Deep Politics Forum

God bless his cotton socks, George Monbiot has set up a fund (please donate http://www.arrestblair.org/) to help fund a bounty for the citizen arrest of war criminal Tony Blair. It will have to be a citizen as the 'authorities' are not going to do it. I know there are lots of willing people to do it. May Blair never have a moments peace and may he rot in jail forever for his heinous crimes against humanity.

Quote:Wanted: Tony Blair for War Crimes.

Arrest Him and Claim your Reward
Chilcot and the courts won't do it, so it is up to us to show that we won't let an illegal act of mass murder go unpunished

By George Monbiot

January 26, 2010 "The Guardian" -- The only question that counts is the one that the Chilcot inquiry won't address: was the war with Iraq illegal? If the answer is yes, everything changes. The war is no longer a political matter, but a criminal one, and those who commissioned it should be committed for trial for what the Nuremberg tribunal called "the supreme international crime": the crime of aggression.But there's a problem with official inquiries in the United Kingdom: the government appoints their members and sets their terms of reference. It's the equivalent of a criminal suspect being allowed to choose what the charges should be, who should judge his case and who should sit on the jury. As a senior judge told the Guardian in November: "Looking into the legality of the war is the last thing the government wants. And actually, it's the last thing the opposition wants either because they voted for the war. There simply is not the political pressure to explore the question of legality – they have not asked because they don't want the answer."
Others have explored it, however. Two weeks ago a Dutch inquiry, led by a former supreme court judge, found that the invasion had "no sound mandate in international law". Last month Lord Steyn, a former law lord, said that "in the absence of a second UN resolution authorising invasion, it was illegal". In November Lord Bingham, the former lord chief justice, stated that, without the blessing of the UN, the Iraq war was "a serious violation of international law and the rule of law".
Under the United Nations charter, two conditions must be met before a war can legally be waged. The parties to a dispute must first "seek a solution by negotiation" (article 33). They can take up arms without an explicit mandate from the UN security council only "if an armed attack occurs against [them]" (article 51). Neither of these conditions applied. The US and UK governments rejected Iraq's attempts to negotiate. At one point the US state department even announced that it would "go into thwart mode" to prevent the Iraqis from resuming talks on weapons inspection (all references are on my website). Iraq had launched no armed attack against either nation.
We also know that the UK government was aware that the war it intended to launch was illegal. In March 2002, the Cabinet Office explained that "a legal justification for invasion would be needed. Subject to law officers' advice, none currently exists." In July 2002, Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general, told the prime minister that there were only "three possible legal bases" for launching a war – "self-defence, *humanitarian intervention, or UNSC [security council] authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case." Bush and Blair later failed to obtain security council authorisation.
As the resignation letter on the eve of the war from Elizabeth Wilmshurst, then deputy legal adviser to the *Foreign Office, revealed, her office had *"consistently" advised that an *invasion would be unlawful without a new UN resolution. She explained that "an unlawful use of force on such a scale amounts to the crime of aggression". Both Wilmshurst and her former boss, Sir Michael Wood, will testify before the Chilcot inquiry tomorrow. Expect fireworks.
Without legal justification, the war with Iraq was an act of mass murder: those who died were unlawfully killed by the people who commissioned it. Crimes of aggression (also known as crimes against peace) are defined by the Nuremberg principles as "planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties". They have been recognised in international law since 1945. The Rome statute, which established the international criminal court (ICC) and which was ratified by Blair's government in 2001, provides for the court to "exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression", once it has decided how the crime should be defined and prosecuted.
There are two problems. The first is that neither the government nor the opposition has any interest in pursuing these crimes, for the obvious reason that in doing so they would expose themselves to prosecution. The second is that the required legal mechanisms don't yet exist. The governments that ratified the Rome statute have been filibustering furiously to delay the point at which the crime can be prosecuted by the ICC: after eight years of discussions, the necessary provision still has not been adopted.
Some countries, mostly in eastern Europe and central Asia, have incorporated the crime of aggression into their own laws, though it is not yet clear which of them would be willing to try a foreign national for acts committed abroad. In the UK, where it remains *illegal to wear an offensive T-shirt, you cannot yet be prosecuted for mass *murder commissioned overseas.
All those who believe in justice should campaign for their governments to stop messing about and allow the international criminal court to start prosecuting the crime of aggression. We should also press for its adoption into national law. But I believe that the people of this nation, who re-elected a government that had launched an illegal war, have a duty to do more than that. We must show that we have not, as Blair requested, "moved on" from Iraq, that we are not prepared to allow his crime to remain unpunished, or to allow future leaders to believe that they can safely repeat it.
But how? As I found when I tried to apprehend John Bolton, one of the architects of the war in George Bush's government, at the Hay festival in 2008, and as Peter Tatchell found when he tried to detain Robert Mugabe, nothing focuses attention on these issues more than an attempted citizen's arrest. In October I mooted the idea of a bounty to which the public could contribute, *payable to anyone who tried to arrest Tony Blair if he became president of the European Union. He didn't of course, but I asked those who had pledged money whether we should go ahead anyway. The response was overwhelmingly positive.

