STOP INTERNET CENSORSHIP;SUPPORT WIKILEAKS:BOYCOTT PAYPAL NOW!

20 posts / 0 new

You've got to stand for something

Or you're gonna fall for anything

You've gotta stand right up for somethin'

Or you're gonna fall for anything

- John Mellencamp

(Lyrics from the song "You've Got To Stand for Somethin' ")

Okay Folks. Now is the time to take all that rhetoric that is bandied about here on sites like this one as well as other "Progressive-Liberal' oriented website message boards and put your money where your mouth is ...literally.

Joseph Lieberman, a man of dual citizenship (Israel), who chairs the Senate Committee of Homeland Security (their intentions online acting as a the Nazi Waffen Schutzstaffel AKA " S.S." did in Nazi Germany, in my opinion) has been pressuring certain corporate entities who make their livelihood online such as PayPal and Amazon, to prevent Wikileaks from successfully presenting to YOU, the American Public, information that some might deem vital to a government of The People, By The People and For The People. Joseph Lieberman, along with Republican Sentor Susan Collins (Maine) has been trying to get a Senate Bill entitled, Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act (PCNAA), passed that would allow the the government legally to decide when and what to censor regarding Internet content it deems a "threat to national security." Not only that, but it would create an entirely new agency of the purpose under this new law called the National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications (NCCC), to be part of Homeland Security.

Just what we need; yet another agency dedicated to thwarting our rights via the excuse of 'national security.'

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/5501866/internet_censorship_is_government_control.html?cat=17

But apprently, Lieberman isnlt going to wait for the Bill to even pass the Senate, as he has already begun to be effective in censoring the information you and I receive via the Internet by putting enough pressure on certain corporate enities that operate online; in other words, he is going through the interelated business network online to effectively shut down Wikileaks, which I guess, according to the many denials that Lieberman's Internet Censorship Bill would only be operable in a time of "crisis" or "national security threat" must means that we are ...already there, I guess...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/04/paypal-internet-backlash-wikileaks

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-us-censorship-row

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hc99y6SQHzAC6Ca6jEbq39uHWT1w?docId=CNG.2a8de8a8d715bbf5472f2a7f29d9a3be.251

http://openchannel.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/12/02/5570125-lieberman-pressures-2nd-firm-to-take-down-wikileaks-related-material

The recent Wikileaks releases on the ILLEGAL and IMMORAL Iraq War, Afghanistan War, and the more recent Diplomatic Cables and now with the impending release on the banking Industry (which is really what the big fuss is all about folks ....THAT release is the real 'national security' threat because it may very well expose the CRIMINALs running our banking system and their COHORTS in the Senate and the Congres as well as in the White House). This new war on cyberspace access and information is now taking a drastic turn into a very dark place historically and that place is going to resemble not an open Democracy or even a Free Republic, but a totalitarian society that looks a lot more like China and the old Soviet Union, than "America; home fo the free and land of the brave."

Since corporations are now "people" according to the U.S. Supreme Court as decided in Citizens United v. FEC, and their principle power of influence is through MONEY and we know how much power and influence in this country is determined by the amount of financial resources they have at hand ... then I guess that means their primary weakness would be a LACK thereof of MONEY because as people they have their weaknesses, then coporations do as well. The weakness of a coprorate entity that operates online such as PayPal is that they are suppported entirely by ALL OF YOU giving them YOUR business, therefore, since just being a 'citizen' makes little difference anymore as to your 'rights' or your influence over the governening powers that rule you, perhaps it is time to take back your power as a citizen by recognizing the POWER of YOUR Influence as A CONSUMER.

http://www.professorbainbridge.com/professorbainbridgecom/2010/01/citizens-united-v-fec-the-first-amendment-rights-of-corporate-persons.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22scotus.html

If you truly believe in the power of the people to govern themselves and that this can only be done in an open unrestrained manner in which journalists can freely disseminate information regarding how that same government operates and the TRUTH behind how that government wages war and operates diplomatically IN YOUR NAME and using YOUR TAX DOLLARS, than please now recognize wherein your power truly lies and act in accordance with your beliefs and your intetion to live in a free society and not one controlled by an authoritarian fascist sate claiming that they are doing everthing they can under the name of "protectiing you." while they strip you (quote literally in the case of the unconstitutional and outrageous TSA airport screening tactics) of every possible avenue of living and operating as FREE people.

And I need not remind you all, that during the Bush Jr. Adminstration, thousands, if not millions, of Illegal phone tappings were done on us, the American People with the direct complicity of certain corporations in the telecommunications Industry and then a bill making it "legal" was passed later on granting them all immunity from prosecution ...criminals protecting criminals ...while we all sat by a passively watched our rights to privacy and against illegal search and seizure go right down the government-sanctioned toilet.

So...here's a perfect opportunity for you all to actually act in a way that lets those traitors to the Constitution like Joseph Lieberman (to which they swore a solemn oath to uphold by the way) who think they can rule by way of backdoor tactics in threatening and pressuring people to cut off your access to FREE SPEECH online that YOU WILL NOT LET THEM GET AWAY WITH IT WITHOUT A COST TO THEM AND THE CORPORATE ENTITIES THAT ARE COMPLICIT IN CUTTING OFF FREE SPEECH ONLINE ...and elsewhere for that matter. (Sorry bout caps.. I am not yelling; just impassioned....!)

You don't even have to leave your computer to do this act of unified public protest; simply close your PayPal account. It's very easy to do; however, yes ...there's the ugly "I" word; inconvenience. Oh, yes, if you close your PayPal account, then according to them, you cannot ever open one again ....hmmm, well that might mean you can't buy 'stuff' online anymore ...unless the stuff-sellers offers you an alternative to PayPal. Well, yes, there is going to be some inconvenience, but what is the cost of not acting in a manner that can effectively and assuredly proclaim your power to control the future of the sociaty you live in? How much is that PayPal account worth to you; is it worth your present and future access to FREE SPEECH or your right to say what YOU please online without your speech being systematically ...and in this case surreptitiously ...censored and repressed by a Senator and those opressive forces he represents and those corporate and business interests in compliance with that agenda? I guess that is what you will have to decide on your own. Paypal is an essential business element online ...but closing your account, your add VOICE (and your power as a consumerized citizen) in support of Wikileaks and against the kind of government-sponsored censorship, whether legal and formal or otherwise as we are now seeing unfolding in front of our very eyes as i write this as evidenced from current events.

Now is your opportunity to make a substantial difference acting individually and ultimately en masse; take it.

BOYCOTT PAYPAL NOW! CLOSE YOUR PAYPAL ACCOUNT TODAY.

I won't suggest boycotting Amazon, since one boycott at a time is probably better to focus on and get people to particpate in and besides, boycotting Paypal will effecitively put a big financial strain on Amazon since Amazon and most other bussinesses use PayPal as well. But of course, you are free to boycott whomsever you chose.

Oh, and after you close your PayPal account, you might want to leave the confines of the stuffiness of your computer space and get out in some fresh air on the way to purchasing an international money order to send to Julian Assange/Wikileaks to help with his legal defense fund now that he is the target of a 'rape' investigation, conventiently timed with all of these recent releases of confidential documents online. Here is a link to where you can send it;

http://213.251.145.96/support.html

I know this is more work and inconvenience for most of you who like to post online and rant and rave (like I do...lol) but perhaps, you will consider that in the long run, this is worth the effort ...and the inconvenience.

I did it and so can you ..pass it along to your friends. If you feel the need to explain to Paypal why you are closing your account (which is optional by the way), then perhaps, my example will be of help. I simply checked off "other' in their long lists of 'whys' and then below wrote 'Wikileaks.' In the box below where they ask for a more extended explaination, this is what I wrote;

"Any corporation that thinks it can undercut the will of The People to support those they chose worthy of that support by refusing service to that individual or organization, Wikileaks in this case, does not than deserve the customers it would thus undermine.

If that is a little too complicated for you to understand than try this;

FUCK YOU."

(Of course, you don't have to add the 'fuck you' unless you feel like it ...lol)

I hope you all reading this will join me. Time to put our money where our mouths are, don't you think? If not now; then when?

Pro Liberate!

-OSR

OneSmartRat's picture
OneSmartRat
Joined:
Jun. 15, 2010 10:10 am

Comments

Unsafe at any speed becomes untrue at any (baud) rate.

People (real breathing ones) could also show their support for Wikileaks by abstaining from Amazon - since they also showed their preference for abuse of power and censorship [censorchip?] over freedom of speech by discontinuing carrying Wikileak on their servers.

Can we return all the things we've bought on Amazon.com over the years (because they supported Wikileaks) since they've now betrayed that trust?

Rodger97321's picture
Rodger97321
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Although I do not agree with all I have read above, I have closed Paypal and filed to close (they require a 7 day wait) my ebay account. Call 8882211161 (USA toll free number) and then leave a personal voice mail message with Tiffany Zaporowski, Strategic Risk Operations. 1-402-935-2238

AlaskaEMwave's picture
AlaskaEMwave
Joined:
Dec. 5, 2010 3:18 pm
Quote Rodger97321:

Unsafe at any speed becomes untrue at any (baud) rate.

People (real breathing ones) could also show their support for Wikileaks by abstaining from Amazon - since they also showed their preference for abuse of power and censorship [censorchip?] over freedom of speech by discontinuing carrying Wikileak on their servers.

Can we return all the things we've bought on Amazon.com over the years (because they supported Wikileaks) since they've now betrayed that trust?

Well you are certainly free to boycott Amazon, However, closing your Paypal account if you have one will send a mesage loud and clear not just to Paypal but Amazon as well. We must make an example of what happens when Free Speech is intentionally stiffled but those who would take our money while simutaneously undercutting our ability to get information in spite of the Corptocracy attempting to keep it from us and to persecute those who deliver it to us. This unprecedented censorship may taking place right now online, but don't doubt those in all other modalities of media are paying close attention.

