Ulysses G. Posted December 18, 2010 Share Posted December 18, 2010 Manning is in the army and is being held according to rules of The Uniform Code of Military Justice that soldiers have been subject to for decades - nothing to do with the Patriot Act. This accused traitor is being treated like any other soldier who is accused of such despicable crimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KhunAussie52 Posted December 18, 2010 Share Posted December 18, 2010 Assange cites McCarthyism as BoA tightens WikiLeaks vice AFP December 19, 2010, 7:45 am ELLINGHAM, United Kingdom (AFP) - WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange denounced "business McCarthyism" in the United States after the Bank of America halted all transactions to the website Saturday. The Australian, who was spending his second full day on bail, vowed the whistle-blowing site would carry on releasing controversial leaked US diplomatic cables as he insisted his life was under threat. Bank of America, the largest US bank, halted all transactions for WikiLeaks, joining other institutions that have refused to process payments for the website since it started to publish the documents last month. Continues http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/world/8534701/assange-cites-mccarthyism-as-boa-tightens-wikileaks-vice/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carib Posted December 19, 2010 Share Posted December 19, 2010 I am willing to bet that these " private citizens " are on the payroll of some "agency". You think that the CIA got someone to shoot a bunch of Palestinians at the Tomb of the Patriarchs? That is some conspiracy theory. UG, follow the link... Pretty obvious way to dodge the question and totally off topic - no surprise Already told you what I thought, so no question to be answer and yes, you still score 10 out of 10. Have a nice day general. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KhunAussie52 Posted December 19, 2010 Share Posted December 19, 2010 For the second part, Manning is being processed through the UCMJ system, not through the civilian legal system and there can be major differences. As others have stated, he is under an obligation because of his agreement with the U.S. Military and had further responsibilities because of his security clearance to safeguard that information. So most, if not all your comments do not apply to him in this case. You make it sound as if the UCMJ also has the no Constitutional rights clause of the Patriot<sic> Act?..You are wrong http://www.armfor.us.../digest/VB3.htm Think of how terrible it would be to ask our kids to fight to defend the Constitution & yet... not allow them the rights promised by the Constitution.. that is basically what this is. But in a round about way your right...Because it does not matter if he is a soldier or a civilian worker...Under the Patriot<sic> Act which he is probably being held...there is no longer any Constitutional rights to due process. You may be held just as he is with no trial...no conviction...just held indefinitely with no rights previously afforded by the Constitution that these soldiers took an oath to uphold. "I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" The rights our forefathers & the Framers of the Constitution were smart enough to include because they knew from where we came. Yet today certain folks seem so anxious to give it all away..... Again I ask...what happened? What turned so many into anti-Constitution Cheerleaders? You cannot pick the events to apply the rights to & deny the others. When you sit for this you sit for it all. It is too late to later ask why it is all gone... you gave it away under the guise of anti-terror "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Ben Franklin Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. in his last book, Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community, asserted, "Structures of evil do not crumble by passive waiting. If history teaches anything, it is that evil is recalcitrant and determined, and never voluntarily relinquishes its hold short of an almost fanatical resistance. Evil must be attacked by a counteracting persistence, by the day-to-day assault of the battering rams of justice.the forces of light cautiously wait, patiently pray and timidly act. So we end up with a double destruction: the destructive violence of the bad people and the destructive silence of the good people."8 For those who seek to preserve constitutional democracy within the United States, it will be necessary to take Dr. King's admonition to heart. Neither timidity nor patience will provide an adequate bulwark against the intrusions of an officious state. The defense of democracy really begins at home. The realization of freedom and democracy are mutually reinforcing day-to-day realities. The USA Patriot Act is antithetical to both. Therefore, it is incumbent upon us to decide whether we shall comply with becoming collaborators in treason to our own constitution or whether we shall reclaim the liberties within it that have been so consistently proclaimed to all mankind. c. 2003 Terrence Edward Paupp http://www.warpeace.org/article.php?story=2003121715255683 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted December 19, 2010 Share Posted December 19, 2010 Assange cites McCarthyism as BoA tightens WikiLeaks vice AFP December 19, 2010, 7:45 am Pure hokum. McCarthy was accusing innocent people of being Communists. Assange has already confessed to what he has done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flying Posted December 19, 2010 Share Posted December 19, 2010 (edited) Manning is in the army and is being held according to rules of The Uniform Code of Military Justice that soldiers have been subject to for decades - nothing to do with the Patriot Act. This accused traitor is being treated like any other soldier who is accused of such despicable crimes. You are wrong & choose to ignore the facts... 