|
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend Bookmark this thread |
This topic is archived. |
Home » Discuss » General Discussion |
howard112211 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-20-10 09:01 AM Original message |
I won't look into the details of the Assange case but still go around saying the charges are wrong. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
dipsydoodle (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-20-10 09:08 AM Response to Original message |
1. Your Constitution |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DrDan (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-20-10 09:18 AM Response to Original message |
2. so why are the charges wrong - isn't that what happens prior to any trial |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
dipsydoodle (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-20-10 09:54 AM Response to Reply #2 |
9. He hasn't been charged |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DrDan (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-20-10 12:02 PM Response to Reply #9 |
23. I was simply questioning the wording of the OP |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Ozymanithrax (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-20-10 09:23 AM Response to Original message |
3. Since we are not a court of law...we have a right to an opinion... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Nicholas D Wolfwood (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-20-10 09:36 AM Response to Original message |
4. Julian Assange runs Wikileaks. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
WinkyDink (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-20-10 09:38 AM Response to Reply #4 |
5. Many acts in the name and cause of justice are illegal, because TPTB want to REMAIN TPTB. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Nicholas D Wolfwood (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-20-10 09:47 AM Response to Reply #5 |
8. ...but it's still illegal. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
elias7 (913 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-20-10 10:54 AM Response to Reply #8 |
14. But where does the illegality lie? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Ozymanithrax (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-20-10 10:17 AM Response to Reply #5 |
10. Non-violent non-compliance with a law is acceptable when faced with... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
WillYourVoteBCounted (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-20-10 09:43 AM Response to Reply #4 |
6. If what you say is correct (forgetting 1st amendment) then New York Times broke the law |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Nicholas D Wolfwood (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-20-10 09:46 AM Response to Reply #6 |
7. The New York Times offered the material back to the government |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
tekisui (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-20-10 10:21 AM Response to Reply #4 |
11. Your premises are false. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Nicholas D Wolfwood (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-20-10 10:55 AM Response to Reply #11 |
15. US Code 18.798 says otherwise. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
tekisui (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-20-10 11:07 AM Response to Reply #15 |
18. If you parse that section out, Assange is most likely not in violation of it. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Nicholas D Wolfwood (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-20-10 11:18 AM Response to Reply #18 |
20. Wikileaks had already released the information by the time any other organization reported it. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
EFerrari (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-20-10 10:35 AM Response to Reply #4 |
12. Not really.. Maybe obtaining the material can be a crime |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
tekisui (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-20-10 11:09 AM Response to Reply #12 |
19. Exactly. One of points of the release was exposing the over-classification |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
TorchTheWitch (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-20-10 10:54 AM Response to Original message |
13. what case are you talking about? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
treestar (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-20-10 10:57 AM Response to Original message |
16. Which set of charges? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AngryAmish (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-20-10 11:03 AM Response to Original message |
17. Utterly wrong. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
RZM (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-20-10 11:36 AM Response to Reply #17 |
22. You're spot on about Sweden |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
GodlessBiker (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-20-10 11:23 AM Response to Original message |
21. The Constitution presumes innocence in a criminal trial. That presumption is not ... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) | Fri Oct 18th 2024, 12:19 AM Response to Original message |
Advertisements [?] |
Top |
Home » Discuss » General Discussion |
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate
About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.
© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC