BREAKING: Wikileaks founder Julian Assange to be charged with espionage in US, page 3
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 53 times


reply posted on 10-12-2010 @ 04:05 PM by stirling
reply to post by CanadianDream420


I was hoping i wasnt the only one to notice the disparity....
How is this possible?
These news papers are equally guilty if they chage assange.
This is getting so out of whxk i think that the ordinary peoplewill finally get their minds blown hard enough to unstick their eyes......
There will be furor over the US charges, but im thinking theyd have renditioned him or whacked him anyways.
Sweden is the BRAIN IMPLANT CAPITAL OF THE WORLD !!
I did a thread on it a day two ago...but nobody gets it.
The Swedes have been illegally implanting radio equipment in peoples heads for decades....!
They have dome it to prisoners who were incarcerated and to patients who were innocently scheduled for surgery of other sorts....
The Swedish intelligence service has even done it out of country on occaision...taking over a forign operating room and forcing the operation to proceed.
There are evil people in sweden too!
Gad!


reply posted on 10-12-2010 @ 04:10 PM by Whereweheaded
reply to post by Movescamp


Where exactly does the Constitution state this? I've read over the Articles and havent seen this?


reply posted on 10-12-2010 @ 04:18 PM by Movescamp
reply to post by Whereweheaded


Your kidding? The bill of right. 1st amendment.

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law "respecting an establishment of religion", impeding the free exercise of religion, infringing on the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.



reply posted on 10-12-2010 @ 04:19 PM by David_Reale
I'm figuring it's like this.

The US don't want to take WikiLeaks down, because if they do, WL will release the password to the insurance file. But, they do want to make an example to people, to show what happens when you cross them. And so they go after Assange, who, while the head honcho isn't "critical" for WL to operate.

WL on the other hand, want to continue operating. If they release the insurance file, it'll be like when terrorists start killing hostages - they have no more limits to pass, nothing more to bargain with...the stormtroopers will come knocking on their door to take them down before they do even worse things than releasing the insurance file. WL don't want that. They want to keep working - that's what Assange want them to do as well, I suspect. Which means, WikiLeaks might cut their losses - cut Assange loose - let him work through his legal issues on his own, without their help.

In other words, they might sacrifice him for the greater good, so that they don't have to resort to using the insurance file, and so that they can keep doing what they're doing. Throw the US a bone to keep them off WikiLeaks' back.


However, the effectiveness of all of this relies on two things... First, that the US knows what the insurance file contains, and secondly, that the US thinks the content of the file is far more dangerous to see released than anything and everything else that WIkiLeaks can and will release in the future. Put simply, the insurance file's threat level must always and constantly outweigh the danger of any future leaks.

This, of course, means, if WikiLeaks release something in the future that is more devastating than what is in the insurance file, thereby disrupting the "deterrence" between them and the US...then WikiLeaks will be going buh-bye.

Of course, these are only speculations of mine, but I suspect this might be pretty close to the truth of the matter.
edit on 10-12-2010 by David_Reale because: (no reason given)


reply posted on 10-12-2010 @ 04:20 PM by Whereweheaded
reply to post by Movescamp


No, I knew that, I thought you were referring to Article 1 Section 8, powers of congress....my bad!
or other Articles of Congress.


reply posted on 10-12-2010 @ 04:24 PM by Ryanp5555
Originally posted by Movescamp
reply to post by Xcathdra


Your joking right? That argument makes no sense. Media has every right under the constitution to report information. The officer who leaked the info can be executed under the law however, he also takes an oath to protect this country with threats foreign or domestic.

The media has nothing to do with spying. Assange didn't cause any of this. He reported it. If people die because of it the burden still rests on the people in charge who ordered the injustice. In America we have freedom and liberty. We are not supposed to have media control. The whole purpose of liberty based democracy is to be informed. There is no other way it works. If the politicians caused, created, or aided injustice it's their fault even for the lives that get lost through disclosure. It's a price our forefathers paid for with their lives. It's a price my fellow soldiers paid for with their lives. It's a price all the civilian casualties pay with their lives.


There are different forms of speech, all of which is more than capable of being restricted under the United States constitution. Expressive speech, which I believe is what wikileaks falls under, is the most protected speech. Basically, in order to restrict the speech the government is going to need a compelling reason to do so. Further, if there are other, less intrusive means, which do not require speech restriction, it is those which will trump any restriction on speech. So, if say, the government wants to prevent this type of speech, leaking confidential government information to a news source, than it will be hard for them to argue that it wouldn't be easier, and less restrictive, to make security measures far tighter (as the military has begun to do by outlawing thumbdrives, etc. in military areas).


reply posted on 10-12-2010 @ 04:35 PM by Movescamp
reply to post by Whereweheaded


Not sure what you mean but.... As far as a soldier being court martialed there is a good chance they could convict the soldier leaking the info. Depending on wether or not there is absolutely damning evidence of military corruption. The soldier can appeal to the supreme court and has a chance if the evidence is overwhelming apparent that the state dept created a crime. Assange is part of the press and did not steal the documents. He just reported them. He is protected under the first amendment. The espionage act does not apply to media unless they steal secrets. They can try all they want they won't win in their own court if we have any liberty left.


reply posted on 10-12-2010 @ 04:46 PM by Movescamp
reply to post by Ryanp5555


I understand your argument though not really why you made it. Freedom of the press was obviously important to the founders in order to control the government from secrecy ( like in king states). If the
Article was about military technology, military strategy, military deployment, etc. It would be hard to argue free speech. However it is up to the supreme court to hear the case even in those circumstances. For instance if the military was using secret dangerous (to civilians) technology it can still be argued a "whistleblowiing"'is freedom of speech. But you are correct mostly because we are getting fat and lazy as to what is done in congress.


reply posted on 10-12-2010 @ 05:09 PM by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by zcflint05


Wait.. why would you back calling him a fraud a 100% percent when you yourself said that he didn't spy but only reviewed what was sent to him. I mean it's not likely he will be off the hook (though i think it's less likely he will be extradited) but there are judges that can be extremely conscious of things and might let him go.


reply posted on 10-12-2010 @ 05:32 PM by Ryanp5555
reply to post by Movescamp


No, I agree. I think any action to quiet JA will be a violation of the first amendment. I was just posting that just because. It wasn't actually an argument of any sort. Just information.


reply posted on 10-12-2010 @ 05:42 PM by Rosha
Originally posted by zcflint05

BREAKING: Wikileaks founder Julian Assange to be charged with espionage in US



Article from Daily Mail

America is set to bring spying charges against jailed WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, claims his lawyer.



If you dont stand and fight..they win..if you fight..they win.....people with no ears cant hear.


reply posted on 10-12-2010 @ 05:42 PM by backinblack
reply to post by zcflint05


I doubt they will succeed...
Didn't I read somewhere that Wikileaks offered the US all the information first so they could confirm them ??
And they refused...


reply posted on 10-12-2010 @ 05:45 PM by soficrow
reply to post by zcflint05


Predictable, but not right.

Nor legal I suspect.

...WikiLeaks shares documents in the interest of public good. Time to re-read 1984. Quick, before it gets banned.


reply posted on 10-12-2010 @ 06:00 PM by soficrow
reply to post by boondock-saint


WikiLeaks looks to be the last stand against censorship.

...There's always an excuse to ban books and knowledge.

btw- did you know that much medical and scientific research paid for with our tax dollars is protected by "confidentiality agreements"? Just like our governments' negotiations with corporations on trade deals?

The way its set up, we don't get to know what's happening in our name, with our money.

WikiLeaks is trying to change that. So I support their work.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>    ^^TOP^^