Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Home Repair (alt.home.repair) For all homeowners and DIYers with many experienced tradesmen. Solve your toughest home fix-it problems. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
The DOJ's Entire Case Against Assange Hinges On This One Critical Piece Of Evidence
On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 16:11:29 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote: wrote in message .. . On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 12:41:54 +1000, "Rod Speed" wrote: wrote in message ... On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 09:58:26 +1000, "Rod Speed" wrote: wrote in message news On Fri, 12 Apr 2019 06:20:35 -0700 (PDT), trader_4 wrote: On Friday, April 12, 2019 at 7:55:48 AM UTC-4, Home Guy wrote: The DOJ's Entire Case Against Assange Hinges On This One Critical Piece Of Evidence Fri, 04/12/2019 - 04:25 Assuming he is successfully extradited (legal experts say there is a chance he might be able to successfully fight extradition, despite the blatant antipathy expressed toward him by British judges), Julian Assange will stand trial in a courtroom in Alexandria, Virginia where prosecutors from the Eastern District of Virginia will try to prove that he broke US law by goading Chelsea Manning into turning over hundreds of thousands of classified documents. To recap: Prosecutors surprised Assange's supporters when they revealed in their extradition warrant that, rather than pursuing him on espionage charges, or charges related to Wikileaks' publication of the classified documents, only one charge had been levied against Assange: conspiracy to hack a government computer. https://www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/i...10.16%20PM.png Assange If convicted, he could face a maximum of five and a half years in prison. In the Assange indictment, prosecutors claimed that after Manning had already handed over hundreds of thousands of documents to Wikileaks, Assange tried to help the former Army private and intelligence analyst crack a password that would have allowed her to access hundreds of thousands of documents. However, Assange never succeeded in cracking the password, at least not as far as prosecutors are aware. What he did allegedly do was conspire with Manning to transmit the documents she had succeeded in stealing, while - and this is key - encouraging Manning to turn over more documents when she expressed reluctance. To support its case, the government has obtained chat logs from March 2010 showing Manning communicating with a mysterious individual who alternatively went by the handles "Ox" and "pressassociation". The government believes this user was Assange. After transmitting hundreds of thousands of war logs from Iraq and Afghanistan and detainee assessment briefs from Guantanamo Bay, Manning said her stash of secret documents had run dry. "After this upload, that's all I really have got left." To which her co-conspirator replied: "Curious eyes never run dry in my experience." The indictment also references a claim made by Manning during her court martial statement that she had discussed the value of the Guantanamo detainee assessments with the person alleged to be Assange. This is flat out wrong. Manning was not a "she" when conspiring with Assange, Manning was a he. The feds may have another fun go at Manning related to this too. Hall him/her in front of a grand jury or force testimony against Assange in court. If he/she lies, back to jail they go.... Certainly there may be a perjury trap to be had there but I bet Manning just keeps pleading the fifth or saying (s)he doesn't know. It wouldn't break my heart to see both of them doing 20 years but that is not in the current charge. I suppose if they do get Assange here they can always charge more. Not if they agree not to do that to get him extradited. All they agreed to is no death penalty. You don't know what they have agreed to yet because they havent even attempted to get him extradited yet. That was the terms the Brits are reported to have. 'reported by some fool of a journo given that the USA hasn't even applied to have him extradited yet, let alone agreed to any of that level of detail on conditions. Other than the death penalty, they don't care. That is just plain wrong. According to the Home Office, the home secretary can bring a limited number of factors into consideration when deciding whether to order a person's extradition. These include whether the person might be at risk of the death penalty or whether the requesting state might try to add additional charges it has not specified. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47917325 And that's the Home Office, not some pig ignorant journalist. You are confusing what they can do and what they said they are going to do in this particular case. I think the Brits are ready to get rid of this asshole as fast as they can. The ironic thing is, I seriously wonder if we can actually make any charge stick. Our journalist shield law here is stronger than just about anywhere in the world. Assange has been locked up in that embassy longer than his likely sentence here. Manning only did 7 years and we had it red handed for over a dozen espionage charges while in uniform. In any earlier time that should have been the firing squad. |