So today I am launching a website – www.arrestblair.org – whose purpose is to raise money as a reward for people attempting a peaceful citizen's arrest of the former prime minister. I have put up the first £100, and I encourage you to match it. Anyone meeting the rules I've laid down will be entitled to one quarter of the total pot: the bounties will remain available until Blair faces a court of law. The higher the *reward, the greater the number of *people who are likely to try.
At this stage the arrests will be largely symbolic, though they are likely to have great political resonance. But I hope that as pressure builds up and the crime of aggression is adopted by the courts, these attempts will help to press *governments to prosecute. There must be no hiding place for those who have committed crimes against peace. No *civilised country can allow mass *murderers to move on.

Magda Hassan Wrote:God bless his cotton socks, George Monbiot has set up a fund (please donate http://www.arrestblair.org/) to help fund a bounty for the citizen arrest of war criminal Tony Blair. It will have to be a citizen as the 'authorities' are not going to do it. I know there are lots of willing people to do it. May Blair never have a moments peace and may he rot in jail forever for his heinous crimes against humanity.

Quote:Wanted: Tony Blair for War Crimes.

Arrest Him and Claim your Reward
Chilcot and the courts won't do it, so it is up to us to show that we won't let an illegal act of mass murder go unpunished

By George Monbiot

January 26, 2010 "The Guardian" -- The only question that counts is the one that the Chilcot inquiry won't address: was the war with Iraq illegal? If the answer is yes, everything changes. The war is no longer a political matter, but a criminal one, and those who commissioned it should be committed for trial for what the Nuremberg tribunal called "the supreme international crime": the crime of aggression.But there's a problem with official inquiries in the United Kingdom: the government appoints their members and sets their terms of reference. It's the equivalent of a criminal suspect being allowed to choose what the charges should be, who should judge his case and who should sit on the jury. As a senior judge told the Guardian in November: "Looking into the legality of the war is the last thing the government wants. And actually, it's the last thing the opposition wants either because they voted for the war. There simply is not the political pressure to explore the question of legality – they have not asked because they don't want the answer."
Others have explored it, however. Two weeks ago a Dutch inquiry, led by a former supreme court judge, found that the invasion had "no sound mandate in international law". Last month Lord Steyn, a former law lord, said that "in the absence of a second UN resolution authorising invasion, it was illegal". In November Lord Bingham, the former lord chief justice, stated that, without the blessing of the UN, the Iraq war was "a serious violation of international law and the rule of law".
Under the United Nations charter, two conditions must be met before a war can legally be waged. The parties to a dispute must first "seek a solution by negotiation" (article 33). They can take up arms without an explicit mandate from the UN security council only "if an armed attack occurs against [them]" (article 51). Neither of these conditions applied. The US and UK governments rejected Iraq's attempts to negotiate. At one point the US state department even announced that it would "go into thwart mode" to prevent the Iraqis from resuming talks on weapons inspection (all references are on my website). Iraq had launched no armed attack against either nation.
We also know that the UK government was aware that the war it intended to launch was illegal. In March 2002, the Cabinet Office explained that "a legal justification for invasion would be needed. Subject to law officers' advice, none currently exists." In July 2002, Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general, told the prime minister that there were only "three possible legal bases" for launching a war – "self-defence, *humanitarian intervention, or UNSC [security council] authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case." Bush and Blair later failed to obtain security council authorisation.
As the resignation letter on the eve of the war from Elizabeth Wilmshurst, then deputy legal adviser to the *Foreign Office, revealed, her office had *"consistently" advised that an *invasion would be unlawful without a new UN resolution. She explained that "an unlawful use of force on such a scale amounts to the crime of aggression". Both Wilmshurst and her former boss, Sir Michael Wood, will testify before the Chilcot inquiry tomorrow. Expect fireworks.
