Darling Of The Left,Michael Moore Gives $20K For Assange Bail...

[Sallow]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQkActP-isE

These guys sound like a third rate garage band.

Wait a minute! You put me on ignore..

 

[Sunni Man]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQkActP-isE

These guys sound like a third rate garage band.

Wait a minute! You put me on ignore..

I recently gave you parole when Marc39 got banned.

So behave yourself or you go back into stir.

 

[8537]

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?

 

[California Girl]

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?

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.

 

[Contumacious]

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.

Wake the fuck up.

We should appreciate the fact that someone out there will not allow federal bureaucrats to use "national security" as subterfuge.

.

 

[California Girl]

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.

.

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.

 

[Contumacious]

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?

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.

.

 

[8537]

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?

Lord, you people are dumb.

Lord, you are disrespectful shit.

The crime under consideration by the US DoJ is espionage.

the crime "under consideration" by the US DoJ is fraudulent. This would be a dramatic and wholecloth expansion of the term "espionage".

And... for the benefit of the terminally stupid.... there are international laws and international agreements in place to deal with such actions.

and, for the terminally rude jackasses...you're wrong. There is no international law in place related to the possession of stolen property.

 

[8537]

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.

.

S/he's just making shit up.

 

[Contumacious]

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.

Of course not.

Criminals , such as federal bureaucrats, rely on violence to perpetrate injury. Rights are ignored in the process.

.

 

[California Girl]

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.

.

The only opinion that really matters is that of the US DoJ. Your ranting and raving is of no consequence. What he did was espionage. Manning committed treason, but he'll probably be charged with espionage. Both will, eventually, end up in prison. Manning already is.

What they did was illegal.

 

[Sallow]

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?

I am not really sure. There might be some reciprocity issues which makes it all the more complicated and why the United States must be careful not to "overcharge" him. But at this point, it's probably an exercise in futility.

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.

 

[8537]

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.

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.

 

[California Girl]

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.

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.

 

[Contumacious]

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.

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.

.

 

[California Girl]

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.

.

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.

 

[Contumacious]

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.

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?!?!?!?!?!

.

.

 

[8537]

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.
.

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.

 

[hipeter924]

Assange, 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.

Julian and Me: Michael Moore to Assange’s Rescue | VF Daily | Vanity Fair

I was right, a cheap marketing ploy.

 

[California Girl]

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?!?!?!?!?!

.

.

You really aren't worth the effort of any logical discussion. You're silly.