Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
WikiLeaks says Funding Has Been Blocked After Government Blacklisting
Founder Julian Assange hits out at decision by Moneybookers, which collects the whistleblowing website's donations
The whistleblowing group WikiLeaks claims that it has had its funding blocked and that it is the victim of financial warfare by the US government.
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange holds up a copy of the Guardian after thousands of US military documents were leaked and exposed. (Photograph: Andrew Winning/REUTERS) Moneybookers, a British-registered internet payment company that collects WikiLeaks donations, emailed the organisation to say it had closed down its account because it had been put on an official US watchlist and on an Australian government blacklist.
The apparent blacklisting came a few days after the Pentagon publicly expressed its anger at WikiLeaks and its founder, Australian citizen Julian Assange, for obtaining thousands of classified military documents about the war in Afghanistan, in one of the US army's biggest leaks of information. The documents caused a sensation when they were made available to the Guardian, the New York Times and German magazine Der Spiegel, revealing hitherto unreported civilian casualties.
WikiLeaks defied Pentagon calls to return the war logs and destroy all copies. Instead, it has been reported that it intends to release an even larger cache of military documents, disclosing other abuses in Iraq.
Moneybookers moved against WikiLeaks on 13 August, according to the correspondence, less than a week after the Pentagon made public threats of reprisals against the organisation. Moneybookers wrote to Assange: "Following an audit of your account by our security department, we must advise that your account has been closed ... to comply with money laundering or other investigations conducted by government authorities."
When Assange emailed to ask what the problem was, he says he was told in response by Daniel Stromberg, the Moneybookers e-commerce manager for the Nordic region: "When I did my regular overview of my customers, I noticed that something was wrong with your account and I emailed our risk and legal department to solve this issue.
"Below I have copied the answer I received from them: 'Hi Daniel, you can inform him that initially his account was suspended due to being accessed from a blacklisted IP address. However, following recent publicity and the subsequently addition of the WikiLeaks entity to blacklists in Australia and watchlists in the USA, we have terminated the business relationship.'"
Assange said: "This is likely to cause a huge backlash against Moneybookers. Craven behaviour in relation to the US government is unlikely to be seen sympathetically."
Moneybookers, which is registered in the UK but controlled by the Bahrain-based group Investcorp, would not make anyone available to explain the decision. Its public relations firm, 77PR, said: "We have never had any request, inquiry or correspondence from any authority regarding this former customer." Asked how this could be reconciled with the references in the correspondence to a blacklist, it said: "We stick with our original statement."
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
161 Comments so far
Show All"What a complete fraud you are."
But can you actually explain why, and show your work? I don't think you can, you aren't up to it, because frankly, I don't think you are very good at this. I'll give you a hint though: Everything I have said is sitting right there for you to quote as a factual beginning for a reasoned argument and thus form an actual basis for your thesis "What a complete fraud you are":
Facts ==> Reasoning ==> Thesis
When U got to to go, U got to go.
Morticia what a beautiful name, the "F" thing was a deadly statemnet. I second that.
In Soulidarity.
Wikileaks is owed the same privileges and rights that any other firm or service might expect. This forum is owed a far better quality of post from you.
By the by, for all who still cling to the myth that the Obama administration is a 'change for the better' from the previous one, please think again.
"Wikileaks is owed the same privileges and rights that any other firm or service might expect."
Were you going to articulate what you think those rights are? Do you think they have a "right" to Moneybookers services?
The thing about Jake the Fake is that he is always MERELY pointing things out for us ignoramuses.
He loves to portray himself as an issuer of platitudes. His mind is also replete with "obvious truths," as he calls them. He is a treasure trove of passive-agressive banalities.
However, in the issuing of his fake platitudes, he always distorts the meaning of some words or hijacks terms for purposes that are inimical to them, as is the case here with the word 'owed'.
You sound confused and distracted to me so let me try to clarify: There seemed to me an underlying idea here that it was "outrageous" that Moneybookers dropped Wikileaks. I think given the controvery over what Wikileaks had done that it's not at all unexpected, and that of course Moneybookers is under no oblication to provide service to Wikileaks. Is there any part of this that you don't agree with?
