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: 6
28
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by MisterCrowley
 


what exactly are you trying to say???

what does that video have to do with this thread??




posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by jaynkeel
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.


can you really equate freedom of speech with a political figurehead calling for the assasanation of another individual???

these are 2 individuals who have aspirations of being President of the U.S., do we not require them to at least have some decorum???



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


please provide us with ONE piece of proof that Assange has put this country in danger with his releases???

not rhetoric, not conjecture, or possibilitys, just one piece of solid proof...

perhaps, if you could look at the situation without preformed ideas that seem to have been spoon fed to you by the actual perpatrators of the alledged crimes, you might have the oppourtunity to at least gain true knowledge.
edit on 13-1-2011 by ParkerCramer because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 10:58 AM
link   
I think the problem here is that Palin and Huckabee are people in a position of power whose words influence others. Time and again people like this show their lack of common sense when dealing with the general public. It tells me they are not capable of responsibly holding high level positions of power. Regardless of political, religious, or social affiliations, if one cannot behave responsibly and with civility, they should not be in office of any kind.

If they would come out and say they believe that Assange, if found to be in violation of any U.S. laws, should be tried in U.S. court, then that is one thing. To say he should be outright killed or hint at it in ANY way without a fair trial, tells me they are absolutely unqualified to make any kind of decisions at any level of government.

~ Dredge



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alxandro
Assange is a goddamn freakin hypocrite!

How many lives has he jeopardized with all the docs he's leaked?

He's just pissed because he doesn't have any dirt on Palin.
edit on 13-1-2011 by Alxandro because: (no reason given)


proofs??

what lives, where???

just by stating that makes it no more fact then me stating that you "make unfactual satements, only to create the illusion that you know what you are talking about."

neither, without proofs is believable.............



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 11:03 AM
link   
i didnt agree with the latest stuff wikileaks released , alot of it is gutter tabloid stuff and the rest has potential to upset international relations or progress that has been made. But they shouldnt be focusing their attention on wikileaks.

politicians like palin & huckerbie should be asking how someone was allowed to copy so much classified material onto a usb stick/ removable media. Talk about mickey mouse security in the USA armed forces. I work in a bank they use disknet pro you cant copy anything onto a usb device. What need does anyone in the military have to copy such info onto removable media? They should have to fill out 10 forms and jump through hoops before they're allowed to do that.

It seems the politicians in amercia have a really hard time analysing their own systems/procedures and look for an easy scapegoat to blame.

The rhetoric about killing assange from huckerbie & palin is typical america. That sort of language has been brought sharpley into focus with the events of recent days. I'd like to see them charged with incitement to murder & think they deserve it.
edit on 13-1-2011 by yeti101 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 11:13 AM
link   
Monitoring threats on wikilekeaks

www.artificialeyes.tv...



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by ParkerCramer

Originally posted by jaynkeel
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.


can you really equate freedom of speech with a political figurehead calling for the assasanation of another individual???

these are 2 individuals who have aspirations of being President of the U.S., do we not require them to at least have some decorum???


So is it only against free speech if it's a political figurehead spouting off or do you also consider it the same when a public figurehead does it as well example: rap singers heck even John Valby if your familiar with some of his stuff, is that also stuff that they should be held accountable for? Or like I said prior is this only useful for an argument where we can pick and choose what people are allowed to say? People like to claim nobody has gotten hurt over the releases of info from wikileaks, well then we also have to acknowledge that Assange has not been assassinated because of political statements either.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by purplemer
 





Now then i am not going in circles and if you could grasp the concept that free speech and incitment to murder and different things; then nether would you.


See my last reply above this one to parker, purplemer you can't have it both ways, you can't say wikileaks can act like they do with government secrets due to freedom of speech and in the same breath say political figureheads can't openly comment their feelings because of freedom of speech. Assange wasn't assassinated due to the comments just as nobody has been hurt thus far due to the releases. Starting to see the circles yet?



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by jaynkeel

Originally posted by ParkerCramer

Originally posted by jaynkeel
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.


can you really equate freedom of speech with a political figurehead calling for the assasanation of another individual???

these are 2 individuals who have aspirations of being President of the U.S., do we not require them to at least have some decorum???


So is it only against free speech if it's a political figurehead spouting off or do you also consider it the same when a public figurehead does it as well example: rap singers heck even John Valby if your familiar with some of his stuff, is that also stuff that they should be held accountable for? Or like I said prior is this only useful for an argument where we can pick and choose what people are allowed to say? People like to claim nobody has gotten hurt over the releases of info from wikileaks, well then we also have to acknowledge that Assange has not been assassinated because of political statements either.


Very valid point which leads to a different discussion on free speech, and if any limitations should be placed on it. Because it is protected in the U.S.A. by the first amendment it is a very hot topic!

It has been decided, after WWII and the civil rights movement in the U.S.A. that some limitations should be placed on free speech when it is used to incite violence, called "hate speech". I personally disagree, finding that yes, the actual violence is and should remain illegal, but freedom of speech should not be limited in anyway.

However, this particular OP is about the legal ramifications of such rhetoric within today's legal system.
Because the incitement of violence through speech is deemed to be punishable by law (within the new Patriot Act), the politicians and TV personalities who made these remarks are potentially libel for criminal prosecution.
And yes, the examples you have posted are and should be libel if they too called for direct violence under the same laws. (source examples would be appreciated, though probably not necessary to this discussion)

It would be an interesting fundamental discussion in the U.S.A. as, apart from the new Patriot Act, I can find no law that specifically makes it illegal to "incite violence". It does exist in the UK legal books though. source

Using the same reasoning, neither WikiLeaks nor Julian Assange has ever made any remarks inciting violence, believe me, if they had, prosecution would not be far off.

the Billmeister

Please correct me if I'm wrong, for I am not a lawyer, and not 100% familiar with American law.
Thanks.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by jaynkeel
 


I'm not sure I understand the reference to Julian not being assasinated yet??

R U trying to equate that only if the act is carried out, then it would be something to look at??

you also tried to relate rap songs, etc.. which song is specifically calling for the assasanation of a specific person??

I guess what I'm trying to say is common sense should apply, and yes, our proposed leaders should be held to a higher standard, just as adults should be held to a higher standard than a child.

it would stand to reason that if you cannot yell fire in a crowded theatre, then, you should not be able to say, "kill them, because I disagree."

perhaps, even presumed innocent until proven guilty, then, and only then, would punishment be doled out by a jury of your peers...
edit on 13-1-2011 by ParkerCramer because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by ParkerCramer
 





I'm not sure I understand the reference to Julian not being assasinated yet?? R U trying to equate that only if the act is carried out, then it would be something to look at??


Well I would think Assange would or maybe even has used the exact opposite claim before due to the release of information, he has said before that nobodys life has been put at risk due to the leaks, which is just the same as his life not being terminated due to statements. To which I will agree with you on, those statements were very childish and stupid, kinda like a kid in a sandbox throwing sand when someone took his tonka truck. And as far as alot of rap songs go I only pick them because they are the easiest for most to associate with, they openly call for violence against cops and the like to which is no different in my opinion to calling for assassination? Yet nobody seems concerned with all that going on.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by jaynkeel
 




See my last reply above this one to parker, purplemer you can't have it both ways, you can't say wikileaks can act like they do with government secrets due to freedom of speech and in the same breath say political figureheads can't openly comment their feelings because of freedom of speech. Assange wasn't assassinated due to the comments just as nobody has been hurt thus far due to the releases. Starting to see the circles yet


bud you are still failing to see the point...
assange has broken no american law because he is not an american citizen. pallin is an american citizen and has possibly broken an armerican law...



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by jaynkeel
 


I have to say, I totally agree with you on some of the more violent rap songs, but, even if I personally don't like the songs, I do believe in free speech..............But, if, one of those songs specifically named a police officer by name, you can believe that would be completely different, and probably would force law enforcements hand..

I am still curious though, what do you really believe has been caused by wiki-leaks???

I have yet to see any military operation jeopordized, I have seen some embaressment on some individuals behaviors, I have seen what appears to be illegal activityon Hillarys part, and so on...............

let me ask you, do you believe that our gov't officials are above the law? if not, then why would you not defend wiki-leaks for bringing these activitys to light????
edit on 13-1-2011 by ParkerCramer because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 



The act was introduced about a hundred years ago when america was at a high state of paranoria.. It was used to round up all sorts includinig 'communists'
you seem very knowledgble on this act maybe you could give them a hand i think they are in need of help making there case...



Although Cablegate and the leaked secret cables might be embarrassing for the government, Wittes noted that the majority of them don't contain information that directly relates to "national defense." The Espionage Act does not "cover the overwhelming bulk of the material that Wikileaks disclosed," he stated.


another problem is if this act is used it does not stop with wikileaks... have you read the cables or commented on them..?




Benjamin Wittes, who specializes in legal affairs, blogged, "By its terms, it criminalizes not merely the disclosure of national defense information by organizations such as Wikileaks, but also the reporting on that information by countless news organizations. It also criminalizes all casual discussions of such disclosures by persons not authorized to receive them to other persons not authorized to receive them-in other words, all tweets sending around those countless news stories, all blogging on them, and all dinner party conversations about their contents. Taken at its word, the Espionage Act makes felons of us all."


so i guess that makes a lot of us ats members criminals too..

and a final question for thought...




The second response, from Tom Malinowski of Human Rights Watch, reads in relevant part: Shouldn’t it also matter that Assange is not a US citizen or resident? If Assange has a legal responsibility to protect any document that the U.S. government has stamped “secret,” do you and I have a commensurate legal responsibility to protect French or Chinese or Iranian secrets? Could those countries prosecute us for publishing them?


happy days

kx


edit on 13-1-2011 by purplemer because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer
assange has broken no american law because he is not an american citizen.

I just want to clarify that the condition of not being a citizen does not preclude one from being subject to, in this case, US law.

Everyone, citizen or not, if in the jurisdiction of the United States, is subject to US law. This, of course, excludes people who, even if in the United States, are not in the jurisdiction of the United States, like foreign diplomats.

If Assange, for example, had personally stolen the documents from US government or military computers, even if he was outside the United States, some US criminal statutes — some from the Espionage Act — would most likely apply.

What many argue — me included — is that a private citizen, even if he is a US citizen, by passively receiving and publishing classified information does not incur in a crime.

That’s why many of those who advocate for the arrest of Assange claim that he personally stole, paid, blackmailed, or conspired with Manning to get the documents. A claim which, as far as we know, has no basis in reality.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by aptness
 





I just want to clarify that the condition of not being a citizen does not preclude one from being subject to, in this case, US law. Everyone, citizen or not, if in the jurisdiction of the United States, is subject to US law. This, of course, excludes people who, even if in the United States, are not in the jurisdiction of the United States, like foreign diplomats. If Assange, for example, had personally stolen the documents from US government or military computers, even if he was outside the United States, some US criminal statutes — some from the Espionage Act — would most likely apply.



yes i agree with you just didnt have the knowledge to word it as well. i hope the espionage act is not used.. i think it would be a sad day for journalism and free speech...

kx



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer
yes i agree with you just didnt have the knowledge to word it as well. i hope the espionage act is not used.. i think it would be a sad day for journalism and free speech...

I am in agreement with your sentiments, make no mistake about it. When I said some statutes from the Espionage Act would most likely apply in the hypothetical scenario I described in no way I meant to say that they should apply.

I believe the current Espionage Act statutes are deficient, prone to abuse and, in some cases and circumstances, outright unconstitutional. The fact that it was named espionage act should be indicative of the kind of offenses Congress wanted to regulate and criminalize, but the broad language of the act doesn’t limit its applicability to actual cases of espionage. The statutes need to be re-thought and completely re-written.

Back in December there was a House Judiciary Committee “Hearing on the Espionage Act and the Legal and Constitutional Issues Raised by WikiLeaks,” where several legal experts were present to testify and discuss their thoughts on the Act, its flaws and inadequacies, and how it relates to the questions raised by Wikileaks.

Out of the 7 witnesses only 1 believed Assange should be prosecuted, another one thought he could be, the other 5 argued he should definitely not be. All of the witnesses, however, agreed that the statutes need to be more clear, specific, take in consideration the intent of the persons disclosing information, and make distinction between actual acts of espionage.

For those interested, a video of the hearing is available here.



edit on 13-1-2011 by aptness because: correct link



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by aptness
 


I don't think its about him recieving the documents as much as it is about the publishing of them. Initially taking the documents or files is illegal bc someone is worried that they will be published. If I had documents I wanted kept secret and somebody took them and subsequently gave them to a media outlet, I think I'd be equally as angry with the distributor as I would the thief. Im not justifying the way blame is being distributed, but rather trying to follow their logic



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ParkerCramer
reply to post by jaynkeel
 


I have to say, I totally agree with you on some of the more violent rap songs, but, even if I personally don't like the songs, I do believe in free speech..............But, if, one of those songs specifically named a police officer by name, you can believe that would be completely different, and probably would force law enforcements hand..

I am still curious though, what do you really believe has been caused by wiki-leaks???

I have yet to see any military operation jeopordized, I have seen some embaressment on some individuals behaviors, I have seen what appears to be illegal activityon Hillarys part, and so on...............

let me ask you, do you believe that our gov't officials are above the law? if not, then why would you not defend wiki-leaks for bringing these activitys to light????
edit on 13-1-2011 by ParkerCramer because: (no reason given)


Painting with a broad brush in my mind is equally as bad as calling out one name in particular, but just my opinion as far as the cops question goes. Now with the legality of many claims I can't really answer with certainty because I cannot stand digging through legal mumbo jumbo as I am clueless to most of the terminology I won't even pretend to lie about that. Agreed I haven't seen anything jeopardized as in omg military wise as of yet. And I am sure in the dictonary the word illegal activity should have Hillarys picture next to it if not already. Remember I live in NYS so I have felt the impact of her. Nobody should be above the law, but like I stated a lot of what is considered law is subjective unfortunately. There is yet a lot of gray area surrounding all of this that will have to be sifted through by actual lawyers and legal people, lets all just hope that what ever decisions come to light are made without backroom deals and bias. If Assange is found guilty or if the politicians are found guilty I just want to see people held accountable for their actions much like anyone else. But the problem that I still face is that quite a lot of people want to have double standards and that is exactly what gets us into situations that are not favorable for anyone. It seems people want to either put Assange up on a pedestal and claim don't you want the truth, or people like Palin up there and claim something else. I myself don't want either if it jeopardizes peoples lifes or if it nullifies the act of reveling the truth. Assange has played a game in my mind he should have just released all the info and let the cards fall where they did if that was his intention, yet his actions so far have proved that was and is not his intention so supporting someone who is not as transparent as they claim to promote is something I cannot do because in my eyes he is not practicing what he preaches. Which is a shame because I used to support his cause and him, thought he was someone very different than what has shown himself to be recently. But hey thanks for making me ask myself tough questions in my mind it has helped me clarify my thought about all this in my head.







 
28
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join