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: 35,000 Diplomatic Cables To Be Released

page: 3
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Ellen15
 


You really should read the entire post before responding. That way you wont look like you are lost when you post a response that has nothing to do with the conversaton your commenting on.




posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Again you go with this nonsense about violating US law. Cite even one law then. There's a reason he hasn't been charged. No law was violated.
for trying the boy cries wolf approach.



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Again you go with this nonsense about violating US law. Cite even one law then. There's a reason he hasn't been charged. No law was violated.
for trying the boy cries wolf approach.


Weve been down this road already.. Doi we really need to go down it again? We arent going to agree on it at all, so why bother?

He received stolen property IE classified info. he not authorized to have the info, he distributed the info and hes not aloud to do that either. Under US Law he does NOT qualify as media.



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnySeagull
wikileaks WikiLeaks
Wal-mart has Unions in China, but not in the U.S. __._/cable/2006/08/… #wlfind #wikileaks #06BEIJING17771
6 hours ago
(visit the link for the full news article)



China has bile bear farms... but still has Walmart workers unions? Wow... so this is where the US is heading...



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


I asked you to cite the law. I didn't ask your opinion on the law which is irrelevant.



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


I asked you to cite the law. I didn't ask your opinion on the law which is irrelevant.


Yeah weve been over this multiple times -

Here is the law you want -

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 37 > § 798 - Disclosure of classified information

(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—
(1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or

(2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or

(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or

(4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.


Follow link above for remaining legal mumbo jumbo for definitions etc.

Here are the rest -
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 37 > § 792 - Harboring or concealing persons
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 37 > § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 37 > § 794 - Gathering or delivering defense information to aid foreign government


TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 19 > § 371 - Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 31 > § 641 - Public money, property or records
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 31 > § 662 - Receiving stolen property within special maritime and territorial jurisdiction
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 41 > § 873 - Blackmail
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 41 > § 875 - Interstate communications
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 41 > § 877 - Mailing threatening communications from foreign country
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 41 > § 880 - Receiving the proceeds of extortion
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 45 > § 957 - Possession of property in aid of foreign government

These are just a few items Assange and wikileaks have violated that they can be charged for. Im going to wager that things will slam into Assange when Manning's trial starts or shortly after it ends.

The nice thing about the mosrgus board above are the statute of limitations. Since most of the above are felonies, you are looking at the ability to prosecute 5-10-30 years after the fact.


Assange is not a US citizen so is not subject to a treason charge, even though is lawyer has tried to argue that.
Assange is not an enemy combatant and therefore does not fall under the jurisdiction of any military tribunals, even though his lawyer tries to argue that.

Or he could luck out and nothing at all happen to him... He seems to be on a self destructive path as it is.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 01:50 AM
link   


The term "media organization" means “a person or entity engaged in disseminating information to the general public through a newspaper, magazine, other publication, radio, television, cable television, or other medium of mass communication.” (2 USCS § 1602)


So most of those dont even apply. You say that WL isn't media and it does. Also you pull stuff like blackmail from who knows where. You're just making stuff up.
edit on 25/8/2011 by PsykoOps because: wrong tag



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 02:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 



You should do some research before you make a claim thats not true. Hicks was charged under the Military commission Act, and when that act was ruled unconstitutional, a new tribunal setup was established, and hicks had his charges revised to comply with the new setup.


No mate, YOU should do some research..



In March 2007, over five years after his initial capture, David Hicks pleaded guilty, pursuant to a pre-trial agreement, to a single charge of "providing material support for terrorism".

www.lawcouncil.asn.au...

Show me when "providing material support for terrorism" became a written law..


edit on 25-8-2011 by backinblack because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 02:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 



Assange has been a member of the Australian journalist union, the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance, for several years, and in 2011, was made an honorary member.[103][104] Alex Massie wrote an article in The Spectator called "Yes, Julian Assange is a journalist", but acknowledged that "newsman" might be a better description of Assange.[6] Alan Dershowitz said "Without a doubt. He is a journalist, a new kind of journalist".[105] Assange has said that he has been publishing factual material since age 25, and that it is not necessary to debate whether or not he is a journalist. He has stated that his role is "primarily that of a publisher and editor-in-chief who organises and directs other journalists".[106]

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 03:41 AM
link   
It's surprising how quiet this thread is. I guess the mad tinfoil hatters believe it's all CIA lies or some nonsense.

