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.

 

Gillard under fire from Assange (Wikileaks)

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 07:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by dadfortruth1
 


SO let me get this right... Assange is upset because the Austrailian Government is not doing enough to support him? He goes on tv and questions the Prime Minister of Austrailia, essentially trying to claim the moral high ground.

If this guy gets any more delusional, he wont need to worry about extradition until after his psychiatric stay.

Assange made his own bed.. To go after people who either dont agree, or who just plain dont want anything to do wiht him smacks of desperation on his part.

This does nothing but continue to confirm my belief that every few months, when Assange disappears from the news, he does something to get back into it.

Dudes washed up and needs to go away. No one cares anymore..


What the hell are you on about?!

Assange claiming the moral high ground? Yes...and?

What laws has he broken...specifically? Australian Laws? American laws? None.

He is an Australian citizen. He has rights under Australian and international law...are you seriously saying that you believe that those who work to expose governmental and military corruption and deceit are somehow...bad?

What are you saying? (I'm not sure you actually know what your on about tbh)

'Go after people who don't agree?'

What the hell does *that* mean? Going after people who are lying, cheating, stealing, spying and murdering...of course those people are not 'going to agree' to be exposed!

And you claim Assange is delusional...delusional about which points and topics...specifically?

Hmm? I can claim anything i like, but it would be me that's delusional if i have not a shred of evidence to back the claim. Where's your evidence?
The Australian prime minister and her government, have a *DUTY* to keep her knickers on and *not* to bend over for the US to shaft Australia, and Australian citizens. If she does that *is* treason.

Nobody is saying you have to like or even respect Assange as a human being, but the Australian government *HAS* a lawful duty to protect his interests and not sell out Australian citizens to curry favour among foreign nations.

And the questions i've asked you in this post are NOT rhetorical, you've made serious claims and charges about Assange, and i'd like for you to back them up if you can...or else i'll just assume you're a delusional nut.




posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 07:24 AM
link   
reply to post by spikey
 





The Australian prime minister and her government, have a *DUTY* to keep her knickers on and *not* to bend over for the US to shaft Australia, and Australian citizens. If she does that *is* treason.

I have to give you a star for that sentance alone, spoken like a true English gentleman

do you mind if i use it for my signature?



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 02:00 PM
link   
Anyone have a link to that video? The link in the thread seems to have vanished.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by dadfortruth1
reply to post by Xcathdra
 





It would be innapropriate for her to answer that question. Shes not part of the legal system, and engaging in a discussion about it could cause issues if their is a case that comes from them.

and thats fair enough. but she could have said somthing like your above qoute, instead of lying.


The problem is her IQ is half that of the national average. Without a palm card and a weeks worth of rehersals and voice coaching, spontanious meaningful dialogue becomes a non event.

I would love to hear her say , "Would you like fries with that" But unprompted. I am guessing it is pretty hard to say much when you have USA reaming you in ya back door. Stupid woman...

IP UNBLOCKED to provoke



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by kwakakev
 


I lived through Whitlam getting the sack .There was a conspiracy then about him and the American bases in Australia.The Liberals were bowing to the US.That`s why they got in.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 10:12 PM
link   
reply to post by guessing
 


Kind of hard for the US to control our allies when our President is so busy golfing, making comments that Khaddafi should leave power while dragging feat on a no fly zone...

If you want a more forceful US, you will ahve to wait until Obama is voted out of office.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by spikey
 


If your done twisting your pannies into a knot, go back and actually understand what I typed. Assange does his best to shift focus to other people.

He is delusional in the sense he thinks he is doing the right thing. He is delusional to think his actions have done anything but made him money.

His sole goal is financial, as assange himself has declaed when he threatened to sue the Guardian newspaper.

You should remove your blinders and thinkfor yourself, instead of thiking what to be told. Based on your avatar, I am not expecting any type of independant thought from you on this topic in the least bit.

The only justice for assange that is appropriate for the NTAC compliant actions he has done, is prison. His kids need to go with him so they cant reporduce either, as I fear the stupidity gene assange has will be passed on to them as well. Why risk it..

The Prime Minister of Austrailia has more important things to do, like assist those areas affected by the floods, instead of wasting her time to listen to Assange snivel that people wont support him.
edit on 15-3-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-3-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 11:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Nice opinion you have, but that's all it is..
IMO it is all wrong but hey, it's yours


Then what would I expect from someone that suggests sending a persons kids to jail with them, even though no crimes are mentioned ??
Sounds a bit like Gitmo...



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 12:31 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


I figured if Assange and his legal team are going to use blatantly false information in an effort to affect an outcome, then I can as well. Namely, when they went on their media blitz that assange would be extradited to the US, placed in gitmo, charged with treason and executed.

Ignoring for the moment he cant be placed in Gitmo, that he is Austrailian so cant be charged with treason, and that at worst, violating the espionage act, and at the leasty dissemination of classified info, is jail time and a fine, and not face death.. why not sink to the same level of games he wants to play?


If anything, people supporting him, who are ok with the blatant lies for their legal defense, are being taken advantage of. Its intresting to be pissed about the US lieing, but not Assange.. an intresting double standard I must say..

as far as the kids going to prison, its called sarcasm holmes, and the number of time you and I have debated, you should know better.

If you are ok with that, thats your thing..
edit on 16-3-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 12:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


I know sarcasm, doesn't mean I can't use it against you though..


But many in the US have called for him to be charged and some even assassinated..
The US is still busy looking at what to charge him on..
Who's to say they don't work out a way to call him an enemy combatant and send him to Gitmo?
After all, they made up a new crime to charge Hicks with, retrospectively..



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 01:17 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Because he is not an enemy combatant, and does not fit the defitnion of one under US law. He was not captured on a battlefield... So any argument people try to make on that issue is not gonna work at all.

Chances are they wont be able to charge him with anything, which is going to be my guess after seeing the way the DOJ is being run.

and only I can use sarcasm... no one else, especially you.


Also, Hicks was not charged retroactively... He was captured in 2001, and was charged with a crime. That crime was challeneged by several other detainees, so pending the outcome of htat court case, is when they went forward with him. It dealt with the military comissions acts legislation and supreme court case law.
edit on 16-3-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 01:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 



Also, Hicks was not charged retroactively... He was captured in 2001, and was charged with a crime.

He was charged YEARS later...
Care to show me when that particular "crime" was written into law ???
Then we'll debate..

edit on 16-3-2011 by backinblack because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 02:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by backinblack
 

Ignoring for the moment he cant be placed in Gitmo...
edit on 16-3-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)


Since when? Like any of those other people in there? How many of them never had trials? How many were extradited from other countries without any legal work? Could you please explain why they wouldn't be able to do that since they can pretty much grap anyone anywhere in the world and send there without any interference by any legal system?



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 02:48 AM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


Gitmo is setup to deal specifically with enemy ombatants from Afghanistan. Assange is not on a battlefield, and is not engaged in hositilities with american military forces. Because of those little facts, he falls under US Domestic law, and should charges be brought, it will go through the DOJ and will be in Federal court.

Military is in control of Gitmo, since its a US naval facility.

As far as the people in there, where were they taken into custody at? Afghanistan is the location, and were involved in military operations against US / NATO forces there.

Also, they dont have to be charged with a crime. People seem to be forgetting we are in a state of armed conflict with Afghanistan, and as such people captured can be held until the war is over, a prisoner exchnage takes place, or if the US decides, they can be charged and head to court. Charging people captured is not a requirement, and holding people until such time as the armed conflict is over with is also nothing new.

It occured during WWI, WWII, Korean, Vietnam, Panama, 1st Gulf war and jsut about every other armed conflict that has taken place on the planet.

