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.

 

Ron Paul interviews Julian Assange

page: 1
19
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 28 2017 @ 10:03 PM
link   
So Ron Paul interviewed Julian Assange. The first point of discussion is Pompeo's statement that Julian Assange and Wikileaks have no First Amendment Rights relative to free speech. Anyone with the minutest understanding of the First Amendment knows that Pompeo is completely wrong. I find it quite scary that a man who has sworn to uphold the Constitution doesn't even know what that document means.

The second point of discussion is Pompeo's labelling of Wikileaks and its ilk as "non-state intelligence services". Again, this scares the hell out of me. It seems to me that if we are to consider Wikileaks such an organization, what is to stop them from labelling any alternative news source that does investigation as the same. What about any orthodox media source? Should Woodward and Bernstein have been prosecuted. The assault on our rights is increasing, not decreasing, under Trump.

The third topic of discussion is why the CIA seems to bent out of shape by the recent Vault 7 leaks. Assange really takes the gloves off on this topic. He outright states that based on the information that was leaked he thinks that there is the possibility of criminal violations by some CIA agents.

The next topic is about Assange's interview with Sean Hannity. Assange says during this portion of the interview that the CIA seems to have won the battle against Trump and that they are now leading the way. This, to me, implies that the CIA must have something on Trump.

In the last portion Assange discusses the allegations of Wikileaks colluding with Russia. He flatly denies it and quotes several governmental officials supporting this point. To me, whether or not they received info from the Reds is of no matter, as long as the reportage is accurate. No one denies this. Clearly the CIA leaks things to the press all of the time, including factually inaccurate information.

Here is the link: Interview

I'll try to link the video, but haven't been having luck doing that as of late:

edit on 28-4-2017 by TobyFlenderson because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 28 2017 @ 10:08 PM
link   
a reply to: TobyFlenderson




Julian Assange and Wikileaks have no First Amendment Rights relative to free speech.


They don't!

They are not US Citizens and thus not a single one of the US Laws applies to them.

Why the US thinks their laws apply to the whole world is beyond me!

P



posted on Apr, 28 2017 @ 10:09 PM
link   
Is it this one?




posted on Apr, 28 2017 @ 10:15 PM
link   
a reply to: pheonix358

You are incorrect. The First Amendment protects anyone being prosecuted/sued in a US court. If Assange can be prosecuted in the US, he can use the First Amendment as a defense. It's not that the law applies to the whole world, it's that it protects people in US courts, regardless of their citizenship.



posted on Apr, 28 2017 @ 10:15 PM
link   
a reply to: angeldoll

Yes, thank you. I am old and can not for the life of me to get YT videos to work here anymore. Thank you again.



posted on Apr, 28 2017 @ 10:16 PM
link   
a reply to: TobyFlenderson

How can Trump win the party nomination but Ron Paul was not!



posted on Apr, 28 2017 @ 10:21 PM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

Because the American public prefers rhetoric to logic.



posted on Apr, 28 2017 @ 10:29 PM
link   
Why is it that Wikileaks only takes their aim at the US? I don't have a problem with them exposing US corruption, but wouldn't it be nice if they did the same with the EU, or Russia, or China? Seems like their only agenda is to attack and discredit the US, I wouldn't be surprised at all if they are a Russian front.



posted on Apr, 28 2017 @ 10:36 PM
link   
a reply to: TruMcCarthy

There are plenty of Wikileaks on other countries, we just don't hear about them hear. Also, when you're the big kid on the block, you're gonna take some shots. Lastly, they don't go out and seek the information (supposedly). It seems more Americans, or people with access to American information, are fairly willing to give it up.

You can search on WL by the country you are interested in finding out about: Wikileaks by the Country



posted on Apr, 28 2017 @ 10:37 PM
link   
a reply to: TruMcCarthy

Remember wikileaks can only leak what is given to them.

And it seems US has the biggest numbers of Leakers/whistleblowers/traitors ect.
In Russia or China such people meet very quick demises.
If Manning had been Russian he would have likely got his sex change operation from putin with a pair of rusty scissors before being given a polonium cocktail.



The UK and Germany did get some diplomatic cables released.
edit on 28-4-2017 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2017 @ 10:41 PM
link   
a reply to: TruMcCarthy

Ive always liked assange. He seems way more credible than most US news sources.

As for attacking US.... maybe we are a real easy target lol. I mean... we do alotta shady stuff and arent real slick about it.



posted on Apr, 28 2017 @ 10:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: TobyFlenderson
a reply to: pheonix358

You are incorrect. The First Amendment protects anyone being prosecuted/sued in a US court. If Assange can be prosecuted in the US, he can use the First Amendment as a defense. It's not that the law applies to the whole world, it's that it protects people in US courts, regardless of their citizenship.


Assange is not a US Citizen, has not committed crimes on US soil. The US has no right to even arrest him.

Otherwise they could issue warrants for every non-US spy in the world.

It is just stupid.

P



posted on Apr, 28 2017 @ 10:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: TruMcCarthy

Remember wikileaks can only leak what is given to them.

And it seems US has the biggest numbers of Leakers/whistleblowers/traitors ect.
In Russia or China such people meet very quick demises.
If Manning had been Russian he would have likely got his sex change operation from putin with a pair of rusty scissors before being given a polonium cocktail.



The UK and Germany did get some diplomatic cables released.


lol!



posted on Apr, 28 2017 @ 10:47 PM
link   
a reply to: pheonix358

I agree, it is stupid. However, the reason why Pompeo was talking about it was because the CIA is making a concerted effort to bring criminal charges against him. In certain circumstances a person can be prosecuted for a crime in the US despite having taken the alleged criminal actions outside of the US. (I'm pretty sure most countries have similar statutes.) For instance, if you mastermind a terrorist attack from say, Lithuania, that takes place in the US. You would still have violated the US criminal law. Of course, attempting to bring the person within the jurisdiction of the US is a different story.



posted on Apr, 28 2017 @ 10:55 PM
link   
a reply to: TobyFlenderson




Of course, attempting to bring the person within the jurisdiction of the US is a different story.


Historically, the US does that by abducting the person in complete disregard to the host county's laws.

P



posted on Apr, 28 2017 @ 11:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: pheonix358
a reply to: TobyFlenderson




Of course, attempting to bring the person within the jurisdiction of the US is a different story.


Historically, the US does that by abducting the person in complete disregard to the host county's laws.

P


Can you give an example of that?



posted on Apr, 28 2017 @ 11:02 PM
link   
a reply to: pheonix358

I agree that that happens far too often.



posted on Apr, 28 2017 @ 11:06 PM
link   
a reply to: angeldoll




Can you give an example of that?


Just look at the drug lords who have been captured by military forces. It is all ok though because apparently when the military hands them to civilian authority they are somehow cleaned of the abduction crimes.

P



posted on Apr, 28 2017 @ 11:08 PM
link   

edit on 28110000004 by JHumm because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2017 @ 11:12 PM
link   
a reply to: pheonix358

Ah, I guess I'm not familiar with that. I know Mexico extradited El Chapo, but there was no military involved, so you must be referring to something else, perhaps in the ME.

/bedtime around here.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<<   2 >>

log in

join