1 http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/14/manning/index.html 2 http://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/digest/VB3.htm He is not being afforded 6th amendment rights that is his Constitutional right & also allowed under the Uniform Code but removed under the Patriot Act. So he is Not being held accordingly under the Uniform code as the article shows & not being given his 6th amendment rights which are his & as shown in precedents shown in the 2nd article both Constitutionally & under the UC Edited December 19, 2010 by flying Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted December 19, 2010 Share Posted December 19, 2010 (edited) I can not find anything in either article that suggests that he is being denied any rights under The Uniform Code of Military Justice. Yes, military prisons are harsh, but any soldier knows that and being in solitary - which is quite common - in most prisons is no picnic. Do not forget that he has already confessed. If you are referring to the right to a speedy trial, that would probably have to do with waiting to see all the evidence. All of the stolen state secrets have not been released yet and the court will have to examine exactly what is put on-line. Edited December 19, 2010 by Ulysses G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaoPo Posted December 19, 2010 Share Posted December 19, 2010 (edited) 12/17/2010 03:21 PM The World from Berlin US Seems 'Helpless' in the Fight against Assange WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, arrested in London earlier this month, is free on bail in a case stemming from sexual misconduct charges in Sweden. The US, for its part, would like to try him for making 250,000 confidential diplomatic cables public. German commentators argue that the effort is delicate at best. Full story: http://www.spiegel.d...,735282,00.html LaoPo Edited December 19, 2010 by cdnvic removed full story, fair use portion retained Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
venturalaw Posted December 19, 2010 Share Posted December 19, 2010 I can not find anything in either article that suggests that he is being denied any rights under The Uniform Code of Military Justice. Yes, military prisons are harsh, but any soldier knows that and being in solitary - which is quite common - in most prisons is no picnic. Do not forget that he has already confessed. If you are referring to the right to a speedy trial, that would probably have to do with waiting to see all the evidence. All of the stolen state secrets have not been released yet and the court will have to examine exactly what is put on-line. Bottom line UG is that there will always be those out there that believe that the rights of the perpetrators are superior to the rights of the victims. Who knows why? One thing is certain - arguing with them will get you nowhere. They are just different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted December 19, 2010 Share Posted December 19, 2010 (edited) 12/17/2010 03:21 PM The World from Berlin It's been a good week for Julian Assange. The fugitive Australian founder of WikiLeaks was detained in Britain on December 7 for extradition to Sweden to face questions on sex-crime allegations... He is having a "good week" because he got out on bail, but he is still wanted in Sweden for sex crimes.That does not sound very good to me. This is all a bunch of speculation and wishful thinking with few facts to support it. Where is the MEAT? Edited December 19, 2010 by Ulysses G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flying Posted December 19, 2010 Share Posted December 19, 2010 (edited) there will always be those out there that believe that the rights of the perpetrators are superior to the rights of the victims. It is silly or ignorance to suggest that there is more than one set of Constitutional rights. As you suggest one for victims & one for perps....Is there two Constitutions in your world too? Odd for one who plays a lawyer on TV Edited December 19, 2010 by flying Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flying Posted December 19, 2010 Share Posted December 19, 2010 (edited) If you are referring to the right to a speedy trial, that would probably have to do with waiting to see all the evidence. All of the stolen state secrets have not been released yet and the court will have to examine exactly what is put on-line. Thankfully that is not how the law works.....ie: jail you in solitary for months without being charged because evidence has not yet been