Image
There are many arguments against WikiLeaks and the actions that the company has taken towards transparency. One is that the actions are treasonous. That is nonsense. Nothing has been done to, to quote the constitution, "levy war". Another is that undercover US agents have been named and those people can not operate on foreign soil any more. That has some credence, but should not be mistaken for levying war. Another still is that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange actually cares little for moral reasoning - he is simply a media whore. That is almost certainly true.

Nobody seems to be able to decide whether Assange has actually done anything illegal or not with WikiLeaks. The knee-jerk cries of "anti-American", "traitor" and, of course the obligatory "communist" have been ringing around the country with a tone more shrill than Sarah Palin's laugh.

He is still facing extradition for charges of sexual assault, a far more serious issue. But that is an entirely separate matter, and it still has to go before a jury. Of course, he is fiercely claiming innocence.

So while Assange is a free man, what real reason does Mastercard (NYSE: MA), Visa (NYSE: V [FREE Stock Trend Analysis]) and Paypal have to block payments to WikiLeaks? They claim that they have a policy against dealing with criminals or in criminal activity, by which it obviously means drug deals and the like. But while WikiLeaks remains in operation in the open, is it constitutional to continue to refuse them service?