#2
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
The DOJ's Entire Case Against Assange Hinges On This One Critical Piece Of Evidence
wrote in message ... On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 16:11:29 +1000, "Rod Speed" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 12:41:54 +1000, "Rod Speed" wrote: wrote in message m... On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 09:58:26 +1000, "Rod Speed" wrote: wrote in message news272be91fmfcrvmblukse5c6m30br36i5n@4ax. com... On Fri, 12 Apr 2019 06:20:35 -0700 (PDT), trader_4 wrote: On Friday, April 12, 2019 at 7:55:48 AM UTC-4, Home Guy wrote: The DOJ's Entire Case Against Assange Hinges On This One Critical Piece Of Evidence Fri, 04/12/2019 - 04:25 Assuming he is successfully extradited (legal experts say there is a chance he might be able to successfully fight extradition, despite the blatant antipathy expressed toward him by British judges), Julian Assange will stand trial in a courtroom in Alexandria, Virginia where prosecutors from the Eastern District of Virginia will try to prove that he broke US law by goading Chelsea Manning into turning over hundreds of thousands of classified documents. To recap: Prosecutors surprised Assange's supporters when they revealed in their extradition warrant that, rather than pursuing him on espionage charges, or charges related to Wikileaks' publication of the classified documents, only one charge had been levied against Assange: conspiracy to hack a government computer. https://www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/i...10.16%20PM.png Assange If convicted, he could face a maximum of five and a half years in prison. In the Assange indictment, prosecutors claimed that after Manning had already handed over hundreds of thousands of documents to Wikileaks, Assange tried to help the former Army private and intelligence analyst crack a password that would have allowed her to access hundreds of thousands of documents. However, Assange never succeeded in cracking the password, at least not as far as prosecutors are aware. What he did allegedly do was conspire with Manning to transmit the documents she had succeeded in stealing, while - and this is key - encouraging Manning to turn over more documents when she expressed reluctance. To support its case, the government has obtained chat logs from March 2010 showing Manning communicating with a mysterious individual who alternatively went by the handles "Ox" and "pressassociation". The government believes this user was Assange. After transmitting hundreds of thousands of war logs from Iraq and Afghanistan and detainee assessment briefs from Guantanamo Bay, Manning said her stash of secret documents had run dry. "After this upload, that's all I really have got left." To which her co-conspirator replied: "Curious eyes never run dry in my experience." The indictment also references a claim made by Manning during her court martial statement that she had discussed the value of the Guantanamo detainee assessments with the person alleged to be Assange. This is flat out wrong. Manning was not a "she" when conspiring with Assange, Manning was a he. The feds may have another fun go at Manning related to this too. Hall him/her in front of a grand jury or force testimony against Assange in court. If he/she lies, back to jail they go.... Certainly there may be a perjury trap to be had there but I bet Manning just keeps pleading the fifth or saying (s)he doesn't know. It wouldn't break my heart to see both of them doing 20 years but that is not in the current charge. I suppose if they do get Assange here they can always charge more. Not if they agree not to do that to get him extradited. All they agreed to is no death penalty. You don't know what they have agreed to yet because they havent even attempted to get him extradited yet. That was the terms the Brits are reported to have. 'reported by some fool of a journo given that the USA hasn't even applied to have him extradited yet, let alone agreed to any of that level of detail on conditions. Other than the death penalty, they don't care. That is just plain wrong. According to the Home Office, the home secretary can bring a limited number of factors into consideration when deciding whether to order a person's extradition. These include whether the person might be at risk of the death penalty or whether the requesting state might try to add additional charges it has not specified. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47917325 And that's the Home Office, not some pig ignorant journalist. You are confusing what they can do and what they said they are going to do in this particular case No I'm not. I think the Brits are ready to get rid of this asshole as fast as they can. We'll see... The ironic thing is, I seriously wonder if we can actually make any charge stick. Yeah, particularly given your constitutional guarantee on free speech. The main contra is that its possible that they may be able to shaft him for trying to encourage Manning to hack into the databases he had access to after communicating with wikileaks on his own initiative. But it isnt going to be easy to force Manning to prove that given your other constitutional guaranteed on the right to not admit to having done a crime. Our journalist shield law here is stronger than just about anywhere in the world. Yes, but that isnt the only thing they can try to convict him of doing. Assange has been locked up in that embassy longer than his likely sentence here. Manning only did 7 years But its less clear whether the US legal system can shaft Assange much more comprehensively for doing wikileaks, not just for 'publishing' what Manning gave him. and we had it red handed for over a dozen espionage charges while in uniform. In any earlier time that should have been the firing squad. There were no espionage charges, that was a lie. |
