View Full Version : WikiLeaks founder appeals detention order
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101130/ap_on_re_eu/wikileaks_assange_2
– Tue Nov 30, 7:07 am ET
STOCKHOLM – WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has filed another appeal against a court order to detain him in a rape investigation, Swedish officials said Tuesday.
The appeal was received by the Supreme Court in Stockholm on Tuesday, court spokeswoman Tove Levelind said.
Earlier this month, an appeals court rejected Assange's first appeal, upholding a district court decision to detain him for questioning.
Assange, whose whereabouts are unknown, is wanted by Sweden internationally concerning allegations against him that include rape and sexual molestation. They stem from his encounters with two Swedish women during a visit to the Nordic country in August.
He has denied the allegations, calling them part of a smear campaign. He has not been formally charged.
WikiLeaks made another disclosure of classified documents over the weekend, including diplomatic cables and sensitive U.S. State Department documents.
The 39-year-old Australian has angered the U.S. and other governments with such disclosures, including secret documents about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
During his August visit to Sweden, Assange applied for a residency permit in the country, where the WikiLeaks site has some of its servers and laws offer strong protection for whistle-blowers. Sweden rejected the request.
On Monday, Ecuador's deputy foreign minister, Kintto Lucas, praised Assange for his work and offered him residency in the leftist-run Andean nation "without any kind of trouble and without any kind of conditions."
what yall think??? we all know this guy has made some very powerful enemies... and rape is the perfect crime to ruin people with and all it takes is "she said"... if she says it did, chances are he'll burn for it...
and then there is this:
WikiLeaks says it's under powerful cyberattack
NEW YORK – The WikiLeaks website says it's under a forceful Internet-based attack, and the site is inaccessible to users in U.S. and Europe.
The site, which just distributed a trove of U.S. diplomatic documents, said in a Twitter message on Tuesday morning that it's under a "distributed denial of service attack," a method commonly used by hackers to slow down or bring down sites.
The site was under attack Sunday, but Tuesday's attack appears to be more powerful. WikiLeaks said the malicious traffic was coming in at 10 gigabits per second, which would make it a relatively large effort.
The WikiLeaks site is hosted in Sweden and devoted to releasing anonymously submitted documents.
hhhmmm... sweden... ya dont say... didnt i just read something about sweden and wikileaks???:rolleyes:
10 gigabits per second??? this is not from some hacker in his mommys basement... this is sanctioned and sponsored black ops... nobody here is ruling that out right? we dont know forsure, but i wasnt born yesterday and i know how to read between the lines... if i were a betting man, i know where i'd lay my dollars on this one...
David Jamieson
11-30-2010, 09:02 AM
If someone stands up and speaks the truth, it's likely they will get nailed to the cross for it.
Literally and figuratively.
The thing is, it's not him that's releasing anything, he is providing a site for people to do so. The people who are releasing this stuff are IN the government and civil service and military and it is US citizens who are blowing the whistle on the people in power there.
Everyone getting hot and bothered about Assange are idiots. lol, He's just a guy with the vehicle for others to tell on their bosses.
Who knows if this isn't some ploy or plot to move disinformation by doing soft puts in a lead up to a big one that will sink some nation. Anyway, there are a lot of red faced blustering liars and lowlifes huffing and puffing on this go round.
It's great theatre!
sanjuro_ronin
11-30-2010, 09:15 AM
I've read some of the stuff, is really is nothing new.
Don't know what the big deal is and the US government is only looking worse for giving this more press.
Intelligence agencies tend to be their own worse enemy.
If someone stands up and speaks the truth, it's likely they will get nailed to the cross for it.
Literally and figuratively.
The thing is, it's not him that's releasing anything, he is providing a site for people to do so. The people who are releasing this stuff are IN the government and civil service and military and it is US citizens who are blowing the whistle on the people in power there.
Everyone getting hot and bothered about Assange are idiots. lol, He's just a guy with the vehicle for others to tell on their bosses.
Who knows if this isn't some ploy or plot to move disinformation by doing soft puts in a lead up to a big one that will sink some nation. Anyway, there are a lot of red faced blustering liars and lowlifes huffing and puffing on this go round.
It's great theatre!
awesome gawker material forsure... whoever gave him these papers is in trouble tho... if its the guy from before, well, he's already in trouble... one could argue that divulging classified materials is treason... one could also say in a transparent democracy run by the people for the people, the people have every right to know everything... all of it, good and bad... i love how people act right before everyone gets to see their dirty laundry and they know its comming but arent sure what to prepare for...
BJJ-Blue
11-30-2010, 10:16 AM
what yall think??? we all know this guy has made some very powerful enemies... and rape is the perfect crime to ruin people with and all it takes is "she said"... if she says it did, chances are he'll burn for it...
This is true that the rape allegations just happen to surface now and it looks suspicious. But it shows whats great about the US system, everyone accused is guaranteed a jury trial by his peers. And a conviction is never guaranteed simply because "she said", just ask William Kennedy Smith or the Duke lacrosse team.