released/created. Perhaps your joking ...perhaps not...In any case it is sad to see supposed Americans so flip about the loss of the Constitution...Then again...X-pats have their reasons I suppose. Enjoy Edited December 19, 2010 by flying Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beechguy Posted December 19, 2010 Share Posted December 19, 2010 (edited) For the second part, Manning is being processed through the UCMJ system, not through the civilian legal system and there can be major differences. As others have stated, he is under an obligation because of his agreement with the U.S. Military and had further responsibilities because of his security clearance to safeguard that information. So most, if not all your comments do not apply to him in this case. You make it sound as if the UCMJ also has the no Constitutional rights clause of the Patriot<sic> Act?..You are wrong http://www.armfor.us.../digest/VB3.htm Think of how terrible it would be to ask our kids to fight to defend the Constitution & yet... not allow them the rights promised by the Constitution.. that is basically what this is. But in a round about way your right...Because it does not matter if he is a soldier or a civilian worker...Under the Patriot<sic> Act which he is probably being held...there is no longer any Constitutional rights to due process. You may be held just as he is with no trial...no conviction...just held indefinitely with no rights previously afforded by the Constitution that these soldiers took an oath to uphold. "I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" The rights our forefathers & the Framers of the Constitution were smart enough to include because they knew from where we came. Yet today certain folks seem so anxious to give it all away..... Again I ask...what happened? What turned so many into anti-Constitution Cheerleaders? You cannot pick the events to apply the rights to & deny the others. When you sit for this you sit for it all. It is too late to later ask why it is all gone... you gave it away under the guise of anti-terror "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Ben Franklin I couldn't get the link to work so won't comment on that. So, far as asking kids to fight for the constitution, my oldest son is in Afghanistan, and for a good bit of the past 2 years, I have been doing some work in Iraq, before that another 10 years working in the Persian Gulf. So, I think I'm pretty aware of what the military and thousands of civilians are being asked to do. I'm not some armchair warrior sitting on my ass behind a computer like some of these other guys that are making stupid comments. I do not agree with everything the U.S. Government has done, they've spent more money than they should and some things haven't been very efficient or productive. But, it wasn't Manning's decision to make when it came to releasing information. He's in a bad situation, but he only has himself to blame and I don't think he is necessarily being mistreated. Aside from the normal military regulations he has broken, the security issues may be a seperate legal issue. I'm not sure about the agreement documents the military personnel sign, I would assume they are the same or very similar, but the documents and information that apply to civilian responsibilities and obligations for security clearances, handling information, etc. are very clear . He chose not to live up to his responsibilities and obligations, it's up to the legal system now. Edited December 19, 2010 by beechguy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUDAS Posted December 19, 2010 Share Posted December 19, 2010 12/17/2010 03:21 PM The World from Berlin It's been a good week for Julian Assange. The fugitive Australian founder of WikiLeaks was detained in Britain on December 7 for extradition to Sweden to face questions on sex-crime allegations... He is having a "good week" because he got out on bail, but he is still wanted in Sweden for sex crimes.That does not sound very good to me. This is all a bunch of speculation and wishful thinking with few facts to support it. Where is the MEAT? It's all relative, I guess. His situation now is obviuosly better than last week, he's not in custody. You do like to call for facts UG, so let's state a fact, he's not wanted for sex crimes, as you state, he's wanted for questioning over alleged sex offenses, a big difference. Another fact, he has not been charged ATM with anything relating to WL despite posturing from some calling for his arrest and imprisonment, perhaps a positive situation in his way of thinking. In lao pao link to The Telegraph there's a memo expressing rather negative views on the European Court of Human Rights http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/17/wikileaks-european-human-rights-standards This is one court which Assange could appeal to if the US ever actually apply for extradition? The law should be impartial but judges are human, one wonders how favourably they would view an extradition request from a nation with such a low opinion of them. On a personal note I find it rather distasteful that the US is lambasting an organization for defending human rights but in public claims to lead the world on the very same issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beechguy Posted December 19, 2010 Share Posted December 19, 2010 (edited) Manning is in the army and is being held according to rules of The Uniform Code of Military Justice that soldiers have been subject to for decades - nothing to do with the Patriot Act. This accused traitor is being treated like any other soldier who is accused of such despicable crimes. You are wrong & choose to ignore the facts... 