Wikileaks: Julian Assange Will Charge Sarah Palin & Mike Huckabee with "Incitements To Kill

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by CREAM

 

No hes not.. Hes going through the motion of that, but its not his intent. He is doing this to being himself back into the spotlight. He does this everytime wikileaks or Assange start to drop off the radar screen. Example is his latest court appearance. Instead of dealing with the issue at hand, he annoucnes to media present more leaks are on the way.

He and his lawyer both go on a media blitz in terms of Assange being afraid to be extradited to the US becauyse he doesnt want to be sent to Gitmo, and doesnt want to be charged with treason or face the death penalty.

Assange is not stupid, and neither is his lawyer, and they both know what they satated he is afraid of is a bold face lie to the media. He is making those statements to play on the emotions of the European countries who were pissed about the Bush admiinstrations actions, which have nothing to do with Assange.

He is not a US citizen so he cant be treid for treason
He is not an enemy combatant so he cant go to gitmo
His "crime" if charged in the US is prison time if not a fine and deportation, no death penalty or as he said "the chair"

This is a PR game for him, and is using it anychance he gets, and his followers go with it, no questions asked.

So what? Assanges character and motives has nothing to do with the issues here. I wasnt defending him as a person(BTW I dont have any problems with him as a person, but thats not what we're debating about)

All Im saying is this is that it is valid to charge people with incitement of murder if they did indeed incite murder(which they did).

Originally posted by purplemer

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by purplemer

 

He is violating the Espionage Act

Do you know why the act was created... do you know whom it was used against... those were dark days. Do you want to see them ressurected?

The espionage act of 1976 was an upgraded law that encompassed many other laws throughout the first half of the 20th century nad last half of the 19th century. It is designed to allow the chargeing arrest and trial of people, whether a citizen or not, of being in possession of classified information. Depending on that information, and the manner it is distributed in (war, risk lives of soldiers etc) is partial in involving severity of charges.

It was used against 2 journalists and a newspaper in the late 70's in response to thes referred to as the Pentagon Papers. Classified information was leaked that portrayed mishandeling of the Vietnam war by leadership. The Administration attempted to use Prior restraint in an effort to stop the paper from printing the papers.

The US Supreme Court ruled that embarrasment of leadership was not a good enough reason to prevent the printing of those papers. The Supreme court did NOT grant immunity to jouranlists or papes who received and printed classified information, and as such any person or outlet who does is subject to charges, arrest and trial.

Thsi is not a hard concept to understand.

double post

reply to post by CREAM


Which is a fancy term not used in US legal circles, nor covered under any US statutes. and again, the only reason he is doing this is to start another media storm to bring himself and wikileaks back into the limelight. If I had to guess a reason its because he is running low on money and needs to prop up donations.

If he wants to file a complaint, he needs to pack himself up, fly on over, head to the police agency with jurisdiction, and sign the complaint himself. Let the PA determine if charges will be filed (they wont because no crime was committed as its a free speech issue).

Knowing full well he wont do this. He will not fly to the US to file charges, and the momeny MSM picks this up he will use it to push his agenda, wikileaks and palce himself back in the spotlight.

reply to post by purplemer


My proof he is using the Arizona incident for his own personal gain.

WIKILEAKS PRESS RELEASE
10 Jan 2010, 10:15 PM EST

“WikiLeaks: treat incitement seriously or expect more Gabrielle Gifford killing sprees.”

Wikileaks today offered sympathy and condolences to the victims of the Tucson shooting together with best wishes for the recovery of U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords. Giffords, a democrat from Arizona's 8th district, was the target of a shooting spree at a Jan 8 political event in which six others were killed.

Tucson Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, leading the investigation into the Gifford shooting, said that "vitriolic rhetoric" intended to "inflame the public on a daily basis ... has [an] impact on people, especially who are unbalanced personalities to begin with." Dupnik also observed that officials and media personalities engaging in violent rhetoric "have to consider that they have some responsibility when incidents like this occur and may occur in the future."

This guy is has no ethics, no concious, and is only out for himself, no matter the cost.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by CREAM

 

Which is a fancy term not used in US legal circles, nor covered under any US statutes. and again, the only reason he is doing this is to start another media storm to bring himself and wikileaks back into the limelight. If I had to guess a reason its because he is running low on money and needs to prop up donations.

