WikiWin: Icelandic court orders Visa to process WikiLeaks $$$ WikiLeaks could be seeing an influx of funds after an Icelandic court ruled that Valitor, the local agent for Visa, broke the law when it stopped taking donations for the website. The court found that Valitor had broken contract laws when it stopped accepting payments sent to WikiLeaks by Visa customers in July 2011. WikiLeaks …
> Yeah you could then spend your $20M on lawyers so you don't end up in GitMo.
$20m buys a lot of lawyers and it only represents the lost income from 20 months.
WikiLeaks therefore has an income stream of $1m per month and since it comprises of 4 people that is $250,000 each per month. It does have expenses, such as hosting its servers, but the cost of that will be pocket change compared to the income.
Like I said, a nice little earner.
Famous people already pay for those for him, in a desperate attempt to sidle in on the revolutionary rebel limelight.
The $20m could be used to pay the staff who do the work for Assange, while he cruises the world as a self-declared martyr to a higher cause and part-time fondler.
Dear Barack,
We have a lovely big abandoned American airbase only three hours from the Eastern seaboard. Some Chinese and Russian investors have just arrived with a lot of money and are having trouble spending it. We've decided to have drinks together later.
Iceland.
PS. Don't make us deploy the rotten shark.
"....We have a lovely big abandoned American airbase only three hours from the Eastern seaboard...."
1. Iceland is a member of NATO.
2. Cuba is already a lot closer, Venezuela is just as close, and the Russian, military can hardly afford to put stuff in either of those two countries anymore, so how do you expect them to fund another base?
3. The Chinese are too busy trying to pinch some islands from the Japanese to worry about a base in the Atlantic, where they have zero startegic interests.
from the Japanese to worry about a base in the Atlantic, where they have zero startegic interests.»
Matt, please ! We are all aware of your propensity to pronounce on matters of which you possess not the slightest knowledge, but do you have to make the display quite so public (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-15916486) ?...
In any event, kudos to the Reykjavík District Court. Had the trial been held here in Stockholm, the decision would certainly have gone the other way, Which would merely have demonstrated once again, that when it comes to loyalty to the Evil Empire, we - ostensibly not a NATO member (although we prepared secret landing fields for US bombers during the cold war and flew spy missions for them, etc, etc) - are just as good lickspittles as any country that is....
Henri
Is it time alrerady for the weekly dose of fail from Mr Day? Please do point out in that article where it says Mr Huang Nubo is the Chinese government and intends rebuilding the ex-US base for military purposes, the whole point of the "eastern seaboard" comment? Oh, it doesn't! This is my surprised face, honest. Well, actually, it's not, it's my ROFLMAO@stupid face.
Give a wise man a flag and you can teach him to hate, give the sheeple a cause and watch them donate! I've already seen 419 scammer emails offering to process Wikileaks payments through bank accounts in Nigeria, and I'm told they've made quite a good living out of the guillible.
I have always felt that companies and people have the natural right to conduct business in any way they see fit. If they choose not to do business with a segment of the market, their competitors will. If a company wants to overprice merchandise or services, their competitors will lower their prices.
Let the market determine these things, keep the courts out of it.
I partly agree, in theory, but when a company gets as big as Visa, to the point where they can virtually crush another company just be refusing to do business with it, then I think regulators need to keep a close eye on it. It's the flip side of "to big to fail". Second, I don't for a moment believe the decision to stop processing WikiLeaks' payment happened without form form state meddling in the first place.
The point wasnt that it was one Company (Visa) its was *ALL* of them.
At the very least thats Cartel behaviour.
Off all the shenanigans around Wikileaks and Asshat (most of which I have mixed feelings about) - this is the one incontrovertible wrong that was done. It was Censorship by economic means with no due process.
I really wish you would get your facts straight.
Visa, MC, Amex, etc are all US Based corporations.
There are laws on the books that make it illegal and levy heavy fines and more if a corporation knowingly violates these laws.
What's the US's status on Wikileaks? If its deemed to be on the wrong side of the line, The US declares them bad and then these companies stop processing their funds.
Not to mention that Wikileaks threatened to go after a bank. You don't bite the hand that feeds you.
The only loser is the Icelandic bank. It can lose its Visa status so it won't be able to process any Visa transactions. They are in a lose/lose situation.
@Ian: Therein lies the conundrum for Visa et al. The US has put pressure on them not to process payments for Wikileaks as they deem them persona non-grata, but do allow them to process payments for the Klan and hardcore pornographers - freedom of speech, mustn't interfere. They say Americans don't get irony! But then Visa et al also have offices and companies/legal entities in other jurisdictions. These companies can then be prosecuted in those jurisdictions for their unfair actions in failing to process these payments. Guess that's what happens when head office is based on the doorstep of the World's bully and you choose to toe the line.
That they are all based in the US will matter not a jot if the EU were to decide they are obviously acting as a cartel. It is Visa et al that could end up in a lose/lose situation.
Racist Hate Groups aren't terrorist organizations. (Unless you can show where a specific hate group has committed some form of terrorist crimes...)
While I don't support the KKK or their principles, they do have some protection under the US laws. So to do pornographers. Consider that the city of Cincinnati went after Mapplethorpe's exhibition by saying it was indecent by community standards, yet many around the world would consider it art. (It may be art, but definitely not my cup of tea.)
Could one apply the definition of Wikileaks as a terrorist organization? Maybe. considering that Assange dumped non-redacted docs on the internet whose only value was to embarrass the US, its allies yielding nothing in terms of war crimes. (I wonder if he published any after action reports where civilians reported deaths caused by the Taliban, like that woman who was gunned down because they accused her of adultery. )
I think you will find the Icelandic Visa company will appeal the courts decision and win on appeal. ;-)
The IRA also (historically) springs to mind...
It seems that being a clinically-diagnosed schyzophrene is a requirement for being a US politico (or, as the case may be, pencil-pusher).
What do you mean by "not only in the US"?
All hail Ísland, winner of the common-sense-of-the-week award.
Shame that it has to be so seldom as to grant surprise.
Yes and it took 9/11 to show what terrorism is really all about when it happens at home.
For thirty years the US allowed Noraid to collect donations to buy weapons that killed people in Northern Ireland
The supply of weapons during the Iran Iraq wars
The supply of weapons during the Russian invasion of Afganistan
The Supply of weapons to South American Countries
They certainly don't come with clean hands.
Oh, wait, that's right. He was a Progressive who wants the US to implement our own version of the British failed healthcare system.
===
Did you miss adding the joke icon? Or are you just badly informed?
The NHS hasn't failed by any reasonable measure. It costs a lot less than the US healthcare system, and is applied relatively evenly across the population. Life expectancy is greater under the NHS than in the US, and survival rates for many diseases are also higher, in most cases due to earlier intervention for people who couldn't have afforded their own care.
It has plenty of flaws, certainly, which are regularly rolled out and analysed in the press and society; but at least it doesn't leave people to die lingering deaths because they had to change jobs - "pre-existing condition, not covered.", were made unemployed, or simply couldn't afford the medicine they needed.
On Teddy, spot on. It really is quite disturbing the gross hypocrisy the US political establishment thrust on the UK in that regard. Maybe we should just unfriend them? ;-)
"The NHS hasn't failed by any reasonable measure."
It failed me, the one time in my life I had a real medical emergency that couldn't wait. Wouldn't even give me an emergency GP appointment for sooner than two and a half weeks ahead. Which is not what you want to hear when your eyesight has faded *very suddenly* to the point where things suddenly look dark, you can't sustain reading a book for more than a couple of lines, and you're bumping into people on the pavement.
That wasn't some distant past. It was less than five years ago, in 2007. More recently I heard a report that some 70% of people who had had some medical emergency had been let down by the NHS (OK, some of those were next-of-kin where the non-patient hadn't survived).
