Linked by Kroc Camen on Fri 10th Dec 2010 14:28 UTC
Permalink for comment 453140
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Anonymous on 06/18/13 22:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:25 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:32 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:58 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 21:03 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 20:46 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 17:32 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2007-09-06
The bank account frozen was not with a Swiss bank but with a financial business of some sort which has no bank licensed. There may very well have been some leaning on from the Swiss gov to overcome the finance companies money interest. If money had instead been with a real licensed Swiss bank; money would be happily accepted and "home address" not relevant.
Visa, as an American company may very well not care about the details of the money provided the credits and payments flow the correct directions. I can believe that they would care about US Gov showing up saying "this account is doing illegal stuff, we need you to freeze it". As a US company, your SOL when someone waving an anti-terrorism document in your face. (Judicially signed warrants and just cause.. those are for suckers..)
If Wikileaks and Assange are really fronts for a CIA information warfare ops then it's a heck of a job they've pulled off. Personally though, I think it fall far closer to the "how do we stop Wikileaks" military document that was leaked a year or more ago. It stated "take out it's credibility" which, since they can't discredit the submission system, seems to focus on every other aspect they can brand with doubt.