What a load of crap you pour out on these threads. The real question remains, do you honestly believe your own avoidance and distortions?
Rhetorical question requiring no answer. Most of this forum get it, you never will.
"What a load of crap"
Why is my contention, that what Moneybrookers did was not unexpected or outrageous, "crap"?
"The real question remains, do you honestly believe your own avoidance and distortions?"
How weird of you to say this, where elsewhere you state the only question is whether a government interferred with Moneybrookers. I guess the only real question is whatever you say it is.
"Rhetorical question requiring no answer."
Says who?
Neither is the Pentagon. Let's figure out where they get their income from, and SHUT IT OFF.
The Pentagon/military needs to be reigned in and prevented from wasting more resources through their grossly bloated war budget...in this case the Pentagon needs a lesson in democracy, transparency, and not acting like totalitarians.
Too late for any of that. They're on the loose and running wild. Nothing can stop them now.
Those guys look kind of funny in retrospect.
That is the answer, give back our money Mr,s Gates Ramsfiled Obama etc
The important parts of the Pentagon budget are "black", that is off-budget--kind of a dont-ask-dont-tell thing. Then there is the fine poppy crop in Afghanistan, the real source of funds for totally unaccountable black ops worldwide. Welcome to Amerika.
No, but Wikileaks is "Owed" its First Amendment Rights.
And these are the rights that the Pentagon is doing everything it can do to squash. The Pentagon can smash the presses of the newspapers that it does not like by using finances just as effectively as it can with sledgehammers.
"No,"
Exactly, thank you.
"but Wikileaks is "Owed" its First Amendment Rights."
Yes, but courts have held certain limits to those rights, such as yelling fire in a theatre, and soon we will see if it's OK to say "God Hates Fags" at the event of a funeral for a soldier killed in battle.
That is a pretty weak and trite argument, Jake.
In this case, the theater IS ON FIRE and rather than just watching the patrons burn to a crisp, Wikileaks has taken the honorable route of letting people know in a responsible way that their safety depends upon an exit strategy.
But such an action might cut into the bottom line of the war profiteers and mercenaries so the Pentagon is not only trying to muzzle Wikileaks, they are telling all of the patrons to stay and watch the movie as the flames continue to consume the building.
"That is a pretty weak and trite argument,"
I wasn't arguing, just reminding. I really have no idea about the legality of Wikileaks activities vis a vis the US constitution.
"In this case, the theater IS ON FIRE "
That's an "opinion" subject to debate, not a fact.
See, Jake the Fake is "just" reminding (see my post above on one of Fake's favorite strategies). Perhaps, we should call him Juske, instead of Jake.
Another one of Juske's specialties is to separate off opinion from fact. He is one of the rare people who has a degree in fact segregation.
"to separate off opinion from fact"
You seem to think they are the same thing. A fact is a data point. An opinion is a position one takes, sometimes based on facts and reasoning and sometimes not. One kind of opinion is better than the other.
Awesome post.
Actually, Jake's initial point cuts right to the heart of the matter here. Indeed, nobody is required to do business with Wikileaks. Having said that, then, the question becomes this: was Moneybookers' decision to pull the account the product of ACTIVE government coercion or not. Because if we could find evidence of THAT, then we might have a leg to stand on. (And I don't doubt that such evidence IS out there somewhere, and may well come to light.) Other questions I have, personally, are: Exactly what official 'watchlist' was Wikileaks placed upon? Who else is on it? If I, for example, donated to Wikileaks, does that incriminate me in some way or get me placed on a list? And more generally, in what was intended to be a Constitutional Republic, why do we now have a government whose military-industrial complex is creating watchlists for its political enemies? How did we get here and how do we get back? Oh... and will there be another 'donation collection' business willing to step up to the plate?
"Jake's initial point cuts right to the heart of the matter here."
Thanks, I thought it did.
"Moneybookers' decision to pull the account the product of ACTIVE government coercion or not. "
I think that's a fair question but not the only one. Another to ask, is the praise for Wikileaks universal? Or do lots of people think that they are scum? If there are enough in the latter category, and/or if this group contians the Moneybrookers principals, then that's all the explanation you need as to why they pulled their services. This is alluded to in the original article.
