WikiLeaks: 35,000 Diplomatic Cables To Be Released

reply to post by Xcathdra

A debate for another time in a different thread. You asked for the laws, I posted them.

Hicks was captured within days, not even weeks, of the Patriot act being signed..
Are you saying he committed all those offenses in days or will you admit he was charged retrospectively??

BTW, not even sure when the rebels captured him, may have been earlier.

Originally posted by ALF88

Originally posted by JohnySeagull

If you are interested these cables give an amazing insight into how the world works.

I think it is more like how the US is thinking the world is / should be working.

People tend to forget that most of those cables are extremely biased especially when it comes to countries like Iran.

The more of these I am reading the more I am seeing how much control the US has. Its very subtle control.

Its like an over familar friend with his arm around your neck and he wont let go even though your shrugging your shoulders. Its quite creepy.

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

A debate for another time in a different thread. You asked for the laws, I posted them.

Hicks was captured within days, not even weeks, of the Patriot act being signed..
Are you saying he committed all those offenses in days or will you admit he was charged retrospectively??

BTW, not even sure when the rebels captured him, may have been earlier.

The Patriot Act was signed into law in October, 2001

Mr. Hicks was captured in December of 2001.

So no, he was not charged retrospectively / ex post facto manner.

Originally posted by JohnySeagull

Originally posted by ALF88

Originally posted by JohnySeagull

If you are interested these cables give an amazing insight into how the world works.

I think it is more like how the US is thinking the world is / should be working.

People tend to forget that most of those cables are extremely biased especially when it comes to countries like Iran.

The more of these I am reading the more I am seeing how much control the US has. Its very subtle control.

Its like an over familar friend with his arm around your neck and he wont let go even though your shrugging your shoulders. Its quite creepy.

Yes it is, they treat us like "dogs", throw a bone at us something that compromises the US as the bad guys and on the backhand they unleash a storm of information that fits their agenda. Unfortunately only that "storm" gets attention from the mainstream media.

Do you remember the cable that "proved" that Hillary Clinton ordered US UN personnel to collect biometric data from other diplomats? That should have caused international outrage, but strangely it didn't. We never heard from it again, but we did constantly hear how bad Iran is and that they are working on nuclear weapons. The press didn't bother to find out if this is really true, they kept repeating it over and over again, despite the fact that everybody knows that there is not a single shred of evidence for that accusation.

I am very careful with the information that I quote from Wikileaks.

Originally posted by ALF88


Do you remember the cable that "proved" that Hillary Clinton ordered US UN personnel to collect biometric data from other diplomats?

Contrary to popular belief Diplomats engage in espionage.. Its their job to be on top of whats going on in the country they are posted to.

This is nothing new and has been going on since the dawn of time. The US is not the only country who does this.

Hell the Vatican has one of the worlds oldest established intelligence networks on the planet, and also engage in forms of espionage through their embasy's / mission's throughout the world. Their Papal Nunzios (ambassadors) report the same info US diplomats reports, Chinese diplomats report, Russian diplomats report, etc etc etc.

The one thing we can see from Wikileaks cable release is just how boring that job can be. Who cares who Sarkozy is sleeping with, or that the Queen of England is annorexic - bolemic...

Assange has completely failed at what his "stated" intentions were with wikileaks. For a person who demands countries be held accountible, that governments must be transparent, Assange certainly does not practice what he preaches...

Ironic... He is doing the exact same thing he accuses governments of doing, and hes making money in the process.

reply to post by Xcathdra

The Patriot Act was signed into law in October, 2001

Mr. Hicks was captured in December of 2001.

So no, he was not charged retrospectively / ex post facto manner.

Signed 26th October..

Hicks must have been a VERY busy boy in those few days..

When he was captured is irrelevant..
It's when the crimes were committed that's important as you well know..

HE WAS CHARGED RETROSPECTIVELY, NO DOUBT....

reply to post by backinblack


Well, no he was not.

Patriot Act - Oct 2001
Capture - December 2001

He was charged with one count, so not sure why you keep trying to spin that into something its not. He was not charged using Ex Post Facto. He was not charged for any crimes that occured prior to The Patriot Act being signed into law. How do we know this? Because the law he was charged under was not in effect until Oct 2006. Had it been Ex Post Facto, his defense team as well as the Us Supreme Court, in addition to the Military Courts, woulld have taken judicial notice and disqualified the prosecution, which never occured.

