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.

 

Wikileaks: Julian Assange Will Charge Sarah Palin & Mike Huckabee with "Incitements To Kill

page: 4
28
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 08:06 PM
link   
For the record, Julian's actual quote, conspicuously absent hitherto in this thread, is as follows:



“No organization anywhere in the world is a more devoted advocate of free speech than Wikileaks but when senior politicians and attention seeking media commentators call for specific individuals or groups of people to be killed they should be charged with incitement — to murder. Those who call for an act of murder deserve as significant share of the guilt as those raising a gun to pull the trigger…

“We call on U.S. authorities and others to protect the rule of law by aggressively prosecuting these and similar incitements to kill. A civil nation of laws can not have prominent members of society constantly calling for the murder and assassination of other individuals or groups.”


Can someone please explain to me why you think he's suing someone (as per the OP) based on the above? He is calling on "U.S. authorities and others to protect the rule of law by aggressively prosecuting these and similar incitements to kill. A civil nation of laws can not have prominent members of society constantly calling for the murder and assassination of other individuals or groups". How is he wrong?

www.peopleokwithmurderingassange.com...

It's absolutely astonishing to see so many people on this messageboard--of all places--buying into CIA's garbage "sex by surprise" charges and what have you... while trying to make meals out of a schizo's word salads, I might add. Astonishing.
edit on 12-1-2011 by TedStevensLives because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by TedStevensLives
 


As some have said before whats good for the goose is not good for the gander. I guess freedom of speech is a one way street with wikileaks huh? It's ok to us the freedom of speech argument as long as it fits their agenda, damn the person who exercises their freedom of speech and it goes against or offends wikileaks or assange right? We could go in circles with this all night or for months at a time like has been going on.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by TedStevensLives
 


And again another example of Assange and his "I'm above the law" BS. Why on Gods green earth would Assange call out the US to support the rule of law and hold people accountible? So we should go after people who dont agree with Assange is doing, but by his same comment we should not be going after Assange himself.

How the hell does that work?

Again, Animal Farm
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.

His actions remind me of a military junta who pulls a coup... They say its for the best, hold the criminals responsible, crimes against the people, new elections will be scheduled etc etc etc. Only to find out there will be no election, and everything they pointed out as the reason for their actions, is now exactly what they are doing.

His inability to go to Sweden to face the charges against him, his inability to cease sending out classified information... He apparently thinks he is exempt from being held accountible for illegal behavior. He goes on a media blits the moment he is around many cameras at his court appearence... Using that he agains spouts off about wikileaks and more classified documents being released. He invokes the unholy terms associated with Bush and the war on terror, actually using that fear as an excuse for not facing the charges in Sweden.

He is playing people...He only cares about himself and what is best for him...

Anyone not seeing this now, is choosing blind ignorance on their own.
edit on 12-1-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 09:02 PM
link   
Which laws are Julian claiming to be above?



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 09:23 PM
link   
This was asked earlier, and maybe I overlooked the response, but..

Why should wikileaks be charged with a crime for publishing classified documents while the other media outlets are not charged for publishing the same data?



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyTHSeed
 


Aw, I was saving that for later...


Edit: I agree, is what I'm saying... but I have tendency for tomfoolery.
edit on 12-1-2011 by TedStevensLives because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-1-2011 by TedStevensLives because: post sounded a little crazy.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyTHSeed
 


They have been in the past. The Pentagon Papers case is what people are trying to cite as allowing media free reign to publish classified information. The part they over look is the Supreme Court decision only stated prior restraint cannot be used when the only argument is embarrasment to the Government.

It did not grant any type of immunity to reporters or newspapers who print the material. The 2 journalists involved in the Pentagon papers were charged and it did go to court. They got off because the Prosecution screwed up a key point, resulting in the charges being dropped.

As to the quesition on what he could be charged with:
Possession and distribution of Classified information
Conspiracy
Blackmail / extortion
Espionage

To answer the questions about why Assange is targeted and no one else is simple. If you look at the cases where media has released classified information, it was done as a whistle blower setup. It only centered around one issue. Assange and wikileaks is not a media outlet, and they are publishing more than just one document.

