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.

 

Judge’s ruling throws huge spanner into US extradition proceedings against Assange

page: 2
21
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 2 2019 @ 09:17 PM
link   
a reply to: IkNOwSTuff As an Aussie living in US for many years I do agree. One reason why I left down under after serving military was the complete surrender of Australians to the will of US Commissars




posted on Aug, 2 2019 @ 09:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha




I don't like this


Of course you don't because you blame Wikileaks for getting Trump elected along with the Russians, the Nazis, the KKK and Mussolini.


God forbid someone actually releases some factual news.

If Wikileaks had spilt some dirt on Trump you would be kissing Assange's ass right now...



posted on Aug, 2 2019 @ 11:41 PM
link   
Who says we need extradition?




posted on Aug, 3 2019 @ 07:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Fallingdown

Manning was convicted of passing classified documents to Wikileaks. Everybody knows that, except perhaps for you. The video was entitled "Collateral Murder" and you can find it on Google. At least you could. Google censors, so it might be gone today.

Manning served time for that "crime", and POTUS eventually commuted his sentence.

Wikileaks received the material, and nobody questions that.

As the judge noted, this goes back to principles established long ago, including in the Pentagon Papers.

Your uncertainty seems to stem from ignorance about the chain of events in this case.

How can it be a crime to expose the crimes of government?



posted on Aug, 3 2019 @ 09:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Wide-Eyes




If Wikileaks had spilt some dirt on Trump you would be kissing Assange's ass right now...


If a foreign government stole documents from the RNC and the Trump Campaign, like the documents, (intellectual property), that were stolen from the DNC and Hillary's campaign, and then "fenced" them out to WikiLeaks, and Hillary Clinton and her campaign utilized that information to benefit her campaign, while fawning all over the foreign government's leader, and a judge ruled the same as the judge in this case, I still wouldn't like it.

I don't have to like it.

The key here is the "stolen" aspect. They weren't leaked by a disgruntled staff member, or a two faced opportunistic insider. They were stolen in a modern tech "Watergate Break in" style.

Like I said, Freedom of the Press doesn't extend to "piracy". This feelz kinda like piracy of intellectual property to me.



posted on Aug, 3 2019 @ 03:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

No hate here and I do star your posts from time to time but on this occasion, I don't believe you.

The DNC is not a corporation and at the very least shouldn't be treated as one. They are PUBLIC SERVANTS that have displayed the behaviour of gangsters just like most influential politicians ever from any party ever.

Hillary is a crook and she was acting illegally. Do you dislike the crime or do you dislike the fact that she got caught?
edit on 382019 by Wide-Eyes because: Clarification



posted on Aug, 3 2019 @ 07:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Wide-Eyes



The DNC is not a corporation and at the very least shouldn't be treated as one.


Well, I think the DNC is probably incorporated, Hillary's campaign too. But corporations aren't the only ones entitled to piracy protection.



Hillary is a crook and she was acting illegally. Do you dislike the crime or do you dislike the fact that she got caught?


What crime that implicated Hillary Clinton did Wikileaks expose?

Caught? Hillary, as far as I know, was only being accused of "crimes" associated with her refusal to copy all of her emails from her private server to the National Archives, and that she was in policy violation by using the private server in the first place. As far as I know, she may have handled classified documents carelessly, but was never accused of sending classified information to enemies or compromised individuals.

Wikileaks wasn't responsible for Hillary getting caught using a private server AND refusing to copy all of her emails to the National Archives. The Wikileaks dissemination may have embarrassed Hillary, but I'm not aware of any criminal activity they exposed.



I don't believe you.


How about you give me the benefit of the doubt, and just disagree with me? I wouldn't be kissing Julian Assange's ass if what he did benefited Hillary Clinton. I don't like Julian Assange one little bit.


edit on 3-8-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2019 @ 07:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Wide-Eyes




The DNC is not a corporation
Incorrect.

The DNC is a 527 corporation, as is the RNC.


For their parts, the Democratic and Republican National Committees — the head organizations for the two parties in Washington — are classified as 527 tax-exempt, nonprofit organizations. That means taxpayers subsidize their activities without collecting taxes from their income.

ivn.us...


Update: A federal judge dismissed the DNC lawsuit on August 28. The court recognized that the DNC treated voters unfairly, but ruled that the DNC is a private corporation; therefore, voters cannot protect their rights by turning to the courts:

ivn.us...

edit on 8/3/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2019 @ 08:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha




How about you give me the benefit of the doubt, and just disagree with me? I wouldn't be kissing Julian Assange's ass if what he did benefited Hillary Clinton. I don't like Julian Assange one little bit. 



All good, we'll leave it at that.



posted on Aug, 3 2019 @ 08:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Wide-Eyes




The DNC is not a corporation
Incorrect.

The DNC is a 527 corporation, as is the RNC.


For their parts, the Democratic and Republican National Committees — the head organizations for the two parties in Washington — are classified as 527 tax-exempt, nonprofit organizations. That means taxpayers subsidize their activities without collecting taxes from their income.

ivn.us...


Update: A federal judge dismissed the DNC lawsuit on August 28. The court recognized that the DNC treated voters unfairly, but ruled that the DNC is a private corporation; therefore, voters cannot protect their rights by turning to the courts:

ivn.us...


Wow!




posted on Aug, 3 2019 @ 08:20 PM
link   
a reply to: pravdaseeker

The problem with this is that their not going after Assange based on the freedom of the press but for illegally obtaining material from Chelsea Manning who was convicted and got (35 years)of similar and related charges of what they want to convict Assange of.



U.S. prosecutors Thursday unsealed conspiracy charges against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, alleging he worked with former Army intelligence analyst-turned whistleblower Chelsea Manning to hack a government computer and carry out one of the largest leaks of U.S. classified information in history.

www.pbs.org...

The charges have nothing to do with whether he could publish anything.

Of course, the government may lose but Manning pleaded guilty and was released by Obama on a pardon but is presently in jail for contempt of court for not testifying in a Grand Jury in the very case against Assange.

edit on 3-8-2019 by Willtell because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2019 @ 07:42 AM
link   
a reply to: pravdaseeker

There are several problems here. 1st Julian isn't just in trouble for the DNC release but also for the Manning release. Second, even if it was just the DNC release it would still fall under industry espionage.



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 1   >>

log in

join