If 'We The People' is ever going to means anything again, now is the time to let them know, We too, have power and that power is in the money we give them and that money ...or rather the witholding of it ... is our most powerful and effective voice.

Pro Liberate!

-OSR

OneSmartRat's picture
OneSmartRat
Joined:
Jun. 15, 2010 10:10 am
Quote AlaskaEMwave:

Although I do not agree with all I have read above, I have closed Paypal and filed to close (they require a 7 day wait) my ebay account. Call 8882211161 (USA toll free number) and then leave a personal voice mail message with Tiffany Zaporowski, Strategic Risk Operations. 1-402-935-2238

Well, thank you, AlaskaEMwave for the courage of your convictions and the integrity to carry them out. Cudos to you!

And its pefectly okay by me you don't agree with me on all counts. We have a common interest and we realize that something of great importance is happening here; that is all that really matters in the end, isn't it?

And thanks for including the Paypal contact info.

Pro Liberate!

-OSR

OneSmartRat's picture
OneSmartRat
Joined:
Jun. 15, 2010 10:10 am

Although they are now denying it, it is important to know that this story went out over the weekend national news wire and is stil posted at this link:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/04/state-department-to-colum_n_792059.html

Now, officials within YOUR government are actually threatening people's future careers for either reading and or discussing or cirrculating the Wikileaks information on the Diplomatic Cables (or probably anyhitng else related to Wikileaks for that matter!)

This is crucial to recognize that Joseph Lieberman is not a rogue element in all this and that your State Department and subsequently the Obama White House is most assuredly not on YOUR side either when it comes to Free uncensored SPEECH and any other information online or else where for that matter that threatens to reveal their corruptness and their LYING to you about everything including but not limited to 'rendition' (AKA kidapping), unlawful detention (Guantanamo Bagram and ...other more secret sites) torture, TORTURE! illegal warfare, tapping your phones, assaulting your Fourteenth Amendment rights at the airports. now a full frontal assault on your First Ammendment and that of a FREE PRESS unhindered by government censorship and oppressive tactics.

And what are YOUR Elected officials in Congress doing about all this trampeling of YOUR Biil Of Rights and YOUR Consittution?

Oh that's right, they are too busy "censoring" an old man (Charles Rangel) who has been in public service for almost ffity years for using some of his 'office' stationary for personal use and perhaps fudging on his income tax form ...gee, who of any of us hasn't ever been guilty of doing any of that?. Riiiight, that's really important to defending "democracy" in our ALL BUT LOST REPUBLIC right now.

"The limits of the power of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress."

-Frederick Douglass

Pro Liberate!

-OSR

OneSmartRat's picture
OneSmartRat
Joined:
Jun. 15, 2010 10:10 am

OSR,Wikileaks have my full support,but cp is sick in the head,it is "flag offensive". If we could only delete the rulers so easy.

tayl44's picture
tayl44
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Federal Government, American Constitutional Crisis

"Let the eye of vigilance never be closed."

-Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1821.

Daniel Ellsberg is a former U.S. Marine and military analyst who precipitated a constitutional crisis in 1971 when he released the "Pentagon Papers." The papers comprised the U.S. military's account of theater activities during the Vietnam War. Ellsberg released top secret documents to The New York Times. His release of the Pentagon Papers succeeded in substantially eroding public support for the Vietnam War. A succession of related events, including Watergate, eventually led to President Richard M. Nixon's resignation.

The Pentagon Papers were mostly an indictment of the Democratic administration of Lyndon B. Johnson, but they fed the Nixon administration's preoccupation with finding information and document leakers. They eventually led to the secret White House "Plumbers" group and then to Watergate. In its turn, Watergate led to the first resignation of an American president, Richard M. Nixon. The Pentagon Papers contained plans to invade Vietnam, even though President Johnson had told the public that he had no intention to stage an invasion.

Ellsberg, born April 7, 1931, grew up in Detroit, Michigan, and attended Cranbrook School, followed by Harvard University. He graduated with a Ph.D. in economics in 1959, in which he described a paradox in decision theory now known as the "Ellsberg Paradox." He served as a company commander in the Marine Corps for two years and then became an analyst at the Rand Corporation. A committed Cold War warrior, he served in the Pentagon in 1964 under Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara. He then served for two years in Vietnam as a civilian in the State Department, and became convinced that the Vietnam War was unwinnable.

Ellsberg believed there was a consensus in the Defense and State departments that the United States had no realistic chance of victory in Vietnam, but that political considerations prevented them from saying so publicly. McNamara and others continued to state in press interviews that victory was "just around the corner." As the war continued to worsen, Ellsberg became deeply disillusioned.

Working again at Rand, Ellsberg managed to procure, photocopy, then return a large number of classified or top-secret papers regarding the conduct of the war. They revealed the knowledge, early on, that the war would not likely be won and that continuing the war would lead to many times more casualties than was admitted publicly. Further, the papers showed a deep cynicism by the military towards the public and a disregard for the loss of life and injury suffered by soldiers and civilians.

