Visa Blocks Funds for WikiLeaks Again

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Visa is still blocking payments to Wikileaks and, as you can imagine, Wikileaks is still complaining about it. Here's my question...if Visa is blocking you, why continue trying to use them?

Visa and MasterCard were two of several financial and Internet service companies that severed ties to WikiLeaks following its disclosure of thousands of confidential U.S. documents. WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange claims the 7-month-long blockade has cost his online group millions.
 
And WikiLeaks has allegedly cost some informants and soldiers their lives. If true, Assange can go cry a river.
 
with those stuff leaked, imo it will definitely cost someone alot, honestly i don't like them,lol
 
Do you have proof of this?

Even if not allegedly, he leaked a lot of confidential documents detailing informations of CI's (ie where they lived, who they are) that reported to NATO forces on activities of the Taliban. Assange went "Whoops" and was willing to start "filtering out" (never) people named that might lose their lives. It's akin to leaking CI's of the United States government, LEO's, etc or even people in the WITSEC program.
 
There are some things that should stay classified. Some examples would be informants, defense programs, and operation specifics.
 
Its unfortunate that leaked information cost people their lives. Still tho I wish the government was more transparent.
 
And WikiLeaks has allegedly cost some informants and soldiers their lives. If true, Assange can go cry a river.

I truly wish it were that simple. but for myself I have a hard time with it both ways, I am sure that it has cost some people their lives, hard pressed to think that it hasn't. On the the other hand a lot of that crap NEEDED to be brought to light.
 
tumblr_lc3kgc5JBN1qe12lxo1_250.gif


doah
 
I'm still waiting for Ass ange to release something, anything that actually matters as far as whistleblowing is concearned. Other than possible get some CI's murdered and some diplomats embarrased, what has he accomplished? No new laws, no prosecutions, no vital secrets exposed, no UFO's, nothing.

It's like running to my bank, stealing all the info and publishing it screaming look at these accounts! This information wants to be free! It might possibly be used to help discover secret incomes, secret transactions, IRS dodgers or some bullshit. When in reality, all it would do is get a bunch of people pissed and their identities stolen.
 
I'm still waiting for Ass ange to release something, anything that actually matters as far as whistleblowing is concearned.

like the video that was released showing US soldiers killing a half dozen unarmed reporters and children in a van. that incident was vaguely reported on, and was origionally played off as "a successful counterterrorism opperation" by the govt before that video was leaked. we finally got to see what actually happened and to decide for ourselves, and they finally admited (though nothing useful happend about it) that they killed unarmed civilians.

or the documents leaked from iceland's largest bank, which got a few of the managers thrown in jail for manipilating stock prices and other unethical practices. the people of iceland were so outraged that their government had prevented local media from covering this story that they made laws about it
([ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_Modern_Media_Initiative"]Icelandic Modern Media Initiative - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame])

in 2009 new information about the chemical company traffigura that dumped hazardous waste in africas ivory coast was published on wikileaks. traffigura spent a lot of effort to cover up and prevent news coverage of this. the BBC was forced to remove their report on the incident from their website. wikileaks posted a copy of the article after it was removed from the BBC. they had caused substantial harm to the local population all to save a few bucks on disposal fees.

maybe nothing you find interesting has been leaked, but there has been plenty of newsworthy stories that otherwise would have remain hidden had wikileaks not existed. i dont necessarily agree with assanges' personal actions/attitude in general, but its definately a valuable service to the people of this planet that someone helps expose corruption and unethical practices. there sure is a lot of it going on lately.
 
like the video that was released showing US soldiers killing a half dozen unarmed reporters and children in a van. that incident was vaguely reported on, and was origionally played off as "a successful counterterrorism opperation" by the govt before that video was leaked. we finally got to see what actually happened and to decide for ourselves, and they finally admited (though nothing useful happend about it) that they killed unarmed civilians.
You're talking about the video that was released in April of 10? That was an armed group with clear weapons on themselves. Even the cameramen's camera has records of humvee pictures being taken where they were pointing their fucking camera at a convoy which you can see the picture record in the Investigative Report on page 43 which proves that there was a convoy nearby.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPZcr7-vDh4&feature=player_embedded"]YouTube - ‪RPG and AK-47 clearly seen on Reuters Wikileaks clip‬‏[/ame]
That shot right there is a clear example of an AK-47 and an RPG in that person's arm. Especially all vehicles who assists in groups that are engaged upon are also open game. Those children did not die but rather they lived after the US Soldiers approaching the van found out there were children.

Assange skewed that story big time by inserting his own bias and nonetheless the report from that incident shows that there was no foul play by the US military.
Julian Assange, a WikiLeaks editor, acknowledged to Fox News in an interview Tuesday evening that "it's likely some of the individuals seen in the video were carrying weapons."

