Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
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
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.
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.
Mind the frickin' laser...