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.

 

How can assange be charged with treason?

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 12:17 PM
link   
How can assange be charged with treason by America if he's not American? There literally trying to charge an Australian with American treason? How can this be?




posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by XxRagingxPandaxX
 


Assange is not wanted on US charges. He is wanted for charges in Sweden. And if he should be charged, by the US, it would be for espionage, not treason.


John Bellinger, a former legal adviser to the U.S. State Department, says Assange could be charged with espionage, stealing government property or retaining stolen government property.


Source

~Heff
edit on 12/4/10 by Hefficide because: Posting in a rush never works out the way you want it to



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 12:21 PM
link   
Absolutely right, but I recall hearing 'treason' on the news at some point and I had the same though as the OP.



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Absolutely right, but I recall hearing 'treason' on the news at some point and I had the same though as the OP.


"The NEWS"...

there is not doubt some asshat said this on a US news station. Probably FOX.

Don't shoot the messenger seems so simple.



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 12:45 PM
link   
They're grasping at straws now. There was a judge on the news the other day, saying he cannot be charged for anything. He was given the information that was posted. He didn't steal it. The judge said for him to be charged for printing it, they would also have to charge every news outlet that also printed it. It sounds as though the rape charges were also false.

If the US doesn't want any of this info out there, why are all the news stations talking about it, non stop? The news outlets that are monitored very closely by the government. One would think that if they didn't talk about it so much, most of the people wouldn't even bother going through the wikileaks sites.



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by XxRagingxPandaxX
How can assange be charged with treason by America if he's not American? There literally trying to charge an Australian with American treason? How can this be?


I too am wondering about these seemingly trumped up charges. The Media and the Administration has already stated that these documents were not "Top Secret," but were daily logs and such. Anyone could have obtained this stuff by filing a Freedom of Information Request, so to me this is no big deal. Another funny thing is the rape charge. I am surprised child porn wasn't found on his laptop. Why is it sex crimes are the only thing TPTB seem to use when trying to discredit someone? The Obama administration is really peed off about this, you can bet on that, and so is many world leaders and insiders, for all are found to be wanting. This information clearly shows the insider deals and schemes perpetrated by these snakes in the grass, and it clearly shows why the People of the world need to seek new leadership.



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by XxRagingxPandaxX
 


I was under the impression that since the leaks contained top secret information on a war that Austrailia has troops deployed in, that Austrailia could charge him with treason (providing Aid and or comfort to the enemy). They can use the same argument being applied to Pvt. Manning, that the leaks went beyond whistelblower and placed troops in danger.

Not saying its gonna fly, but I think that is how they are getting from point A to Z. Since this leak occured during a war, its taken a lot more severly than if it were peace time.



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 



Not saying its gonna fly, but I think that is how they are getting from point A to Z. Since this leak occured during a war, its taken a lot more severly than if it were peace time.


You keep saying war but I have seen NO war declared by Australia or the US..
Do you have a link to where war was declared??



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 03:25 PM
link   
No theft, no fault, no crime. As for the rape claims, utterly preposterous, this is just yet another attempt by forces in the dark seeking to muddy the waters from what is being exposed. These forces are looking to smear Assange in the hope of destroying his credibility with the MSM. It's hardly the first time they've done this. These same powers are the ones threatening the likes of Amazon and Paypal, threatening the entire armed forces of the United States by forbidding them to look at the lies, deceptions, and crimes carried out by their own government often with their unwitting help under the guise of patriotism, the fight against terror, insurrection, etc!

TPTB cannot afford to let those it expects to carry their terror out on their own citizens have access to anything other than the approved and agreed truths! "These things we hold to be self evident..." to steal from a document that used to mean something once upon a time.

God help us all with what remains to be exposed, I suspect things will only get worse.

Can someone post the new link for Wikileaks, the old .org link doesn't work for me anymore.



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by snowspirit
They're grasping at straws now. There was a judge on the news the other day, saying he cannot be charged for anything. He was given the information that was posted. He didn't steal it. The judge said for him to be charged for printing it, they would also have to charge every news outlet that also printed it. It sounds as though the rape charges were also false.

If the US doesn't want any of this info out there, why are all the news stations talking about it, non stop? The news outlets that are monitored very closely by the government. One would think that if they didn't talk about it so much, most of the people wouldn't even bother going through the wikileaks sites.


They decided it was a perfect opportunity to use a "crisis" to their advantage, I'm guessing. The msm has the average joe up in arms wanting to lynch the guy and eliminate all internet freedom.



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by snowspirit
If the US doesn't want any of this info out there, why are all the news stations talking about it, non stop? The news outlets that are monitored very closely by the government. One would think that if they didn't talk about it so much, most of the people wouldn't even bother going through the wikileaks sites.


Could be about desensitisation, whilst it is still just about the insults (like that's news!). Some may become bored with the saturation coverage so when anything of any real import is released, it won't seem shocking, less likely to raise public ire, cause an outcry, demands for impeachments and enquiries or mass public unrest.



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
You keep saying war but I have seen NO war declared by Australia or the US..

Do you have a link to where war was declared??


H.J. Res. 64 - Authorized by the Congress of the United States of America on Sept 14th, 2001

UN Resolution1441

The above resolution was the last one the UN signed off on prior to the US invasion in 2003. The resolution does not authorize the use of force against Iraq per se. However it does reference all other resolutions that have been placed against Iraq since the end of the first gulf war. Sine Iraq was in breech of thsoe UN Resolutions the ability to use force to force Iraq to comply was already granted in previous resolutions by failure to comply.

Iraq- 116 STAT. 1498 PUBLIC LAW 107–243—OCT. 16, 2002 - Authorized by the Congress of the United States of America - Use of Force authorized against Iraq.

There was no UN Resolution dealing with Afghanistan when we did our thing, and as I point out below we do not need UN permission to defend ourselves. Why did the US go down this road you ask?

Lets look back a few years to 1999 - UN Resolution 1267
Yeah.. The UN works wonders...

What did the UN say when the US presented its case about Afghanistan:

GA/SM/274 AFG/151 8 October 2001


President of the General Assembly, Han Seung-Soo

The General Assembly of the United Nations, in its resolution 56/1 adopted immediately after the terrorist attacks in the United States on 11 September 2001, condemned those acts of terrorism in the strongest terms and called for international cooperation to bring to justice the perpetrators, organizers, and sponsors of the outrages. During the General Assembly debate on "Measures to eliminate international terrorism", held last week with an unprecedented number of Member States participating, we voiced our unequivocal view that international terrorism constitutes a threat to international peace and security, as well as a crime against humanity.

The Security Council also adopted resolutions on this issue, which condemned the terrorist attacks as a threat to international peace and security, while reaffirming the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence as recognized by the Charter of the United Nations. I understand that the current military action now being undertaken is predicated on these norms.


Article 51 of the UN charter was invoked, as well as article 5 of the NATO charter that allowed the US to deal with Afghanistan, as allowed and endorsed by the United Nations.

My personal opinion is screw the UN, because we saw how well the sanctions on Iraq worked for the better part of a decade.People seem to confuse self defense with mother may I and command by comittee. The entity that is repsonible for the safety and security of the United States is the duly elected Government put in place by US citizens. The notion we have to go to the UN and ask permission when we were attacked is absurd, and a very good example of why the UN is about worthless.

Is this enough information for you, or do I need to provide more??

Also, wikileaks released classified information that proved there was a WMD program still active up to and after the initial 2003 invasion of Iraq. The argument from the left is there were no WMDs and it was a lie. Wikileaks has proved this wrong, which reinforced the argument and reason for action against Iraq.

Or are we ignoring those wikileak documents that actually support the actions of the US?

Mr. Assange should have picked his topics more carefully, eleasing the documents that show illegal behavior by the US. Instead, he flooded the market as a revenge tactic, blowing his own argument out of the water, damaging his credibility for lying about the true intentions of the leaks, which in his words was done in revenge agains the US.

Mr. Assange was so damn arrogant that he failed to understand the impact of what he was doing. Not only did he jeopradize the National security of the US and our Allies, it gave targets to terrorists in the process. Instead of stopping the wars, he has provided resolve to the Taliban and Al Queida, jeopradized the lives of not only American troops, but Austrailian as well.

...and for what?

Revenge...
edit on 4-12-2010 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


I still don't see where war was DECLARED...Especially for Australia..

The term WMD has gotten very vague..One guy was charged in the US of possessing WMD when all he had was a pipe bomb..

Your talk of Wikileaks is opinion and speculation..

Anything else I can help you with?



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
I still don't see where war was DECLARED...Especially for Australia..


That because you need to read the maerial I posted. The Congress of the united States authorized use of force. Congress is the body that retains that ability, and can authorize the use of force in any manner they see fit as granted to them by the Constitution.

The UN resolution acknowledged the US had a right to invoke Article 51, in addition to any colelctive defense alliances we used, wich covered Austrailia since they are an ally.

The chouice is yours to read the material present and learn. Continuing to split hairs because you dont see the word war is a BS argument and holds no water. Authorization was granted by Congress, and backed by the UN.

Or are we ignoring that info becuase it supports the US position and not yours? I am not triyng to be a jerk by asking that question btw.


Originally posted by backinblack
The term WMD has gotten very vague..One guy was charged in the US of possessing WMD when all he had was a pipe bomb..


Please.. provide the link to that article. The US Government / UN deifinition of a Weapon of Mass Destruction is not vague nor misused. - Any Chemical, Biological or Nuclear incident that affects a large area / population with the intent of creating as many casualties / victems as possible.

There is a difference between a WMD and a terroristic threat with intent to cause bodily harm or death to large groups of people.


Originally posted by backinblack
Your talk of Wikileaks is opinion and speculation..
Anything else I can help you with?


Wikileaks - WMD program remained in Iraq
WMD Program Iraq

So no, my statement about wikileaks is not opinion nor speculation.

I go back to my previous question and add this. Why are you ignoring any information that does not support your view on this? People want the truth, which I am seeing the version they want is the one that supports their views about the US in a negative light.

I have answered your questions / accusations, and provided support for those answers. What do we get in the end?

You playing off the WMD statement as it being misused...

Defelction by saying some guy with a pipebomb was charged for having a WMD with no link to support it...

You ignoring US and UN use of force authorizations because in your world it must conatin certain words..
(We were attacked so war was already declared against us if you want to continue to split hairs.)

Attempts to ignore the WMD find in IRaq that did justify and back the claims the US Government made.

Ignoring all previous UN resolutions regarding Iraq that did call for action if Iraq continued to ignore resolutions..

As I said I have no issues with people taking the US to task. The issue I do have is when people ignore the information present because it supports US actions instead of contradicting them.


Originally posted by backinblack
Anything else I can help you with?


Nope.. your defeating your own argument and proving my poiint all at the same time.. So your doing just fine.

On that note I am going for Ice Cream.. We can beat each other up at the monkey bars after school tomrrow, picking up where we left off
(and to head this off, I am not taking anything personally, and am not pissed at anyone - until they make a program that allows emotions and context behind typed words, we are stuck with the guessing game).

PEace out homeslice...
edit on 4-12-2010 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by snowspirit
If the US doesn't want any of this info out there, why are all the news stations talking about it, non stop? The news outlets that are monitored very closely by the government. One would think that if they didn't talk about it so much, most of the people wouldn't even bother going through the wikileaks sites.


I think it has more to do with the fact this is the United States, and not Iran. No matter how bad the media pisses the Government off, they arent going to walk right in and cut of the signals.



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 09:28 PM
link   
Our government doesn't want to lose control of its secrets. Don't think the U.S. isn't behind the scenes talking to the Swiss about pressuring Assange with the trumped up rape charges. The U.S. is nervous about these leaks and I think there's something in these leaks that the U.S. feels can be devastating.



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by WeRpeons
Our government doesn't want to lose control of its secrets. Don't think the U.S. isn't behind the scenes talking to the Swiss about pressuring Assange with the trumped up rape charges. The U.S. is nervous about these leaks and I think there's something in these leaks that the U.S. feels can be devastating.


Evidence or link please...



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Oh BS..

(We were attacked so war was already declared against us if you want to continue to split hairs.)


When did Iraq or Afghanistan attack the US...

Look for your own link to the pipe bomb WMD...There was a thread on it...

Use of force is NOT a declaration of war....

Now please don't post another 500 word response..It's boring...



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
Oh BS..


I am glad we agree on your response thus far


Originally posted by backinblack
When did Iraq or Afghanistan attack the US...


When you harbor groups that attcked the US, and you fail to turn those people over, you are part of the problem. This is the exact same argument arabs like to use against the US and what we do world wide, so we get to use it also. Al Queida attacked us on 9/11, and Afghanistan harbored them.


Originally posted by backinblack
Look for your own link to the pipe bomb WMD...There was a thread on it...


Your the one who invoked it, so you look the info up. Anything less that that the info is nothing more than a defelction attempt by you because you have lost this argument, on all levels, and have resorted to using vague statements in an attempt to keep the argument alive. It doesnt work for Ozzyii, and it is not working for you either.


Originally posted by backinblack
Use of force is NOT a declaration of war....


Use of Force is just that, nd authorization for the use of force. It came from the US Congress which meets Constitutional criteria. Your attempt to hang on to one word to make your argument is laughable. Since you are now repeating that, using all upper case now, tells me you have nothing else to add that could possibly support your argument. The legal entity inside the US that authorizes the use of military force is Congress. I have provided you with links to the legislation and authorization.

Where on earth did you learn a declaration of war "must" be declared into order to act? My degree is in Political Science Public Law, and I am telling ya, that interpretation you are giving is a new one to me.

The fact you ignore it, and come back to the term war, is a joke. Come off it, your argument was dismantled piece by piece with supporting information. Your counter is to obfuscate and hide behind words, because you cant defend your position.


Originally posted by backinblack
Now please don't post another 500 word response..It's boring...


I could try to dumb down my responses in an effort to assist you in comprehending the issue. For someone who is so concerned about the truth, you have a rare ability to ignore it, and then use distraction techniques so you do not look ignorant when discussing topics like this.

You argument is done. Its invalid, it holds no water what so ever. The responses you have given are proof enough of that. If you are going to respond, please find some facts that are supported and not propoganda. Please give an argument that can be backed up, instead of complaining about the phrase declaration of war while useing the word "NOT" while typing it out in all caps.

I will continue to use many words, few words, verbs, nouns, pronouns, facts, reports while using Sanskrit and whatever else to completely destroy the OP thread and any arguments coming from it to the extent of proving beyond a doubt its nothing more than propoganda emplyed by people who cannot think for themselves.

If you made it this far let me know and I will send youa cookie. I know how much it must annoy you to be wrong up to the end of this post.

Look at the bright side though - Since the OP article was debunked as propoganda, and the supporters of that article lost their arguments to facts, there is no other reason for me to come back to this thread, spareing you the embarassment of trying to find a repsonse that doesnt make you look any more biased that you have already shown.

See, win win for us all. See you in the next thread.
edit on 4-12-2010 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-12-2010 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 10:07 PM
link   
one Big thing you are missing.
they! control the new.
so Why are all the news stations and papers putting this out?
They! must wont it to get out??? the pass word?

or is all this information to destabilize some countries more than others?
and to make it look credible they let out information on them selfs?
they! could just have the news make them look like a joke.
but they! are making them look credible.
To credible. making it more believable.
why?



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join