OK, well either way (if its because he is afraid for his safety, or if its for publicity), I don't blame him for doing it. I would do the same if I were him.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by purplemer

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by purplemer

 

He is violating the Espionage Act

Do you know why the act was created... do you know whom it was used against... those were dark days. Do you want to see them ressurected?

The espionage act of 1976 was an upgraded law that encompassed many other laws throughout the first half of the 20th century nad last half of the 19th century. It is designed to allow the chargeing arrest and trial of people, whether a citizen or not, of being in possession of classified information. Depending on that information, and the manner it is distributed in (war, risk lives of soldiers etc) is partial in involving severity of charges.

It was used against 2 journalists and a newspaper in the late 70's in response to thes referred to as the Pentagon Papers. Classified information was leaked that portrayed mishandeling of the Vietnam war by leadership. The Administration attempted to use Prior restraint in an effort to stop the paper from printing the papers.

The US Supreme Court ruled that embarrasment of leadership was not a good enough reason to prevent the printing of those papers. The Supreme court did NOT grant immunity to jouranlists or papes who received and printed classified information, and as such any person or outlet who does is subject to charges, arrest and trial.

Thsi is not a hard concept to understand.

i think you need to do some more homework...
what was it upgraded from... what was its orginal purpose. whom was it used against and in what times...

kx

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by purplemer

 

My proof he is using the Arizona incident for his own personal gain.

WIKILEAKS PRESS RELEASE
10 Jan 2010, 10:15 PM EST

“WikiLeaks: treat incitement seriously or expect more Gabrielle Gifford killing sprees.”

Wikileaks today offered sympathy and condolences to the victims of the Tucson shooting together with best wishes for the recovery of U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords. Giffords, a democrat from Arizona's 8th district, was the target of a shooting spree at a Jan 8 political event in which six others were killed.

Tucson Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, leading the investigation into the Gifford shooting, said that "vitriolic rhetoric" intended to "inflame the public on a daily basis ... has [an] impact on people, especially who are unbalanced personalities to begin with." Dupnik also observed that officials and media personalities engaging in violent rhetoric "have to consider that they have some responsibility when incidents like this occur and may occur in the future."

This guy is has no ethics, no concious, and is only out for himself, no matter the cost.

he is using it to highlight the hyporcisy of a system.. something i thought you would understand being an ats member..

kx

Originally posted by CREAM

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by CREAM

 

Which is a fancy term not used in US legal circles, nor covered under any US statutes. and again, the only reason he is doing this is to start another media storm to bring himself and wikileaks back into the limelight. If I had to guess a reason its because he is running low on money and needs to prop up donations.

OK, well either way (if its because he is afraid for his safety, or if its for publicity), I don't blame him for doing it. I would do the same if I were him.

He is using the incident, as well as comments made about him, as a publicity stunt in an effort to sway public opinion, as well as the courts, that if he is extradited to Sweden, they will extradite him to the US.

The wikilekas press release is evidence of that ploy by the way its worded. The gunmen is not a republican or a democrat, and the killing was not political. Assange is attemtping to use the same argument the left wing nutjobs have been trying to push, ant that is Palins talk is what caused this.

People who are not seeing tis need to wake up. He is attempting to exploit the tradgedy in Arizona to his own benefiet by affecting the sensibilities of the people in Britain who oversee the extradition.

This guy has no concious and is only out for himself.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by purplemer

 

My proof he is using the Arizona incident for his own personal gain.

WIKILEAKS PRESS RELEASE
10 Jan 2010, 10:15 PM EST

“WikiLeaks: treat incitement seriously or expect more Gabrielle Gifford killing sprees.”

Wikileaks today offered sympathy and condolences to the victims of the Tucson shooting together with best wishes for the recovery of U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords. Giffords, a democrat from Arizona's 8th district, was the target of a shooting spree at a Jan 8 political event in which six others were killed.

Tucson Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, leading the investigation into the Gifford shooting, said that "vitriolic rhetoric" intended to "inflame the public on a daily basis ... has [an] impact on people, especially who are unbalanced personalities to begin with." Dupnik also observed that officials and media personalities engaging in violent rhetoric "have to consider that they have some responsibility when incidents like this occur and may occur in the future."