What's going on ATS? This is the real deal right here, let's stop chasing reptilian royalists for once.
edit on 25-8-2011 by Goathief because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 04:18 AM
link   
More and more releases are being added.

I don't think there is much point in adding cables here. There is too damn many. Spent most of yesterday browsing them and today.

The U.S. is gathering information constantly and has its fingers in everything when it suits.

If you are interested these cables give an amazing insight into how the world works.

Not too bothered about the whole wikileaks doubts and the real agenda behind it. When you already aware that the planet you live on, maunipulation is king, it doesn't matter. I just find these very educational. They may change things. People will get more upset at governemnts they are already upset at, governments will fall. New guys appear and will seem ok but will soon fall into old habits.

School kids in a transition year or on a year out should be studying these. You wanna see whats going on in the world and how it operates you will find it here.

I also cannot believe all the UK tv media is ignoring these now.
Its funny. Its ok for guys to be looting in libya, but not in the UK.

British PM came home a day or two early from his holiday to quell the riots. Lock up all the people who have no hope left. Then he takes a break from another holiday this to speak on Libya. You will be glad to hear he has returned to that holiday. He can wash his hands now. Good job David.

edit on 25-8-2011 by JohnySeagull because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 05:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps


The term "media organization" means “a person or entity engaged in disseminating information to the general public through a newspaper, magazine, other publication, radio, television, cable television, or other medium of mass communication.” (2 USCS § 1602)


So most of those dont even apply. You say that WL isn't media and it does. Also you pull stuff like blackmail from who knows where. You're just making stuff up.
edit on 25/8/2011 by PsykoOps because: wrong tag


Maybe you should try reading the info in the links before commenting. Each crime has elements, and at the FEderal level assanges actions meet the criteria for each on the list.

I love the fact you ask for the laws, I give them to you, and you attempt to dismiss them. How does blackmail not apply?

Let me give you a hint - Insurance File
He made the threat that if he were in any way harmed / jailed, that file would be released with the encryption key.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 07:46 AM
link   
First you lie that WL isn't media under US law. Then I asked you to cite a law that applies. You posted a load of laws that dont apply. How am I going to dismiss any law you post if it has nothing to do with the case in the first place?
As for the blackmail:

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 41 > § 873
§ 873. Blackmail
Whoever, under a threat of informing, or as a consideration for not informing, against any violation of any law of the United States, demands or receives any money or other valuable thing, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

Embhasis mine.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 07:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
Show me when "providing material support for terrorism" became a written law..


The U.S. Patriot Act - 2001- passed into law October 2001

18 USC 113B > § 2339A - Providing material support to terrorists
18 USC 113B > § 2339B - Providing material support or resources to designated foreign terrorist organizations

The Patriot Act established 18 USC in 2001, which is where the above 2 sections come from. Hicks was captured in December 2001, which was after the passage of the Patriot Act. The patriot Act established legal framework for the capture / detention of terrorists (in conjunction with Congressional Authority Use of Military Force Authorization for the war on terror). What it did NOT do was establish Military tribunals for the prosecution of captured enemy combatants.

The military charged Hicks in 2004 using 18 USC. His trial was placed on hold because a Federal Appeals court ruled the military commission in place was unconstitutional (again, not charge). In 2005 the case moved forward again, this time being placed on hold pending the outcome of the US Supreme Court case with Hamdans.

The Military Commission Act - 2006 established the framework for military tribunals, and Hicks was the first person to be tried under the act. This is the part people are confused on (Patriot Act and criminal charges vs. prosecution of those charges).

Hicks challeneged his conviction under the MCA 2006, and in the end the court found the Act was unconstitutional (Note - The manner of prosecution, not the charges - They are seperate) citing Congress was the entity responsible for establishing a military tribunal framework (US Constitution - Congress has the sole authority to create lower courts).

After Congress fixed the MCA 2006 to comply with SCOTUS ruling, Hicks was charged in 2007 with murder and providing material support to terrorists. The murder charge was dismissed by the judge. Hicks accepeted a plea deal before trial. He plead guilty and was sentenced to 5 years, credit given reducing his time to 9 months. He was transfered to Austrailia to finish his sentence.

The Providing MAterial support for terrorists was challeneged due to how broad the term applied. It was refined, and did not affect Hicks.

Laws were on the book in 2001. No ex post facto is present, and the courts - Federal Appeals as well as the Supreme Court, affirmed that position by their rulings.

In lamens terms -
A city has a red light camera installed at an intersection. The law states if you run the red light, a picture is taken, you are fined, and you have the ability to appeal in front of a mediator. This occurs, and the guy goes before the mediator and does not win. He challeneges the legality of the law. The court rules that people fined must be able to appear before a judge, not a mediator.

The law is valid, as are the charges and fines. What was changed was the manner in which the proceedings occur, namely in front of a judge and not a mediator.

To bring this back around to the topic, the potential charges for assange stem from part of the patriot act and the national security act.

Whether or not the DOJ files any charges against Assange is a mystery. The last update I saw for Pvt. Manning was his court date was coming up. The other investigation into the security breach and who obtained what, where and when and where it went from there is still ongoing.

There was a second arrest made in Florida of a naval reservist who was also stealing and distributing classifed material. The person he was selling it to was an undercover FBI agent. There was a blurb about the 2, manning and this guy, being linked but Ihave not seen anything else that can confirm that is actually the case.

Anyways, my 2 cents.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 07:55 AM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


Well for starters I did not lie and I would appreciate an appology for it.

Secondly the ruling on media has come out of New Jerseys Supreme Court and is going through the federal process as we speak.Until the feds rule, the law AND ruling is valid and can be used as precendent by other states.

Second the part you emphasized supports my argument, not yours. Assange has threatened the US Government that he would release classified material - again the insurance file - if anything happens to him or if he is arrested and goes to jail.

He is telling the government if you come after me, I will release these files. Coercion through threat is a violation of FEderal Law = Blackmail.

As for the laws listed, you asked for them and I gave them to you. Since you do not have a background in how laws work, I dont expect you to understand the concept of elements of a crime, which Assange meets for each of the above charges I listed. Just because you dont understand how the laws apply does not make them irrelevant.

As I said, its up to the DOJ, but the manner Assange has done all of this has qualified himself for multiple charges the DOJ can choose from.
edit on 25-8-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 09:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Hicks had two choices.

1)Plead guilty to a trumped up charge that wasn't even a crime when he supposedly committed the offenses.

or

2)Stay in that hell hole with no charge for years to come.

Some choice.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
reply to post by JohnySeagull
 


Hey any cables from Bosnia?


20 pages of cables from Zagreb just added today.

http://__._/origin/23_0.html

one that was flagged:

wlfind Wikileaks Find
More proof of human rights abuses of Bosnians by Serbs during war. (link tracking not allowed)/pS1eNo #wlfind #92ZAGREB1856 via @HacLege #Bosnia #Serbia
http://__._/cable/1992/09/92ZAGREB1856.html



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Hicks had two choices.

1)Plead guilty to a trumped up charge that wasn't even a crime when he supposedly committed the offenses.

or

2)Stay in that hell hole with no charge for years to come.

Some choice.


A debate for another time in a different thread. You asked for the laws, I posted them. The guy was involved in combat operations against the US and was captured. Not really sure what else there is. Chances are Gitmo is a better place to be than the US Soldier who was captured. They forced him to convert to Islam and God knows what type of hell hole he is in.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 06:50 AM
link   
intersting tweets i noticed:

WikileaksPR Wikileaks PR
Still no Golden Ticket winners? Keep searching those cables, they're in there #wlfind
16 minutes ago

Wikileaks PR
WikileaksPR Wikileaks PR
We can confirm there's 5 Golden Tickets in these cables. Let's show the World how quick you can find the Gold #wlfind __._/cablegate


twitter.com...#!/WikileaksPR



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnySeagull

If you are interested these cables give an amazing insight into how the world works.



I think it is more like how the US is thinking the world is / should be working.

People tend to forget that most of those cables are extremely biased especially when it comes to countries like Iran.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join