filing a complaint for incitation of murder - the ok for murdering Assange website

Discussion in 'Wikileaks' started by genoramix, Jan 10, 2011.

  1. genoramix Member

    Isn't it illegal to call out for murder in the US? if so, amerifags should file complaints against those people. If enough are doing it, they might even be jailed, which would be right, and lulzy.

    Moreover Assange didn't break any US laws to my knowledge.
  2. BusinessBecky Member

    Yes, am pretty sure that conspiring to murder someone is a federal crime.

    It's like saying I am not going to help you rob the bank but I will show which one I want you to rob, where the safe is and how to get past security. This is the kind of stuff garbage that does not belong on the airways.
  3. God, he looks even goofier without hair.

    As I always say, best not to shave your head to display your under-sized cranium...but they never listen.
  4. Rockyj Member

  5. missy Member

    @genoramix, You may be unaware of Assange acting illegally, but the U.S. Attorney General Holder holds a differing opinion and just may be in possession of more relevant information than is available to you.

    Julian Assange warning about Inflammatory rhetoric is a little like Lindsey Lohan warning about excessive partying.

    Politicians can and should be able to debate public policy freely, including the legal killing of enemies. If an execution occurs legally it is not murder.
  6. fallingspider Member

    What was it, mid 90s when we had that rash of charges against authors who'd publish information that "could have" influenced or helped people comit crimes? I recall they were trying to charge whoever put out the anarchists cookbook. Though I don't recall what the results of those cases were, but wouldn't these types of inflamitory political statments fall under the same catagories?
  7. haklaf Member

    Ok, but what about Bob Beckel calling to illegally shoot Assange on public TV?
    That's incitation to murder, isn't it?
  8. Onanymous Member

    "legally" according to who's law?
  9. haklaf Member

    According to US law. The US still have the death penalty in some states, although i don't think that Assange even committed a crime, let alone a crime that would warrant the death penalty.
  10. Zak McKracken Member

    Where laws conflict in International jurisdictions, it is not always so clear cut.
    If Assange were 'removed' in accordance with U.S. statutes, but in violation of the legal codes of his home country, or the country he was 'removed' from, yes, that would be murder. (Though obviously, not within U.S. law)

    But let's clarify which politicians we're talking about, and which legal remedies we're considering:
    I guess we can expand "politicians" to include "anyone babbling in the public sphere".
    Or "execution in conformance with U.S. statutes" to include "illegally shoot[ing] the son of a bitch".

    Constitution of the United States of America, as applied universally to everyone.
  11. Onanymous Member

    Surely this is a joke.
  12. missy Member

    Too little information. I am not familiar with that very confusing and gruff man nor the intricacies of the U.S. law against inciting violence and the video clip was cut short. I'd be happy to entertain your argument, should you provide one, that his assertion for extra-judicial action is prosecutable.
  13. missy Member

    I do hope you can discern for yourself the jurisdiction relevant to this discussion since I lack the patience to hold your hand.
  14. Onanymous Member

    There are places where people are executed for speaking up their mind. In various places (or time), to do so is deemed "illegal". It's not because the U.S. government brands somethign as "illegal" that I have to agree with it and not try to counter it however I can, hence my "who's". I mistakenly thought you would see my point.
  15. Herro Member

    It's a very tricky area in American law because our laws tend to draw the line between free speech and public safety much closer to the free speech side than in other Western democracies. In browsing thorough the quotes from the site you linked, there are some that would be considered illegal under American law because they are unambiguous threats or calls to violent action against someone. There are also some quotes there that would absolutely be considered as protected by the first ammendment- namely those quotes saying that Assange should be treated as a terrorist or an enemy combatant. And then there's quotes there that fall in a gray area. Most of this category would be the quotes talking about "what if" someone killed Assange. Those could go either way because on the one hand there is no direct threat but there is still an implied threat. Given the tendency of judges to err on the side of free speech and given that Assange is a controversial public figure in America, I would imagine that most of the quotes in the gray area would be considered to be protected speech. I may be totally wrong since I'm not a lawyer or legal scholar or anything like that.
  16. Zak McKracken Member

    I lack the hand.
    • Like Like x 1
  17. missy Member

    I would not have taken exception to someone presenting a coherent argument as to why a particular individual or individuals may be guilty of a prosecutable crime based on the merits of his or their specific actions. Somebody, somewhere probably has crossed a line.

    I am taking exception to Wikileaks' and Assange's arguments as stated in their press release that all these individuals as a group need to be squelched. Wikileaks and Assange are seeking to damp legitimate discussion of public policy alternatives.

    Exploiting the actual tragedy is absolutely disgusting to me. Wikileaks and Assange should be ashamed of themselves. The facts and circumstances of the Arizona shooting are completely disparate from Assange's predicament.