I used to believe in the NHS until I tried to use it. Now I resent every penny of my taxes going to fund that bandwagon for the useless (and a lucky 30% of Brits with medical needs).
It failed me, the one time in my life I had a real medical emergency that couldn't wait. Wouldn't even give me an emergency GP appointment for sooner than two and a half weeks ahead. Which is not what you want to hear when your eyesight has faded *very suddenly* to the point where things suddenly look dark, you can't sustain reading a book for more than a couple of lines, and you're bumping into people on the pavement.
========
good God! Surely A&E would be the pace to go for that kind of thing?
The somewhat harsh reality is that modern medicine is founded on statistical responses by the population at large to medical interventions, not individual responses; although this is starting to change a bit recently with tailored drugs and all...
Britain's stats are generally better than the US' with less money spent. In that sense, the nhs is no failure.
There's room for abject failure to individuals in both systems, and room for heroic success too... but the stats are what they are.
"good God! Surely A&E would be the pace to go for that kind of thing?"
A&E? Isn't that for accident victims? I wouldn't have known where to find one, anyway. I wanted to get to the eye hospital, but I was in no position to find it, even if I could've got through the red tape to be seen without a GP referral.
"The somewhat harsh reality is ..."
That outcome statistics don't compare like with like.
Anecdote: an ex-colleague had a long history of dental trouble, and had had himself fixed up by a dentist every couple of years. Then his job took him to the US, so when he needed fixing he got an american dentist at a fearsome price (to his employer's insurer). The american dentist, unlike the UK ones, did a good job that lasted, so he no longer needed repeat treatment. An altogether better outcome, yet it'll show in the stats as just one successful treatment, compared to many in the UK stats.
A&E : Accident and Emergency
If you have an emergency, go there.... the clue is in the name.
Similarly the regional eye hospitals all run emergency drop in centres. Ambulances will take you straight there if you have an eye problem, or you can walk in off the street. I've been to a couple of them now, they're really quite good at their jobs.
I'm not sure dental work is quite what we're discussing, it rarely kills you...
I, for one, am not saying american medicine is bad, far from it, so long as you can afford it, its great.
If you can't afford it though, you're in deep trouble. Many, many, people in the US can't afford it, dooming them to substandard care, or no care at all; which is sad.
Well, you have my sympathies, but I can't fault the NHS at all. In my experience if I want a regular appointment with my GP it takes nearly 2 weeks, but for an emergency I can generally be seen same-day. When I crashed my motorbike they couldn't have been more helpful (though the fracture clinic at the ERI is a zoo, and it's my one complaint I can level at them). When my kids were born 10.5 weeks early, though, I saw the NHS working fantastically. I saw parents dragged through hell in that place by bad luck, but throughout the whole experience the staff were as helpful, professional, friendly, courteous, patient and honest as they could be. If we had a USA-style medical industry, my children would probably be dead now. So would the wee lad Harris, who was born 12 weeks early. So would the cute little triplet girls with the Thai parents who almost filled one of the ICU rooms. And a dozen or so others that I can remember from my stint in there. There's something about watching a baby in an uncubator being rushed out of the ward by a helicopter crew whilst the parents are chasing it with their luggage that makes you pause and think (a) that could have been me, and (b) they're really doing everything they can.
Does the NHS have problems? Yes, it most certainly does. But most of these problems (from where I've seen it, and from the people I've spoken to) have been due to management incompetence at some level or another. The people in the trenches trying to save lives and cure sick people work fucking hard and deserve a lot of respect.
I'd rather have a safety net for everyone that faily the unlucky few (and I do know people who've been failed too), than the patchwork that the USA has.
"Oh, wait, that's right. He was a Progressive who wants the US to implement our own version of the British failed healthcare system."
Percentage of GDP spent on healthcare as of 2009:
UK - 9.8%
US - 17.4%
Life expectancy as of 2009:
UK - 79.1 years
US - 78.1 years
I realise there's more to it than life expectancy but since you seem like you've been getting your world view from Fox News I really can't be arsed looking up figures you'll just ignore.
I never remember the IRA accepting Visa or MasterCard, they were a cash only business.
Or if you want to look at it another way:
"For thirty years the US allowed Noraid to collect donations to buy weapons that to protect their community from ethnic cleansing."
Do I hear a whooshing?
"if you seriously believe the IRA blowing people up was the only thing preventing genocide in NI, I have several bridges, a tower and a tinfoil hat you might be interested in"
You and others seem to miss the point. Noraid funding a terrorist rebel movement is directly analogous to causes with which we're supposed to sympathise. Topically right now you might look at rebels in Syria throwing all they've got into escalating to provoke foreign military intervention.
More directly relevant we have UK charities like "help for heroes" presenting EXACTLY the same case as Noraid: "we're helping the casualties of conflict and their families". Perhaps top of the that pile, "combat stress", whose mission is to help any troops haunted by the terrified screams of small kiddies when the British troops beat down their door and beat up and dragged off their dad.
p.s. I've no idea who the much-downvoted anonymous coward may be. Were they just too subtle, or is El Reg a hotbed of jingoism?
" if you seriously believe the IRA blowing people up was the only thing preventing genocide in NI, I have several bridges, a tower and a tinfoil hat you might be interested in"
And if you consider British soldiers shooting unarmed civilians dead in the street of Derry 'peacekeeping' then you might want to help yourself to one of those tinfoil hats.
As Holmes noted with the curious case of the dog in the night-time, what *didn’t* happen can be as instructive as what did.
Approximately 1,800 soldiers were deployed in Londonderry’s Bogside for the containment operation, from five different units, the majority armed with SLRs (FN MAG) with 20 rounds on the weapon and 30 spare. Even grossly underestimating that only half carried the SLR, that equates to 18,000 rounds on rifles, ready to go; including their reserve ammo makes 45,000 rounds available. Yet only 128 rounds were fired—0.71% of their loaded ammo and 0.28% of the total (N.B. gross underestimates). Even the 21 paras who fired barely expended a quarter (107) of the 420 rounds loaded on their rifles; 1,050 rounds being carried altogether means they handed back nine-tenths of their ammo.
115 people (including one Garda) had been murdered by Irish republican terrorists before that January 30; two of the latter were police officers murdered in Londonderry’s Creggan on the Thursday prior. Two of the nine soldiers murdered in Londonderry in the previous six months were killed by terrorists using rioting crowds as cover. The young, working class soldiers were deployed into a confusing and dangerous situation. Things went wrong, and 13 people were fatally shot and another 13 wounded (at least a few of them hardened rioters and one a member of the PIRA youth wing). But that so few soldiers fired, and even the ones that did returned nine-tenths of their available rounds, shows that the soldiers were genuinely trying to identify legitimate targets, and on not identifying a legitimate target, they withheld their fire. They were mistaken in their identifications; but it was a cock-up, nothing more sinister than that.
Things unfortunately get rough when soldiers (or armed police) are deployed—even the Swiss managed to shoot dead 13 demonstrators and wound 65 in Geneva in 1932. South African police notoriously killed 69 and wounded 180 at Sharpeville in 1960; in 1961 French police killed between 200 and 325 Algerian demonstrators in Paris. At Dak Son in 1967 Vietnamese communists systematically killed—often burning alive—252 civilians with flamethrowers and grenades. At My Lai in 1968, American soldiers proceeded over four hours to massacre an estimated 347–504 Vietnamese civilians—mainly infants, children, women and the elderly. Our lads compare quite well to all that; and compared to the Irish republican terrorists’ 2,060 murders, the 363 deaths we were responsible for is, frankly, small beer.
Séamus Murphy, SJ, wrote in the Autumn 1993 issue of ‘Studies: An Irish Quarterly Review’: ‘At the SDLP’s annual conference in 1988, John Hume stated that it is “the IRA who are the nightmare of the Catholic community”, since they had killed more than twice as many Catholics as had the security forces in the previous twenty years and more Catholics than had Protestant paramilitaries in the previous ten years. He added that were he to lead a civil rights movement again in NI, it would be directed against the IRA. As so many others have said, he reiterated that there is no injustice in NI that justifies killing a single person.’
(Sources: CAIN website; BSI report, online at the National Archives; ‘Bloody Sunday: Truths, lies and the Saville Inquiry’ by Douglas Murray)
"And if you consider British soldiers shooting unarmed civilians dead in the street of Derry 'peacekeeping' then you might want to help yourself to one of those tinfoil hats."
Except for the minor point that they weren't all unarmed. The IRA had infiltrated the crowd and started shooting to deliberately provoke the troops. A minor but rather crucial point which is conveniently ignored by all the self righteous republican bluster and BS we've had about that incident over the last 40 years.
what I think of him is not repeatable
Ditto, so that's now doubly not repeatable.. On the bright side, maybe he can now buy NEW condoms - I read somewhere the cause of breaking was a *used* condom. The very picture horrifies me, but then again - so does any other part of Assange(tm)..
"True, Visa & Mastercard can do what they like....." What all the creditcard organisations like doing is making fat profits. They don't want to block any payments they don't have to, what is stopping them is the very real possibility that A$$nut and Co are likely to be indicted for espionage since the US seems to have evidence that they helped and advised Bradley Manning on the theft of the US diplomatic cables. If the creditcard companies accept payments for Wikileaks and Wikileaks get charged then the creditcard companies become accessories. Just the threat is bad enough as the backlash amongst patriotic American card users would be a problem for them, let alone the chance that their CEOs would go to prison.
".....But they have also been found to be breaking Icelandic law and will comply or be punished....." Wrong. The local agent, Valitor, was the one in court and the one that has been told it must process payments, but that means virtually nothing as Valitor can complete their stage of the process and the transaction still be blocked by Visa and/or Mastercard. All this does if give the Faithful something to cheer about, it doesn't mean St Jules can count on more cash flowing in from his sheeple.
Presumably Valitor could process local (originating within Iceland) payments but refuse to process payments outside Iceland (or maybe further afield eg EFTA region depending on agreements).
They would be complying with the judgement but it wouldn't open the floodgates of funding.
"....you spellchecker's on the blink again !...." (sic) So I'm getting spelling and grammar advice from someone that can't spell "your", and leaves an unrequired space between his last word of the sentence and its punctuation? Mind you, that does explain how you write such complete male-bovine-manure, it seems clear your English is just so poor you actually don't know what you're typing. So you need remedial English along with remedial History, along with a just lot of meds.
".....Perhaps you need to hire someone who knows something about computers...." LOL! It is patently clear that along with your poor English, World-class lack of historical knowledge (just about all your posts refer to films rather than real happenings), and failed moral compass, that you know nothing about computers. You are the epitomy of fail and just embarass yourself by posting here.
And the country in question decides if those terms are reasonable. Especially if the companies are effectively a monopoly, that's why we have a monopolies commision.
Suppose for instance that Easjet, BA and Stena ferries decided, completely on business grounds, that they weren't going to carry any catholics from NI to GB - perfectly reasonable?
"....Suppose for instance that Easjet, BA and Stena ferries decided, completely on business grounds, that they weren't going to carry any catholics from NI to GB...." That's the typically stupid example that that the sheeple would apply, but it is invalid as such a block on catholics would be in breach of the discrimination laws, whereas blocking payments to Wikileaks is within the law as the US companies (Visa, Mastercard, etc) could be charged as accessories in any prosecution of A$$nut.
"It is maybe within the law in the US, but not in Iceland… That is the point." The point is these are American companies that have HQs in the US, and CEOs that live in the US, and it is them under US law that will get hammered as accessories for allowing funds to pass to Wikileaks if the organsitaion or its members are indicted for espionage. Unplugging the Icelandic end of the pipe does not mean you unplug the US end as well.
Let the downvotes roll in, I take it as a measure of how desperate the sheeple are getting when they start downvoting simple facts so rabidly.
Where their HQs are is irrelevant. If they have any kind of operating entity in the EU, for example, they have to comply with EU law. Although this case is Iceland, no doubt the EU could raise a flag or two. I've even done the leg-work for you...
"Visa Europe is a European membership organisation incorporated in the UK. We partner with Visa Inc. to enable global Visa payments, but exist and operate as an entirely separate organisation.
Visa Europe’s headquarters are in the UK. We also have offices in Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and Turkey."
European base, European legal entities, can get totally fucked over by the EU if they step out of line. US head office totally irrelevant. Do you understand how jurisdictions and multinationals work yet?
".....I've even done the leg-work for you..." You just didn't do enough. Guess where the top bods in Visa, Mastercard, PayPal and co all live and work (and to give you a clue, it's not Europe)? Want to guess which laws they will follow first and foremost (again, it's not Europe's)? Simply put, the European arms of Visa Inc and other creditcard companies are just that, arms, the main body of the companies are in the States.
"....European base, European legal entities, can get totally fucked over by the EU if they step out of line...." True, but the European government in any form is not chasing Visa or Mastercard. In fact, they're more likely to be helping the US nail A$$nut and co. Please note ('cos you obviously failed to notice it in the news) it was not the Icelandic government that brought the action against Valitor, it was a private action by Wikileaks.
"....Do you understand how jurisdictions and multinationals work yet?" It would seem you have yet to master simply reading and comprehension, and jumping into international corporate law is really waaaaaaay out of your league. I suggest you start here http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jul/12/wikileaks-court-victory-visa and concentrate real hard on the this bit (quote):
"......But even if Valitor does resume passing payments to WikiLeaks accounts in Iceland, it is not clear that it would have any to process. The Visa and Mastercard system works in a "four-party" model, where the customer holding a credit card effectively has a contract with an "issuing bank". At the receiving end is the "accepting bank" – in this case Valitor – and its "merchant" (here, WikiLeaks). Visa and Mastercard effect the transfer of funds between the issuing bank and the accepting bank. While the court may have restored the tie between Valitor and WikiLeaks, it is unclear whether that means that Visa is obliged to pass on money transferred to an issuing bank from a cardholder....."
FAIL!
I like this bit a lot better, Matt.
"WikiLeaks says that the European Commission is conducting an investigation into what it calls the "banking blockade" imposed by the US financial organisations. It filed a complaint in July 2011 with the competition arm of the EC, saying that Visa and MasterCard had breached antitrust provisions.
In October 2011, Assange said that the site needed $3.5m over the next year in order to continue operating because of the restrictions on funding, and that he expected the EC to decide on whether to carry out a full antitrust investigation into Visa and MasterCard by mid-November.
On Thursday, he said he expected an EC decision on whether to carry out the investigation "before the end of August".
Not exactly dismissed out of hand. Can't you hurry up that indictment? Or is Assange's indictment like the American folk song, "She'll be coming 'round the mountain when she comes?"
"I like this bit a lot better, Matt....." I'm sure you do, but it doesn't mean you can ignroe the fact A$$nut is still not getting any donations via Visa.
"....."WikiLeaks says that the European Commission is conducting an investigation into what it calls the "banking blockade" imposed by the US financial organisations...." Strangely, Wikileaks has claimed this before and yet cannot name the EU bods supposedly doing the investigation, what their remit is, or who they are reporting to, which kinda sounds like Wikileaks is making it up.
".....Assange said that the site needed $3.5m over the next year...." I'd love to see a breakdown of that figure, but as I have seen similar sites survive on a lot less money a large portion of that figure must be paying for A$$nut's playboy lifestyle and lawyers' fees. I suspect that condom bills are not included though.
"....he expected the EC to decide on whether to carry out a full antitrust investigation...." So one minute Wikileaks say the EU are already investigating, then A$$nut says they have not started yet but may decide to start soon - looks like they need to get their stories straight! What a crock of manure.
Please do go on posting such sillyness, it is very amusing when you post the obvious faults in your arguments in your own posts! ROFLMAO!
@Yet another.... I suspect that the Catholics wouldn't be that bothered about being dropped from BA or Easyjet, because they could topple the gigantic straw man you just made and use it as a bridge over the Irish Sea.
NB: Discriminating against a group by religion or ethnicity is a crime in the UK. Not doing business with someone you don't want to deal with is not.
That comment is distinct from reality. The decision was made by a court based on the laws of that country. The ruling only demonstrates the difficulties that international companies have in implementing uniform policies, especially when those policies might be viewed as unjust.
This post has been deleted by its author
A couple of things: Did Visa have a contract with Wikileaks, or is this some sort of breaking of an implicit contact?
I was under the impression that Wikileaks were hosting information that had been gathered from Visa, in which case I can see why they would not want to do business with them.
This is a terrible precedent that should frighten every one of us.
Like it or not (I do not), it is rather hard to live in the developed world, today, without using credit or debit cards and the banking system. If one wants to own or rent a telephone, travel, rent a car, pay a large bill, do any transaction not face-to-face, fill your car with petrol late at night, pay for a holiday, lots of things, one must use credit cards, debit cards and the banking system.
This makes the privately managed, consumer level financial system more than just some business selling bread or cars or computers; to say that it is private and can do what it likes is ignorant. To all intents and purposes, in most fields, credit and debit cards have replaced money. So the refusal of a provider to give service to customers is akin to banning a customer from using traditional money.
This means that, whatever the alleged (i.e. not tried and proved in a court of law) offence and even for a proved offence, to withdraw access is not comparable with refusing to sell a television or something, as some of the ill-thought-out comments above seem to think. The fact that just about all governments do not prosecute Visa or the banks for processing payments to illegal activities supports this.
It is irrelevant how nice or nasty you think somebody or his activities is. Payment processing by finance companies has become essential to our way of life, to our survival as a society. So, until the USA does apply such strictures to IRA payments, with punishment for all such deeds to date, or to illegal gambling payments or to illegal finance industry speculation payments by whatever means, the victimisation of Assenge is clearly wrong in every sense and a great danger to all of us in the precedent it sets..
Somebody in the US govt had a quiet word with VISA etc and had them drop wikileaks.
Next greenpeace is objecting to some oil pipeline, better have them block greenpeace donations - the country needs that oil, and the ACLU is always causing trouble.
Ultimately "that democrat party isn't in the nations best interest" - so you end up with the next govt being decided by who Visa is supporting.
Sorry, where you trying to say something, because all I could see was a rising wave of melodramatic hysteria? There is nothing stopping A$$nut using ordinary cash or bank cheques without needing Visa or Mastercard, so your hyperventilating is just the usual sheeple bleating. Indeed, A$$nut can still even go out and buy some condoms for his trip to Ecuador....
Daily fines are not in themselves a court's final solution. If Valitor's refusal goes on longer than the court deems proper, the court can forbid Valitor from doing business in Iceland until it obeys the court's order.
Another danger is that Iceland could be the first domino in a series of countries at odds with the US to deny the use of Visa cards until it processes Wikileaks donations.
But the jumbo danger is that Iceland is Bosnia, the judge is Gavrilo Princip and the global economy is Archduke Franz Ferdinand.
Now before you start snorting diet coke out of your nose, Matt Bryant, think about it. A drei groschen kugel precipitated an event whose outcome was horrible beyond everyone's belief.
And unintended consequences have never been your forte.
".....If Valitor's refusal goes on longer than the court deems proper...." Valitor can process their end of the transactiona nd have it still be blocked by Visa in the US. The Icelandic courts can scream all they like, Valitor just shrugs and points at Visa.
".....Iceland could be the first domino in a series of countries...." You obviously have Socio-anarchic wet dreams about it, with no base in reality. Do you scream "Come the Revolution!" when you reach for the Kleenex?
"....But the jumbo danger is that Iceland is Bosnia, the judge is Gavrilo Princip and the global economy is Archduke Franz Ferdinand...." How? The assassination of the Archduke kicked off the Great War due to the complex web of inter-country treaties that promised support in the ecent of war. Iceland could cut itself completely off from the World economy and it would hardly be noticed. You really need to try THINKING before you start your (wet) daydreaming.
A$$nut can still take donations by bank transfer, what he is really annoyed about is the Visa/Mastercard/Paypal ban hurts his paywall, and he is all about the money not the "freedom".
The Icelandic Court can't do anything more than outlaw the use of Visa or Visa affiliated cards in that nation. It would be a miniscule hit to Visa's bottom line. But little by little the ocean erodes the shore.
Not the literal domino theory where one domino fell on the next domino and that one on a third ad infinitum. More like pimples popping up here and there on a teenager's face. I'm sure you remember that.
" the Great War due to the complex web of inter-country treaties that promised support in the event of war."
Yes I was referring to the web of treaties, blank checks and telegrams that led to World War I, that led to World War II, that led to the Cold War that led us to where we are now. The Russians getting angry at the NATO's Missile Shield. The Chinese are equally as pissed at the US interference in the eastern Pacific and South China Sea. Just hold your breath until it goes away..
"A$$nut can still take donations by bank transfer, what he is really annoyed about is the Visa/Mastercard/Paypal ban hurts his paywall, and he is all about the money not the "freedom".
So is Visa.
There are scores of sovereign nations with sovereign laws who can proscribe Visa cards from being used to transact business. Not the Myrmidon, knuckle dragging nations like England, who follow America around grunting "Yes Master," counting the few pieces of fool's gold the US occasionally throws it's way.
I'm waiting for the world wide boycott of Visa.
"....I'm waiting for the world wide boycott of Visa." The rest of your post is the same, empty bleating, but that last line hits right to the crux of the massive fail that is the whole Wikileaks/Anonymous movement. The simple truth is there will not be a Worldwide boycott of Visa for the simple reason that you and your ilk are the minority by a massive amount. Indeed, did you have any large popular support you would have got different politicians elected and changed all the laws you lot whine about. Face facts - you are never going to change anything in the manner you want, because your arguments are so silly as to be ignored by the massive majority. LOL!
Here's Bryant's squeaker: *** what is stopping them is the very real possibility that A$$nut and Co are likely to be indicted for espionage since the US seems to have evidence that they helped and advised Bradley Manning on the theft of the US diplomatic cables. If the creditcard companies accept payments for Wikileaks and Wikileaks get charged then the creditcard companies become accessories***
Occasionally, Matt does stumble on a correct argument, but rarely twice in the same comment. So while his position that "the credit card companies could be charged as 'accessories after the fact', -- i.e., for any aid to Assange AFTER his actual indictment, not retroactively to the crime itself -- is accurate, Matt's main contention that "likely to be indicted" controls the legal behavior of any corporation or citizen is just a product of his well-known fantasy world.
And Matt, a "very real possibility' doesn't make 'likely to be indicted' a speck closer to being the law.
Once again, Fruitloop demonstartes his limited ability to understand how corporartes think, the law involved, or just about anything not in Socialist Weekly.
".....for any aid to Assange AFTER his actual indictment...." FAIL! The documents are still up on WIkileaks, therefore they are still being unlawfully propagated (in the eyes of the US legal system), meaning the crime is still ongoing. Any US investigation of A$$nut will be for the criminal act of passing on the documents to others as well as the original theft. Therefore, anyone helping fund WIkileaks whilst it is still distributing the documents is potentially a criminal. The US corporations like Visa, Mastercard and Paypal know this, even if you're too blinkered to see it. Am I surprised at your obtuseness? Not really. If it bleats like a sheep, bleats like a sheep again, and carries on bleating like a sheep, then it's long past the time to say "you are just one of the sheeple". Why would I expect any cognitive ability form you?
