Sallow
The Big Bad Wolf.
These guys sound like a third rate garage band.
Wait a minute! You put me on ignore..
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
These guys sound like a third rate garage band.
I recently gave you parole when Marc39 got banned.
These guys sound like a third rate garage band.
Wait a minute! You put me on ignore..
Our views of this are pretty similar. I just don't see how the US can charge him with receiving stolen goods in Sweden, or wherever he might have been. If the crime is receiving stolen goods, wouldn't the crime be against the nation in which he received them? If I receive a stolen car in England, I'm under arrest in England, right?This was a stupid thing to do..and dilutes any American effort to get this guy in a court.
Outside of a Dog and Pony show, I don't see any way America can "get this guy in court". What US law did he violate?
I'd go with recieving stolen goods. But you are right..this is a very tough case to "charge". And now it would basically look petulant to charge him with anything considering what is going on now.
The real problem I have with Assange is that he should have redacted actual names. From what I understand he's started doing that.
Our views of this are pretty similar. I just don't see how the US can charge him with receiving stolen goods in Sweden, or wherever he might have been. If the crime is receiving stolen goods, wouldn't the crime be against the nation in which he received them? If I receive a stolen car in England, I'm under arrest in England, right?Outside of a Dog and Pony show, I don't see any way America can "get this guy in court". What US law did he violate?
I'd go with recieving stolen goods. But you are right..this is a very tough case to "charge". And now it would basically look petulant to charge him with anything considering what is going on now.
The real problem I have with Assange is that he should have redacted actual names. From what I understand he's started doing that.
Drama Queen.
What I said is factually accurate. He is responsible for an enormous amount of damage to our national security.
You're a fucking idiot. As is evidenced by your excessive use of exclamation points to emphasis your moronic opinion.
You are an unbelievable fucktard as evidenced by the fact that you compare exposing criminality with national security!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
.
I'm not comparing them, moron. I'm pointing out the consequence of his actions. That's not a comparison, it's action and consequence... at least, it is to anyone with an IQ over room temperature.
You are an unbelievable fucktard as evidenced by the fact that you compare exposing criminality with national security!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
.
I'm not comparing them, moron. I'm pointing out the consequence of his actions. That's not a comparison, it's action and consequence... at least, it is to anyone with an IQ over room temperature.
Wake the fuck up.
We should appreciate the fact that someone out there will not allow federal bureaucrats to use "national security" as subterfuge.
.
Our views of this are pretty similar. I just don't see how the US can charge him with receiving stolen goods in Sweden, or wherever he might have been. If the crime is receiving stolen goods, wouldn't the crime be against the nation in which he received them? If I receive a stolen car in England, I'm under arrest in England, right?I'd go with recieving stolen goods. But you are right..this is a very tough case to "charge". And now it would basically look petulant to charge him with anything considering what is going on now.
The real problem I have with Assange is that he should have redacted actual names. From what I understand he's started doing that.
Lord, you people are dumb. The crime under consideration by the US DoJ is espionage. And... for the benefit of the terminally stupid.... there are international laws and international agreements in place to deal with such actions.
Lord, you are disrespectful shit.Our views of this are pretty similar. I just don't see how the US can charge him with receiving stolen goods in Sweden, or wherever he might have been. If the crime is receiving stolen goods, wouldn't the crime be against the nation in which he received them? If I receive a stolen car in England, I'm under arrest in England, right?I'd go with recieving stolen goods. But you are right..this is a very tough case to "charge". And now it would basically look petulant to charge him with anything considering what is going on now.
The real problem I have with Assange is that he should have redacted actual names. From what I understand he's started doing that.
Lord, you people are dumb.
The crime under consideration by the US DoJ is espionage.
And... for the benefit of the terminally stupid.... there are international laws and international agreements in place to deal with such actions.
Our views of this are pretty similar. I just don't see how the US can charge him with receiving stolen goods in Sweden, or wherever he might have been. If the crime is receiving stolen goods, wouldn't the crime be against the nation in which he received them? If I receive a stolen car in England, I'm under arrest in England, right?
Lord, you people are dumb. The crime under consideration by the US DoJ is espionage. And... for the benefit of the terminally stupid.... there are international laws and international agreements in place to deal with such actions.
Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally?
Identify them.
.
I'm not comparing them, moron. I'm pointing out the consequence of his actions. That's not a comparison, it's action and consequence... at least, it is to anyone with an IQ over room temperature.
Wake the fuck up.
We should appreciate the fact that someone out there will not allow federal bureaucrats to use "national security" as subterfuge.
.
I'm perfectly awake, thanks. And I have engaged my brain before posting. Assange is gonna find his ass in a federal prison having committed espionage against the United States of America. All your ranting and raving is of absolutely no consequence whatsoever.
He knowingly disseminated confidential information stolen from the United States Government. He's going down... just like the traitor, Manning, who will spend the rest of his miserable life in prison.
Wake the fuck up.
We should appreciate the fact that someone out there will not allow federal bureaucrats to use "national security" as subterfuge.
.
I'm perfectly awake, thanks. And I have engaged my brain before posting. Assange is gonna find his ass in a federal prison having committed espionage against the United States of America. All your ranting and raving is of absolutely no consequence whatsoever.
He knowingly disseminated confidential information stolen from the United States Government. He's going down... just like the traitor, Manning, who will spend the rest of his miserable life in prison.
Of course not.
Criminals , such as federal bureaucrats, rely on violence to perpetrate injury. Rights are ignored in the process.
.
Our views of this are pretty similar. I just don't see how the US can charge him with receiving stolen goods in Sweden, or wherever he might have been. If the crime is receiving stolen goods, wouldn't the crime be against the nation in which he received them? If I receive a stolen car in England, I'm under arrest in England, right?Outside of a Dog and Pony show, I don't see any way America can "get this guy in court". What US law did he violate?
I'd go with recieving stolen goods. But you are right..this is a very tough case to "charge". And now it would basically look petulant to charge him with anything considering what is going on now.
The real problem I have with Assange is that he should have redacted actual names. From what I understand he's started doing that.
absolutely- that's the real story here, imho. And should be more a focus: We are far too lax in how we restrict access to classified information, and far too over-reaching in what we consider classified.It does however give the military a very good reason to review it's security protocols. And the government to review it's classification procedures. Far to many documents were classified..given that people still needed access to them.
Lord, you people are dumb. The crime under consideration by the US DoJ is espionage. And... for the benefit of the terminally stupid.... there are international laws and international agreements in place to deal with such actions.
Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally?
Identify them.
.
S/he's just making shit up.
Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally?
Identify them.
.
S/he's just making shit up.
No, she isn't. Why do you think he was arrested in the UK for charges in Sweden? Because of international agreements.
Same thing with the US... when we eventually lay charges against him.
S/he's just making shit up.
No, she isn't. Why do you think he was arrested in the UK for charges in Sweden? Because of international agreements.
Same thing with the US... when we eventually lay charges against him.
Common conditions of extradition
By enacting laws or concluding treaties or agreements, countries determine the conditions under which they may entertain or deny extradition requests. Common bars to extradition include:
Failure to fulfill dual criminality - generally the act for which extradition is sought must constitute a crime punishable by some minimum penalty in both the requesting and the requested parties.
Political nature of the alleged crime - most countries refuse to extradite suspects of political crimes.
Possibility of certain forms of punishment - some countries refuse extradition on grounds that the person, if extradited, may receive capital punishment or face torture. A few go as far as to cover all punishments that they themselves would not administer.
Jurisdiction - Jurisdiction over a crime can be invoked to refuse extradition. In particular, the fact that the person in question is a nation's own citizen causes that country to have jurisdiction.
Citizenship of the person in question - some nations refuse to extradite their own citizens, holding trials for the persons themselves. In some cases, such as that of Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, the suspect will not face criminal charges at all.
If the UK finds that Sweden is using "rape" as a pretext to turn Julian over to the US the UK will not extradite him because Julian is being accused of comitting a POLITICAL CRIME.
If an individual commit an act of espionage in US soil he may be indicted but the other parties who received the data have never been prosecuted. For example in the Pollard case, the US did not seek to indict the Israeli officials who received the information.
.
No, she isn't. Why do you think he was arrested in the UK for charges in Sweden? Because of international agreements.
Same thing with the US... when we eventually lay charges against him.
Common conditions of extradition
By enacting laws or concluding treaties or agreements, countries determine the conditions under which they may entertain or deny extradition requests. Common bars to extradition include:
Failure to fulfill dual criminality - generally the act for which extradition is sought must constitute a crime punishable by some minimum penalty in both the requesting and the requested parties.
Political nature of the alleged crime - most countries refuse to extradite suspects of political crimes.
Possibility of certain forms of punishment - some countries refuse extradition on grounds that the person, if extradited, may receive capital punishment or face torture. A few go as far as to cover all punishments that they themselves would not administer.
Jurisdiction - Jurisdiction over a crime can be invoked to refuse extradition. In particular, the fact that the person in question is a nation's own citizen causes that country to have jurisdiction.
Citizenship of the person in question - some nations refuse to extradite their own citizens, holding trials for the persons themselves. In some cases, such as that of Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, the suspect will not face criminal charges at all.
If the UK finds that Sweden is using "rape" as a pretext to turn Julian over to the US the UK will not extradite him because Julian is being accused of comitting a POLITICAL CRIME.
If an individual commit an act of espionage in US soil he may be indicted but the other parties who received the data have never been prosecuted. For example in the Pollard case, the US did not seek to indict the Israeli officials who received the information.
.
Copy and pasting without providing a link is against the terms of use of USMB.
If you think the UK is gonna protect Assange against the US, you're an idiot. If you think any EU country will protect him, you're an idiot. What he did was a crime and the US will charge him. He will be extradited and he will face trial. When he is found guilty - because he is guilty - he will go to prison.
All the whining in the world will not change basic facts. You cannot receive and disseminate information stolen from the US Government.
And let's remember: By "rape" what we're really talking about here is "consensual sex without a condom" Using the term "rape" just makes people more accepting of placing a guy on Interpol's most wanted list for having sex.If the UK finds that Sweden is using "rape" as a pretext to turn Julian over to the US the UK will not extradite him because Julian is being accused of comitting a POLITICAL CRIME.
.
Julian and Me: Michael Moore to Assange’s Rescue | VF Daily | Vanity FairAssange, meanwhile, is having a hell of a time of it in jail. The Guardian spoke with his lawyer, Mark Stephens, who “said Assange was under 24-hour video surveillance and had complained that a tooth which broke off while he was eating had later been stolen from his cell.” Revolting—until you consider that perhaps the tooth was previously hallowed and repurposed as a secret storage facility for a tiny parchment scroll that bears the poison-pill encryption code! We may never know—that is, until the premiere of Moore’s forthcoming WikiLeaks documentary, Control+Alt+WikiLeaks, the opening scene of which we’ve posted below.
Common conditions of extradition
By enacting laws or concluding treaties or agreements, countries determine the conditions under which they may entertain or deny extradition requests. Common bars to extradition include:
Failure to fulfill dual criminality - generally the act for which extradition is sought must constitute a crime punishable by some minimum penalty in both the requesting and the requested parties.
Political nature of the alleged crime - most countries refuse to extradite suspects of political crimes.
Possibility of certain forms of punishment - some countries refuse extradition on grounds that the person, if extradited, may receive capital punishment or face torture. A few go as far as to cover all punishments that they themselves would not administer.
Jurisdiction - Jurisdiction over a crime can be invoked to refuse extradition. In particular, the fact that the person in question is a nation's own citizen causes that country to have jurisdiction.
Citizenship of the person in question - some nations refuse to extradite their own citizens, holding trials for the persons themselves. In some cases, such as that of Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, the suspect will not face criminal charges at all.
If the UK finds that Sweden is using "rape" as a pretext to turn Julian over to the US the UK will not extradite him because Julian is being accused of comitting a POLITICAL CRIME.
If an individual commit an act of espionage in US soil he may be indicted but the other parties who received the data have never been prosecuted. For example in the Pollard case, the US did not seek to indict the Israeli officials who received the information.
.
Copy and pasting without providing a link is against the terms of use of USMB.
If you think the UK is gonna protect Assange against the US, you're an idiot. If you think any EU country will protect him, you're an idiot. What he did was a crime and the US will charge him. He will be extradited and he will face trial. When he is found guilty - because he is guilty - he will go to prison.
All the whining in the world will not change basic facts. You cannot receive and disseminate information stolen from the US Government.
If you believe that receiving information is a LEGALLY prosecutable offense then you ARE the idiot.
Why are you concern? Are you a federal official? Are you worried about criminal and/or embarrassing information about you that may be disclosed?!?!?!?!?!
.
.