    Agreed. Sloppy shorthand was sloppy.
  18. Onanymous Member

    This is a mind-boggling statement. Let's see: If a prominent figure in the U.S. calls for my assassination, and I suggest that this (prominent) person should be prosecuted for incitement to have me killed, it's very wrong for me to respond to the threat by asking for the rule of law to be applied, because I "damp[en] legitimate discussion of public policy alternatives"?
  19. Herro Member

    Edit: Never mind. I entirely misinterpreted someone's post.
  20. Zak McKracken Member

    Dampening discussion of distinguished gentlemen drafting one's demise, is discourse to be discouraged.
    • Like Like x 1
  21. missy Member

    Your example does not represent my statement and it is a disputed fact that there exists a "rule of law" applicable to the facts. Wikileaks, or you in your example, can think and do as you like. My statement pertains to why I believe Wikileaks' and Assange's protestations should be discarded. I believe Wikileaks and Assange are wrong to characterize the collective statements as incitement or as murder and I believe politicians, public opinion makers and other stakeholders should feel free to continue engaging in public discourse of legal alternatives. Assange seeks to portray himself as a victim and martyr while the facts do not support his hyperbole.

    My statement may not be particularly "mind-boggling" to many. If you read Wikileaks' press release it is clear that Wikileaks anticipated precisely such criticism.
  22. PodPeople Member

    Whether we're talking about the lack of consequences after shocking public calls of assasination of Wikileak's Assange, or the lack of action/treatment of Loughner after two full years in the community of obvious dangerous need to do so, or lack of U.S. authorities to investigate if not raid the slave labor RPF camps of Scientology's gulags, there is a central theme of a missing element.

    Checks and Balances. There will always be fringes, bad, evil, greedy, etc. It's just that it seems far too many in this category have entered into govt and social groups. And these are the ones who have ensured the checks and balances have been diluted in some cases, and completely done away with in others. Foxes guard the hen houses now.

    The only real solution I see is more citizens becoming far more responsible to educate themselves about such non-sexy issues as campaign finance reform, gerrymandering, earmarks, how bills are made, what their rights are, and so much more. The 70-80 year old population is dying off and this is a problem for both left and right wing extremists. The population of low intelligence, often an "easy pickings" group for manipulation, is no longer centric populated, which is why so much lobbying for status quo of gerrymandering districts.

    The greatest hope lies at the feet (or fingers) of the new emerging "market" of younger voters who today have no mandatory classes in civics. The question is: Will they arm themselves with the information now at their fingertips to learn the awesome power they have in turning the tide of an entire nation? I certainly hope so. They Are the hope of balance that is lacking today.
  23. haklaf Member

    I believe they should be free to say whatever they want without any repercussions by the state, just as wikileaks should be free to say whatever it wants without any repercussions by the state. :-P
  24. Onanymous Member

    I wasn't asking for your permission.
    "collective statements"? The press release was quite specific: named individuals were quoted along with specific statements.

    Taking one's life is the ultimate way to dampen forever someone's ability to participate in public discourse. To me, that a fatwa is issued by a Huckabee or a Limbaugh doesn't make it more acceptable than if it came from an imam wallowing in anger.
  25. PodPeople Member

    Yep. We've come to a crossroads where commen sense and common law are now pushed into the "debatable" category.
  26. You cannot execute citizens legally, period. If they do so it's a crime against humanity.

    The US is ultimately responsible for the actions of their own personnel and doesn't have the right to kill anyone who hasn't declared war on them.
    Publishing some documents is not an act of war and if they are comfortable with their own moral decisions they shouldn't have anything to fear from these leaks anyway.
    • Like Like x 1
  27. Shadow8857 Member

    But if the documents in question are classified as national secret, Classified, or otherwise not able to be accessed to the general public then your statement is vastly inaccurate, its not War, its called Espionage Look it up, and people caught Can be tried and Executed, Unless i am mistaken about spy no matter who they are spying for are subject to criminal charge.

    Oh also, this dose not seem to be the place to debate the death penalty, i think there might be another thread for that, i am a firm believer in the death penalty, you do not debate or try to Correct a murder. you put them down like the mad dog they are

    For those to lazy to look up the word espionage,
    <a href=' '>
  28. genoramix Member

    i don't give a shit about murder penalty, just what i know is that imho when this penalty should be required, it's for such bastards that killing them is too sweet regarding what they have done. So besides that there are too mayn pple in jail now, and actually if govts were dolng their job more accurately, less people would be jailed for petty illegal acts, and more for graet justice(Guzner is a name that comes to mind : 1 year for a DDoS??? come on...the whole system is flawed.

    That said, Assange is not the whistleblower here. He didn't hack shit for wikileaks, he just published online what was given to him. So calling for death penalty after a PROPER trial is ok in my book. Calling for murder before the guy has even been to court is complete and utter bullshit.
    Putting things into perspective, all was ok with EVERYONE here when wikileaks published secret info regarding Co$. But now, there is a fucking controversy because he published stuff that was classified by the US govt. is it just me or the ones on this website who are against wikileaks action to publish classified docs are a little hypocritical?
  29. xenubarb Member

    I remember the case of an idiot's guide to assassination. It was a hit man handbook called 'Hitman,' from Paladin Press.
  30. Anonymous Member

  31. Anonymous Member

    I luv Australia. <3

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins