Kasz216 said:
NJ5 said:
Kasz216 said:
NJ5 said:
Kasz216 said:
NJ5 said:
So he turned himself in, and gets denied bail due to flight risk. That doesn't make any sense at all to me.
|
It probably has to do with the fact that he refused to give the court is address. Like he literally refused to tell the court where he lived... and when he finally did give them a location it was in Australia.
Would you give bail to someone who refuses to tell you where he's staying?
|
Could be because of that, but I'm not discounting other reasons what with the amount of companies apparently being pressured to deny service to Wikileaks (how else to explain Amazon, Paypal, Mastercard, Visa, a Swiss bank that didn't freeze Nazi bank accounts etc pounding on Wikileaks?).
|
You aren't discarding other reasons... when he very specifically refused to tell the court where he was staying? Can you think of any court that would be fine releasing someone on bail with zero knowledge as to where said accused criminal would be?
Also, "A swiss bank that idn't freeze nazi bank accounts" kinda ignores the fact that the EU just crushed swiss banks like 6 months ago due to EU tax codes.
I'm sure various US officals called up these places and said "We don't appreciate you doing buisness" with them. I doubt they actually threatened them with any kind of legal action. (Which there are none.)
More likely then not they were politicians who got money from the lobbiest and have called back to say "This is too far keep working with them and forget me supporting "insert legislation here"".
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11945875
"PayPal says US advised it to stop Wikileaks payments"
Confirms my suspicion that the US gov pressured these companies to stop servicing Wikileaks.
|
A) So... you are conceding the point then that it would be stupid for a UK court to give bail to someone who refuses to tell the UK court where he would be?
B) How is that pressure? Unless you can provide an actual threat of some sort, you are suggesting the US government shouldn't be able to ask people to not do things? The state department said "Their actions are illegal in the US" and so, actions being illegal, paypal stopped service because they didn't want to support illegal actions. Per Paypal policy.
|
A) Yes, but I hadn't read any article that indicated that was the reason. I just looked at some articles in google news and I found one saying he didn't give a "permanent address", which depending on what that means might not be really surprising since he doesn't live in the UK.
B) If Wikileaks's actions are illegal in the US (I got the impression you didn't agree with that earlier) they would just tell Paypal to shut them down, period. They wouldn't need to threaten or send an informative letter...