Ellsberg knew that releasing that information would most likely result in his conviction and a sentence of many years in prison. Throughout 1970, Ellsberg covertly attempted to convince a few sympathetic senators, (among them J. William Fulbright, who refused to break the law), that he should release the Pentagon Papers on the Senate floor, because a Senator cannot be prosecuted for anything he says on record before the Senate. No senator was willing to do so.

Finally, Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon Papers to the Times. On June 13, 1971, the paper began to publish the first installment of the 7,000 page document. For 15 days, the Times was prevented from publishing its articles on the orders of the Nixon administration. However, the Supreme Court ordered publication to resume freely. Although the Times did not reveal the source of the leak, Ellsberg knew that the FBI would soon determine that he was the source of the leak. Ellsberg went underground, living secretly among like-minded people. He was not caught by the FBI, even though they were under enormous pressure from the Nixon Administration to find him.

The release of those papers was politically embarrassing, not only to the incumbent Nixon Administration, but also to the previous Johnson and Kennedy administrations. Nixon's attorney general John Mitchell almost immediately issued a telegram to the Times, ordering it to halt publication. The paper refused, then the government brought suit against them. Although the Times eventually won the case before the Supreme Court, an appellate court ordered that the paper temporarily halt further publication. That was the first attempt in American history by the federal government to restrain the publication of a newspaper. Ellsberg released the Pentagon Papers to other newspapers in rapid succession, making it clear to the government that they would have to obtain injunctions against every newspaper in the country to stop the story.

President Nixon made discrediting Ellsberg a high priority. Nixon's Oval Office tape from June 14, 1971, reveals H.R. Haldeman describing the situation to Nixon:

"To the ordinary guy, all this is a bunch of gobbledygook. But out of the gobbledygook comes a very clear thing: You can't trust the government; you can't believe what they say; and you can't rely on their judgment. And the implicit infallibility of presidents, which has been an accepted thing in America, is badly hurt by this, because it shows that people do things the president wants to do even though it's wrong, and the president can be wrong."

On June 28, 1971, Ellsberg publicly surrendered at the U.S. Attorney's Office in Boston. He was taken into custody believing he would spend the rest of his life in prison; he was charged with theft, conspiracy, and espionage.

In one of Nixon's actions against Ellsberg, G. Gordon Liddy and E. Howard Hunt broke into Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office in September 1971, hoping to find information they could use to discredit him. The revelation of the break-in became part of the Watergate scandal. On May 3, 1972, the White House secretly flew a dozen Cuban CIA "assets" (commandos), to Washington, D.C., with orders to assault or assassinate Ellsberg. They backed out because the crowd was too large.

Because of the gross governmental misconduct, all charges against Ellsberg were eventually dropped, a president eventually resigned, and a large segment of the American populace became disenfranchised and alienated from their government at all levels.

Ellsberg has continued as a political activist. Recently he provoked criticism from the George W. Bush Administration for praising whistleblower* Katharine Gun, a former British Inteligence employee, and calling on others to leak any other information that reveals alleged deception regarding the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Ellsberg currently serves as a senior research associate at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Center for International Studies.

The latest and a most signifigant development in this saga has been the revelation in June 2005, 34 years hence, of the identity of the Watergate "Deep Throat" informant. In June 2005 91-year-old Mark Felt, a former associate director of the FBI, confirmed that he is Deep Throat.

The former television mystery, "The X-Files," had roots in the true saga of the Pentagon Papers and Watergate. The X-Files is fictional entertainment based upon the proposition that the truth is out there, but it may not be revealed by government before some alienated loner, out of a sense of moral justice, reveals embarrassing facts hidden from public scrutiny. One person can make a difference.

"There [are moments] in which the aid of an able pen [is] important to place things in their just attitude."

-Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1798.

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1871.html

The past repeats itself, yet we learn nothing.

Or have we?

Pro Liberate!

-OSR

OneSmartRat's picture
OneSmartRat
Joined:
Jun. 15, 2010 10:10 am

I'm sorry. I read the original post twice and I still can't find it. Why is it being suggested that Paypal accounts be closed? Was their some link between them and wikileaks?

Paleo-con
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Paleo-con:

I'm sorry. I read the original post twice and I still can't find it. Why is it being suggested that Paypal accounts be closed? Was their some link between them and wikileaks?

Yes. PayPal gave in to pressure to stop service to Wikileaks, thus incapiciating the public to be able to help send them support. Amazon also dropped them from service due to pressure allegedly from Joseph Lieberman. It is all in the thread post here and links provided to newspaper reports; not sure why you couldn't 'find it' after reading it twice.

The information on Paypal and Amazon is contained within the links; did you read any of the links?

?

Pro Liberate!

-OSR

OneSmartRat's picture
OneSmartRat
Joined:
Jun. 15, 2010 10:10 am
Quote OneSmartRat:

Yes. PayPal gave in to pressure to stop service to Wikileaks, thus incapiciating the public to be able to help send them support. Amazon also dropped them from service due to pressure allegedly from Joseph Lieberman. It is all in the thread post here and links provided to newspaper reports; not sure why you couldn't 'find it' after reading it twice.