Without legal justification, the war with Iraq was an act of mass murder: those who died were unlawfully killed by the people who commissioned it. Crimes of aggression (also known as crimes against peace) are defined by the Nuremberg principles as "planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties". They have been recognised in international law since 1945. The Rome statute, which established the international criminal court (ICC) and which was ratified by Blair's government in 2001, provides for the court to "exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression", once it has decided how the crime should be defined and prosecuted.
There are two problems. The first is that neither the government nor the opposition has any interest in pursuing these crimes, for the obvious reason that in doing so they would expose themselves to prosecution. The second is that the required legal mechanisms don't yet exist. The governments that ratified the Rome statute have been filibustering furiously to delay the point at which the crime can be prosecuted by the ICC: after eight years of discussions, the necessary provision still has not been adopted.
Some countries, mostly in eastern Europe and central Asia, have incorporated the crime of aggression into their own laws, though it is not yet clear which of them would be willing to try a foreign national for acts committed abroad. In the UK, where it remains *illegal to wear an offensive T-shirt, you cannot yet be prosecuted for mass *murder commissioned overseas.
All those who believe in justice should campaign for their governments to stop messing about and allow the international criminal court to start prosecuting the crime of aggression. We should also press for its adoption into national law. But I believe that the people of this nation, who re-elected a government that had launched an illegal war, have a duty to do more than that. We must show that we have not, as Blair requested, "moved on" from Iraq, that we are not prepared to allow his crime to remain unpunished, or to allow future leaders to believe that they can safely repeat it.
But how? As I found when I tried to apprehend John Bolton, one of the architects of the war in George Bush's government, at the Hay festival in 2008, and as Peter Tatchell found when he tried to detain Robert Mugabe, nothing focuses attention on these issues more than an attempted citizen's arrest. In October I mooted the idea of a bounty to which the public could contribute, *payable to anyone who tried to arrest Tony Blair if he became president of the European Union. He didn't of course, but I asked those who had pledged money whether we should go ahead anyway. The response was overwhelmingly positive.

So today I am launching a website – www.arrestblair.org – whose purpose is to raise money as a reward for people attempting a peaceful citizen's arrest of the former prime minister. I have put up the first £100, and I encourage you to match it. Anyone meeting the rules I've laid down will be entitled to one quarter of the total pot: the bounties will remain available until Blair faces a court of law. The higher the *reward, the greater the number of *people who are likely to try.
At this stage the arrests will be largely symbolic, though they are likely to have great political resonance. But I hope that as pressure builds up and the crime of aggression is adopted by the courts, these attempts will help to press *governments to prosecute. There must be no hiding place for those who have committed crimes against peace. No *civilised country can allow mass *murderers to move on.

Sterling!

Donations go into the account "Justice for War Crimes".
Total donated so far: £9082.00

Blair must face justice

This site offers a reward to people attempting a peaceful citizen’s arrest of the former British prime minister, Tony Blair, for crimes against peace. Anyone attempting an arrest which meets the rules laid down here will be entitled to one quarter of the money collected at the time of his or her application.

Money donated to this site will be used for no other purpose than to pay bounties for attempts to arrest Tony Blair. All administration and other costs, apart from any charges added to your donations by Paypal, will be paid by the site’s founder.

The intention is to encourage repeated attempts to arrest the former prime minister. We have four purposes:

- To remind people that justice has not yet been done.

- To show Mr Blair that, despite his requests for people to “move on” from Iraq, the mass murder he committed will not be forgotten.

- To put pressure on the authorities of the United Kingdom and the countries he travels through to prosecute him for a crime against peace, or to deliver him for prosecution to the International Criminal Court.

- To discourage other people from repeating his crime.

We have no interest in people’s motivation, as long as they follow the rules laid down by this site. If they try to arrest Mr Blair because they care about the people he has killed, so much the better. But if they do it only for the money, that is fine too, and we will have encouraged an attempt which would not otherwise have taken place.

