Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Julian Assange speaking live NOW {VIDEO}

page: 11
33
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 04:18 PM
link   
ETA -

Originally posted by PsykoOps

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.

The judge doesnt agree with you - read below.



Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
Lets stick to the FACTS of the case, and not be derailed by IRRELEVANT factors such as character assasinations.

Assange is killing his own character..



Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
1. Assange was required for questioning by the Swedish authorities, had not been charged by a court as a felon.
Its an ongoing investigation. An extradition arrest warrant has been issued by Sweden. The Swedish and UK courts, along with the EU system, state the warrant was valid and that the swedish prosecutor does in fact have the authority under swedish law to issue the warrant.



Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
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.

The allegations occured in Sweden, not London. Let me ask this - If Sweden agreed to meet in London, and setting aside the legal issues under swedish law that prevent it, what happens if during that interview its determined that charges are warranted?

They cannot arrest him because they are not in Sweden.
They cannot arrest him because he is in an embassy.

As far as making himself available people seem to be ignoring the Swedish court battles to get the case dropped.
Julian Assange attacks 'rubber-stamp' warrant as he loses extradition battle

During the hearing Assanges lawyer, Mr. Hurtig, made some claims that were... wait for it... not true. The judge caught what his lawyer was attempting to do and took note of it in his ruling -

In his summary Riddle accused Assange's Swedish lawyer, Björn Hurtig, of making a deliberate attempt to mislead the court. Assange had clearly attempted to avoid the Swedish justice system before he left the country, Riddle said. "It would be a reasonable assumption from the facts that Mr Assange was deliberately avoiding interrogation before he left Sweden."

The judge was severely critical of Hurtig, who had said in his statement that it was "astonishing" Ny had made no effort to interview his client before he left Sweden. "In fact this is untrue," said Riddle. Hurtig had realised his mistake the night before he gave evidence and corrected his evidence in chief, said the judge. But it had been done in a manner that was "very low key". "Mr Hurtig must have realised the significance of ... his proof when he submitted it," Riddle said. "I do not accept that this was a genuine mistake. It cannot have slipped his mind. The statement was a deliberate attempt to mislead the court."

Riddle acknowledged there had been "considerable adverse publicity against Mr Assange in Sweden", including statements by the prime minister. But if there had been any irregularities in the Swedish system the best place to examine them was in a Swedish trial.




Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
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)

For starters no he did not...
He is not a journalist by any stretch of the imagination.
In the US reporters can be charged for printing classified information.


One final thing to note during Assanges legal battle in sweden -

He dismissed the decision to extradite him as a "rubber-stamping process". He said: "It comes as no surprise but is nevertheless wrong. It comes as the result of a European arrest warrant system amok."

There had been no consideration of the allegations against him, Assange said. His extradition would thrust him into a legal system he did not understand using a language he did not speak.

Assange said the US government by its own admission had been waiting to see the British court verdict before determining what action it could take against him.

"What does the US have to do with a Swedish extradition process?" he asked. "Why is it that I am subject, a non-profit free speech activist, to a $360,000 (£223,000) bail? Why is it that I am kept under electronic house arrest when I have not even been charged in any country, when I have never been a fugitive?" Assange had earlier heard the chief magistrate, Howard Riddle, dismiss each of the defence's arguments.


Emphasis added by me and its the very same argument I have made.
edit on 20-8-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 



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.
What if you are in the car. You discover the plans of your friend to rob the bank.

1. You make those plans public
2. You ex pal gets angry with you and asks his other villainous pals to frame you so that he can get you out of hiding and take his revenge?



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by colin42
What if you are in the car. You discover the plans of your friend to rob the bank.

1. You make those plans public
2. You ex pal gets angry with you and asks his other villainous pals to frame you so that he can get you out of hiding and take his revenge?


Its Assanges fault for choosing Manning as his pal. Your attempt to twist the info aside, Assange worked with manning to get the information. Assange knew he was receiving classified information and he knew its was against the law.

