WikiLeaks, Money, and Ron Paul

Another day, another dozen WikiLeaks stories, several of which revolve around money. PayPal has given in to pressure to release WikiLeaks funds, though they still won't do further transactions. Mobile payment firm Xipwire is attempting to take PayPal's place. "We do think people should be able to make their own decisions as to who they donate to." PCWorld wonders if the WikiLeaks' money woes could lead to great adoption of Bitcoin, the peer-to-peer currency system we've discussed in the past. Meanwhile, Representative Ron Paul spoke in defense of WikiLeaks on the House floor Thursday, asking a number of questions, including, "Could it be that the real reason for the near universal attacks on WikiLeaks is more about secretly maintaining a seriously flawed foreign policy of empire than it is about national security?" The current uproar over WikiLeaks has prompted Paul Vixie to call for an end to the DDoS attacks and Vladimir Putin to break out a metaphor involving cows and hockey pucks.

Comments

VISA supports the KKK

[Error27]

2600.org points out that if you want to make a donation to the KKK then Visa is everywhere you want to be.

Re:Ron Paul

[Registered Coward v2]

If there's one thing Tron Paul gets it's the Constitution.

Without getting into a debate over RP views, he did make one (minor) constitutional flaw:

The Pentagon Papers were also inserted into the Congressional record by Senator Mike Gravel, with no charges of any kind being made of breaking any national security laws.

Senators and Congressmen are specifically not prosecutable for any remarks on the House or Senate floor; which would mean remarks in the record would be protected.

Per Article I, Sec 6:

They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

While some might argue that except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace would not be restricted, the ; and makes it a separate clause. The Senate could have chosen to take action based on Senate rules; but those aren't laws.

Re:Electronic currency

[Seth Kriticos]

Please, for the love of the written text: read the damn FAQ http://www.bitcoin.org/faq *before* you engage in a discussion about the topic!

The generation of BitCoins is just part of the bootstrapping process, and it's not economically viable to do that to get wealthy (you'd set up an Amazon cluster to make them, you'd pay more than you'd earn). Generation also slows and will cap out at around 21 million BitCoins.

The primary value of BitCoins is defined by how much people are ready to exchange it for, and what you can buy/sell with it, not unlike real currency.

The primary differences are that there is no central bank that can print more money on a whim, and that the transactions are anonymous (kind of, the numbers are broadcasted, but they are not attached to names, only cryptographic keys anyone can make).

In that sense, it is an interesting and promising thing. Could use some broader adoption though, but that's not an over night thing. The current structures are stable enough to use it for practical things already and maybe we'll see it in broader adoption in the future.

Re:Oh my gosh...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wikileaks did not dump the entire contents onto the web. It released less than 2000 out of the 250,000 it holds and those it did release were redacted and published first in the newspapers.

The claim that Wikileaks simply dumped everything is a lie spread by the media.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/10/wikileaks_media/index.html

Re:Ron Paul

[gambino21]

Whose speech is being suppressed?

Wikileaks? Freedom of speech and freedom of the press are closely related.

Whose newspapers have been shutdown?

Again, Wikileaks. They may not be a newspaper in the traditional sense, but they are certainly part of the press. They analyse the information they release and write articles. Contrary to mainstream media belief, Wilileaks actually reads and redacts stuff before releasing it.

This isn't about free speech, period. This is about a giant classified document dump.

Less than 2000 of the more than 250,000 diplomatic cables have been released. The majority of these were first released by one of the large newspapers (New York Times, etc) first. Wikileaks included the same redactions included by the newspapers. How can that be considered a "giant classified document dump"?

If you want to make the argument that governments should have no secrets at all, that diplomats should have no confidential communications at all, then say that. But quit saying that this is a freedom of speech case.

Nice straw-man, no rational person is saying governments should have no secrets. The issue here is government law-breaking which was exposed, and they are now trying to cover up.

Jefferson said it the best.

[copponex]

From his Inaugural address, formatted for clarity. Notice how many times he uses the word "peace" and how he describes that we should have "honest friendship with all nations".

. . .it is proper you should understand what I deem the essential principles of our Government, and consequently those which ought to shape its Administration. I will compress them within the narrowest compass they will bear, stating the general principle, but not all its limitations:

Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political;

peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none;

the support of the State governments in all their rights, as the most competent administrations for our domestic concerns and the surest bulwarks against antirepublican tendencies; the preservation of the General Government in its whole constitutional vigor, as the sheet anchor of our peace at home and safety abroad;

a jealous care of the right of election by the people—a mild and safe corrective of abuses which are lopped by the sword of revolution where peaceable remedies are unprovided;

absolute acquiescence in the decisions of the majority, the vital principle of republics, from which is no appeal but to force, the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism;

a well disciplined militia, our best reliance in peace and for the first moments of war, till regulars may relieve them; the supremacy of the civil over the military authority;

economy in the public expense, that labor may be lightly burthened; the honest payment of our debts and sacred preservation of the public faith; encouragement of agriculture, and of commerce as its handmaid;

the diffusion of information and arraignment of all abuses at the bar of the public reason; freedom of religion; freedom of the press, and freedom of person under the protection of the habeas corpus, and trial by juries impartially selected.

These principles form the bright constellation which has gone before us and guided our steps through an age of revolution and reformation. The wisdom of our sages and blood of our heroes have been devoted to their attainment. They should be the creed of our political faith, the text of civic instruction, the touchstone by which to try the services of those we trust; and should we wander from them in moments of error or of alarm, let us hasten to retrace our steps and to regain the road which alone leads to peace, liberty, and safety.

Re:it's simple

[Dr. Spork]

You're quite right, but I think that it's a huge misconception to think of WikiLeaks as being an organization that focuses on American transgressions. Their first huge story uncovered sickening, systematic corruption in the Kenyan government. They've leaked evidence of corruption in Swiss banks. They've done lots more. Of course the US only inflates the story into a big stink when it's their shit that's smeared everywhere, but that's not because WikiLeaks ignores non-US corruption.

What Assange really needs right now are leaks about human rights abuses in China, as you say - something serious enough that the Chinese would be calling for his head using exactly the same words used by US Republicans. I think that would make the cognitive dissonance complete.

Re:Ron Paul

[Shark]

As someone posted above:

http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2010/12/wikileaks_texas_company_helped.php

So you have rape stories in the leaks too. They're just a bit worse than the charges laid against Assange.

Re:Ron Paul

[burnin1965]

I think you have misunderstood Ron Paul's political position and his political objectives.

When you compare Ron Paul's speeches to his legislative record there are some glaring inconsistencies. What most people listening to Ron's speeches don't realise though is that the purpose of his speeches on Wikileaks, the Iraq war, etc. are not necessarily in defence or opposition to those causes, he is only taking advantage of what he sees an an opportunity to induce distrust, confusion and anger into the public mind when dealing with anything in the Federal government because Ron Paul wants to place state governments at the forefront of law and governance in the United States.

In 1997 Ron tried to pass a constitutional amendment that would allow states to make it illegal for citizens to deface the flag of the United States. Clearly an infringement of citizens rights to freedom of speech that are now protected by the Constitution of the United States.

In 1999 Ron tried to pass a congressional bill that would declare the land in Panama on which the Panama Canal resides as sovereign United States territory. This appears contradictory to statements he has made about recent wars but in reviewing his statements I think people misunderstand what he is saying, Ron Paul is not against Imperialist actions by the United States but he believes they are only legal if they are initiated by the Congress and not by the Executive Branch.

And the real humdinger, in 2003 Ron tried to remove the check and balance of the Supreme Court with legislation that would bar the Supreme Court from addressing citizen's grievances against unconstitutional state laws that arose from religious dogma. I think Ron dreamt this one up after a few Texas state laws were struck down by the Supreme Court like the Texas sodomy law that tried to outlaw gay sex.

The reality is that Ron Paul is against Constitutional law and wants nothing short of a return to the Articles of Confederation that allowed individual states to determine for themselves what rights would be protected and when it is okay for the majority to oppress the minority.
 

Re:Ron Paul

[cold fjord]

We don't have to wonder, since the SecDef has said that no US soldiers, missions, or security were harmed or jeapordized by the Wikileaks releases.

Not quite. Secretary of Defense Gates said that the release of the stolen classified documents by Wikileaks is "likely to cause significant harm or damage to national security interests of the United States".

Washington (CNN) -- The online leak of thousands of secret military documents from the war in Afghanistan by the website WikiLeaks did not disclose any sensitive intelligence sources or methods, the Department of Defense concluded.

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said there is still concern Afghans named in the published documents could be retaliated against by the Taliban, though a NATO official said there has been no indication that this has happened. (Re: NATO comment, see below. -CF) " We assess this risk as likely to cause significant harm or damage to national security interests of the United States and are examining mitigation options," Gates wrote in the letter. "We are working closely with our allies to determine what risks our mission partners may face as a result of the disclosure."...

Over the summer, the Pentagon created a team of more than 100 personnel made up of mostly intelligence analysts from various branches of the Defense Department as well as the FBI, who were involved in the round-the-clock review. Gates: Leaked documents don't reveal key intel, but risks remain

The phrase, "sensitive intelligence sources or methods" is primarily referring to satellites & signal intelligence. Allies and informants, key resources when fighting a counter-insurgency, have been put at risk by being named.

“My attitude on this is that there are two areas of culpability,” Gates said on ABC’s This Week. “One is legal culpability. And that's up to the Justice Department and others -- that's not my arena.

“But there's also a moral culpability,” he added. “And that's where I think the verdict is guilty on WikiLeaks. They have put this out without any regard whatsoever for the consequences.”

Those consequences could be the loss of innocent lives, Gates said, and not just those of American troops.

“If I'm angry, it is because I believe that this information puts those in Afghanistan who have helped us at risk. It puts our soldiers at risk because they can learn a lot -- our adversaries can learn a lot about our techniques, tactics and procedures from the body of these leaked documents,” the secretary said.

Gates said that having an intelligence background, he knows that “protecting your sources is sacrosanct.” He noted that “there was no sense of responsibility or accountability” associated with the leak of information. WikiLeaks Guilty on Moral Grounds, Gates Says

With apologies to an unnamed NATO official (what sort of job did he have?) the Taliban are starting to hunt down people. (The Taliban have assembled a group to examine the Wikileaks documents.)

After WikiLeaks published a trove of U.S. intelligence documents—some of which listed the names and villages of Afghans who had been secretly cooperating with the American military—it didn’t take long for the Taliban to react. A spokesman for the group quickly threatened to “punish” any Afghan listed as having “collaborated” with the U.S. and the Kabul authorities against the growing Taliban insurgency. In recent days, the Taliban has demonstrated