Support NeoGAF

[KHarvey16]

Kharvey being kharvey again i see. You are not ever going to explain how designating wikileaks a terrorist organisation could possibly happen based on what we know about them now, are you? You are just endlessly going to repeat that "it could happen, who knows" and decide that this is enough to deny them money transfers, arent you?



No, but threatening to set off a bomb in a public area could. Have wikileaks done this yet?

The US considers many of these secrets dangerous in the wrong hands. The very clear potential for people to get hurt exists, that cannot be denied. Threatening the release of such information is threatening to endanger the lives of citizens, soldiers, allies, informants and other collaborators.

 

[Dude Abides]

Recently? And we have reason to believe they are actively pursuing the chance to do so again as soon as possible?

Yes, if you consider a cross-burning terrorism. Do we have reason to believe that Wikileaks is actively pursuing opportunities to commit acts of terrorism? If a company is afraid of some kind of legal exposure because it does business with an organization that the US might label a terrorist organization, then they have just as much reason to cut ties with the Klan as to cut ties with Wikileaks.

 

[jorma]

The US considers many of these secrets dangerous in the wrong hands. The very clear potential for people to get hurt exists, that cannot be denied. Threatening the release of such information is threatening to endanger the lives of citizens, soldiers, allies, informants and other collaborators.

But wikileaks didnt just threaten to publish the documents, they actually published them! They should already be designated a terrorist organisation, together with the guardian and pretty much every news agency on earth. Should not visa stop transfers to the guardian just to be safe if what you say is true?

 

[KHarvey16]

Yes, if you consider a cross-burning terrorism. Do we have reason to believe that Wikileaks is actively pursuing opportunities to commit acts of terrorism? If a company is afraid of some kind of legal exposure because it does business with an organization that the US might label a terrorist organization, then they have just as much reason to cut ties with the Klan as to cut ties with Wikileaks.

I don't think that that is true. If the KKK is considered a violent, terrorizing threat these days that would be news to me. Do you have anything to substantiate that?

Also, as I explained, the US government could easily interpret Assange's threat as an act of terrorism provided they consider the information he could release would put people in more danger than if the information remained classified. It is not a stretch, and I guarantee you a republican white house would pursue action against Wikileaks if they remained.

 

[KHarvey16]

But wikileaks didnt just threaten to publish the documents, they actually published them! They should already be designated a terrorist organisation, together with the guardian and pretty much every news agency on earth. Should not visa stop transfers to the guardian just to be safe if what you say is true?

I'm speaking of the doomsday file, which Assange hopes is an effective deterrent against government action.

 

[Dude Abides]

I don't think that that is true. If the KKK is considered a violent, terrorizing threat these days that would be news to me. Do you have anything to substantiate that?

Also, as I explained, the US government could easily interpret Assange's threat as an act of terrorism provided they consider the information he could release would put people in more danger than if the information remained classified. It is not a stretch, and I guarantee you a republican white house would pursue action against Wikileaks if they remained.

Substantiate what? The fact that the Klan burns crosses?

Here's Charleston designating them a terrorist org:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...,2081194&dq=klan+terrorist-organization&hl=en

Here's an article about a professor trying to get them so-designated in Louisville.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5030023#.Tqczz2snmcs

Anyway, if the fear of legal exposure from associating with an organization that could possibly be designated a terrorist organization was the rationale for Mastercard and Visa refusing to process payments toward Wikileaks, they presumably would have said so, but they didn't.

There's also a huge first amendment problem with designating an organization a terrorist organization simply for publishing information.

 

[JGS]

Describe the current legal process levied against wikileaks and what makes the organisation illegal to donate to please. In what country has this process been initiated? And what sanctions are visa, mastercard and paypal currently facing if they do their job as their customers who wish to donate to wikileaks demand?

That's why I said "I thought."

I'm pretty sure the reason given was legality of their operation. Are you saying that Visa/Mastercard don't have a right to question that until charges are filed? Why on earth would you expect a company to wait until sanctions are placed on them?

Substantiate what? The fact that the Klan burns crosses?

Anyway, if the fear of legal exposure from associating with an organization that could possibly be designated a terrorist organization was the rationale for Mastercard and Visa refusing to process payments toward Wikileaks, they presumably would have said so, but they didn't.

There's also a huge first amendment problem with designating an organization a terrorist organization simply for publishing information.

This is backseat board of directing. If you want the card companies to block payments on KKK, complain to them and see if it works. Better yet, get substantial evidence that donations are going to the goal of building bigger & better burnt crosses for the sake of terrorists acts.

Wikileaks purpose in life was to take stolen documents (Adjectives are important) and publishing them. That makes sense considering there's not much point leaking CNN video feeds. They then having the nerve to actively pursue a high profile status. Morons.

 

[KHarvey16]

Substantiate what? The fact that the Klan burns crosses?

Here's Charleston designating them a terrorist org:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...,2081194&dq=klan+terrorist-organization&hl=en

Here's an article about a professor trying to get them so-designated in Louisville.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5030023#.Tqczz2snmcs

Anyway, if the fear of legal exposure from associating with an organization that could possibly be designated a terrorist organization was the rationale for Mastercard and Visa refusing to process payments toward Wikileaks, they presumably would have said so, but they didn't.

There's also a huge first amendment problem with designating an organization a terrorist organization simply for publishing information.

Recruiting to obtain and/or soliciting classified information and then publishing it would not qualify as protected speech, and Wikileaks role in the acquisition of the information is an on going investigation.

 

[Dude Abides]

Recruiting to obtain and/or soliciting classified information and then publishing it would not qualify as protected speech, and Wikileaks role in the acquisition of the information is an on going investigation.

Perhaps. It would depend on the details, but it isn't terrorism either. What statute do you think could establish Wikileaks as a terrorist organization such that any entity that did business with them would be exposed to liability?

 

[KHarvey16]

Perhaps. It would depend on the details, but it isn't terrorism either. What statute do you think could establish Wikileaks as a terrorist organization such that any entity that did business with them would be exposed to liability?

Perhaps this could apply. As I said earlier though, being deemed a terrorist organization is just one possibility. In the end I don't think any company is obligated to do business with anyone provided they aren't discriminating against a protected class.

 

[jorma]

Perhaps this could apply. As I said earlier though, being deemed a terrorist organization is just one possibility. In the end I don't think any company is obligated to do business with anyone provided they aren't discriminating against a protected class.

What paragraph would apply? Like seriously. Please tell me where i should look.

I take it that you hate competition law then.