popsjumper 2 #126 December 11, 2010 QuoteEuropeans still see the importance of freedom and democracy and I don't think any government who would agree to transfer a prisoner charged of free press would survive long. Well, as far as Assange, it's in UK and then Swedish hands. I don't think any of us can expect anything but that he will wind up in the U.S. before too long. Call me a cynic but there you have my opinion. This is a do or die panic for American politicos. "Spin the wheel and be damned with the consequences" so to speak.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 633 #127 December 11, 2010 Holy hell. It would appear the Assange sympathizers are quite willing to do anything to defend his release of information. This bit is as disturbing as their willingness to cross the financial legal boundaries. I'm starting to think a LOT of people are going to end up in jail at the cost of Assange and his group making a ton of money over some others stupidity of releasing information they had no right to release. Possibly at some cost of DADT. What a fucked up world we live in. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
434 2 #128 December 11, 2010 Check this out. Sraight from the hearth http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koY6kXhQDQo&feature=player_embedded Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #129 December 11, 2010 Quote Check this out. Sraight from the hearth http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koY6kXhQDQo&feature=player_embedded this is cliche 90's....nobody gives a shit anymore if you get all pissed off and have a cool accent...unless it's jakee...Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #130 December 11, 2010 My problem is this: 1. Some traitor in the US system created the link. Ok they got at least one of them; clearly a crime. 2. Asange et al publish it on the web. No one is sure whether they can be charged under US law or not (no warrant has been issued so I would presume not). 3. The New York Times, Washington Post, Guardian, Toronto Globe and Mail, et al publish parts selected for bombastic merit. No problem! Furthermore the press goes on to explain how they are virtuous (as opposed to the internet scum) because they filter the information for what is newsworthy. Ya right. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #131 December 11, 2010 QuoteFurthermore the press goes on to explain how they are virtuous (as opposed to the internet scum) because they filter the information for what is newsworthy. Ya right. I think all of you need to learn (or re-learn, as the case may be) the facts and lessons of the Pentagon Papers case. Back then, the US govt, deeply embarrassed, vilified Daniel Ellsberg as "the most dangerous man in America", who would damage national security, and cost people's lives. Sound familiar? It should. They were full of shit then, and they're full of shit now. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
johenrik 0 #132 December 11, 2010 Quote1. Some traitor in the US system created the link. Ok they got at least one of them; clearly a crime. Nothing is clearly in these cases, but I see what you are saying and I don't think the world will react too much if he get's punished. The interesting thing is that in the Nuremberg Trials in 1945 the US (and it's allies) set a standard on how to deal with war crimes. German foot soldiers were trailed and executed for only following orders. The standard set was that if you know that your commander is committing war crimes you are obligated to deny following orders and report the issue in a way as it will get dealt with. You might therefore argue that the one who leaked the information had to do this, otherwise he might be held accountable to the war crimes he knew about. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Quote2. Asange et al publish it on the web. No one is sure whether they can be charged under US law or not (no warrant has been issued so I would presume not). The American supreme court decided in "Gravel v. United States" that this is not illegal and it would be unconstitutional to prosecute anyone for release information obtained legally. This case was done based on the Pentagon Papers which showed that the government was just as deceitful back in the 70s as they are now. Unfortunately the American constitution doesn't mean much anymore if the people in charge want to do something. Quote3. The New York Times, Washington Post, Guardian, Toronto Globe and Mail, et al publish parts selected for bombastic merit. No problem! These papers obtained the information legally through a source just like the Wikleaks and any excuse used to prosecute Wikileaks can therefore be used on them. -Jo Henrik Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #133 December 11, 2010 Quote It would appear the Assange sympathizers are quite willing to do anything to defend his release of information. This bit is as disturbing as their willingness to cross the financial legal boundaries. And on the other side of the fence it would appear that the U.S. g'ment is quite willing to do anything to hide their underhanded BS activities from us and then do anything and everything to shut him up. Is it OK with you that our so-called leaders and some news media are calling for his assassination? I'm not sure I understand what you mean by " financial legal boundaries" Quote I'm starting to think a LOT of people are going to end up in jail at the cost of Assange and his group making a ton of money over some others stupidity of releasing information they had no right to release. Do you think he's only in it for the money? You are probably right about people in jail...the U.S. g'ment will stop at nothing to hide their aforementioned underhanded BS activities from us. No right to release? Does this mean our g'ment is allowed to do any stupid shit they like, put a classification on it and seal it from us? Quote What a fucked up world we live in. I can certainly agree with that. The disclosures only highlight just how fucked up it really is out there. Maybe ignorance really IS better than bliss...at least for our sanity, anyway.