Assange said his suspicions about the weapons were so strong that a draft version of the video they produced made specific reference to the AK-47s and RPGs. Ultimately, Assange said, WikiLeaks became "unsure" about the weapons. He claimed the RPG could have been a camera tripod, so editors decided not to point it out.
But it was not a camera tripod evident by this
iraqmassacreweaponsclea.gif


Crazyhorse 1/8 was justified in the engagement since there were US military nearby on the ground which they were in pursuit of a group (which happened to be the one in the incident) that were taking potshots at them. Since you got the uncensored video, you can find that the investigative report will match the exact scene from the video without any "manipulation" should you call foul on.

The investigative report is here
Report

So in otherwords, Assange tried to change the narrative and failed to get anything happening since the military was cleared of any wrongdoing. So the story is that they did not engage unarmed civilians. So what did Assange manage to accomplish on that story? He only got Bradley Manning thrown in jail so I guess that's an accomplishment for finding the dipshit who leaked this video.
 
your response is an excellent example of missing the forest for the trees

here's the entire video for anyone who is actually interested in determining for themselves whether the *entire* ordeal was "justified" or if in fact killing civilians (including children) is justifiable for any reason.
http://warisacrime.org/node/51228

that's the danger of "collateral damages" as a narrative construct
 
Umm, they were armed. Was it an accident to kill the children, sure. Did the guys in the helicopter use ESP to divine that children were present? No. Maybe you only saw the heavily edited version? As for Traffigura, wasn't the injunction lifted and the matter brought to public anyways?

I'm not against legit whistleblowing, but I think Wikileaks is pretty fail at it. Their leaks generally cause more harm then benifit so far. They edited the hell out of the chopper video, but coulnd't redact names in the Afghan war logs? Basically it's his personal actions/attitude in general that's de-valuing the service. Basically if you have some legit thing to whistleblow, go somewhere, anywhere else. Openleaks, pastebin from cybercafe, use a pay phone, letter w/o return address, reporter from Timbuktu etc.
 
your response is an excellent example of missing the forest for the trees

here's the entire video for anyone who is actually interested in determining for themselves whether the *entire* ordeal was "justified" or if in fact killing civilians (including children) is justifiable for any reason.
http://warisacrime.org/node/51228

that's the danger of "collateral damages" as a narrative construct

I have watched the entire video and it doesn't show shit. Sure, they did not seem threatening and I did not see any weapons, but as you can see above some people did have them.
 
I have watched the entire video and it doesn't show shit. Sure, they did not seem threatening and I did not see any weapons, but as you can see above some people did have them.
First of all, when did you watch it because you couldn't have watched the entire 40 minute video in the time since I posted it?

I think your second bolded sentence is an example contrary to the first bolded sentence.

The question raised to the public was, at which point do we accept "collateral damages?"

What are they exactly? What are the consequences of defining friendly fire, unarmed civilian deaths, children (who in this specifici case were described as, "it's their fault for being brought to a battle").

Collateral damage as a narrative construct is a dangerous notion, the Canadian friendlies' deaths were an example of that early on and this video was visual evidence toward the end of the conflict.

The debate that merits discussion in the public sphere is whether we want to accept these kinds of deaths as appropriate or necessary, not whether they actually happened. Your responses are similar to burying your head in the sand rather than tackling difficult ethical considerations that an open democracy should have the ability to debate and reach consensus--not be buried by the military that *serves* the People. Don't get it twisted as to who *ought* to be making decisions in this country...that is, if you want a civilian governed democratic nation versus locked down police state.
 
I have watched the entire video and it doesn't show shit. Sure, they did not seem threatening and I did not see any weapons, but as you can see above some people did have them.

Let's see
A) Walking in public view armed with an RPG, RPG ammo, AK-47, moving as a full group, taking potshots at convoys earlier (since they were looking for this particular group until Crazyhorse 1/8 spotted them). If you had actually watched the video instead of saying "I have watched the entire video", you would have spotted all 3 of those items.
B) Pointing camera at passing convoy which can also be construed as aiming an RPG
C) Not identifying one as a reporter or separating themselves from the action but rather taking part in a group

These same reporters did release photos in the past of them snapping pictures of insurgents alongside them similar to the group they were last with. War reporters on the US/Coalition take the risk that they can be KIA and the military is not responsible for them and neither is the other side firing on them.

Time line is basically this
A) Group engages convoy by firing potshots based on investigative reports
B) Crazyhorse 1/8 spots group with weapons and engages w/ authorization. Other Crazyhorse confirms weapons spotted. They also both confirmed that the reporter was pointing something at the convoy which is evident by the pictures taken by the reporter in the investigative report.
C) Van of no relations rescues insurgent which does not fall under Geneva Convention protections since that van is not marked as an ambulance. Asked and authorized to engage.
D) Children found in van and all of them are saved, none of the children died in this specific incident.
E) Reuters requests information, military says no and says action is justified.
F) Bradley Manning finds video and leaks it to Assange
G) Assange heavily edits the video to skew the story to get emotions going
H) Military releases full video and investigative report demonstrating to the contrary of what happened.
 
The question raised to the public was, at which point do we accept "collateral damages?"

the exact point at which our "democracy" decides to go to WAR. nothing about war is pretty, fair or ethical. it's about a group of people getting killed by a bigger group of people because the threat of doing so has not resulted in compliance.
 
the exact point at which our "democracy" decides to go to WAR. nothing about war is pretty, fair or ethical. it's about a group of people getting killed by a bigger group of people because the threat of doing so has not resulted in compliance.
Yes, good point. That's exactly why our Congress must declare "WAR"...however in this case that did not happen if you recall...
 
First of all, when did you watch it because you couldn't have watched the entire 40 minute video in the time since I posted it?

I think your second bolded sentence is an example contrary to the first bolded sentence.

The question raised to the public was, at which point do we accept "collateral damages?"

What are they exactly? What are the consequences of defining friendly fire, unarmed civilian deaths, children (who in this specifici case were described as, "it's their fault for being brought to a battle").

Collateral damage as a narrative construct is a dangerous notion, the Canadian friendlies' deaths were an example of that early on and this video was visual evidence toward the end of the conflict.

The debate that merits discussion in the public sphere is whether we want to accept these kinds of deaths as appropriate or necessary, not whether they actually happened. Your responses are similar to burying your head in the sand rather than tackling difficult ethical considerations that an open democracy should have the ability to debate and reach consensus--not be buried by the military that *serves* the People. Don't get it twisted as to who *ought* to be making decisions in this country...that is, if you want a civilian governed democratic nation versus locked down police state.

Collateral damage is acceptable. Having an honest discussion about it (not editing the video) is also acceptable. The military serves me as well as you, and I'd prefer they handle this stuff, and not publish every thing they do. If your elected congressman comes up with a law requiring all war video taped be public, then we can have a vote. Until then, I think you're in the minority (otherwise this would have been voted on long ago.) For that matter, if you're against the war in general, and in the majority, where are your elected officials?

Lets face it, the majority are lazy. Democracy has spoken, and the word is "delegate." The majority of people want to ignore security, and for a few helicopter pilots to handle it all. That means eggs and omlets. Justice becomes just a little abstract and fuzzy around the edges when you start delegating things. Decisions have to get made with less (inexpensive) recon etc. AKA things are working out just fine. :rolleyes:
 
No, your position is contradicted by the public outrage that occurred when the video and other facts came to light. You can call people lazy and apathetic and whatever other pejorative names, but the fact of the matter is one can not blame the people for not raising an outcry out of things that their government hides from them.

I'm secure in my position that the majority of US citizens do not want a government that conducts itself contrary to our value system. Furthermore, you continue to use the term "war" when in fact this was and is not a war...intentionally not labeled a war. So regardless of your position, your premise is faulty.
 
I'm secure in my position that the majority of US citizens do not want a government that conducts itself contrary to our value system. Furthermore, you continue to use the term "war" when in fact this was and is not a war...intentionally not labeled a war. So regardless of your position, your premise is faulty.

don't kid yourself, any military action where a gun is fired is war. you don't like the result of a huge government but i'm betting you vote for it.
 
don't kid yourself, any military action where a gun is fired is war. you don't like the result of a huge government but i'm betting you vote for it.
I'm nearly awestruck at your wit. I almost didn't understand what you were getting at with this comment :rolleyes: Do you have something substantive to add or are you capped at potshots at what you assume my political affiliation to be?
 
there isn't anything substantive to add. our government is going to do what it wants because it's too big to be controlled. complaining about it on an internet forum won't do any good. if you're going to care about something you can't change, i'd ask that it at least be a problem within our borders. there are plenty of them.
 
There are some things that should stay classified. Some examples would be informants, defense programs, and operation specifics.

When the government demonstrates that it is not capable of using that privledge without abusing it, then they lose it. It takes people like Mr. Asange to insure that loss happens.
 
out of curiosity, what specific incident are you referencing here?

Any and all cases of classification where the purpose is to conceal things from the American People with no serious legitimate reason for it. This was common practice under Bush + Cheney; I don't think it will be to hard for you to find documentation about that if you search.

Anytime you have the combination of money + power + secrecy corruption is a near certainty - what's needed to prevent it is transparency, where you can't have transparency the next best option is oversite by a 3rd party monitoring agency.
 
