Is Assange being framed?

Is Assange being framed?

  • Total voters
    12
  • Poll closed .
SmarterThanYou said:
again, IF someone yells fire in a crowded theater, are they being charged for yelling in a crowded theater? No. They are charged if doing so results in panic, alarm, or even injury. If I were to run in to a theater and yell fire and every one turned and laughed at me, there would be no crime.

this is the slippery slope we've been on for decades, that an action that COULD cause damage is illegal. This is called prior restraint and is no different than states that require a license to carry a firearm.

rights are rights and only actions that DO cause harm should be punished.
Click to expand...

You're splitting a pretty sill hair~ Of course if no injury resulted there would be no charges...but the POINT of the charge IF injury occurded is that you are not allowed a "1st amendment protection". That in fact it is your speech that caused harm.

It is a slippery slope...but sometimes even slippery slopes should be traversed.
 
"Republican Congressman Ron Paul may be Julian Assange’s most loyal supporter in Congress. Visiting Fox Business’ Freedom Watch– a program on which Assange has been welcome several times– Rep. Paul went to bat for the Wikileaker in the middle of condemning the secrecy of the Federal Reserve, and made a little request of his own: “every conversation of the last ten years with the Federal Reserve people.” Chop, chop, Assange!

Rep. Paul, who is also a regular guest on the program, chatted for some time with the injustices of having a “secret government” like the Federal Reserve with Judge Andrew Napolitano, calling the agency “as unconstitutional as it gets” and its practices “immoral,” “wrong,” “bad economics,” and “built on counterfeit money.” In light of the recent diplomatic cables, however, Rep. Paul seems to have found hope that there is a concrete way to take the Fed down:

“What we need is more Wikileaks on the Federal Reserve. Can you imagine what it would be like if we have every conversation of the last 10 years with the Federal Reserve people and the Federal Reserve chairman, with all the other central bankers of the world, and every agreement and quid pro quo that they have? I mean, it would be massive. The people would be so outraged.”

Later in the discussion, Judge Napolitano asks Paul directly about his views on Wikileaks, to which Paul replied, “in a society where truth becomes treason, we are in big trouble.” He also called the desire to charge Assange for treason “wild,” given he is an Australian citizen, and questioned what difference in media there was between Wikileaks and the New York Times that prevented one of them from being prosecuted over the other.

Having the support of American legislators is certainly a new thing for Assange, as most have either refrained from commenting or called him a terrorist. Paul and the libertarian-leaning American commentators seem to have been won over, though Paul made it clear nothing would make them happier than seeing the semi-anonymous group take down the Fed."

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/rep-ron-paul-makes-special-request-of-wikileaks-on-foxs-freedom-watch/
 
Mojo said:
"Republican Congressman Ron Paul may be Julian Assange’s most loyal supporter in Congress. Visiting Fox Business’ Freedom Watch– a program on which Assange has been welcome several times– Rep. Paul went to bat for the Wikileaker in the middle of condemning the secrecy of the Federal Reserve, and made a little request of his own: “every conversation of the last ten years with the Federal Reserve people.” Chop, chop, Assange!

Rep. Paul, who is also a regular guest on the program, chatted for some time with the injustices of having a “secret government” like the Federal Reserve with Judge Andrew Napolitano, calling the agency “as unconstitutional as it gets” and its practices “immoral,” “wrong,” “bad economics,” and “built on counterfeit money.” In light of the recent diplomatic cables, however, Rep. Paul seems to have found hope that there is a concrete way to take the Fed down:

“What we need is more Wikileaks on the Federal Reserve. Can you imagine what it would be like if we have every conversation of the last 10 years with the Federal Reserve people and the Federal Reserve chairman, with all the other central bankers of the world, and every agreement and quid pro quo that they have? I mean, it would be massive. The people would be so outraged.”

Later in the discussion, Judge Napolitano asks Paul directly about his views on Wikileaks, to which Paul replied, “in a society where truth becomes treason, we are in big trouble.” He also called the desire to charge Assange for treason “wild,” given he is an Australian citizen, and questioned what difference in media there was between Wikileaks and the New York Times that prevented one of them from being prosecuted over the other.

Having the support of American legislators is certainly a new thing for Assange, as most have either refrained from commenting or called him a terrorist. Paul and the libertarian-leaning American commentators seem to have been won over, though Paul made it clear nothing would make them happier than seeing the semi-anonymous group take down the Fed."

