Since these leaks did not make the public more informed, or critical
That's YOUR opinion. It made ME more informed and critical, as it did many, many others.
Then you were incredibly poorly informed before, because everything Wikileaks claims to have revealed was very well-known before Wikileaks revealed it.
Drone strikes are old news. Pakistani double-dealing is older. Afghanistan was a tough slog when invaded Iraq in '03.
Law cannot be based on subjective standards, or it is no law at all. And yes, many current laws around things like obscenity/pornography are in that category and should rightly be abolished or at least re-written to clear and unambiguous and consistent standards.
Strat
Then no-one will ever fully have the rule of law, because human life does not fit into neat, objective categories. If it did we wouldn't need a Supreme Court.
the NYT is not under investigation because it's a legitimate journalist organization.
In-fucking-credible.
"It is easy to believe in freedom of speech for those with whom we agree." -- Leo McKern.
It's easy for me to oppose the "freedom of speech" that results in Chinese dissidents getting death threats.
The entire world is not a nice democracy, therefore leaking un-redacted diplomatic cables that include the names of Chinese dissidents is anti-freedom. Period. End of story. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.
s for "the whole fucking world," you do realize that legally speaking every state in the whole fucking world is supposed to enforce the laws of every other state?
Really? So the US enforces the blasphemy laws of Saudi Arabia?
In actual fact, countries enforce the laws of foreign countries very selectively, only when they have a specific treaty saying so, and often not even then.
Good selective quoting there. The bit you missed ("you agree to enforce everyone-else's rules in areas where they have sovereignty") makes clear that the blasphemy law thing is a straw man.
I can only give it a two out of five, tho. Way too transparent.
So if a Rwandan dude put every French diplomatic cable on a Congolese website, do you seriously think the French would be like "we have no jurisdiction, so we'll just have to be good losers?"
Couldn't they apply the same logic to any news organization in the US?
Not really. News organizations put out dozens of non-secret stories every day. Most of their stories are actually things everyone quoted wants reported.
When they do break some secret there's generally an angle that's the public interest. "So-and-so is taking bribes," or "That-idiot-Johnson-is-lying-about-Vietnam." They have experienced reporters to tell them which secrets are news-worthy and which aren't. They also have paid analysts who help make sure they aren't going off half-cocked. When they do break a secret they try to ensure that innocents don't get screwed.
Wikileaks did not even try. Two guys charged with treason, another exiled, and a Chinese lawyer started receiving death threats after their un-redacted cables got published, apparently solely because they were too damn lazy to keep these four names secret.
Turns out the only thing worse then Cable News Journalism is Assange pretending to be a Journalist.
If the Pentagon papers case had been as clear-cut as you're saying the Times would have won at the District Court level, but they lost. The Court was weighing the interests of the public to know this information with the interests of the government to keep it secret.
Stewart and White said "the only effective restraint upon executive policy and power in [national defense and international affairs] may lie in an enlightened citizenry - in an informed and critical public opinion which alone can here protect the values of democratic government." They decided that the vast aid these Papers gave the public in understanding the war out-weighed any potential harms. Brennan cited a case which specifically disallowed leaks with the level of detail Wikileaks gave, albeit that case was not talking about leaks of past troop movement schedules. Those three votes flip and instead of being 6-3 in favor of the Times it's 6-3 against.
Since these leaks did not make the public more informed, or critical, the interest in the public in knowing the information is basically zero. OTOH the interest of the government in keeping the two Zimbabwean Generals who were talking to it from being charged with treason was a hell of a lot more then zero.
In other words Roberts could screw Assange without overturning the Pentagon Papers decision. Do you think there's any chance he won't do that?
Problem is it's not the sole view. In terms of people who actually matter it's not even the main view. Very few governments would hear about one of their citizens selling them out to a foreign enemy, and be like "oh shit that guy's smart, he did it all in Iran so we can't touch him." Your view is restricted to a) people who have no power, and b) people who really want to justify not giving one of their spies back to his home country.
You can argue that all these folks are wrong, but you can't argue that Mastercard, Visa and Paypal don't have the legal obligation to follow the laws of the country where they were incorporated, and under the laws of that country Wikileaks is breaking the law. Visa's European branch might be able to get around this, but they have almost certainly signed numerous agreements to embargo people when the US Government really wants them embargoed.