What they are releasing, in addition to what they claim is evidence of illegal behavior, is classified information that has nothing to do with criminal behavior.

EDIT to add: Again supporting my comments about using his situation and media coverage to his advantage:

The Gaurdian

First this part:

His bail was modified, allowing him to stay at the Frontline Club for journalists in Paddington on 6 and 7 February, so he does not have so far to travel.


and this


Media interest in Assange was maintained as journalists from around the world filled 100 seats in the court and an annexe connected by video link. High-profile supporters of Assange who turned up today included Bianca Jagger, Jemima Khan and Gavin MacFadyen, director of the Centre for Investigative Journalism.



Again, media manipulation and outrageous claims about Sweden, the US, Gitmo, treason and "getting the chair".

What else did Assange have to say?


In interviews with Swiss newspapers yesterday, Assange said he might move to Switzerland or Australia...


Mr. hold everyone accountible yet above the law. Why Switzerland?


He said he had not made a request for political asylum in Switzerland, and declined to say whether he would.



And then this:


....and revealed that WikiLeaks has been losing more than £400,000 a week since releasing a collection of US diplomatic cables that severely embarrassed the US government.


Subtle hint at donations maybe? If wikileaks was generating that much cash in the first place, why did he get bailed out by others?

He is writing a book, which will be published by a few compaines, including Gaurdian books. More publicity to help keep intrest alive.


edit on 12-1-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-1-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-1-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by JohnnyTHSeed
 

As to the quesition on what he could be charged with:
Possession and distribution of Classified information
Conspiracy
Blackmail / extortion
Espionage


He could be charged with the first one but I disagree on conspiracy, blackmail and espionage.



To answer the questions about why Assange is targeted and no one else is simple. If you look at the cases where media has released classified information, it was done as a whistle blower setup. It only centered around one issue. Assange and wikileaks is not a media outlet, and they are publishing more than just one document.


Are they ever! I'll refrain from venturing into a rant on definitions of media outlets but the role of Wikileaks is, basically, to provide a buffer between the whistleblower and the ...whistleblown? In that regard, they're doing just fine. Rather unfortunate that Manning told his story to a "reporter", really... Regardless, Cablegate isn't the first leak they pass on, and they do a much better job of concealing their sources than most media outlets can, for one simple reason: they don't know who the whistleblower is. The first time Julian heard the name Bradley Manning was when he heard of his arrest on the news. But I'm getting way off topic, sorry about that.



EDIT to add: Again supporting my comments about using his situation and media coverage to his advantage:


I have to say I do think the wording in the press release is somewhat unfortunate in some regards. I, personally, think their hearts were in the right place but I respect your opinion.

Edit: I personally don't believe they have committed a crime; quite the contrary, in fact. I believe Wikileaks may be doing the world a great service by exposing hidden truths that have no right to be secrets to begin with. Keep in mind that our diplomats and our presidents are our employees, not rulers. The pic in your avatar says "Government - Lying to you since 1947"--is that the way you'd prefer things to stay?
edit on 12-1-2011 by TedStevensLives because: Completely forgot to include my actual point...



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 09:55 PM
link   


He could be charged with the first one but I disagree on conspiracy, blackmail and espionage.


But couldn't having a file labeled insurance and the stated use of that file be considered blackmail? Sure seems possible to me. He's all over ATS conspiracy link for sure



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 10:06 PM
link   
Aaaah, the insurance file! Well, that makes a little more sense now...


I still disagree but I see where y'all are coming from now--I thought it was outlandish, never thought of the Insurance File, for some reason.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 10:09 PM
link   
reply to post by TedStevensLives
 


We can agree to disagree on the media bit.. The definition of a whistle blower and the procedure required to qualify is spelled out in US law. Pvt. Manning took it to far by accessing, taking and distributing classifed info that had nothing to do with criminal wrongdoing.

There has been statements by Adrian Lamo (I know peoples opinions of him) stated Manning had assistance. 2 Students from MIT have been identified as that assistance. The assistance they provided was in the form of encryption software that allowed manning to email out the info without it triggering security programs on militry computers.

The 2 MIT students are linked to wikileaks, but as of yet no one really knows in what manner (sources for other info, employees, etc).

As far as charges go, conspiricy if verifiable proof is found manning had assitance.

Espionage is applicable based on the concept the information released made its way into the hands of foreign entities, and as such could damage the National Security of the US (and again, people will disagree)

The blackmail / Extortion could apply based on Assanges threat that if he is put in jail, he would release documents. This is supported by the "Insurance package". He also demanded the US provide assistance in the manner of people, and the US is to pay for those people, to assist in reviewing documents to scrub names and other items out. I

As far as intentions go, whats the saying.

The path to hell is paved with good intentions.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by TedStevensLives
 

We can agree to disagree on the media bit..

Sure, and a couple of other bits as well, but that's fine as far as I'm concerned. I won't say you're misinformed because I don't think you are, we mostly seem to have ideological differences on the matter.


There has been statements by Adrian Lamo (I know peoples opinions of him) stated Manning had assistance. 2 Students from MIT have been identified as that assistance. The assistance they provided was in the form of encryption software that allowed manning to email out the info without it triggering security programs on militry computers.

The 2 MIT students are linked to wikileaks, but as of yet no one really knows in what manner (sources for other info, employees, etc).

Can you toss me a good link on that? I am familiar with Google, I just like getting sources the "other side" prefers (keeps me from selective Googling,).

If Julian would be proven to have been working with Manning and others in obtaining the cables he would indeed be in hot legal water, no argument here. Personally, I don't think there's anything suggesting that to be the case and the recent Twitter incident indicates to me that the investigation is down to grasping-at-straws level at the esteemed WTF.

Edit: Oops. left one out:


He also demanded the US provide assistance in the manner of people, and the US is to pay for those people, to assist in reviewing documents to scrub names and other items out.


I can't help commenting on this... the US said Wikileaks were risking the lives of people mentioned the Afghan War Logs. Wikileaks responded by saying that they were scrubbing the names to avoid that scenario and welcomed the US to join the effort. The US declined. I might add that no one has been shown to have been killed due to a Wikileak to my knowledge and, by Jove, I think I just did!
edit on 12-1-2011 by TedStevensLives because: (no reason given)



The path to hell is paved with good intentions.


Too true, but this may be an opportunity to increase transparency on a massive scale. All this secrecy is poisoning all our societies, you must surely agree? Here's to hoping for a more honest world, anyway...
edit on 12-1-2011 by TedStevensLives because: structural changes



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 



He is doing this to being himself back into the spotlight. He does this everytime wikileaks or Assange start to drop off the radar screen. Example is his latest court appearance. Instead of dealing with the issue at hand, he annoucnes to media present more leaks are on the way.

Although I don't agree with everything that you're saying, I do agree with this. Historically, Assange is more concerned with PR stunts rather than the values he supposedly holds so dear. This is his little outburst to try and stay in the limelight... Gotta keep those dollars flowing until his book is released
Since when does anything other than attention seeking, ultimately empty rhetoric come out of his mouth?



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 10:31 PM
link   
I'm pretty sure that if any of us got charged with false rape charges twice, and had the charges dropped twice, wasted a bunch of time in prison, and then another country tried to give us treason charges for thier own goals, I'm pretty sure id be pretty pissed and trying to attack as many of them as possible!



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 10:35 PM
link   
A Canadian conservator advisor ( or ex-advisor ) did "assasination call" on Julian Assange on LIVE TV ( CBC, it's our public tv channel )

He clearly said : we should assasinate him ( maybe not in these order, because of my bad english
sorry xD ).

He apologize and said it was just a metaphore. I already hear that no ? xD lol.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 10:38 PM
link   
I wonder how many who welcome this kind of proclamation from Assange would welcome identical sentiments coming, say, from the mouth of a government official. Are you sure you want to applaud moves to restrict or punish speech in this sense? Whatever your answers, think carefully about your possible motives for supporting or standing against this declaration of Assange's. If possible, try to separate the issue from its proponants. If you can't do that, its a good sign you might need to reevaluate your own knee-jerk reactions.

I also find Assange an odd poster-child for any sort of move to place limits on what can and can't be said in public. Just sayin'.

edit on 1/12/11 by silent thunder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 10:41 PM
link   
We're talking about incitement to murder here, folks, and only that. Is punishment for that reserved exclusively for the Arabs? There's no doubt that these people encouraged the assassination of Julian Assange, is there?
edit on 12-1-2011 by TedStevensLives because: rectifiying redundancy



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Also, it seems tad hypocritical, and humerous in my opinion, for Assange to demand any criminal action against any person, when he himself ignores the Laws, and acts like he is above the law.

It’s not hypocritical because Assange — as many others, including journalists and legal experts in the US and throughout the world — doesn’t believe the legislation you claim should be used against him even applies to a non-citizen, who was not in the US at the time the leaks occurred and that didn’t steal or buy the information.



As to the quesition on what he could be charged with:
Possession and distribution of Classified information, Conspiracy, Blackmail / extortion, Espionage

With the current information available about Wikileaks and the Bradley Manning case, only one of those charges could potentially apply, the other ones (conspiracy, blackmail, espionage) are merely a product of your imagination dreaming up a scenario where Assange blackmailed or paid US personnel in order to sell or give information to foreign government operatives.



He is violating the Espionage Act as well as FEderal Statute that deals with the possession, and sitribution of classified information by those who are not allowed access to it. He is printing that information in a manner that is outside the actions of a whistle blower, in addition to relasing inforation that has absolutely no crominal wrong doing involved

Regarding your point of “printing information in a manner outside the actions of a whistleblower, with absolutely no criminal wrongdoing involved,” will you advocate for the arrest of Bob Woodward then? In his lastest book, “Obama’s War,” he published the codenames of numerous classified projects, operations and programs that, as far as we known, “involve no criminal wrongdoing.”

Why aren’t you calling for US journalists, newspapers and TV channels that received, printed or broadcasted the information Wikileaks released, to be charged with the same offenses as you claim Assange is guilty of? Why the distinction?

In fact, if you want the Espionage Act to apply as rigidly as you want to Assange, then AboveTopSecret is guilty of violations of the Act as well, because it allowed classified information to be linked to, discussed and even quoted, something the broad language in the Act also prohibits.

The answer to some of these questions is based on the fact that Xcathdra doesn’t like Assange personally, so he asks for Assange to be charged with every crime in the book while, mixed with a bit of chauvinism, completely ignores the actions of US journalists and media, which routinely publishes classified information, and ironically, published the information Xcathdra wants Assange to rot in jail for.

Notice also that Xcathdra didn’t comment on the accusations Wikileaks is making of some US politicians and pundits, which is, in fact, the topic of discussion of this thread, and instead dismissed them altogether by immediately starting counter-accusations.

Xcathdra: Forget for a moment this is Assange we are talking about, and tell us, from your rigid interpretation of federal statutes, if it is permissible to advocate and incite the murder of another person; one, incidentally, which has not yet been convicted of any crime.



edit on 12-1-2011 by aptness because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 03:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Wadda reckon mate, should a charge of having consentual sex with two women one after the other without a condom be a more or a less serious offence than having sex with two women one after the other without their consent?



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 04:22 AM
link   
Pardon me for stepping in and actually dealing with the point of the thread instead of slinging opinions about Assange (I haven't formed one yet) and what crimes he may or may not be guilty of.

This incitement to murder thing intrigues me. And here it actually might apply. The violent imagery and rhetoric being argued about in light of the AZ shooting doesn't count. I'm talking about the actual calling for the murder of an individual (unfortunately in the case the highly polarizing Assange)

And I'm about to do something really crazy here:
Ask what people think about that actual point? Would it be possible to press charges against these people for incitement? The big problem I think would be that the Brandenburg test requires that you prove that the statements "incite imminent unlawful action". I think the imminent part would be what kills it in court.




top topics



 
28
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join