Julian Assange speaking live NOW {VIDEO}

page: 10
33
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 07:20 AM
link   
Assange has shot himself in the foot, again. He obviously hasn't got a clue how nauseatingly hypocritical it is for him to spout overblown rhetoric about justice without even a passing reference to the fact he is hiding from Swedish justice in a third world embassy.

And while lambasting the US, as per usual, which is amongst the top 25 of least corrupt nations he praises Ecuador which is down in the murk at 120.

Give yourself up Assange and try and sort something out in your life for a change.




posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 07:36 AM
link   
I believe we are seeing history in the making here. Whatever you think of JA, the fact is a growing number of people are speaking up against what they see as control and propaganda..
If you have any doubts about media and government manipulation, all you need to do is compare the BBC footage (and account) of the embassy scene yesterday and that taken by ordinary people and alternative media.
I was trying to watch both at the same time on the TV and my computer - and the BBC version was hugely 'sanitized'. At one point you would think you were watching different events.
What the BBC described as 'a handful of supporters' was in fact a huge crowd stretching round the block because the police wouldn't let them get near.

edit on 20-8-2012 by starchild10 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 08:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


"When an embassy is used in an action that is inconsistent with its status, the diplomatic status of that building can be challenged in court and be stripped if the judge finds in favor of the UK government. Entering the building once that happens is not an assault on a foreign embassy."

Did court find something? Has this court been established? Has that been changed to applicable?
Operating word is challenged. They already stormed the embassy without a court decision i guess?
So they are on hurry to get him why not wait until courts findings?



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by VertigoFlux
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


"When an embassy is used in an action that is inconsistent with its status, the diplomatic status of that building can be challenged in court and be stripped if the judge finds in favor of the UK government. Entering the building once that happens is not an assault on a foreign embassy."

Did court find something? Has this court been established? Has that been changed to applicable?
Operating word is challenged. They already stormed the embassy without a court decision i guess?
So they are on hurry to get him why not wait until courts findings?


No-one has stormed the embassy and I think it is pretty clear the UK government has no intention of going down that road. Pity it was ever mentioned in my view.

But it is pretty galling to have a south american country interfering in a european judicial process and providing a hide-out for a fugitive. And then, to cap it all, provide a balcony so that said fugitive can make a public address.

If the situation needs to be terminated in the near future I would suggest we break off diplomatic relations with Ecuador. Ecuadorian and Brit diplomats all go home and Assange is left on his own in a former embassy in the middle of London.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 08:59 AM
link   



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 09:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


Alfie1, you are misguided, are you out for his blood that badly?

Don't let propaganda of sex allegations fool you.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by wujotvowujotvowujotvo
reply to post by Alfie1
 


Alfie1, you are misguided, are you out for his blood that badly?

Don't let propaganda of sex allegations fool you.


If the sex allegations are propaganda why has Assange twisted, turned, squirmed, every which way to avoid addressing them. Finally applying to exile himself in a poor south american country ?



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by xavi1000



You are forgetting about the heat sensors.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by wujotvowujotvowujotvo
reply to post by Alfie1
 


Alfie1, you are misguided, are you out for his blood that badly?

Don't let propaganda of sex allegations fool you.


If the sex allegations are propaganda why has Assange twisted, turned, squirmed, every which way to avoid addressing them. Finally applying to exile himself in a poor south american country ?


Why are you trying to bs. us? JA has co-operated with swedish authorities on every turn. They instead have ignored the letter of the law in an attempt to get him detained in sweden.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by wujotvowujotvowujotvo
reply to post by Alfie1
 


Alfie1, you are misguided, are you out for his blood that badly?

Don't let propaganda of sex allegations fool you.


If the sex allegations are propaganda why has Assange twisted, turned, squirmed, every which way to avoid addressing them. Finally applying to exile himself in a poor south american country ?


Why are you trying to bs. us? JA has co-operated with swedish authorities on every turn. They instead have ignored the letter of the law in an attempt to get him detained in sweden.


Fact is that Assange has fought tooth and nail through every court in the UK to resist Sweden's arrest warrant. When he finally lost in the supreme court he did a runner to the embassy of a country with an embarassing record on human rights and press freedom but hey, any port in a storm. Some co-operation !

www.newstatesman.com...



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 11:25 AM
link   
I hope he will make it to Ecuador and continue his work...



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by 0bserver1
I hope he will make it to Ecuador and continue his work...


So long as its just about the US or UK and not about Russia or China and very definitely not about Ecuador or any of its chums ?



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by 0bserver1
I hope he will make it to Ecuador and continue his work...


So long as its just about the US or UK and not about Russia or China and very definitely not about Ecuador or any of its chums ?
I thought the right to expose corruption and disregard for the rule of law by those meant to defend them was a fundamental part of a true democracy?

The US and UK should be proud to see it in action but instead we see a vicious witch hunt of one person yet it was a group that exposed the wrong doing of our great and good.

Why only pursue JA?



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 01:08 PM
link   
There's a debate on this here: yougov.co.uk...

I find most people in are very misinformed about the nature of what's going on with Sweden.
Why is that?

ABC had very good press on this recently. Very informative.
However, it seems to me that a lot of people are getting their information from what they remember from Fox news over a year ago?

No seriously, what' s is going on here? Why do so many people think he has charges against him and that the charges are for forcing a woman to have sex with him?

The word rape is indeed VERY charged with specific meaning to most of us, isn't it?



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 01:57 PM
link   
If he is somehow acquired by the US with assistance from the UK, the pair of those countries are rotten and deserve everything they get. I'll personally be disgusted and ashamed to be British.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeeKlassified
I'm a bit confused by your views? You said the above about Assange, and a couple of messages back you also said this....

It can't be both ways surely?

Besides, he didn't violate US law because he has never resided there so is not bound by those laws!


Since they are 2 separate issues they both can be right.

Wikileaks / Assange and US classified info is one issue that involves Assange / wikileaks / Manning and the United States.
The issue in Sweden deals with Sweden the UK and Assange with the sex issues. They are not the same and they have no bearing on each other.

As for your last comment yes the US can file charges against individuals who are not inside the US who have broken US law - especially when it comes to espionage issues. We can argue this point back and ofrth until we are both blue in the face but it does not change my position and I dont think yours is going to change either.

If we use your logic one can argue that Ecquador cannot grant asylum to Assange because the law they are using to do it is not recognized by European countries.

One can also argue, using your logic, that no charges can ever be filed against Bush / Cheney because the actions in question occured outside the political boundaries of the US.

Anything else in the box pandora?



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Samuelis
Just a reminder, Assange didn't steal the cables. Manning did.
Assange is a journalist, who published information.

Assange had an obligation to publish this information. Anyone who is attacking Assange in this thread should go watch some more msm and keep their mouth shut.


If you drive your friend to the bank, and you know he is going to commit armed robbery, and you wait in the car until he is done you violated the law. Just because you were not inside the bank and did not have a gun, you can be charged. If you dont know anything about it and your buddy comes over and gives you 10k dollars from the heist and then leaves, you can be charged with receiving stolen property. I used the bank robbery example because it uses Federal laws instead of State laws because they are financial institutions.

Manning new his actions were illegal.
Assange new the information being provided was classified and illegal for him to be in possession and disseminate it.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by RealSpoke
 


You need to read all the info in that case, specifically the Courts ruling and what it did.
Wiki - Pentagon Papers

Times v. United States is generally considered a victory for an extensive reading of the First Amendment, but as the Supreme Court ruled on whether the government had made a successful case for prior restraint, its decision did not void the Espionage Act or give the press unlimited freedom to publish classified documents. Ellsberg and Russo were not acquitted of violating the Espionage Act; they were freed due to a mistrial from irregularities in the government's case.[3]


Cornell University - New York Times vs. The United States

Other cases dealing with the governments legal ability to take entities to court over classified information -
1941 - Dennis vs. United States
Near v. Minnesota

Patterson vs. Colorado
edit on 20-8-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by ecoparity
"they" won't kill him, they'd rather make an example of him to put the fear into anyone else who would dare lift a curtain. That won't stop them from using the MSM to try and encourage someone else to take things into their own hands, however.

Worst case we all might finally get to see what's in the insurance file. I hope it's worth it.


An example?

On the off chance you don't know there are a lot of cases dealing with espionage and prosecution of individuals. Assange is not being made an example of, and as his followers are quick to point out, because no charges have been filed against him by the US.

If Assange goal was to expose corruption then I have a question for you. How does that stated goal work with these actions by Assange -

The hypocrisy demonstrated by Assange as well as Asange supporters is well documented.
Julian Assange Threatened To Sue Guardian For Publishing WikiLeaks Cables: Vanity Fair

The Man Who Spilled the Secrets


On the afternoon of November 1, 2010, Julian Assange, the Australian-born founder of WikiLeaks.org, marched with his lawyer into the London office of Alan Rusbridger, the editor of The Guardian. Assange was pallid and sweaty, his thin frame racked by a cough that had been plaguing him for weeks. He was also angry, and his message was simple: he would sue the newspaper if it went ahead and published stories based on the quarter of a million documents that he had handed over to The Guardian just three months earlier.

So he is all about releasing classified information because there should be no secrets, except when it comes to Assange and his megalomania.

Lets continue down this road and see where it leads -

In Rusbridger’s office, Assange’s position was rife with ironies. An unwavering advocate of full, unfettered disclosure of primary-source material, Assange was now seeking to keep highly sensitive information from reaching a broader audience.

Hmmm.. Something Assange preaches against on a daily basis again except when it comes to him, and then the standards change for his own benefit.

Lets keep going -

He had become the victim of his own methods: someone at WikiLeaks, where there was no shortage of disgruntled volunteers, had leaked the last big segment of the documents, and they ended up at The Guardian in such a way that the paper was released from its previous agreement with Assange—that The Guardian would publish its stories only when Assange gave his permission.

So Assange is preaching openess and disclosure, to hold be accountible, again except when it comes to himself. For assange to make the statements he did in his latest media encounter while at the same time he is breaking those very words he accuses others of doing.

The Guardian had the files leaked to them yet Assange makes demands....

Lets see just how out of touch Assange is -

Enraged that he had lost control, Assange unleashed his threat, arguing that he owned the information and had a financial interest in how and when it was released.


Now wait a minute.. Assange claims the information belongs to him and that he had a financial interest in them. The very position the US government used, that the documents belonged to them and Assange cannot publish them. A point Assange ignored because he has some higher moral authority and the laws dont apply to him.

Ironic...



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 03:45 PM
link   
Lets stick to the FACTS of the case, and not be derailed by IRRELEVANT factors such as character assasinations.

1. Assange was required for questioning by the Swedish authorities, had not been charged by a court as a felon.

2. He had not ran away, but made himself avaliable, even with Ecuadorian CONSULAR assistance to the Swedish authorities to question him, yet the swedes refused.

3. He had published secret cables, and may be wanted by US for a breach of US national security laws. However, he only behaved just like any other full time salaried reporter, whom had sworn to publish facts. If telling the truth is treason, then may USA and the world start serving justice by hanging every journalist on Earth or inform all citizens that journalists are to be the nation's propaganda mouthpieces such as those in Iran, Syria,China and Russia.
edit on 20-8-2012 by SeekerofTruth101 because: (no reason given)



new topics
top topics
 
33
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join