It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by 2theC
reply to post by Xcathdra
I owe you an Apology.
I just realized you are in the USA
so you cant really argue against the charges if they get introduced. That would propbalby label you as a sympathizer and maybe even a terrorist.
sorry, i will let you save your skin.
Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Xcathdra
Pleease, what a load of crap...
You don't deny the maximum $750 penalty and then go on a ridiculous rant....
There are NO other charges, in fact there isn't ANY charges...
You are truly a waste of time..
Don't bother answering me because I know it will be more of the same crap..
August 20th, 2010 - The Swedish Prosecutor's Office issues an arrest warrant for Julian Assange. Karin Rosander, the head of communications, says there are two separate allegations - one of rape and one of molestation.
August 21, 2010 - The arrest warrant is withdrawn. "I don't think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape," says one of Stockholm's chief prosecutors, Eva Finne.
Ms Rosander says the investigation into the molestation charge will continue but it is not a serious enough crime for an arrest warrant.
The lawyer for the two women, Claes Borgstrom, lodges an appeal to a special department in the public prosecutions office.
August 31, 2010 - Mr Assange is questioned by police for about an hour in Stockholm and formally told of the allegations against him, according to his lawyer (at the time), Leif Silbersky. The activist denies the charges.
September 1, 2010 - Director of Prosecutions Marianne Ny says she is reopening the rape investigation against Mr Assange. Ms Ny is also head of the department that oversees prosecution of sex crimes in particular.
"There is reason to believe that a crime has been committed," she says in a statement. "Considering information available at present, my judgement is that the classification of the crime is rape."
Ms Ny says the investigation into the molestation claim will also be extended. She tells AFP that overturning another prosecutor's decision was "not an ordinary (procedure), but not so out of the ordinary either."
The 39-year-old Australian was refused bail after a British judge ruled that there was a danger he might flee the country because the judge felt he had weak links to the UK and access to large amounts of money and support through his activity with the whistleblowing website.
Senior District Judge Howard Riddle remanded Mr Assange in custody until December 14, when the extradition hearing will begin on whether the internet activist should be forced to return to Sweden to face the sex charges.
Mr Assange faces two counts of sexual molestation, one count of unlawful coercion and one count of rape involving two women in Sweden in August.
In the most details yet released about the allegations, Ms Lindfield said that in the cases of both women the allegations related to him refusing to wear a condom during sex. He was also accused of having sex with one of the women by exploiting the fact that she was asleep, and another count said that he had held a woman's arms and forced open her legs so he could have sex with her.
Originally posted by 2theC
reply to post by Xcathdra
ok. I am glad you have are ok with what is being done by Wikileaks, but, it seems not the way it was done.
but THEY did it, and good on them for doing it.
maybe next time ( and there will be one) the method will be better for you and have the impact you want.
But the that's the thing about truth you withhold some, you might as well not give it.
He is charged, 4 counts with one being rape.
Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Xcathdra
See, you lie constantly..
He is charged, 4 counts with one being rape.
Please show me where he has been charged with ANY crime at all.....
That is an outright fabrication and wrecks your whole debate, as usual...
Originally posted by HomerinNC
Good, he deserves what he gets..I hope him AND Pvt Bradley are co defendantsedit on 12/10/2010 by HomerinNC because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Xcathdra
See, you lie constantly..
He is charged, 4 counts with one being rape.
Please show me where he has been charged with ANY crime at all.....
That is an outright fabrication and wrecks your whole debate, as usual...
WIKILEAKS founder Julian Assange has refused bail in London after being arrested on a warrant based on four counts of alleged sexual assault committed in Sweden.
The 39-year-old Australian was refused bail after a British judge ruled that there was a danger he might flee the country because the judge felt he had weak links to the UK and access to large amounts of money and support through his activity with the whistleblowing website.
When he appeared in court, Mr Assange initially refused to offer an address beyond an Australian post office box number, prompting Judge Riddle to warn him that there would be serious consequences of his behaviour.
Mr Assange faces two counts of sexual molestation, one count of unlawful coercion and one count of rape involving two women in Sweden in August.
Originally posted by gnosticquasar
Seeing as how the cables were about other countries as well, I think he should be tried in an international court. Also, I think they should refuse to extradite him on grounds that he won't get a fair trial...because we all know that he won't. He'll likely be found guilty even though it is blatantly obvious that he didn't engage in anything even close to espionage.
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.
A majority of the justices ruled that the government could still prosecute the Times and the Post for violating the Espionage Act by publishing the 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]