1 http://www.salon.com...ning/index.html 2 http://www.armfor.us.../digest/VB3.htm He is not being afforded 6th amendment rights that is his Constitutional right & also allowed under the Uniform Code but removed under the Patriot Act. So he is Not being held accordingly under the Uniform code as the article shows & not being given his 6th amendment rights which are his & as shown in precedents shown in the 2nd article both Constitutionally & under the UC I still couldn't get link number 2 to open, for number 1, would disagree that those are facts, but more like opinions. Edited December 19, 2010 by beechguy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark45y Posted December 19, 2010 Share Posted December 19, 2010 If you are referring to the right to a speedy trial, that would probably have to do with waiting to see all the evidence. All of the stolen state secrets have not been released yet and the court will have to examine exactly what is put on-line. Thankfully that is not how the law works.....ie: jail you in solitary for months without being charged because evidence has not yet been released/created. Perhaps your joking ...perhaps not...In any case it is sad to see supposed Americans so flip about the loss of the Constitution...Then again...X-pats have their reasons I suppose. Enjoy A federal judge ruled Tuesday that the US did not violate the speedy-trial rights of a terror suspect. Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani was interrogated and held for two years by the CIA and detained for another three years at Guantánamo Bay before being brought to New York City to stand trial for the 1998 truck bombing of the US Embassy in Tanzania. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2010/0713/Judge-clears-way-for-civilian-trial-of-Guantanamo-detainee I am not saying the cases are the same but I would suggest Manning's case is unique if for no other reason than the volume of documents that he gave to WikiLeaks. Also I believe that Manning has to invoke his right to a speedy trial under the UCMJ and I don't know if he has done that. Do you? When you embarrass that many high ranking people all over the world you gotta figure the sh** is going to hit the fan. Get real for a minute. The kid knew he was going to have more than his 15 minutes of fame. He also had at least imagine he would pay dearly for that fame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
venturalaw Posted December 19, 2010 Share Posted December 19, 2010 (edited) there will always be those out there that believe that the rights of the perpetrators are superior to the rights of the victims. It is silly or ignorance to suggest that there is more than one set of Constitutional rights. As you suggest one for victims & one for perps....Is there two Constitutions in your world too? Odd for one who plays a lawyer on TV Who said anything about constitutional rights. My statement is true - I have never read any post by you where you evidenced sentiment for the victims. You always defend the perpetrators. As for me playing lawyer on TV - what does that mean? You are the one posting links to the law without any analysis. No analysis. Now that is what equates to playing a lawyer. Edited December 19, 2010 by venturalaw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hammered Posted December 19, 2010 Share Posted December 19, 2010 12/17/2010 03:21 PM The World from Berlin It's been a good week for Julian Assange. The fugitive Australian founder of WikiLeaks was detained in Britain on December 7 for extradition to Sweden to face questions on sex-crime allegations... He is having a "good week" because he got out on bail, but he is still wanted in Sweden for sex crimes.That does not sound very good to me. This is all a bunch of speculation and wishful thinking with few facts to support it. Where is the MEAT? It's all relative, I guess. His situation now is obviuosly better than last week, he's not in custody. You do like to call for facts UG, so let's state a fact, he's not wanted for sex crimes, as you state, he's wanted for questioning over alleged sex offenses, a big difference. Another fact, he has not been charged ATM with anything relating to WL despite posturing from some calling for his arrest and imprisonment, perhaps a positive situation in his way of thinking. In lao pao link to The Telegraph there's a memo expressing rather negative views on the European Court of Human Rights http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/17/wikileaks-european-human-rights-standards This is one court which Assange could appeal to if the US ever actually apply for extradition? The law should be impartial but judges are human, one wonders how favourably they would view an extradition request from a nation with such a low opinion of them. On a personal note I find it rather distasteful that the US is lambasting an organization for defending human rights but in public claims to lead the world on the very same issue. If the European court did anyhting to defend the rights of citizens from human rights violations such as being kidnapped by agents of a foreign government in another state then it deserves praise. Im sure all those demanding court cases against anyone wanted for questioning for committing a criminal act will also heartily call for those suspected of kidnap in Italy and those suspected of murder in Pakistan are charged and extradited to face criminal charges. Im sure all those calling for Assange to be tried on espionage charges are after all not hypocrites who wouldnt want to see those accused of other crimes not duly extradited and tried too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted December 19, 2010 Share Posted December 19, 2010 If you are referring to the right to a speedy trial, that would probably have to do with waiting to see all the evidence. All of the stolen state secrets have not been released yet and the court will have to examine exactly what is put on-line. Thankfully that is not how the law works.....ie: jail you in solitary for months without being charged because evidence has not yet been released/created. It seems that you have never been in the military, but that is how it works under the UCMJ when a crime has been committed, the perpetrator has admitted that they did it in public and evidence for more counts of the same type of crime is coming out every single day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted December 19, 2010 Share Posted December 19, 2010 (edited) You do like to call for facts UG, so let's state a fact, he's not wanted for sex crimes, as you state, he's wanted for questioning over alleged sex offenses, a big difference. If we are going to split hairs, how about alleged sex offenses that he allegedly committed. Will that do? Swedish police report details case against Assange It bolsters women's assertions that they weren't colluding with his enemies By JOHN F. BURNS and RAVI SOMAIYA The New York Times LONDON Julian Assange, the founder of the WikiLeaks anti-secrecy organization who was released from a British jail late last week, is facing a new challenge: the leak of a 68-page confidential Swedish police report that sheds new light on the allegations of sexual misconduct that led to Mr. Assange's legal troubles. The Swedish report traces events over a four-day period in August when Mr. Assange had what he has described as consensual sexual relationships with two Swedish women. Their accounts, which form the basis of an extradition case against Mr. Assange, are that their encounters with him began consensually, but became nonconsensual when he persisted in having unprotected sex with them in defiance of their insistence that he use a condom. http://www.msnbc.msn...aks_in_security# Edited December 19, 2010 by Ulysses G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metisdead Posted December 19, 2010 Share Posted December 19, 2010 One off topic post removed from view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hammered Posted December 19, 2010 Share Posted December 19, 2010 You do like to call for facts UG, so let's state a fact, he's not wanted for sex crimes, as you state, he's wanted for questioning over alleged sex offenses, a big difference. If we are going to split hairs, how about alleged sex offenses that he allegedly committed. Will that do? Swedish police report details case against Assange It bolsters women's assertions that they weren't colluding with his enemies By JOHN F. BURNS and RAVI SOMAIYA The New York Times LONDON — Julian Assange, the founder of the WikiLeaks anti-secrecy organization who was released from a British jail late last week, is facing a new challenge: the leak of a 68-page confidential Swedish police report that sheds new light on the allegations of sexual misconduct that led to Mr. Assange's legal troubles. The Swedish report traces events over a four-day period in August when Mr. Assange had what he has described as consensual sexual relationships with two Swedish women. Their accounts, which form the basis of an extradition case against Mr. Assange, are that their encounters with him began consensually, but became nonconsensual when he persisted in having unprotected sex with them in defiance of their insistence that he use a condom. http://www.msnbc.msn...aks_in_security# That story is pretty much what has been on the web for days now. Whatever the truth of the allegations Mr. Assanges personal problems if they prove to be so are a seperate issue from the wikileaks one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
