Want to donate money to Wikileak? Do it soon, some day it may get you blacklisted.

Mr. Dictator

A Chain-Smoking Fox
Joined
Jul 27, 2003
Messages
9,094
Location
Murfreesboro, TN
Now with 100% more link!

Peter King, Chair of the House Committee on Homeland Security, wants WikiLeaks placed on the Treasury Department's blacklist in order to "strangle (its) viability," by threatening, if not strangling, the viability of any person or company that dares to engage in any economic transaction with WikiLeaks or Assange. Conducting business, or providing any economic assistance to a blacklisted entity, even unknowingly, no matter how trivial, is a violation of federal law, for which you too may be blacklisted, losing access to all your property and interests in the U.S. (I've written previously about the blacklists here and here.)

King is especially incensed that an American publisher, Knopf, has entered into a book deal with Assange (who is reportedly receiving over a million dollars for his memoir); and if he is now blacklisted, you could conceivably break the law merely by buying his book, or contributing to a WikiLeaks defense fund. In other words, King is not simply targeting Assange and Wikileaks; he is targeting all of us -- every American citizen and company. In his view, even a paying consumer of information and ideas from WIkiLeaks or Assange is collaborating in terrorism.

This doesn't mean that every WikiLeaks consumer or supporter would actually be prosecuted for every trivial transaction. It does mean that if you're targeted by the Administration as a political threat, it has one more weapon in its arsenal to use against you. And, while the expansive maze of federal laws may make ordinary, generally law abiding people theoretically liable to prosecution anyway (as my friend Harvey Silverglate has written, most people probably commit "three felonies a day"), the power afforded by blacklisting laws is particularly arbitrary and unaccountable. You can be blacklisted without due process, without notice of an investigation or a chance to defend yourself.

On the other hand, you can violate blacklists (and there are several) with impunity if your prosecution would be politically inconvenient. As David Cole pointed out in a New York Times op-ed, Rudy Guiliani and several high ranking former Bush Administration officials (including former Attorney General Mukasey) met with a blacklisted organization late last year, but -- good for them --their First Amendment rights seem secure.

Blacklisting is enabled by a network of federal statutes and executive orders, which requires study to begin to understand. (I doubt many members of Congress can explain it.) Complicated, obscure, and arbitrary, with an incredibly wide reach, this is a legal regime practically designed to be abused. It represents the politicization of law, for which both parties are responsible; and it's a lot more tyrannical than health care reform.

UPDATE: The Treasury Department has declined Congressman King's request to blacklist WikiLeaks and Assange, according to The Hill, citing a lack of evidence "at this time."

So, Treasury Department has declined ("at this time"), but some big people wanna make sure the little ones can't put their support where they want to. Combine this with the subpoenas, and we're seeing a state that is drunk on its own power and willing to throw its own citizens who align with wikileaks as "collaborating in terrorism".

Thoughts? Where are the cries of the state over-stepping their bounds in the Republican Party? Where are the cries of the right of information from the Democratic Party? Why are some of us upset that their taxes go to unemployment extensions, but not to those same taxes going to things that the state does not want us to know about?
 
I'd love to donate, but I don't have money to spare for them, seeing as I'm a teenager and all.
 
So if I understand this correctly, the Treasury Department takes recommendations as to who is to be blacklisted from federal agencies/committees. Is there any requirement for proof? Is there any recourse? It seems thoroughly overreaching.
 
So if I understand this correctly, the Treasury Department takes recommendations as to who is to be blacklisted from federal agencies/committees. Is there any requirement for proof? Is there any recourse? It seems thoroughly overreaching.

It seems there is a requirement for evidence. Whatever evidence they require, I don't know. Maybe someone else who is more knowledgeable about it or how to find out may help clarify that.

However, since it seems everyone in those corridors wants wikileaks torn down, I'd wager a guess that the evidence they'd require is flimsier than they would for others.

Either way, something to keep an eye on in the coming weeks and months. Especially after the Bank of America leaks propels them back into the national spotlight.
 
Rather shocked that people are surprised by this.

Wikileaks essentially declared war on the US government. Did you think they would sit and take it up the keester without responding?

They've declared war on state secrets, which I believe is an important distinction.

Also, this is not an attack on wikileaks solely. Are you comfortable with me being blacklisted if I bought Julian Assange's book? Do you think the government needs my personal information because I "liked" wikileaks on facebook? At what point does the knight become the dragon?
 
Can we start with Peter King for financially and politically supporting Irish terrorism? The sheer hypocrisy of this man amazes me.
 
They've declared war on state secrets, which I believe is an important distinction.

Also, this is not an attack on wikileaks solely. Are you comfortable with me being blacklisted if I bought Julian Assange's book? Do you think the government needs my personal information because I "liked" wikileaks on facebook? At what point does the knight become the dragon?

Caveat Emptor comes to mind.

As to your wikileaks associations....does the saying 'if one wrestles with pigs one is likely to get muddy' mean anything to you?
 
Caveat Emptor comes to mind.

As to your wikileaks associations....does the saying 'if one wrestles with pigs one is likely to get muddy' mean anything to you?

This buyer knows.

So do I have freedom of opinion in this country? Why does the fact that I clicked a button on facebook expressing support for wikileaks justify the state obtaining my information?
 
It seems there is a requirement for evidence. Whatever evidence they require, I don't know. Maybe someone else who is more knowledgeable about it or how to find out may help clarify that.

