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' Assange fights extradition to Sweden

page: 2
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 04:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Honestly, I don't care if this post is removed and I lose every useless point I have...

Are you a troll??

Because your arguments don't stack up..
It's like asking me to fly back to Sweden for a traffic infringment which if found guilty of I will be fined..
In the meantime, wanting me looked up in jail where bail is argued over..

You really need to get a life.....




posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 04:24 AM
link   
If I was him, I wouldn't be driving anywhere, specially alone, and at night. Never know when he's going to be in one of those "accidents", in which the official investigation concludes he was drunk, drugged, or had taken medication. A lot of this going around, since the 70's...

I couldn't think of anything more terrifying then to be persecuted by a NOBEL PEACE PRIZE WINNER. Just look at that glorious list, amazing how Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol-pot, managed to not win it...



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 04:50 AM
link   
Personally I still think the whole thing smells...

I'm on the fence as to who is pulling the strings..

But I will bang on my drum questioning why Assange was in the UK in the first place, since everyone knows our (UKs) moniker of being Americas lapdog/poodle, and our one sided extradition treaty with the US.. of all the nations, Britian would be my last choice if I was Assangge.

Marry that into the media spin on sites like ATS mainly comes from British sites like the Telegraph and Guardian, and it seems in the English speaking world most of the Wikileaks spun news on ATS is British based..

And then connect those dots to the recent noises that Manning should be considered a UK citizen with a "by extension" the UK gov should get involved with the kind of treatment Manning may/may not be receiving in the US.

So the whole thing leaves me sitting here wondering what the heffalumps is really going on, and if it is more the co-incidence Britain could be perceived as pulling the strings.
edit on 7/2/11 by thoughtsfull because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 05:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Honestly, I don't care if this post is removed and I lose every useless point I have...

Are you a troll??

Because your arguments don't stack up..
It's like asking me to fly back to Sweden for a traffic infringment which if found guilty of I will be fined..
In the meantime, wanting me looked up in jail where bail is argued over..

You really need to get a life.....


Troll? not at all. What I am doing is making a counter argument against those who see a conspiray in everything. I make an argument that the exact thing Assange demands by releasing his information, is the exact same thing that he ignores when it comes to allegations against him.

And again your comparison is without merit ar a bsis in fact since, again according to your very own arguments he has not been charged with any crime. So its entirely possible that there would be no charges, a fine, or felony charges (whatever their equivelant is) and jail or prison time if charged and found guilty.

Simply trying to argue he has not been charged, then using the argument that if he is it would only be a fine is a counter argument. You dont get it both ways and neither does Assange.

And again, please do some research as to why poeople are locked up pending extradition hearings. Its not a matter of guilt or innocense, its a matter of does the individual have resources to flee the jurisdiction he is in, does the person have ties to the community that could assist him in an effort to avoid extradition. Has the person demonstrated a history of ignoring the law and appropriate requests to resolve any pending legal actions.

In this case Assange has been wishy washy, and has publicly stated he would not return to Sweden, instead demanding Sweden change their laws to accomodate Assange, when we both know its not how it works.

Assange has made efforts to apply for asylum in a few countries now, and so far those requests have been denied, which is further evidence that given the chance Assange would flee the jursidiction to one who would not honor an extradiution request.

Its not up to Assange to determine the facts of validity of the case. Its not a matter of its nothing more than a fine, since he has not been charge let alone convicted of a crime.

I have a life thank you very much. I enjoy my job a great deal and these forums even more. I get to meet people form all over the world, and partake in discussions and debates over pretty much anything. In this case you and I disagree over the role of the Judicial system and a persons ability to think they are above it, not based on fact but hypothetical situations involving a conspiracy that does not exist.

You really need to seperate yourself from what Assange is trying to do, and the troubles he is in in Sweden. Blindly supporting him because his actions coincide with your political viewpoints about the US and our actions in the world is dangerous if ofr no other reason that you are unable to adequately discuss this situation without trying to invoke a conspiracy factor into it, just as Assange has done.

Call me a troll, I could care less. I am not going anywhere on this topic, and like I have explained to Ozzyism, the more you scream rant and rave over my counter arguments, the more you prove my point. Your argument style reminds me of that from those people who live in countries with no freedom of speech or press. The moment something is said you cannot counter, you scream for the people to leave the thread. It doesnt work that way, sorry.

Either counter my arguments with FACTS, or scream at the sky. Your choice.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 05:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by CerBeRus666
If I was him, I wouldn't be driving anywhere, specially alone, and at night. Never know when he's going to be in one of those "accidents", in which the official investigation concludes he was drunk, drugged, or had taken medication. A lot of this going around, since the 70's...

I couldn't think of anything more terrifying then to be persecuted by a NOBEL PEACE PRIZE WINNER. Just look at that glorious list, amazing how Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol-pot, managed to not win it...


Riiight.. because anything that would occur to Assange wouldnt be immediately linked to some super duper secret program executed by the CIA and agent 99 right?

Get off the conspiracy theory people. He is wanted in Sweden for questioning about a possible sexual misconduct encounter, not passing state secrets.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 05:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 



Either counter my arguments with FACTS, or scream at the sky. Your choice.


I already did..
Obviously like any paid troll you choose to ignore them...
Now move along and let someone better suited take your place..



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 05:11 AM
link   
reply to post by thoughtsfull
 


Out of curiosity does Assange have a better legal standing in Britain being a citizen of Austrailia? Since its part of the realm so to speak, would he be considered a citizen of the UK as an overseas person? I am not familiar with UK Citizenship, but I thought you had citizenship if you reside in a former / current colony type setup.

As far as being in England when all this broke I thought he was in the process of trying to get asylum in Switzerland, and the denial came as the extradition warrant came.

I thought he was also doing his legal thing aganst the Guardian, as well as talking to his lawyer in the UK.

Does the entire thing smell? Depends on how you look at it I guess. Any attempt to "bump assange off" or have him arrested and brought back to the US illegally would blow up in our faces, and everyone knows that. I would not even entertain that hypothetical as anything but.

Continually using it though as a reason to not settle the legal issue in Sweden is BS though.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 05:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Xcathdra
 



Either counter my arguments with FACTS, or scream at the sky. Your choice.


I already did..
Obviously like any paid troll you choose to ignore them...
Now move along and let someone better suited take your place..


Definition of a Fact

vs your

Opinion

You should really understand the difference between the two.

Paid troll? I see we are stooping to a new low. Care to tell us all who is paying me to come in here and continually prove your statements wrong? I am curious to know so I can get back pay.

Someone better suited to take my place? Meaning what? Someone who will bow down to your hypotheitcal fear mongoring to protect a person who thinks they are above the law? Anyone is free to challenge your opinions, as I have been doing. The only reason you want me gone is so you can make your arguments without being challeneged. Typical of desperate people wanting to beleive something so bad they ignore facts and beleive opinons.

Please refer to first part of this post to understand the difference between them.

Assange feels he is above the law, and his media appearances support that. He has no issues exposing other people he considers frauds or unethical / immoral based on his own measuring stick, yet refuses to be held to the smae standard.

He has intentiionally invoked rendition, gitmo, treason, execution, assasination, the Tuscon shooting, Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, etc, etc, etc as a last ditch effort to confuse fact with fearmongoring, which ironically enough he is doing himself by using those same words while describing his legal issue with Sweden.

Sadly, people fall for it hook line and sinker. All you need to do is excersize some independant thought and look at the fact present, whcih Assnage himself has provided, to see the game he is running.

As long as he continues, you will find me in your discussions pointing them out. Sorry if that pisses you off and rains on your one sided story parade, but its the way it is.
edit on 7-2-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 05:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Everyone that matters know the true facts...
What you preach is the twisted logic formed by alphabet agencies..

I care little for it..
Give me REAL facts anyday..



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 05:32 AM
link   
Just going to point out, that if anyone missed the connection between Assanges alleged "victim" and the CIA, then they havent been paying attention, reading carefuly , or have been deliberately ignoring factors which detract from thier argument.
The presence of CIA links with the witness lend a totaly different light on things, and means that the case must not be handled as it would normaly.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 05:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Everyone that matters know the true facts...
What you preach is the twisted logic formed by alphabet agencies..


Lol I dont work for an alphabet agency. I wish I did so I could make more money.

You seemed to have ignored my request to back up your claim that I am a paid troll. Who pays me?


Originally posted by backinblack
I care little for it..
Give me REAL facts anyday..


I have.. Even using Assanges own words..

I guess the adage you can lead a mule to water holds true in your case..



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 05:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueBrit
Just going to point out, that if anyone missed the connection between Assanges alleged "victim" and the CIA, then they havent been paying attention, reading carefuly , or have been deliberately ignoring factors which detract from thier argument.
The presence of CIA links with the witness lend a totaly different light on things, and means that the case must not be handled as it would normaly.


The 2 females worked for wikileaks as well. Assange has not been charged with any crime in Sweden. He was interviewed by the PA, and they are wanting a follow up interview. Assange, and his supporters, maintain he is being falsely accused, and that very well maybe the case, but my point and argument is its not up to assange to decide himself if the allegations are truthful or false, but the judicial arm of Sweden, where the supposed crime took place.

Ignoring it does nothing but reinforce the logic that anything Assange says is going to come across as double standard.

why?

Because Assange is making accusations against other countries, business leaders, diploomats, banks etc, accusing them of violating law, or moral / ethical standards. He is throwing info out there that is not in context, nor is it completel, demanding action be taken (provided you beleive the first few interviews where he states that is his goal, before he went on the record stating financial gain was his goal).

So its ok for Assange to make accusations, and the World MUST take them seriously and act, yet if someone accuses assange of something, its false without ever seeing any info behind it.

Think about that..
edit on 7-2-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 05:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


OK, lets hear some facts from you..

What charges is Assanged wanted for questioning over?

If those charges are laid against Assange and proven, what it the maximum penalty he may incur??

Hit me with the HARD FACTS...

Or get off the pan..



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 05:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Odd, you want Assange to travel to Sweden to be questioned yet I hear Bush has canceled a trip to Switzerland because he may be arrested for crimes..

Care to comment??



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 06:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


OK, lets hear some facts from you..


man you are dense arent you. You have heard from me many times now, providing links to interviews assange has done detailing his goals.


Originally posted by backinblack
What charges is Assanged wanted for questioning over?


Assange has not been charged with any crime either in Sweden or the US. The PA's office in Sweden interviewed Assange once already, and allowed him to leave the country while the investigation continued. People have made claims if the ladies were "raped" they should have gone to the Hospital. Well guess what, one of them did and a test was done.

More information came out, and the PA's office in Sweden request Assange return to answer more questions, at which point Assange refused. Through his lawyer they attempted to find a middle ground that would allow Assange to be interviewed in a 3rd party country, namely the UK.

Sweden pointed out onseveral occasion that Swedish law and Supreme Court rulings in that country prevent the actions Assange is requesting. They have pointed out the Swedish Embassy in England does not have the sovereignty other embassies have, and as such Britain would have to agree to the interview taking place, which again would not comply with Swedish laws to conduct an interview of this nature and it be admissible in Swedish Court.

Assange has gone on record stating he would not return to sweden, and has taken actions to find asylum in a country who would not honor an extradition request. In light of all of this, Assange had an extradition warrant issued to force his retun to Sweden. This request is reviewed by the British courts, and as with any extradition request the sole questions looked at are does the person have the means to flee the jurisdiction he is in? Does he have financial means to go into hiding to avoid extradition? Has the person made statements that would lead a resoanble person to beleive he would not comply with extradition on a voluntary basis? Has the person demonstrated through actions or words that would lead a resonable person to beleive that anything outside of remand would allow the person to avoid facing potential criminal charges? The country tht is requesting the extradition - Does the request comply with international treaties and laws in place?

The accusations the 2 females work for or worked for the CIA are false. They both worked for a an Anti Castro Cuba group of which receives funds from the CIA. Since one of the accusers actually posted her work in Swedish papers and blog sites, its nothing new or earth shatteriung as people are trying to make it out to be.

Why dont you take a look and see when these 2 females worked for that group and get back to us.

Long story short, he is wanted for further questioning and nothng more. Assange is making out to be that he will be illegally sent to the US, charged with Treason, sent to Gitmo and be executed.

None of which can occur for Assange, as I have pointed out before and supported with fact. I will do it again since you seem to be missing it time and again.

* - Gitmo is strictly used for enemy combatants - Assange does not fit that criteria
* - Assange is not a US citizen, so cannot be charged with Treason
* - If he does face charges, its for the possession and dissemination of classified info - Non death penalty charge
* - Even if he were charged with espionage under the espionage act - Non death penalty charge

Sweden -
So far no charges, just an investigation
Ranges anywhere from nothing happening, to fines, to jail time, depending on the info that comes out.

All the while, setting a double standard of demanding action be taken against others, but he himself is innocent until rpoven guilty and above the law because he decideds if accusations are true or not.


Originally posted by backinblack
If those charges are laid against Assange and proven, what it the maximum penalty he may incur??


In sweden, anywhere from a verbal warning to a fine to prison time. Its dependant upoin the evidence and what he may be charged with. We wont know any of this until Assange gives the rest of his interview with the PA to clear up the remaining information.

As far as the charges being rediculous - Its Swedish Law, take it up with them and get them to change the law. However, aside from that there is a saying you should be familiar with.

If you are going to play stickball in Brooklynn, you better know the rules.


Originally posted by backinblack
Hit me with the HARD FACTS...


I have.. many many times now, you just fail to read or comprehend them for whatever reason.


Originally posted by backinblack
Or get off the pan..


Riight... The correct course of action would be to look at the facts provided to make up youre own mind instead of ignoring those facts because it does not support your argument. You have this tendancy to ignore any facts and respond with these 3-5 line cheesy deflections.

All it does is, again, support my argument that your position is not based on anything but your blind hatred towards the US government and anyone who shows a differeing opinion that that of Assanges. You have chosen to ignore many posts with "HARD FACTS".

as I said before.. you can lead a mule to water...
edit on 7-2-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 06:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Odd, you want Assange to travel to Sweden to be questioned yet I hear Bush has canceled a trip to Switzerland because he may be arrested for crimes..

Care to comment??


Sure.. again it goes back to If you are going to play stickball in Brooklynn you better know the rules.

Assange is not a head of State, and therefore does not fall under the Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity as a sitting President does. He is not an ambassador or diplomatic staff and therefore does not fall under diplomatic immunity.

If Assange wants the same treatment, return to Austrailia and run for an elected office, or donate a large enough amount of money to be named an Ambassador.

Care to explain how Assange being accused of sexual misconduct though has anything to do with Bush and what he did? Since they are citizens of 2 different countriues, they are not subject to the same laws.

Bush actions took place within the political boundaries of the United States, not Sweden or any other country.
Assanges actions took place inside the political boundaries of Sweden, and as such are subject to their jurisdiction.
No charges, or requests have been filed against Bush.
No charges, yet a request for interview HAS been filed against Assange


Nice try to ignore the facts given in an effort to shift the conversation to another topic that has nothing to do with Assnage and Sweden though. Once again, thank you for proving my point.
edit on 7-2-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 06:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
The 2 females worked for wikileaks as well.


No one ever really quits "the company" unless they leave in a bag. If either was ever a CIA operative, then they still have connections, and that throws thier presence in Assanges life, and his affairs, AND the motives for every single thing they have said and done against him, into question, including these accusations. You can accept that or not, it matters little either way because the truth is what it is, and your opinion of it has no importance with regard to the actualities of the situation.



Assange has not been charged with any crime in Sweden. He was interviewed by the PA, and they are wanting a follow up interview. Assange, and his supporters, maintain he is being falsely accused, and that very well maybe the case, but my point and argument is its not up to assange to decide himself if the allegations are truthful or false, but the judicial arm of Sweden, where the supposed crime took place.


If we are going to be strictly factual, no one DECIDES what is true or false. Truth exists apart from interpretation, is seperate to it, and cannot be changed by false interpretations of itself, which are all the more likely when even the alleged victim is a CIA plant.
Only three people know the truth, and one of them is almost certainly a CIA operative. Wether you like it or not ,that DOES and SHOULD change the game. Assange should not put himself in a situation in which juries and judges can be rigged against him, and thats what he would be doing if he went ahead and agreed to go to sweden. Remember, a judge or jury can only decide what they BELIEVE is the truth, not the truth itself. Reality is not subject to interpretation, the truth is an ironclad thing of its own. The difference between the truth, and what is found in a court of law, is that many people have been harmed by rigged juries, while the truth itself has never hurt anyone.



Ignoring it does nothing but reinforce the logic that anything Assange says is going to come across as double standard.

Hardly, all it proves beyond doubt is that Assange knows a set up when he sees it , and rightly refuses to involve himself in a proceeding which will see witnesses lie under oath.



Because Assange is making accusations against other countries, business leaders, diploomats, banks etc, accusing them of violating law, or moral / ethical standards. He is throwing info out there that is not in context, nor is it completel, demanding action be taken (provided you beleive the first few interviews where he states that is his goal, before he went on the record stating financial gain was his goal).

By out of context, I assume you could be reffering to the fact that a CIA operative has accused him of rape? And by incomplete I take it you could easily be reffering to the probability that the entire claim has been bought as a lever to get Assange out of Britain, and render him to undisclosed locations for "questioning" , which has recieved only ammused speculation on the part of MSM?



So its ok for Assange to make accusations, and the World MUST take them seriously and act, yet if someone accuses assange of something, its false without ever seeing any info behind it.


No , thats spin and nothing more, and absolutely shameful by the way. Spin doctors are filth , you know that, and I cannot understand why you would want to emulate that behaviour in any way !
I have seen the information which is available on the case. With the CIA involved with the case, theres no way it can be tried sucessfuly in any European Court because impartiality cannot be garunteed due to the weight a group like the CIA can exert on anyone, anywhere. The Swedes know this in thier heart of hearts, but are going ahead with proceedings. The only reason for wasting all this time and effort on a case that cannot be fairly tried, is to offer the US the mark, and give them the oppertunity of taking Assange somewhere quiet for a month or so .


Think about that


No brainer. Carry on though, its ammusing.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 06:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueBrit
No one ever really quits "the company" unless they leave in a bag. If either was ever a CIA operative, then they still have connections, and that throws thier presence in Assanges life, and his affairs, AND the motives for every single thing they have said and done against him, into question, including these accusations. You can accept that or not, it matters little either way because the truth is what it is, and your opinion of it has no importance with regard to the actualities of the situation.


No I understand what you are saying. My point is the 2 females never worked for the CIA. They worked for a group that was anti Castro / anti communism that received funding from the CIA, among other agencies as well. They were never employees of the CIA, which is the argument people are making in an effort to say they arent credible.


Originally posted by TrueBrit
If we are going to be strictly factual, no one DECIDES what is true or false. Truth exists apart from interpretation, is seperate to it, and cannot be changed by false interpretations of itself, which are all the more likely when even the alleged victim is a CIA plant.


Again, she did not work for the CIA. Also, simply ignoring the claims because of affiliation is a worse travesty than being raped. So they are not to be believed because of affiliation with a group that has suspect ties?

Kind of like wikileaks? or is this another one of those double standards?


Originally posted by TrueBrit
Only three people know the truth, and one of them is almost certainly a CIA operative. Wether you like it or not ,that DOES and SHOULD change the game. Assange should not put himself in a situation in which juries and judges can be rigged against him, and thats what he would be doing if he went ahead and agreed to go to sweden. Remember, a judge or jury can only decide what they BELIEVE is the truth, not the truth itself. Reality is not subject to interpretation, the truth is an ironclad thing of its own. The difference between the truth, and what is found in a court of law, is that many people have been harmed by rigged juries, while the truth itself has never hurt anyone.


Again a possile rape victim is being dismissed because of affiliations? Ok, remove the one female, and you stil have another female with the same claim? Is her testimony suspect because she is freinds with the supposed CIA plant? Making the accusation does not make it true, for the rape claims, to the CIA plant comment, to Assange saying it never occured.

See the downward spiral in this argument where the truth can never be found because conspiracy theories and misinformation reign supreme? Yes people have been harmed by rigged juries, unfactual claims, and even releasing classified information that has nothing to do with criminal acts.

Your point? because again it appears its ok for Assange to get a pass for doing the exact same thing you want to dismiss others for doing.


Originally posted by TrueBrit
Hardly, all it proves beyond doubt is that Assange knows a set up when he sees it , and rightly refuses to involve himself in a proceeding which will see witnesses lie under oath.


I disagree. All Assange is doing is attempting to manipulate opinion in his rape issue by invoking terms that have nothng to do with it, or any outcome from it. So again, Assange can make the determination its a setup and ignore info, but any argument anyone makes against Assange and his actions is nothing but a setup form the US and should be ignored.

Again a double standard. Anything Assange says is absolute truth, while anything anyone else says is absolute setup.

A double standard.


Originally posted by TrueBrit
By out of context, I assume you could be reffering to the fact that a CIA operative has accused him of rape? And by incomplete I take it you could easily be reffering to the probability that the entire claim has been bought as a lever to get Assange out of Britain, and render him to undisclosed locations for "questioning" , which has recieved only ammused speculation on the part of MSM?


No, by out of context I am referring to the procedures used when information is classified. I am referring to multi agency reports that are put together that only reference calissified information, but does not contain the entire info.

As we all know the US has many different agencies, from the FBI, CIA, NSA, DIA etc etc etc. As such, we have overlapping information form multiple sources. Just because the DIA recevies info, it does not mean it affects them. So they take that info, classify and comparmentalize it, and turn parts of it over to the appropriate agency.

In the end, you will have a classified report that references info, but only in parts. A person who reads that report who has a need to know for the entire info, would then put in a request for the indepth parts that were left out.

Overview of US Classification of Information - Wiki


Originally posted by TrueBrit
No , thats spin and nothing more, and absolutely shameful by the way. Spin doctors are filth , you know that, and I cannot understand why you would want to emulate that behaviour in any way !


typical British mouth full of wise ass



Originally posted by TrueBrit
I have seen the information which is available on the case. With the CIA involved with the case, theres no way it can be tried sucessfuly in any European Court because impartiality cannot be garunteed due to the weight a group like the CIA can exert on anyone, anywhere. The Swedes know this in thier heart of hearts, but are going ahead with proceedings. The only reason for wasting all this time and effort on a case that cannot be fairly tried, is to offer the US the mark, and give them the oppertunity of taking Assange somewhere quiet for a month or so .


Again you are asuming facts not in evidence. Since no charges have been made, people are very quick to pull a leap of logic by Swedens request to have a second interview with Assange. People are so quick to see conspiracies in everything that they miss the mark completely here. Has it never occured to anyone that if he has the interview and all the info is succesfully refuted, the case can loose merit and be dropped?

If we use your leap of logic then because Austrailia was origionally founded as a penal colony for England that anyone living or bron their are descendants of criminals, and because of guilt by association, Assange would be a criminal as well, and as such his testimony would be just as ignorable as the CIa guilt by association claim.

People are so quick to condemn the US that they see conspiracies in everything, even to the extent of continuing to state one of the accusers worked for the CIA, which is not true. Again she worked for an anti castro/ communist group who was funded in part by the CIA.

This is the group by the way, which is not CIA. - Union Liberal Cubana

It is linked into an international organization Liberal International. Member countries who support this group by the way, including the United States, also includes the United Kingdom, Sweden, Switzerland, Spain, Russia, Romania, Norway, Netherlands Luxembourg, Lithuania, Kosovo, Lativa, Italy, Iceland, Hungary, Germany, Finland, Estonia, Denmark, Canada, Austria, Belgium etc etc etc.

So I guess all of these countries who also fund the same group the US / CIA does are ignored in all of this why?

Also, since we are going to invoke CIa funding, maybe we should take a look at countries / groups who fund wikileaks? Fair is fair

Wikileaks keep funding sources secret

Huh.. go figure.. So its not out of the realm of possibility that wikileaks is being fuinded by the CIA as well, as some have suggested. So does that funding cancel out the funding for the Anti communism funding of the CIA?

What does this have to do with this argument?


WikiLeaks's lack of financial transparency stands in contrast to the total transparency it seeks from governments and corporations.

"It's very hard work to run an organization, let alone one that's constantly being spied upon and sued," Mr. Assange said in the interview. "Judicial decisions can have an effect on an organization's operation. … We can't have our cash flow constrained entirely," he said.


So again we have a double standard from Assange for funding. He has no issues demanding full transparency not only from Governments, but private businesses. Yet he makes the counter argument for his own organization.

Double standard much?




Think about that



Originally posted by TrueBrit
No brainer. Carry on though, its ammusing.


If we are referring to his blind supporters then yes, no brains are involved in that. The only thing amusing about this is his continual claim of why he is doing what he is doing. His continual "we must hold governments and people accountible except when it comes to me" diatribes.

Actually using funny to refer to Assange is not correct.. Referring to him as a joke is more appropriate.
edit on 7-2-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-2-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-2-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 07:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Xcathdra
 




Not to mention Assange DID hang around Sweden waiting to be questioned..
Even if charged and convicted it's considered a minor offence with a fine..



Not that I believe he did what Sweden is accusing him of but, when did Rape become a "minor offense with a fine"

That kinda downplays the seriousness of the crime does it not?
edit on 7-2-2011 by vkey08 because: fixing tags



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 07:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by vkey08

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Xcathdra
 




Not to mention Assange DID hang around Sweden waiting to be questioned..
Even if charged and convicted it's considered a minor offence with a fine..



Not that I believe he did what Sweden is accusing him of but, when did Rape become a "minor offense with a fine"

That kinda downplays the seriousness of the crime does it not?
edit on 7-2-2011 by vkey08 because: fixing tags


This is actually the problem we all have with this argument. Assange has not been formally charged with any crime. Rape is one possibility, sexual molestation was another, and sex without a condom is a third option, which is the misdameanor and fine only if I remeber right.

Just a few minutes ago the news was talking about Assanges lawyer talking about the extradition hearing today. They are now claiming Assange should not be sent back to Sweden because his celebrity status would deny him a right to justice.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join