-
-
Hmm that's not exactly right.
Say I hired someone to fly to Canada to stick a bomb in the CN Tower I'm sure that Canada would seek my extradition to face charges without ever residing in Canada or being Canadian. The default rule in most jurisdiction issues is 'where was the crime committed'.
You're right to say the US in recent past has crossed lines not least especially in Guantanamo but this is different and I don't think it will wash.
As regards the 1st Amendment I don't know where you got the idea that was for US citizens only. It applies to laws not citizens.
Of course the Wiki guy would be able to use it as a defence from the prosecution of an American law.The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law "respecting an establishment of religion", impeding the free exercise of religion, infringing on the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.Comment
-
That's exactly what they will do and then the anti-constitutional Bush Patriot Act come into play and they can lock Assage up forever without a trial or notifying anyone where he is. So much for habius corpus or free speech. If you are suspected of terrorism, your ass is owned just because the government says so.No! You can't have the keys to the wine cellar!Comment
-
George W. Bush wiped his ass with the US Constitution and then Obama ate it.No! You can't have the keys to the wine cellar!Comment
-
An elderly female horseComment
-
What the hell...
If the Queen is dishing out royal blowjobs I'll take one. I'll bet she can suck a royal bowling ball through a royal garden hose.~Only you can prevent low volume~Comment
-
But the scenario you give targets a foreign citizen or targets the country, cuasing bodily harm. That's not what Julian Assange did, nor Wikileaks.
If Julian Assange broke an aobvious law, why is the Attorney General not citing the laws he claims he broke? It seems the government is making it up as they go, looking for an excuse to go after Assange.
What other governments are claiming that Assange broke their laws? The documents pertained to governments and officials aroubd the world.
He pissed off a lot of powerful people who are going to try and screw him over.Comment
-
It amazes me they are in such a hurry to get this guy while real criminals are ignored. Interpol should be going after Dick Cheney and Henry Kissinger.No! You can't have the keys to the wine cellar!Comment
-
And the genius that came up with a reading list of 3 million.Comment
-
Michael Moore makes some interesting points here...
Why I'm Posting Bail Money for Julian Assange
by Michael Moore
Yesterday, in the Westminster Magistrates Court in London, the lawyers for WikiLeaks co-founder Julian Assange presented to the judge a document from me stating that I have put up $20,000 of my own money to help bail Mr. Assange out of jail.
Furthermore, I am publicly offering the assistance of my website, my servers, my domain names and anything else I can do to keep WikiLeaks alive and thriving as it continues its work to expose the crimes that were concocted in secret and carried out in our name and with our tax dollars.
We were taken to war in Iraq on a lie. Hundreds of thousands are now dead. Just imagine if the men who planned this war crime back in 2002 had had a WikiLeaks to deal with. They might not have been able to pull it off. The only reason they thought they could get away with it was because they had a guaranteed cloak of secrecy. That guarantee has now been ripped from them, and I hope they are never able to operate in secret again.
So why is WikiLeaks, after performing such an important public service, under such vicious attack? Because they have outed and embarrassed those who have covered up the truth. The assault on them has been over the top:
- Sen. Joe Lieberman says WikiLeaks "has violated the Espionage Act."
- The New Yorker's George Packer calls Assange "super-secretive, thin-skinned, [and] megalomaniacal."
- Sarah Palin claims he's "an anti-American operative with blood on his hands" whom we should pursue "with the same urgency we pursue al Qaeda and Taliban leaders."
- Democrat Bob Beckel (Walter Mondale's 1984 campaign manager) said about Assange on Fox: "A dead man can't leak stuff ... there's only one way to do it: illegally shoot the son of a bitch."
- Republican Mary Matalin says "he's a psychopath, a sociopath ... He's a terrorist."
- Rep. Peter A. King calls WikiLeaks a "terrorist organization."
And indeed they are! They exist to terrorize the liars and warmongers who have brought ruin to our nation and to others. Perhaps the next war won't be so easy because the tables have been turned -- and now it's Big Brother who's being watched ... by us!
WikiLeaks deserves our thanks for shining a huge spotlight on all this. But some in the corporate-owned press have dismissed the importance of WikiLeaks ("they've released little that's new!") or have painted them as simple anarchists ("WikiLeaks just releases everything without any editorial control!"). WikiLeaks exists, in part, because the mainstream media has failed to live up to its responsibility. The corporate owners have decimated newsrooms, making it impossible for good journalists to do their job. There's no time or money anymore for investigative journalism. Simply put, investors don't want those stories exposed. They like their secrets kept ... as secrets.
I ask you to imagine how much different our world would be if WikiLeaks had existed 10 years ago. Take a look at this photo. That's Mr. Bush about to be handed a "secret" document on August 6th, 2001. Its heading read: "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US." And on those pages it said the FBI had discovered "patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings." Mr. Bush decided to ignore it and went fishing for the next four weeks.
But if that document had been leaked, how would you or I have reacted? What would Congress or the FAA have done? Was there not a greater chance that someone, somewhere would have done something if all of us knew about bin Laden's impending attack using hijacked planes?
But back then only a few people had access to that document. Because the secret was kept, a flight school instructor in San Diego who noticed that two Saudi students took no interest in takeoffs or landings, did nothing. Had he read about the bin Laden threat in the paper, might he have called the FBI? (Please read this essay by former FBI Agent Coleen Rowley, Time's 2002 co-Person of the Year, about her belief that had WikiLeaks been around in 2001, 9/11 might have been prevented.)
Or what if the public in 2003 had been able to read "secret" memos from Dick Cheney as he pressured the CIA to give him the "facts" he wanted in order to build his false case for war? If a WikiLeaks had revealed at that time that there were, in fact, no weapons of mass destruction, do you think that the war would have been launched -- or rather, wouldn't there have been calls for Cheney's arrest?
Openness, transparency -- these are among the few weapons the citizenry has to protect itself from the powerful and the corrupt. What if within days of August 4th, 1964 -- after the Pentagon had made up the lie that our ship was attacked by the North Vietnamese in the Gulf of Tonkin -- there had been a WikiLeaks to tell the American people that the whole thing was made up? I guess 58,000 of our soldiers (and 2 million Vietnamese) might be alive today.
Instead, secrets killed them.
For those of you who think it's wrong to support Julian Assange because of the sexual assault allegations he's being held for, all I ask is that you not be naive about how the government works when it decides to go after its prey. Please -- never, ever believe the "official story." And regardless of Assange's guilt or innocence (see the strange nature of the allegations here), this man has the right to have bail posted and to defend himself. I have joined with filmmakers Ken Loach and John Pilger and writer Jemima Khan in putting up the bail money -- and we hope the judge will accept this and grant his release today.
Might WikiLeaks cause some unintended harm to diplomatic negotiations and U.S. interests around the world? Perhaps. But that's the price you pay when you and your government take us into a war based on a lie. Your punishment for misbehaving is that someone has to turn on all the lights in the room so that we can see what you're up to. You simply can't be trusted. So every cable, every email you write is now fair game. Sorry, but you brought this upon yourself. No one can hide from the truth now. No one can plot the next Big Lie if they know that they might be exposed.
And that is the best thing that WikiLeaks has done. WikiLeaks, God bless them, will save lives as a result of their actions. And any of you who join me in supporting them are committing a true act of patriotism. Period.
I stand today in absentia with Julian Assange in London and I ask the judge to grant him his release. I am willing to guarantee his return to court with the bail money I have wired to said court. I will not allow this injustice to continue unchallenged.
P.S. You can read the statement I filed today in the London court here.
P.P.S. If you're reading this in London, please go support Julian Assange and WikiLeaks at a demonstration at 1 PM today, Tuesday the 14th, in front of the Westminster court.Originally posted by conmee
If anyone even thinks about deleting the Muff Thread they are banned.... no questions asked.
That is all.
Icon.Originally posted by GO-SPURS-GO
I've seen prominent hypocrite liberal on this site Jhale667
Originally posted by Isaac R.
Then it's really true??:eek:
The Muff Thread is really just GONE ???
OMFG...who in their right mind...???
Originally posted by eddie78
I was wrong about you, brother. You're good.Comment
-
Moore does make some valid points, but they are undercut by his own sense of self worth/self promotion. If you think I'm wrong, reread that article, and count how many times Moore makes reference to himself in the piece (I counted 19). Personally, I don't trust the guy, even though his films are aimed primarily at people that have beliefs and opinions much like mine. The fact is, I do not trust any film maker that twists the truth in order to make a point, particularly when the purpose is to reveal that same truth in so-called "documentaries" in the first place. Are his films entertaining? Yes, they often are, but so was This Is Spinal Tap. And for some reason, I believe there were less manipulated facts and more outright truths in the Spinal Tap movie than in all of Moore's films combined.
“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.”― Stephen HawkingComment
-
You're just now realizing that Moore is a self-aggrandizing media whore? What you're getting onto Chef is whole another area of social psychology where certain "celebrities" set themselves up as being the avatars or gurus of their generation. It's not wrong to have values or empathy for a soul such as Assange but Moore basis himself up on a lot of conspiratorial conjecture which makes it so difficult to trust a word that comes of of his triple-chinned mouth. Of course, look for a film by Moore to be coming out on this soon.Comment
Tweet
Comment