However, since it seems everyone in those corridors wants wikileaks torn down, I'd wager a guess that the evidence they'd require is flimsier than they would for others.
I'm curious as to whether the evidence is meant to be merely enough to satisfy the Treasury Department, or merely enough to be politically expedient, or if it actually has to pass some sort of legal test.
Rather shocked that people are surprised by this.

Wikileaks essentially declared war on the US government. Did you think they would sit and take it up the keester without responding?
Your opinion that wikileaks is an organisation 'at war' with the US government is a reasonably valid one, but presumably you acknowledge that it is no open and shut case. Given this, would you think it preferable if the situation was sorted out in a court of law, or are you fine with the government just blacklisting whoever they want?
 
Caveat Emptor comes to mind.

As to your wikileaks associations....does the saying 'if one wrestles with pigs one is likely to get muddy' mean anything to you?

Except here the mud is attacking the pig and man.
 
This buyer knows.

So do I have freedom of opinion in this country? Why does the fact that I clicked a button on facebook expressing support for wikileaks justify the state obtaining my information?

You absolutely have freedom of opinion, but what you dont realize is that sometimes having that opinion (or voicing them) has ramifications. Its up to you to decide how much heat you can take by the relationships and opinions you choose to have.

Lets change the word wikileaks and replace it the KKK or something equally as vile. Wouldnt you agree joining their (the KKKs) facebook page be a reason for them (the gov) to be interested in you as regards KKK issues?

Of course it would.

So why you are surprised that this is being done in regards to wikileaks is beyond me. Most anyone coulda seen it coming from a mile away.

I'm curious as to whether the evidence is meant to be merely enough to satisfy the Treasury Department, or merely enough to be politically expedient, or if it actually has to pass some sort of legal test.

Your opinion that wikileaks is an organisation 'at war' with the US government is a reasonably valid one, but presumably you acknowledge that it is no open and shut case. Given this, would you think it preferable if the situation was sorted out in a court of law, or are you fine with the government just blacklisting whoever they want?

Well, the MO of the government is to typically take such action against anyone associated with the 'enemy' so to speak until the situation is indeed sorted out....in court or however.

Again, if you didnt see this sort of thing coming, then....
 
No it is not a reasonably valid anything
Shhhh! I'm trying to draw away from what would be a futile and obfuscating argument in order to attempt to engage on a more relevant point.:p
Well, the MO of the government is to typically take such action against anyone associated with the 'enemy' so to speak until the situation is indeed sorted out....in court or however.
So you're cool with the government blacklisting first and asking questions later? Doesn't this go against the idea of due process? What framework is established to ensure that any allegations are aired in a court of law in a timely fashion, and to counter the government's ability to blacklist anyone they don't like?
Again, if you didnt see this sort of thing coming, then....
I don't know where you're getting the idea that people didn't see this coming. The point is that now that it has come, people can actually discuss it. This is no shock news, but I don't think anyone is claiming that it is.
 
Lets change the word wikileaks and replace it the KKK or something equally as vile. Wouldnt you agree joining their (the KKKs) facebook page be a reason for them (the gov) to be interested in you as regards KKK issues?

So wikileaks is comparable to an organization with a past full of physical violence and terrorism?

What use is a freedom, if it comes with stipulations on how I can use it? I have no problem with you holding those backwards views, but you should find another word that more accurately describes it than "freedom".

I also don't think the US government should obtain information on the KKKs supporters through facebook. I think they should do actual investigations into who's in it and involved with it physically, instead of a blanket information grab of those who click a button on a website.
 
"Do it soon, some day it may get you blacklisted."

More like:

"Do it soon or you will be arrested for thinking."

.
 
Wikileaks essentially declared war on the US government.

Don't sit on the fence, MB! :lol:

Tell me why we should be kept in the dark about the activities of people WE voted into power?

Do you like being regarded as a slave who gets told to shut up and look away?

You served in the legions, you have a right to more respect from the suits.
 
You absolutely have freedom of opinion, but what you dont realize is that sometimes having that opinion (or voicing them) has ramifications. Its up to you to decide how much heat you can take by the relationships and opinions you choose to have.

This strikes me as something that one would expect for a corrupt illiberal democracy or an authoritarian regime, rather than a liberal democracy that trumpets liberty and freedom and human rights 24 hours a day 7 days a week.

"It's up to you to decide how much heat you can take by the relationships and opinions you choose to have?" Those are the words of an autocrat, who would restrict a citizen's right to express himself or access news and information on political grounds. I believe the United States of America is better than that.
 
Rather shocked that people are surprised by this.

Wikileaks essentially declared war on the US government. Did you think they would sit and take it up the keester without responding?

Can you please define "war" so that the word makes any sense in this context? or were you speaking metaphorically, in the sense of "information war"?
oh, and please show how wikileaks did anything illegal - after all, they are not based in the US, stole no documents, did not pay others to do so, and did not fake any.

it is the US government's own problem if
a) their security sucks,
b) they do/say things that can damage them if they become public.

interestingly, most people I know here had a good laugh about the Berlin embassy's notes about German politicians. We understand that people have different opinions (a fact lost on may US citizen, I have noted on this board), and that being polite to someone doesn't force you to lie to your superior about that person. So all the outrage was - not.
 
Back
Top Bottom