The higher the bounty, the more people are likely to try to arrest Mr Blair. Please remember that the account will remain open, regardless of how many have already claimed a reward, so new donations will continue to encourage have-a-go heroes.

If, beyond 31st December 2010, a bounty is claimed when the total fund has fallen below £500, the successful claimant will take the whole pot, which we will then seek to replenish. The fund will remain open for as long as Mr Blair lives, or until he is officially prosecuted. If it still contains money after his death or prosecution, the remainder will be donated to one or more organisations campaigning for international justice, or used to pursue other people responsible for the Iraq war. You will be welcome to nominate recipients.

....the Oligarchy in the UK should be on notice...you just may start to get some bottom up Democracy.....something almost lost to the drizzly little Isle. And why the hell can't the Americans do the same for Bush, Chaney, Rummy and the whole lot of those criminals!

The invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a violation of international law, an independent inquiry in the Netherlands has found.

In a damning series of findings on the decision of the Dutch government to support Tony Blair and George Bush in the strategy of regime change in Iraq, the inquiry found the action had "no basis in international law".

The 551-page report, published today and chaired by former Dutch supreme court judge Willibrord Davids, said UN resolutions in the 1990s prior to the outbreak of war gave no authority to the invasion. "The Dutch government lent its political support to a war whose purpose was not consistent with Dutch government policy. The military action had no sound mandate in international law," it said.

The report came as the Chilcot inquiry in the UK heard evidence from Tony Blair's former press secretary, Alastair Campbell, about Britain's decision to enter the war.

Comparisons between the Davids report, which looked at the decision-making process surrounding the Dutch decision to back the war, and Chilcot's have led to criticism that the UK was not conducting a similar analysis of the legal implications in the run-up to the war.

The findings of the Davids report has serious implications for the UK, experts say, as it raises questions about the use of intelligence about weapons of mass destruction (WMD), an issue addressed by Campbell in his evidence before the Chilcot panel this morning.

"In its depiction of Iraq's WMD programme, the [Dutch] government was to a considerable extent led by public and other information from the US and the UK," the Davids report says.

It found that when the Dutch government decided in August 2002 to support the attack on Iraq it treated intelligence about WMD and the legality of an invasion as "subservient". The Dutch cabinet's policy was laid out in a 45-minute meeting, and came at a time when the newly elected prime minister, Jan Peter Balkenende, was preoccupied with domestic concerns, it said.

The Dutch intelligence agencies were "more reserved" in their assessments than the government when discussing the initiative in parliament, the report found.

During the build-up to the war, in 2003, the US abandoned an attempt to get a UN security council resolution approving the invasion when it became apparent it would not be granted. In 2004, the UN secretary general at the time, Kofi Annan, said the invasion was illegal.

A touching photo: Moments Before Their First Kiss [Of Death]

Yes it does :dancing2:

Just tried to donate. This was the result:

Quote:Justice for War Crimes


Return to Merchant


This recipient is currently unable to receive money.

PayPal protects your privacy and security.
For more information, read our User Agreement and Privacy Policy.

Clearly some serious arm-twisting going on eh? - though considering its history, ownership size etc, I doubt much arm-twisting was/is needed.

What's the betting that the site itself stays up beyond today?

Where there is a will there is a way Peter. This is too big to let Paypal stand in the way. Paypal are also responsible for closing Wikileaks too, temporarily I hope. They froze their account.
Edit: I contacted David Thorpe, the web master, to bring the Paypal matter to his attention.

The whole "all payment types accepted - except cash" thing is becoming quite scary when you think about it. It also illustrates just why the Banksters and their Masters are so paranoid about gold.

And it's easy to see why. As things stand the SIS's can very quickly compile a list of - say - everyone who has donated to this or that cause, or purchased anything from this of that vendor - and know it is probably 90% ish accurate. They clearly would like 100% accuracy such that the use of cash (or a substitute) needs to be very tightly circumscribed.

Makes it very easy to put serious obstacles in the way of any initiative deemed potentially threatening - or whatever - too.