Your help drafting the Magna Carta 800 years ago was greatly appreciated by the rest of us Barons, Lords and Earls, but don't you think it's time to fill your flagon, sit down and STFU?
The Fifth Amendment amendment to the American constitution guarantees: "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." Not eventual due process or likely due process but DUE PROCESS ITSELF.
If you're so hot for Assange to be water boarded, email Eric Holder to have him indicted before the 100 year statute of limitations expires.
Loops
".....The Fifth Amendment amendment...." Applies to US citizens, not foreigners being tried for espionage.
".....email Eric Holder...." I would suspect Mr Holder is too bit busy shredding any emails regarding missing guns to worry about A$$nuts detention arrangements.
Go on, try again, it is very funny to watch your childish tantrums unfold. You have very obviously lost the argument since you don't even bother trying to post counters. Not that you ever had any.
Americans piss me off
1. VISA is not going to cut of an entire country over this
2. You have no right as a nation to dictate to anybody else who or what they do with their money
3. You no longer rule the planet, and are a nation who is past its peak (although your corporations rule you)
4. You are not at war with Russia, and China has nothing to do with this article, neither does Russia
5. Socialists are not communists, there is nothing wrong with a free health service and fair wealth distribution
6. Your corrupt capitalist system has made slaves of you all and has brainwashed you all into enforcing your slavery blindly (although us Brits are in the same position, were just led to believe democracy exists to keep us in-line)
7. Not every little incident is a reason to go to war or tout bullshit chest beating bollocks, you are not the great USA, at most your the great corporate shill.
Now I'm finished I'll get my coat... :O)
When the facts aren't on your side, you make shit up.
Like this:"what is stopping them is the very real possibility that A$$nut and Co are likely to be indicted for espionage"
No, the State Department called Visa, MC and PayPal and told them not to. They also told them not to say that the State Dept had called. However, PayPal didn't lie.
Here's a quote from that Guardian article you recommended:
"MasterCard and Visa both said at the time that they were cutting the links because WikiLeaks was "engaging in or facilitating" illegal activity. A PayPal vice-president said that he had come under pressure from the US state department to cut payment links with the site."
PayPal is believable here. Visa and Master Card are not. Why? V and MC are big time cheaters, that's why.
"Visa, MasterCard and banks that issue their credit cards have agreed to a $7.25 billion settlement with US retailers in a lawsuit over the fixing of credit and debit card fees in what could be the largest antitrust settlement in US history."
Nice try
Quoting the Guardian:
"US financial institutions including Visa, Bank of America, Mastercard, PayPal and Western Union, stopped accepting or handling payments intended for WikiLeaks in December 2010, after the site began leaking US diplomatic cables from a cache of nearly 250,000 it had acquired."
"MasterCard and Visa both said at the time that they were cutting the links because WikiLeaks was "engaging in or facilititating" illegal activity. A PayPal vice-president said that he had come under pressure from the US state department to cut payment links with the site. Until Visa cut its links, the only way to pay a donation was via a web page hosted by Iceland-based Datacell, which acted as WikiLeaks's payment processor."
The truth, THE WHOLE TRUTH, and nothing but the truth.
I am saying that PayPal was unwilling to tell a lie of ommission that both Visa and MC had no problem with:
"that (they) had come under pressure from the US state department to cut payment links with the site."
Note the Department of State made the calls, not the Dept of Justice, which ordinarily would be responsible for enforcing the Matt Bryant Rule of "Likely Indictments."
".....The truth, THE WHOLE TRUTH, and nothing but the truth....." You are so blinkered you wouldn't know the truth if it bit you in the a$$.
"....Note the Department of State made the calls...." The calls were made by Democrat Senator Joe Lieberman's team to Paypal, not the Dept of State, pointing out to them that they could be accessories should members of Wikileaks be charged. Lieberman was Homeland Security Chairman at the time and nothing to do with the Dept of State. Oh what a surprise, you're wrong again, yet again, yet again! But then I probably just know a lot more facts than you. A real lot more going by the drivel you post.
There's an earlier post from you with a link. It's to an article in the Guardian. The part of the article which supports you, you approve of. The Lieberman/PayPal part you disapprove. Some posters finding an error in the information of one part of a source, don't pound the table about the information in another part.
Here's your quote: "jumping into international corporate law is really waaaaaaay out of your league. I suggest you start here http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jul/12/wikileaks-court-victory-visa and concentrate real hard on the this bit (quote):"
"US financial institutions including Visa, Bank of America, Mastercard, PayPal and Western Union, stopped accepting or handling payments intended for WikiLeaks in December 2010, after the site began leaking US diplomatic cables from a cache of nearly 250,000 it had acquired."
"MasterCard and Visa both said at the time that they were cutting the links because WikiLeaks was "engaging in or facilititating" illegal activity. A PayPal vice-president said that he had come under pressure from the US state department to cut payment links with the site. Until Visa cut its links, the only way to pay a donation was via a web page hosted by Iceland-based Datacell, which acted as WikiLeaks's payment processor."
So we are told that MC and Visa were "facilitating illegal activity". The testimony of MC and Visa has no sway with me. Kettle meet pot.
"Retailers win $7.25B in settlement over credit card fees
July 14--Visa, MasterCard and 13 of the country's biggest banks have agreed to pay $7.25 billion to settle accusations by retailers that they engaged in price-fixing on credit card transaction fees.
The settlement, on behalf of about 7 million retailers, could be the largest antitrust class-action settlement in U.S. history and is expected to alter the price structure around the plastic cards that are a central feature of U.S. commerce.
Retailers alleged that the collusion resulted in a monopoly, with merchants forced for years to fork over ever higher fees to process the credit cards their customers use, driving up costs for consumers."
Do we all have to believe what you believe, Matt? And trust whom you trust? You trust Charles Arthur, who wrote the Guardian piece in getting the "engaging and facilitating" part right, but not the PayPal part.
And then so gruff about the the PayPal call. WHERE'S THE FRIGGING CITATION or link about that? You linked to the Guardian. So where's the Lieberman team link? You can't just say "Blah, blah, blah Lieberman's team made the calls." You might as well tell everybody Rosamund Pike is having your child.
Very pathetic fail. :(
Poor little Fruitloop really is getting beyond desperate now!
Firstly, I used the Guardian article as I'm sure you're accuse any other source of being a right-wing, neo-Nazi, anti-Anon h8s vehicle, but it's hard for you to claim that of the Guardian seeing as it is one of Wikileaks media partners. And when I say hard, I mean that you have been totally unable to argue with it.
Then you start ranting on about the creditcard companies being fined, like that somehow has anything to do with the court judgementagainst Valitor in Iceland. Big clue - it doesn't! But then you don't have anything to argue the point so I'm not surprised you want to evade off into some diatribe against the "nasty" bankers, "criminal" creditcard companies, etc, etc.
"....WHERE'S THE FRIGGING CITATION or link ....." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Lieberman#Criticism - read down to the seventh paragraph of that section and you'll see the bit about how it was Lieberman's call to Paypal (and Amazon) that stopped them processing payments to Wikileaks. Oops, did you just look REALLY stupid, yet again? Why yes you did! Back to primary school for you, little sheep, you have a lot of learning to catch up on.
If you do insist on posting reply, please do take more time over the content than you did with your previous posts as I'm beginning to feel quite sorry for you. Yes, that's right, I pity you.
(MB):"Firstly, I used the Guardian article as I'm sure you're accuse any other source of being a right-wing, neo-Nazi, anti-Anon h8s vehicle, but it's hard for you to claim that of the Guardian seeing as it is one of Wikileaks media partners. And when I say hard, I mean that you have been totally unable to argue with"
You didn't use that article for me, Matt, you used it to reply to Mark 65. I guess blowhards have a hard time remembering at whom they're blowing.
