I'm completely unconcerned with "international" laws, I am, however, concerned with "american laws." I'm funny that way.
Those foreigners are caught IN Thailand and are not extradited to Thailand. No country in Europe would ever extradite a person of any nationality to another country if that person risked the death penalty.
No, first they have to prove there is a crime. As of yet there is no proof.
No, because they cant. The US State Department cant "issue" arrest warrants.. you should know better..As for blackmailing HAHAH.. now the right wing conspiracy wackos are out again.
And I have heard that the CIA was behind JFKs assassination.. does not mean it is true.
He apologized after getting caught. He signed the statement and one is always held responsible for that fact. So waiting for your apology
Van Jones said:I believe that 9/11 was a conspiracy by Al-Qaida and Osama Bin Laden, and nobody else, trying to hurt America. What happened to me on that tough lesson learned for me, six years ago, I was at a conference, some people came up to me. They said, 'Hey, we represent 9-11 families.' I'm like, 'OK, good to meet you.' They said, 'We need your help. Will you help us?' I said, 'Sure, whatever you want.'
And then these people, I didn't know what their agenda was, they went and put my name on some abhorrent, crazy language they never showed me
I'm asking you to think.
Specifically: WHAT INTERNATIONAL LAW HAS JULIAN ASSANGE BROKEN?
Is embarrassing the United States a crime?
Here it is, being asked by an Aussie newspaper:
Julian Assange is the Ned Kelly of the digital age
If you can't answer these questions, your opinion here is meaningless.
Prime Minister Julia Gillard has again been unable to name any Australian laws broken by the controversial WikiLeaks website or its founder Julian Assange.
Western governments are increasingly calling for Mr Assange to be stopped as WikiLeaks continues to publish more than 250,000 confidential documents from the United States State Department.
But asked directly what Australian laws had been broken by either WikiLeaks or Mr Assange, Ms Gillard said the Australian Federal Police were investigating.
"The foundation stone of it is an illegal act," Ms Gillard told reporters today.
But the "foundation stone" was the leaking of the documents to the website, not the publishing of the cables.
"It would not happen, information would not be on WikiLeaks, if there had not been an illegal act undertaken," Ms Gillard said.
It is widely assumed the man responsible for the leaks is a US soldier who is already in prison for previous leaks.
Opposition legal affairs spokesman George Brandis accused Ms Gillard of being "clumsy" with her language on the issue of illegality.
"As far as I can see, he [Mr Assange] hasn't broken any Australian law," he told Sky News.
"Nor does it appear he has broken any American laws."
Senator Brandis, a Queen's Counsel, called for any debate about the publishing of the cables to have a well-defined understanding of the difference between something which appeared to be morally wrong and an act that was illegal.
My statement was factually correct. He denied believing 9/11 was an inside job. Let me quote him on how he appeared on the petition:
Van Jones Explains 9/11 Petition In One Of His First Post-White House Interviews (VIDEO)
Still waiting for your proof that the left believes 9/11 is an inside job.
And I have given you a reasonable answer to the question repeatedly. If you chose not to read my words, I can't help you.
I think it is important to do everything we can to stop it, within the law, to show that we will not allow assholes with a beef against us to attack us and harm us. He is actively working to harm the US and US interests, and we do have to respond as best we can within the framework of the law.
Depends on details we do not know as of yet. Did he in any way encourage the stealing or passing on to him of the documents? We he one of the people to help Manning with technical information(remember, Assange's history is as a hacker)? I used the phrase "withing the framework of the law" for a reason. It's not a complicated phrase.
That is under investigation. If he is chargeable under the law, I hope he is charged, and I think we should go to every length to look into whether we can find something to charge him with. It does have to be done within the framework of the law however.
What specific law did he break, Redress? If you've answered this question, please direct me to the post.
Reading is fundamental.
So, it's settled, then.
We will rain down shock and awe upon Sydney.
Here's the answer: Publishing those documents was not illegal. Embarrassing? Yes. Illegal? No. Immoral? Well, that's in the eye of the beholder.
That is not for you or I to determine.
That is not for you or I to determine. Neither of us knows all the laws involved in that. Further, that is not the only way in which he may have broken the law.
I don't believe he broke any European law or Australia as it stands and who cares about US law?
He isn't American.
US should be going after those who uploaded the data onto his website. He didn't exactly stroll in and use a memory key to swipe it
No, they don't realize that and will continue to use that as a tool to divert from the Obama record.
Bull****. We don't live in a freaking fascist regime....YET.
I like that idea.
I don't believe he broke any European law or Australia as it stands and who cares about US law?He isn't American.
US should be going after those who uploaded the data onto his website. He didn't exactly stroll in and use a memory key to swipe it
You never know, he could be the first non Muslim resident at Gauntanemo Bay.
I like that idea.
Excerpted from “WikiLeaks Shows the Skills of U.S. Diplomats” By FAREED ZAKARIA, TIME, Thursday, Dec. 02, 2010
[SIZE="+2"]I[/SIZE] don't deny for a moment that many of the "wikicables" are intensely embarrassing, but the sum total of the output I have read is actually quite reassuring about the way Washington — or at least the State Department — works.
First, there is little deception. … The WikiLeaks documents … show Washington pursuing privately pretty much the policies it has articulated publicly. … And often this foreign policy is concerned with broader regional security, not narrow American interests. Ambassadors are not caught pushing other countries in order to make deals secretly to strengthen the U.S., but rather to solve festering problems.
The cables also show an American diplomatic establishment that is pretty good at analysis. … When foreigners encounter U.S. diplomats and listen to their bland recitation of policy, they would do well to keep in mind that behind the facade lie some very clever minds.
The most significant revelations in the trove are those relating to Arab views of Iran. … It's one thing to have diplomats expressing these sentiments in private, quite another to have the direct and explicit words of the King of Saudi Arabia.
I don't believe he broke any European law or Australia as it stands and who cares about US law?
He isn't American.
US should be going after those who uploaded the data onto his website. He didn't exactly stroll in and use a memory key to swipe it
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?