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: 7
28
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by jaynkeel
 


your welcome!!

I have to agree with you about how wiki-leaks is handling this whole affair.........I agree in principle with what they are doing, but, as of lately, it seems that they are playing as many games as TPTB..

I too wish they would just release the info and "let the chips fall where they may." it's starting to look like they have ulterior motives, other then doing what's right???




posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ParkerCramer
reply to post by jaynkeel
 


your welcome!!

I have to agree with you about how wiki-leaks is handling this whole affair.........I agree in principle with what they are doing, but, as of lately, it seems that they are playing as many games as TPTB..

I too wish they would just release the info and "let the chips fall where they may." it's starting to look like they have ulterior motives, other then doing what's right???


they are releasing the info.... the are doing it slowly for a reason to stop it all getting lumped together and stop cover ups.
they have given the cables to several papers and as the papers publish a story wikileaks publish the cables.
That way information has a chance to be digested... with the war files they were all dumped together, this minimized exposure.
They have an obligation to get maximun exposure...this is media..... what do you expect.....?

kx



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 05:42 PM
link   


they are releasing the info.... the are doing it slowly for a reason to stop it all getting lumped together and stop cover ups. they have given the cables to several papers and as the papers publish a story wikileaks publish the cables. That way information has a chance to be digested... with the war files they were all dumped together, this minimized exposure. They have an obligation to get maximun exposure...this is media..... what do you expect.....? kx


OK so you claim maximum exposure is the reason for the trickle, or is it to maximize profits? If they were to release the whole kitten kaboodle at once many people would be pouring over the information and the important things would be illuminated. Wait I had to edit this because I noticed you said coverups? Are you serious?
edit on 13-1-2011 by jaynkeel because: add comment



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 05:50 PM
link   


OK so you claim maximum exposure is the reason for the trickle, or is it to maximize profits? If they were to release the whole kitten kaboodle at once many people would be pouring over the information and the important things would be illuminated. Wait I had to edit this because I noticed you said coverups? Are you serious?
edit on 13-1-2011 by jaynkeel because: add comment


No the important things would not be illumanted. They would be hidden.. It is easy to hide needles in haystacks...
and yes many important cables are being brushed under the carpet.. they are not being published in the mainstream papers.

More so in america but in the uk also...

hence the slow release......
kx



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by aptness
 


Oh, sweet Moses! Absolutely spectacular couple of posts--thanks ever so much for that C-Span link; looks like I won't be sleeping much tonight, either... ATS, you're wreaking havoc on my sleeping habits!

*shakes fist*

Edited: And I still don't know what you people mean with "slow release"--I'm seeing stuff on a daily basis and don't forget the sheer number of cables: over a quarter of a million. Small staff, large number of files, add verifying and scrubbing to that and it all more than makes sense. Also, Wikileaks aren't the only ones with all the leaked cables. I could have sworn I just posted almost this exact thing but I can't seem to find that post.
edit on 13-1-2011 by TedStevensLives because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by purplemer
 


You seem surprised that the US government is trying to keep its secret and classified documents from getting too big. The truth is great and all but perhaps there was a more tactful approach to release all of this information



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by MaOtCtKiIcNuGsBIRD
I don't think its about him recieving the documents as much as it is about the publishing of them.

The thing is that in most cases the statutes don’t make the distinction between someone who simply receives the information and someone who publishes it. In fact, currently, under a strict interpretation of the statutes — one that would make Assange liable — AboveTopSecret is also liable for allowing links to the classified documents and for allowing the documents, or portions of the documents, to be quoted.



Initially taking the documents or files is illegal bc someone is worried that they will be published.

How does someone’s, or in this case the government’s, worries make something illegal to publish? The illegality involved here is on the part of the person who leaked the documents, not those that published them (Wikileaks), nor those that allow the documents to be discussed and quoted (ATS), and certainly not those who access and discuss them after their disclosure (you and me).

Assuming it was Bradley Manning that leaked the documents, it was illegal for Manning to do so because he has/had a contract with and obligation to the US government — he was in the military and probably signed security oath(s) — but private citizens have no legal obligation to protect documents or information the government wishes to keep secret.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by MaOtCtKiIcNuGsBIRD
reply to post by purplemer
 


You seem surprised that the US government is trying to keep its secret and classified documents from getting too big. The truth is great and all but perhaps there was a more tactful approach to release all of this information


I am suprised about the way they have choosen to act. Like a child having a tantrum and throwing there toys out of the pram.
Really the problem lies with them.. If they cannot contain there own information then they have themselfs to blame. The nature of the beast has shown its true colours.. politicians calling for death threats...companies being forced to terminate business with wikileaks, bank accounts locked down, false rape smears, infomation being gathered on peoples internet IPs, newpapers being threatened and information edited..

Now then this is the kind of response i might expect from maybe north koreae but the usa....

it says something..

kx



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by aptness
 





The thing is that in most cases the statutes don’t make the distinction between someone who simply receives the information and someone who publishes it. In fact, currently, under a strict interpretation of the statutes — one that would make Assange liable — AboveTopSecret is also liable for allowing links to the classified documents and for allowing the documents, or portions of the documents, to be quoted.


I posted this on another page and thought it might be of relevence if you have not read it...




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.


lets hope it is not used..

kx



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer
I posted this on another page and thought it might be of relevence if you have not read it...

I read it, but I think it doesn’t hurt to post it again for the benefit of other members that might’ve just now started following this discussion.


lets hope it is not used..

That’s one problem with the broad and vague language of the Act: prosecutions under the Espionage Act become entirely up to the whims of the political and bureaucratic agents in the executive branch at any given time.

Hence my question to Xcathdra. Why is he advocating the prosecution of Wikileaks and Assange but not Bob Woodward and The New York Times, and not Dana Priest and The Washington Post. All of them received classified information they weren’t authorized to receive, and published it.



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



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by purplemer
 


I cry foul. Assange said nothing of the sort. Here is his press release:

www.twitlonger.com...

He was reacting to some of the vitriolic attacks and calls to violence against him. He was NOT calling out Sarah Palin who has never done any such thing as much as the liberals would love to believe it.

Instead we have a leftist wacko, pot smoking, devil worshipping schizo being blamed on the right wing. How quickly we forget the toxic and violent rhetoric of the left against Bush and Palin. Now, true to form, the left is sending death threats to Palin when she has nothing to do with the assassin or his plans. Have we forgotten that the one politico who was killed in this spree was a right wing republican judge?

The article the OP quoted completely misrepresented Assange in order to feed their crazed leftist fantasies. This kind of lying crap needs to stop and needs to be exposed.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by SevenThunders
I cry foul. Assange said nothing of the sort. Here is his press release:
www.twitlonger.com...
He was reacting to some of the vitriolic attacks and calls to violence against him. He was NOT calling out Sarah Palin who has never done any such thing as much as the liberals would love to believe it.

Your link is exactly the same as the OP provided in the “Related News Link” section. Are you sure we’re reading the same press release? Because on the third paragraph I see the following:

WikiLeaks staff and contributors have also been the target of unprecedented violent rhetoric by US prominent media personalities, including Sarah Palin, who urged the US administration to “Hunt down the WikiLeaks chief like the Taliban”.
In case my eyes were deceiving me I took the liberty of uploading a screenshot of the Sarah Palin reference.


This kind of lying crap needs to stop and needs to be exposed.

I have absolutely no intention of focusing this discussion on Sarah Palin, but having read your post and having noticed your demands for truth, I think your contradiction needs to be pointed out.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 11:19 PM
link   
reply to post by aptness
 


OK my bad. I admit I missed the specific reference to Palin in Assange's release. However Palin has never called for Assange to be "hunted down", but rather that he be treated like an enemy of state. Of course the fact that he is likely a CIA asset probably didn't occur to Sara.

Here is her counter:
www.businessinsider.com...



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 11:37 PM
link   


Something to laugh over while our world goes to hell............
edit on 13-1-2011 by EarthCitizen07 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer

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


bankofamericasuck.com

The editor-in-chief of Wikileaks called on US authorities to seek charges against high-profile Republicans Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee for “incitements to kill” by the use of “violent rhetoric” against the anti- secrecy outlet. Related News Links:
www.twitlonger.com


in militant extremist ISLAM, aren't incitements to kill called FATWAS. whether it be huckabee, palin or some far left democrat... IS any verbal or printed suggestion that A PERSON be killed for their political actions.. really any different from an EXTREMIST FATWA



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 12:05 AM
link   
Maybe this one is better?






posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 01:21 AM
link   
reply to post by purplemer
 


Did they actually say they wanted them killed? I need quotes.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 01:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by MisterCrowley
Well, I call on the wiki-leaks founder to be hung on treason charges.


Then you can kiss goodbye a lot of your Press ppl. for leaking "secrets" heard of the 1st Amendment m8?



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 02:11 AM
link   
reply to post by purplemer
 


This is an outrageous TPTB agenda to demonize Sarah Palin. I have no respect for the OP for posting this silly post. The real question is if the Army intelligence office brainwashed Loughner to kill Gifford and tried to put the blame on Sarah Palin.

Use one stone to kill two birds, one is the solar energy advocate(Gifford) and the other is the Alaskan oil exploration advocate. This makes you wonder, after all, Assange may have been a government shill working for TPTB.

He hasn't been charged for anything despite the US government's rhetoric. He should have been killed already if he was a real threat to the TPTB.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 03:13 AM
link   
I have to admit, I love this. I see absolutely nothing coming from it, but it certainly points out the obvious hypocrisy of our politicians. They are arguing and bickering now about Palin's target poster thing, but just last month they were openly calling for the assassination or execution of Assange.

Just more "do as we say but not as we do" politics as usual in the good ol US of A. Land of the fee and home of the slave.



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join