(MB):"...(Mark 65)Do you understand how jurisdictions and multinationals work yet?" It would seem you have yet to master simply reading and comprehension, and jumping into international corporate law is really waaaaaaay out of your league. I suggest you start here. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2.012/jul/12/wikileaks-court-victory-visa and concentrate real hard on the this bit (quote)"
I linked to it and mistakenly assumed it was accurate. Now you blame me for Charles Arthur's mistakes. Here's is the Guardian quote:
"US financial institutions including Visa, Bank of America, Mastercard, PayPal and Western Union, stopped accepting or handling payments intended for WikiLeaks in December 2010, after the site began leaking US diplomatic cables from a cache of nearly 250,000 it had acquired."
"MasterCard and Visa both said at the time that they were cutting the links because WikiLeaks was "engaging in or facilititating" illegal activity. A PayPal vice-president said that he had come under pressure from the US state department to cut payment links with the site."
(MB):"Then you (LG) start ranting on about the creditcard companies being fined."
I mentioned their $7 BILLION fine for fraud, but only to discredit their testimony as to why they stopped accepting or handling payments to Wikileaks.
Whether the State Department called V&MC, or Joe Lieberman did makes no difference to me. That wasn't our argument. It began when I objected to you enshrining "LIKELY INDICTMENT" as a legal condition and article in the American Constitution.
(MB):"They don't want to block any payments they don't have to, what is stopping them is the very real possibility that A$$nut and Co are LIKELY to be INDICTED for espionage since the US seems to have evidence that they helped and advised Bradley Manning on the theft of the US diplomatic cables. If the creditcard companies accept payments for Wikileaks and Wikileaks get charged then the creditcard companies become accessories. Just the threat is bad enough as the backlash amongst patriotic American card users would be a problem for them."
Maybe it was the State Department or maybe it was Joe Lieberman who told them to stop handling Wikileaks donations, but they certainly weren't being stopped by (MB):"the very real possibility that A$$nut and Co are LIKELY to be INDICTED."
In America there is a legal instrument called a Target Letter. It states "You are advised that you are a target of the Grand Jury's investigation."
Go to the Ecuadorean Embassy at 3am, Matt, sneak into Assange's room, and see if you can find a Grand Jury Target letter in his underwear drawer.
Another long, rambling reply from Local Fruitloop with - yet again - not a single argument related to the matter at hand!
".....You didn't use that article for me, Matt, you used it to reply to Mark 65....." I meant all you Wikileaks luvvies, not just Mark 65. Besides, you sheeple all just bleat the same soundbites, it's often hard to tell teh difference when you've heard the same moronic bleating repeated over and over and over again. But I see you're still trying to split hairs (or is that wool?) over the fact that the US-based creditcard corporations and transfer services like Paypal are just going to laugh at the Icelandic court. Wikileaks is not going to be getting any donations through those routes any time soon.
".....Go to the Ecuadorean Embassy at 3am, Matt, sneak into Assange's room...." Unlikely as I tend to follow the law, not be an habitual breaker of it like A$$nut.
(MB):"I meant all you Wikileaks luvvies..."
You did? I meant to buy Apple at $12 a share.
(MB):"not a single argument related to the matter at hand!"
So you're still dodging reality with swagger and bluster. Pathetic.
(MB):"They don't want to block any payments they don't have to, what is stopping them is the very real possibility that A$$nut and Co are LIKELY to be INDICTED for espionage since the US seems to have evidence that they helped and advised Bradley Manning on the theft of the US diplomatic cables. If the creditcard companies accept payments for Wikileaks and Wikileaks get charged then the creditcard companies become accessories."
Aren't you going to defend your stupid 'Likely To Be Indicted statement'? Or did you mean something else when you wrote it?
".....Aren't you going to defend your stupid 'Likely To Be Indicted statement'?...." Why do I need to defend it? After all, the Wikileakers you love so much claimed they found evidence of a secret US indictment of A$$nut (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/02/28/strafor_wikileaks/). Oh ye of short memory....
This is not 'evidence' of a secret indictment. This a PR argument against the extradition of Assange to Sweden or the US.
"QUESTION:
Does the US have a secret indictment against Julian Assange? He is the editor in chief of WikiLeaks, a whistleblower website and conduit for worldwide news leaks."
"ANSWER:
Why would the Department of Justice bother keeping an indictment secret? It makes little sense. If a grand jury has delivered an indictment, this would be the time to make it public. The UK has custody of Assange and appear inclined to keep him under close watch. If they were willing to deny bail for a no-charge warrant from Sweden, the court would almost certainly do the same for an espionage warrant from the US. Furthermore, the announcement of an indictment wouldn’t exactly be a public-relations disaster for the administration, either."
http://www.worldlawdirect.com/forum/law-wiki/56148-secret-indictment.html
LOL! OK, you want to wander off into the scenary then be my guest, just please try and deny that the US authorities are looking for ways to charge Wikileaks (especially A$$nut) with crimes under the Espionage Act. Go on, just try denying it. Then, when someone has beaten that simple idea into your thick head, ask them to carry on beating until you understand that US companies (like Visa, Mastercard and PayPal) would not want to be charged as accessories if the Wikitwits were charged. Make sure you pick someone to do that beating that has a lot of muscle and endurance as your head is really going to need a good pounding to get anything through that porridge you call a brain.
Just because the US authorities haven't indicted Assange, doesn't mean they don't want to or don't know with what to charge him. Most likely it means that they don't want the foreign court of extradition to tell the American authorities what they can and can not do with Assange if they order his extradition.
Do you remember the case of Uri Brodsky? Apprehended in Poland, Germany asked for his extradition, but the Polish Court put restructions on what German could and could not charge Brodsky with. He was bailed from Germany and returned immediately to Israel where he still is 2 years later.
America absolutely will not settle for restrictions from the Swedish Court. And will not charge him with crimes with serious punishment while they are negotiating with Correa for his release. Charges will only lead to Ecuador giving Assange asylum.
Give it up, Matt Bryant. "No, you can't always get what you want."
"Poland to Extradite Alleged Mossad Agent
Uri Brodsky is accused of helping a Mossad agent secure a German passport for use in the alleged murder of a Hamas official in Dubai. On Thursday a Polish court ruled that he could be extradited to Germany. But legal complications mean he may just be facing a fine.
It sounded like good news at first: A Polish appeals court on Thursday ruled that a man who is suspected of helping a Mossad agent can be extradited to Germany.
The Warsaw appeals court upheld the decision by a lower court that Poland is to hand over Uri Brodsky, who is accused of helping a Mossad agent to secure a German passport. The passort was allegedly used in connection with the murder of a Hamas official in Dubai in January.
But there is a snag. The German government, as well as the judiciary, has serious doubts about whether Brodsky can be charged with espionage. It is likely that the suspect could come away with a mild sentence for a much lesser charge.
The extradition to Germany is likely to take place soon. A spokesman for the court told SPIEGEL ONLINE shortly after the decision that it could happen within the next 10 days and that the date depended on the German authorities. The spokesman emphasized that from now on the ball was firmly in the German legal system's court. "The case is closed for us," he said.
(...)
Despite the extradition, the German government and judiciary are faced with an uncomfortable problem. They may not be able to charge the suspect with espionage. The Polish authorities are only extraditing Brodsky on charges of forgery, relating to his having provided false information when applying for his passport in Cologne. Legally he may only be charged with that offence in Germany.
The decision is a bitter defeat for the German authorities. Neither the German Justice Ministry nor the Federal Prosecutor's Office were willing to make an official comment after the ruling. "We first of all have to have the decision in writing before us," the spokesman for the prosecutor's office told SPIEGEL ONLINE. The message from the ministry in Berlin was the same."
".....Uri Brodsky...." Is completely different and has nothing to do with either the Wikitwits or A$$nut. I see you are employing the well-tried non-debating tactic of just squealing as long and as loud as possible in the hope the other parties will just give up and go away. What's next, you going to put your fingers in your ears and shriek "la-la-la-la-la-la"? Truly pathetic.
Wikitwits can dance and sing all they like about the court judgement against Valitor but it won't bring any money in, and it probably cost them more in expenses to bring the court case. Hopefully, when Valitor puts in an appeal, that will drain even more fo their warchest. One wonders how many more "wins" will leave the Wikitwits bankrupt and A$$nut thumbing a lift to Ecuador.
What I really like about you is your ability to make shit up as you go along.
There is corporate law, personal injury law, and patent law; and there is Brodsky extradition, Assange extradition, McKinnon exxtradition; All different. All of which require diiferent standards of proof relative to the crimes with which they are charged and the possible sentences thereto.
And Valitor. A place, according to the Silmarillion, where the immortals hang out, waiting for Matt B. to join them. (We know it as Reykjavík.)
So go to Reykjavík, meet a lot of people whose surnames end in 'dottir', and, well, you can take it from there.
And remember "no means no."
Poor Fruitloop are you short of cash (did you send it all to A$$nut?) as you're obviously not getting your meds. You can drag in as many other extradition cases as you like, they mean absolutely nothing with regard to the Valitor judgement. And the judgement still does not mean any money from Visa (or Mastercard or PayPal or Amazon) will be going to St Jules' Ecuadorean holiday condom fund. Scream and squeal all you like, it won't change those simple facts. You can argue over who put the squeeze on PayPal (and be proven wrong) and it still won't change the fact A$$nut ain't getting any more dough. Enjoy!
Poor, baby. You are so bent out of shape by the fact that Assange is under the wing of the avatar of Simon Bolivar, Rafael Correa, you have to harp on Assange's lack of money to prove your worthless point. What should he do with more money anyway, confined as he is in asylum at the Ecuadorian Embassy, out of reach of the English legal system? Assange needs money now like you need another 3 inches around your waist.
He can afford as many pizza deliveries at the embassy, as you have at your home in Tooting.
Lighten up, Matt. Get back on your meds. Join the human race again. ;-)
BTW, David Cameron will let Assange exit Albion before he grows into to a martyr as big as Harrods.
".....you have to harp on Assange's lack of money to prove your worthless point....." No, I am simply proving the point that the Wikileaks "victory" in the Valitor case measn didlysquat in real terms, despite hte efforts of the INternet's echo chamber sheeple (that would be you included) to make out this is some major victory. I see you really aren't enjoying that simple fact. Besides, A$$nut has plenty of rich luvvies to bankroll his escapades. Well, the rich luvvies that aren't seriosuly p*ssed at his skipping out n his bail that is.
"....David Cameron will let Assange exit Albion before he grows into to a martyr as big as Harrods...." How did Harrods become a martyr for anything, it's a store, stupid. Did you mean Mohammed Al-Fayed, who no longer owns Harrods? And to be a martyr you have to die, dummy, and Al-Fayed is still alive and kicking. And it's not up to Cameron now as much as it is to Correa - if the Ecuadoreans grant him asylum then there is nothing the Brits can do to stop A$$nut leaving. Of course we can then take his (luvvie's) bail money and spend it on re-educating the mentality challenged like yourself about the realities of the World.
Your amazing ability to talk complete fail would be funny if it wasn't so tragic.
You're right, Matt, it was stupid of me to think that you would ever get the reference to "The Diamond As Big As The Ritz." Or that you had ever heard of the American writer, F. Scott Fitzgerald. My Bad.
"The Diamond as Big as the Ritz is a novella by novelist F. Scott Fitzgerald. It was first published in the June 1922 issue of The Smart Set magazine, and was included in Fitzgerald's 1922 short story collection Tales of the Jazz Age. Much of the story is set in Montana, a setting that may have been inspired by the summer that Fitzgerald spent near White Sulphur Springs, Montana in 1915.[1]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Diamond_as_Big_as_the_Ritz
I was going to say he would become a martyr as big as Jean d'Arc, but was worried it would set you off on one of your homophobic rants. Then I was going to say a martyr as big as the Ritz, but I wasn't sure there was a Ritz in London and as the the Ecuadorian Embassy was next door to Harrods... well, I chose my simile badly. A thousand pardons.
BTW 'martyr' ( 2. One who makes great sacrifices or suffers much in order to further a belief, cause, or principle.[not dead]
3a. One who endures great suffering: a martyr to arthritis. [not dead]
b. One who makes a great show of suffering in order to arouse sympathy. [not dead])
"And it's not up to Cameron now as much as it is to Correa - if the Ecuadorians grant him asylum then there is nothing the Brits can do to stop A$$nut leaving."
Do you mean to say that if Correa grants Assange asylum, Assange can walk out of the Embassy, and take the tube to the airport, unmolested by the police? A curious reading of the situation. I'd have thunk that England recognized the asylum to only cover inside the embassy, but to get on the plane to Ecuador, Cameron would have to allow him safe passage from the embassy to a plane. Interesting idea yours.
I never thought much about the Wikileak's 'victory in Iceland' except to rub various noses in it. As a matter of fact I don't think it important at all. I am not an Internet Echo chamber sheeple and anyone who says I am will pay dearly for it.
".....the American writer, F. Scott Fitzgerald....." Once again, when he has no real World experience to refer to, Local Fruitloop falls back on fiction. And still supplies a "reference" that has nothing to do with the matter in hand. In fact, Local Fruitloop would be doing all a great favour if he told us where he was "educated" just so the rest of us could avoid letting our children fall into such an intellectual vacuum.
"....Do you mean to say that if Correa grants Assange asylum, Assange can walk out of the Embassy, and take the tube to the airport, unmolested by the police?...." Yes, but it's more likely he will travel in a diplomatic vehicle to the airport, under the protection of the Ecuadorean government. And it's also very unlikely the British government would intervene as his crimes here are minor (skipping on bail), it's not like he is a mass murderer. In truth, Cameron will probably be happy to be shot of him wasting taxpayers' money in our courts. Whilst the Vienna Convention of 1961 doesn't have explicit laws on diplomatic asylum, it is considered part of the gentleman's agreement that surrounds a lot of diplomatic work that once a country grants another's citizen diplomatic immunity then they are effectively traveling as a member of the granting country's diplomatic staff until they leave the country. The UK is unlikely to rock the diplomatic boat, much as you sheeple would love to want them to just so you can bleat some more.
But A$$nut is throwing in the towel twice here by going on the run. He is now a fugitive - he is now unable to travel to the UK or Sweden without immediate arrest, and any other part of the EU will also honour the European arrest warrant so he's stuffed on most of this continent. Northern America is also off limits (Canada will extradite to the UK and then onwards to Sweden). India and Pakistan and many of the Asiatic countries will probably hand him over to the UK or Sweden if asked. In short, apart from in the really anti-Yank countries like Venezuela, Cuba or real nasties like Iran, A$$nut faces arrest wherever he goes. And those anti-Yank countries won't appeal to A$$nut for long - there's not enough adulation, groupies or a big enough stage to pose on. And with the cash from his paywall being blocked (despite the Valitor case) he's not going to being living it up in Ecuador.
A$$nut could have taken the high road, he could have faced his accusers in Sweden and even the US, had his time in the spotlight and then road the wave of gormless adulation from his sheeple. He could have stood with the backing of such groups as the ACLU and other handwringer specialists, could have gone down as a "martyr" to his "cause". But A$$nut is a coward, he chose to cut and run. The US authorities are probably laughing it up, watching A$$nut destroy his own public image. Enjoy!
What a horrible thought! More than one Matt Bryant!
" he is now unable to travel to the UK or Sweden without immediate arrest, and any other part of the EU will also honour the European arrest warrant so he's stuffed on most of this continent. Northern America is also off limits (Canada will extradite to the UK and then onwards to Sweden). India and Pakistan and many of the Asiatic countries will probably hand him over to the UK or Sweden if asked."