#3
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
The DOJ's Entire Case Against Assange Hinges On This One Critical Piece Of Evidence
On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 04:37:13 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote: wrote in message and we had it red handed for over a dozen espionage charges while in uniform. In any earlier time that should have been the firing squad. There were no espionage charges, that was a lie. From Wikipedia She was charged with several offenses in July, replaced by 22 charges in March 2011, including violations of Articles 92 and 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and of the Espionage Act. Argue with them. There are other sources. |
#4
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Lonely Psychopathic Senile Ozzie Troll Alert! LOL
On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 04:37:13 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rot Speed,
the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again: FLUSH the two driveling idiots' endless bull**** unread again -- dennis@home to retarded senile Rot: "sod off rod you don't have a clue about anything." Message-ID: |
#5
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
The DOJ's Entire Case Against Assange Hinges On This One Critical Piece Of Evidence
wrote in message ... On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 04:37:13 +1000, "Rod Speed" wrote: wrote in message and we had it red handed for over a dozen espionage charges while in uniform. In any earlier time that should have been the firing squad. There were no espionage charges, that was a lie. From Wikipedia She was charged with several offenses in July, replaced by 22 charges in March 2011, including violations of Articles 92 and 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and of the Espionage Act. Just because someone claims something in wikipedia... And I get it was just another example of the use of shotgun charges with no evidence of any espionage at all. Argue with them. No thanks, I'm not talking to them. There are other sources. Then cite them. |
#6
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Lonely Psychopathic Senile Ozzie Troll Alert! LOL
On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 07:14:33 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rot Speed,
the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again: Just because someone claims something in wikipedia... And I get it was just another example of the use of shotgun charges with no evidence of any espionage at all. Argue with them. No thanks, I'm not talking to them. There are other sources. Then cite them. Does that Yankietard STILL not realize what's the matter with you, senile Rot? You were lucky that you came across that one, eh? LOL -- Kerr-Mudd,John addressing senile Rot: "Auto-contradictor Rod is back! (in the KF)" MID: |
#7
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
The DOJ's Entire Case Against Assange Hinges On This One CriticalPiece Of Evidence
On Saturday, April 13, 2019 at 10:37:27 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 16:11:29 +1000, "Rod Speed" wrote: wrote in message .. . On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 12:41:54 +1000, "Rod Speed" wrote: wrote in message ... On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 09:58:26 +1000, "Rod Speed" wrote: wrote in message news On Fri, 12 Apr 2019 06:20:35 -0700 (PDT), trader_4 wrote: On Friday, April 12, 2019 at 7:55:48 AM UTC-4, Home Guy wrote: The DOJ's Entire Case Against Assange Hinges On This One Critical Piece Of Evidence Fri, 04/12/2019 - 04:25 Assuming he is successfully extradited (legal experts say there is a chance he might be able to successfully fight extradition, despite the blatant antipathy expressed toward him by British judges), Julian Assange will stand trial in a courtroom in Alexandria, Virginia where prosecutors from the Eastern District of Virginia will try to prove that he broke US law by goading Chelsea Manning into turning over hundreds of thousands of classified documents. To recap: Prosecutors surprised Assange's supporters when they revealed in their extradition warrant that, rather than pursuing him on espionage charges, or charges related to Wikileaks' publication of the classified documents, only one charge had been levied against Assange: conspiracy to hack a government computer. https://www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/i...10.16%20PM.png