venturalaw Posted December 19, 2010 Share Posted December 19, 2010 (edited) It pretty much should go without saying that a perpetrator is immediately jailed pending a hearing not for punishment, but solely for the purpose of protecting the public from continuing violations. It is for the purpose of protecting potential victims from a perpetrator who has violated the law at least once, and therefore capable of hurting others. Edited December 19, 2010 by venturalaw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted December 19, 2010 Share Posted December 19, 2010 It pretty much should go without saying that a perpetrator is immediately jailed pending a hearing not for punishment, but solely for the purpose of protecting the public from continuing violations. It is for the purpose of protecting potential victims from a perpetrator who has violated the law at least once, and therefore capable of hurting others. It pretty much should go without saying, that that is a stupid idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted December 19, 2010 Share Posted December 19, 2010 (edited) Stupid idea? Oh really now. One fifth of murder suspects 'committed crime while on bail'Richard Edwards, Crime Correspondent 3:32PM GMT 23 Mar 2008 Almost one in five murder suspects in Britain last year were alleged to have committed the offence while on bail, it has emerged. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1582527/One-fifth-of-murder-suspects-committed-crime-while-on-bail.html Edited December 19, 2010 by metisdead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
venturalaw Posted December 19, 2010 Share Posted December 19, 2010 Stupid idea? Oh really now. One fifth of murder suspects 'committed crime while on bail'Richard Edwards, Crime Correspondent 3:32PM GMT 23 Mar 2008 Almost one in five murder suspects in Britain last year were alleged to have committed the offence while on bail, it has emerged. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1582527/One-fifth-of-murder-suspects-committed-crime-while-on-bail.html Now I'm certain that there will be posters out there that feel sorry for the murderer, just as they pity Assange and that poor soldier, who confessed to his crime, sitting in the military prison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUDAS Posted December 19, 2010 Share Posted December 19, 2010 You do like to call for facts UG, so let's state a fact, he's not wanted for sex crimes, as you state, he's wanted for questioning over alleged sex offenses, a big difference. If we are going to split hairs, how about alleged sex offenses that he allegedly committed. Will that do? Swedish police report details case against Assange It bolsters women's assertions that they weren't colluding with his enemies By JOHN F. BURNS and RAVI SOMAIYA The New York Times LONDON — Julian Assange, the founder of the WikiLeaks anti-secrecy organization who was released from a British jail late last week, is facing a new challenge: the leak of a 68-page confidential Swedish police report that sheds new light on the allegations of sexual misconduct that led to Mr. Assange's legal troubles. The Swedish report traces events over a four-day period in August when Mr. Assange had what he has described as consensual sexual relationships with two Swedish women. Their accounts, which form the basis of an extradition case against Mr. Assange, are that their encounters with him began consensually, but became nonconsensual when he persisted in having unprotected sex with them in defiance of their insistence that he use a condom. http://www.msnbc.msn...aks_in_security# You are at least amusing UG. Now stating a fact is splitting hairs.... Somewhat of a difference between being question and being charged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted December 19, 2010 Share Posted December 19, 2010 (edited) I wonder if Julian objects to the Swedish police leaking their report that casts doubt on his innocence or on any conspiracy theories. Swedish police report details case against Assange It bolsters women's assertions that they weren't colluding with his enemies By JOHN F. BURNS and RAVI SOMAIYA The New York Times LONDON Julian Assange, the founder of the WikiLeaks anti-secrecy organization who was released from a British jail late last week, is facing a new challenge: the leak of a 68-page confidential Swedish police report that sheds new light on the allegations of sexual misconduct that led to Mr. Assange's legal troubles. The Swedish report traces events over a four-day period in August when Mr. Assange had what he has described as consensual sexual relationships with two Swedish women. Their accounts, which form the basis of an extradition case against Mr. Assange, are that their encounters with him began consensually, but became nonconsensual when he persisted in having unprotected sex with them in defiance of their insistence that he use a condom. http://www.msnbc.msn...aks_in_security# Edited December 19, 2010 by Ulysses G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUDAS Posted December 19, 2010 Share Posted December 19, 2010 It would certainly hypocritical of Assange to complain about the leaking of any documents. On the other side of the coin though, it would seem reasonable, in the name of upholding standards, that those calling for Assange to be charged over WL also call for a full investigation and, charging if possible under the law, those responsible for any leaks directed at Assange. Fair play.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted December 19, 2010 Share Posted December 19, 2010 Do you think that the Swedish police violated national security by leaking that report? I say give them a few hours directing traffic for this horrendous offense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts