Customize

misdirection on Assange

Discussion in 'Wikileaks' started by Anonymous, Jul 22, 2012.

  1. Chad Daddy Member

    Care to go deeper?
  2. Archer Member

    But you made a claim, I'd like to see you back it up.
  3. Chad Daddy Member

    Look at all the ad hom directed against Archer just because he questioned anything got to do with Assange. Perhaps you need to lrn2read.
    • Like Like x 1
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
    • Dumb Dumb x 1
  4. Ann O'Nymous Member

    As I said: time will tell.
  5. Archer Member

    Why time? You said he broke 4 laws right? And you claimed that there was an article about it, would you be kind enough to point me to the article?
  6. Ann O'Nymous Member

    Lurk moar.
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Dumb Dumb x 1
  7. Chad Daddy Member

    ITT: saying lurk moar because thats the only refute they have left.
  8. Archer Member

    So you admit that you just made it up then? I did lurk quite a lot and couldn't find anything about this.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. Ann O'Nymous Member

  10. Anonymous Member

    This thread is so much more readable with the stupid excised...
  11. Archer Member

    What you said though is that he broke 4 laws, and that there were 4 charges against him. Not that they were POTENTIAL charges. Potential implying there are no charges yet, which is what I've been saying from the get go.

    Getting desperate Ann?


    Now let's see:

    Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shield_laws_in_the_United_States

    Pretty self explanatory.


    One has to know that the espionage act implies ''treason'' therefore making it technically applicable to US citizens only, something Assange is not. There were cases where the law was vague enough to allow leeway though.




    Can they demonstrate that wikileaks had reason to believe the material published could be used to the injury of the united states or to the advantage of any foreign nation?

    Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917#Pentagon_Papers
    Source 2 : Your own article http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4055465...emma-no-easy-way-charge-assange/#.UD1b79aTu2l
    • Winner Winner x 1
  12. Anonymous Member

    You are ignoring content by this member. Show Ignored Content
  13. And yet, Alkaline, no one has once said, or even implied, that Assange is above criticism. But here, I found some help for you.

    http://bit.ly/NvOucL
    • Like Like x 1
    • Dumb Dumb x 1
  14. Archer Member

    Yes, there is criticism and then there is unwarranted personal attacks. :)
  15. If there weren't unwarranted personal attacks, it would hardly be WWP.
    • Funny Funny x 1
  16. Archer Member

    q6TfJ.jpg
  17. Anonymous Member

    [IMG]
    • Dumb Dumb x 1
  18. Ann O'Nymous Member

    Playing semantics again ?

    You claim that Assange broke no law. I said I read articles mentioning the possibility he broke some laws. You asked if I made them up. I provide you with an example. Where is the problem ?
    Funny.
    You can use whatever color and size you want, it will not make your point look better. My points are:
    • Theft of government property: The Wikileaks case brings something new in the equation: the presence of an intermediary. In the cases mentioned, the information provider was sentenced, but not the media. How will the intermediary be treated ?
    • Classified information: same remark.
    • Espionage: see Harold Koh's letter.
    IANAL, so I don't know the merit of the content of this article, but it seems that several laws could be mentioned in this case.

    AFAIK, YANAL, so I would not take your word for granted. Nothing personal.
  19. Archer Member

    No, go read the definition of semantics, I'm just calling you out on your backpedaling.
    I sourced my claims unlike you whom I had to ask 4 times to do so. So you don't have to take my word for granted.
    The parts in big red letters is to make sure you read them properly, since you have a tendency to ignore what doesn't fit your world view. I guess it didn't work.
    And I rebutted pretty much every single law mentioned in that article including one where the article rebutted it itseld, WHOSANAL?
  20. Whether those who dislike Assange like it or not, some major political and media figures in the United States and Canada have called for Assange to be assassinated.

    Call me crazy, but that alone would make a sensible person want to do everything they can to stay out of the United States, though it would be lulzy as fuck if he were to announce another major embarrassing leak of shit the US has pulled in front of the Lincoln Memorial.
  21. Archer Member

    There was also major backlash against those FEW individuals in those countries who called for his assassination, showing that they were only a fringe segment. If the president had called for it things would be different but I don't think that's the case.