If it sends the money via the US (ie: Mastercard and Paypal), it most certainly is. They have to follow the laws of the US AND every country they operate in. That's why Mastercard Iraq can't operate in Iran.
If Sweden doesn't want financial companies with these restrictions operating in Sweden they can ban them, but they'll also lose access to them.
So if I told a Loan Officer "Don't worry, the money I use to murder my wife will not come from this loan," he would have to lend it to me? He couldn't decide that it would be bad PR to lend me money, and show me the door?
Nope. Nobody ever forced those people to get into the banking business.
People keep asserting it's illegal for banks not to do business with alleged criminals. I find it interesting that nobody can quote the actual statute.
Bullshit they did. American military who released the information may have a case to answer, not those who distributed it. Otherwise, why isn't, for example, the New York Times having its bank accounts frozen? It published "Wikileaks" stories on its front page.
The whole fucking world isn't legally beholden to the US government, and US laws, and the US is just being a bully to use tactics like this to strike out at people who embarrassed it.
The NYT is not under investigation because it's a legitimate journalist organization. Wikileaks claims to have the same protection, but that hasn't been tested in Court. I doubt they'll get it. They don''t have dozens of non-classified-information-revealing stories they publish every day. They don't work to journalistic standards. They don't have subscribers. It likely won't be tested for the foreseeable future, because the current situation (Assange bottled up in the Ecuadorian Consulate due to rape charges) suits the US, and Wikileaks isn't eager to fight in Court.
As for "the whole fucking world," you do realize that legally speaking every state in the whole fucking world is supposed to enforce the laws of every other state? That's part of the reason they let you into the official nation-state's club; you agree to enforce everyone-else's rules in areas where they have sovereignty. A state has sovereignty over it's classified information. It's true states can ignore those rules, but they are not supposed to.
It's true the US has a lot more ability to enforce it's rules then anyone else, but that's largely because everyone prefers our rules to the alternatives. If the Koreans wanted the Chinese or Japanese to be the superpower in their neighborhood they could do that. We'd bitch a bit, but we wouldn't really mind not having to deal with the Kim dynasty anymore. If the Africans decided to move beyond the state-system (which would make sense, given their nonsensical borders and low population densities), and create a totally new set of rules not inspired by us at all we'd be cool with that. Especially if they insisted that, due to a fear of US influence, we would never be on the hook for aid even if all Ethiopia starved. If the Europeans stopped arguing about trivialities long enough to make the EU a true nation-state, meaning we were no longer the #1 guy on the anti-Putin team, we would be over-fucking-joyed.
Problem with Wikileaks is they are the illegitimate business from the Point of View of US Law. If the US can take assets from people just because they've been charged with being drug lords Wikileaks is just screwed.
Even if they weren't, I've never heard of anyone actually operating a business while in prison. Continuing to own it, yes. But actually operating it? Nope. Pretty much the only person you can talk to more then once every few months while in custody is your lawyer.
But why do private banks (businesses) have to accept payment processing from anyone. They are not governmental agencies, shouldn't they be allowed to chose who they do business with?
Because "private" banks are heavily-regulated and must obey banking laws, both domestically in the countries they operate in, and internationally. The laws and regulations, both in the US and Sweden, say that they may not discriminate in this manner against anyone that has not been legally sanctioned/convicted and/or placed on an official terrorist list. Neither of which is the case for WL.
Strat
So if I told a Loan Officer "Don't worry, the money I use to murder my wife will not come from this loan," he would have to lend it to me? He couldn't decide that it would be bad PR to lend me money, and show me the door?
Wikileaks is very open about publishing leaks. Their best leak is a massive US-data dump. As far as the US Government is concerned that was illegal. As far as most Americans are concerned Assange is a batshit crazy anti-American loony. You don't have to do business with people you think are about to be charged with major crimes. You don't have to do business with people who piss off your other customers.
Imagine if Visa, Mastercard and Paypal, failed to pass money sent to the New York Times for their paywall, because New York Times had published leaks about President Assad's attacks on civilians?
You see what I've done there, I've substituted one news reporting company 'New York Times' for another 'Wikileaks' and one government 'Syria' for another 'USA'.
Of course the NYT would just publish that, and not accidentally get two Zimbabwean Generals charged with Treason.
That's the problem with Wikileaks. They just publish everything. They assume the US is the absolute worst government in the world, and don't really care that actual people get hurt badly as long as the US gets embarrassed.
The situation with the Pentagon Papers is not identical. The Pentagon Papers were a multi-volume book about the Vietnam War. They had all the context needed to make sense. They also showed us lots of things we didn't know. This means that a responsibly-handled publication was in the public interest. What about either War did this tell us that we didn't know? How can a dump of totally un-redacted cables be considered responsible?
And, perhaps most importantly, what are the odds that Roberts Court does not find a way to shoot the guy who is openly anti-American?
Dollars to doughnuts finansinspektionen will conclude that no one in sweden has done anything wrong...
Since Wikileaks has its headquarters in Sweden (specifically BECAUSE if its strong journalistic shield laws), and no doubt tried to collect the money there, one end of the transaction is under Sweedish banking law. No doubt some of their contributors are also making donations in Sweden, putting the entirety of those transactions under Swedish law.
Only if those transactions did not involve sending the money through any international financial institutions. If a Swede runs money to another Swede through France French laws apply.
Moreover it's likely there's some reciprocity between Swedish laws and US Laws. Wikileaks biggest activity was breaking US Laws on classified information, which is illegal in the US, which generally means that Sweden has an obligation to stop them.
That's the problem with everyone who depends on international law for anything.
International Law between two sovereigns is precisely what the two sovereigns say it is. They are allowed to change their minds. Groups like the EU work because the sovereigns have added EU laws to their domestic legal codes, not due to some complicated theory of international law.
But they are clearly out to break US Law, and if you give money to people who break US Law you are a co-conspirator. The men in dark suits made sure Visa/Mastercard knew this, and Visa/Mastercard decided not to risk it. Wikileaks does not like this, and loudly proclaims that a) leaking Classified information isn't illegal under US Law, and b) they're the victims of a nefarious illegal conspiracy to crush them.
If they were right about a) Jonathan Pollard would be free. If they were right about b) they'd be suing in US Courts.
This is not a criminal complaint. In the US to file this type of complaint all you'd have to do is try to donate to Wikileaks, and then sue the bank in Federal Court. Literally anyone could do it. Assuming there was any chance in hell the Judge you drew would actually rule against he Feds on this case, you'd have standing to sue.
Nobody bothers because under US Law Wikileaks really doesn't have a leg to stand on. They are an organization dedicated to leaking secrets, including legitimately classified US Government Documents, they don't hold themselves to the same standards journalists do, therefore they are a Criminal Conspiracy and giving money to them makes you a co-conspirator.
Trouble is Wikileaks broke them. You don't have to like that the US Government declared everything Bradley Manning sent them to be Classified, and declared repeating said information to be illegal, but you do have to acknowledge that these events did actually happen.
And if your organization's main goal is to break US Law, then you don't get to do business with US-Based Financial Firms. Which just happens to be all of them.
Bombers require precise targeting co-ordinates, and if the co-ordinates you send are "here" they will blow the shit out of wherever you are standing.
So there has to be location information attached to this message. It could be relative to the position the observer post started from, but it has to be there or everyone gets killed by their own army.
Moreover just think about hard it would be to scale up this system to work on D-Day. You'd have needed to have a guy, with a half-dozen pigeons (each report requires two pigeons, so even with six he can only send three), within sight of literally every inch of Normandy. None of them could ever move, even if a Nazi happened to chase them, because otherwise the entire system is useless. It's basically a suicide mission.
Slashdot Mirror
Since these leaks did not make the public more informed, or critical
That's YOUR opinion. It made ME more informed and critical, as it did many, many others.
Then you were incredibly poorly informed before, because everything Wikileaks claims to have revealed was very well-known before Wikileaks revealed it.
Drone strikes are old news. Pakistani double-dealing is older. Afghanistan was a tough slog when invaded Iraq in '03.
Law cannot be based on subjective standards, or it is no law at all. And yes, many current laws around things like obscenity/pornography are in that category and should rightly be abolished or at least re-written to clear and unambiguous and consistent standards.
Strat
Then no-one will ever fully have the rule of law, because human life does not fit into neat, objective categories. If it did we wouldn't need a Supreme Court.
the NYT is not under investigation because it's a legitimate journalist organization.
In-fucking-credible.
"It is easy to believe in freedom of speech for those with whom we agree." -- Leo McKern.
It's easy for me to oppose the "freedom of speech" that results in Chinese dissidents getting death threats.
The entire world is not a nice democracy, therefore leaking un-redacted diplomatic cables that include the names of Chinese dissidents is anti-freedom. Period. End of story. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.
s for "the whole fucking world," you do realize that legally speaking every state in the whole fucking world is supposed to enforce the laws of every other state?
Really? So the US enforces the blasphemy laws of Saudi Arabia?
In actual fact, countries enforce the laws of foreign countries very selectively, only when they have a specific treaty saying so, and often not even then.
Good selective quoting there. The bit you missed ("you agree to enforce everyone-else's rules in areas where they have sovereignty") makes clear that the blasphemy law thing is a straw man.
I can only give it a two out of five, tho. Way too transparent.
So if a Rwandan dude put every French diplomatic cable on a Congolese website, do you seriously think the French would be like "we have no jurisdiction, so we'll just have to be good losers?"
Couldn't they apply the same logic to any news organization in the US?
Not really. News organizations put out dozens of non-secret stories every day. Most of their stories are actually things everyone quoted wants reported.
When they do break some secret there's generally an angle that's the public interest. "So-and-so is taking bribes," or "That-idiot-Johnson-is-lying-about-Vietnam." They have experienced reporters to tell them which secrets are news-worthy and which aren't. They also have paid analysts who help make sure they aren't going off half-cocked. When they do break a secret they try to ensure that innocents don't get screwed.
Wikileaks did not even try. Two guys charged with treason, another exiled, and a Chinese lawyer started receiving death threats after their un-redacted cables got published, apparently solely because they were too damn lazy to keep these four names secret.
Turns out the only thing worse then Cable News Journalism is Assange pretending to be a Journalist.
If the Pentagon papers case had been as clear-cut as you're saying the Times would have won at the District Court level, but they lost. The Court was weighing the interests of the public to know this information with the interests of the government to keep it secret.
Stewart and White said "the only effective restraint upon executive policy and power in [national defense and international affairs] may lie in an enlightened citizenry - in an informed and critical public opinion which alone can here protect the values of democratic government." They decided that the vast aid these Papers gave the public in understanding the war out-weighed any potential harms. Brennan cited a case which specifically disallowed leaks with the level of detail Wikileaks gave, albeit that case was not talking about leaks of past troop movement schedules. Those three votes flip and instead of being 6-3 in favor of the Times it's 6-3 against.
Since these leaks did not make the public more informed, or critical, the interest in the public in knowing the information is basically zero. OTOH the interest of the government in keeping the two Zimbabwean Generals who were talking to it from being charged with treason was a hell of a lot more then zero.
In other words Roberts could screw Assange without overturning the Pentagon Papers decision. Do you think there's any chance he won't do that?
That's one view of sovereignty.
Problem is it's not the sole view. In terms of people who actually matter it's not even the main view. Very few governments would hear about one of their citizens selling them out to a foreign enemy, and be like "oh shit that guy's smart, he did it all in Iran so we can't touch him." Your view is restricted to a) people who have no power, and b) people who really want to justify not giving one of their spies back to his home country.
You can argue that all these folks are wrong, but you can't argue that Mastercard, Visa and Paypal don't have the legal obligation to follow the laws of the country where they were incorporated, and under the laws of that country Wikileaks is breaking the law. Visa's European branch might be able to get around this, but they have almost certainly signed numerous agreements to embargo people when the US Government really wants them embargoed.
Really?
We sell drywall, not food.
Heck last time I went to a food joint a couple kids got thrown out just for talking loud. The Freedom of Contract does exist, and it is a thing.
If it sends the money via the US (ie: Mastercard and Paypal), it most certainly is. They have to follow the laws of the US AND every country they operate in. That's why Mastercard Iraq can't operate in Iran.
If Sweden doesn't want financial companies with these restrictions operating in Sweden they can ban them, but they'll also lose access to them.
So if I told a Loan Officer "Don't worry, the money I use to murder my wife will not come from this loan," he would have to lend it to me? He couldn't decide that it would be bad PR to lend me money, and show me the door?
Nope. Nobody ever forced those people to get into the banking business.
Which law makes that illegal?
People keep asserting it's illegal for banks not to do business with alleged criminals. I find it interesting that nobody can quote the actual statute.
Which law are you referring to?
Yes there are US Laws.
Trouble is Wikileaks broke them.
Bullshit they did. American military who released the information may have a case to answer, not those who distributed it. Otherwise, why isn't, for example, the New York Times having its bank accounts frozen? It published "Wikileaks" stories on its front page.
The whole fucking world isn't legally beholden to the US government, and US laws, and the US is just being a bully to use tactics like this to strike out at people who embarrassed it.
The NYT is not under investigation because it's a legitimate journalist organization. Wikileaks claims to have the same protection, but that hasn't been tested in Court. I doubt they'll get it. They don''t have dozens of non-classified-information-revealing stories they publish every day. They don't work to journalistic standards. They don't have subscribers. It likely won't be tested for the foreseeable future, because the current situation (Assange bottled up in the Ecuadorian Consulate due to rape charges) suits the US, and Wikileaks isn't eager to fight in Court.
As for "the whole fucking world," you do realize that legally speaking every state in the whole fucking world is supposed to enforce the laws of every other state? That's part of the reason they let you into the official nation-state's club; you agree to enforce everyone-else's rules in areas where they have sovereignty. A state has sovereignty over it's classified information. It's true states can ignore those rules, but they are not supposed to.
It's true the US has a lot more ability to enforce it's rules then anyone else, but that's largely because everyone prefers our rules to the alternatives. If the Koreans wanted the Chinese or Japanese to be the superpower in their neighborhood they could do that. We'd bitch a bit, but we wouldn't really mind not having to deal with the Kim dynasty anymore. If the Africans decided to move beyond the state-system (which would make sense, given their nonsensical borders and low population densities), and create a totally new set of rules not inspired by us at all we'd be cool with that. Especially if they insisted that, due to a fear of US influence, we would never be on the hook for aid even if all Ethiopia starved. If the Europeans stopped arguing about trivialities long enough to make the EU a true nation-state, meaning we were no longer the #1 guy on the anti-Putin team, we would be over-fucking-joyed.
Problem with Wikileaks is they are the illegitimate business from the Point of View of US Law. If the US can take assets from people just because they've been charged with being drug lords Wikileaks is just screwed.
Even if they weren't, I've never heard of anyone actually operating a business while in prison. Continuing to own it, yes. But actually operating it? Nope. Pretty much the only person you can talk to more then once every few months while in custody is your lawyer.
No.
The NYT is a legitimate journalist organization. They have rights that random dudes do not. That's why they aren't being investigated.
The release of US classified information is illegal everywhere. Otherwise anyone who spied on the US Government while in Paris would be fine.
That's not the case with any of the rules you mentioned.
But why do private banks (businesses) have to accept payment processing from anyone. They are not governmental agencies, shouldn't they be allowed to chose who they do business with?
Because "private" banks are heavily-regulated and must obey banking laws, both domestically in the countries they operate in, and internationally. The laws and regulations, both in the US and Sweden, say that they may not discriminate in this manner against anyone that has not been legally sanctioned/convicted and/or placed on an official terrorist list. Neither of which is the case for WL.
Strat
So if I told a Loan Officer "Don't worry, the money I use to murder my wife will not come from this loan," he would have to lend it to me? He couldn't decide that it would be bad PR to lend me money, and show me the door?
Wikileaks is very open about publishing leaks. Their best leak is a massive US-data dump. As far as the US Government is concerned that was illegal. As far as most Americans are concerned Assange is a batshit crazy anti-American loony. You don't have to do business with people you think are about to be charged with major crimes. You don't have to do business with people who piss off your other customers.
And yet many people wearing perfectly legal outfits are thrown out of my place of employment for not wearing shoes...
