WIKILEAKS FOUNDER JULIAN ASSANGE FREED ON BAIL

[cdnvic]

Yes and isn't it wonderful that Australians are afforded the freedom to express themselves and say what they want without the fear of prosecution. Australia truely is a free society. It would not harm the U.S to allow it's citizens a little of the freedom that Australia gives her citizens.

You may want to look into the amount of book banning that has gone on there first before lionizing the place. Particularly if they exposed corruption in government.

[Carib]

When a totalitarian country like China pretty much controls the rest of the world due to the anarchy that could be caused by these kind of actions, it will be too late for the '"free thinkers" to aplogize for what they have done.

Oh dear, they really put the fear in you back home didn't they, and now you live even closer to China.

It will not be because of the free thinkers, it will be because of the secrets and the dirty games and the double agendas, which in the end will always come to light, and will always backfire.

Some people/governments still cannot understand that after all the failed wars, after all the support to revolutionary groups after all the illegal weapon sales, after all.... well you name it, that it doesn't pen out they way they thought it would. It has been proven over and over and over again.

Lots of people got killed because of those games and lies. Lots of young men are send to defend " their country" on the basis of lies. Plain lies!.

I therefore welcome the `disrobing` of the arrogant and ignorant idiots, because they are the ones causing havoc and misery. They are the ones keeping the fear levels up. Countries really don't have all that much secrets believe me, countries have trashcans to hide, with their dirt in it.

[chuckd]

Do you guys honestly use the American peoples ignorance about the elected MP's as an argument that we cannot mention that a person of CONGRESS went on TV and told everyone watching that a person should be murdered?

Who? I missed that one.

[hammered]

When a totalitarian country like China pretty much controls the rest of the world due to the anarchy that could be caused by these kind of actions, it will be too late for the '"free thinkers" to aplogize for what they have done.

Oh dear, they really put the fear in you back home didn't they, and now you live even closer to China.

It will not be because of the free thinkers, it will be because of the secrets and the dirty games and the double agendas, which in the end will always come to light, and will always backfire.

Some people/governments still cannot understand that after all the failed wars, after all the support to revolutionary groups after all the illegal weapon sales, after all.... well you name it, that it doesn't pen out they way they thought it would. It has been proven over and over and over again.

Lots of people got killed because of those games and lies. Lots of young men are send to defend " their country" on the basis of lies. Plain lies!.

I therefore welcome the `disrobing` of the arrogant and ignorant idiots, because they are the ones causing havoc and misery. They are the ones keeping the fear levels up. Countries really don't have all that much secrets believe me, countries have trashcans to hide, with their dirt in it.

Excellent comment

[Carib]

/quote]

1. The US Census Bureau estimated population of the US in 2010 is 308,400,408.

http://politics.usne...ion-and-growing

2. The audience for Fox News as of 6 December 2010 was 1,992,000.

http://www.mediabist...ategory/ratings

3.The total distribution of USA Today as of March 2010 was 1,800,000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_Today

4. Audience numbers of Fox News and USA Today total 3,792,000.

5. One percent of the US Population is 3,084,004.

6. Based on the wild presumption that 100% of Fox News viewers and USA Today readers know who Bob Beckel is, then a total of 1.19% of the US population is aware of him. This would mean that 98.81% of the US population are not familiar with him.

7. There is no mathematical possibility 100+ millions of Americans have EVER heard of him.

Conclusion. Bob Beckel is NOT a "high profile American".

To me it doesn't matter whether this guy is Billy Joe-bob Nobody or the secretary of state. What does matter is that someone can state this on national television and get away with it.

In lots of civilized countries this would have finished his career or whatever he represented, and he would never be heard of again.

[chuckd]

The Australian Prime Minister, Atorney General and the Federal Police have all confirmed that he has commited no offence was in the Australian media today.

Correction. No offense in Australia.

Yes and isn't it wonderful that Australians are afforded the freedom to express themselves and say what they want without the fear of prosecution. Australia truely is a free society. It would not harm the U.S to allow it's citizens a little of the freedom that Australia gives her citizens.