At what point did people just assume that the moment we capture an enemy combatant that they must be charged with a crime?
edit on 16-3-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 02:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Xcathdra
 



Also, Hicks was not charged retroactively... He was captured in 2001, and was charged with a crime.

He was charged YEARS later...
Care to show me when that particular "crime" was written into law ???
Then we'll debate..

edit on 16-3-2011 by backinblack because: (no reason given)


Hicks converted to Islam, and went to Afghanistan and trained at the Al Farouq training camp. He was subsequently captured not by American forces, but by the Northern Alliance. Northern Alliance turned him over to the US in exchange for 1000 dollars, where he was transfered to Gitmo and held. He was charged in 2007 under the military comission act of 2006. His charges were not retroactive, being he was never charged in the first place.

And again, as I stated above, would you care to point out where it requires a captured person who was involved in armed conflict to be charged with a crime and sent to court? People need to quit cherrypicking the information they want and ignoring the information when it doesnt support their argument.

People are stuck on charging people in Gitmo, when in reality, they can be held until armed conlfict is concluded. If the argument people make was valid in this area, then why dont I see anyone complaining about the Americans in Taliban custody who were captured on the battle field? They are being indefinitely held as well, with no charges from the Taliban.

Or is it just one of those things Americans cant do, but others can?



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 03:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 



He was charged in 2007 under the military comission act of 2006.


Hmmm, so he was captured in 2001 and charged in 2007 under the military commission act of 2006 ??

And you don't call that retrospective??

I'll throw it back at you..
What crime did he commit that was an actual LAW at the time of his capture ???
This will be fun..



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 03:54 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


The offical term your looking for is called Ex Post Facto - No law can be made to punish an act that occured prior to its inception as a criminal offense. It does NOT prohibit a person from being charged with a different or varied charge.

Asked and answered - A person who is captured during armed conflict is not required to be charged with anything. They can be held, indefinately, until hostilities end, they are repatriated, or exchanged for Amrican prisoners, or they can be charged.

The lawsuits that were brought by various prisoners at gitmo went through the fEderal Court, and the US Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled that the current tribunal process that Bush had put together was not lawful, because it bypassed Congress, whoc is responsible for the UCMJ and tribunals. The Military comission act of 2006 was the result of the Supreme Court ruling, where Congress went through and passed legislation addressing the issues raised by the court.

As a comparison, and to put some of this in perspective with regards to domestic / military laws of the US, there are crimes listed where there is no statute of limitations on charging a person. If you killed someone, and 30 years passed, and there is a break in the case you can still be charged.

Also, the military comission act did not replace the system that was in place prior to hicks being turned over. The act corrected flaws in that system. Had it been something different, then the Supreme Court would have stated that in their ruling.

Hicks was captured by the Northern alliance, and turned over to the US in 2001.
In 2004 he was charged under the system we just discussed, and in 2005 that system was ruled invalid by the Supreme Court.
In 2006 Congress addressed the Supreme Court issues, and in 2007 revised charges were filed against Hicks.


If your argument against Hicks is what I think it is, you should be aware he never went to trial on his own decision. Mr. Hicks entered an alford plea -

To those not familiar with US judicial proceedings, an Alford Pleais a guilty plea in criminal court proceedings, and is entered by the defendant (in this case Mr. Hicks).


Under the Alford plea the defendant admits that sufficient evidence exists with which the prosecution could likely convince a judge or jury to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

edit on 16-3-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-3-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 04:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Anyone have a link to that video? The link in the thread seems to have vanished.


As I said, he is trying to shift the focus.. This is the entire back and forth, which puts it in better perspective.



edit on 16-3-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 04:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 





As I said, he is trying to shift the focus.. This is the entire back and forth, which puts it in better perspective.

please watch this link, forward to 26 min and watch the interiew with Pilger.
Pilger seems to think it's the Aus Gov and media trying to shift the focus.
www.abc.net.au...



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 05:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Or thrown out of office by the people.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join