It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Covert plan at Ecuadorian Embassy strengthened after removing dedicated guards (Assange)

page: 7
7
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 04:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

Where do you guys get US law cant apply to an individual outside the United States? Especially when the crime in question is cyber based.




posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 06:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

A little thing called jurdistiction (spelling?). You might have heard of it, being a law enforcement officer and all that. Something the US seems to want to ignore, the fact that its jurdistiction ends at its geographical borders.



posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 10:32 PM
link   
a reply to: BMorris

Except Assange did in fact break US law by assisting Manning. Secondly the evidence from countries around the world doesn't support your guys arguments about jurisdiction.

Whatever works for you guys I guess.



posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 09:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Yes he did. Except, he wasn't subject to US law, since he wasn't in the US, nor is a US citizen.

The argument isn't about if he broke US law, which he unquestionably did. It's about if US law even applies to him. That little thing known as Jurisdiction. Thank you for providing the correct spelling of that word.



posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 09:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Aazadan

Where do you guys get US law cant apply to an individual outside the United States? Especially when the crime in question is cyber based.
Well, I'm not one of those guys because I fully recognise that the UK has adopted pseudo-reciprocal legislation which does indeed provide a framework where non-US nationals can be handed over by Britain to face US 'justice'.

It is the very reason he is holed up in Ecuador's embassy, because there is a risk that he would end up in a US federal prison, or even Gitmo, if he hadn't taken the sanctuary provided by Ecuador.
I totally understand him doing so, especially when the US is a nation which created a prison off its shores solely for the reasons of circumnavigating homeland human rights laws.

You may have gushing love and trust for the 'judicial' process in the US but with the shameful stain of Gitmo on your hands you cannot be surprised that most people in other parts of the world feel differently.



posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 03:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: grainofsand

The only thing obvious is how far people are willing to trust Assange in the absence of any facts or base in reality.


The facts are that the US government practices deception and mendacity at nearly every turn. As a US citizen that embarrasses me greatly. My government is basically an assembly of pathological liars.

Assange and others have exposed those lies.

Why is it wrong to expose the lies of government?



posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 04:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Salander

Why is it wrong to expose the lies of government?


This is where your arguments and your perception of my position are flawed. I am in favor of holding the government accountable and there is a lot of things they do I do not agree with. With that said lying in and of itself is not against the law. My issue with Assange is his claims of wanting to expose corruption and hold those accountable.

The manner in which he is going about doing it says otherwise.

When he threatened to sue a British newspaper because they were able to get all the files Assange had by someone else with his argument it would damage him financially was the moment he lost all credibility. The way he begs for money while dangling classified material releases tells me his intent is not to hold government accountable. instead he does the very same thing he accuses the government of doing.

The fact he didnt dump all the files is also telling. If the goal is to expose then why hold back?

He wants to hold the government accountable yet he is apparently above the law - something he bitches about when talking about government action.

By all means hold them accountable... Just dont be a hypocrite while trying to do it.
edit on 19-10-2015 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 04:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: grainofsand

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Aazadan

Where do you guys get US law cant apply to an individual outside the United States? Especially when the crime in question is cyber based.
Well, I'm not one of those guys because I fully recognise that the UK has adopted pseudo-reciprocal legislation which does indeed provide a framework where non-US nationals can be handed over by Britain to face US 'justice'.

It is the very reason he is holed up in Ecuador's embassy, because there is a risk that he would end up in a US federal prison, or even Gitmo, if he hadn't taken the sanctuary provided by Ecuador.
I totally understand him doing so, especially when the US is a nation which created a prison off its shores solely for the reasons of circumnavigating homeland human rights laws.

You may have gushing love and trust for the 'judicial' process in the US but with the shameful stain of Gitmo on your hands you cannot be surprised that most people in other parts of the world feel differently.


Exactly

The USA hardly has a good tract record for human rights and its "justice " system can hardly be called balanced and fair.

And lets not even get started on some of the conditions in US prisons. ...



posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 04:21 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

No he cannot end up in gitmo.
No he cant be charged with treason.
No he cant face the death penalty.
No there are currently no charges pending against him.
No Assange could not face rendition in Sweden.
No Assange can not be extradited until proper paperwork, including the charges an supporting evidence, are provided by the Us government.

All arguments made by assange and his defense team and all arguments shot down by the courts. He accuses government of being above the law while taking the very same action himself.

edit on 19-10-2015 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 11:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: crazyewok

No he cannot end up in gitmo.
No he cant be charged with treason.
No he cant face the death penalty.
No there are currently no charges pending against him.
No Assange could not face rendition in Sweden.
You don't know any of that, yet more speculation masqueraded as fact.
*Edit* I'll give you the treason thing, he's not a US citizen


No Assange can not be extradited until proper paperwork, including the charges an supporting evidence, are provided by the Us government.
That's assuming the US government follows international law, I wouldn't trust that if I was Assange.


All arguments made by assange and his defense team and all arguments shot down by the courts. He accuses government of being above the law while taking the very same action himself.
Assange and Ecuador's actions are perfectly lawful regarding sanctuary in the embassy. The UK government would have had him out of there long ago if they thought there was a solid legal framework to do so. Try again.
edit on 20.10.2015 by grainofsand because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 05:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: grainofsand

No he cannot end up in gitmo.
No he cant be charged with treason.
No he cant face the death penalty.
No there are currently no charges pending against him.
No Assange could not face rendition in Sweden.


You don't know any of that, yet more speculation masqueraded as fact.
*Edit* I'll give you the treason thing, he's not a US citizen


No it is fact.
Gitmo is for individuals captured on a battlefield and who do not fall under the Geneva convention IE terrorists.
Treason is for US citizens only.
No charges he would qualify for have the death penalty as a punishment. Contrary to what people may think a judge cannot issue a sentence harsher than what the law defines.
There are no charges pending against Assange.
In order to try Assange in US courts he would have to be extradited meaning it would be required to go through established legal requirements.



originally posted by: grainofsand
That's assuming the US government follows international law, I wouldn't trust that if I was Assange.

In order to extradite law is required to be followed. Using ignorance and fear tactics in order to get out of answering charges for sexual assault in Sweden doesn't work, as Assange found out when the issues he and his legal team raised, and mentioned in my post, was shot down by the courts.

It undermines Assange's position when he does the very thing he accuses governments of doing. Part of me thinks he is just jealous. Secondly trying to argue the US would break the law while Assange is breaking the law doesnt fly either.


originally posted by: grainofsand

The actions of the Ecuadorian Embassy are lawful to the extent the Embassy is sovereign territory that the UK cannot forcibly enter. Aside from that their action violates the Conventions of Diplomatic relations considering Assange is not facing death or serious physical injury. An Embassy and its staff cannot use its position to bypass local law unless they can articulate the death or serious physical injury the person would be subject to.

Ecuador has not done this and cannot because he does not face death or serious physical injury.

Here - read up on it: Pay attention to Article 41.
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations - 1961


All Ecuador is doing to hiding a suspected rapist.
edit on 20-10-2015 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 06:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Aazadan

Where do you guys get US law cant apply to an individual outside the United States? Especially when the crime in question is cyber based.


Lets take an example of a recent event. Canada passed a law a while back that makes it illegal for a non Canadian citizen to try and influence the vote of someone in Canada. This usually happens over an electronic medium which is all cyber based. The penalty for breaking this law is 6 months in jail and a $5000 fine.

Do you really think Canada has any jurisdiction to prosecute this if someone in the US tells someone in Canada to vote for a particular party? The answer is of course not, the person isn't on US soil and isn't from Canada so they have no jurisdiction.



posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 06:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

You have to compare apples to apples and in this case its cyber related. A person in one country using the internet to commit a crime in another country.

If a person in country B uses the internet to change votes in a Canadian election in Canada then you might have a valid comparison.
edit on 20-10-2015 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 07:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Ok, here's another one. We know there are groups in China that hack US government computers as well as our companies. So far the US has been unable to charge anyone who did this. We may want to, but them being in China puts them beyond our legal reach. In order for us to successfully prosecute they would need to be subject to US law.

It's the same for Assange, the US may want to get him (and if you go by the word of our Senators, want to execute him without trial) but since he's not subject to our laws he's under no obligation to obey them. If Sweden had him however and decided to hand him over he could still be illegally prosecuted.



posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 08:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

Because Assange actively assisted Manning by providing him with the software that allowed manning to bypass military computer sensors in order to get the classified information out.

In this case we know who was involved. In the chinese cases we know where the attack came from however do we know who was at the keyboard when it occurred? The US government has gone after hackers belonging to anonymous and lulz or whatever the hell their names are. The government has also gone after foreigners who were responsible for stealing US credit card information from big box stores.



posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 08:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: Soloprotocol

I've just had a read up, and it appears that the police could technically stop the diplomatic car, but have no powers to enter or search it.
He would still then have the problem of getting from the car to a plane, and I would imagine that every Ecuadorian embassy car is being watched like a hawk right now.
Unless the plane was build with a ramp like a C-130...Lol

A nice 10,000 man rally in front of the embassy might make for a clean getaway



posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 10:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

The members of Anonymous that the government went after were all in the US. Two from Lulz were outside of the US (one in Ireland, one in England) but they cooperated with the FBI to arrest them. Which goes back to the issue. If Sweden cooperates with the US they can turn Assange over to the US, which is why he wants a guarantee they won't extradite him. Once he's in US custody, they can charge him with whatever the hell they want, it's pretty clear he would never get a fair trial. Even though again, he hasn't at any time been under an obligation to follow US law. Throw in his status as a journalist and the whole thing gets really shady.



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 05:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

No not all Anonymous hackers were from the US. Canada arrested one and extradited them to the US. The Dutch arrested a Russian national and extradited them to the US for computer hacking.

A person cannot be taken into custody without charges. Law Enforcement has 24 hours to file their report to the PA who then decides to prosecute. If that does not occur the person is required to be released.

Assange and his sex issues in Sweden have nothing to do with the US, regardless of the number of failed arguments that try and link to the 2. Sweden cannot make a promise on something that does not exist anymore than the US could.

Assange is not a journalist however lets set that aside for a minute and pretend he is. His status as a journalist, just like a US journalist, has no impact on being charged with receiving and printing classified information. As I pointed out before the 2st amendment does not grant the media immunity. The Supreme Court ruling in the Pentagon Paper case never extended any protections to journalists. Those journalists were actually charged and during the trial something occurred that forced a mistrial. The federal prosecutor never refiled the charges.

If Assange wants to try and make an argument using the journalist defense, its not going to protect him any more than it would a US journalist.



posted on Oct, 22 2015 @ 01:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Salander

Why is it wrong to expose the lies of government?


This is where your arguments and your perception of my position are flawed. I am in favor of holding the government accountable and there is a lot of things they do I do not agree with. With that said lying in and of itself is not against the law. My issue with Assange is his claims of wanting to expose corruption and hold those accountable.

The manner in which he is going about doing it says otherwise.

When he threatened to sue a British newspaper because they were able to get all the files Assange had by someone else with his argument it would damage him financially was the moment he lost all credibility. The way he begs for money while dangling classified material releases tells me his intent is not to hold government accountable. instead he does the very same thing he accuses the government of doing.

The fact he didnt dump all the files is also telling. If the goal is to expose then why hold back?

He wants to hold the government accountable yet he is apparently above the law - something he bitches about when talking about government action.

By all means hold them accountable... Just dont be a hypocrite while trying to do it.


I don't know if you're familiar with the cases of other whistleblowers, like Thomas Drake, John Kiriakou, Jeffrey Sterling and others who tried to expose the malfeasance, errors and crimes of the government by staying in the chain of command.

Those folks who tried to exhaust their administrative remedies and stay within approved guidelines each failed miserably, and in the process were charged, prosecuted, some serve jail time, and all had their lives ruined.

And the government did NOT change its behavior. Moral of the story? Working within the system is a fool's errand and a coward's choice.

Those brave men who succeed work outside the system because they know that staying within the system fails, as it's designed to do. Cynical view, but true.

Assange knows all that, but probably you do not.



posted on Oct, 22 2015 @ 07:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
Assange knows all that, but probably you do not.


Yet he still broke Federal Law and in the end he accomplished nothing but a means of extorting money from people who are too ignorant to see it.
edit on 22-10-2015 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join