There is no spin you can put on this to turn it into something its not. In this case, your argument for Mr. Hicks is not correct.

Not sure why you cant accept that.

reply to post by Xcathdra

There is no spin you can put on this to turn it into something its not. In this case, your argument for Mr. Hicks is not correct.

Not sure why you cant accept that.

Give it up mate, you're wrong..
He did NOT commit the crimes in a 7 day period between signing and capture..

If so, show me where??

reply to post by Xcathdra

On 16 February 2007 a 9-page charge sheet detailing the new charges was officially released by the U.S. Defense Dept.[3][96]

The charge sheets alleged that:[3]

Around August 2001 Hicks conducted surveillance on the American and British embassies in Kabul.
Using the name Abu Muslim Austraili he attended al-Qaeda training camps.
Around April 2001 Hicks returned to al Farouq and trained "in al-Qa'ida's guerilla warfare and mountain tactics training course". The course included "marksmanship; small team tactics; ambush; camouflage; rendezvous techniques; and techniques to pass intelligence to al-Qa'ida operatives".
While at the al Farouq camp, al-Qa'ida leader Osama bin Laden visited the camp on several occasions and "during one visit Hicks expressed to bin Laden his concern over the lack of English al-Qa'ida training material".
On or about 12 September 2001 he left Pakistan after watching TV footage of the September 11 terrorist attacks to return to Afghanistan "and, again joined with al-Qa'ida".
On his return to Afghanistan Hicks was issued an AK-47 automatic rifle and armed himself with 300 rounds of ammunition and 3 grenades to use in fighting the United States, Northern Alliance and other coalition forces.
On or about 9 November 2001 Hicks spent about two hours on the front line at Konduz "before it collapsed and he was forced to flee".
Around December 2001, Northern Alliance forces captured Hicks in Baghlan, Afghanistan.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by backinblack


Your own response undermines your argument. It says he was captured after October 2001, when the Patriot act was signed into law, authorising Title 18 of the Us Code.

1 count of proviiding material support to terrorists.

1 Count... Not a hard concept to understand. Again, its not ex post facto, nor was he charged for any crime committed prior to October.

So you would be wrong, and your own info says so as well. Not only am I telling you that your wrong, but Hicks himself for taking the plea deal, as well as his attorney, in addition to the military and civilian courts.

Again - No ex post facto. No amount of your spin will change that.

Recap - Patriot Act - October 2001
Hicks - Captured December 2001

1 Count - Not sure why you insist on trying to distor the issue by constantly stating he could commit that many crimes in a short amount of time.

1 Count = 1 charge = 1 violation of a law - ONE COUNT

Your own source -

On or about 9 November 2001 Hicks spent about two hours on the front line at Konduz "before it collapsed and he was forced to flee".
Around December 2001, Northern Alliance forces captured Hicks in Baghlan, Afghanistan

If you want to continue debating this dead horse we can, but make a new thread so we dont derail this one any more than we have.

I'm pretty disappointed in the quality of Wikileaks' so called leaks.

Furthermore I'm very suspicious of Wikileaks and feel they may be working directly under an alphabet agency of the USA.

My prediction for this "release" is that 34,000 of these cables will be tame and useless, while 1,000 of them will contain a modicum of useful information.

But who will wade through the 34,000 to find the 1,000?

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Assange has completely failed at what his "stated" intentions were with wikileaks. For a person who demands countries be held accountible, that governments must be transparent, Assange certainly does not practice what he preaches...

Ironic... He is doing the exact same thing he accuses governments of doing, and hes making money in the process.

reply to post by DieBravely


Thats always been the issue ive pointed out. Assange and wikileaks goes off on this holier than thou tangent. Assange says he has info that will bring down powerful people and will expose the wrong doings of people and nations.

When the time comes, 3 reports are buried in 500k documents dumped onto the internet..

yeah..... no issues there.

/end sarcasm..

Assange has used this as nothing but a money maker for himself. He is a hypocrite and constantly does himself what he rails against governments of doing. He refuses to show us who is funding him, he has threatened to see media outlets when they talked about releasing more info that they are suppose to and Assange himself has stated the property is his and would suffer financial hardship if they went ahead and posted his info.