"Exactly what official 'watchlist' was Wikileaks placed upon? Who else is on it?"
Other good questions.
Since when does the opinion one holds of the actions of Wikileaks have anything whatsoever to do with the reason they were denied the services of that company? The issue here remains, despite your silly wrigglings, did our government intrude upon that business relationship for purely political motives?
For a libertarian you are certainly flexible when it serves you , for a citizen of a democracy, your views are certainly ludicrous.
"Since when does the opinion one holds of the actions of Wikileaks have anything whatsoever to do with the reason they were denied the services of that company?"
Wow. Just wow. You have no imagination at all. This is completely dunderheaded of you. See below.
"The issue here remains,"
Wow. Really? Just because *you* say so? You seem to have not the slightest idea where you are and the nature of this place. Let me help you with that: We are free to discuss *any* or *all* of the questions raised by the article here. We are even free to discuss other questions not raised by the article.
Now I'll spell it out in crayon for you this time: I think what Wikileaks did was reprehensible. I know that there are many who feel the way I do. I know that Moneybrookers principals may feel this way themselves. Given this, it is entirely possible that the *sole* reason Moneybrookers dropped this client was to rid themselves of a big PR mess.
Now you enjoy the rest of your weekend, OK?
Now you are just lying or didn't actually read the article Jake, Moneybookers specifically said that the reason they shut down Wikileaks account was government blacklisting. For those in either gross denial, or who don't bother to actually read the articles, here is the quote:
"Moneybookers, a British-registered internet payment company that collects WikiLeaks donations, emailed the organisation to say it had closed down its account because it had been put on an official US watchlist and on an Australian government blacklist."
From the original post article. Any questions? So the argument that you are are in fact overtly endorsing government intimidation of private non coercive financial transactions but only when it suits your political agenda stands.
"Moneybookers specifically said that the reason they shut down Wikileaks account was government blacklisting."
LOLOLOL!!! That doesn't mean that the government "interferred" or "intimidated" or that Moneybrooks was "pressured". They may simply have a policy where they are *delighted* to withdraw service if a client is "blacklisted" to avoid a big PR mess, or because they actually want to cooperate with the government.
Try again?
"Any questions?"
Nope.
"overtly endorsing government intimidation "
What I endorse is Moneybrookers right to withdraw services to any client for any reason they wish. Your claim that there was intimidation involved is completely unsupported and beside the point.
LOL!
Yes of course Jake blacklisting people isn't a form of intimidation at all, McCarythism ring a bell? You are not only a hypocrite when it comes to freemarkts and a tool, you are proudly arrogant about being a hypocrite and a tool.
And BTW do you wish to retract your statement that Moneybookers didn't withdraw their account due to government blacklisting when *they* clearly stated that was in fact the case? Of course you will never ever admit you were wrong even when the documented facts show your statements to be untrue, because the regressive right thrives on bluster and machismo of being the all knowing patriarchal daddy, over rationality and truth every time. :(
Sigh!
"blacklisting people isn't a form of intimidation at all"
LOL! As if intimidation was "automatic". "Blacklisting" is not at all a precise term and your comparison of this incident to the McCarthy era has no merit. Ony some entities feel "intimidated" by blacklists. The fact is that there is a rich history of companies freely and happily cooperating with the government. And the fact remains that there is no evidence whatsoever that Moneybookers didn't act completely freely and with delight, there is certainly no sign that they regretted their action from the quote you supply. The burden is on *you* to prove they were intimidated, since you assert this to be true.
"do you wish to retract your statement that Moneybookers didn't withdraw their account due to government blacklisting "
No, why would I do that? And why didn't you include this quote "However, following recent publicity " which supports my contention that they wanted to distance themselves from the *publicity* associated with reprehensible acts by Wikileaks? This I believe to be the primary reason for dropping Wikileaks and I am sticking with it.
You also forgot " initially his account was suspended due to being accessed from a blacklisted IP address. " presumably some unnamed entity sending donations I suppose. It is apparent that this is a matter of Moneybookers policy and there is no evidence they aren't delighted to impliment that policy.
The bottom line is Wikileaks made this bed and has to sleep in it. I don't see PayPal or anyone anxious to come to their rescue either. They are poison and rightly so by their very own doing. No blacklisting required.
Jake your stiff necked never say die refusal to surrender right or wrong only makes *you* look bad. Hint, what part of
"emailed the organisation to say it had closed down its account because it had been put on an official US watchlist and on an Australian government blacklist."
ie they kicked wikileaks off their service due to blacklisting do you fail to understand? But keeping digging your hole deeper and making a public spectacle of your gross hypocrisy and self contradicting statements.
The man lives in a dream world wherein he really is as clever as he believes himself to be. I wonder why he fails to note that people snicker at him while he walks away?
"people snicker at him while he walks away?"
"Snickering" is not an argument, so why would I care?
"ie they kicked wikileaks off their service due to blacklisting do you fail to understand?"
You are not sophisticated enough to understand that there are often larger more general policies that govern how to deal with a specific event. Continuing to provide service to Wikileaks after a "blacklisting", leads to bad publicity, the perception that you are helping someone who is helping the enemy, and that you would lose sales from other current and potential customers. So your conclusion that it was due to "blacklisting" is simplistic and demonstrates one dimensional thinking on your part. And evidently the first "blacklist" was a list of IP addresses. Yes, I would say it's bad business to deal with people sending money from IP addresses that are linked to criminal enterprises, you did see the words "money laundering" in all that I take it? Mabye not, I think you view things selectively, that's OK you can fix that with practice.
In any case there certainly is no evidence that there was intimidation, just because you find the word "blacklist" eerie and spooky and therefore *imagine* that there must be intimidation.
"hypocrisy and self contradicting statements."
I've crushed every attempt by you to demonstrate that. *shrug*
Have a great day!
You just said blacklisitng was effective in spooking a company** in your own words* and then didn't bother to criticize the black listing because you in fact support it. Thus you support government intimidation that interferes in private transactions.
*"Continuing to provide service to Wikileaks after a "blacklisting", leads to bad publicity, the perception that you are helping someone who is helping the enemy, and that you would lose sales from other current and potential customers."
Your own words Jake Newton, I hear crow is good with salt.
Bluster and hand waving is no substitute for a rational coherent argument, when you yourself said blacklisting is an effective deterrent to business and that you support said blacklisting. The dirty secret of neo-cons is when you start losing an argument on merit and logic you turn to bullying and force whether writ small in a forum such as this, or writ large in Dubya's illegal war of aggression against Iraq.
"You just said blacklisitng was effective in spooking a company"
No I didn't.
"*"
There's nothing there about being spooked or intimidated or pressured by the government in what I wrote except in your own imagination. I am quite sure they were doing it with enthusiasm and weren't the least bit spooked.
*shrug*
You aren't as bright as you think you are Jake here are *your* own words on the effect of blacklisting ie government intimidation on a business forcing it for self interest reasons to drop a client once blacklisted by the government:
"Continuing to provide service to Wikileaks after a "blacklisting", leads to bad publicity, the perception that you are helping someone who is helping the enemy, and that you would lose sales from other current and potential customers.""
Do you now disagree with this assessment *you* made?
Sigh, why do I even bother?
"Do you now disagree with this assessment *you* made?"
No, I stand by it and I disagree it indicates any government intimidation and you have failed to prove any. Google "non sequitur", that's your mistake. You will be better for it trust me.
"Sigh, why do I even bother?"
Ditto. This was simply a repeat of my last post and my argument remains untouched by you.
Look moron either blacklisting has a negative impact on a business forcing them to drop a client or it doesn't. You yourself indicated it has a negative impact forcing them to change who they do business with, so which is it negative impact or no negative impact? Please answer the question!
And I suppose a mafia don saying we wouldn't you you to get hurt has no negative impact on the threatened persons motivations either.
The amount of hypocrisy neo-cons like Jake Newton hold around uncoerced financial transactions is astonishing to behold. And the stubbornness with which they hold on to their arguments after being shown to have uttered blatantly hypocritical statements is also astonishing to behold. But hey it's only you who looks bad here Jake so carry on.