And if he is given Ecuadorian citizenship and then appointed to a post in that country's foreign ministry. Couldn't he travel everywhere Ecuador had an embassy? The visited country would have to declare him persona non grata and refuse him entry upon notification of his arrival. They wouldn't arrest him. You, of course, could telephone all the PMs and Presidents of the countries he wanted to visit and threaten to hold your breath until he was declared PNG.
Don't feel bad, Matt, about not knowing who F. Scott Fitzgerald is. But isn't 4 lines of bombast to disguise that fact excessive?
".....and then appointed to a post in that country's foreign ministry...." ROFLMAO! Now you're just getting desperately, desperately desperate. Just being a worker at a foreign ministry does not grant you diplomatic immunity, you have to be assigned to a post at an embassy. Please, just for the comedy value, just try to explain why you think Correa would want to put such a diplomatic disaster as A$$nut in any diplomatic post, let alone what qualifications A$$nut has for any job at a foreign ministry? Face it, A$$nut has made himself into a laughing stock and is now a fugitive from a rape charge in the majority of the developed countries that offer the high-tech, free speech rights and gormless sheeple he craves like an addict.
"....Don't feel bad, Matt, about not knowing who F. Scott Fitzgerald is...." I do know that author, the point is you are unable to apply anything you have learned from reading his works (did you "study" the abridged versions?) as shown by your previous posts. Maybe someone forgot to explain to you back at school that it is not merely being able to quote others but the ability to apply their work to illuminate a point that makes a real intellectual. There is a big difference between just reading a book and actually learning and using the knowledge contained within the text. What you are doing is squealing; "Look at me, I've read this book, I must be SOOOOO clever because someone else told me just reading this book makes me smarter than you!" I really hope your parents didn't spend a lot of money on your "education" seeing as it appears to have been a complete waste of money. You have failed to make any point other than to underline your complete separation from the realities of the World. Classic and monumental fail of the self-important, faux intellectual kind.
I would suggest a move into a career in slapstick comedy, something along the lines of a Rosie O'Donnell speechwriter. Just be yourself and let the male bovine manure flow. Whatever you do don't try and actually be funny or smart or you'll ruin it. Enjoy!
"Just being a worker at a foreign ministry does not grant you diplomatic immunity,"
What! Did you actually think that I meant Correa should put him on as a janitor or a mail room boy (the way you got started and soon dead ended)? I emailed Correa and advised him to make Assange a Minister Without Portfolio (ever hear that expression?) and send him to the Olympics in London, just to annoy troglodytes like you. Cameron would let him on the hope that the CIA or Mossad would be able to do what British legal system couldn't.
I hope I wasn't too rough on your meager intelligence, literary and otherwise, but I have never seen you quote a line from a poem, a play, or a novel and just assumed you were so enamored of your own thin grasp of current events that you deemed the classics irrelevant.
Your mention of Rosie O'Donnell is probably the most literary reference you've ever made. (You must have a vestigial taste for forbidden fruit.)
" leb wohl, mein lieber Schwan!"
(Do you know where that's from without googling it? Be honest, if you can.)
<Yawn> I see you're still desperately trying to dance away from the forum topic because you know you've already lost that argument.
".....I emailed Correa and advised him to make Assange a Minister Without Portfolio...." Just being a minister would not guarantee A$$nut's safety from a European arrest warrant. He would have to be assigned as a member of the diplomatic staff in an embassy or consulate role that granted diplomatic immunity. And then the country hosting the embassy or consulate has the right to object to such a posting, meaning that the subject can then be refused entry if they do travel. Try again, little sheep.
"....but I have never seen you quote a line from a poem, a play, or a novel ...." Some of us actually have real World experience and knowledge we can apply to such discussions. You very obviously do not. Hiding behind irrelevant quotations is a staple sheeple tactic when trying to avoid admitting they know nothing about the matter in hand, so I suppose we can just expect more literary gems from yourself.
".... " leb wohl, mein lieber Schwan!" ...." Lohengrin? The forum topic is alleged espionage, financial controls and legal measures relating to supposed freedom of speech, and you want to quote a Wagner opera about a fairytale romance!?! All you are proving is that bleating still sounds exactly the same whether it's in English or German. Keep piling on the fail, little sheep.
Boy, are you really that stupid or just too blinkered to even read what you yourself posted?
"....."engaging in or facilitating" illegal activity....." Yeah, guess what being indicted for espionage is.
You bring a whole new meaning to the term fail. If there was an Olympic event in fail you would be the unchallenged gold medallist.
If the US had indicted Assange after he fled to England, his lawyers could have argued in an English court that Sweden ought not to be able to extradict Assange to America after the trial if innocent of the rape charges or after he served his time if guilty.
The US just wanted to get Assange back to Sweden and consult the Mossad about what to do next.
but as I am am bored with Iceland and Visa, I am shifting the discussion a few degrees to the south to Ecuador and Assange.
If you ever read anything besides your comments -- when you're not admiring yourself in the mirror -- perhaps you saw this article in today's Guardian.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jul/26/ecuador-julian-assange-extradition-us
It backs up everything I have ever said or implied about Correa's ability to play the diplomacy game. And of course demonstrates the amount of bucks which are being raised for Jules.
While you, on the other hand, just roll around on your library floor with your inflatable, life size Margaret Thatcher doll until both of you fall asleep.
Don't you ever want to be right (correct)?
"....hissy fits...." Very tickled at that seeing as I find you an endless source of amusement. In fact, I almost feel bad about showing you up for the naive numpty you very obviously are.
"....I am am bored with Iceland and Visa...." Yeah, and we all know that means ickle Fruitloop is running scared on the original subject!
"......perhaps you saw this article in today's Guardian....." Yes, already seen it. To be honest, I'm not sure how you think that supports your wetdream of Correa sending A$$nut as a diplomat in some official role back to London. Indeed, the article states quite clearly that Ecuador hasn't even decided to grant him asylum yet. Try again.
".....Don't you ever want to be right (correct)?" Well, it seems I keep on being right in proving your posts to be the desperate bleatings of an over-educated, under-achieving sheeple. So far I have demonstrated quite clearly and concisely the gaping holes in all your "arguments", in fact so much so it would actually be nice to see if you could come up with an original idea on any subject just to prove me wrong for once. Until then I suggest you go apologise to your parents for the money they wasted on "educating" you.
/ROFLMAO.
This subject, as it pertains to Assange, has had three key events: the publication by Wikileaks of the documents; the charge of rape by the Swedish virgins; and the last one, the request for sanctuary and eventual asylum by Assange in Ecuador. I'll let you get sexually aroused by the possible reversal on appeal of the lower Icelandic court's decision against Visa Iceland or Valitor.
I can not help it if you thought I was serious about sending Assange to London as a Minister without Portfolio. I suggest you google the word "facetious". As I said the day Assange bolted inside its embassy, Ecuador would not announce their decision for some time. Why should they? The US, who obviously will indict him the moment he is their custody or the custody of a nation who will not fail to deliver him, refuses to go on record, so why should Ecuador? They have (as did Assange and his lawyer) asked Sweden to interview him at their London Embassy. This request when asked by Assange was denied but when asked by the Foreign Minister of a sovereign nation, can not be so rudely dismissed.
If you are as sharp as you say you are, you must be aware that Correa is not at all disinterested in the plight of Julian Assange. In that respect, he is better off now than he was at any time since the documents were published. Whether you love Assange or hate him, it helps to be objective accounting his assets and liabilities. It's a mistake to underestimate his liabilities or put an unreal premium on his assets.
You probably scoff at his living conditions. I, on the other hand, think that he is now relaxed for the first time since his Swedish lawyer advised him to flee to England. If he could imagine his life today, 2 years after the document drop would he still do it?.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
