Is Assange being framed?

Is Assange being framed?

  • Total voters
    12
  • Poll closed .
tom prendergast said:
He hasn't endangered anyone, it is the standard national security card that is always pulled when the elites want to cover their shit up.
Click to expand...

How the fuck do you know that Prendergasp!? You are some peon that hangs out on message board and who reads the internet for their news and claim yourself an expert?

Even the Messiah himself is peeved at this guy taking the liberties he has and even though you aren't American, you have propped up every Obama supporter here in some lame attempt to gain footing and hopeful popularity.

You would like nothing more than to see the US crumble in abject destruction so it is no stretch that you laude the efforts of Assange to that end.

Take your sanctimonious BS and peddle it to Boobs. She swallows.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
so you choose the rule of man. thanks.
Click to expand...

Can you tell me exactly when it was decided I have to answer to you for anything? I take the rule of you open Pandora's Box you better be prepared for the blow back. He gets the full pleasure of experiencing the collateral damage of his actions.
 
usaloyal2theend said:
Can you tell me exactly when it was decided I have to answer to you for anything? I take the rule of you open Pandora's Box you better be prepared for the blow back. He gets the full pleasure of experiencing the collateral damage of his actions.
Click to expand...

i never demanded an answer, I asked for an answer. That you don't care about the constitution and bill of rights is strictly for you to choose, nobody else.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
i never demanded an answer, I asked for an answer. That you don't care about the constitution and bill of rights is strictly for you to choose, nobody else.
Click to expand...

Passive aggression won't work either, STY.

Assange knew the possibilities of what his actions would wrought. He knowingly, willingly, and premeditatively made his choice.

I do not feel sorry for him.
 
Last edited:
Yurt said:
what benefit have we reaped from the release of these documents?

all i can see harm.
Click to expand...

Irrespective of the usefulness or otherwise of releasing these documents, the heavy handed approach of government agencies ought to ring alarm bells in your mind. I assume that as a lawyer you believe in the rule of law, therefore I cannot see how you can condone the dirty tricks being used to get Assange by any means fair or foul, mostly foul. I haven't seen anything that's been released that remotely endangers national security, pretty much everything was known anyway.
 
usaloyal2theend said:
Passive aggression won't work either, STY.

Assange knew the possibilities of what his actions would wrought. He knowingly, willingly, and premeditatively made his choice.

I do not feel sorry for him.
Click to expand...

here is the thing, if the 1st amendment means that congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; and you then support the intimidation or retribution of the government towards someone who exercised it, then you are as lawless as they are. plain and simple.

I don't have any hate for you because of it, it's just saddening that you say you're loyal to the US, yet tolerate lawlessness by the government.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
here is the thing, if the 1st amendment means that congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; and you then support the intimidation or retribution of the government towards someone who exercised it, then you are as lawless as they are. plain and simple.

I don't have any hate for you because of it, it's just saddening that you say you're loyal to the US, yet tolerate lawlessness by the government.
Click to expand...

In 1919, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Schenck v. United States that the act did not violate the free speech rights of those convicted under its provisions.
 
tom prendergast said:
Irrespective of the usefulness or otherwise of releasing these documents, the heavy handed approach of government agencies ought to ring alarm bells in your mind. I assume that as a lawyer you believe in the rule of law, therefore I cannot see how you can condone the dirty tricks being used to get Assange by any means fair or foul, mostly foul. I haven't seen anything that's been released that remotely endangers national security, pretty much everything was known anyway.
Click to expand...

so there is no benefit, yet you're defending the release though it now chills speech and will force the government to take even more secretive approach...bizarre logic

i'm not a lawyer, i'm a meter maid...and i never once said i supported any dirty tricks...try being honest for a change

the release of the documents does appear to endanger national security...what if iran gets pissed off at the other ME countries or there is less trust...we don't need that region any more distrustful of each other than they already are....NK...we don't need NK to know china thinks its like a child...this could cause and maybe already has, caused NK to lash out in ways that harm

you can't name a single benefit, thus, it is worhtless to release the documents
 
Ice Dancer said:
Does the 1st amendment protect a person who is complicit to espionage?

'WikiLeaks founder could be charged under Espionage Act'
Click to expand...


If he were ever charged with violating the Espionage Act (and I doubt very seriously that he will be) we could find out the answer to your question. Although, I recall from Robert Novak that republishing classified information is not a crime.


Edit: Where the fuck do you stumble across these links to obscure Indian newspapers?
 
Ice Dancer said:
In 1919, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Schenck v. United States that the act did not violate the free speech rights of those convicted under its provisions.
Click to expand...

The "clear and present danger" test was later weakened and the less restrictive "bad tendency" test adopted in Whitney v. California (1927). Justices Holmes and Brandeis shied from this test, but concurred with the final result. Some contend that the "clear and present danger" test was originally just a re-phrasing of the "bad tendency" test. After the repression following the Red Scare, and general disillusion with the war, Holmes sought to prop up free speech with the "clear and present danger" test, a standard intended to clarify and narrow the circumstances in which speech could be restricted. This view has merit considering Holmes never referred to "clear and present danger" in the companion cases of Frohwerk and Eugene V. Debs.

Both of these cases were later narrowed by Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), which replaced the "bad tendency" test with the "imminent lawless action" test.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
If wikileaks didn't pay anything or offer to pay anything for these documents, then they are in no way complicit in espionage. If the USSC upholds the constitution and stare decisis, then wikileaks is in the clear.
Click to expand...

Where in the Act is a payment a requirement for criminal complicity?
 
tom prendergast said:
Nobody has explained how a lowly private could access 1/4 million documents and it is not noticed, no wonder they are embarrassed.
Click to expand...

Manning said that his office (wherever it was that he got the docs) ran a real loosey-goosey operation. People sat around playing computer games and downloading music and there wasn't a lot security.

I think the really bad stuff in the documents will show the way our govt. covers up killings and torture carried on in the name of spreading freedom.
 
Yurt said:
so there is no benefit, yet you're defending the release though it now chills speech and will force the government to take even more secretive approach...bizarre logic

i'm not a lawyer, i'm a meter maid...and i never once said i supported any dirty tricks...try being honest for a change

the release of the documents does appear to endanger national security...what if iran gets pissed off at the other ME countries or there is less trust...we don't need that region any more distrustful of each other than they already are....NK...we don't need NK to know china thinks its like a child...this could cause and maybe already has, caused NK to lash out in ways that harm

you can't name a single benefit, thus, it is worhtless to release the documents
Click to expand...

I pointed out that if these memos and observations were so important then they should have taken more care of them, that they didn't tells me how much importance was placed on them in the first place.
 
Yurt said:
so there is no benefit, yet you're defending the release though it now chills speech and will force the government to take even more secretive approach...bizarre logic
Click to expand...
Yurt, I love ya like my luggage, but your statement here sounds like one i've heard for years in supporting open carry. goes along the lines of 'by shoving it in their faces, they will do something about it to take it away'. I dare them to try.


Yurt said:
the release of the documents does appear to endanger national security...what if iran gets pissed off at the other ME countries or there is less trust...we don't need that region any more distrustful of each other than they already are....NK...we don't need NK to know china thinks its like a child...this could cause and maybe already has, caused NK to lash out in ways that harm

you can't name a single benefit, thus, it is worhtless to release the documents
Click to expand...

simply because there is zero benefit to the release, does not mean they shouldn't be released. it's like denying FOIA requests with the simple statement of 'releasing them doesn't benefit freedom'.

It's not up to us to prove there's a benefit, it's up to the government to show that there would be serious harm in releasing documents. That is if the courts actually did their job.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top