Comments on: Financial giants use McClelland statements to blockade WikiLeaks

By: ellas ilios

ellas ilios — Sun, 02 Dec 2012 15:35:37 +0000

Please help promote this link wherever you can; if you believe in freedom of expression and freedom of the press.

Julian Assange for the Nobel prize for freedom of the press:

(Please type 3w).avaaz.org/en/petition/Julian_Assange_for_Nobel_prize_Freedom_of_the_Press/

Lets see how “Noble” the Norwegians and their righteous Swede neighbors are or claim to be, since they offered Obama the Nobel peace prize!

By: Person Ordinary

Person Ordinary — Thu, 29 Nov 2012 04:31:43 +0000

Ha … Julia Gillard called Tony Abbott’s bluff, and he put his cards on the table - he had nothing, not even a pair of deuces. Abbott failed

By: Ian

Ian — Thu, 29 Nov 2012 03:42:20 +0000

What does legal mean? Governments can and do make legal or illegal whatever activities they wish. We should really focus on what is right and just, not what is legal. The hounding of Wikileaks and Bradley Manning is certainly not right nor just but many of the acts exposed by them are criminal by any definition.

By: Person Ordinary

Person Ordinary — Thu, 29 Nov 2012 02:20:16 +0000

Pfft …

By: Suzanne Blake

Suzanne Blake — Wed, 28 Nov 2012 22:35:43 +0000

Speaking of McClelland he was the Labor MP and then Minister who raised the Gillard AWU first in Parliament.

Now with the revelations today, Gillard I am afraid Jimmy and co is GONE. The truth has caught up.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/investigations/proof-pm-told-firm-what-she-wont-tell-parliament/story-fng5kxvh-1226526159739

By: Person Ordinary

Person Ordinary — Wed, 28 Nov 2012 21:11:22 +0000

The “Hegemon” is clearly above the law, and well out of reach of justice. In a sane world, Wikileaks would sue the financiers, and the separation of powers between the executive and legal functions would ensure governments can only watch from the side lines.

It is the bankers that have the most to lose from the publication of truth …

By: drsmithy

drsmithy — Wed, 28 Nov 2012 10:07:23 +0000

Can’t have it both ways. Either Assange has something to fear (in which case the Credit card companies are acting correctly) or Assange has nothing to fear (and the credit card companies are being unreasonable)

The broken assumption behind this false dichotomy being that not having done anything illegal means not having anything to fear from the US Government and its legal system.

By: AR

AR — Wed, 28 Nov 2012 10:01:50 +0000

CNagle - please explain how one it’s treason to poke the Hegemon when one is not a citizen of the Benighted States.
You also seem to think that dissent=treason, as did the unlamented xtn nutter, John Ashcroft, who was shrub’s first A/G - dumb or dumber.

By: Gavin Moodie

Gavin Moodie — Wed, 28 Nov 2012 09:55:16 +0000

Treason is killing the head of state or the prime minister, or levying war against the state. How has Wikileaks done either of these?

By: Christopher Nagle

Christopher Nagle — Wed, 28 Nov 2012 09:35:27 +0000

Wikileaks treads a tendentious line between treason and dissent. So why shouldn’t it be treated with equally ambiguous behavior by its enemies?

By: Paddy Forsayeth

Paddy Forsayeth — Wed, 28 Nov 2012 05:48:06 +0000

Scott, Visa and Mastercard are acting against Wikileaks on an assumption of illegal activity, quite contrary to basic law and social rights. Imagine the uproar if companies and Gov. withdrew services on the basis of suggesting you had done something illegal and proving that you hadn’t. I think Visa withdrew its service under pressure from the US admin.

By: Gavin Moodie

Gavin Moodie — Wed, 28 Nov 2012 05:41:36 +0000

But this piece specifically states that ‘no indictment has yet been revealed of anyone beyond the accused leaker, Bradley Manning …’.

The US locks up people without charge.

By: Scott

Scott — Wed, 28 Nov 2012 05:36:05 +0000

Crikey’s coverage of the Assange/Wiki leaks affair continues to be a bit bipolar.

One one hand you say that Assange is in danger of being extradited to the US because the US has issued a sealed indictment against him for his illegal wikileaks activities.

And now you say that the credit card companies are acting incorrectly as wikileaks has committed no crimes and the US Grand Jury is coming up empty.

Can’t have it both ways. Either Assange has something to fear (in which case the Credit card companies are acting correctly) or Assange has nothing to fear (and the credit card companies are being unreasonable)

By: Scott Grant

Scott Grant — Wed, 28 Nov 2012 04:50:14 +0000

Perhaps we should all stop using the services of Visa and Mastercard and Amex until they can prove that they are not acting illegally and have never acted illegally.

By: shepherdmarilyn

shepherdmarilyn — Wed, 28 Nov 2012 04:42:08 +0000

RElying on Gillard and Australia for the law is absurd, they don’t even know what our laws are.

By: Gavin Moodie

Gavin Moodie — Wed, 28 Nov 2012 04:30:03 +0000

Yes, this is bloody disgraceful. Nonetheless, I note that it is still possible to donate to Wikileaks using one’s credit card.

By: CML

CML — Wed, 28 Nov 2012 03:06:16 +0000

Clearly Roxon is stretching the truth when she says it is only a problem for Visa Europe and the EU. If the credit card companies are relying on Australian government statements, then it is very much OUR problem.