David Jamieson
11-30-2010, 10:31 AM
This is true that the rape allegations just happen to surface now and it looks suspicious. But it shows whats great about the US system, everyone accused is guaranteed a jury trial by his peers. And a conviction is never guaranteed simply because "she said", just ask William Kennedy Smith or the Duke lacrosse team.
The rape allegations came up during the release from the gun cameras that showed American soldiers gleefully murdering people in the streets of Iraq with gunships.
This was disgusting and embarrassing for the US and NATO and I think it was at this point where people started to take notice of just what wikileaks was and what was going to come of it.
So, yeah, of course his credibility is going to be attacked. I don't think he has an issue with fighting the rape charge, I think it is the pretense "they" want of locking him away while they do up the trial. I wouldn't agree to that either. they essentially want to lock him away and then start dismantling his network while his hands are bound.
That is typical of cowards to do that. I wonder when he would have had the time to go out raping in all this. :rolleyes: It is HIGHLY suspect.
BJJ-Blue
11-30-2010, 11:12 AM
...I think it is the pretense "they" want of locking him away while they do up the trial. I wouldn't agree to that either. they essentially want to lock him away and then start dismantling his network while his hands are bound.
Again showing how the US system is great. Bail is specifically mentioned in our Constitution.
David Jamieson
11-30-2010, 11:21 AM
Again showing how the US system is great. Bail is specifically mentioned in our Constitution.
Violent Crimes are often denied bail. Rape is a violent crime. Hence it's use.
Even in the US there are lots of people who are not granted bail because of flight risk or the nature of the crime or the determined character of the person.
BJJ-Blue
11-30-2010, 11:54 AM
Violent Crimes are often denied bail. Rape is a violent crime. Hence it's use.
Even in the US there are lots of people who are not granted bail because of flight risk or the nature of the crime or the determined character of the person.
Can you give us an example of someone charged in the US only with rape being denied bail?
sanjuro_ronin
11-30-2010, 12:02 PM
Can you give us an example of someone charged in the US only with rape being denied bail?
I would assume if there is a flight risk, yes the person would be denied bail.
Stupid not to do so.
BJJ-Blue
11-30-2010, 12:18 PM
I would assume if there is a flight risk, yes the person would be denied bail.
Stupid not to do so.
So then it should be easy for David to find an example. ;)
When the discussion of rape and bail came up my first thought was of Roman Polanski, as he was a flight risk and he was not denied bail.
This is true that the rape allegations just happen to surface now and it looks suspicious. But it shows whats great about the US system, everyone accused is guaranteed a jury trial by his peers. And a conviction is never guaranteed simply because "she said", just ask William Kennedy Smith or the Duke lacrosse team.
well yeah, unless you get crucified by the media for the sake of good headlines with no research into the truth swaying public opinion so bad you lose money and fam over it... true story, look it up...
conviction, maybe not... but do you think the allegations made their lives better or worse??? will they be compensated for time, money and embarassment??? no they wont... in america, the more money you can throw at a legal team the more likely you are to succeed... is that what you call fair??? you wave that flag son, ill stick to being thoroughly unsatisfied with my nation and her pathetic friends... im almost ashamed...
and in the US, because of the media and their mishandling of info, on purpose for headlines, jury pools are forever tainted in high profile cases...
like this kid who just got caught tryna blow up a portland xmas tree ceremony, do you think hečll get a fair impartial jury??? i think not... now in this case, i say hang the little fukcer, but they arent always guilty man...
sanjuro_ronin
11-30-2010, 12:21 PM
So then it should be easy for David to find an example. ;)
When the discussion of rape and bail came up my first thought was of Roman Polanski, as he was a flight risk and he was not denied bail.
How smart was that ?
LOL !
Can you give us an example of someone charged in the US only with rape being denied bail?
are you serious??? people are denied bail for missing probation meetings... people get denied all the time...
ive been denied in canada for non violent crimes... and canada is lax, if i was in the states ičd be doing 15 to 20 no doubt about it... you guys have a pathetic legal system... i **** on your legal system... ours too...
David Jamieson
11-30-2010, 12:28 PM
So then it should be easy for David to find an example. ;)
When the discussion of rape and bail came up my first thought was of Roman Polanski, as he was a flight risk and he was not denied bail.
dude, i don't have time to satisfy your curiosity. If you think bail applies to everyone no matter what, fine, you feel that way, but that's not the way it is.
do your own fu(kin homework will ya and stopping making churlish demands on people's time ya crackpot. lol :p Start here you lazy bastage. http://www.google.ca/search?q=denial+of+bail+in+the+usa&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
The rape allegations came up during the release from the gun cameras that showed American soldiers gleefully murdering people in the streets of Iraq with gunships.