He is a hypocrite....
he is a liar....
He is selfish and cares about no one but himself...
He and wikilekas are a sham and nothing more...

Assange IS what he rails against...

Ironic

Originally posted by JohnySeagull
Dear Mr. President Obama,

I have the pleasure to send a congratulation note for the first
time to an American president, and on behalf of all Africa, and
of Cen-Sad, the base of the African pyramid, and on behalf of
the Arab Maghreb Union, and in the name of all Arab leaders as I
am their dean.

Since relations are resumed between our two countries, we have
the right to congratulate you from the bottom of our hearts
because you are the son of Africa.

God gives reign to whom He wishes and takes it away from whom He
wishes; he holds dear whom he wants and humiliates whom he wants
as well. He retains all the good in His hands, and He is the
all powerful; and He pledged to confer His favors on those
deemed weak and to bequeath them the Earth.

Blacks were deemed weak and were oppressed, and were taken to
the American continent as slaves and indentured servants.

The main point is that Blacks shall not have an inferiority
complex and imitate the Yankees.

They have to prove that they are partners to the whites and
sharing the same continent; that the Whites themselves are not
indigenous, but that they have come from overseas; that the
black man is not less competent than the white man; and that the
black color shall prevail in the world as predicted by the Green
Book.

I salute the American people who have chosen you in these
historical elections for such a high position, so that you may
lead the change that you have promised them and for which they
have rallied around you.

We hope that you lead the United States of America on the path
of good and respect peoples' sovereignty and observe the policy
of neutrality.

Sincerely,

Muammar al-Qadhafi

End text.


http://__._/cable/2008/11/08TRIPOLI874.html

Awwww so sweet. I bet he's a charmer on Valentines day.
It's shows a very interesting insight into his psyche, political motivations and self perceptions.

Nice find.

reply to post by Xcathdra

So you would be wrong, and your own info says so as well. Not only am I telling you that your wrong, but Hicks himself for taking the plea deal, as well as his attorney, in addition to the military and civilian courts.

He took the plea deal to get out..
Anyone with half a brain cell would..

So, WHAT crime did he commit after 26th October??
YOU name it..

BTW, gotta love that "On or about 9th November" crap..

reply to post by backinblack


He didnt get out of anything. The conviction stood and he was allowed to serve the remaining time on his sentence in an Australian prison per UN accords and bilateral agreements between the US and Austrailia.

Secondly, he was charged with providing material support to terrorists - 1 count. Weve already been over this, why do you insist on the cricular argument?

Start a new thread if you want to argue to nuance of American legal juris prudence.

reply to post by Xcathdra

Secondly, he was charged with providing material support to terrorists - 1 count. Weve already been over this, why do you insist on the cricular argument?

When and how did he supply material support??

It's not a circular argument..
You just refuse to give details such as actual crimes and dates..

Not much of a LEO..

Originally posted by backinblack
When and how did he supply material support??

18 USC 113B > § 2339A - Providing material support to terrorists

(a) Offense.— Whoever provides material support or resources or conceals or disguises the nature, location, source, or ownership of material support or resources, knowing or intending that they are to be used in preparation for, or in carrying out, a violation of section 32, 37, 81, 175, 229, 351, 831, 842 (m) or (n), 844 (f) or (i), 930 (c), 956, 1091, 1114, 1116, 1203, 1361, 1362, 1363, 1366, 1751, 1992, 2155, 2156, 2280, 2281, 2332, 2332a, 2332b, 2332f, 2340A, or 2442 of this title, section 236 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2284), section 46502 or 60123 (b) of title 49, or any offense listed in section 2332b (g)(5)(B) (except for sections 2339A and 2339B) or in preparation for, or in carrying out, the concealment of an escape from the commission of any such violation, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both, and, if the death of any person results, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life. A violation of this section may be prosecuted in any Federal judicial district in which the underlying offense was committed, or in any other Federal judicial district as provided by law.

(b) Definitions.— As used in this section—
(1) the term “material support or resources” means any property, tangible or intangible, or service, including currency or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel (1 or more individuals who may be or include oneself), and transportation, except medicine or religious materials;

(2) the term “training” means instruction or teaching designed to impart a specific skill, as opposed to general knowledge; and

(3) the term “expert advice or assistance” means advice or assistance derived from scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge.

