WikiLeaks founder appeals detention order

[BJJ-Blue]

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]

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]

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?

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...l?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).

[Syn7]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[David Jamieson]

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.

[Syn7]

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...

[Syn7]

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...

[Syn7]

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...

[Syn7]

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...

[Syn7]

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...

[Syn7]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2...ia-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.