> > PayPal's terms of use do not permit soliciting crime.  Wikileaks
quoted text
> > solicits the
> > holders of US security clearances to violate their
> > non-disclosure agreements. 
> > That is a crime.
> 
> Soliciting crimes is criminal activity, and therefor to be acted upon needs to
> be proved in court.

Moreso, Wikileaks does not solicit.  Essentially they accept "brown
envelopes" and then work with reporters are multiple newspapers.  For
a very long time our media has worked this way: Investigative
reporters who break stories can build up street cred, and then they
start getting more "brown envelopes".  Over decades this practice has
slowly been beaten into the ground by "editorial standards" built into
the modern US-based media's control structures -- especially as we now
see with AP and Reuters.  The idea has been to (a) kill the story, if
not possible then (b) interpret it so vaguely as to make it a
non-story, and finally (c) provide enough pablum for the masses to
keep them distracted.  Wikileaks could be considered a partial "reset"
of that control mechanism.

quoted text
> Untill one is found guilty by court, any public occusations against him are
> considered defamation (criminal activity on it's own).

So you have to pay for due process?

quoted text
> So, according to legal regulations PayPal's activity towards Wikileaks account
> should be brought to court as a defamation case.

So you have to pay for due process?

quoted text
> Again: if PayPal things Wikileaks to be engaged in criminal activity, it
> should report such an activity (but not the details of such activity that
> became known to PayPal dew to it's contract with Wikileaks) to entitled public
> bodies and sit back waiting for a court's descision.

If you search around you'll find stories of how paypal in effect
seizes the money; or at least, "holds it", and creates a lot of
trouble for people who rightfully own it.

In contrast to this, the Swiss bank postfinance.ch has made it
abundantly clear in the media that they are trying to get the money
from his closed Swiss account to him some other way as soon as
possible.  Their decision to close is also shameful, but at least they
immediately hand the money back as required by law.

The US has no rule of law or due process, and most people won't care
until it bites them.

Anyways, this is way off topic now..