.
ive seen the vid, and a guy clearly takes aim with an rpg at their gunship... i also saw atleast 6 rifles... the threee hellfire missles may have been a bit much, but ičd hardly call them inoscent... and hey, if you are stupid enough to walk thru a battle that you think is over and get caught in it, thats on you... its not like the demo'd peoples houses like wečve seen before...
but thats war man, its ugly... a few treee huggers see it and are horrified sure, but it was hardly a turkey shoot for no reason whatsoever... and what do you know about the intel that brought them to these people in the first place???
David Jamieson
11-30-2010, 12:31 PM
ive seen the vid, and a guy clearly takes aim with an rpg at their gunship... i also saw atleast 6 rifles... the threee hellfire missles may have been a bit much, but ičd hardly call them inoscent... and hey, if you are stupid enough to walk thru a battle that you think is over and get caught in it, thats on you... its not like the demo'd peoples houses like wečve seen before...
but thats war man, its ugly... a few treee huggers see it and are horrified sure, but it was hardly a turkey shoot for no reason whatsoever... and what do you know about the intel that brought them to these people in the first place???
wtf are you talking about, the footage shows unarmed men and one with a camera.
They then get lit up by the mercans in the blackhawk.
You didn't see the same video I'm guessing? the one that made the headlines?
So then it should be easy for David to find an example. ;)
When the discussion of rape and bail came up my first thought was of Roman Polanski, as he was a flight risk and he was not denied bail.
http://ca.search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oGk3BxUfVMytAAXdvrFAx.?ei=UTF-8&fr=my-myy&p=rape+charge+denied+bail&SpellState=&fr2=sp-qrw-corr-top
hhmmmm... 766,000 results...
BJJ-Blue
11-30-2010, 12:36 PM
conviction, maybe not... but do you think the allegations made their lives better or worse???
William Kennedy Smith's life has gotten better since he was accused, charged, and found Not Guilty of rape. Roman Polanski made plenty of movies and won plenty of awards while was on the run from being sentenced for raping a child.
are you serious??? people are denied bail for missing probation meetings... people get denied all the time...
Of course I'm serious. That's why I asked. David is especially notorious for this, so I always ask him to back up his assertions. I honestly cannot think of anyone charged ONLY with rape being denied bail in the US.
dude, i don't have time to satisfy your curiosity. If you think bail applies to everyone no matter what, fine, you feel that way, but that's not the way it is.
And once again you can't back up your assertions. :rolleyes:
I also never said "no matter what". I clearly stated I wanted an example of someone in the US charged "only with rape". You're just once again misreading/misstating my posts so you don't have to back up your ridiculous assertions. It's par for the course with you.
dude, i don't have time to satisfy your curiosity. If you think bail applies to everyone no matter what, fine, you feel that way, but that's not the way it is.
do your own fu(kin homework will ya and stopping making churlish demands on people's time ya crackpot. lol :p Start here you lazy bastage. http://www.google.ca/search?q=denial+of+bail+in+the+usa&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
should have put rape in ur search... now hes gonna sift thru murder charges all day...
David Jamieson
11-30-2010, 12:38 PM
William Kennedy Smith's life has gotten better since he was accused, charged, and found Not Guilty of rape. Roman Polanski made plenty of movies and won plenty of awards while was on the run from being sentenced for raping a child.
Of course I'm serious. That's why I asked. David is especially notorious for this, so I always ask him to back up his assertions. I honestly cannot think of anyone charged ONLY with rape being denied bail in the US.
And once again you can't back up your assertions. :rolleyes:
I also never said "no matter what". I clearly stated I wanted an example of someone in the US charged "only with rape". You're just once again misreading/misstating my posts so you don't have to back up your ridiculous assertions. It's par for the course with you.
I just gave you the google page with a bajillion hits about bail denial in teh usa and how you are wrong.
still gonna be a little b1tch about it? lol
You're a piece of fu(kin work man.
assertions. for christ's sake , its the internet, you aren't important, live with it. :p
wtf are you talking about, the footage shows unarmed men and one with a camera.
They then get lit up by the mercans in the blackhawk.
You didn't see the same video I'm guessing? the one that made the headlines?
i guess it was different... was it a group in a courtyard??? then it ended with three hellfires into an abandoned triangular building...
dont get me wrong, they werent crying over these deaths and you can tell it got their adrenalin up... but a soldier cant feel sorry every time he kills or hečll never survive... you must harden, you must get into ur work...
the only part that ****ed me off about the vid i saw was that a child was hit, and thats the peoples fault for taking their kid to a gunfight... but when they requested medevac, they were denied and send some IPs to take this dying child to a local hospital... they shouldve taken her to the base... just some sand n!ggers kid tho, so fukc it right... so sad...
but the vid i saw the rules of engagement were met... even if it was a bit aggressive...
BJJ-Blue
11-30-2010, 12:41 PM
for christ's sake , its the internet, you aren't important, live with it. :p
I'm important enough that you keep coming back for more.
David Jamieson
11-30-2010, 12:42 PM
You know what 1bad, you say I'm notorious for not backing up allegations and yet every single time I do so and then you or whoever just got shat on gets all blubbery and tries to downplay their stupidity.
This is a typical tactic of intellectual lightweights like yourself who cannot deal with being wrong despite their propensity towards it.
whatever, I'd own your ass in every scenario, but your mind is chaos, rhetoric, propaganda and overall worthless. You have no direction in your thinking and just wander from republican talking point to limbaugh's latest barf, which in turn makes you notorious for being a disinformer, a liar, half truth spouter and not to mention your willful ignorance and callous disregard for humanity in general in favour of some fascist ideal you clearly subscribe to.
I'll take my neutral world over your cluster hump of a reality any day!
BJJ-Blue
11-30-2010, 12:44 PM
i guess it was different... was it a group in a courtyard??? then it ended with three hellfires into an abandoned triangular building...
Maybe David can provide a link to the video and we can judge for ourselves.
dont get me wrong, they werent crying over these deaths and you can tell it got their adrenalin up... but a soldier cant feel sorry every time he kills or hečll never survive... you must harden, you must get into ur work...
In David's eyes, US military personnel are always guilty of anything negative anyone says about them, just look at his posts when discussing the US military if you don't believe me.
BJJ-Blue
11-30-2010, 12:47 PM
You know what 1bad, you say I'm notorious for not backing up allegations and yet every single time I do so and then you or whoever just got shat on gets all blubbery and tries to downplay their stupidity.
Because it's true.
In another thread today you accused politicans of pitting groups of people against each other based on race. So I gave an example of Obama doing just that. Then you said Bush, Reagan, Carter, Clinton, etc all did it too. And when I asked for just ONE example of them doing it, you couldn't do it. If you're going to make accusations, back them up. Especially when the allegations involve charges of racism, which you allege ALOT.
David Jamieson
11-30-2010, 12:48 PM
I'm important enough that you keep coming back for more.
So you think yourself a troll and act like a troll in an effort to get attention?
David Jamieson
11-30-2010, 12:53 PM
Because it's true.
In another thread today you accused politicans of pitting groups of people against each other based on race. So I gave an example of Obama doing just that. Then you said Bush, Reagan, Carter, Clinton, etc all did it too. And when I asked for just ONE example of them doing it, you couldn't do it. If you're going to make accusations, back them up. Especially when the allegations involve charges of racism, which you allege ALOT.
and I told you to do your own homework and then called you lazy.
I believe that if you read through every single thread you ever wrote here, you would find that you don't even think for yourself and let conservative sound bytes think for you.
also, again, if you are at the bounds of credulity, by all means, make an effort and look it up. lol
Now be a good troll and go quote fatty Limbaugh heart attack boy there. :p
sanjuro_ronin
11-30-2010, 12:56 PM
http://ca.search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oGk3BxUfVMytAAXdvrFAx.?ei=UTF-8&fr=my-myy&p=rape+charge+denied+bail&SpellState=&fr2=sp-qrw-corr-top
hhmmmm... 766,000 results...
Well, there you go.
David Jamieson
11-30-2010, 01:04 PM
Well, there you go.
that's just internet hits and is not reflective of the total number of people that are denied bail on numerous charges across the USA.
really, when it comes right down to it, the usa is similar to Canada in these sorts of stats with the exception of just multiplying the percentages by ten.
But safe to say that if 3% of the Canadian population is doing something then so to is 3% of the us population doing it.
so the 990,000 canucks doing something usually = 9, 900, 000 americans doing the same thing.
3000 people die of flu in Canada each year.
In the states, it's 30000, but it's the same percentage.
and so on.
Culturally, except for the whole slavery and gun culture thing Canada and the states are same on so many levels the differences are almost unnoticable.
that's just internet hits and is not reflective of the total number of people that are denied bail on numerous charges across the USA.
come on now, did you really feel you needed to say that... btw i was more specific in my search than you... but i didnt include usa so youčll see ausie british south african whatever in there... i just did it quick to make a point for blue... there are tons of examples...
ok so anyways... we did see the same vid... exept i have the 39 minute uncut version where you watch the guys on the ground come up and clear the site... so maybe there was cameras there, i cant say forsure, but i know i saw weapons and i can show you where... also the guy aims an rpg at the chopper... ok some could argue that it was a telephoto lens and he was taking pictures and it just looked threatening but wasnt... only problem is, when the troops got there they pulled an rpg out from under his body....
i dunno much about the story, so im gonna check it out and get back to ya... i havent heard any opinions, all i have seen is the raw 39 minute video with zero context...
but i wasnt horrified by what i saw... ive seen much much worse.... there are vids of soldiers using civies as target practice and laughing and cheering... none of that happened here...
Reality_Check
11-30-2010, 02:55 PM
This is true that the rape allegations just happen to surface now and it looks suspicious. But it shows whats great about the US system, everyone accused is guaranteed a jury trial by his peers. And a conviction is never guaranteed simply because "she said", just ask William Kennedy Smith or the Duke lacrosse team.
