's internal information. The amount and type of restricted information is dictated by laws and government policies.
If US citizens disagree with the US laws and policies that govern classified information, they can seek relief through FOIA requests and the court system. That's the process that was set up by the government. If citizens are not happy with that process, they can work through their legislators to change it. That's the way our government works. Violations of these laws and policies can be considered crimes.
If people other than US citizens seek access to this restricted information and circumvent the laws and policies in effect because they disagree with US diplomatic or military activities, they can also be considered to have committed crimes and the government has a duty to respond.
Mr. Assange and Wikileaks, a non-US organization, have decided that they do not agree with certain US governmental actions and have also decided to bypass the system set up within the US legal system for relief. They should expect that the US government will uphold it's responsibilities and respond appropriately.
This is no more censorship than any other responses made to previous espionage cases.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: US simply taking action against foreign agency
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: US simply taking action against foreign agency
That is because they are not subject to US law. Just as a cartoonist in a non-Muslim country is not subject to a law in some Muslim country making it a crime to draw a cartoon of Mohammad. But I suppose you would disagree with that too.
This is no more censorship than any other responses made to previous espionage cases.
The hell it isn't. Yeah, I know your type. Go take a hike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: US simply taking action against foreign agency
That is because they are not subject to US law. Just as a cartoonist in a non-Muslim country is not subject to a law in some Muslim country making it a crime to draw a cartoon of Mohammad. But I suppose you would disagree with that too.
Just because Mr. Assange and Wikileaks are operating outside the jurisdiction of the US doesn't mean that they can't use the US legal system to remedy a situation that they don't like. The US does allow non-citizens and foreign companies to file suit.
This is no more censorship than any other responses made to previous espionage cases.
The hell it isn't. Yeah, I know your type. Go take a hike.
espionage: "the practice of gathering, transmitting, or losing through gross negligence information relating to the defense of [a nation] with the intent that or with reason to believe that the information will be used to the injury of [that nation] or the advantage of a foreign nation." (Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law. Merriam-Webster, Inc. 15 Oct. 2010)
You lose...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: US simply taking action against foreign agency
That's very different from being subject to it.
espionage: "the practice of gathering, transmitting, or losing through gross negligence information relating to the defense of [a nation] with the intent that or with reason to believe that the information will be used to the injury of [that nation] or the advantage of a foreign nation." (Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law. Merriam-Webster, Inc. 15 Oct. 2010)
Well, there you go then. Wikileaks hasn't done that. And I don't see "embarrassing the government" included in that definition, either. To the contrary, what Wikileaks has done is expose stuff to the American people that the US government is ashamed of and would rather the people not know, and in so doing is actually helping to make America better. Just the opposite of your "espionage" definition. Of course, the people being shamed and embarrassed don't like that at all. Like I said, I know your type.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: US simply taking action against foreign agency
"practice of gathering" - Yes, Wikileaks did that
"information relating to the defense of [a nation]" - ditto
"the information will be used to the injury of [that nation]" - ditto again
Wikileaks & Mr. Assange actually did do these things. Not the opposite at all.
You lose again...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: US simply taking action against foreign agency
No, they don't. Your "Founding Fathers" disagreed with empowering statism (I'm a Canuck).
Passwords to the launch systems, I accept qualify, but governments don't deserve the right to privacy. They cannot be trusted, have proved it over the millennia, and need to be controlled. All of them suffer from the disease "Mission Creep."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: US simply taking action against foreign agency
If I remember my history correctly, there were, for example, many military secrets kept by those founding fathers during the war between the American Colonies and the British Empire. Some of ours were almost sold to the British military by one of our more capable generals, Benedict Arnold, who had won several battle for the US, some of which took place in what is today Quebec and Ontario.
The US Constitution was supposed to prevent the mission creep of which you write, but unfortunately, in my opinion, this hasn't been enforced by the citizens. Maybe we'll head back in that direction soon...
BTW - I'm from a state that borders a couple of your provinces. You guys make good beer!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: US simply taking action against foreign agency
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: US simply taking action against foreign agency
The military operations in the early 20th century that were undertaken by the US did have a declaration of war to back them up so they were "legal" in the US. There haven't been any such declarations since then so does that mean that military operations in Korea were illegal, making the Allied soldiers who fought there murderers as well?
The famous saying by Clauswitz, "War is not merely a political act, but also a political instrument, a continuation of political relations, a carrying out of the same by other means," pretty much puts armed conflict in the hands of the diplomats, not the lawyers. Agree or not, it's reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: US simply taking action against foreign agency
Your knowledge of history is really lacking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Just like pulling a gun out but not pointing directly at anyone is not threatening?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I recently was surrounded by a tactical team armed with streetsweepers (automatic shotguns). I felt no intimidation from them whatever. They knew how dangerous they could be and handled them as they'd been trained to. No violence ensued. Everyone went home alive.
If it's not pointed at me, yeah, it's benign.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No necessarily. It sometimes takes a while for the right opportunity to present itself. The US has assassination hit squads in operation right now and I imagine Mr. Assange's name is on at least one of their lists. He knows that too. That's why he usually avoids sleeping in the same place two nights in a row.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Im sure you'll find all the other endpoints of the wikileaks moneytrail equally as 'watched'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hey, I'm not actually pointing this gun at you. I'm just watching you and pointing it at something behind you! See how that works?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Then if you become too much of a pain in the neck to the PTB they can just turn off your chip so you can no longer buy anything.
It looks like this plan is already partially in place and being used on Wikileaks.
No one in Wikileaks has been convicted of a crime. Denying wikileaks the right to economically interact with others is a violation of the unalienable rights of the members of wikileaks.
You can find the Aaron Russo interview on youtube.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
list
I checked and it doesn't look like he is on that list. (unless it is by some other name)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: list
That's the official "public" list. The real list is far larger.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]