The information on Paypal and Amazon is contained within the links; did you read any of the links?

?

Pro Liberate!

-OSR

Nope, I didn't see the information in the text of the post, thanks for info. I usually just ignore links for non-credible leftist sites like the guardian, dailykos, huffington, etc, so no, I didn't follow them.

Anyway, having gone to the links this time, I don't see what PayPal or Amazon has done wrong. Why in the world would they jeopardize their ability to do legitimate business in order to aid a criminal's activity? Good for them for taking such quick action. I hope the CIA is able to subpoena banking information from those sites in order to help track Assange down and anyone who tries to help him.

On the other hand, I join you in being critical of Lieberman. This is yet another example of why the government should never be given authority over the Internet. I can't understand why Net Neutrality supporters don't see these kinds of things the government would do as dangerous towards a free and open Internet.

Paleo-con
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Paleo-con:
Quote OneSmartRat:

Yes. PayPal gave in to pressure to stop service to Wikileaks, thus incapiciating the public to be able to help send them support. Amazon also dropped them from service due to pressure allegedly from Joseph Lieberman. It is all in the thread post here and links provided to newspaper reports; not sure why you couldn't 'find it' after reading it twice.

The information on Paypal and Amazon is contained within the links; did you read any of the links?

?

Pro Liberate!

-OSR

Nope, I didn't see the information in the text of the post, thanks for info. I usually just ignore links for non-credible leftist sites like the guardian, dailykos, huffington, etc, so no, I didn't follow them.

Anyway, having gone to the links this time, I don't see what PayPal or Amazon has done wrong. Why in the world would they jeopardize their ability to do legitimate business in order to aid a criminal's activity? Good for them for taking such quick action. I hope the CIA is able to subpoena banking information from those sites in order to help track Assange down and anyone who tries to help him.

On the other hand, I join you in being critical of Lieberman. This is yet another example of why the government should never be given authority over the Internet. I can't understand why Net Neutrality supporters don't see these kinds of things the government would do as dangerous towards a free and open Internet.

Well, since Julian Assange has not been convicted of anything, the characterization of him as a 'criminal' is nothing more than malicious slander.

But of course, the Powers-That-Be called Daniel Ellsburg a criminal as well ...so I guess Assange is in good company.

You obviously agree with the National Security State. Good luck with them if ever YOU are deemd a 'criminal' for expressing views or revealing information that they deem a 'national security" threat in order to protect their criminal operations and their treasonous activity.

PayPal and Amazon are complicit in the agenda to curtail FREEDOM of the PRESS and FREE SPEECH and should be put out of business by the very people they are conspiring to help oppress; The American People.

One wonder when they will begin as massive a manhunt for Carl Rove and Dick Cheney as they have for the journalist Assange, for their treasonous and criminal behavior in the outing of Valerie Plame which was a genuine threat to our true 'national security.'?

I guess 'when hell freezes over' might be the appropriate response to that question.

Pro Liberate!

-OSR

OneSmartRat's picture
OneSmartRat
Joined:
Jun. 15, 2010 10:10 am

Well, I know better than to purposely open anything that contains the secret documents so perhaps you could tell me. What was exposed that qualifies as criminal operations and treasonous activity?

You seem to lack a sense of nuance. Agreeing to putting a stop to Assange's illegal activities does not place one at the opposite end of the scale. I do not support an all knowing, dominating, and intrusive form of government.

The Rove/Chaney part was some good humor, thanks. The word "criminal" has more than one meaning. So accusing me of malicious slander just indicates that you took the liberty of selecting the one meaning that doesn't apply. But here is the humor part...

One wonder when they will begin as massive a manhunt for Carl Rove and Dick Cheney as they have for the journalist Assange, for their treasonous and criminal behavior in the outing of Valerie Plame which was a genuine threat to our true 'national security.'?

Rove and Cheney have had their days in courts, all the way to the SCOTUS, and have been found innocent of any wrong doing in the Plame case. Here's the funny part; you used the term "criminal" on them even though they have been convicted of nothing. Well, I thought it was funny anyway.

Paleo-con
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I've cancelled my paypal account and I will not longer purchase anything from Amazon or Ebay. The comment above that states that once you cancel your paypal account, you won't be able to open another account, is untrue. Paypal is always salivating for your business. So if they open a new account for wikileaks, I may consider reopening the account, but I probably won't because I really don't want to purchase anything but food and medicine from now on. I have more than enough and so do most US citizens.

Elizabeth Faraone's picture
Elizabeth Faraone
Joined:
Dec. 6, 2010 3:06 pm

Thanks, OneSmartRat, for that answer. Have you seen these You Tubes of Julian and other journalists: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juWRddv-cgk

It describes what these incredible journalists have been doing in order to get the truth to the public and they really are amazing. We should all be using Julian Assange as a role model for our children.