Unless, of course, one is accused of terrorism. Then one can be shipped off to Guantanamo or Bagram without recourse. President Obama has even asserted the power to indefinitely detain those acquitted of terrorism charges, whether by a jury trial or military commission. Alternatively, an innocent person can be kidnapped and shipped off to be tortured (see: Khalid El-Masri, Maher Arar). Another thing that can be done is to be put on a hit list (see: Anwar al-Awlaki). So, I guess your triumphalist claim is in error. Not everyone accused is guaranteed a jury trial by his peers. At least, not anymore.
This is true that the rape allegations just happen to surface now and it looks suspicious. But it shows whats great about the US system, everyone accused is guaranteed a jury trial by his peers. And a conviction is never guaranteed simply because "she said", just ask William Kennedy Smith or the Duke lacrosse team.
what if you are peerless??? or your peers are bigots and idiots... maybe only one quarter are racist douchebags, but atleast half are a waste of skin on brain tissue for myriad of other reasons...
i pis$ on american justice... what a joke... just cause they get it right sometimes doesnt mean its ok all the times they get it wrong...
how can you have an unbiased jury in a rape case? or esspecially a child rape case... or terrorism, or any other highly emotional crime that causes fear panic and hatred...
and canadas system is a joke too, but its ten times more just than american justice... the proof is in the numbers man... canada has a significantly lower crime rate, per capita, than the US... esspecially with violent crimes... yall say our laws are weak, and they are to a large extent, but they are head and shoulders above yours...
BJJ-Blue
11-30-2010, 03:53 PM
Unless, of course, one is accused of terrorism. Then one can be shipped off to Guantanamo or Bagram without recourse. President Obama has even asserted the power to indefinitely detain those acquitted of terrorism charges, whether by a jury trial or military commission. So, I guess your triumphalist claim is in error. Not everyone accused is guaranteed a jury trial by his peers. At least, not anymore.
I was referring to American citizens. The Constitution guarantees the rights of Americans, not foreign nationals.
Can you show an example of an American citizen (not in the military) being denied a jury trial?
BJJ-Blue
11-30-2010, 04:00 PM
what if you are peerless??? or your peers are bigots and idiots... maybe only one quarter are racist douchebags, but atleast half are a waste of skin on brain tissue for myriad of other reasons...
i pis$ on american justice... what a joke... just cause they get it right sometimes doesnt mean its ok all the times they get it wrong...
Courts have defined what "peers" means. I believe it's as simple as people from your part of town, put simply. Of course the accused has the right to ask to move the trial and also to strike a certain amount of potential jurors.
No one gets it right 100% of the time, but we have our share of safeguards; the Miranda warning, the right to a lawyer even if indigent, trial by jury, no double jeopardy, a lengthy appeals process, etc. I believe Ben Franklin said something to the effect of 'It's better that 100 guilty men go free than one innocent man be wrongly convicted', but I'mnot sure of the exact words or if it was Frnaklin, but I've heard if referenced multiple times relating to the US justice system.
As to a trial by your peers, I saw a comic once that had a guy in court yelling, 'I demand a jury of my peers'. The next picture was a group of 12 guys wearing prison stripes with balls and chains attached to their ankles standing in the jury box. :)
I was referring to American citizens. The Constitution guarantees the rights of Americans, not foreign nationals.
Can you show an example of an American citizen (not in the military) being denied a jury trial?
it can happen to an american citizen... its already happened to a canadian citizen... the US insisted canada waive his rights and they did...
and now we have this new portland somali kid... who wants to be this kid doesnt get anywhere near a fair trial like any other american citizen...
Reality_Check
12-01-2010, 07:19 AM
I was referring to American citizens. The Constitution guarantees the rights of Americans, not foreign nationals.
Can you show an example of an American citizen (not in the military) being denied a jury trial?
Um...Anwar al-Awlaki is an American citizen and he has been marked for death without the benefit of a trial.
Oh, and the US Constitution also protects the rights of non-citizens in US custody.
The 5th Amendment:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Note that is says "person" not "citizen."
The 6th Amendment:
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."
Note, there is no distinction for citizen and non-citizen.
BJJ-Blue
12-01-2010, 08:32 AM
it can happen to an american citizen... its already happened to a canadian citizen... the US insisted canada waive his rights and they did...
So has it happened to an American citizen? I clearly asked that question, and your reply was 'it can happen'. That's not the question. The question is; has it happened?
BJJ-Blue
12-01-2010, 08:37 AM
Um...Anwar al-Awlaki is an American citizen and he has been marked for death without the benefit of a trial.
We've been over this before on this site. Courts have said this is ok, as he is openly committing treason, ie taking up arms against this country.
Oh, and the US Constitution also protects the rights of non-citizens in US custody.
Have the courts said it does? I believe not, but if you have some cases/decisions that say it does, feel free to post them.
Reality_Check
12-01-2010, 12:48 PM
We've been over this before on this site. Courts have said this is ok, as he is openly committing treason, ie taking up arms against this country.
Yes, we have discussed this, and he has only been accused of being a terrorist. Nothing has been proven, nor has there been any evidence that he has taken up arms. Regarding treason, he is entitled to a trial.
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."
Have the courts said it does? I believe not, but if you have some cases/decisions that say it does, feel free to post them.
Rasul v. Bush
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld
Boumediene v. Bush
Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding
Yick Wo v. Hopkins
From the last case:
The rights of the petitioners, as affected by the proceedings of which they complain, are not less because they are aliens and subjects of the emperor of China… . The fourteenth amendment to the constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says: ‘Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.’ These provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality; and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws… . The questions we have to consider and decide in these cases, therefore, are to be treated as involving the rights of every citizen of the United States equally with those of the strangers and aliens who now invoke the jurisdiction of the court.
BJJ-Blue
12-01-2010, 02:34 PM
Yes, we have discussed this, and he has only been accused of being a terrorist. Nothing has been proven, nor has there been any evidence that he has taken up arms. Regarding treason, he is entitled to a trial.
Accused or not, courts have sided with the Gov't on this.
As to a trial, the guy knows what he's been accused of and he has not chosen to turn himself in and receive the jury trial he is entitled to. He isn't being denied a trial, he is avoiding one.
BJJ-Blue
12-01-2010, 02:43 PM
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld
I've only researched this one so far, and it does not reinforce your argument:
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004) was a U.S. Supreme Court decision reversing the dismissal of a habeas corpus petition brought on behalf of Yaser Esam Hamdi, a U.S. citizen being detained indefinitely as an "illegal enemy combatant." The Court recognized the power of the government to detain unlawful combatants, but ruled that detainees who are U.S. citizens must have the ability to challenge their detention before an impartial judge.
Reality_Check
12-01-2010, 02:45 PM
Accused or not, courts have sided with the Gov't on this.
Really? "I believe not, but if you have some cases/decisions that say it does, feel free to post them."
As to a trial, the guy knows what he's been accused of and he has not chosen to turn himself in and receive the jury trial he is entitled to. He isn't being denied a trial, he is avoiding one.
Um...because he knows that if he shows his face there is a good chance he'll be assassinated. Hence the concept of a "hit list."
Reality_Check
12-01-2010, 02:50 PM
I've only researched this one so far, and it does not reinforce your argument:
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004) was a U.S. Supreme Court decision reversing the dismissal of a habeas corpus petition brought on behalf of Yaser Esam Hamdi, a U.S. citizen being detained indefinitely as an "illegal enemy combatant." The Court recognized the power of the government to detain unlawful combatants, but ruled that detainees who are U.S. citizens must have the ability to challenge their detention before an impartial judge.
Fair enough, he was a citizen.
BJJ-Blue
12-01-2010, 03:01 PM
Really? "I believe not, but if you have some cases/decisions that say it does, feel free to post them."
If Obama had ordered an illegal hit on a US citizen, he would have been impeached. Look, case law was referenced in the past thread, do I really have to prove the same assertion twice? :rolleyes:
Um...because he knows that if he shows his face there is a good chance he'll be assassinated. Hence the concept of a "hit list."
Get real. Plenty of people who fear being killed turning themselves in do it all the time. You get a lawyer and he escorts you to the police station. Or you contact the press and do it. The guy is obviously running from justice, can you at least admit that?
BJJ-Blue
12-01-2010, 03:04 PM
Fair enough, he was a citizen.
I'll be going over the other ones when time permits. Do you want to save me the trouble and just admit I was right in the first place when I said that non-citizens/foreign nationals do not have Constitutional rights that American citizens do?
Reality_Check
12-01-2010, 04:06 PM
I'll be going over the other ones when time permits. Do you want to save me the trouble and just admit I was right in the first place when I said that non-citizens/foreign nationals do not have Constitutional rights that American citizens do?
We are discussing the fact the non-citizens have Constitutionally guaranteed rights.
Oh, and the US Constitution also protects the rights of non-citizens in US custody.
The 5th Amendment:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Note that is says "person" not "citizen."
The 6th Amendment:
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."
Note, there is no distinction for citizen and non-citizen.
I never said they have the every right (e.g. the right to vote).
Reality_Check
12-01-2010, 04:30 PM
If Obama had ordered an illegal hit on a US citizen, he would have been impeached. Look, case law was referenced in the past thread, do I really have to prove the same assertion twice? :rolleyes:
I also guess that means you can find no case law that supports your assertion that:
Accused or not, courts have sided with the Gov't on this.
Clearly you don't read the news, and you hardly proved anything on that thread aside from being an authoritarian. Being able to kill one's citizens anywhere in the world (even in Austin), whether they are on a battlefield or buying milk in a grocery store, without any sort of due process is a tyrannical power. Hence the reason it is specifically banned in the Constitution.
From my thread (months ago):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/26/AR2010012604239.html?hpid=topnews
"As part of the operations, Obama approved a Dec. 24 strike against a compound where a U.S. citizen, Anwar al-Aulaqi, was thought to be meeting with other regional al-Qaeda leaders. Although he was not the focus of the strike and was not killed, he has since been added to a shortlist of U.S. citizens specifically targeted for killing or capture by the JSOC, military officials said."