Assange If convicted, he could face a maximum of five and a half years in prison. In the Assange indictment, prosecutors claimed that after Manning had already handed over hundreds of thousands of documents to Wikileaks, Assange tried to help the former Army private and intelligence analyst crack a password that would have allowed her to access hundreds of thousands of documents. However, Assange never succeeded in cracking the password, at least not as far as prosecutors are aware. What he did allegedly do was conspire with Manning to transmit the documents she had succeeded in stealing, while - and this is key - encouraging Manning to turn over more documents when she expressed reluctance. To support its case, the government has obtained chat logs from March 2010 showing Manning communicating with a mysterious individual who alternatively went by the handles "Ox" and "pressassociation". The government believes this user was Assange. After transmitting hundreds of thousands of war logs from Iraq and Afghanistan and detainee assessment briefs from Guantanamo Bay, Manning said her stash of secret documents had run dry. "After this upload, that's all I really have got left." To which her co-conspirator replied: "Curious eyes never run dry in my experience." The indictment also references a claim made by Manning during her court martial statement that she had discussed the value of the Guantanamo detainee assessments with the person alleged to be Assange. This is flat out wrong. Manning was not a "she" when conspiring with Assange, Manning was a he. The feds may have another fun go at Manning related to this too. Hall him/her in front of a grand jury or force testimony against Assange in court. If he/she lies, back to jail they go.... Certainly there may be a perjury trap to be had there but I bet Manning just keeps pleading the fifth or saying (s)he doesn't know. It wouldn't break my heart to see both of them doing 20 years but that is not in the current charge. I suppose if they do get Assange here they can always charge more. Not if they agree not to do that to get him extradited. All they agreed to is no death penalty. You don't know what they have agreed to yet because they havent even attempted to get him extradited yet. That was the terms the Brits are reported to have. 'reported by some fool of a journo given that the USA hasn't even applied to have him extradited yet, let alone agreed to any of that level of detail on conditions. Other than the death penalty, they don't care. That is just plain wrong. According to the Home Office, the home secretary can bring a limited number of factors into consideration when deciding whether to order a person's extradition. These include whether the person might be at risk of the death penalty or whether the requesting state might try to add additional charges it has not specified. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47917325 And that's the Home Office, not some pig ignorant journalist. You are confusing what they can do and what they said they are going to do in this particular case. I think the Brits are ready to get rid of this asshole as fast as they can. +1 The ironic thing is, I seriously wonder if we can actually make any charge stick. Our journalist shield law here is stronger than just about anywhere in the world. Assange has been locked up in that embassy longer than his likely sentence here. Manning only did 7 years and we had it red handed for over a dozen espionage charges while in uniform. In any earlier time that should have been the firing squad. She/he only did a short sentence because Obummer commuted it. |
#8
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
The DOJ's Entire Case Against Assange Hinges On This One CriticalPiece Of Evidence
On Saturday, April 13, 2019 at 2:37:24 PM UTC-4, Rod Speed wrote:
wrote in message ... On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 16:11:29 +1000, "Rod Speed" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 12:41:54 +1000, "Rod Speed" wrote: wrote in message m... On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 09:58:26 +1000, "Rod Speed" wrote: wrote in message news272be91fmfcrvmblukse5c6m30br36i5n@4ax. com... On Fri, 12 Apr 2019 06:20:35 -0700 (PDT), trader_4 wrote: On Friday, April 12, 2019 at 7:55:48 AM UTC-4, Home Guy wrote: The DOJ's Entire Case Against Assange Hinges On This One Critical Piece Of Evidence Fri, 04/12/2019 - 04:25 Assuming he is successfully extradited (legal experts say there is a chance he might be able to successfully fight extradition, despite the blatant antipathy expressed toward him by British judges), Julian Assange will stand trial in a courtroom in Alexandria, Virginia where prosecutors from the Eastern District of Virginia will try to prove that he broke US law by goading Chelsea Manning into turning over hundreds of thousands of classified documents. To recap: Prosecutors surprised Assange's supporters when they revealed in their extradition warrant that, rather than pursuing him on espionage charges, or charges related to Wikileaks' publication of the classified documents, only one charge had been levied against Assange: conspiracy to hack a government computer. https://www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/i...10.16%20PM.png