For your information:

__________________________________________________________

Freedom of the Press in Australia

Australia is one of literally a handful of states that does not have a legal instrument (either a constitutional or statutory bill of rights) asserting the range and scope of its citizens' freedoms, including freedom of speech. Other common law systems, including the United Kingdom, Canada and New Zealand, have a Bill or Rights included in their legal framework in some form. Some of these provisions restrict themselves to freedom of speech, expression or communications; others, such as the US First Amendment, specifically provide for freedom of the press.

Associate Professor Chris Nash

Director, Australian Centre for Independent Journalism

Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences

University of Technology, Sydney

Rest of the article here: http://www.safecom.org.au/press-freedom.htm

[chuckd]

To me it doesn't matter whether this guy is Billy Joe-bob Nobody or the secretary of state. What does matter is that someone can state this on national television and get away with it.

In lots of civilized countries this would have finished his career or whatever he represented, and he would never be heard of again.

And it may well cause Beckel to lose his career.

Just as an aside though...Does freedom of speech not extend to Bob Beckel, regardless of how wrong the words might have been?

[Orac]

To me it doesn't matter whether this guy is Billy Joe-bob Nobody or the secretary of state. What does matter is that someone can state this on national television and get away with it.

In lots of civilized countries this would have finished his career or whatever he represented, and he would never be heard of again.

And it may well cause Beckel to lose his career.

Just as an aside though...Does freedom of speech not extend to Bob Beckel, regardless of how wrong the words might have been?

Possibly so but it does seem a bit ironic to use a freedom of speech defence after calling for someones assasination after something they have said.

[Carib]

To me it doesn't matter whether this guy is Billy Joe-bob Nobody or the secretary of state. What does matter is that someone can state this on national television and get away with it.

In lots of civilized countries this would have finished his career or whatever he represented, and he would never be heard of again.

And it may well cause Beckel to lose his career.

Just as an aside though...Does freedom of speech not extend to Bob Beckel, regardless of how wrong the words might have been?

yes he has that right, but civilized specimens automatically exclude obnoxious threats and unfounded, not by any verdict supported nonsense.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean you have the freedom to be rude or obnoxious IMHO.

:jap:

[beechguy]

To me it doesn't matter whether this guy is Billy Joe-bob Nobody or the secretary of state. What does matter is that someone can state this on national television and get away with it.

In lots of civilized countries this would have finished his career or whatever he represented, and he would never be heard of again.

And it may well cause Beckel to lose his career.

Just as an aside though...Does freedom of speech not extend to Bob Beckel, regardless of how wrong the words might have been?

yes he has that right, but civilized specimens automatically exclude obnoxious threats and unfounded, not by any verdict supported nonsense.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean you have the freedom to be rude or obnoxious IMHO.

:jap:

As said that's your opinion, you don't have to read it or look at it if you don't want. Far as Wikileaks goes, they should have freedom of speech, I just don't think circulating stolen material is ehtical and I hope can be proven illegal. And, personally I wouldn't care if Assange got killed or not, but I think I would probably prefer for him to suffer in jail for a prolonged stay.

[hammered]

To me it doesn't matter whether this guy is Billy Joe-bob Nobody or the secretary of state. What does matter is that someone can state this on national television and get away with it.

In lots of civilized countries this would have finished his career or whatever he represented, and he would never be heard of again.

And it may well cause Beckel to lose his career.

Just as an aside though...Does freedom of speech not extend to Bob Beckel, regardless of how wrong the words might have been?

Possibly so but it does seem a bit ironic to use a freedom of speech defence after calling for someones assasination after something they have said.

Perfectly legitimate defence but as you say somewhat ironic. We do however have to defend people's rights to free speech even if we dont like what they say or we end up like the whirling US government trying to ban airmen from reading the New York Times. It is easier if everything is in the public domain, and people can say what they want. At times people maybe should think a little about the responsibilities that come with free speech but even if they dont it shouldnt be used to limit free speech.

[Ulysses G.]

Do you guys honestly use the American peoples ignorance about the elected MP's...

Why would Americans know anything about MPs? We do not have a Parliament.

[softgeorge]

The Australian Prime Minister, Atorney General and the Federal Police have all confirmed that he has commited no offence was in the Australian media today.

Correction. No offense in Australia.

Yes and isn't it wonderful that Australians are afforded the freedom to express themselves and say what they want without the fear of prosecution. Australia truely is a free society. It would not harm the U.S to allow it's citizens a little of the freedom that Australia gives her citizens.

Who are you trying to BS? If they were Australian state secrets, it is possible that he could be charged. The reason that he has not broken any Australian laws is because they are American documents.

They were not only U.S documents there were also documents concerning the then Prime Minister Kevin RUDD

[chuckd]

To me it doesn't matter whether this guy is Billy Joe-bob Nobody or the secretary of state. What does matter is that someone can state this on national television and get away with it.

In lots of civilized countries this would have finished his career or whatever he represented, and he would never be heard of again.

And it may well cause Beckel to lose his career.

Just as an aside though...Does freedom of speech not extend to Bob Beckel, regardless of how wrong the words might have been?

yes he has that right, but civilized specimens automatically exclude obnoxious threats and unfounded, not by any verdict supported nonsense.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean you have the freedom to be rude or obnoxious IMHO.

:jap:

But, you see, that's where you are wrong.

Freedom of speech means that you have the freedom to say whatever you want to whomever you want whether it be rude or obnoxious or not.

Right now in the US there is some controversy concerning some small Baptist church in Missouri that is demonstrating at the funerals of young US military men that have given their lives for their country. They demonstrate as the funeral procession drives by and sometimes near the cemeteries with signs proclaiming their happiness that another soldier has died, loudly cheering another death.

Is this rude and obnoxious? I consider it despicable, mean spirited and feel it should be banned. The church members should be arrested and put in prison for their actions.

However, regardless of my feelings and most of the American public, legally the members of the church are allowed to do these demonstrations under the freedom of speech amendment and no criminal actions can be taken against them.

What you apologists for Assange don't seem to understand is that I, and many Americans, consider Assange nothing more or less than a common burglar. He has received stolen property and has disseminated it for his own material gain. He is, IMHO, guilty of violating federal codes 18 U.S.A. 641 and 18 U.S.A. 793e.

Freedom of the press has nothing to do with any legal issues he will likely have with the US government. I have heard there is a Federal Grand Jury currently sitting in his case. If they return an indictment he will have to face the charges at some point in time. Please note I said "if".

[Ulysses G.]

They were not only U.S documents there were also documents concerning the then Prime Minister Kevin RUDD

They were US government documents that painted him in an unflattering way - as a "mistake-prone control freak" - not Australian documents. They did not break Australian law.

Edited December 18, 2010 by Ulysses G.

[chuckd]

Correction. No offense in Australia.

Yes and isn't it wonderful that Australians are afforded the freedom to express themselves and say what they want without the fear of prosecution. Australia truely is a free society. It would not harm the U.S to allow it's citizens a little of the freedom that Australia gives her citizens.

Who are you trying to BS? If they were Australian state secrets, it is possible that he could be charged. The reason that he has not broken any Australian laws is because they are American documents.

They were not only U.S documents there were also documents concerning the then Prime Minister Kevin RUDD

Were these documents official US documents concerning comments made by State Department personnel about Kevin Rudd, or were they official classified Australian government documents?

A very large difference in whether the Australian government feels Assange has violated any laws.

[hammered]

To me it doesn't matter whether this guy is Billy Joe-bob Nobody or the secretary of state. What does matter is that someone can state this on national television and get away with it.

In lots of civilized countries this would have finished his career or whatever he represented, and he would never be heard of again.

And it may well cause Beckel to lose his career.

Just as an aside though...Does freedom of speech not extend to Bob Beckel, regardless of how wrong the words might have been?

yes he has that right, but civilized specimens automatically exclude obnoxious threats and unfounded, not by any verdict supported nonsense.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean you have the freedom to be rude or obnoxious IMHO.

:jap:

But, you see, that's where you are wrong.

Freedom of speech means that you have the freedom to say whatever you want to whomever you want whether it be rude or obnoxious or not.

Right now in the US there is some controversy concerning some small Baptist church in Missouri that is demonstrating at the funerals of young US military men that have given their lives for their country. They demonstrate as the funeral procession drives by and sometimes near the cemeteries with signs proclaiming their happiness that another soldier has died, loudly cheering another death.

Is this rude and obnoxious? I consider it despicable, mean spirited and feel it should be banned. The church members should be arrested and put in prison for their actions.

However, regardless of my feelings and most of the American public, legally the members of the church are allowed to do these demonstrations under the freedom of speech amendment and no criminal actions can be taken against them.

What you apologists for Assange don't seem to understand is that I, and many Americans, consider Assange nothing more or less than a common burglar. He has received stolen property and has disseminated it for his own material gain. He is, IMHO, guilty of violating federal codes 18 U.S.A. 641 and 18 U.S.A. 793e.

Freedom of the press has nothing to do with any legal issues he will likely have with the US government. I have heard there is a Federal Grand Jury currently sitting in his case. If they return an indictment he will have to face the charges at some point in time. Please note I said "if".

In the past the US courts have allowed the NY Times for example to publish leaked information. In fact leaked papers are published by media very regularly across the States although not as many or as contentious in most cases. However, the principle is the same. The receiving stolen goods arguement has never been used before and if it is will start a precedent that will endanger every medias ability to work. I also dont think anybody is accusing or even believes Assange actually burgled anywhere himself. His organization like any other media organzation received leaked documents and then had to decide what to do with them. Wikileaks in deciding to publish wasnt even setting a precedent. That had been done many times before

There is also the arguement that Assange is doing Americans a service by exposing government excesses.

[harrry]

Do you guys honestly use the American peoples ignorance about the elected MP's...

Why would Americans know anything about MPs? We do not have a Parliament.

One days US citizens will be able to directly elect their President too.

[chuckd]

Do you guys honestly use the American peoples ignorance about the elected MP's...

Why would Americans know anything about MPs? We do not have a Parliament.

One days US citizens will be able to directly elect their President too.

Very unlikely. The Electoral College is here to stay and serves it's purpose very well.

[JUDAS]

A quote from chuckd's post " Freedom of the press has nothing to do with any legal issues he will likely have with the US government. I have heard there is a Federal Grand Jury currently sitting in his case. If they return an indictment he will have to face the charges at some point in time. Please note I said "if"."

I would be interested to know where you heard about a Grand Jury sitting in regards to the Assange WL case.

[chuckd]

In the past the US courts have allowed the NY Times for example to publish leaked information. In fact leaked papers are published by media very regularly across the States although not as many or as contentious in most cases. However, the principle is the same. The receiving stolen goods arguement has never been used before and if it is will start a precedent that will endanger every medias ability to work. I also dont think anybody is accusing or even believes Assange actually burgled anywhere himself. His organization like any other media organzation received leaked documents and then had to decide what to do with them. Wikileaks in deciding to publish wasnt even setting a precedent. That had been done many times before

There is also the arguement that Assange is doing Americans a service by exposing government excesses.

Wikileaks published nothing. The documents were released by Wikileaks to other news agencies who published the data. Wikileaks received it from the source, which implicates them in the stealing of the documents. They are the "fence".

It will be very interesting to hear what PFC Manning has to say about the released documents.

Assuming it was Manning that downloaded the documents, he will go down for the crime and face hard time in Leavenworth. Unless, of course, he strikes a plea deal and turns states evidence to testify against all others that might have been involved in the plot.

Interesting days, months and years ahead.

[chuckd]

A quote from chuckd's post " Freedom of the press has nothing to do with any legal issues he will likely have with the US government. I have heard there is a Federal Grand Jury currently sitting in his case. If they return an indictment he will have to face the charges at some point in time. Please note I said "if"."

I would be interested to know where you heard about a Grand Jury sitting in regards to the Assange WL case.

I heard it from an independent source. Assamge seems to think so as well.

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-12-13/justice/wikileaks.investigation_1_julian-assange-wikileaks-case-grand-jury?_s=PM:CRIME

http://www.npr.org/2010/12/17/132153313/wikileaks-chief-says-feds-building-case-against-him

Remember, Google is your friend. :jap:

[termad]

How would parents answer, sitting at the dining table, if their kids ask, "Daddy/Mommy....is it allowed to shoot and kill people like that man says?"

Something like, "Only if they are criminals who are disseminating stolen documents that are damaging national security, little Johnny."

If he has committed criminal acts by disseminating what you refer to as stolen documents or damaging national security why hasn't the United States brought charges against him?

[Ulysses G.]

In the past the US courts have allowed the NY Times for example to publish leaked information. .

Are you actually reading the threads that you respond to? It has been brought up over and over on here that the supreme Court did not prevent the Pentagon Papers from being published, but ruled that the NY Times could be prosecuted for doing so.

[Ulysses G.]

How would parents answer, sitting at the dining table, if their kids ask, "Daddy/Mommy....is it allowed to shoot and kill people like that man says?"

Something like, "Only if they are criminals who are disseminating stolen documents that are damaging national security, little Johnny."

If he has committed criminal acts by disseminating what you refer to as stolen documents or damaging national security why hasn't the United States brought charges against him?

Simple. Because they are investigating his activities - and the documents that he is releasing - to put together the most airtight case possible against him. it is very common to do so before charging a suspect who is already in custody on other charges.

[cdnvic]

Two posts removed. One had quotes badly mangled so that you could not tell who was saying what, the other did not link to the source article and is deemed unattributed.

[mark45y]

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20026074-281.html

"I had never heard of the name Bradley Manning before it was published in the press," Assange told ABC News today. "WikiLeaks' technology [was] designed from the very beginning to make sure that we never know the identities or names of people submitting us material."

That contradicts a chat log that appears to show Manning's conversations before his arrest--and before his name ever appeared in the media--in which he described having a close relationship with Assange as a confidential source.

Manning reportedly told ex-hacker Adrian Lamo that he had "developed a relationship with Assange" over many months, according to transcripts posted by BoingBoing and Wired.com over the summer. Lamo told CNET that the transcripts were accurate, but that he doesn't have the computer equipment on which it was saved because the FBI had taken it.

The details are crucial. Federal prosecutors are reportedly exploring filing conspiracy charges against Assange on the theory that he collaborated with Manning on transferring secret documents obtained from the Army's internal computer network. (That would allow them to avoid charging him under the Espionage Act.)

[LaoPo]

US criticises court that may decide on Julian Assange extradition, WikiLeaks cables show

Leaked dispatches reveal diplomats' disdain for Council of Europe's stance against extraditions to US and secret renditions

Afua Hirsch, legal affairs correspondent

guardian.co.uk, Friday 17 December 2010 21.30 GMT

US officials regard European human rights standards as an "irritant", secret cables show, and have strongly objected to the safeguards which could protect WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange from extradition.

In a confidential cable from the US embassy in Strasbourg, US consul general Vincent Carver criticised the Council of Europe, the most authoritative human-rights body for European countries, for its stance against extraditions to America, as well as secret renditions and prisons used to hold terrorist suspects.

He blamed the council for creating anti-US sentiment and hampering the US war on terror. "The Council of Europe (COE) likes to portray itself as a bastion of democracy, a promoter of human rights, and the last best hope for defending the rule of law in Europe – and beyond," Carver said. "[but] it is an organisation with an inferiority complex and, simultaneously, an overambitious agenda.

"An investigation [by the Council of Europe] into renditions and 'secret prisons' in Europe connected to the US war on terrorism … created a great deal of controversy and anti-US sentiment in the Council of Europe," wrote Carver.

Continues here:

http://www.guardian....ards?intcmp=239

LaoPo

[Ulysses G.]

He blamed the council for creating anti-US sentiment and hampering the US war on terror. "The Council of Europe (COE) likes to portray itself as a bastion of democracy, a promoter of human rights, and the last best hope for defending the rule of law in Europe – and beyond," Carver said. "[but] it is an organisation with an inferiority complex and, simultaneously, an overambitious agenda."

Sounds about right.

[LaoPo]

He blamed the council for creating anti-US sentiment and hampering the US war on terror. "The Council of Europe (COE) likes to portray itself as a bastion of democracy, a promoter of human rights, and the last best hope for defending the rule of law in Europe – and beyond," Carver said. "[but] it is an organisation with an inferiority complex and, simultaneously, an overambitious agenda."

Sounds about right.

You're very good in quoting, but if you do so, please leave the insert that the article comes from The Guardian; now it looks like I wrote the content, which is not correct.

You did so before; please refrain from quoting as if I wrote the content..

LaoPo