Imagine if Visa, Mastercard and Paypal, failed to pass money sent to the New York Times for their paywall, because New York Times had published leaks about President Assad's attacks on civilians?
You see what I've done there, I've substituted one news reporting company 'New York Times' for another 'Wikileaks' and one government 'Syria' for another 'USA'.
Of course the NYT would just publish that, and not accidentally get two Zimbabwean Generals charged with Treason.
That's the problem with Wikileaks. They just publish everything. They assume the US is the absolute worst government in the world, and don't really care that actual people get hurt badly as long as the US gets embarrassed.
The situation with the Pentagon Papers is not identical. The Pentagon Papers were a multi-volume book about the Vietnam War. They had all the context needed to make sense. They also showed us lots of things we didn't know. This means that a responsibly-handled publication was in the public interest. What about either War did this tell us that we didn't know? How can a dump of totally un-redacted cables be considered responsible?
And, perhaps most importantly, what are the odds that Roberts Court does not find a way to shoot the guy who is openly anti-American?
Dollars to doughnuts finansinspektionen will conclude that no one in sweden has done anything wrong...
Since Wikileaks has its headquarters in Sweden (specifically BECAUSE if its strong journalistic shield laws), and no doubt tried to collect the money there, one end of the transaction is under Sweedish banking law. No doubt some of their contributors are also making donations in Sweden, putting the entirety of those transactions under Swedish law.
Only if those transactions did not involve sending the money through any international financial institutions. If a Swede runs money to another Swede through France French laws apply.
Moreover it's likely there's some reciprocity between Swedish laws and US Laws. Wikileaks biggest activity was breaking US Laws on classified information, which is illegal in the US, which generally means that Sweden has an obligation to stop them.
That's the problem with everyone who depends on international law for anything.
International Law between two sovereigns is precisely what the two sovereigns say it is. They are allowed to change their minds. Groups like the EU work because the sovereigns have added EU laws to their domestic legal codes, not due to some complicated theory of international law.
He's exaggerating. Wikileaks weren't declared terrorists. They weren't formally declared anything.
But they are clearly out to break US Law, and if you give money to people who break US Law you are a co-conspirator. The men in dark suits made sure Visa/Mastercard knew this, and Visa/Mastercard decided not to risk it. Wikileaks does not like this, and loudly proclaims that a) leaking Classified information isn't illegal under US Law, and b) they're the victims of a nefarious illegal conspiracy to crush them.
If they were right about a) Jonathan Pollard would be free. If they were right about b) they'd be suing in US Courts.
I am fairly certain no one had any legal grounds to deny payments to Wikileaks. How could they?
Same way they have grounds to acquire a Drug Lord's assets and auction them to the highest bidder before he's convicted.
If you're involved in an organization designed to break US Law you just don't get much protection from US Law.
This is not a criminal complaint. In the US to file this type of complaint all you'd have to do is try to donate to Wikileaks, and then sue the bank in Federal Court. Literally anyone could do it. Assuming there was any chance in hell the Judge you drew would actually rule against he Feds on this case, you'd have standing to sue.
Nobody bothers because under US Law Wikileaks really doesn't have a leg to stand on. They are an organization dedicated to leaking secrets, including legitimately classified US Government Documents, they don't hold themselves to the same standards journalists do, therefore they are a Criminal Conspiracy and giving money to them makes you a co-conspirator.
Yes there are US Laws.
Trouble is Wikileaks broke them. You don't have to like that the US Government declared everything Bradley Manning sent them to be Classified, and declared repeating said information to be illegal, but you do have to acknowledge that these events did actually happen.
And if your organization's main goal is to break US Law, then you don't get to do business with US-Based Financial Firms. Which just happens to be all of them.
Bombers require precise targeting co-ordinates, and if the co-ordinates you send are "here" they will blow the shit out of wherever you are standing.
So there has to be location information attached to this message. It could be relative to the position the observer post started from, but it has to be there or everyone gets killed by their own army.
Moreover just think about hard it would be to scale up this system to work on D-Day. You'd have needed to have a guy, with a half-dozen pigeons (each report requires two pigeons, so even with six he can only send three), within sight of literally every inch of Normandy. None of them could ever move, even if a Nazi happened to chase them, because otherwise the entire system is useless. It's basically a suicide mission.