Covert plan at Ecuadorian Embassy strengthened after removing dedicated guards (Assange)

To those who argue the position about a crime not occurring if it doesn't happen on territory they are in -

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Do you guys want to tell TalkTalk customers they have on legal recourse because the cyber attack came from outside the UK?

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Salander
Assange knows all that, but probably you do not.

Yet he still broke Federal Law and in the end he accomplished nothing but a means of extorting money from people who are too ignorant to see it.

As our elected representatives pass laws that effectively nullify Habeas Corpus and the Fourth Amendment, why should I give a damn whether or not Assange "broke a law"? With such legislation, clearly the rule of law is dead in this country. The rule of law is dead in this country, I say again.

For me, exposing the malfeasance and crimes of government agencies and officials is fulfilling the highest civic duty there is. Institutionalized torture, the bombing of hospitals, collateral murder, are all crimes committed by the government.

Assange, Manning, Kiriakou, Sterling and all the others did the right thing. Any "laws" they may have broken are illegitimate.

a reply to: Salander

Lol Habeas corpus has not been nullified and neither has the 4th amendment. Feel free to provide your examples.

Secondly just because you think something should work one way doesnt mean its required to. Like the argument that Us law cannot apply to individuals who break US law outside the US. .

As i have stated before and you guys ignored I am all for holding government accountable. My problem is Manning nor Assange had that in mind. To this day all Assange has done is tried to gain monetarily via wikilinks with no real push or changes because of it.

As for the failed argument about what laws are legitimate and what laws are not - it undermines your argument. Just because you don't agree with a law does not nullify it nor does it exonerate anyone who violates it. Especially when those people engage in the very behavior they want to take the government to task for.

If these idiots who release classified info are going to argue the law doesnt apply to them then why should they be protected by it?

a reply to: Xcathdra

They broke UK law, and if in the UK, then should be prosecuted. If not in the UK, then its up to their country of residence to decide what action to take, if any, because as I said earlier, jurisdiction ends at geographical borders. All talktalk can do is make a complaint to the legal authorities in their country of residence. If their actions were not illegal within their country of residence, then talktalk is SOL.

If their action was illegal in their country of residence, then its up to that country to pursue action.

Slightly offtopic, but:

In my opinion talktalk are more guilty than the hackers, in that their accounts database was NOT encrypted, despite 3 previous warnings from the ICO to be more proactive and implement encryption. Also guilty that their accounts database was accessible from a public network, and not kept on a totally separated private network. I hope that the UK authorities will be taking action over those failures.

a reply to: Xcathdra

The so-called Patriot Act effectively nullified the Fourth Amendment. It authorizes National Security Letters which allow the agents of the Crown, I mean the Executive Branch, to seize personal records and information without a warrant. I'm assuming that you are familiar enough with the Fourth Amendment to know that it requires a warrant for searches, a warrant signed by the other branch, the judiciary, and that "probable cause" is necessary for any warrant to issue, supported by Oath or Affirmation.

The NDAA amendment, every year for about the last 3 years, allows for a person to be detained as long as the Crown says he shall be detained. I'm also assuming you know what Habeas Corpus really means and what obligations it places on the Crown agents.

Read it and weep, if you honor the US Constitution.

a reply to: BMorris

You dont see the catch 22 do you?

Hackers in country A violated the law in country B. If no laws were broken in country A then they cant be prosecuted by country A, only country B.

International law / treaties / UN agreements allow for a citizen from country A to be tried and convicted in country B while serving out their sentence in country A.

Law of one country absolutely apply to individuals who violates the laws of said country while doing so in another country. The prosecution / convictions from many countries bear that out.

originally posted by: Salander
The so-called Patriot Act effectively nullified the Fourth Amendment.

Actually no it did not.

originally posted by: Salander
It authorizes National Security Letters which allow the agents of the Crown, I mean the Executive Branch, to seize personal records and information without a warrant.

Incorrect. It allows for a FISA court to issue warrants when the information that's usually a matter of public record needs to be restricted. The warrant is still required although there are exceptions (consent / plain view / incident to arrest / etc). Its no different than when an indictment is sealed.

originally posted by: Salander
I'm assuming that you are familiar enough with the Fourth Amendment to know that it requires a warrant for searches, a warrant signed by the other branch, the judiciary, and that "probable cause" is necessary for any warrant to issue, supported by Oath or Affirmation.

I deal with it every day for the last 10 years and counting now. Again - FISA court.

originally posted by: Salander
The NDAA amendment, every year for about the last 3 years, allows for a person to be detained as long as the Crown says he shall be detained. I'm also assuming you know what Habeas Corpus really means and what obligations it places on the Crown agents.

I am assuming you are not familiar with Supreme Court rulings that blocked the part that allowed for indefinite detentions of US citizens. Secondly we are a Constitutional Representative Republic and not a Constitutional Monarchy like the UK.

We dont have "crown".

originally posted by: Salander
Read it and weep, if you honor the US Constitution.

You may want to brush up on the US Constitution since you seem to be confused on the topic. Pay particular attention where the constitution states the legislative branch is responsible for establishing lower courts, like FISA.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Salander
The so-called Patriot Act effectively nullified the Fourth Amendment.

Actually no it did not.

originally posted by: Salander
It authorizes National Security Letters which allow the agents of the Crown, I mean the Executive Branch, to seize personal records and information without a warrant.

Incorrect. It allows for a FISA court to issue warrants when the information that's usually a matter of public record needs to be restricted. The warrant is still required although there are exceptions (consent / plain view / incident to arrest / etc). Its no different than when an indictment is sealed.

originally posted by: Salander
I'm assuming that you are familiar enough with the Fourth Amendment to know that it requires a warrant for searches, a warrant signed by the other branch, the judiciary, and that "probable cause" is necessary for any warrant to issue, supported by Oath or Affirmation.

I deal with it every day for the last 10 years and counting now. Again - FISA court.

originally posted by: Salander
The NDAA amendment, every year for about the last 3 years, allows for a person to be detained as long as the Crown says he shall be detained. I'm also assuming you know what Habeas Corpus really means and what obligations it places on the Crown agents.

I am assuming you are not familiar with Supreme Court rulings that blocked the part that allowed for indefinite detentions of US citizens. Secondly we are a Constitutional Representative Republic and not a Constitutional Monarchy like the UK.

We dont have "crown".

originally posted by: Salander
Read it and weep, if you honor the US Constitution.

You may want to brush up on the US Constitution since you seem to be confused on the topic. Pay particular attention where the constitution states the legislative branch is responsible for establishing lower courts, like FISA.

Actually yes it did effectively nullify the Fourth Amendment.

I've been very well brushed up on the USC, thanks very much. From the ignorant statements you've been making here about it, it seems you are the one in need of brushing up.

Any legislative act that subverts the Constitution is illegitimate, and no citizen has any obligation to obey such trash.

a reply to: Salander

No you are not up to speed on the constitution - federal or state.

I enjoy it when you cant refute facts and just go for the personal attack 8n hopes people wont notice.

Here is some more info to help the confusion on your part. The 4th amendment does not apply to the individual. It applies to the government.

You should also know the courts are responsible for laws that have constitutional implications. A law is not void or illegal just because you dont derstand it.

The 4th amendment was not nullified.

a reply to: Xcathdra

EFFECTIVELY nullified. That is, in practical application it no longer applies.

If the crown wants to inspect your house and papers and effects while you're gone, it merely invokes the NSL, does the dirty deed, and you know nothing about it, unless you happen to have video surveillance inside your house. Even then, you would not know who it was and would have no legal recourse. Same if they wanted to gather your habits at the local library. And they would tell the librarians that they could say nothing to nobody about having asked to hand over your records.

Ironically, it was librarians who raised hell about the NSL practice some years ago. Meek and mild, the librarians stood up to the Crown and called their bluff.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: Xcathdra

EFFECTIVELY nullified. That is, in practical application it no longer applies.

Not under US law, which is what we are discussing. If you wish to discuss the Crown start a new thread.

When the law is not enforced, it is an illusion only, a tool for deception.

originally posted by: Salander
When the law is not enforced, it is an illusion only, a tool for deception.

and in this case Assange violated US law...

In addition to Swedish law....


and he refuses to take responsibility for his actions... Ironic

Yup.. quite the hero is he.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I wouldn't call him a hero but as an outsider I don't question his decision to hole up in another country's embassy while the US is after him.
I keep a mind open enough to imagine the US government circumnavigating justice if it wishes.
I'd stay in the Ecuador embassy as well.

...you and I are equal in the situation that we don't know what the real story is.
You trust the US judicial/governmental system, I don't, for reasons of Gitmo to start, a base created outside of homeland US soil solely to circumnavigate human rights law.
I'd do the same as Assange if in his position...and you speak like you know he's guilty lol, how about remembering the word alleged?

originally posted by: grainofsand
and you speak like you know he's guilty lol, how about remembering the word alleged?

Ironic...

You speak as if the US has charged and issued an arrest warrant for Assange.

Assange being held up in an embassy has nothing to do with the US. Its a convenient excuse to ignore his issues in Sweden and nothing more.

Was that an intentional double standard or?

a reply to: Xcathdra

...are you saying the US government doesn't want him? Lol

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: Xcathdra

...are you saying the US government doesn't want him? Lol

Is their a warrant for his arrest issued by the US government?

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: Xcathdra

...are you saying the US government doesn't want him? Lol

Is their a warrant for his arrest issued by the US government?

Not yet, he's still in the embassy of Ecuador lol

a reply to: grainofsand

Him being in the Embassy has to do with the British courts rejecting his arguments and ordering him back to Sweden. It has nothing to do with the US since there is no warrant for his arrest.

Sweden however does have one.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: grainofsand

Him being in the Embassy has to do with the British courts rejecting his arguments and ordering him back to Sweden. It has nothing to do with the US since there is no warrant for his arrest.

Sweden however does have one.

Wow you really believe that or you're earning good money lol
...I'd do an Assange, and wouldn't trust the US or UK governments lol