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/rep-ron-paul-makes-special-request-of-wikileaks-on-foxs-freedom-watch/
Click to expand...

I have heard of no one in power thinking that the US could charge Assange with treason. Manning yes...Assange no.
 
Newt Gingrich: "The WikiLeaks guy should be in jail for the rest of his life...He is an enemy of the United States, actively endangering people, and he's gonna get a lot of folks killed. And I think that's a despicable act, and we should treat him as an enemy combatant, and as an absolute enemy of the United States." Also watch his interview on Freedom Watch. Gingrich advocates foreign intervention in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and North Korea.

Glenn Beck said that Julian Assange should be tried for treason and executed.

Mike Huckabee said, "Whoever in our government leaked that information is guilty of treason, and I think anything less than execution is too kind a penalty."

Bill O'Reilly said leakers are traitors who "should be executed or put in prison for life.”

Sarah Palin said to "target WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange like the Taliban."

Peter King, Congressman, wants Wikileaks designated a terrorist organization.

Eric Bolling of Fox News (~ 2:35 mark): "[Assange] should be put in jail or hanged in a public forum."

Wayne Simmons of Fox News calls Wikileaks a terrorist organization.

Lt. Col. Ralph Peters of Fox News: "I would execute leakers."

Liz Cheney (daughter of Dick Cheney) said Obama should shut down Wikileaks and prosecute Julian Assange.

Mike Rogers, Congressman, calls for treason charges and execution.

Conservatives tell Obama to send Julian Assange to Guantanamo.

Rush Limbaugh, radio talk show host: "Back in the old days when men were men and countries were countries, this guy would die of lead poisoning from a bullet in the brain..."

Todd Schnitt, radio talk show host: "Assange is a terrorist, an enemy combatant, and needs to be treated as such."

Steve Gill, radio talk show host, says Assange should be targetted as a terrorist, and captured or killed.

Tim Flanagan, University of Calgary Professor: ""Well I think Assange should be assassinated actually. . . I think Obama should put out a contract and maybe use a drone or something."

John Hawkins, blogger, says the CIA should assassinate Julian Assange:

Julian Assange is not an American citizen and he has no constitutional rights. So, there's no reason that the CIA can't kill him. Moreover, ask yourself a simple question: If Julian Assange is shot in the head tomorrow or if his car is blown up when he turns the key, what message do you think that would send about releasing sensitive American data?

Brad Thor, author, said Bradley Manning should get the death penalty.

Candice Miller, Congresswoman: "Julian Assange and WikiLeaks are criminals whose actions support terrorists and criminal regimes around the world. It is now long past time for our government to shut WikiLeaks down."

G. Gordon Liddy, former White House advisor and radio talk show host: Assange deserves to be on kill list.

 
Mojo said:
Newt Gingrich: "The WikiLeaks guy should be in jail for the rest of his life...He is an enemy of the United States, actively endangering people, and he's gonna get a lot of folks killed. And I think that's a despicable act, and we should treat him as an enemy combatant, and as an absolute enemy of the United States." Also watch his interview on Freedom Watch. Gingrich advocates foreign intervention in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and North Korea.

Glenn Beck said that Julian Assange should be tried for treason and executed.

Mike Huckabee said, "Whoever in our government leaked that information is guilty of treason, and I think anything less than execution is too kind a penalty."

Bill O'Reilly said leakers are traitors who "should be executed or put in prison for life.”

Sarah Palin said to "target WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange like the Taliban."

Peter King, Congressman, wants Wikileaks designated a terrorist organization.

Eric Bolling of Fox News (~ 2:35 mark): "[Assange] should be put in jail or hanged in a public forum."

Wayne Simmons of Fox News calls Wikileaks a terrorist organization.

Lt. Col. Ralph Peters of Fox News: "I would execute leakers."

Liz Cheney (daughter of Dick Cheney) said Obama should shut down Wikileaks and prosecute Julian Assange.

Mike Rogers, Congressman, calls for treason charges and execution.

Conservatives tell Obama to send Julian Assange to Guantanamo.

Rush Limbaugh, radio talk show host: "Back in the old days when men were men and countries were countries, this guy would die of lead poisoning from a bullet in the brain..."

Todd Schnitt, radio talk show host: "Assange is a terrorist, an enemy combatant, and needs to be treated as such."

Steve Gill, radio talk show host, says Assange should be targetted as a terrorist, and captured or killed.

Tim Flanagan, University of Calgary Professor: ""Well I think Assange should be assassinated actually. . . I think Obama should put out a contract and maybe use a drone or something."

John Hawkins, blogger, says the CIA should assassinate Julian Assange:

Julian Assange is not an American citizen and he has no constitutional rights. So, there's no reason that the CIA can't kill him. Moreover, ask yourself a simple question: If Julian Assange is shot in the head tomorrow or if his car is blown up when he turns the key, what message do you think that would send about releasing sensitive American data?

Brad Thor, author, said Bradley Manning should get the death penalty.

Candice Miller, Congresswoman: "Julian Assange and WikiLeaks are criminals whose actions support terrorists and criminal regimes around the world. It is now long past time for our government to shut WikiLeaks down."

G. Gordon Liddy, former White House advisor and radio talk show host: Assange deserves to be on kill list.

YouTube - Is Julian Assange a Terrorist?
Click to expand...

Gordon Liddy? how can a wanker like him have any opinion on this considering what he did at the Watergate?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
lets take your rights have limits view a step further.....

can you threaten someone with imminent bodily harm and not be charged unless they are a government official????

yes, you can. i've been threatened numerous times when i was younger and everytime i reported it to the police......nada. but guarandamntee you, threaten obama or pelosi and you'll be visited by SS and FBI PDQ.

so who has more rights? who has limited rights?
Click to expand...

yes, you can and should be charged....that speech is not protected, notwithstanding your anecdotal evidence...

so...let me ask again...is that speech protected under the first amendment?
 
Yurt said:
yes, you can and should be charged....that speech is not protected, notwithstanding your anecdotal evidence...

so...let me ask again...is that speech protected under the first amendment?
Click to expand...

since we've agreed that your rights end where they impact mine, a direct threat of bodily harm is not protected speech.
 
I believe STU's point is that free speech is what it is. The "fire in a crowded theater" example is all too often misunderstood. As STU points out, if he were to go in a crowded theater and falsely scream "FIRE!!", which in turn causes a panic, the charge levied against him would have to do with public safety. The POINT of the whole "fire in a crowded theater" idea is that a person cannot do HARM - either to people or society - and hide behind Constitutional protections to escape responsibility for their actions.

As such, speech cannot be limited IN ADVANCE. If no harm is attributable to the speech, then no charges can be levied. This INCLUDES making a death statement against the President (or anyone else). Of course, make a public death statement against the President, will likely get you a visit from the Secret Service and/or FBI. But they cannot charge you with anything unless there is additional evidence that you intended to follow through with said threat.

OTOH, if harm CAN be shown as the direct result of a person's speech, then the 1st Amendment will not, nor was it ever intended to, defend the person from their responsibility for that harm.
 
Good Luck said:
I believe STU's point is that free speech is what it is. The "fire in a crowded theater" example is all too often misunderstood. As STU points out, if he were to go in a crowded theater and falsely scream "FIRE!!", which in turn causes a panic, the charge levied against him would have to do with public safety. The POINT of the whole "fire in a crowded theater" idea is that a person cannot do HARM - either to people or society - and hide behind Constitutional protections to escape responsibility for their actions.

As such, speech cannot be limited IN ADVANCE. If no harm is attributable to the speech, then no charges can be levied. This INCLUDES making a death statement against the President (or anyone else). Of course, make a public death statement against the President, will likely get you a visit from the Secret Service and/or FBI. But they cannot charge you with anything unless there is additional evidence that you intended to follow through with said threat.

OTOH, if harm CAN be shown as the direct result of a person's speech, then the 1st Amendment will not, nor was it ever intended to, defend the person from their responsibility for that harm.
Click to expand...

^^THIS^^

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._Johnson

"The court concluded that, while "the government generally has a freer hand in restricting expressive conduct than it has in restricting the written or spoken word," it may not "proscribe particular conduct because it has expressive elements."

At oral argument, the state defended its statute on two grounds: first, that states had a compelling interest in preserving a venerated national symbol; and second, that the state had a compelling interest in preventing breaches of the peace.

As to the "breach of the peace" justification, however, the court found that "no disturbance of the peace actually occurred or threatened to occur because of Johnson's burning of the flag," and Texas conceded as much. The Court rejected Texas's claim that flag burning is punishable on the basis that it tends to incite breaches of the peace by citing the familiar test of Brandenburg v. Ohio that the state may only punish speech that would incite "imminent lawless action," finding that flag burning does not always pose an imminent threat of lawless action. The Court noted that Texas already punished "breaches of the peace" directly."
 
Good Luck said:
I believe STU's point is that free speech is what it is. The "fire in a crowded theater" example is all too often misunderstood. As STU points out, if he were to go in a crowded theater and falsely scream "FIRE!!", which in turn causes a panic, the charge levied against him would have to do with public safety. The POINT of the whole "fire in a crowded theater" idea is that a person cannot do HARM - either to people or society - and hide behind Constitutional protections to escape responsibility for their actions.

As such, speech cannot be limited IN ADVANCE. If no harm is attributable to the speech, then no charges can be levied. This INCLUDES making a death statement against the President (or anyone else). Of course, make a public death statement against the President, will likely get you a visit from the Secret Service and/or FBI. But they cannot charge you with anything unless there is additional evidence that you intended to follow through with said threat.

OTOH, if harm CAN be shown as the direct result of a person's speech, then the 1st Amendment will not, nor was it ever intended to, defend the person from their responsibility for that harm.
Click to expand...

The POINT is that "free speech" (1st amendment) protection cannot be used as a defense in such a case....

What is in question with regards to Assange and a charge of espionage is; does free speech extend to a person who knowingly takes unlawfully obtained secret documents?
 
Ice Dancer said:
The POINT is that "free speech" (1st amendment) protection cannot be used as a defense in such a case....

What is in question with regards to Assange and a charge of espionage is; does free speech extend to a person who knowingly takes unlawfully obtained secret documents?
Click to expand...

I don't think Assange is claiming 1st Amendment rights. Is he?
 
Mojo said:
I don't think Assange is claiming 1st Amendment rights. Is he?
Click to expand...

What other rights would he claim were he charged? I am fairly certain that before he is charged under the Espionage Act we must be confident that he is not protected by the 1st amendment.
 
tom prendergast said:
What a surprise, the CIA threatened to withhold intelligence to the Swedes.
Click to expand...

Didn't they say the same thing to us at one point?

I suppose the argument that you better just shut up about all the bad things that America does because other people are doing bad things plays to some sort of mentally deficient audience.
 
Ice Dancer said:
What other rights would he claim were he charged? I am fairly certain that before he is charged under the Espionage Act we must be confident that he is not protected by the 1st amendment.
Click to expand...

The Espionage Act is one of those catch all pieces of legislation that should have been updated years ago. Even our ossified legislature had the good sense to update the Official Secrets Act, which was originally drafted in the same pre-WW1 era.
 
QUOTE=Good Luck;738187]I believe STU's point is that free speech is what it is. The "fire in a crowded theater" example is all too often misunderstood. As STU points out, if he were to go in a crowded theater and falsely scream "FIRE!!", which in turn causes a panic, the charge levied against him would have to do with public safety. The POINT of the whole "fire in a crowded theater" idea is that a person cannot do HARM - either to people or society - and hide behind Constitutional protections to escape responsibility for their actions.
Click to expand...

STY stated that yelling fire in a crowded theater IS protected speech....you're clearly saying it is not as it causes harm to society.

As such, speech cannot be limited IN ADVANCE. If no harm is attributable to the speech, then no charges can be levied. This INCLUDES making a death statement against the President (or anyone else). Of course, make a public death statement against the President, will likely get you a visit from the Secret Service and/or FBI. But they cannot charge you with anything unless there is additional evidence that you intended to follow through with said threat.

OTOH, if harm CAN be shown as the direct result of a person's speech, then the 1st Amendment will not, nor was it ever intended to, defend the person from their responsibility for that harm.
Click to expand...

in reality it is in fact limited in advance....in that, the speech is not protected, thus, you do not have "freedom" to yell fire in a theater without consequences....further, death threats are illegal, thus not protected, so...the speech is limited in advance of anyone ever making such a threat...furthermore....defamation, among other things, limits speech in advance because you are not protected in advance like other protected speech
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top