18 USC 113B > § 2339B - Providing material support or resources to designated foreign terrorist organizations

(a) Prohibited Activities.—
(1) Unlawful conduct.— Whoever knowingly provides material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization, or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both, and, if the death of any person results, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life. To violate this paragraph, a person must have knowledge that the organization is a designated terrorist organization (as defined in subsection (g)(6)), that the organization has engaged or engages in terrorist activity (as defined in section 212(a)(3)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act), or that the organization has engaged or engages in terrorism (as defined in section 140(d)(2) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989).

He provided material supprt to terrorists under BOTH statutes. He was charged with 1 count of material support, as well as murder. The murder charge was dropped, the providing material support charge was kept and he was found guilty of it.

Originally posted by backinblack
It's not a circular argument..
You just refuse to give details such as actual crimes and dates..

No it is a circular argument, and its one you use all the time. When you think you are right, and someone proves you wrong, you go on a jihad in an effort to obfuscate. You first wanted to know what law he was charged under, and I gave it to you. Then you wanted to argue it was ex post facto, and I showed it was not. Then you wanted to argue he was charged retrospectively and I showed he was not, and now you want the finite details of what actions he performed broke the law, and I gave those a few pages back, and now again above.

Had you actually read the posts you would have seen that I linked the statutes above. All you had to do was not be lazy, click the link and read whats there. Or is that too much to ask?

Your arguments become circular when you are wrong. You nit pick every single element, even though it continually proves you wrong, so you come back with some other challenge.in an effort to obfuscate / parse words.

Case in point, when you were proven wrong about the dates of his capture and the date the law went into effect, you stated:

When he was captured is irrelevant..
It's when the crimes were committed that's important as you well know..

You attempted to split hairs and remove a key part of the argument you were proven wrong on. Its VERY much relevant when he was captured because that is used to determine whether or not a person can be charged with a crime, especially if the law is new, as was the deal in this case.

The crimes he was charged with occured after October 2001. If you refer to the etailed portion of the 2 laws above you will see what actions he performed to that qualified him to be charged.

Originally posted by backinblack
Not much of a LEO..

Coming from anyone else I might take offense to that comment. However, since its coming from you and your background is no where near law enforcement, I will take it for what it is - confirmation that you have lost the argument so completely that you must now resort to name calling, and whats the other one you whine about a lot, oh yes - Ad hominen attacks.

This is the last post of yours in this thread and on this particular topic I am going to answer since it has nothing to do with the topic. If you want to continue to make a circular argument, start a new thread please.

To bring it back on topic, whats your take on wikileaks and Julian Assange?

reply to post by Xcathdra

This is the last post of yours in this thread and on this particular topic I am going to answer since it has nothing to do with the topic. If you want to continue to make a circular argument, start a new thread please.

Obviously because you can't answer a simple question..

Give me the details including dates of his "so called" crimes..

You simply don't know do you??

Your funny, he committed a crime but we don't know when..
That would go well in a REAL court, not the BS US military crap///

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

This is the last post of yours in this thread and on this particular topic I am going to answer since it has nothing to do with the topic. If you want to continue to make a circular argument, start a new thread please.

Obviously because you can't answer a simple question..

Give me the details including dates of his "so called" crimes..

You simply don't know do you??

Your funny, he committed a crime but we don't know when..
That would go well in a REAL court, not the BS US military crap///

Read the post above you. All the answers you want are provided there. However since you answered this quickly it tells me you are not intrested in the information at all because it will show you were wrong. Your lack of understanding of how laws and prosecutions work is your own problem and not mine.

As far as your witty reparte above - again just because you dont understand US law and how it works, the UCMJ and how its applied, is your problem, not mine.

Ive provided you with facts, and youve given me your opinion. You seem to think facts and your opinion are one in the same, however they are not.

Im sure when the US Government or the Joint Chiefs do their annual reviews, you will be the first person they call to get your insight into how prosecutions should occur.

Do you have anythin to add to the current topic?

What do you think about wikileaks latest endeavor? Assange is being used / fronting for a government agency or no?

reply to post by Xcathdra


No mate, I see zero dates or details of any actual crimes in that post committed by Hicks..

Again, not much of a LEO if you can't detail the crimes..

Give up cause I ain't going to until YOU show some real facts.