PayPal Freezes Support Account For Bradley Manning(couragetoresist.org)
couragetoresist.org
PayPal Freezes Support Account For Bradley Manning
http://www.couragetoresist.org/x/content/view/891/1
76 comments
I still can't believe that this guy is basically being tortured before trial with the solitary confinement regime that they have him under. I know that military justice is different than civilian justice but I'd still think punishment requires a trial. And punitive solitary should be on the wrong side of "cruel and unusual" for any crime up to and including treason -- if it's capital, you can kill them, but you can't do so cruelly or unusually.
I served in the Navy as a Legalman (LN), and while I don't know the specifics of this case, military justice differs from civilian justice in quite a few ways. To begin with, a trial is not needed for confinement, nor for certain types of punishment.
Under Article 10 of the UCMJ, the accused can be confined before trial. There is no upper limit on how long, either. Though I believe rule 707 of the Manual for Courts-Martial says the "general" maximum is 120 days for what is considered a speedy trial.
Not saying what they're doing is right (or wrong), but it seems his incarceration is legal (for now).
Under Article 10 of the UCMJ, the accused can be confined before trial. There is no upper limit on how long, either. Though I believe rule 707 of the Manual for Courts-Martial says the "general" maximum is 120 days for what is considered a speedy trial.
Not saying what they're doing is right (or wrong), but it seems his incarceration is legal (for now).
I don't know about this particular case, but as somebody who served in the military, I always find it odd when folks talk about military member's civil rights.
Do they realize that the military can and will take lives? That simple things like your smoking habits can get people killed? That you give up all sorts of things when you put the uniform on?
Don't get me wrong -- I didn't like any of that. And I was in the infantry, which is much more about military discipline and foundational stuff. I think a lot of folks look at the military and think of guys living in dorms and doing jobs that involve pushing a lot of buttons. In that case, those folks begin to look a lot like anybody else going to work. So we expect them to have a similar work and legal environment as the rest of us.
Like I said, I'm not trying to pass judgment on Manning in this comment or try to figure out what the appropriate type of incarceration would be for him. I just find people's attitudes towards the military very -- weird.
Do they realize that the military can and will take lives? That simple things like your smoking habits can get people killed? That you give up all sorts of things when you put the uniform on?
Don't get me wrong -- I didn't like any of that. And I was in the infantry, which is much more about military discipline and foundational stuff. I think a lot of folks look at the military and think of guys living in dorms and doing jobs that involve pushing a lot of buttons. In that case, those folks begin to look a lot like anybody else going to work. So we expect them to have a similar work and legal environment as the rest of us.
Like I said, I'm not trying to pass judgment on Manning in this comment or try to figure out what the appropriate type of incarceration would be for him. I just find people's attitudes towards the military very -- weird.
Not being tortured is a human right.
Full stop. This isn't about whether the punishment for losing your rifle is excessive, this is a black and white issue. Punishment before trial == wrong. Torture == wrong. Both are against the constitution.
And I bet nobody even gets in trouble for this.
Full stop. This isn't about whether the punishment for losing your rifle is excessive, this is a black and white issue. Punishment before trial == wrong. Torture == wrong. Both are against the constitution.
And I bet nobody even gets in trouble for this.
Yeah, and I'm really don't like the special treatment for "enemy combatants" as well. Does the right to life, liberty and happiness apply to all mankind or just to people the US government is not currently scared of?
> Does the right to life, liberty and happiness apply to all mankind or just to people the US government is not currently scared of?
Scared people are scary. Really scary, when backed far enough into a corner.
Scared people are scary. Really scary, when backed far enough into a corner.
[deleted]
Are you asking if the American Constitution and the American Bill of Rights only applies to Americans?
Enemy combatants belong to non-state actors, and so no treaties or guidelines apply to them. Last I checked Al doesn't Al Qaeda and the rest of the cavers don't get representatives in the UN.
Enemy combatants belong to non-state actors, and so no treaties or guidelines apply to them. Last I checked Al doesn't Al Qaeda and the rest of the cavers don't get representatives in the UN.
Actually, the US Constitution is much broader in terms of protecting individuals then I think you realize. The Constitution is specific when it intends to reserve rights only for citizens, otherwise it uses the word Persons.