S
e
e
n
e
w
p
o
s
t
I'm old enough to remember McCarthy and the blacklists. Thousands of people lost their jobs, their standing in the community, and their ability to get a job. Of course, many, such as screen writers, were allowed to work, under a pseudonym, for pennies.
First off, nobody is "owed" the right to anything, beyond the Constitutional guarantees listed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
It sounds like Wikileaks had a business arrangement with Moneybookers to receive donations and presumably pay it over to Wikileaks, no doubt taking a commission.
This, or any other business relationship may be terminated. What is at question here is governmental threats against this relationship continuing. Threats strong enough to make them comply.
We all know about watch lists. We've seen what has happened to charitable organizations the government doesn't like. They are harassed and intimidated, their assets are frozen, their officers may be jailed without trial if the government has declared them to be supportive of "terrorism." Common citizens are in the same boat. If the government decides that there is a terrorist link between the citizen and anybody else, he/she may be disappeared. No reason to be given; "National Security." Their bank accounts and property may be seized.
Wait until the government decides that such groups as the ACLU and the American Friends Service Committee are declared terrorist or terrorist supporters. Everybody who has given a dime will be on the watch lists, or worse.
So, the question boils down to; did Moneybookers just decide to terminate their business agreement, which they had a right to, or did they do it because of governmental blackmail. My guess is the latter. It fits into the pattern of intimidation used by this government and its various black agencies.
I hope Wikileaks finds another vendor with a bit more spine, but I doubt it if the government is really turning the screws.
"So, the question boils down to; did Moneybookers just decide to terminate their business agreement, which they had a right to, or did they do it because of governmental blackmail. :
Right.
"My guess is the latter. It fits into the pattern of intimidation used by this government and its various black agencies."
But the former would fit into the pattern of companies that willingly assist the government as a matter of good citizenship, such as with solving crimes. The incident was triggered by Wikileaks account being accessed by a blacklisted IP address, and there was mention of money laundering. There are all sorts of crimes that use computers with IP addresses, such as money laundering, terrorism, child porn, fraud, etc.
The efficiency and ease with which our government can dispose of its real enemies should not be lost.
Boogieman Bin Laden and his band of merry cave dwellers will live on for eternity while Assange is choked out in record time.
Don't f**k with the Empire!
Exactly. And never let it sink in just how grossly more people we slaughter. This is the heart of Assange's message. For the empire always desperately needs a boogie man, someone they can prop up as worse than US. That way we never have to look at ourselves and question our own morality.
Surely, Wikileaks can simply direct donors to do a transfer to a bank account. If you are afraid of something as minor as the FBI knowing you donate to Wikileaks, then yo uneed to get over it.
Last time I donated to Wikileaks, it was through paypal. Moneybookers was just one way to donate to Wikileaks, albeit the one with the greatest degree of anomynity.
I suppose I really shouldn't be surprised, but I am because it drives home to me just how powerful and malignant our government is. No doubt, Common Dreams could also be shut down in the same or some other equally devious way. And the authorities could deny everything. Talk about scary.
What it means is that CD is not really a threat, whereas Wikileaks is.
Jim Shea
makes me proud to be on their list
If anyone is monitoring CD they would be wasting their time. They supported Obama.
A few people i know call it a tool for the Democratic party.
Indeed, I remember being part of a wave of bannings here for daring to support a general strike. While there is some intelligent conversation here which is why I read the site (for that more than the articles BTW) it is all just talk and exactly zero threat to the status quo.
And CD itself could pitch into help more too if we had an independent discussion forum (separate from the articles) to discuss upcoming demonstrations, and strategies, local self reliance etc, perhaps we could start translating talk into concrete action.
Or we can waste away here discussing irrelevant divide and conquer issues like gun control, identity politics, and abortion as appendages to the articles (hierarchy in action BTW) while the war mongering global economic elite of CEOs, and bankers, laughs its way to the quite literal bank, which is what I suspect shall happen. :(
The truth can get you killed. Hard to say whos hit list is mor dangerous these days, but the US security machine which the FBI is a part of, has considerably more resources than foreign terrorists, and a whole lot more to lose if the truth were known about a lot of things.
This action on the part of the US government is enough to make me want to donate to Wikileaks. Please advise the public when it gets a new money manager.