    To be honest, I went through a shit ton of the leaks, and I'd say that the vast majority of the material isn't very embarassing and shows only routine operations. I'd even go as far as saying that a lot of the leaks actually portray those countries in a good light. I wonder if Assange's fanbois actually read the leaks, or if they just watched collateral murder (while ignoring the fact that the journalists were not identified as such in a combat zone, and were running around with guys who had ak-47's and rpg launchers)
  22. Anonymous Member

    Are these butthurt faggots still flailing about ITT?

    Man, that brainwashing they gave you all in school really took hold, eh?
    • Dumb Dumb x 1
  23. I am a fan of Ass-flange, and I would go even farther and say that the vast majority of the material is utterly boring and makes the countries look boring. However, the stuff that isn't boring is explosive. Furthermore, it shows that the vast majority of material that is "classified" is boring and shouldn't be classified, which exposes an abuse of that system.

    The Collateral Murder video exposes war crimes. It is that simple.
  24. Archer Member

    I'm not denying that it does, those crimes just might not be as bad or exactly what people think they are.
    According to international conventions, journalists have to be identified as such when in a combat zone. Wouldn't you agree? And don't you think that running around with people armed with ak-47's and rpg launcher made it hard for soldiers who were shot at in that precise area by insurgents the whole morning to identify them as journalists?

    The one war crime I could clearly see in that video was the soldiers insisting on getting permission to shoot the van where they were transporting the wounded, and actually getting this permission. International conventions also state that this is a big no no.

    Anyways this is a whole different debate.
  25. Anonymous Member

    I'm shit scared now, I'm up for a speeding charge Monday. From what I've read on here I should be concerned. The US don't need to charge you with any crime, hell, you don't even have to commit a crime and they can extradite your ass!

    Where is the North Korean embassy in London?
  26. It is this, more than the journalists' deaths, that makes the Collateral Murder video worthwhile. I forgot. They're only "war crimes" when other nations do it. Otherwise, they're "the cost of freedom", or as I like to call it, utter and complete horse shit.
  27. As soon as major political and media figures call for your assassination, feel free to be a little bit paranoid. Otherwise, FOAD.
  28. Ann O'Nymous Member

    Sure...
    What are your claims again ?
    • There is no crime. You cannot prove it.
    • There is no charges. You cannot prove it.
    IMHO, it is a pat situation. Both sides cannot prove much of their claims. As I said, time will tell.
    Funny, coming from you.
    [/quote]And I rebutted pretty much every single law mentioned in that article including one where the article rebutted it itseld, WHOSANAL?[/quote]
    You are certainly the major source of legal expertise in the world...
  29. Archer Member

    Although I did a better job than you of bringing my side of the story. No offense.

    So Annteresting
    I certainly am not, this is why unlike you I source my claims
  30. Ann O'Nymous Member

    Keep trying to prove claims that cannot be proven.
  31. Archer Member

    Funny, coming from you.
  32. Anonymous Member

    Archer was present and video'd Assange raping those girls. He must have, or he wouldn't be all Diet Pepsi ITT.
  33. Archer Member

    This whole ad hominem cuz we have no arguments thing is getting old pretty fast.
  34. Ann O'Nymous Member

    Exactly. Pat.
  35. Anonymous Member

    What I posted wasn't ad-hom.

    This is: you're a dumbass motherfucker, and if we could find your errant gene and nuke it, we could cure the entire human gene pool of your stupid-fuckery.

    Got the difference now, Jethro?
  36. Anonymous Member

    So, you invent something, something you cannot prove, and then claim it must be fact because no one can prove its wrong because.................its made up!

    Love it!
  37. Anonymous Member

    Sounds just like Scientology, don't it?
  38. Anonymous Member

    Hang on, let me just pull something out of my ass, just like you have been doing!
  39. Archer Member

    You should go read the definition
  40. Anonymous Member

    I'll reach over for my bedside dictionary the moment I'm able to pull my forearm out of your mother's ass.
    • Funny Funny x 1

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors

Close

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

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins