BREAKING: Wikileaks founder Julian Assange to be charged with espionage in US

What gets me is none of this is public... As in there has been no official word that they will charge him with espionage...

I don't like wikileaks and assange but espionage now?

Do you know how long you go to jail for espionage it is a life sentence atleast 20 years and up..

Do I think he needs maybe 6 or 7 years in jail, maybe....

But 20 years plus thats crazy!!

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by finallianstallion

 

I agree.. The "moral" dilema that popped up is the exposure / release of all of this information in a manner that guarantees it cant be used to prosecute anyone involved in illegal actions.

To me it would have been more productive, and most likely effective, to sort through it and find document that were dead to rights with the criminal behavior. Instead of releasing that info to the public, it should have been sent to the US Congress, who is the point of contact for whistle blowers and classified info.

By doing this, sending the documents to congress, it forces them to act in such a manner where if they half ass it, they are nailed, if they ignore iot, they are nailed. Going down a road like that, while letting them know you have the info and giving them the chance to correct it, exposes it all while getting results.

Failure to act, you get the affected countries involved and go that route.

But again, simply dumping all this info without adequately filtering and redacting names, locations, sources, its going to do more harm in the areas its suppose to help, its moves the outrage from the actions to the leak and the manner in which they were leaked.

Its the announcement of the century that should captivate everyone, but instead because of the way it was done, the announcement of the century was lost in the chaos, with 2nd, 3rd and 4th day process stories taking over the headlines.

All the US has to do now, and its already being done, is to question the intent of Assange, which that pressure forced Assange to admit on record the intent was revenge and nothing else. Well, when he said that, it throws a shadow on the released documents. Its easy for the US Government to say the documents assange is releasing is a fake.

How to confirm it? You cant.. You have to take Assanges word for it, which is now somewhat suspect because the intent went from stopping a war to revenge..

This has been my argument. I dont agree with the theft and release of the documents. I think its dangerous, and even more so to just dump them for all to see without taking aduquate measure to protect the innocent people named within (they are innocent until proven guilty, just as people argue for assange). However, on the flip side, because I do beleive our Government oversteps its bounds in areas, the chance to screw em to the wall is now gone as well.

Well what I have read them they have xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx in many places so they don´t expose anyone directly. names are taken of from where they should for example someone feom inside Pakistani governement saying something hes name is XXXXXXX.
Ofcourse for example Hillarys name should be released after what she has ordered. Giving her name out doesn´t make her any more exposed.
And that´s what wikileaks have always said. They don´t give any names. I think it´s US and their governement who try to say that WikiL is gicing out names just to confuse.

I think the "exposing of people" is just one way to make this look more bad to the public.

Originally posted by finallianstallion
I really don´t care about the rape charge and nobody else shouldn´t either. If he is found guilty, then he is guilty to the rape(s).

There are bigger issues behind this than rape. Not to take anything away from any rape victims ( I personally would castrate every rapist, personally )

What I don´t understand is the fact that Assange has not stolen anything from anywhere and yet he is the one to be blamed of this "leak"? Did Assange breach US security in somehow to get these documents? No !!

USA government/army workers leaked information about CRIMINAL and sometimes even childlis behaviour off USA government representatives. ( for examole Hillary Clinton ordering the spying on foreign diplomats ) and now the ones who did these crimes are trying to brush their wrong doings by accusing him being a thieft and a soy?

Well whatta hell did Assange spy?

The rape charges are a personal vandette from 2 ornery women..

All the information came out and glen beck explained how one of the women had a blog about *seven ways to get legal revenge*.

The two women got played and then turned on assange...

I think wikileaks should be taken down and assange prohibted from using the internet..

But 20 years which is the least you get and up for espionage seems a bit outrages....

Did you know in the uk in prison you get computers and internet access? I found that funny.. They have taken assanges internet access away while he is in their.

Picture of one of the *victims* Sophia
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6bc188a9121a.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by finallianstallion


Not sure who that was directed at. My opinion based on the info I had was the warrant looked more like a material witness warrant rather than a crimnal warrant. Since the info has come out about the arrest warrant, coupled with the British Judges comments during the bond hearing, and the comments from Swedens PA office, to me it moved from material witness to criminal extradition based on the 4 charges.

I dont know how to get it across that a person can be charged and still be innocent, and I dont fell like going another 4 pages of point counter point over terminology.

The argument I see coming from Sweden is they interviewed him for an hour, when they informed him of the complaints. Assange then left Sweden and went to England, and lawyered up. Sweden wanted him to return volunatarily, and Assange declined. The argument from his lawyer is they can do the interview over the phone or at the Swedish Embassy.

The Swedish Government responded by pointing out the phone conference would not work because a repvisou court ruling in sweden ruled it a no go for criminal procedures. Sending someone to England, according to Sweden, to interrogate Assange is a no go, because apparently the Swedish Embassy is not considered sovereign Swedish territory, which means they would have to get permission from the BRitish to interrogate on British soil, which, as far as I can se, violates some type of EU law.

When the brick walls came up, and there was no chane assange was going to return voluntarily, it looks like they issued an arrest warrant based on the 4 charges i order to extradite. This can be done, even here in the states. What occurs is the person is brought back, brought to an interview room. He is mirandized, asked one question, and he either refuses to talk or requests a lawyer, in which case the interrogation / questioning phase is overwith.

If enough verifiable information has been discovered during the investigation, its entirely possible they no longer need to interview assange, heading to trial based solely off forensic and vitim statements. Since the PA OPffice stated the warrant would not be rleased in full because of the confidential nature, it tells me it contains informatoin that is incriminating to the extent of being used by sweden, and accepted by Britain, to justify the detention and extradition.

As I said there are a lot fo variables, which I have tried to point out, but pople latch onto to one view for whatever reason and off we go.

reply to post by finallianstallion


You do know that wiki offered the US all documents first so they could review.
but the US refused??

They had every chance to make suggestions but chose not to..

after all what has happened and the threats Julian made about the "Pill"
this has turned out to be just another dud.
Nothing in the form of information release has been worth the time of day.
But there must be something in the news to keep you all entertained

reply to post by finallianstallion


Not long ago, we the people fought for our own governments, and to elect our own representatives - who were supposed to be accountable to US.

Democracy's governments are supposed to be transparent and accountable to the people.

But now - our governments have signed confidentiality agreements with corporations to keep everything "secret." All the negotiations, even the details of international trade agreements. Unfortunately, because our governments rely on international corporations for virtually everything from communications to mercenaries for fighting our wars, the result is that everything is "secret."

So our governments report to international corporations, but not to us. Not to we the people. They can't, because they signed confidentiality agreements.

We NEED people like Assange, organizations like WikiLeaks, to tell us what's being done in our names, with our money.

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by finallianstallion

 

You do know that wiki offered the US all documents first so they could review.
but the US refused??

They had every chance to make suggestions but chose not to..

No, I did not know that.

reply to post by soficrow


Out of curiosity why do we need people like assange? Is it to hard for Americans to fight their own government, or are we just that slack ass lazy now we want others to take care of our issues for us?

I see people bitch all the time about "TPTB" among ohters, but thats all I see is talk and complaints in these forums, with no real intent on acting.

We get to overthrow our government every 2 years, and the plurality of Americans ignore it.

reply to post by thecinic


Can you explain to me why in your opinion wikileaks should be taken down?

Because they expose the wrong doings of governments?

Like catholic church wanting diplomatic immunity to the childrapist priests in Ireland and Catholic church money laundring scandal ( 650 billion euros lost ) ?

I really don´t see ANY reason why those atrocities should be secret from public.

I´ve been reasing Voltaire and history lately and mostly a book called "the history of arrogancy". About the people in power using their power over people.

reply to post by finallianstallion


Yeah Assange made several demnds to the US to supply wikileaks with money and manpower so they could "adequately" screen the documents to ensure information that could identify a person be redacted. Since the information was illegally obtained, why should the US take part in another crime, with the very people accusing the US of comitting crimes?

Good question..

Originally posted by PETROLCOIN
Is the rest of this country completely brain dead? Does the question "How can Assange be charged for releasing documents exposing criminal actions while those responsible for the criminal actions are not charged?" ever occur to anyone besides about .000000001% of the population?

I'm surrounded by absolute retards, I swear. How can anyone be proud of this country or proud to be a citizen of it? I sure as hell am not.

You read my mind. It is the same principle with "snitching". People want to kill a snitch, because he snitched, but for some reason, don't see themselves as responsible for committing the crime in the first place, giving the snitch something to snitch about.

What bothers me most is that..what are YOU going to do? You'll just sit down and let them take this guy away and do what they want with him. People are not fighting back...if they harm one hair on Assange's head...this should be taken from cyber warfare, to the f***ing streets, straight to the front door of Washington! And I bet your ass, no one is going to do anything, but still wish...and hope...that freedom be granted to them, or that those space aliens come down and save the world! Anyone who does nothing is disgusting and the LOWEST kind of scum on the planet, worse than the people convicting Assange!

I'm not in America, I'm not an American, but...right now, I kind of wish I were in America. There is no way in hell the police can handle millions of angry supporters of truth, justice and freedom; no way in hell! They can bring in their tanks, helicopters, etc., simply make use of that megaphone! Say to them...

"Before you fire on us...know this, that you have the ability to think for yourselves. Because you wear the unifrom does not make you any less of a human. They want you to behave like machines, and you are not. You are human beings with the same rights we have. We are fighting for human rights...the rights that you too are entitled to. The rights that, if you help take away from us, you help take away from yourselves. We are not against you, we are against them. They are the ones sitting behind their office desks and penthouse suites in comfort, while they have you do their dirty work, the work that they should carry out themselves. Our fight is not with you, but if you choose to dismiss our cause, and fire upon us...we will defend ourselves! And know this...and keep this in the back of your mind every time you decide to fire that cannon...somewhere in these crowds are your friends, relatives, mothers, fathers, neighbours, friends of relatives, people you love, people your family loves, people that love you. You may not recognize my voice, but somewhere in this crowd is the voice of someone you recognize. We are fighting for their freedoms, our freedoms...let us be free. We are not asking that you join us, but do not make the fight for freedom tougher than it already is."

reply to post by Xcathdra

When the brick walls came up, and there was no chane assange was going to return voluntarily, it looks like they issued an arrest warrant based on the 4 charges i order to extradite.

So I guess you must be able to easily show when and where Sweden requested Assange return for questioning..
Ohh, and also where they asked the UK if they could question Assange in the UK..
That would of course have simplified proceedings.
I know you used the word "interrogate" but that does sound rather harsh when NO charges had yet been laid..

reply to post by Xcathdra


I´d like to reply to this with this single link

Vatican money scam

Wikileaks exposed that it is about 650 billion euros.

These are the things normal people should know. People in power, like the Vatican are corrupted.

If you don´t like wikileaks, you want to have corrupted people in power.

Ahh, the DOJ's Ace Card is now being played. Excellently played deal on this as if the rape charges do not stick then this is the 'insurance policy' or back up plan.

This he unfortunately may not be able to get out of as based on info and cables this is definate espionage. Wikileaks however has an option, fire Assagne or lose the server that runs the site. That hasn't been attempted yet but still may so watch out for that soon.

Or, are the reasons they are leaving the site alone be merely a front to cover for a massive phising expedition for potentially hostile ip addy's so that we all can be catalouged much easier.

reply to post by Xcathdra


I agree. Why should a criminal help someone to expose them ? =)

reply to post by sdrawkcabII



Fruit of the poisonous tree is your answer by the way.

Fruit of the poisonous tree is a legal metaphor in the United States used to describe evidence that is obtained illegally.[1] The logic of the terminology is that if the source of the evidence (the "tree") is tainted, then anything gained from it (the "fruit") is as well.

Such evidence is not generally admissible in court.[2] For example, if a police officer conducted an unconstitutional (Fourth Amendment) search of a home and obtained a key to a train station locker, and evidence of a crime came from the locker, that evidence would most likely be excluded under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. The discovery of a witness is not evidence in itself because the witness is attenuated by separate interviews, in-court testimony and his or her own statements.

The doctrine is an extension of the exclusionary rule, which, subject to some exceptions, prevents evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment from being admitted in a criminal trial. Like the exclusionary rule, the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine is intended to deter police from using illegal means to obtain evidence.

The doctrine is subject to four main exceptions. The tainted evidence is admissible if:

1.it was discovered in part as a result of an independent, untainted source;
2.it would inevitably have been discovered despite the tainted source; or
3.the chain of causation between the illegal action and the tainted evidence is too attenuated; or
4.the search warrant not based on probable cause was executed by government agents in good faith.
The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine stems from the 1920 case of Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States.[3]

Which has been part of my argument about the manner the documents were released. Wikileaks shot themselves in the foot by trying to expose this in the manner they did, because they guaranteed a challenege to the admissability of the information because of:

The Manner the info was obtained - Stoeln by Pvt. Manning
The manner it was dissesminated (Maning to Wikie, either one way, or assistance from wiki - still open for debate)

The manner it was released - mass dumping of the documents with no way to verify what copies are legit, which ones are fake (which we are already seeing with the "cable about Obama being taken to the bunker during the Spiral light issue in sweden".

All of it can be questioned, from top to bottom, and will raise enough doubt in the American Legal system that I cant forsse it being admitted at all.

reply to post by Xcathdra

Out of curiosity why do we need people like assange?

Assange is us - we ALL need to speak out, share information and recognize that we ALL play a role.

Talking things out, sharing information, speaking our minds - it's NOT pointless complaining. Open access to information, open dialogue about said information is what allows people to make informed choices. And that includes decisions about how to vote.

Or do you recommend that we all make our decisions in a total "objective" vacuum? Bereft of any actual information?

Originally posted by Xcathdra


He has 4 charges/counts facing him in Sweden. Spin it however you want to make yourself feel better about this.

Are you related to Ooozyy by chance? You both seem to have a knack for ignoring facts and talking in circles.

edit on 11-12-2010 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

Actually, the only one going around in circles is you .... You've ignored a perfectly good link by ATS member zcflint05 :

www.salon.com...

Which completely blows most of your arguments out of the water.... and with regards to the 'rape' allegations

This:

www.countercurrents.org...

completely destroys what's left.

Give it up Xcathdra... you're convincing no one. Unless of course you're repeating in an attempt to either convince yourself, or drown out everyone else

reply to post by Xcathdra


So when and if the "insurance"-file is leaked people just dissmis governments wrong doings because they were exposed via a criminal act? I don´t think so.
I actually think that normal people don´t even care how big fraudexposures will come from that insurance-file because people just don´t care.

Other governmentsthen again should care and in my opinion if a criminal gets caught when someone steals their "criminal record" then they are guilty.

It´s like saying " Im going to do this crime and hide the records of it and the only way to prove I´m guilty is to steal my records...and stealing records is not "ok"""

Hell that´s a nice way for criminals. I´m going to use it immediately. I just rob a bank and put the money to a safe place where "police" can get the money only by stealing it because I dont give them the permission...And if they brake in to the safe, Im not guilty because of they the evidence was obtained....

Foolproof.

Well I guess this works only for governments???