See perhaps most recently _Boumediene v. Bush_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boumediene_v._Bush
Namely that these enemy combatants do have rights under the Constitution in this case the right to a habeas petition.
The other relevant historic case-law here is _Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886)_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yick_Wo_v._Hopkins "these provisions [the Constitution] are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction."
See perhaps most recently _Boumediene v. Bush_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boumediene_v._Bush
Namely that these enemy combatants do have rights under the Constitution in this case the right to a habeas petition.
The other relevant historic case-law here is _Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886)_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yick_Wo_v._Hopkins "these provisions [the Constitution] are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction."
How we choose to act in the absence of treaties or guidelines says a lot more about us than it does about inalienable human rights.
Actually, at least the Universal Declaration of Human Rights does apply to them.
Unless the United Nations finds it inconvenient:
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml Article 29(3)
These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml Article 29(3)
These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
[deleted]
He is not being tortured. Here is what his lawyer wrote that his typical day is:
http://www.armycourtmartialdefense.info/2010/12/typical-day-...
<snip>
The guards at the confinement facility are professional. At no time have they tried to bully, harass, or embarrass PFC Manning. Given the nature of their job, however, they do not engage in conversation with PFC Manning.
</snip>
He gets to watch TV, write letters, and have visitors on the weekends. He is isolated, but his treatment and living conditions are a far cry from torture.
<snip>
The guards at the confinement facility are professional. At no time have they tried to bully, harass, or embarrass PFC Manning. Given the nature of their job, however, they do not engage in conversation with PFC Manning.
</snip>
He gets to watch TV, write letters, and have visitors on the weekends. He is isolated, but his treatment and living conditions are a far cry from torture.
That may be a matter of definition.
According to Mssrs Rumsfeld and Cheney people that where waterboarded for up to 200 times where not tortured. According to the definition of torture in the civilized world this sure as hell was and is torture.
It's not a stretch to argue that solitary confinement equates torture.
According to Mssrs Rumsfeld and Cheney people that where waterboarded for up to 200 times where not tortured. According to the definition of torture in the civilized world this sure as hell was and is torture.
It's not a stretch to argue that solitary confinement equates torture.
His conditions are withering him physically and psychologically. He's not allowed to exercise whatsoever, or to communicate with anyone except on weekends. These conditions may not be direct torture, but they are most definitely a form of indirect torture, a claim which is supported by several psychologists. It's a form of punishment before trial, which is absolutely unconstitutional.
You're looking for an argument and a rant and that's not my intent. Nobody said anything about torture being okay.
[deleted]
[deleted]
First, it's debatable whether you can sell, sign away, or give away your own human rights.
Second, lots of people (especially less educated kids), often don't realize what they're signing up for when then enroll in the military. They're often lied to by recruiters, and are brainwashed by their families and the culture around them, who worship the military.
Third, even if Manning had knowingly and willingly agreed to be tortured by the US government, that does not excuse the torture.
Second, lots of people (especially less educated kids), often don't realize what they're signing up for when then enroll in the military. They're often lied to by recruiters, and are brainwashed by their families and the culture around them, who worship the military.
Third, even if Manning had knowingly and willingly agreed to be tortured by the US government, that does not excuse the torture.
FWIW, it's only debatable in the sense that someone could have a debate about it. The courts have repeatedly ruled that you can't sign away your rights. It even comes up in employment law, just because you sign something doesn't mean it's enforceable.
"The courts have repeatedly ruled that you can't sign away your rights."
I guess the US military hasn't gotten the memo yet.
I guess the US military hasn't gotten the memo yet.
I'm with you on this, clearly not many people here have actually served in the military to know first hand what 'rights' you do or don't give up when you serve. If anyone would just look at the situation as it stands right now, you would see that you DO give up certain rights when you are in the military...it's the price you pay when you choose to serve. And let's get this straight - it is a choice. Last time I checked, there was no draft being enforced...
This discussion is sad because in the end, if this kid is found guilty of leaking those docs, found guilty of treason? Smh...whether it's right or wrong, his 'pre-trial torture' will be the least of his worries. And if he is found innocent? It's pretty doubtful anyone gets sued over his wrongful imprisonment, idk, I could be wrong...
This discussion is sad because in the end, if this kid is found guilty of leaking those docs, found guilty of treason? Smh...whether it's right or wrong, his 'pre-trial torture' will be the least of his worries. And if he is found innocent? It's pretty doubtful anyone gets sued over his wrongful imprisonment, idk, I could be wrong...
There's a difference between the US military claiming that you "give up" (or sign away) your rights when you enroll, and whether you actually do or even can give them up at all when you enroll.
Depending on whether you think rights are inherent and inalienable, there could also be a difference between which rights some courts rule you have and which rights you actually have.
The courts might rule and the military might claim you have no rights whatsoever, and they can torture you to death, or imprison you forever, without cause, whenever they feel like it.
Does that mean you have no right not to be tortured? Does it mean you have no right not to be imprisoned without being found guilty of a crime? Or does it mean such imprisonment and torture (even when legal, or when the US military claims its legal) is a violation of your rights?
Depending on whether you think rights are inherent and inalienable, there could also be a difference between which rights some courts rule you have and which rights you actually have.
The courts might rule and the military might claim you have no rights whatsoever, and they can torture you to death, or imprison you forever, without cause, whenever they feel like it.
Does that mean you have no right not to be tortured? Does it mean you have no right not to be imprisoned without being found guilty of a crime? Or does it mean such imprisonment and torture (even when legal, or when the US military claims its legal) is a violation of your rights?
Rules are just that. Human rights are rights, they trump any military rule ever conceived.
PayPal says that they froze the account because they require non profits to associate a bank account with their PayPal account and Courage To Resist has not done this.
http://techcrunch.com/2011/02/24/paypal-on-cutting-off-coura...
http://techcrunch.com/2011/02/24/paypal-on-cutting-off-coura...
This is the reason every time, and still people refuse to do it and claim Paypal are big mean thieves.
Related:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2259673
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2259195
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2259121
(not that I don't appreciate the upvotes (thank you!), but I sometimes find it a little depressing when I get more votes for cross-referencing items like this than for original work that provides real information: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2259761 )
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2259673
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2259195
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2259121
(not that I don't appreciate the upvotes (thank you!), but I sometimes find it a little depressing when I get more votes for cross-referencing items like this than for original work that provides real information: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2259761 )
I think your automated script was very helpful. I would urge you to bring it back. Particularly now that I distinctly feel that duplicates have been on the rise. By duplicate I do not mean the exact url are resubmitted but articles or announcements that have a huge overlap in content.
I agree that there's a large rise in duplication of story, without necessarily a duplication of URL. Many more people, many more feeds, one feed has a story, the others all pick it up, suddenly it everywhere, and several are submitted.
Not sure what the "right" solution is. I'm still thinking about it.
And thanks for the support. It's appreciated.
Not sure what the "right" solution is. I'm still thinking about it.
And thanks for the support. It's appreciated.
Are you still creating these comments with an automated script, or are you doing it manually?
I recall pg banning a script that did the exact same thing, but I can't recalled how that discussion ended.
I recall pg banning a script that did the exact same thing, but I can't recalled how that discussion ended.
I don't know of PG banning a script. He never banned mine, but I never let mine run uncontrolled.
But no, I'm doing this "by hand" now. My memory makes it easy to spot duplicates, my work flow makes it fast to create the text.
When I care. I'm starting to care less, and letting lots of repeats, duplicates and re-hashes go unremarked. For example, suddenly there are lotsof items about networking. They should all be tied together, but I really can't be bothered.
HN is potentially a brilliant resource, but it's being squandered. Saddens me a little, but having been mauled for experimenting with a way that might have improved it, I'm reluctant to bother again.
But no, I'm doing this "by hand" now. My memory makes it easy to spot duplicates, my work flow makes it fast to create the text.
When I care. I'm starting to care less, and letting lots of repeats, duplicates and re-hashes go unremarked. For example, suddenly there are lotsof items about networking. They should all be tied together, but I really can't be bothered.
HN is potentially a brilliant resource, but it's being squandered. Saddens me a little, but having been mauled for experimenting with a way that might have improved it, I'm reluctant to bother again.
How about an "hntopics.com" site where you collect these duplicates? Something merging comment threads would be interesting, but even just "here are wikileaks articles that have made it to the front page" kind of organization with links would be really interesting.
Annotating the threads with links would be useful, but perhaps that's overstepping a boundary?
Annotating the threads with links would be useful, but perhaps that's overstepping a boundary?
Feels like a paper newspaper. Filled with amazing information that you take the time to read. However, when you want to recall any of it, it's too late since it's already in some landfill somewhere.
I think it is up to the community to create pages outside HN that compile the information and take it one step further. After all, it needs to provide additional value to those who have already read the articles individually.
I think it is up to the community to create pages outside HN that compile the information and take it one step further. After all, it needs to provide additional value to those who have already read the articles individually.
[deleted]
Its a wonder people still use the service after articles like this come to light. Its not the first time Paypal has pulled this stunt. A mass boycott isn't out of order.
> A mass boycott isn't out of order.
Okay, I'll boycott Paypal and use... oh wait, no alternatives :(
Okay, I'll boycott Paypal and use... oh wait, no alternatives :(
So make one... this is HN after all.
EDIT - Make one and I'll signup. There is your first client.
EDIT - Make one and I'll signup. There is your first client.
There's things you can make with will power and desire, there are things that need insane amounts of money and influence to make. This is the latter.
OK, I've made one. It's at www. -- wait, what's this, somebody at the door from a law firm? Patents? Subpoenas? Preliminary injunctions...? Help!
PayPal gets away with a lot of ridiculous behavior because it gets to act like a bank, without being constrained by any of the regulations normally applied to banks.
I don't know anyone who has a positive word to say about them. They're unfortunately the only game in town for certain services/transactions.
I don't know anyone who has a positive word to say about them. They're unfortunately the only game in town for certain services/transactions.
[deleted]
The same way PayPal is free to choose whether it does business with anyone, we can also choose whether we want to do business with them.
Not so for US companies. They are not free to choose, for instance, to not do business based on certain characteristics (race or sex, for example). Don't be so quick to give up the ship just because it's "business." The companies enjoy a relatively stable environment: roads, power grid, and security do to US soldiers willing to risk their lives. In my mind it's perfectly acceptable to make them play by certain rules.
If they don't like it let them go run their business in Libya.
If they don't like it let them go run their business in Libya.
> They are not free to choose, for instance, to not do business based on certain characteristics
All they'll do is come up with excuses and drain our energy. Getting dragged through a legal battle is not fun. The most effective action here is to make as many people stop doing business with them as possible.
I wonder if it would be possible to set up as many accounts as viable in the name of members of the association to receive donations for a unified fund. That would substantially increase their administrative overhead.
Asymmetrical warfare is great.
All they'll do is come up with excuses and drain our energy. Getting dragged through a legal battle is not fun. The most effective action here is to make as many people stop doing business with them as possible.
I wonder if it would be possible to set up as many accounts as viable in the name of members of the association to receive donations for a unified fund. That would substantially increase their administrative overhead.
Asymmetrical warfare is great.
I like the way you think. Unfortunately, they have a certain leverage in this space. I'm not sure that getting the market to act in a unified manner is a viable long term strategies against this class of problems in the long term. I'm speaking speculatively, of course, because this is kind of new and it's a bit early to bring in the gov, but regulations have their place. That's how we act in a unified manner not as a market, but as a supplier of their platform.
In their mind, they supply a platform which allows businesses like mine to run. In my mind, I (we) supply the platform (the country and infrastructure) that allows their business to run. That means I get a say in how they conduct business, and I'm not opposed to using it (gov't intervention) if I need to, in principle.
But I agree with your point that it is a longer battle to work through the government (and often by the time you are getting the regulation you are looking for the key players have written so many loopholes it's pathetic).
In their mind, they supply a platform which allows businesses like mine to run. In my mind, I (we) supply the platform (the country and infrastructure) that allows their business to run. That means I get a say in how they conduct business, and I'm not opposed to using it (gov't intervention) if I need to, in principle.
But I agree with your point that it is a longer battle to work through the government (and often by the time you are getting the regulation you are looking for the key players have written so many loopholes it's pathetic).
>The companies enjoy a relatively stable environment: roads, power grid, and security do to US soldiers willing to risk their lives. In my mind it's perfectly acceptable to make them play by certain rules.
This line of reasoning can be used to justify the majority forcing the minority to do literally anything. Your claim is that their reliance on society trumps one of their fundamental human rights. Do you really find that acceptable?
This line of reasoning can be used to justify the majority forcing the minority to do literally anything. Your claim is that their reliance on society trumps one of their fundamental human rights. Do you really find that acceptable?
Um, be drafted? Pay taxes? Yes. We can force each other to play by rules.
Fundamental human right? Bah.
It's well established that in the US companies can be forced to do business with minorities, protestants, females, Democrats...plenty of people they may otherwise wish they didn't have to (well, maybe not Democrats).
This idea that companies should be able to do whatever they can is nonsense (in fact, I'd go so far as to say it's poisonous, but that's for another post).
Besides, I'm not forcing them to do anything. They are welcome to move their company to Sierra Leone.
Fundamental human right? Bah.
It's well established that in the US companies can be forced to do business with minorities, protestants, females, Democrats...plenty of people they may otherwise wish they didn't have to (well, maybe not Democrats).
This idea that companies should be able to do whatever they can is nonsense (in fact, I'd go so far as to say it's poisonous, but that's for another post).
Besides, I'm not forcing them to do anything. They are welcome to move their company to Sierra Leone.
>Um, be drafted? Pay taxes? Yes. We can force each other to play by rules.
Taxes are a (perhaps) necessary evil. It is best not to use necessary evils as precedent for other infringements on human rights. And drafts are also an infringement on human rights.
>Fundamental human right? Bah.
Ok..
>It's well established that in the US companies can be forced to do business with minorities, protestants, females, Democrats...plenty of people they may otherwise wish they didn't have to (well, maybe not Democrats).
It was well established until the 1860's that humans could be slaves. That something is established is not justification for that thing.
>This idea that companies should be able to do whatever they can is nonsense (in fact, I'd go so far as to say it's poisonous, but that's for another post).
Who said anything about that?
>Besides, I'm not forcing them to do anything. They are welcome to move their company to Sierra Leone.
Seriously? How does this sound: You can either give me your money, or I can torch your house. I'm not forcing you to do anything, but if you don't want to give me your money, I'll torch your house. You can always move down the road, but your house is gone if I don't get your money. Sound good to you? Or does it sound like I'm forcing you to do something?
Taxes are a (perhaps) necessary evil. It is best not to use necessary evils as precedent for other infringements on human rights. And drafts are also an infringement on human rights.
>Fundamental human right? Bah.
Ok..
>It's well established that in the US companies can be forced to do business with minorities, protestants, females, Democrats...plenty of people they may otherwise wish they didn't have to (well, maybe not Democrats).
It was well established until the 1860's that humans could be slaves. That something is established is not justification for that thing.
>This idea that companies should be able to do whatever they can is nonsense (in fact, I'd go so far as to say it's poisonous, but that's for another post).
Who said anything about that?
>Besides, I'm not forcing them to do anything. They are welcome to move their company to Sierra Leone.
Seriously? How does this sound: You can either give me your money, or I can torch your house. I'm not forcing you to do anything, but if you don't want to give me your money, I'll torch your house. You can always move down the road, but your house is gone if I don't get your money. Sound good to you? Or does it sound like I'm forcing you to do something?
Sorry- travel day for me.
>It's well established that in the US companies can be forced to do business with minorities, protestants, females, Democrats...plenty of people they may otherwise wish they didn't have to (well, maybe not Democrats)...It was well established until the 1860's that humans could be slaves. That something is established is not justification for that thing.
So you really are arguing that...companies should be allowed to...wait... What exactly are you aguing? That a fundamental human right is being denied to a company? Which one? Why should companies have fundamental human rights? They are legal entities, not humans. And they are not allowed, by the way, to violate the human rights of those who work for them. The people who make up the company != company.
And to the point your were making on my comment: I agree with that fact that we can force terms of business on companies (even mine), and I agree with the now well-established fact that it is illegal to have human slaves.
Seriously? How does this sound: You can either give me your money, or I can torch your house. I'm not forcing you to do anything, but if you don't want to give me your money, I'll torch your house. You can always move down the road, but your house is gone if I don't get your money. Sound good to you? Or does it sound like I'm forcing you to do something?
It is at this point that I suspected you were trolling, but your profile says you are "well established" on this board so, contrary to your argument above, I should take it seriously.
Your analogy could be improved, as you are using extortion as your hypothesis. Try this:
You can either stop beating your wife, or we will put you in jail. If you wish to continue beating your wife, you should move your family to a place where you can get away with such behavior. But we won't let you do it here.
>It's well established that in the US companies can be forced to do business with minorities, protestants, females, Democrats...plenty of people they may otherwise wish they didn't have to (well, maybe not Democrats)...It was well established until the 1860's that humans could be slaves. That something is established is not justification for that thing.
So you really are arguing that...companies should be allowed to...wait... What exactly are you aguing? That a fundamental human right is being denied to a company? Which one? Why should companies have fundamental human rights? They are legal entities, not humans. And they are not allowed, by the way, to violate the human rights of those who work for them. The people who make up the company != company.
And to the point your were making on my comment: I agree with that fact that we can force terms of business on companies (even mine), and I agree with the now well-established fact that it is illegal to have human slaves.
Seriously? How does this sound: You can either give me your money, or I can torch your house. I'm not forcing you to do anything, but if you don't want to give me your money, I'll torch your house. You can always move down the road, but your house is gone if I don't get your money. Sound good to you? Or does it sound like I'm forcing you to do something?
It is at this point that I suspected you were trolling, but your profile says you are "well established" on this board so, contrary to your argument above, I should take it seriously.
Your analogy could be improved, as you are using extortion as your hypothesis. Try this:
You can either stop beating your wife, or we will put you in jail. If you wish to continue beating your wife, you should move your family to a place where you can get away with such behavior. But we won't let you do it here.
> That a fundamental human right is being denied to a company? Which one?
The right to freely trade with whoever they want on terms that are mutually agreeable to both parties with no coercion involved.
>Why should companies have fundamental human rights? They are legal entities, not humans.
Companies are not necessarily legal entities. The only companies that are legal entities are corporations. I won't defend corporations, but I will defend the rights of the people that work for them.
>And they are not allowed, by the way, to violate the human rights of those who work for them.
No, they're certainly not allowed to violate human rights. No one is. That's why it's illegal, unless of course a government does it because they have the guns.
>The people who make up the company != company.
That holds true for a corporation, but not a company that isn't incorporated.
>and I agree with the now well-established fact that it is illegal to have human slaves.
That's somewhat humorous given your earlier statement in support of the draft. And yes I'm aware that you agree with those things. But your agreement does not equate to justification. Nor does their status as being "established".
>Your analogy could be improved, as you are using extortion as your hypothesis. Try this:
Using the definition that extortion is illegally using coercion to obtain property or services of another person, your "plan" is extortion as well. It is illegal (trivially) because it is not currently legal as you pointed out earlier, and it is coercion by any definition I've heard. Yes my example is not a perfect analogy, but it is not fundamentally different. A perfect analogy would be that you have the option of giving me your money and keeping your house or not giving me your money and not keeping your house. Either way, if you owned your house, you would be upset with me.
Your analogy is in fact incorrect in a fundamental way, which is that in your analogy, I am currently violating someone's right. My hypothetical wife has a right to not be beaten. Manning's defense fund does not have a right to use PayPal's services, so PayPal is not violating anyone's rights. (Though I will grant to you that since PayPal is a legal corporation which traded some of its rights to the government for some legal protection, I would not fight to the death for their right to refuse him service)
The right to freely trade with whoever they want on terms that are mutually agreeable to both parties with no coercion involved.
>Why should companies have fundamental human rights? They are legal entities, not humans.
Companies are not necessarily legal entities. The only companies that are legal entities are corporations. I won't defend corporations, but I will defend the rights of the people that work for them.
>And they are not allowed, by the way, to violate the human rights of those who work for them.
No, they're certainly not allowed to violate human rights. No one is. That's why it's illegal, unless of course a government does it because they have the guns.
>The people who make up the company != company.
That holds true for a corporation, but not a company that isn't incorporated.
>and I agree with the now well-established fact that it is illegal to have human slaves.
That's somewhat humorous given your earlier statement in support of the draft. And yes I'm aware that you agree with those things. But your agreement does not equate to justification. Nor does their status as being "established".
>Your analogy could be improved, as you are using extortion as your hypothesis. Try this:
Using the definition that extortion is illegally using coercion to obtain property or services of another person, your "plan" is extortion as well. It is illegal (trivially) because it is not currently legal as you pointed out earlier, and it is coercion by any definition I've heard. Yes my example is not a perfect analogy, but it is not fundamentally different. A perfect analogy would be that you have the option of giving me your money and keeping your house or not giving me your money and not keeping your house. Either way, if you owned your house, you would be upset with me.
Your analogy is in fact incorrect in a fundamental way, which is that in your analogy, I am currently violating someone's right. My hypothetical wife has a right to not be beaten. Manning's defense fund does not have a right to use PayPal's services, so PayPal is not violating anyone's rights. (Though I will grant to you that since PayPal is a legal corporation which traded some of its rights to the government for some legal protection, I would not fight to the death for their right to refuse him service)
>> That a fundamental human right is being denied to a company? Which one?
>The right to freely trade with whoever they want on terms that are mutually agreeable to both parties with no coercion involved.
This is, as is your final paragraph, succumbing to the fallacy of the consequent. They don't have that right- that's the point. A baker is not allowed to not sell goods to Chinese people.
I'm afraid we are going to have to agree to disagree, and let this go. Thanks for the thread- I found it enjoyable and refreshing.
>The right to freely trade with whoever they want on terms that are mutually agreeable to both parties with no coercion involved.
This is, as is your final paragraph, succumbing to the fallacy of the consequent. They don't have that right- that's the point. A baker is not allowed to not sell goods to Chinese people.
I'm afraid we are going to have to agree to disagree, and let this go. Thanks for the thread- I found it enjoyable and refreshing.
Should corporations have human rights? A human can get imprisoned for committing a crime. A corporation cannot. It seems only fair they don't get human rights.
You know that corporations are comprised of human beings, right? By forcing a corporation to do something, you are forcing human beings to do something.
What happens when you incarcerate a CEO? HR hires another, PR makes some noises to press as how former CEO didn't represent corporate values, lobbyists control the damage with legislators and business continues as usual.
That seems to be a complaint about corporations themselves, as in the legal entities granted immunities by their government. I'm not about to defend them in any fashion.
I'm not sure if it mature enough yet but this freezing of a accounts is a reason why I'm interested in bitcoin.
You still need means to transfer from bitcoin to other circulating currencies. There is bitcoin -> mtgox.com -> Liberty Reserve -> bank transfers, or informal transfers via paypal (that can get flagged and frozen, though). As of yet, there are 2-3 sets of transaction fees and flat fees (bank transfers) involved when moving bitcoins into other currencies.
This is shameful behavior by PayPal. There is no doubt about it. If everyone with a PayPal account who cares about the unlawful, unjust treatment of Bradley Manning would simply delete their PayPal account and clearly state the reasons why they are doing so in writing, PayPal might act a bit less cowardly. Doubtful, but at some point you have to take a stand.
I'm assuming they think they're ready for Anonymous this time round...
By taking action against Manning, PayPal employees are supporting his continued mistreatment. Anyone who believes this to be immoral should seriously investigate the possibility of trading using Bitcoin rather than Paypal. Unlike PayPal, Bitcoin isn't a walled garden that you can be kicked out of.
The site is giving me an error 403. If anyone else needs it, here's a Google cache link:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http%3A...
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http%3A...
Their root redirects to http://www.couragetoresist.org/x/ ...which is now 403ed.
?Were they using PayPal to pay their host or something?
?Were they using PayPal to pay their host or something?
http://betterpal.com is free :)
Can we keep this political crap off of HN please? Yes, I've clicked flag, but that's not public. All the people commenting on this thread implicitly approve of its presence on HN - so I feel a need to state publicly that I don't.
Some of us entrepreneurs are working on business plans involving activists and non-profits. From our perspective, this kind of information is incredibly relevant to startup life and our architectural tradeoffs. So please stop dismissing key aspects of my business as "just politics" and telling people here they shouldn't talk about it.
Some entrepreneurs also deal in cat pictures.
And if PayPal blocked a cat picture enterprise or Google de-linked them or Yahoo purchased them, that information would be relevant to HN.
That's true for virtually any topic. Your taking offense at my labeling of politics as politics is unreasonable.
I would like to point out that the whole WikiLeaks saga is more hacker-ish than the average article on, say, the minimum wage; also, PayPal is quite relevant to the many small-ish businesses here.
Yes, it's not exactly on-topic, but we've seen far worse.
Yes, it's not exactly on-topic, but we've seen far worse.
I rarely exercise my ability to downvote but I feel I should let you know that I did for your comment. I appreciate your opposition on the matter, but your comment is entirely based on your opinion, provides little substance, and does not promote any forward thinking whatsoever. I agree entirely with jpd23 that this isn't just "political crap" as it has many, many implications of the state of the world... which greatly affects not just the startup world but everyone.
The term hacker is not limited to tech and business... it means analyzing all aspects of life, tearing them apart, figuring out how they work, and making them better.
The term hacker is not limited to tech and business... it means analyzing all aspects of life, tearing them apart, figuring out how they work, and making them better.
I appreciate you taking the time to explain your downvote - thanks.
>this isn't just "political crap" as it has many, many implications of the state of the world.
I don't know why you think X being classified as political crap precludes X having implications for the state of the world. That's exactly what political crap does, as well as lots of other types of crap that also have nothing to do with YC or hacking or entrepreneurship or Silicon Valley or technology or CS.
>The term hacker is not limited to tech and business... figuring out how they work, and making them better.
Arguments about words are highly uninteresting: http://lesswrong.com/lw/od/37_ways_that_words_can_be_wrong/. HN is obviously geared towards tech and startups.
>this isn't just "political crap" as it has many, many implications of the state of the world.
I don't know why you think X being classified as political crap precludes X having implications for the state of the world. That's exactly what political crap does, as well as lots of other types of crap that also have nothing to do with YC or hacking or entrepreneurship or Silicon Valley or technology or CS.
>The term hacker is not limited to tech and business... figuring out how they work, and making them better.
Arguments about words are highly uninteresting: http://lesswrong.com/lw/od/37_ways_that_words_can_be_wrong/. HN is obviously geared towards tech and startups.
You are missing the point entirely. As was mentioned, the vast majority of "political crap" does directly affect the tech and startup world... especially something as widely used as PayPal... so this submission is entirely relevant to and valid for HN. Now, I agree with your sentiments on some "political crap"... submissions solely about Sarah Palin's stupidity or along those lines probably have no place here. But you expressed your disinterest in a submission about PayPal and their actions (of which strongly infer their detrimental stance on the progression of mankind) not because it isn't relevant to HN, but because you don't agree with the majority of the comments here. If the majority of the comments supported PayPal's decision to hold all donations made to Courage to Resist, I have a feeling you'd feel much differently about the submission.
>If the majority of the comments supported PayPal's decision to hold all donations made to Courage to Resist, I have a feeling you'd feel much differently about the submission.
You're welcome to ascribe to me, on near-zero evidence, whatever political beliefs you want (though my opinion vector has low cosine similarity to all the standard labels I've encountered, so you'll probably be largely incorrect whatever you guess). All I'll say is that in this case my comment wouldn't have changed at all if the comments all said "They have the right not to do business with someone" or "Would you complain if this was al Zawahiri?" or something else defending Paypal's actions. In fact, I wrote my comment before reading anyone else's.
You're welcome to ascribe to me, on near-zero evidence, whatever political beliefs you want (though my opinion vector has low cosine similarity to all the standard labels I've encountered, so you'll probably be largely incorrect whatever you guess). All I'll say is that in this case my comment wouldn't have changed at all if the comments all said "They have the right not to do business with someone" or "Would you complain if this was al Zawahiri?" or something else defending Paypal's actions. In fact, I wrote my comment before reading anyone else's.
>In fact, I wrote my comment before reading anyone else's.
Really? Because your first comment says:
>All the people commenting on this thread implicitly approve of its presence on HN
Really? Because your first comment says:
>All the people commenting on this thread implicitly approve of its presence on HN
Yes, because they commented on the topic at all, not because of the content of their comments.