...
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."
Get real. Plenty of people who fear being killed turning themselves in do it all the time. You get a lawyer and he escorts you to the police station. Or you contact the press and do it. The guy is obviously running from justice, can you at least admit that?
But do those people turn themselves in to the very people who want to kill them? How can he be on the run from justice, he hasn't be indicted for anything. He has been accused, not convicted (innocent until proven guilty and all that).
So has it happened to an American citizen? I clearly asked that question, and your reply was 'it can happen'. That's not the question. The question is; has it happened?
im saying if it can happen in canada, a country that, arguably, provides a deeper democracy and more political freedom to its people, then it can happen in the states... as far as i know it hasnt yet, but it will... and maybe it has happened... some guy grabbed in the night and secretly tried, convicted and sentenced or simply killed in secret... on home soil... its not unthinkable,man... we know for a fact american intelligence has done it elsewhere, why not at home??? we also know they have broken the zero ops on home soil rule so many times its almost laughable...
Drake
12-02-2010, 10:50 AM
Wow....speculation, hyperbole, and excessive use of accusatory language. This is a critical thinker's worst nightmare.
Analyze the situation, cross-reference it to facts, and look at all possible angles as to why event x may have occured. Going off the deep end and inventing some Bourne Identity fiction is poor research.
Don't compare Canadian law to US law. It's not the same.
Oh, and if a US citizen is in a foreign nation, training with a known enemy of the United States, with clear intent to harm Americans, then certain restrictions on lethal targeting are lifted, as the person has, by action, renounced their citizenship. We hung a guy in our early days over that, and we'll continue to do so. This wasn't a case of a guy visiting a mosque in another country.
Reality_Check
12-02-2010, 02:59 PM
Oh, and if a US citizen is in a foreign nation, training with a known enemy of the United States, with clear intent to harm Americans, then certain restrictions on lethal targeting are lifted, as the person has, by action, renounced their citizenship. We hung a guy in our early days over that, and we'll continue to do so. This wasn't a case of a guy visiting a mosque in another country.
There is only the accusation that he has behaved in such a fashion. Has he made incindiary and contemptible statements? Yes. Are those statements, by a US citizen, protected by the 1st Amendment from actions by the US Government? Yes. The Supreme Court has already ajudicated that statements calling for violence are protected speech. There has been no evidence offered that shows that he is guilty of anything more than rhetorical nastiness.
I find it dismaying that so many people (conservative and liberal) support the Executive Branch’s claim that it has unreviewable power to order the death of U.S. citizens on the basis of secret evidence. That people will accept President's claim of powers to order the deaths of citizens without due process or judicial review, but will scream bloody murder over the new TSA scanners/patdowns is utterly incomprehensible to me.
SanHeChuan
12-02-2010, 04:55 PM
Did this thread go four pages without anyone pointing out that he is being charged in SWEDEN not the U.S.
So, the U.S. legal system means jack-all in this case.
:confused::confused::confused:
David Jamieson
12-02-2010, 05:24 PM
Did this thread go four pages without anyone pointing out that he is being charged in SWEDEN not the U.S.
So, the U.S. legal system means jack-all in this case.
:confused::confused::confused:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v202/kunglek/156862_1387195614624_1674082016_764990_8265318_n.j pg
:D
Wow....speculation, hyperbole, and excessive use of accusatory language. This is a critical thinker's worst nightmare.
Analyze the situation, cross-reference it to facts, and look at all possible angles as to why event x may have occured. Going off the deep end and inventing some Bourne Identity fiction is poor research.
Don't compare Canadian law to US law. It's not the same.
doesnt have to be the same to talk about what works better... but i do say candian law is more effective... proof is in the numbers...
its just common sense... alot of canada and the US were built on the violation of peoples human rights... it would be naive to deny the possibility of individuals overstepping their authority for whatever reasons, probably emotional... theres no bourne or conspiracy about it... all it takes is one douchebag with the authority to pull off some unsavoury sh!t and make everybody look bad... i dont think there is any network of sinister nwo freaks or anything...
so what? i cant have an opinion unless someone makes a mistake and gets outted??? there isnt gonna be any proof... absence of evidence isnt proof of absence... its simply evidence of absence and even then, its only effective because if you outsmart the system theres just nothing you can be charged with... you got away with it... doesnt mean it didnt happen...
I find it dismaying that so many people (conservative and liberal) support the Executive Branch’s claim that it has unreviewable power to order the death of U.S. citizens on the basis of secret evidence. That people will accept President's claim of powers to order the deaths of citizens without due process or judicial review, but will scream bloody murder over the new TSA scanners/patdowns is utterly incomprehensible to me.
no doubt... for a people who will go to war over somebody elses democracy, they sure have some very undemocratic ideas... if you wanna truly act like a leader of democracy then you have to lead by example... and in a real democracy there are no secret trials on citizens... no secret evidence nobody can ever see... considering what the US tells everyone else, its very ... uumm... hypocritical... not that i disagree with it... but then i dont believe in a full democracy...
I find it dismaying that so many people (conservative and liberal) support the Executive Branch’s claim that it has unreviewable power to order the death of U.S. citizens on the basis of secret evidence. That people will accept President's claim of powers to order the deaths of citizens without due process or judicial review, but will scream bloody murder over the new TSA scanners/patdowns is utterly incomprehensible to me.
no doubt... for a people who will go to war over somebody elses democracy, they sure have some very undemocratic ideas... if you wanna truly act like a leader of democracy then you have to lead by example... and in a real democracy there are no secret trials on citizens... no secret evidence nobody can ever see... considering what the US tells everyone else, its very ... uumm... hypocritical... not that i disagree with it... but then i dont believe in a full democracy...
well, he's on interpols most wanted list... its actually a red notice, so if he goes to any interpol country, then they are to notify sweden and then sweden can start the extradition process... or whatever... but its not like that country will pick him up at the airport and hold him untill sweden could get a warrent issued... ofcourse there is such thing as a secret arrest warrent and i have no doubt its already been issued... the secret warrants are also indefinate...also they are persuing criminal charges in the open aswell... he's a hunted man and he is going down... no question... not on rape tho... i dunno anything about that... but the case against him for the leaked documents will be an open and shut case... they will use espionage laws forsure... he's fukced... done... its just a matter of time now... he is so so so over his head right now... i doubt he's naive enough to actually believe he's gonna get anything near an easy time of this, a fair trial, and that they will play by the rules in the investigation that is only biggining to dig in... i think maybe he was ****y and egotistical enough to actually believe he wasnt gonna end up the marter, that he'd be a real hero... but now you can see the fear in his eyes, hear it in his voice... i bet you can smell it when he's in the room that fear is so thick... now everyone is gonna line up to watch the guy who stuck his neck out lose his head... people will start to distance from him, already have... theres a fine line between brave and stupid... i dont think he's brave...
for the record, i feel there should be more transparency in releasing this kind of info to the public... but i think the manner in what wikilinks did was irresponsible... i dont think they have much of a grasp of the careful balance we have in this word... i think they have more focus on their own agendas than on the security and wellbeing of everyone as a whole... if it was up to me, i would lock this guy up for good... mostly for how and why he did what he did... i dont believe in an absolute freedom of expression... i dont believe in the absolute freedom of very much anything... vice versa runs true aswell...
to an american i may seem confusing, my kind doesnt fit into the mold of amirican political thought... one guy would call me a right wing, the next a lefty... somebody who has maybe heard more than one or two comments may call me a fence sitter... we do things differently up in here... and i have no doubt the average canadian knows significantly more about americans than the other way around...
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/04/06/wikileaks-assange-australia-senate.html
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to run for Australian senate seat
Assange still holed up inside Ecuador's U.K. embassy
WikiLeaks has announced that it will be a registered political party in Australia and founder, Julian Assange, will be a Victoria state senate candidate in the country's federal elections in September.
It will also field senate candidates in the New South Wales and Western Australia state senate races, local media reported.
Officials also said they won't rule out fielding candidates in other states or even the lower house of parliament if they find the right people to run, according to local media.
Assange himself remains under investigation by the U.S. and has been holed up in the Ecuadorean Embassy in London for the better part of a year to avoid extradition to Sweden on sex-crimes allegations.
"It would be up to the government to secure the opportunity for Mr. Assange to come back to Australia," WikiLeaks campaign director Greg Barns told a news conference in Melbourne on Saturday.
He dismissed questions about whether registering WikiLeaks as a political party was part of "a legal strategy or diplomatic strategy on Julian's part to get back to Australia."
"If that were the case, he would simply put his name down for the senate, run in the ungrouped category and hope to get elected. This is actually a much broader movement," Barns said. "It is a party which will run other candidates and it's about those other candidates as well as being about Julian."
If Assange was elected and was unable to take his senate seat, another nominated WikiLeaks Party member would be chosen to fill the vacancy.
The party would run on a platform of transparency in government, party officials said.
Assange's election campaign already has the endorsement of his parents.
His father, Sydney architect John Shipton, said he will be the chief executive of the newly formed party.
Shipton said his son is doing well although in physically harsh conditions.
"WikiLeaks will release a million pages of documents this year. There's this party to run here and contribute to, so Julian and staff are very, very busy," he added.
Party officials said they are drawing members from both of the major sides of politics as well as people who had not previously been politically active, according to local media.
Assange is wanted in Sweden for questioning over criminal allegations made by two women.
But Assange says the Swedish allegations are a ploy to get him to Sweden from where he would be extradited to the United States.
The U.S. Department of Justice has been investigating WikiLeaks since the secret-busting website began distributing hundreds of thousands of classified U.S. documents.
But few details of that investigation have been made public.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.