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: 5
22
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 06:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra


Violation of the espionage act


Assange is not American and not subject to US law.




posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 06:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: midicon
a reply to: Xcathdra


Violation of the espionage act


Assange is not American and not subject to US law.


lol ok you keep thinking that while the rest of us live in the real world. Just because you refuse to recognize how legalities work doesnt mean you can simply make a claim based on a personal opinion not based on fact and then try to claim it as fact.

You are ignoring various treaties between nations that allow for extradition of citizens for violation of laws in another country.

He colluded with Manning to help obtain hundreds of thousands of classified documents that belong the the US government. He was not authorized to have them nor authorized to release them, both of which violate US law.

If you dont want to be charged with a crime in a foreign country then dont collude with someone to break their laws.

Its as simple as that.
edit on 21-1-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 10:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Assange will claim he is merely the publisher and not the colluder. He is also not subject to the 'classified' law as he was not employed by the US government.


edit on 21-1-2017 by midicon because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 04:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: midicon
a reply to: Xcathdra

Assange will claim he is merely the publisher and not the colluder. He is also not subject to the 'classified' law as he was not employed by the US government.



He founded / runs wikileaks and was at the forefront of the manning debacle. Secondly if you read the statute employment is not required. It deals with people gaining possession of / access to classified information they are not authorized to have. That would be Manning and Assange.

The laws in question apply to Assange and there are no citizenship requirements in order to break it nor are their any job requirements to break it.
edit on 21-1-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 02:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

I have read the possible charges that Assange might face. Also the ambiguity concerning any trial and outcome. It is not as clear cut as you would like to maintain.



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 02:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: midicon
a reply to: Xcathdra

I have read the possible charges that Assange might face. Also the ambiguity concerning any trial and outcome. It is not as clear cut as you would like to maintain.



It is actually. There is no ambiguity on trial. Outcomes arent predetermined and he is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 02:47 PM
link   


You can skip to 9:43, Where Assange is asked about his extradition. He states that he, "stands by his word". He does add a couple conditions though. Conditions that, IMO are warranted. They have to do with the disclosure of the prosecutors evidence against Assange. He reportedly has information stating there is a sealed indictment, but he can not get confirmation.



“I stand by everything I said including the offer to go to the United States if Chelsea Manning's sentence was commuted,”


And for my link guys and gals.....

www.foxnews.com...

I dont have an opinion other than the one previously stated, so dont shoot the messenger.



posted on Jan, 23 2017 @ 01:13 PM
link   
a reply to: rnaa You do realize he's in the Ecuadorian Embassy right?? while yes, being in the UK geography wise - LEGALLY he is in EQUADOR. A country which most likely isn't going to allow the US to extradite easily. and the UK nor US as far as I know cannot just raid or invade another countries embassy, that would almost guarantee war. So your point and comments are wrong and the US definitely want his head there is no question about that. Why would they charge manning but not assange for basically the same "crime"??



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 11:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Brian4real

Disclosure of evidence occurs at the pre trial phase. The Defense has to file a motion of discovery in order to gain access to what the prosecution has. If he is trying to argue he wants to see the evidence before he "turns himself in" then his entire position is a sham considering he comes from a country and is in a country that uses the same standards for evidence disclosure as the US.



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 08:31 AM
link   
a reply to: JakeR777

1) He was not in the Ecuadorian Embassy when the leaks were made, the US knew exactly where he was, and could have started extradition proceedings had it wanted to. The Swedish extradition process took several years working its way through the British Courts. The US had plenty of opportunity to begin extradition. There has never been any attempt what-so-ever.

The only conclusion is that they aren't all that interested, despite Assange's attempts to paint himself as a martyr.

2) What Manning did and what Assange may or may not have done are entirely different. Manning was serving Army soldier when he violated his oath, stole government property, and passed on secret and sensitive data to foreign interests.

Assange did nothing like what Manning did. Assange is not a serving soldier in any Army, let alone the American Army. The worst possible charge Assange could be chased for would be 'conspiracy'. He didn't steal anything, he didn't put Manning up to it or they would have discovered the collusion. The USA has tried very hard to find that collusion so they could pin conspiracy charges on him and has failed. You and I may agree that conspiracy (perhaps after the theft) is extremely likely, but if there is no enough evidence to convict, there isn't enough evidence to extradite either.

Your protestations are pointless. If the USA wanted him, they would have at least applied for extradition. They haven't done so, Assange knows it too.



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 08:56 AM
link   
a reply to: rnaa

LOL im sorry but if you truly think the US govt is okay with WikiLeaks leaking CLASSIFIED information you have no idea how serious they take intelligence/data secrecy. IF it wasn't a big deal for a journalist to publish it wouldn't be classified. The fact that he wasn't in the embassy at the time of the leaks just proves they cant snap they're fingers and appear in front of him to arrest him. Obviously he got to safety before they could arrest/extradite him. They have 24/7 surveillance on the embassy so they can arrest him as soon as he steps out.



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 08:58 AM
link   
a reply to: rnaa

Also the Swedes can take their extradition process thru British courts all they want until he leaves that embassy he IS NOT in Britain.



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Well then.... the law is the law. I cant deny that.
This is why i love ATS. I appreciate the info!



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 06:23 AM
link   
a reply to: JakeR777

That is why he is in Ecuador in the first place. The Swedes won their extradition case and Assange bolted for asylum before Scotland Yard could put him on a plane.

The USA has made no move to get him to the USA. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

And they had plenty of time to do so BEFORE he went to the Ecuadorian Embassy. Assange is blowing smoke up your backside when he says he'll agree to the American Extradition request. There is simply no such thing for him to agree to.

Look, this is not rocket science. The USA is not now and has never tried to extradite Assange. I know you think that he has somehow broken American Law, but in fact he has not or he would have been charged by now. Assange is playing on your gullibility to maintain your sympathy.

American Black Letter Law PROTECTS publishers from prosecution for 3rd party 'postings'. Assange did not steal the documents, Manning did (and he went to jail for it). If the USA could prove that Assange and Manning colluded to steal the documents, THEN AND ONLY THEN would they have a case against Assange. They have not been able to make such a case.

What really needs to happen is for Assange to stop deflecting attention from the reason why he is holed up in Ecuador. The Manning documents are not why he is straining the Ecuadorian Foreign Service budget. He is in that embassy because he is afraid to face questioning over the Swedish sexual assault charges - nothing more, nothing less.

He really, really needs to shut up about the Manning Documents and the USA and go to Sweden to face the sexual assault charges there.



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 12:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Thanks for clarifying. Commutation, not pardon. A pardon would have generated needless hatred towards Obama anyway.



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 11:51 AM
link   
a reply to: rnaa

Soooo...Did you see the recent announcement about the American government planning on prosecuting ASSANGE ?.....for....posting thousands of leaked govt. files...

www.cnn.com...

Im not sure why anyone thought our so very truthful and transparent government would be okay with an organization like WikiLeaks




new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join