2016 Green Party Convention Live Stream ft Julian Assange

Well, he didn't leak anything. I think he is waiting for October for that.

But he did say that Clinton will probably be president. Why would he say that if he has emails that would "ensure" her arrest? Does he not have incriminating information, or has he just been watching the American outrage, or lack thereof, and thinks Americans will just accept whatever crimes she did like we do everything else?

These whistleblowers keep releasing really horrifying information but it doesn't really result in much change, other than resignations. People get much more upset when their favorite sports team lose than when their rights and freedoms are taken away.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: primespickle

Oh well when you put it that way. LOL.
Tell me then...Why is Assange in sanctuary? No no just answer that? Why is he not free to move about the planet like the rest of us? Oh yeah ...Because he's a criminal hacker that's why. He will be arrested as soon as he steps into a country with an extradition treaty with the United States.
He's a liar and a criminal.

As far as wikileaks is concerned, Assange is not a criminal. For the most part he has leaked US documents, but because he wasn't on US soil when he did it, and because he's not a US citizen, he's not subject to US law. Arresting him would be like the US arresting a random Dutch citizen for smoking weed in Amsterdam, because it's illegal in the US... it's just not in our jurisdiction to do.

Assange is cooped up in an embassy not for leaking documents, but on rape allegations. He has never been found guilty, there's just a warrant out to question him. For Assange's part he has been willing to answer any questions, but he hasn't been willing to be taken into custody due to extradition agreements. He fears he would be sent to the US, despite there being no legal basis to do so.

The whole controversy is over those fears are justified or not.

If acting legally, the US cannot take him into custody because there are no criminal actions to charge him with.

a reply to: primespickle

People get much more upset when their favorite sports team lose than when their rights and freedoms are taken away.

That's a good quote right there....

It sure does seem that way, which is insane.

a reply to: luthier

You are right, treason can only committed by a citizen. This is what I was going off of.

On 26 January 2015, WikiLeaks revealed that three members of the organisation received notice that "Google had handed over all their emails and metadata to the United States government". In the notifications, there was the list of possible charges that originated the warrant to Google and that the secret grand jury intends to use against WikiLeaks and likely Assange too. They were espionage, conspiracy to commit espionage, theft or conversion of property belonging to the United States government, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and general conspiracy. They carry up to a minimum of 45 years in prison, if they amount to one charge per these five types; otherwise, even more years could be added.

The United States investigation confirmed its ongoing proceedings against WikiLeaks in a 15 December 2015 court submission.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: luthier

You are right, treason can only committed by a citizen. This is what I was going off of.

On 26 January 2015, WikiLeaks revealed that three members of the organisation received notice that "Google had handed over all their emails and metadata to the United States government". In the notifications, there was the list of possible charges that originated the warrant to Google and that the secret grand jury intends to use against WikiLeaks and likely Assange too. They were espionage, conspiracy to commit espionage, theft or conversion of property belonging to the United States government, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and general conspiracy. They carry up to a minimum of 45 years in prison, if they amount to one charge per these five types; otherwise, even more years could be added.

The United States investigation confirmed its ongoing proceedings against WikiLeaks in a 15 December 2015 court submission.

In other words Assange has not been charged even after several years of investigation never mind convicted.

My guess they would never put the guy on trial or the deffence subpeonas and oath testimony alone will create havoc. Especially combined with us whistleblower laws.

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

I call them criminals and liars because they are freakin criminals and liars. Dude they are criminals and liars. What they did was against the law. They hacked government computers.
They are not whistleblowers. They're hackers. Call them by their correct title. Cyber criminals. Period. There's no other maybe kinder maybe more sympathetic way of saying it. Cyber criminals hackers. .

originally posted by: primespickle
a reply to: Sillyolme

Are you calling me a liar? Multiple news sources confirm this, as does a Green Party press release.

Wikileaks is a whistleblower group, not a terrorist group . Big difference.

No I'm not calling you a liar. Did I even suggest you wrote this story? What I will say is she not too bright if this is the association she wants to cultivate. Not that she has even the remotest chance.

a reply to: luthier

I'm pretty sure that 2010 arrest warrant is still in effect, and would be exercised if Assange was step foot in the wrong country.

a reply to: luthier

Sweden has. 31counts.
Karen Silkwood was a whistle blower. Her revelations saved lives and was noble and just.
Assange is a criminal.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: luthier

I'm pretty sure that 2010 arrest warrant is still in effect, and would be exercised if Assange was step foot in the wrong country.

The arrest warrant is for not using a condom. Not leaks

a reply to: Sillyolme

Swedon has what?

Assange is not in trouble for leaks well not information ones.

Which is what you were getting at.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
Why would Dr. Stein ever aligned herself with a known criminal? .
Answer...she wouldn't.

heavy.com...

I hope you get help for your disorder.

It's ok to have an opinion and cling to your beliefs. It's not okay to tell others they are wrong for having theirs.

If your fishing for liars and criminals, look to your own party first please.

a reply to: luthier

No that's the Swedish arrest warrant. The US has another one for espionage, I believe.

The main concern expressed by Mr Assange and his supporters is that once extradited to Sweden, he would be in danger of being sent to the US, where he fears he could face the death penalty.

Many of Wikileaks' most prominent revelations came from massive releases of classified US military documents on the Afghan and Iraq wars, in July and October 2010. In April 2010, the site released footage showing US soldiers shooting dead 18 civilians from a helicopter in Iraq.
www.bbc.com...

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

I call them criminals and liars because they are freakin criminals and liars. Dude they are criminals and liars. What they did was against the law. They hacked government computers.
They are not whistleblowers. They're hackers. Call them by their correct title. Cyber criminals. Period. There's no other maybe kinder maybe more sympathetic way of saying it. Cyber criminals hackers. .

Well to be a criminal you need to be charged and prosecuted. Somwthing the US has not done.

Why

Because he gets to subpoena people to testify. Same reason they gave up on the british kid for hacking into nasa and the dod.

They dont want the information assange has on record in a court room with testimony so they want to use a criminal route themselves to circumvent due process.

Other wise they should have Plenty of information vy know to charge wikileaks.

Snowden also a whistleblower.

If you have ever studied ethics in philosophy its definetely a gray area when a person feels there is a moral duty to expose the truth or act to stop an injustice.

For instance if assange has a credible inside source that directed where he should hack, or in the cases of more recent leaks actual leaks and not hacks.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: luthier

No that's the Swedish arrest warrant. The US has another one for espionage, I believe.

The main concern expressed by Mr Assange and his supporters is that once extradited to Sweden, he would be in danger of being sent to the US, where he fears he could face the death penalty.

Many of Wikileaks' most prominent revelations came from massive releases of classified US military documents on the Afghan and Iraq wars, in July and October 2010. In April 2010, the site released footage showing US soldiers shooting dead 18 civilians from a helicopter in Iraq.
www.bbc.com...

There is no warrant.

You need to be charged to have a warrant.

Also he is afraid they will do it without due process not the death penalty.

On top of that the swedish warrant is most likely about to be void as Brittain exits the EU.


Actually in sweden you dont need to be charged for an extradition warrant. To date there are no charges against assange.

How is that for justice.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

I call them criminals and liars because they are freakin criminals and liars. Dude they are criminals and liars. What they did was against the law. They hacked government computers.
They are not whistleblowers. They're hackers. Call them by their correct title. Cyber criminals. Period. There's no other maybe kinder maybe more sympathetic way of saying it. Cyber criminals hackers. .

Technically, Assange didn't hack anyone. He is just a middle man who has received said hacked information that he feels the public should be aware of. Also, I did listen to the green Party convention. They are indeed calling them 'heroes' for bringing transparency to American citizens.

I will admit, that Jill stein and her supporters probably would be as bias as Clinton supporters if the shoe was on the other foot, so to speak...but apparently, they have not been as corrupted and criminal as the DNC and Clinton, especially during this election.

You couldn't believe that Jill Stein would have Assange speak. Well it happened. Time to wake up and realize that keeping your eyes shut makes the bad go away, just doesn't work! Americans are beginning to realize something is seriously flawed!

a reply to: Sillyolme

Wow. The double think promoted by the Hillary supporters.

Someone who reveals the truth is a liar.
Someone who exposes the crimes of the state and seeks justice is a criminal.

1984 anyone?

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: luthier

Sweden has. 31counts.
Karen Silkwood was a whistle blower. Her revelations saved lives and was noble and just.
Assange is a criminal.

Only according to the criminal, terrorist supporting, warmongering United States Government and their foreign puppets

a reply to: luthier

There is no warrant. You need to be charged to have a warrant. Also he is afraid they will do it without due process not the death penalty.

As I understand it, he has been indicted by a secret grand jury. Its all top secret, super classified stuff kept away from us little people. But I do believe that Assange could be locked away under the Patriot Act, and that his paranoia is justified.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: luthier

There is no warrant. You need to be charged to have a warrant. Also he is afraid they will do it without due process not the death penalty.

As I understand it, he has been indicted by a secret grand jury. Its all top secret, super classified stuff kept away from us little people. But I do believe that Assange could be locked away under the Patriot Act, and that his paranoia is justified.

A secret grand jury is against the law which is why holder denies it. Is he an enemy combatant now. Jeez.

So he is justified to think his due process will be denied and he would be acused and sentenced without a defence.

In a normal or special grand jury the hearing for indictment is secret in terms of the proceedings. Maybe thats what you mean.

A grand jury though does not sentence. They decide if there is enough evidence for an indictment.