AMARIKA IS SO GUD, WE NO MAKE MISTAKES SO WICKILEEKS BAD HERP DERP!!

i'm pretty sure that wasn't an rpg, it was a freakin railgun.

also, about alleged threat that informants get killed: wikileaks offered the pentagon to have a look at the dokuments to be released and offered to remove these names. again, they said "HURR DURR".

wikileaks is one possible answer to "who watches the watchers?", a part of executing democracy. nobody would say it's wrong if documents of illegal activity of a corporation get leaked, but if illegal activity of the united states or any government and its institutions are involved then the "patriots" show up. there are whistleblower contacts in large corporations as well and it helps to keep decisions of top management in line with laws and corporate guidelines because there is a big risk that some small gear in the large clockwork will report this to the HQ. it's the same on a larger scale.

now where are those freakin bank documents wikileaks promised?
 
This thread got hijacked fast.

+1 visa and mastercard! still hate you both...
 
Yes, good point. That's exactly why our Congress must declare "WAR"...however in this case that did not happen if you recall...
Declare war? They already did so under the "Authorization to Use Military Force". The War Powers Act changed the way we do things too. The Constitution has no requirement how a declaration of war must be made so AUMF's are perfectly acceptable as long the President notifies Congress of the action within 60 days or the President must withdraw. There is nothing unconstitutional about these actions and you would have a hard time getting the SCOTUS to agree otherwise because Congress already performed their function giving their consent or not.
 
Kaitian: Thanks for posting the info about that incident. I've felt all along that Assange was a crook and doing this for an agenda, and that's some nice hard evidence about how he's used Wikileaks exactly for his own personal political aims. This is why organizations like Wikileaks cannot be trusted. After all, who watches these self-proclaimed watchdogs? Without some kind of oversight and accountability to the public, anything goes. At least Congress can get voted out of office. It's not perfect, but at least pressure can be brought to bear on elected officials.

Now to bring this full circle and back on topic, I'm glad Visa and Mastercard are still blocking transactions to Wikileaks, especially after seeing the above. Perhaps their donors should consider using this old-fashioned tool called a "check book". If they're that serious about this so-called "cause" of theirs they'll certainly be willing to pony up real money, right?
 
AMARIKA IS SO GUD, WE NO MAKE MISTAKES SO WICKILEEKS BAD HERP DERP!!

i'm pretty sure that wasn't an rpg, it was a freakin railgun.

also, about alleged threat that informants get killed: wikileaks offered the pentagon to have a look at the dokuments to be released and offered to remove these names. again, they said "HURR DURR".

wikileaks is one possible answer to "who watches the watchers?", a part of executing democracy. nobody would say it's wrong if documents of illegal activity of a corporation get leaked, but if illegal activity of the united states or any government and its institutions are involved then the "patriots" show up. there are whistleblower contacts in large corporations as well and it helps to keep decisions of top management in line with laws and corporate guidelines because there is a big risk that some small gear in the large clockwork will report this to the HQ. it's the same on a larger scale.

now where are those freakin bank documents wikileaks promised?

What you are saying might be true if it wasnt for the simple fact that Assange skewed everything to fit his own fucking agenda.

Wikileaks is not the answer to anything and the "Patriots" show up because the "whistleblower" is a fuckwad.

Of course the pentagon is not going to go over his documents with him and legitimize what he has... Anyone that thinks that is a good idea is stupid. When someone has confidential information that could seriously hurt people you sure as fuck dont go out of your way to tell them what names are important. HURR DURR

I mean common fucking sense... You work for the pentagon and some fuckstick shows up with a list of confidential informants asking you which ones are OK to publish on the internet and your grand idea is to sit down and do just that??? How do you know this guy is not going to just edit the list to show only the ones the pentagon DONT want shown?? How do you know he wont just post them all any fucking way?

The guy has an agenda thats not in the best interests of the government and you think its a good idea that they trust him?

Im all for more transparency but there is frankly some shit that does not need to see the light of day. I am pretty shocked at how naive some of you are in this thread. This is not some magical fairy tale land. Kids die in war, happens every fucking day but when some fuckwad edits up a video of a shootout where the OTHER SIDE drug kids into it somehow we are monsters? What kind of fucking logic is that? :rolleyes:

We NEED the intelligence agencies in this country and they cannot operate in this magical fairy tale land where there is total transparency. We live in reality where we have enemies and they do not send written notices when they want to kill Americans, we rely on these agencies to stop most of them or at the very least minimize damages and we cant do that without a bit of secrecy. Cant have undercovers or informants in this magical transparent world...

Im not one of these idiots that trusts our government implicitly im just sick of this horribly ignorant notion that everything needs to be made public. Some shit just dont need to be public knowledge, unfortunately along with that need some take advantage and bury shit that should be known. That sure as shit dont mean we need someone like Assange just bringing it all to light.
 
If your biggest problem is that you can't give your money to Julian Assange, you need to get a life. Serioulsy...
 
Back
Top