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.

 

ASSANGE BLINKS: Wikileaks founder retreats from extradition pledge

page: 3
22
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2017 @ 01:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010
Once a lying running coward always a lying running coward. Anyone that thought he would actually go through with this is a fool.


So Obama is a fool?




posted on Jan, 19 2017 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

pardon or commutation

food for thought;

Could it be a Freudian-slip that the us gov. may pursue the angle of charging Assange with conspiracy?

Conspiracy is pretty hard to prove without concrete evidence...
Will the gov. use wiki as their source for concrete evidence?

Will that evidence proving a host of conspiracies be used as evidence against the guy releasing that evidence to the public?

That's what I call a squishy.



posted on Jan, 19 2017 @ 02:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010
Once a lying running coward always a lying running coward. Anyone that thought he would actually go through with this is a fool.


LOL no doubt you were singing his Praises during the Bush Administration.



posted on Jan, 19 2017 @ 02:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: 200Plus
Who in their right mind would turn themselves in (in a swap situation) when they "hostage was still in custody?

Just playing devil's advocate here, but he still has until May when Manning walks free to turn himself in.



Asante is playing the long game. He has been for awhile.



posted on Jan, 19 2017 @ 02:49 PM
link   
only a retard would turn himself in at a time when even the incoming president doesn't trust the fbi and cia. and commutation is not the same as clemency anyways so he had no reason accept those terms. everyone calling him a coward is a moron.



posted on Jan, 19 2017 @ 03:38 PM
link   
a reply to: loveguy

Under US law conspiracy requires 2 or more actors involved. In this case its an air tight case considering Manning already was charged, tried and convicted, He is part 1 and Assange is part 2.



posted on Jan, 19 2017 @ 03:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: duesprimusvictorimmortali
only a retard would turn himself in at a time when even the incoming president doesn't trust the fbi and cia. and commutation is not the same as clemency anyways so he had no reason accept those terms. everyone calling him a coward is a moron.


Correction -

Only a retard would turn himself in when no charges are pending.



posted on Jan, 19 2017 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI

I am ignoring his EU issues and merely focusing on the US portion. Currently there are no charges so he could fly to the US (ignoring the EU thing) and he would not be arrested.

Just to clarify thats not to say there are no sealed indictments against him. I have only come across one in my time and it took a favor to find out what the sealed indictment was about.
edit on 19-1-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2017 @ 04:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Well good for Obama for the pardon. I said elsewhere he wouldn't, but he did. If it was a jinx to say so, I'm glad it worked. But Julian Assange? Well, he gambled wrong, I guess. He's no more reliable or believable than anyone else at this point, IMO.



posted on Jan, 19 2017 @ 04:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Namdru
a reply to: Xcathdra

Well good for Obama for the pardon. I said elsewhere he wouldn't, but he did. If it was a jinx to say so, I'm glad it worked. But Julian Assange? Well, he gambled wrong, I guess. He's no more reliable or believable than anyone else at this point, IMO.


No you were correct. Obama did not pardon manning, he only commuted her sentence. A pardon exonerates the person of the crime. A commutation merely reduces the sentence. Manning's guilty verdict remains and always will.



posted on Jan, 19 2017 @ 05:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Here's the reason why: A major component of Assange's asylum deal with Ecuador is that he's there to hide from the US wanting him. I suspect Ecuador is losing patience with him staying in the embassy and wants him out. By offering himself up to the US, Assange (f we took him) would end up in the US and then be able to fly out to Ecuador before Sweden could grab him.

By Obama saying Assange wasn't a factor in the Manning issue, and that we don't want him even when he's offering himself up, Assange now loses one of his primary arguments to hide from Sweden. I see Assange on trial in Sweden in the near future.



posted on Jan, 19 2017 @ 05:03 PM
link   
So now we know, that the US consider Social whistleblowing Hackers more threatening than terrorists. And those guys you have to meet the terms they ask... I know why he refused, Obama forgot to say please.



posted on Jan, 19 2017 @ 05:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: loveguy

Under US law conspiracy requires 2 or more actors involved. In this case its an air tight case considering Manning already was charged, tried and convicted, He is part 1 and Assange is part 2.


So the evidence (wikileaks) that was used against Manning will also be used against Assange?

Giving all validity to wikileaks in the process would show some hard facts huh?



posted on Jan, 19 2017 @ 05:18 PM
link   
a reply to: loveguy

A conspiracy charge requires 2 or more actors. Manning was actor 1 and assange / wikileaks was actor 2. Recognizing wikileaks involvement doesnt give them validity in any sense of the word in a legal setting. It merely identifies them as being a conspirator in breaking US laws.
edit on 19-1-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2017 @ 05:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: DISRAELI

I have only come across one in my time and it took a favor to find out what the sealed indictment was about.


Guessing it's one of those things you are not at liberty to share?

Thanks in advance.



posted on Jan, 19 2017 @ 05:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: loveguy

A conspiracy charge requires 2 or more actors. Manning was actor 1 and assange / wikileaks was actor 2.


Where's the evidence of this conspiracy these two supposedly committed?

Just admit it, wikileaks is the source for said evidence?



posted on Jan, 19 2017 @ 05:25 PM
link   
I'd blink too. You can't trust the US Government on something like this. They hate truth and transparency and protest and free speech. It's getting bad over here. We're still the best country on earth but man is our own government working hard to change that.



posted on Jan, 19 2017 @ 05:26 PM
link   
a reply to: loveguy

The sealed indictment was in relation to some major drug crimes.


Sealed indictment

A sealed indictment an indictment that is sealed so that it stays non-public until it is unsealed. This can be done for a number of reasons. It may be unsealed, for example, once the named person is arrested.

The following is an example of a federal rule dealing with sealed indictments:

The magistrate judge to whom an indictment is returned may direct that the indictment be kept secret until the defendant is in custody or has been released pending trial. The clerk must then seal the indictment, and no person may disclose the indictment’s existence except as necessary to issue or execute a warrant or summons.


When I ran the person the return showed an arrest warrant / sealed indictment. Under law we are required to inform the person of the arrest and what they are being arrested for. I had to inform him there was an arrest warrant issued under sealed indictment and the controlling agency could provide more info.

You can also see how it would apply to Assange.



posted on Jan, 19 2017 @ 05:27 PM
link   
sorry double post

edit on (1/19/1717 by loveguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2017 @ 05:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: loveguy

A conspiracy charge requires 2 or more actors. Manning was actor 1 and assange / wikileaks was actor 2. Recognizing wikileaks involvement doesnt give them validity in any sense of the word in a legal setting. It merely identifies them as being a conspirator in breaking US laws.


That's crossing ethical boundaries...in a legal setting.
Why pursue Manning/Assange if docs weren't authentic?
Why all the smoke and mirrors if the 2 journalists in the afghan video never took place?



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join