The problem with assange is he thinks the law applies to everyone but him.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by colin42
What if you are in the car. You discover the plans of your friend to rob the bank.

1. You make those plans public
2. You ex pal gets angry with you and asks his other villainous pals to frame you so that he can get you out of hiding and take his revenge?


Its Assanges fault for choosing Manning as his pal. Your attempt to twist the info aside, Assange worked with manning to get the information. Assange knew he was receiving classified information and he knew its was against the law.

The problem with assange is he thinks the law applies to everyone but him.


Or some governments think the law applies to everyone exept to them?
Hence the reason he came with wikileaks so they can be held more accountable.
He's only trying to expose things the public may not know about basicly?
edit on 20-8-2012 by Plugin because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 
Of late I have seen on the news of too many people that are charged with sex related crimes later found to be fake but in the meantime the damage caused has, shall we say dealt with the problem.

I understand your points and they are well made. Here is one from me. Hopefully as well made

The Watergate Scandal

That started with an illegal act. Do you believe that the evidence that was discovered from that crime and the results were wrong?

Do you disagree that information gained in this way should have been used?

Was Nixon a criminal or a victim?



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Fyi, JA didn't choose Manning as his pall or anything of that sort. WL system is 100% anonymous. It would be impossible for JA to know who leaks info.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by JamesGC
 


hello friend,

20 years ago i've found out that sbs is mounthpeace of aussie gov (and not the abc,as i would have imagined).

this is the funny part..s&f



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


some laws should be broken
and a court should have the power to absolve the accused of violating such laws
en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 20-8-2012 by sirhumperdink because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Plugin
Or some governments think the law applies to everyone exept to them?
Hence the reason he came with wikileaks so they can be held more accountable.
He's only trying to expose things the public may not know about basicly?


Let me ask -
* - Should evidence that is illegally obtained be allowed into court proceedings?
* - Is it ok to make an argument in favor of Ecquadors decision to grant asylum by stating they are a sovereign nation and their internal decisions should be accepted?
* - As far as accountability goes at what point do we cross over from investigating criminal wrong doing over to prosecution?
* - If there is no criminal activities present should that be considered towards a criminal investigation?

If the stated goal of Assange and wikileaks is to uncover government corruption / criminal activities then why did they release classified documents that show no criminal activity? Whats the purpose?



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 12:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by sirhumperdink
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


some laws should be broken
and a court should have the power to absolve the accused of violating such laws
en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 20-8-2012 by sirhumperdink because: (no reason given)


The overall mindset you have is the same as mine when it comes to bad laws and court.

However the issue we have here contradicts that logic. Both issues, wikileaks and the US and Assange and sweden, are being argued everywhere but a court of law. Even when it ended up in a courtroom in 2 different countries the rulings were ignored.

Do you think its ok for Assange / wikileaks / supporters to assume the US is guilty of crimes without investigating or it seeing the inside of a courtroom?



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 01:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by colin42
Of late I have seen on the news of too many people that are charged with sex related crimes later found to be fake but in the meantime the damage caused has, shall we say dealt with the problem.

Wouldn't confronting the issue when it first pops up be better than not only dragging it out but then not complying with court orders over 2 years? If Assange has the evidence / proof that the 2 women are making false claims then why not use it in court?

The reason I keep coming back to this is the version of events both sides provided are essentially the same.


Originally posted by colin42
I understand your points and they are well made. Here is one from me. Hopefully as well made

The Watergate Scandal

That started with an illegal act. Do you believe that the evidence that was discovered from that crime and the results were wrong?

Do you disagree that information gained in this way should have been used?

Was Nixon a criminal or a victim?


If we delve into that case we see a difference between Watergate and Wikileaks. While the initial acts in both cases are the same (breaking the law) thats where the similarity ends.

In the case of wikileaks we have a US soldier access classified material. He then sent that information to wikileaks who in turn published the classified documents. An (allegedly) illegal action occurred in order to obtain evidence of illegal activity by a third party.

In the case of Watergate we have a group of people who committed crimes however the information was not classified and it was not obtained to be used against a 3rd party for prosecution.

Watergate = 47 people charged and the resignation of Nixon.
Wikileaks = 1 person charged and one person who claims he did nothing wrong.

Watergate = Investigated by law enforcement and charges submitted to the USADA for prosecution in a court of law.
Wikileaks = Manning / Assange did no investigation (just stole classified documents and released them). Law Enforcement was never notified of the "illegal" activity Manning / Assange claimed existed. Law Enforcement only became involved when the 2 broke the law trying to prove someone else broke the law.

The biggest difference between the two are the results. Watergate used law enforcement, interviews, evidence gathering resulting in charges and convictions. Wikileaks has none of the above aside for Manning.



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 01:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Fyi, JA didn't choose Manning as his pall or anything of that sort. WL system is 100% anonymous. It would be impossible for JA to know who leaks info.


Except when they identify themselves by bragging to other people.

WikiLeaks founder helped Army private get data, prosecutors say
MIT students helped WikiLeaks suspect, hacker says
Jolt in WikiLeaks Case: Feds Found Manning-Assange Chat Logs on Laptop
The link above this line gives some more indepth info about how the files were accessed by manning and his contact with Wikileaks / Assange.



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 01:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by sirhumperdink
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


some laws should be broken
and a court should have the power to absolve the accused of violating such laws
en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 20-8-2012 by sirhumperdink because: (no reason given)


The overall mindset you have is the same as mine when it comes to bad laws and court.

However the issue we have here contradicts that logic. Both issues, wikileaks and the US and Assange and sweden, are being argued everywhere but a court of law. Even when it ended up in a courtroom in 2 different countries the rulings were ignored.

Do you think its ok for Assange / wikileaks / supporters to assume the US is guilty of crimes without investigating or it seeing the inside of a courtroom?

yes and no
i think it should go to court however as long as the information is found to be legitimate i think it should be left for the people to decide what to do about actions of their government because its doubtful the united states government would ever be convicted of its wrong doings in a court of law..... regardless of if it was guilty or not and regardless what punishments (if any) were warranted
i also think that it would be extremely difficult for assange to get a fair trial and that if he is extradited to the united states he will be given extraordinarily harsh punishment or be killed in some way or another before the case is resolved
so i feel that the right thing here is for none of these things to go to court
i feel he should go to court for breaching the terms of his bail and he should go to court for the rape allegations (which were laughable)
but if he sees a court room over the issues of circulating classified information etc. the results would be terrible

in an ideal world yes this should all go to court but unfortunately the world we live in is extremely corrupt and it would probably do more harm than good to take the issue to court where dangerous precedents could be set
edit on 21-8-2012 by sirhumperdink because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 02:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by sirhumperdink
yes and no
i think it should go to court however as long as the information is found to be legitimate i think it should be left for the people to decide what to do about actions of their government because its doubtful the united states government would ever be convicted of its wrong doings in a court of law..... regardless of if it was guilty or not and regardless what punishments (if any) were warranted

The flaw I see with your statement is "found to be legitimate". The legitimacy of evidence and whether it can be used in court or cannot be used in court resides with the judge and no one else. However that becomes a major issue when actions are taken to prevent it from ever going to court (embassy / asylum issue and UK / Sweden investigation block).



Originally posted by sirhumperdink
i also think that it would be extremely difficult for assange to get a fair trial and that if he is extradited to the united states he will be given extraordinarily harsh punishment or be killed in some way or another before the case is resolved

How are you coming to the conclusion of a non fair trial?
Whats extroidinarily harsh punishment?
Why would they kill him if he is in custody? That position is self defeating since it would be a lot easier and would make more sense to kill assange in a foreign country.



Originally posted by sirhumperdink
so i feel that the right thing here is for none of these things to go to court

Then there is no valid reason to investigate possible criminal acts by the US government and Assange should return / destroy all files in his possession / anyone else who has copies of them belonging to the US.



Originally posted by sirhumperdink
i feel he should go to court for breaching the terms of his bail and he should go to court for the rape allegations (which were laughable)
but if he sees a court room over the issues of circulating classified information etc. the results would be terrible
Again paranoia should not be substituted for law. As for the laughable comment its irrelevent because it doesnt matter what you or I think, its Swedish law.



Originally posted by sirhumperdink
yes and no
i think it should go to court however as long as the information is found to be legitimate i think it should be left for the people to decide what to do about actions of their government because its doubtful the united states government would ever be convicted of its wrong doings in a court of law..... regardless of if it was guilty or not and regardless what punishments (if any) were warranted

The flaw I see with your statement is "found to be legitimate". The legitimacy of evidence and whether it can be used in court or cannot be used in court resides with the judge and no one else. However that becomes a major issue when actions are taken to prevent it from ever going to court (embassy / asylum issue and UK / Sweden investigation block).



Originally posted by sirhumperdink
i also think that it would be extremely difficult for assange to get a fair trial and that if he is extradited to the united states he will be given extraordinarily harsh punishment or be killed in some way or another before the case is resolved

How are you coming to the conclusion of a non fair trial?
Whats extroidinarily harsh punishment?
Why would they kill him if he is in custody? That position is self defeating since it would be a lot easier and would make more sense to kill assange in a foreign country.



Originally posted by sirhumperdink
so i feel that the right thing here is for none of these things to go to court

Then there is no valid reason to investigate possible criminal acts by the US government and Assange should return / destroy all files in his possession belonging to the US.



Originally posted by sirhumperdink
i feel he should go to court for breaching the terms of his bail and he should go to court for the rape allegations (which were laughable)
but if he sees a court room over the issues of circulating classified information etc. the results would be terrible
Again paranoia should not be substituted for law. As for the laughable comment its irrelevent because it doesnt matter what you or I think, its Swedish law.



Originally posted by sirhumperdink
in an ideal world yes this should all go to court but unfortunately the world we live in is extremely corrupt and it would probably do more harm than good to take the issue to court where dangerous precedents could be set

Then there is absolutely no reason to hold governments accountible.

Secondly dismissing legal action because it "could" set a precedence is just as dangerous as keeping the issue out of the judicial system.



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 05:58 AM
link   
I don't understand all the different comments ?!?!
People have already pointed out the facts. The real fact, the only reason Sweden wants him is because the US is pushing them. It wasn't rape.... they want to get him out of that embassy and put him somewhere where he will never see daylight again.
Why??? The reason I would think most of you are on a CONSPIRACY website...LOL
Seriously.. this site is always about the cover ups, the secrets, "TPTB"....on and on.
Yet when someone has the balls to give you the info on a silver platter half of this site is now against him?? He hasn't put anyone in danger. This crazy country has and will continue to do it, as long as the people keep putting up with it. To me, he has given proof that half the shi* on here that is talked about is true.



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 
Yes but I would imagine you are just as aware as I that this world in not that black and white.

Here is a link List of Whistle Blowers

These people changed the world they live in if not the whole world. Many did this at great cost to themselves and broke laws whilst doing it just as JA and Manning

Another common theme is the trumped up personal attacks on their sanity or sexual preferences being a very common theme.

That list is a list of the successful ones. People that were lucky enough to get support when the powerful decided to shut them up. There is likely many more that had untimely deaths or locked away in prisons and asylums.

These suit wearing power brokers you seem to have such faith in show on a daily bases that they have less morals than a common ghetto bred gangster.

If JA has any real sex crime to answer to he can do that interview in a room in an embassy with the UK waiting outside just as well as he can in a cell in Sweden with the USA waiting outside and there is nothing stopping that from happening.

Why is that not happening?



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 08:59 AM
link   
All this back & forth is ridiculous, Asange needs to stand-up to the accusations that have been made against him. After he stands against the sex allegations, if they are false, his life can get back to secrets and sex, but I'm certain that the DOD will get what they want, when they want it, anytime/anywhere...



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 09:10 AM
link   
Here is a case in point from that list. One of many Garry Webb

The man who exposed the CIA involvement in drugs.

Webb's reporting generated fierce controversy, and the San Jose Mercury News backed away from the story, effectively ending Webb's career as a mainstream media journalist. In 2004, Webb was found dead from two gunshot wounds to the head,


Watergate related: Mark Felt (deep throat) He was not a humble private, Felt was the Bureau's Associate Director, the second-ranking post in the FBI.

Felt provided Washington Post reporter Woodward with critical information on the story that eventually led to the resignation of President Richard M. Nixon in 1974.
Here is Stanley Adams who exposed the La Roche price fixing scandal. This is the price he paid and I put here because it has similarities with what JA is facing.

Stanley Adams


Adams was arrested and charged with industrial espionage and theft. He was held in solitary confinement for three months. Adams' wife was told that he faced a 20-year jail term for industrial espionage. She committed suicide. In the end, Adams served six months in a Swiss prison.
and just to illustrate revenge has no sell by date this is suspicious to me

In 1993 he was convicted of hiring a hit-man to kill his second wife for the insurance money, and served five years in prison.[
The actions of a man with a conscience he had previously demonstrated. Yeah right.

Go through the list yourself. The career of a whistle blower is not one I would choose but I am glad some do. The least we can do is support them when these trumped up charges are made against them to allow the guilty to shut them up.

List of Whistle Blowers



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


I have stated a few times now that I support people who legitimately whistleblow. In the case of Assange and Manning they went beyond that...

Had they stuck to just criminal activities / corruption I would be fine.. However they released hundreds of thousands of classified documents / material that shows absolutely no criminal activity. Once again just because a person does not like a law or has no idea how combat operations work and how they are different from civilian laws does not mean those laws dont apply / cant be enforced.

Using the list you provided please show me where those people released hundreds of thousands of documents that showed no criminal activity.

As for the comment about where they can interview Assange again you are ignoring the court ruling in Sweden that says no to that type of action. Secondly the laws of Sweden were violated, not the UK and because of that they have every right to investigate the allegations in Sweden.
The British extradition judge took Assanges lawyers to task for misleading the court by stating Sweden never tried to interview assange while he was in sweden. The judge pointed out the swedish prosecution made many requests to set up the interview and assange / his legal counsel decided to drag their feet. When it looked like this was not going away Assange left Sweden.

So is the British judge lying? Even Assanges lawyer had to go back and correct his "accusations" to the court so they werent charged.


As for your last question I have a theory -
I think its possible, based on how Swedish law works, that assange may have inadvertently broken the law. The point of an investigation is to rule people out as suspects as much as it is to locate a suspect. All sweden has right now are the 2 females and their version of event. Since Assange is refusing to meet with the prosecutors it begs the question why.

To demand an interrogation / interview be conducted outside of the country where the crime occurred is, to me, telling. By doing what Assange wants it ties the hands of Sweden and holds their criminal justice system hostage. If during their interview its determined there is enough evidence to sustain the charge they cant do anything about it. They cant arrest assange because he is not on Swedish soil and so we are stuck where we are at now.

edit on 21-8-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)
edit on 21-8-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by SmikeS
All this back & forth is ridiculous, Asange needs to stand-up to the accusations that have been made against him. After he stands against the sex allegations, if they are false, his life can get back to secrets and sex, but I'm certain that the DOD will get what they want, when they want it, anytime/anywhere...


What does the DoD have to do with Assange? He is not military and is not subject to the UCMJ.






top topics



 
33
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join