This guy is has no ethics, no concious, and is only out for himself, no matter the cost.

Well, I agree with you that he is taking advantage of the shooting publicity, at the same time I personally think his argument makes sense and is applicable to the story as he has received thousands of death threats. Honestly, what disgusts me most are the people who are using this incident to sensationalize gun control(like Racheal Maddow, I cant stand listing to her), so I can see where your coming from if you didnt like assange to begin with.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Personally I think deep down he has good motives, but now is just playing the game to get himself out of trouble, and I cant blame him for trying to get himself out of trouble, I wouldn't want to get extradited either. When your in the spotlight, you have to play politics, and it is not a pretty, honest, or straight forward game.

reply to post by purplemer


Being I do Law Enforcement, I really dont. I would suggest you do some homework if you are going to argue he has not broken any laws in the US.

Ill help you out by giving you some freebies - pay attention

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 37 > § 798. Disclosure of classified information

(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—

(1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or

(2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or

(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or

(4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(b) As used in subsection (a) of this section—
The term “classified information” means information which, at the time of a violation of this section, is, for reasons of national security, specifically designated by a United States Government Agency for limited or restricted dissemination or distribution;

In addition to:
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 19 > § 371 Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 37 > § 793 Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information


As far as the espionage Act (started out as the Sedition Act) goes, The offical act came about in 1917 and was used against people who attempted to impede the war effort. These people intefered with military recruting efforts, in addition to the movement of military supplies by rail. Several people who were communist / socialist at the time were behind the effort, and the act was used to stop thier actions and to charge and convict them, which was successful.

Espionage Act of 1917
In US vs. Schenk the act was ruled Constitutional

Amendments added in 1918 - Extension of the Seditions Act


I'll skip ahead to the relevant parts now:

Espionage Act - Pentagon Papers
Specifically the manner in which the Supreme Court ruled

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. 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]

Its relevant for Assange to name his source, which if he does not can be found in contempt and jailed until such time he reveals the source. If he or wikilekas actively colluded with Manning to gain this information, as is suggested by Adrian Lamo, then wikileaks is not acting as a media outlet, but is participating in espionage.

If they received the info and published it and nothing else, then it falls back to possessing and dsitributing classified information.

With some of the back and forth between Assange and the Federal Government, its possible to also charge assange with blackmail and extortion. First by demanding the US government supply and pay for people to assist in "scrubbing the information of names", and then by stating if he is jailed or assasinated, all documents would be released.

Assange has alluded to the fact he has damning information about a bank and several other government operations, yet he refuses to release the info, because by doing so he would loose out on people donating money to him, andhe woul fall out of the media spotlight.

Personally, since he has knowldge of crimes, I think he sohould also be charged with conealing information of a crime, failing to identify as a witness to a crime, but thats just me.

Assange is not intrested in any type of justice. His only intrest is himself and what he can get out of this, and everyone else be damned, including his followers, who he is using as nothing more than pawns, numerous and expendable.

reply to post by purplemer


He is not using it to show a double standard. Read the articles you linked, which is what I used in the last large external quote. He is using the situation in Arizona to publicize himself and nothing more. The incident in Arizona was not politically motiveated, but that is what he is insinuating.

He is doing it in such a manner that is designed to outrage people like it is doing here, which brings the entire media spotlight back to himself. At which point he will use it to further push his agenda and wikileaks.

There is absolutely no reason to bring up the incident in Arizona unless you are counting on the backlash, in which case he doesnt have to answer any questions about Arizona, but instead can talk about wikileaks and his legal situation, which I gurantee will be how the US will steal him from sweden, take him to gitmo and torture and kill him.

That is his goal.. You guys are being played.

reply to post by CREAM


Let me clarify. I dont liek what Assange is attempting to stand for, and I dont care for his actions. I think he is wreckless, and will use whatever and whoever available to him to satisy his universe size ego.

For a person to politicize Arizona, and make an attempt to relate that incident to what he is going through (which he brings on himself by his comments by the way, look at why his staff left him) is insane. The incident in Arizona was not because of politics, or hate induced speech. That has been debated to death andhas been determined to come from the fringes on both sides in an effort to push an agenda.