Consider this from Cryptogon:

Quote:Wikileaks is down for fund raising. I sent them $20 using my U.S. credit card.
The next day, Bank of America’s Magic 8 Ball deactivated my account and sent this to me:
Irregular Credit Card Activity
Account: Bank of America ending in XXXX
Date: 01/25/2010
We detected irregular activity on your Bank of America Credit Card on 01/25/2010. For your protection, you must verify this activity before you can continue using your card.
Please visit www.bankofamerica.com/myfraudprotection to review your account activity, or call us immediately at 1.800.383.0618 in the US, International call collect via the international operator at 757.677.4701. We will review the activity on your account with you and upon verification, we will remove any restrictions placed on your account.
I was pretty wild, so I decided to call in. I spent about twenty minutes on the phone verifying this, that and the other thing. I had to talk to two different BofA fraud department people. But this is the kicker: The last thing they asked was for me to name a close relative and the state in which they live.
I said, “Let me get this straight: You know who my close relatives are and where they live?”
“Oh yes, it’s a public records database.”
“And we’re going through all of this over $20.”
“Well, sir, our system—”
“Never mind, I’ll do what you say.”
*shaking head*
I complied and they turned my stuff back on again and let my $20 contribution to Wikileaks go through. All of this is over 20 effing dollars?!?
When I asked the second person on the phone why this happened, she said that it was probably because I hardly use my credit card. She said something like, “There wasn’t much of a profile to go on with this account.” Ah. The AI was displeased with my lack of consumption, I guess. And when I did use my card, it was to give money to an organization that is despised by most governments and other criminal organizations everywhere.
Irregular activity. Irregular activity. Danger. Enemy Combatant. The Homeland Is Threatened. Danger. Danger. Threat Level Ludicrous. Hope. Change we can believe in.
For f*ck’s sake already.
I explained that I used the card because it’s a simple matter to generate the one time use virtual credit card number online and she was, “Mmm hmmm”ing me, and was there anything else she could help me with today…
* Just hang up the phone, Kevin. Just hang up the phone. Don’t say anything that might cause her to push the panic button and get you added to additional shit lists, etc. *
I hung up the phone.

Peter Presland Wrote:Just tried to donate. This was the result:

Quote:Justice for War Crimes


Return to Merchant


This recipient is currently unable to receive money.

PayPal protects your privacy and security.
For more information, read our User Agreement and Privacy Policy.

Clearly some serious arm-twisting going on eh? - though considering its history, ownership size etc, I doubt much arm-twisting was/is needed.

What's the betting that the site itself stays up beyond today?

Catch [and then vomit!] this right of right-wing former Pay-Pal exec here. Paypal is obviously deep in the enemy camp! Someone needs to start ProgressivePay

Masters of Their Domain
Mother Jones
Silicon Valley conservatives are trying to build the right-wing MoveOn from the top down.

— By Josh Harkinson

Tue Jun. 19, 2007 11:00 PM PDT

In 1992, Stanford University censured a law student named Keith Rabois for shouting at a university lecturer, in front of the man's house, "Faggot! Faggot! Hope you die of aids." The incident became a cause célèbre for the group of students who, a few years earlier, had founded the proudly right-wing Stanford Review. Having bonded as a conservative shock troop in the culture wars, many of them would go on to cofound the company that became PayPal, where employees often kept Bibles in their cubicles and held workplace prayer sessions. "That was a little unique for Silicon Valley," notes Rod Martin, a Southern Baptist who was a top lawyer at PayPal. "But that was exactly the way they would want it to be."

PayPal staffers dreamed big: They hoped to establish an alternative electronic currency to bypass national fiscal policies, in much the same way a previous generation of conservatives had advocated reviving the gold standard. But that vision was stymied after PayPal was sold to eBay, and its group of believers dispersed across the think-tank and media landscapes. Cofounder Peter Thiel joined the board of the Hoover Institution, another exec became a research fellow at the conservative Independent Institute and was a producer of last year's Hollywood hit Thank You for Smoking, while a third launched a conservative publishing company.

All that, though, felt a little old media, and as Martin and his cohorts watched the success of MoveOn.org, founded in 1998 by fellow techies just up the freeway in Berkeley, they grew jealous. "Nobody on the conservative side was doing anything like it," says Martin, who left PayPal in 2002 and became a full-time activist in 2004. "There were several of us who just looked at each other one day and said, 'You know, somebody needs to do this, and I guess we're it.'" Their answer to MoveOn is slated to debut this summer under the name TheVanguard.org, a wry riff on Vladimir Lenin's description of the Communist Party.

Martin acknowledges that TheVanguard faces a tough road ahead. The only existing conservative organization vaguely resembling MoveOn, RightMarch.com, counts 1 million members compared with its rival's 3.3 million, and its activities are largely limited to emailing elected officials. Conservatives are just too busy to participate in MoveOn-style virtual town halls, social networks, and marches on Washington, says RightMarch founder Bill Greene: "Most of them are just hardworking, everyday patriotic Americans that have families and kids and dogs and cats and jobs."

Martin believes he can leapfrog MoveOn by outfitting TheVanguard with the latest online video and social-networking tools. Mobilizing such virtual communities for real-world activism "is really the Holy Grail for everybody," he says. So far, TheVanguard's achievements have been more modest: an email list of 100,000, online fundraising (via PayPal, of course), and a beta site that includes blogs and a connection to a Vanguard interest group on LinkedIn, a career-networking site founded by yet another former PayPal exec. The operation's board members include ex-Apple ceo Gil Amelio, antitax lobbyist Grover Norquist, and Marvin Olasky, the Bush adviser credited with mainstreaming the term "compassionate conservative"; its 10 staffers are led by Jerome Corsi, coauthor of the anti-John Kerry book Unfit for Command, and, until recently, Richard Poe, a former editor of the conservative magazine Front Page.

Martin believes TheVanguard's platform (flat tax, missile defense, and Social Security privatization) will galvanize a conservative consensus he believes remains strong beneath a fracturing gop coalition. Beyond the presidential campaign, he aims to target members of Congress considered rinos (Republicans In Name Only), seeking to pull the gop rightward just as MoveOn, in his view, has pushed the Democrats to the left.

To skeptics, though, the PayPal crew is the right-wing equivalent of Lower East Side communists. "None of those guys are relevant," says a prominent Republican consultant who asks not to be named. And MoveOn Executive Director Eli Pariser, who lurks on TheVanguard's email list, says the operation looks too top-down to work on the Net: "TheVanguard folks are spending a lot of time thinking about what they want," he notes, "and then figuring out how to spin it to their members." Martin insists, though, that command and control will yield to collaboration once conservatives finally catch on. "It's going to be a wonderful thing," he insists, "and it's going to be good for everybody."

Donations:

As Paypal has blocked further donations to this account please instruct your bank to make direct payments to the Natwest Bank account 'Justice for War Crimes':
Account no: 84526505
Sort Code: 53-81-26
IBAN no: to follow shortly
Or use the Pledge page

Pledge a donation

Send us your contact details and how much you pledge. We are currently setting up a PO Box number as PayPal has dissociated itself from the campaign. When this is set up we will let you know so that you can post a cheque.


Edit:
Yesterday when I first posted it the amount collected was just over 2,000 pounds at the end of the day (my day) when Peter posted his Paypal rejection notice it had gone to about 9,500 pounds in about 9 hours. Not bad at all especially considering it was the middle of the night in the UK most of that time.

What excuse is PayPal using for their actions and is this not illegal political discrimination?! A little research into the originators of PayPal turned up ultra-rightists. Though is is now owned by only mildly-right eBay, it seems the original 'crew' still owns it by proxy [shares]. Sickening. I'm sure they'd not stop payments to some neo-con or neo-Nazi group.

Peter Lemkin Wrote:What excuse is PayPal using for their actions and is this not illegal political discrimination?! A little research into the originators of PayPal turned up ultra-rightists. Though is is now owned by only mildly-right eBay, it seems the original 'crew' still owns it by proxy [shares]. Sickening. I'm sure they'd not stop payments to some neo-con or neo-Nazi group.

Yes, it will be interesting to know what is happening in the back ground there.

I'm sure there are plenty of racist and nazi sites using Paypal to collect money and sell goods. But I am sure that Paypal would say that it is just business and they can't be discriminatory (or can't check out every site personally) as that would interfere with their flow of business and that would be sacrilegious to interfere with business. But if they want to 'no longer be associated with the campaign' then that is their freedom to do so and their right to do business as they wish and not to interfere in their business or make business restrictive. :deal: In other words we have to comply with Paypal decisions and Paypal can do what it wants at any time with out notice.