

PayPal Freezes Support Account For Bradley Manning - gst
http://www.couragetoresist.org/x/content/view/891/1

======
jbooth
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.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
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.

~~~
jbooth
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.

~~~
nas
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?

~~~
colinplamondon
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.

~~~
JoachimSchipper
Actually, at least the Universal Declaration of Human Rights does apply to
them.

~~~
marshray
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._

------
ssclafani
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-courage-to-
resist-this-has-nothing-to-do-with-wikileaks/)

~~~
citricsquid
This is the reason every time, and still people refuse to do it and claim
Paypal are big mean thieves.

------
RiderOfGiraffes
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> )

~~~
srean
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.

~~~
RiderOfGiraffes
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.

------
jefe78
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.

~~~
citricsquid
> A mass boycott isn't out of order.

Okay, I'll boycott Paypal and use... oh wait, no alternatives :(

~~~
jefe78
So make one... this is HN after all.

EDIT - Make one and I'll signup. There is your first client.

~~~
citricsquid
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.

------
rbanffy
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.

~~~
dhimes
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.

~~~
jimmyk
>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?

~~~
dhimes
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.

~~~
jimmyk
>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?

~~~
dhimes
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.

~~~
jimmyk
> 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)

~~~
dhimes
>> 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.

------
nas
I'm not sure if it mature enough yet but this freezing of a accounts is a
reason why I'm interested in bitcoin.

~~~
iwwr
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.

------
defroost
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.

------
notahacker
I'm assuming they think they're ready for Anonymous this time round...

------
motters
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.

------
Natsu
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//www.couragetoresist.org/x/content/view/891/1)

------
MediaBehavior
Their root redirects to <http://www.couragetoresist.org/x/> ...which is now
403ed.

?Were they using PayPal to pay their host or something?

------
zemanel
<http://betterpal.com> is free :)

------
endtime
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_.

~~~
jdp23
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.

~~~
tptacek
Some entrepreneurs also deal in cat pictures.

~~~
OpieCunningham
And if PayPal blocked a cat picture enterprise or Google de-linked them or
Yahoo purchased them, that information would be relevant to HN.