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #134 December 11, 2010 QuoteI think all of you need to learn (or re-learn, as the case may be) the facts and lessons of the Pentagon Papers case. . We all need to refresh our memories of the Espionage Act of 1917 Here's a little history from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917 Read the entire thing...there are some very disturbing cases highlighted. By "disturbing" I mean clear-cut "screw the 1st amendment" cases.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #135 December 11, 2010 QuoteQuoteI think all of you need to learn (or re-learn, as the case may be) the facts and lessons of the Pentagon Papers case. . We all need to refresh our memories of the Espionage Act of 1917 Here's a little history from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917 Read the entire thing...there are some very disturbing cases highlighted. By "disturbing" I mean clear-cut "screw the 1st amendment" cases. And of course, Daniel Ellsberg and the publishers of the New York Times were each convicted under the Espionage Act, right? Right? QuoteRead the entire thing I did: QuoteLater court decisions cast serious doubt upon the constitutionality of the Espionage Act, including Brandenburg v. Ohio, which changed the "clear and present danger" test derived from Schenck to the "imminent lawless action" test, New York Times Co. v. United States, and United States v. The Progressive, Inc., although none of these decisions directly overruled it. BTW, New York Times Co. v. United States is the Pentagon Papers case. The NYT won. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #136 December 11, 2010 Quote Check this out. Sraight from the hearth http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koY6kXhQDQo&feature=player_embedded Brilliant - and spot on ... wanker bankers (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #137 December 11, 2010 I hope you didn't get the idea that I was hammering on you...not the intent at all. You're the legal beagle...not me, eh? QuoteAnd of course, Daniel Ellsberg and the publishers of the New York Times were each convicted under the Espionage Act, right? Right?Quote You well know that they weren't. In the Ellsberg case, it never came to a decision. It was a mistrial that was not carried forward by the prosecution. QuoteRead the entire thing I did: QuoteLater court decisions cast serious doubt upon the constitutionality of the Espionage Act, including Brandenburg v. Ohio, which changed the "clear and present danger" test derived from Schenck to the "imminent lawless action" test, New York Times Co. v. United States, and United States v. The Progressive, Inc., although none of these decisions directly overruled it. BTW, New York Times Co. v. United States is the Pentagon Papers case. The NYT won. Again from Wikipedia... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States "In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court agreed with the two lower courts which had originally decided that the government had not met its "heavy burden" of showing a justification for a prior restraint. The Court issued a very brief per curiam opinion, stating only that the Court concurred with the decisions of the two lower courts to reject the Government’s request for an injunction.[3] The Justices' opinions included different degrees of support for the clear superiority of the First Amendment and no Justice fully supported the government’s case. Because of these factors, no clear and exclusive verdict appears to have come out of this case. Nevertheless, the significance of the case and the wording of the Justices’ opinions have added important statements to the history of precedents for exceptions to the First Amendment, which have been cited in numerous Supreme Court cases since." The g'ment lost it's bid for an injunction against NYC Times. So, as it stands right now (as far as I know), there have been no decisions handed down on the constitutionality of the Espionage Act of 1917. Technically it still stands. Is that right?My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 0 #138 December 11, 2010 QuoteSo, as it stands right now (as far as I know), there have been no decisions handed down on the constitutionality of the Espionage Act of 1917. Technically it still stands. Is that right? Yes. But the Supreme Court has, several times now, served clear notice upon the US government that the Act's constitutionality is, at least in part, on thin ice, and if the govt attempts to use the Act to push the envelope against the First Amendment, the judicial branch stands ready to put a stop to it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites popsjumper 2 #139 December 11, 2010 QuoteQuoteSo, as it stands right now (as far as I know), there have been no decisions handed down on the constitutionality of the Espionage Act of 1917. Technically it still stands. Is that right? Yes. But the Supreme Court has, several times now, served clear notice upon the US government that the Act's constitutionality is, at least in part, on thin ice, and if the govt attempts to use the Act to push the envelope against the First Amendment, the judicial branch stands ready to put a stop to it. I assume that the g'ment will use the Espionage Act to prosecute Assange when they get him here. Maybe then the constitutionality of it will be tested. Somehow, I find it hard to believe the courts will rule in his favor on that.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 0 #140 December 11, 2010 QuoteI assume that the g'ment will use the Espionage Act to prosecute Assange when they get him here. Hard to say. There are 2 reasons why the US might not charge Assange with espionage: 1. If he was merely a "receptacle" and distributor of stolen information, but had no hand in stealing it in the first place, then in theory that's not enough to charge him with (or convict him of) under the Espionage Act of 1917, given the SCOTUS's and other Federal courts' clearly-expressed reluctance to apply that Act to media organizations. 2. Most countries with which the US has extradition treaties - including the UK and Sweden, are reluctant to extradite people to other countries for prosecution for "political" offenses. Furthermore, the treaties specifically enumerated certain crimes for which a person may be extradited, and espionage isn't one of them (at least re: Sweden; I'm not sure re: UK). So for these reasons, I think it's likely that the US will charge Assange with something like "conspiracy to commit felonious theft of government property", or something like that, as a technical end-around these legal impediments. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pirana 0 #141 December 11, 2010 QuoteI think all of you need to learn (or re-learn, as the case may be) the facts and lessons of the Pentagon Papers case. Back then, the US govt, deeply embarrassed, vilified Daniel Ellsberg as "the most dangerous man in America", who would damage national security, and cost people's lives. Sound familiar? It should. They were full of shit then, and they're full of shit now. Exactly. International diplomacy is a mean nasty dirty game. Anyone surprised by what has been uncovered is extremely naive. Does anybody really think everything is on the table at press releases and news conferences? What's amazing is how easily those engaged in ongoing deceitful and manipulative behaviors have made him out to be the devil incarnate. The huddled masses buy into the breast-beating cries of national security like a dog salivating for food." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites aphid 0 #142 December 12, 2010 QuoteThe huddled masses buy into the breast-beating cries of national security like a dog salivating for food. Please sir, may I be permitted to plagiarize that sentence for use elsewhere? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites popsjumper 2 #143 December 12, 2010 See? That's why they pay you the big bucks. Good stuff and it makes sense to me all the way through. They'll get him though. Where there's a will, there's a way. American justice, as I imagine every country, is really, really good at coming up with something to get you when they want to. There's a gotchya law that can be applied to most anything/everything we do.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skyrider 0 #144 December 12, 2010 Quote See? That's why they pay you the big bucks. Good stuff and it makes sense to me all the way through. They'll get him though. Where there's a will, there's a way. American justice, as I imagine every country, is really, really good at coming up with something to get you when they want to. There's a gotchya law that can be applied to most anything/everything we do. Like accusing them of Rape, and publicizing that charge? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites johenrik 0 #145 December 12, 2010 QuoteAmerican justice, as I imagine every country, is really, really good at coming up with something to get you when they want to. There's a gotchya law that can be applied to most anything/everything we do. Most countries in the west is pretty far from the extremity of the US in these matters. An example from my own country is this guy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mullah_Krekar . He is on the UN terrorist list and the Norwegian supreme court has judged him as a "threat to national security". Still he is allowed to go free i Norway and do whatever he pleases as we have laws against deporting people who faces the death penalty. Lots of people hate him here, but details of the law stands stronger than the political will. QuoteThey'll get him though. Where there's a will, there's a way. The big question is what is in his insurance file. It might be big enough that he will go free. I'm very curious of whats in there. Will one of the big conspiracy theories be proven? -Jo Henrik Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 0 #146 December 12, 2010 Of course, you and I know what his real crime is, right? Littering. ..and, creating a disturbance. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 0 #147 December 12, 2010 QuoteThe big question is what is in his insurance file. Here's a sample from the British section of the file. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #148 December 12, 2010 Quote Quote The big question is what is in his insurance file. Here's a sample from the British section of the file. Now that's pretty funny. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites popsjumper 2 #149 December 12, 2010 Thank you Officer Obie.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites matthewcline 0 #150 December 13, 2010 QuoteOf course, you and I know what his real crime is, right? Littering. ..and, creating a disturbance. And possession of stolen property. MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next Page 6 of 7 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
Andy9o8 0 #138 December 11, 2010 QuoteSo, as it stands right now (as far as I know), there have been no decisions handed down on the constitutionality of the Espionage Act of 1917. Technically it still stands. Is that right? Yes. But the Supreme Court has, several times now, served clear notice upon the US government that the Act's constitutionality is, at least in part, on thin ice, and if the govt attempts to use the Act to push the envelope against the First Amendment, the judicial branch stands ready to put a stop to it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #139 December 11, 2010 QuoteQuoteSo, as it stands right now (as far as I know), there have been no decisions handed down on the constitutionality of the Espionage Act of 1917. Technically it still stands. Is that right? Yes. But the Supreme Court has, several times now, served clear notice upon the US government that the Act's constitutionality is, at least in part, on thin ice, and if the govt attempts to use the Act to push the envelope against the First Amendment, the judicial branch stands ready to put a stop to it. I assume that the g'ment will use the Espionage Act to prosecute Assange when they get him here. Maybe then the constitutionality of it will be tested. Somehow, I find it hard to believe the courts will rule in his favor on that.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #140 December 11, 2010 QuoteI assume that the g'ment will use the Espionage Act to prosecute Assange when they get him here. Hard to say. There are 2 reasons why the US might not charge Assange with espionage: 1. If he was merely a "receptacle" and distributor of stolen information, but had no hand in stealing it in the first place, then in theory that's not enough to charge him with (or convict him of) under the Espionage Act of 1917, given the SCOTUS's and other Federal courts' clearly-expressed reluctance to apply that Act to media organizations. 2. Most countries with which the US has extradition treaties - including the UK and Sweden, are reluctant to extradite people to other countries for prosecution for "political" offenses. Furthermore, the treaties specifically enumerated certain crimes for which a person may be extradited, and espionage isn't one of them (at least re: Sweden; I'm not sure re: UK). So for these reasons, I think it's likely that the US will charge Assange with something like "conspiracy to commit felonious theft of government property", or something like that, as a technical end-around these legal impediments. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #141 December 11, 2010 QuoteI think all of you need to learn (or re-learn, as the case may be) the facts and lessons of the Pentagon Papers case. Back then, the US govt, deeply embarrassed, vilified Daniel Ellsberg as "the most dangerous man in America", who would damage national security, and cost people's lives. Sound familiar? It should. They were full of shit then, and they're full of shit now. Exactly. International diplomacy is a mean nasty dirty game. Anyone surprised by what has been uncovered is extremely naive. Does anybody really think everything is on the table at press releases and news conferences? What's amazing is how easily those engaged in ongoing deceitful and manipulative behaviors have made him out to be the devil incarnate. The huddled masses buy into the breast-beating cries of national security like a dog salivating for food." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
aphid 0 #142 December 12, 2010 QuoteThe huddled masses buy into the breast-beating cries of national security like a dog salivating for food. Please sir, may I be permitted to plagiarize that sentence for use elsewhere? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #143 December 12, 2010 See? That's why they pay you the big bucks. Good stuff and it makes sense to me all the way through. They'll get him though. Where there's a will, there's a way. American justice, as I imagine every country, is really, really good at coming up with something to get you when they want to. There's a gotchya law that can be applied to most anything/everything we do.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skyrider 0 #144 December 12, 2010 Quote See? That's why they pay you the big bucks. Good stuff and it makes sense to me all the way through. They'll get him though. Where there's a will, there's a way. American justice, as I imagine every country, is really, really good at coming up with something to get you when they want to. There's a gotchya law that can be applied to most anything/everything we do. Like accusing them of Rape, and publicizing that charge? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
johenrik 0 #145 December 12, 2010 QuoteAmerican justice, as I imagine every country, is really, really good at coming up with something to get you when they want to. There's a gotchya law that can be applied to most anything/everything we do. Most countries in the west is pretty far from the extremity of the US in these matters. An example from my own country is this guy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mullah_Krekar . He is on the UN terrorist list and the Norwegian supreme court has judged him as a "threat to national security". Still he is allowed to go free i Norway and do whatever he pleases as we have laws against deporting people who faces the death penalty. Lots of people hate him here, but details of the law stands stronger than the political will. QuoteThey'll get him though. Where there's a will, there's a way. The big question is what is in his insurance file. It might be big enough that he will go free. I'm very curious of whats in there. Will one of the big conspiracy theories be proven? -Jo Henrik Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #146 December 12, 2010 Of course, you and I know what his real crime is, right? Littering. ..and, creating a disturbance. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #147 December 12, 2010 QuoteThe big question is what is in his insurance file. Here's a sample from the British section of the file. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #148 December 12, 2010 Quote Quote The big question is what is in his insurance file. Here's a sample from the British section of the file. Now that's pretty funny. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #149 December 12, 2010 Thank you Officer Obie.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #150 December 13, 2010 QuoteOf course, you and I know what his real crime is, right? Littering. ..and, creating a disturbance. And possession of stolen property. MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
