PayPal Freezes Support Account For Bradley Manning
couragetoresist.org
couragetoresist.org
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.
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.
Scared people are scary. Really scary, when backed far enough into a corner.
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.
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.
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."
<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.
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.
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.
I guess the US military hasn't gotten the memo yet.
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...
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?
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).
http://techcrunch.com/2011/02/24/paypal-on-cutting-off-coura...
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 recall pg banning a script that did the exact same thing, but I can't recalled how that discussion ended.
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.
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.
Annotating the threads with links would be useful, but perhaps that's overstepping a boundary?
Not sure what the "right" solution is. I'm still thinking about it.
And thanks for the support. It's appreciated.
Okay, I'll boycott Paypal and use... oh wait, no alternatives :(
EDIT - Make one and I'll signup. There is your first client.
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.
If they don't like it let them go run their business in Libya.
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.
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).
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?
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.
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?
>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.
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.
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.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http%3A...
?Were they using PayPal to pay their host or something?
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.
>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'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.
Really? Because your first comment says:
>All the people commenting on this thread implicitly approve of its presence on HN
Yes, it's not exactly on-topic, but we've seen far worse.