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 ExPostFacto
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas
I usually enjoy reading your posts and still do this time, but I must disagree. My premise for disagreeing is that there are laws in each country. Jurisdiction of any law is bound only within the borders of the country the law exists in. Assange found a country that supports his work and protects him under the laws of that country. I believe it is wrong to condemn him for breaking OUR laws, when he does not operate from the USA.
Quote from : Wikipedia : Ned Kelley
Edward "Ned" Kelly (June 1854/June 1855 – 11 November 1880) was an Irish-Australian bushranger, and, to some, a folk hero for his defiance of the colonial authorities.
Kelly was born in Victoria to an Irish convict father, and as a young man he clashed with the Victoria Police.
Following an incident at his home in 1878, police parties searched for him in the bush.
After he killed three policemen, the colony proclaimed Kelly and his gang wanted outlaws. A final violent confrontation with police took place at Glenrowan.
Kelly, dressed in home-made plate metal armour and helmet, was captured and sent to jail. He was hanged for murder at Old Melbourne Gaol in 1880.
His daring and notoriety made him an iconic figure in Australian history, folk lore, literature, art and film.
Originally posted by ExPostFacto
What is the difference between Assange and a foreign news corporation that reports stories about the USA. I think if we are a country that believes in rights and laws of other nations, then no matter how damning the information that is obtained is, is a choice that nation needs to make. I have no problem with why you feel like Assange is out of line. I just ponder why our government holds themselves on high proclaiming themselves as faultless, yet works hard to cover what it claims was a simple mistake.
Originally posted by hippomchippo
I've actually read and enjoyed several of your threads, please don't assume things.
Originally posted by hippomchippo
We differ in opinion, I believe all information should be freely available, and that the state should not keep any secrets besides vital military strategies and equipment.
Originally posted by hippomchippo
But just curious, and this is going to be my last post, but, how do you expect we obtain this vital information if not by using "lazy" methods that are tried and true such as hacking and breaking into government websites?
Originally posted by hippomchippo
He never earned the knowledge he stole? He shouldn't have to earn knowledge about mass spying on U.S citizens, nor should he have to earn knowledge about how our troops are killing civilians abroad.
I had a nice chat, but I must say I strongly disagree with this thread.
Originally posted by franklin555
I would like to know what you thought about the fact that America makes itself less secure and enrages countries like Irag, Afghanistan, and others by killing civilians, and destabilizing them by purposely destroying their infrastructure.
Originally posted by franklin555
The United States government has, through Executive Orders and congressional acts since Reagan (probably before, but I haven't read about them specifically), made it nearly impossible to obtain damning evidence of folly and even downright treachery on the parts of armed forces overseas.
I just watched a documentary two days ago that outlined something Bush did to the FOIA in his second term.
What I mean to say is, I could go on and on about how the government is making it hard to see through them (see transparency), and that is not the action of a democratic and constitutional government.
Quote from : Wikipedia : Exectuve Order
An executive order in the United States is an order issued by the President, the head of the executive branch of the federal government.
In other countries, similar edicts may be known as decrees, or orders-in-council.
Executive orders may also be issued at the state level by a state's Governor or at the local level by the city's Mayor.
U.S. Presidents have issued Executive Orders since 1789, usually to help officers and agencies of the Executive branch manage the operations within the Federal Government itself.
Executive orders do have the full force of law since issuances are typically made in pursuance of certain Acts of Congress, some of which specifically delegate to the President some degree of discretionary power (delegated legislation), or are believed to have their authority for issuances based in a power inherently granted to the Executive by the Constitution.
It is these cited or perceived justifications made by a President when authoring Executive Orders that have come under criticism for exceeding Executive authority and have been subject to legal proceedings even at various times throughout U.S. history concerning the legal validity or justification behind an order's issuance
Originally posted by franklin555
Say what you want about Julian Assange doing something illegal. He brought to light what would, according to you, through a little book reading and elbow grease (and the complicity of the United States government and Pentagon to actually have released the footage of Collateral Damage) never would have happened.
Originally posted by franklin555
Throughout the last fifty years, it has never been the United States government to release damning information about the current military operation or administration. It has been through the Daniel Ellsbergs and the individuals who leaked the Abu Ghraib photos. You think you could have hound dogged the Abu Ghraib photos up from your local library or internet conspiracy forums? Sure.
Amazon Review :
On June 10th, 2002, Attorney General John Ashcroft announced that the US had captured a known terrorist who was exploring a plan to explode a "dirty bomb" on American soil.
That alleged terrorist was José Padilla who was finally charged in 2005 with conspiracy to murder.
What Ashcroft didn't talk about was how information against him was obtained – by the relentless torture of one man-- Binyam Mohamed, in the name of the United States.
Arrested at Karachi Airport before Padilla’s arrest on April 10, 2002, Mohamed was put on a luxury executive jet and flown to an interrogation center in Morocco.
For over 18 months, he was subjected to one torture after another: Beating followed beating and, then, his guards produced razor blades and began to split the skin all over his body, including on his genitals.
Since 1997, hundreds of people, many of whom have no ties to terrorist organizations, have been abducted from foreign airports or street corners on suspicions based at times on the flimsiest of evidence courtesy of the United States Central Intelligence Agency.
In Ghost Plane, Stephen Grey tells the true story of the CIA's torture program known by the euphemism "extraordinary rendition" and the airplanes that make the program run.
Begun during the Clinton administration, but taking a decidedly more voracious turn after 9/11, the rendition system has seen the transfer of more than 1000 prisoners into jails stretching from Guantanamo to Syria, from Kabul to Bangkok and beyond.
Grey had access to the thousands of CIA flight records and has interviewed dozens of sources from the most senior levels of the National Security Council to the CIA.
In Ghost Plane, he paints a disturbing picture of the War on Terror that reaches to the highest levels of power in Washington, D.C. and exposes the extreme ethical corruption at the heart of this US government program, a program finally acknowledged by President George Bush in September 2006, undertaken in the name of the citizens of the United States.
Originally posted by franklin555
Now, I'm not saying you can't find congressional bills that have passed, those are in every library in the country, and if you know what you're looking for, you can go right to that bill.
Originally posted by franklin555
I just think going after Julian Assange for "breaking the law" is some pretty weak sauce. What if he leaks some wires between Hilary Clinton and the Royal Saudi family talking about Osama? Or some wire talking with Israel and the United States talking about when and how they are going to provoke a military slight with Iran to instigate a bombing campaign on Iran? I would like to know, and I think the American people would like to know, and furthermore, I think, as "conspiracy theorists", the legality or the so called immoral methods Julian Assange used to garner this information (he didn't waterboard anybody for the information) would at that point be the least and last of my or anybody's concern. I mean, except for the main stream media who love to ignore the message, but call into analysis the messenger on all accounts.
Originally posted by TheLoony
SKL, I disagree.
Originally posted by TheLoony
If a law is unjust, then is should be ignored or broken, and there are only 600,000 or so of them. We are already legislated to death.
Originally posted by TheLoony
You say play the game, their game, by the rules yet those rules are constantly changing in favor of the corporation/government. You give us MLK in that video. Um, er, dude, you do know they frakking killed him, right?
Originally posted by TheLoony
We cannot play the game anymore as they own the teams, the umps, the stadium and the bats, balls and gloves to play with.
Originally posted by TheLoony
I don't see this war on We The People being won by playing their game by their rules. Playing nice isn't getting us anywhere.
Originally posted by TheLoony
Would you think different of the hacker getting into a corporate network and exposing their dirty deeds, such as BP and their current situation? Is that wrong? Why does the government, a bunch of lying, thieving crooks not unlike the corporations, get a pass?
Originally posted by virgom129
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas
Assange is now however in the same boat as Cheney.
Thats a joke right??????
No reasonable person would put Assange up with Cheney...
One works for the people, the other for his and his mates interests...
I'd hope I didn't need to point out which is which...