Pushing an Agenda on the fringes, and what assange is trying to do by invoking Arizona, is one in the same.

Originally posted by CREAM

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Personally I think deep down he has good motives, but now is just playing the game to get himself out of trouble, and I cant blame him for trying to get himself out of trouble, I wouldn't want to get extradited either. When your in the spotlight, you have to play politics, and it is not a pretty, honest, or straight forward game.

edit on 12-1-2011 by CREAM because: (no reason given)

This is the other issue I have with Assange as well as Manning. I think Manning had good intentions by releasing the video of the helicopter attack. War is messy and not precise, and crap happens and innocent people die. Hiding information on that thought to me is a probelm.

If Manning and Assange had stopped there, then the goal wuld have been met. To expose something that could be a criminal act to be investigated. But it didnt stop, instead it was a spending spree of US classified information.

Of the hundreds of thousands of documents, not all of them showed criminal, or any for the matter, wrong doing. Releasing information with no criminal wrongdoing, that affects diplomatic relations, 2 war efforts, sources, plans, operational methods etc.. How can that be condoned?

How can a person make an argument that they are trying to do good by flooding this information out into the public? Any criminal information that potentially existed not only got buried under the document avalanche, it also got thrown aside by the media, who instead of reporting the potential of criminal wrongdoing by the military, now has a more intresting story about espionage, classified information, and cloak and dagger between Assange, the US and the world.

Assange broke one of the many rules for being a good journalist.

Instead of independantly reporting and letting the evidence stand on its own, he made himself part of the story, and yet again shifted the focus to himslef and wikileaks, and not the documents or the release of.

He is playing his supporters, and when his supporters become a liability to him, he will dump them like he has done so many other people who have questioned his motives, and will shift the blame that they are the problem and not him.

Assange is Narcissistic and has a bad case of Megalomania.

Just the other day, I read in one of those prophecy threads that one of the Wikileaks informants would be assassinated this year. I wonder if one of the dead or injured was that informant. Maybe that's why Assange is so upset.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Agreed, not only that but due to the fact he is in possession of more files called an insurance file, he is willfully withholding information for personal gain, kinda defeats the whole logic of skirting around the laws and releasing info for the better. He has an agenda that is crystal clear and I just don't understand why people cannot realize it?
If he would have just dumped all the info from the beginning then I could understand people supporting him but that is not even close to what he has done, every "release" has been coordinated and planned and has been used as leverage for his benefit, it can't be more obvious.

Originally posted by jaynkeel
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Agreed, not only that but due to the fact he is in possession of more files called an insurance file, he is willfully withholding information for personal gain, kinda defeats the whole logic of skirting around the laws and releasing info for the better. He has an agenda that is crystal clear and I just don't understand why people cannot realize it?
If he would have just dumped all the info from the beginning then I could understand people supporting him but that is not even close to what he has done, every "release" has been coordinated and planned and has been used as leverage for his benefit, it can't be more obvious.

what personal gain....staying alive...?

Originally posted by jaynkeel
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Agreed, not only that but due to the fact he is in possession of more files called an insurance file, he is willfully withholding information for personal gain, kinda defeats the whole logic of skirting around the laws and releasing info for the better. He has an agenda that is crystal clear and I just don't understand why people cannot realize it?
If he would have just dumped all the info from the beginning then I could understand people supporting him but that is not even close to what he has done, every "release" has been coordinated and planned and has been used as leverage for his benefit, it can't be more obvious.

what personal gain....staying alive...?

reply to post by purplemer


Perhaps it's just me but the fact he is withholding information for whatever reason seems like that opens a loophole for the whole violations that xcathdra has been trying to explain. I am not good at legal mumbo jumbo thats why I am not a lawyer or in law enforcement, but it seems to me that him using that info as leverage might be in violation of something which wouldn't surprise me. And please don't give me the for his life crap, if he was issued a death warrant it would be delivered as any logical person knows when someone holds secrets no matter what the original deal is the one holding the secrets always spills the beans or demands too much and the other party is extorted further by the secret holder till one finally snaps. It would be a lose lose situation for Assanges would be killers if they even existed which I highly doubt. The only thing he should be worried about is the people who bought into his madness and donated heavily and his lack of commitment to the cause and lack of world shattering journalism.