the cable ... “provides evidence that U.S. troops executed at least 10 Iraqi civilians, including a woman in her 70s and a 5-month-old infant, then called in an airstrike to destroy the evidence, during a controversial 2006 incident in the central Iraqi town of Ishaqi.”posted by odinsdream at 11:38 AM on October 24, 2011 [6 favorites]
According to Alston's version of events, American troops approached a house in Ishaqi, which Alston refers to as "Al-Iss Haqi," that belonged to Faiz Harrat Al-Majma'ee, whom Alston identified as a farmer. The U.S. troops were met with gunfire, Alston said, that lasted about 25 minutes.
After the firefight ended, Alston wrote, the "troops entered the house, handcuffed all residents and executed all of them. After the initial MNF intervention, a U.S. air raid ensued that destroyed the house." The initials refer to the official name of the military coalition, the Multi-National Force.
Alston said "Iraqi TV stations broadcast from the scene and showed bodies of the victims (i.e. five children and four women) in the morgue of Tikrit. Autopsies carries (sic) out at the Tikrit Hospital's morgue revealed that all corpses were shot in the head and handcuffed."
The cable makes no mention any of the alleged shooting suspects being found or arrested at or near the house.
- source
I am going to send them more money. You guys can send your cash to Obama I guess. -- furiousxgeorgeToo bad you'll have to use bitcoin to do it.
Couldn't a Wikileaks supporter set up a trust fund at their bank (as people do, say, to help out a family or individual in hardship)? People pay to the trust fund, the trust fund pays to Wikileaks. I don't see how the bank could stop that.No, it would be easy. Just freeze the account. If they don't have direct control of the account then they refuse to process the transactions.
price fixingSo "We're going to collude to all charge you twice the market rate" would be anti-trust-worthy, but "we're going to collude to all charge you infinity times the market rate" isn't?
Salaries/Staff Expenses -- $500,000BTW -- let's remember that WikiLeaks temporarily shut down this past February due to financial constraints.
Publications/Research -- $500,000
Productions -- $400,000
Campaigns -- $300,000
Technical Information -- $500,000
Legal Costs -- $1,200,000
Security -- $300,000
In other words, whoever leaked that cable cast light on a heinous American war crime and, by doing so, likely played some significant role in thwarting an agreement between the Obama and Maliki governments to keep U.S. troops in Iraq and thus helped end this stage of the Iraq war (h/t Trevor Timm). Moreover, whoever leaked these cables — as even virulent WikiLeaks critic Bill Keller repeatedly acknowledged — likely played some significant in helping spark the Arab Spring protests by documenting just how deeply corrupt those U.S.-supported kleptocrats were. And in general, whoever leaked those cables has done more to publicize the corrupt, illegal and deceitful acts of the world’s most powerful factions — and to educate the world about how they behave — than all “watchdog” media outlets combined (indeed, the amount of news reports on a wide array of topics featuring WikiLeaks cables as the primary source is staggering). In sum, whoever leaked those cables is responsible for one of the most consequential, beneficial and noble acts of this generation.posted by homunculus at 1:20 PM on October 24, 2011 [10 favorites]
And yet (or more accurately: therefore) the person accused of accomplishing all of this, Bradley Manning, has been imprisoned for more than a year without trial, and, if convicted, is almost certain to remain in prison for many more years (with the possibility, albeit unlikely, of death, and as the Obama administration continues to block an unmonitored visit by the U.N. official investigating what had been the inhumane conditions of his detention).
Anonymous doxes Bank of America CEOposted by ericb at 2:57 PM on October 24, 2011
"The leak is part of an ongoing campaign by the group's 'CabinCr3w' cell to embarrass executives of financial institutions involved in the 2007 financial crisis, as well as those who Anonymous members see as acting on their behalf."
And in the end, they won; the credit card companies won and one day Insex woke up and could not process credit card transactions. Now that's the killing stroke for a website because people are lazy; they don't want to take the extra step. If I told all my members tomorrow that they can't sign up with a credit card any more, they actually have to write me a check, and mail it to me, wait for it to get there, hope I get it, hope I process it right and then email you a password sometime in the next couple of weeks you'll get this, no one's gonna do that.--Matt Williams, webmaster of hogtied.com, interviewed in Graphic Sexual Horror.
Within 12 hours of a British judge’s decision on Tuesday to deny Mr. Assange bail in a Swedish extradition case, attacks on the Web sites of WikiLeaks’s “enemies,” as defined by the organization’s impassioned supporters around the world, caused several corporate Web sites to become inaccessible or slow down markedly.An indemnification clause could spring into operation upon these facts. First, Assange caused the issue by allegedly having sexual relations against the will of two Swedish women. If he had not done so, the British Courts and the Swedish Prosecutors would not have gone against him, causing Anon to decide to attack.
Targets of the attacks, in which activists overwhelmed the sites with traffic, included the Web site of MasterCard, which had stopped processing donations for WikiLeaks; Amazon.com, which revoked the use of its computer servers; and PayPal, which stopped accepting donations for Mr. Assange’s group. Visa.com was also affected by the attacks, as were the Web sites of the Swedish prosecutor’s office and the lawyer representing the two women whose allegations of sexual misconduct are the basis of Sweden’s extradition bid.
"All agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and concerted practices which may affect trade between member states and which have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the common market."Competition. Exactly like the US antitrust laws (upon which it was based), the article is against anti-competitive actions. Here, the action by Visa is not to prevent another payments processor from entering the market nor is it about Visa and PayPal trying to increase their market share at the expense of a third competitor. Its about them stopping payments to an organization that they think is acting illegally. Again, this is shoehorning to fit a claim.
The purpose of the [Sherman] Act is not to protect businesses from the working of the market; it is to protect the public from the failure of the market. The law directs itself not against conduct which is competitive, even severely so, but against conduct which unfairly tends to destroy competition itself.[5] This focus of U.S. competition law, on protection of competition rather than competitors, is not necessarily the only possible focus or purpose of competition law. For example, it has also been said that competition law in the European Union (EU) tends to protect the competitors in the marketplace, even at the expense of market efficiencies and consumers.[6]Did I make that up out of whole cloth, too?
It was another and quite a different evil at which the Sherman Act was aimed. It was enacted in the era of "trusts" and of "combinations" of businesses and of capital organized and directed to control of the market by suppression of competition in the marketing of goods and services, the monopolistic tendency of which had become a matter of public concern. The goal was to prevent restraints of free competition in business and commercial transactions which tended to restrict production, raise prices, or otherwise control the market to the detriment of purchasers or consumers of goods and services, all of which had come to be regarded as a special form of public injury.posted by saulgoodman at 8:40 AM on October 26, 2011 [1 favorite]
A comprehensive term for any wrong or harm done by one individual to another individual's body, rights, reputation, or property. Any interference with an individual's legally protected interest.I suspect having your business shut down by a blockade of some vital service would qualify.
NEVER DISCUSS:And (just for another random example), NACM Credit Services:
....
(10) Blacklisting or boycotting certain customers or suppliers;
Do not boycott or blacklist certain customersposted by saulgoodman at 10:08 AM on October 26, 2011 [1 favorite]
The purpose of the [Sherman] Act is not to protect businesses from the working of the market; it is to protect the public from the failure of the market.posted by saulgoodman at 12:19 PM on October 26, 2011
As touched upon above under “objective justifications” the complainant notes that the card companies have not put forward any efficiency or other arguments related to the economics of their operations. That does however not mean that the aim of their actions is not to protect their market position in the acquiring market. It is clear that the development of payment gateway services which has been brought about by advance in computer, IT and digital technology will mean that the card companies will have fewer acquires and thereby lose revenue. In its member rules MasterCard under clause 7.2.2.2 defines a so called Type II third party processor as “any TPP that the Corporation does not deem to be a Type I TPP. A II TPP must comply with the applicable Standards, including these MSP Rules.” With a definition like that it is clear that the card companies can totally control and dictate who can participate on the acquiring market and on markets downstream thereof. The complainant submits that if a provision of this kind does not as such violate the competition rules, then its application in the case of the complainant under the circumstances of this case, must be deemed to be restrictive of competition in the meaning of Art 101(1) TFEU and, when applied by dominant undertakings, an abuse in the meaning of Art. 102 TFEU.
« Older "Bellwether Pictures is proud to announce (PD... | Michele Norris is temporarily ... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by tylerkaraszewski at 10:47 AM on October 24, 2011 [2 favorites]