Elizabeth Faraone's picture
Elizabeth Faraone
Joined:
Dec. 6, 2010 3:06 pm
Quote Elizabeth Faraone:

I've cancelled my paypal account and I will not longer purchase anything from Amazon or Ebay. The comment above that states that once you cancel your paypal account, you won't be able to open another account, is untrue. Paypal is always salivating for your business. So if they open a new account for wikileaks, I may consider reopening the account, but I probably won't because I really don't want to purchase anything but food and medicine from now on. I have more than enough and so do most US citizens.

The comment above that states that once you cancel your paypal account, you won't be able to open another account, is untrue.

Well, whether it is true or not I don't know, but that is what it says on their website when you are chosing to close your account.

Thanks for supporting Wikileaks and having the guts to act on your beliefs.

Pro Liberate!

-OSR

OneSmartRat's picture
OneSmartRat
Joined:
Jun. 15, 2010 10:10 am
Quote Paleo-con:

Well, I know better than to purposely open anything that contains the secret documents so perhaps you could tell me. What was exposed that qualifies as criminal operations and treasonous activity?

You seem to lack a sense of nuance. Agreeing to putting a stop to Assange's illegal activities does not place one at the opposite end of the scale. I do not support an all knowing, dominating, and intrusive form of government.

The Rove/Chaney part was some good humor, thanks. The word "criminal" has more than one meaning. So accusing me of malicious slander just indicates that you took the liberty of selecting the one meaning that doesn't apply. But here is the humor part...

One wonder when they will begin as massive a manhunt for Carl Rove and Dick Cheney as they have for the journalist Assange, for their treasonous and criminal behavior in the outing of Valerie Plame which was a genuine threat to our true 'national security.'?

Rove and Cheney have had their days in courts, all the way to the SCOTUS, and have been found innocent of any wrong doing in the Plame case. Here's the funny part; you used the term "criminal" on them even though they have been convicted of nothing. Well, I thought it was funny anyway.

Rove and Cheney have had their days in courts, all the way to the SCOTUS, and have been found innocent of any wrong doing in the Plame case. Here's the funny part; you used the term "criminal" on them even though they have been convicted of nothing. Well, I thought it was funny anyway.

You are a liar. Carl Rove and Dick Cheney have never been criminally prosecuted for the outing of Valerie Plame. I "Scooter" Libby was indicted and convicted of obstructing justice and perjury and was later 'pardoned' by that little raftfink Bush Jr.

To this day no one except Libby has been brought up on criminal charges of outing an undercover CIA officer named Valerie Plame.

Beginning in or about January 2004, and continuing until the date of this indictment, Grand Jury 03-3 sitting in the District of Columbia conducted an investigation ("the Grand Jury Investigation") into possible violations of federal criminal laws, including: Title 50, United States Code, Section 421 (disclosure of the identity of covert intelligence personnel); and Title 18, United States Code, Sections 793 (improper disclosure of national defense information), 1001 (false statements), 1503 (obstruction of justice), and 1623 (perjury). A major focus of the Grand Jury Investigation was to determine which government officials had disclosed to the media prior to July 14, 2003, information concerning the affiliation of Valerie Wilson with the CIA, and the nature, timing, extent, and purpose of such disclosures, as well as whether any official making such a disclosure did so knowing that the employment of Valerie Wilson by the CIA was classified information.[70]

According to Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, Libby first learned of Valerie Wilson's employment at the CIA in early June 2003 from Vice President Dick Cheney and proceeded to discuss her with six other government officials in the following days and months before disclosing her name to reporters Judith Miller and Matthew Cooper in early July 2003. Fitzgerald asserts that Vice President Cheney told Libby about Mrs. Wilson's CIA employment as the two crafted a response to an inquiry about Wilson's trip from reporter Walter Pincus. While her name was not disclosed to Pincus, Fitzgerald asserts that Pincus's inquiry "further motivated [Libby] to counter Mr. Wilson’s assertions, making it more likely that [Libby's] disclosures to the press concerning Mr. Wilson's wife were not casual disclosures that he had forgotten by the time he was asked about them by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and before the grand jury."[87]

Libby does not dispute that he initially heard about Mrs. Wilson from Cheney, but he claims that he had no recollection of that fact when he told the FBI in October 2003 and the grand jury in March 2004 that he remembered first learning about Mrs. Wilson in a conversation with NBC’s Tim Russert on July 10, 2003.

In July 2005, it was revealed that Rove was Novak's second Bush administration source.[66]

In his grand jury testimony, Karl Rove testified he learned of Plame's CIA affiliation from journalists and not from government officials. Rove testified that Novak called him in July 2003 to discuss a story unrelated to Plame or Wilson. Eventually, according to Rove, Novak told him he planned to report in an upcoming column that Plame worked for the CIA. Rove told the grand jury that by the time Novak had called him, he had already learned of Plame from other reporters, but that he could not recall which reporters had told him. When Novak inquired about Wilson's wife working for the CIA, Rove indicated he had heard something like that, according to the source's recounting of the grand jury testimony for the Associated Press. Rove told the grand jury that three days later, he had a phone conversation with Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper and, in an effort to discredit some of Wilson's allegations, informally told Cooper that he believed Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, though he never used her name. Rove also testified to the grand jury that he had heard from Libby that Plame worked for the CIA. Rove testified that Libby told him that he heard the information from journalists.[67][68]

The indictment of Libby states: "On or about July 10 or July 11, 2003, LIBBY spoke to a senior official in the White House ("Official A") who advised LIBBY of a conversation Official A had earlier that week with columnist Robert Novak in which Wilson’s wife was discussed as a CIA employee involved in Wilson’s trip. LIBBY was advised by Official A that Novak would be writing a story about Wilson’s wife." Though never confirmed by Fitzgerald, it has been reported that Rove was "Official A."[69][70]

Shortly after the publication of Novak's article, Rove also reportedly called Chris Matthews and told him off the record that "Wilson's wife is fair game."

Fair game.

Dispicable and treasonous.

And you defend these rat-bastards and lie about them being "found innocent" in a court of law and call Julian Assange a criminal? What a putz!

Pro Liberate!

-OSR

OneSmartRat's picture
OneSmartRat
Joined:
Jun. 15, 2010 10:10 am

Your right. The personal attacks and name calling indicate what a powerful argument you have. Such a true master of debate that you are might have cut and paste just a few more lines...

Main article: Plame v. Cheney Appeal

The Wilsons have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear their appeal of the U.S. Court of Appeals ruling. On May 20, 2009, the Justice Department, in a brief filed by Solicitor General Elena Kagan, Assistant Attorney General Tony West, and Justice Department attorneys Mark B. Stern and Charles W. Scarborough, took the position that, "The decision of the court of appeals is correct and does not conflict with any decision of this Court or any other court of appeals,...Further review is unwarranted."

We could do that all day. You can selectively snip stuff, I can point out what you left out. By the way, Rove was also named in the Plame v Cheney case. Both were in court, and both were found innocent. See, no lies after all. No need for such anger.

Here is the point I was trying to gently make to no avail. You proclaimed that I was malicious for using the word criminal on Assange's behalf when he was not convicted of anything. Yet you use the word criminal on Rove and Cheney even though they have not been convicted of anything. Hypocrisy? No, I don't think so. I believe that you actually believe the stuff you say. Hypocrites do their thing on purpose.

Paleo-con
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Paleo-con:

Your right. The personal attacks and name calling indicate what a powerful argument you have. Such a true master of debate that you are might have cut and paste just a few more lines...

Main article: Plame v. Cheney Appeal

The Wilsons have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear their appeal of the U.S. Court of Appeals ruling. On May 20, 2009, the Justice Department, in a brief filed by Solicitor General Elena Kagan, Assistant Attorney General Tony West, and Justice Department attorneys Mark B. Stern and Charles W. Scarborough, took the position that, "The decision of the court of appeals is correct and does not conflict with any decision of this Court or any other court of appeals,...Further review is unwarranted."

We could do that all day. You can selectively snip stuff, I can point out what you left out. By the way, Rove was also named in the Plame v Cheney case. Both were in court, and both were found innocent. See, no lies after all. No need for such anger.

Here is the point I was trying to gently make to no avail. You proclaimed that I was malicious for using the word criminal on Assange's behalf when he was not convicted of anything. Yet you use the word criminal on Rove and Cheney even though they have not been convicted of anything. Hypocrisy? No, I don't think so. I believe that you actually believe the stuff you say. Hypocrites do their thing on purpose.

You have attempted your duplicitous BS with the wrong person. Your word-twisting truth-bending mind-f 'ing crap will not work on this poster.

Plame v Cheney is NOT a CRIMINAL case; it is a CIVIL case, as you know very well.

You used a term that is ONLY used in CRIMINAL cases ...I imagine deliberately in order to convince people of the lies you are telling to exonerate in the public's mind the evil that Karl Rove and that bastard Dick Cheney did in outing Valerie Plame. BY using the phrase they have been 'found innocent' you are trying to get people to think that they had been tried in a CRIMINAL court ...liar is precisely the the word for what you are doing. That is not a "personal attack"; it is a statement of fact which I have clearly proven.

A CIVIL LAWSUIT is not a CRIMINAL CASE and the language used is therefore NOT at all anything like what you have attempted to convey here. In a CIVIL case, as I am sure you know since you are sooooo smart, the terminology is that the case is either decided 'in favor of the plaintiff' or 'for the defendent'. A civil case does not have the same standard as a CRIMINAL case and whatever the ruling is, it does not mean that the individuals being sued are not guilty of a crime whether or not they are held liable or not held liable in a civil case. Only in a CRIMINAL case can someone be "found innocent of all charges."

And by the way, my cut and paste had nothing to do with you; it was to help people reading this who may not be familiar with what we are referring to in order for them to see directly that your statement was, and still is a LIE.

As I will do here for their edification. As for the rest. you would appear to be the "hypocrite" since you feel free to bandy about the term "CRIMINAL" when it comes ot Assange, but oh, it's not okay for me to use the same term, I guess; a term I was using as a sarcastic 'mimic' to your use of it because you chose to use it first on a truly innocent man who is basically a hero being persecuted by the same kind of heinous evil bastards you seem so willing to tell lies in defense of here.

Nice try though, now go try and bully someone else with your BS. You will get no quarter here and here you are most certainly outmatched.

Now ...Viya con Dios ...'pal'!

Pro Liberate!

OSR

On the matter of the Pentagon Papers and Daniel Ellsburg and the Supreme Court decision in favor of the New York Times who published the 'Pentagon Papers' given to them by Daniel Ellsburg; Times v. United States:

Prior to publication, the New York Times sought legal advice. The paper's regular outside counsel, Lord Day & Lord, advised against publication,[3] but house counsel James Goodale prevailed with his argument that the press had a First Amendment right to publish information significant to the people's understanding of their government's policy.

President Nixon's first reaction to the publication was that since the study embarrassed the Johnson and Kennedy administrations, not his, he should do nothing. However, Kissinger convinced the president that not opposing publication set a negative precedent for future secrets.[3] The administration argued Ellsberg and Russo were guilty of felony treason under the Espionage Act of 1917, because they had no authority to publish classified documents.[13] After failing to persuade the Times to voluntarily cease publication on June 14,[3] Attorney General John N. Mitchell and Nixon obtained a federal court injunction forcing the Times to cease publication after three articles.[3] Times publisher Arthur Ochs Sulzberger said:

Newspapers, as our editorial said this morning, we're really a part of history that should have been made available, considerably longer ago. I just didn't feel there was any breach of national security, in the sense that we were giving secrets to the enemy.[14]

The newspaper appealed the injunction, and the case New York Times Co. v. United States (403 U.S. 713) quickly rose through the U.S. legal system to the Supreme Court.[15]

On June 18, 1971, the Washington Post began publishing its own series of articles based upon the Pentagon Papers;[3] Ellsberg gave portions to editor Ben Bradlee. That day, Assistant U.S. Attorney General William Rehnquist asked the paper to cease publication. After it refused, Rehnquist unsuccessfully sought an injunction at a U.S. district court. The government appealed that decision and on June 26, the Supreme Court agreed to hear it jointly with the New York Times case.[15] 15 other newspapers received copies of the study and began publishing it.[3]

On June 30, 1971, the Supreme Court decided, 6–3, that the government failed to meet the heavy burden of proof required for prior restraint injunction. The nine justices wrote nine opinions disagreeing on significant, substantive matters.

Thomas Tedford and Dale Herbeck summarize the reaction of editors and journalists at the time:

As the press rooms of the Times and the Post began to hum to the lifting of the censorship order, the journalists of America pondered with grave concern the fact that for fifteen days the 'free press' of the nation had been prevented from publishing an important document and for their troubles had been given an inconclusive and uninspiring 'burden-of-proof' decision by a sharply divided Supreme Court. There was relief, but no great rejoicing, in the editorial offices of America's publishers and broadcasters.—Tedford and Herbeck, pp. 225–226.[16]

Ellsberg surrendered to authorities in Boston and admitted that he had given the papers to the press. He was later indicted on charges of stealing and holding secret documents by a grand jury in Los Angeles.[8] Federal District Judge Byrne declared a mistrial and dismissed all charges against Ellsberg [and Russo] on May 11, 1973, after several irregularities appeared in the government's case, including its claim that it had lost records of illegal wiretapping against Ellsberg conducted by the White House Plumbers in the contemporaneous Watergate scandal.[3] Byrne ruled: "The totality of the circumstances of this case which I have only briefly sketched offend a sense of justice. The bizarre events have incurably infected the prosecution of this case."

"I felt that as an American citizen, as a responsible citizen, I could no longer cooperate in concealing this information from the American public. I did this clearly at my own jeopardy and I am prepared to answer to all the consequences of this decision." — Ellsberg on why he released the Pentagon Papers to the press.[8

OneSmartRat's picture
OneSmartRat
Joined:
Jun. 15, 2010 10:10 am

Poor OSR. I said they had their day in court, you said they didn't, I gave proof, and you added caveats after the fact, sigh... We can tell you’re flustered, and as you are clearly out of your league, I'll let it go. When you are prepared to simply state what crimes Cheney and Rove have been convicted of, I'll listen. No need for the 1000 word rambles, just a simple court case will do. I can do my own homework.

Assange is innocent? When was the trial? I will give Assange some credit for having the decency to block out the names of people who might be harmed by his releases; but hero, not hardly.

Paleo-con
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Currently Chatting

A Carbon Tax is Absolutely Essential

So, what do a major investment from Verizon Wireless and the melting of our polar ice caps have in common? A lot more than you may think. On Monday, America’s largest wireless provider announced that it will be making a $40 million investment in solar power at eight of its facilities across the United States.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system