Assange If convicted, he could face a maximum of five and a half years in prison. In the Assange indictment, prosecutors claimed that after Manning had already handed over hundreds of thousands of documents to Wikileaks, Assange tried to help the former Army private and intelligence analyst crack a password that would have allowed her to access hundreds of thousands of documents. However, Assange never succeeded in cracking the password, at least not as far as prosecutors are aware. What he did allegedly do was conspire with Manning to transmit the documents she had succeeded in stealing, while - and this is key - encouraging Manning to turn over more documents when she expressed reluctance. To support its case, the government has obtained chat logs from March 2010 showing Manning communicating with a mysterious individual who alternatively went by the handles "Ox" and "pressassociation". The government believes this user was Assange. After transmitting hundreds of thousands of war logs from Iraq and Afghanistan and detainee assessment briefs from Guantanamo Bay, Manning said her stash of secret documents had run dry. "After this upload, that's all I really have got left." To which her co-conspirator replied: "Curious eyes never run dry in my experience." The indictment also references a claim made by Manning during her court martial statement that she had discussed the value of the Guantanamo detainee assessments with the person alleged to be Assange. This is flat out wrong. Manning was not a "she" when conspiring with Assange, Manning was a he. The feds may have another fun go at Manning related to this too. Hall him/her in front of a grand jury or force testimony against Assange in court. If he/she lies, back to jail they go.... Certainly there may be a perjury trap to be had there but I bet Manning just keeps pleading the fifth or saying (s)he doesn't know. It wouldn't break my heart to see both of them doing 20 years but that is not in the current charge. I suppose if they do get Assange here they can always charge more. Not if they agree not to do that to get him extradited. All they agreed to is no death penalty. You don't know what they have agreed to yet because they havent even attempted to get him extradited yet. That was the terms the Brits are reported to have. 'reported by some fool of a journo given that the USA hasn't even applied to have him extradited yet, let alone agreed to any of that level of detail on conditions. Other than the death penalty, they don't care. That is just plain wrong. According to the Home Office, the home secretary can bring a limited number of factors into consideration when deciding whether to order a person's extradition. These include whether the person might be at risk of the death penalty or whether the requesting state might try to add additional charges it has not specified. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47917325 And that's the Home Office, not some pig ignorant journalist. You are confusing what they can do and what they said they are going to do in this particular case No I'm not. I think the Brits are ready to get rid of this asshole as fast as they can. We'll see... The ironic thing is, I seriously wonder if we can actually make any charge stick. Yeah, particularly given your constitutional guarantee on free speech. It's not an issue of free speech, it's an issue of freedom of the press. If someone illegally obtains secret information and gives it to just Joe Blabbermouth and he hand it out, that's not the same as the Washington Post publishing it. The main contra is that its possible that they may be able to shaft him for trying to encourage Manning to hack into the databases he had access to after communicating with wikileaks on his own initiative. But it isnt going to be easy to force Manning to prove that given your other constitutional guaranteed on the right to not admit to having done a crime. They may have a compelling evidence trail without Manning. Our journalist shield law here is stronger than just about anywhere in the world. Yes, but that isnt the only thing they can try to convict him of doing. Assange has been locked up in that embassy longer than his likely sentence here. Manning only did 7 years But its less clear whether the US legal system can shaft Assange much more comprehensively for doing wikileaks, not just for 'publishing' what Manning gave him. and we had it red handed for over a dozen espionage charges while in uniform. In any earlier time that should have been the firing squad. There were no espionage charges, that was a lie. Not yet, anyway. |
#9
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
The DOJ's Entire Case Against Assange Hinges On This One CriticalPiece Of Evidence
On Saturday, April 13, 2019 at 3:48:53 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 04:37:13 +1000, "Rod Speed" wrote: wrote in message and we had it red handed for over a dozen espionage charges while in uniform. In any earlier time that should have been the firing squad. There were no espionage charges, that was a lie. From Wikipedia She was charged with several offenses in July, replaced by 22 charges in March 2011, including violations of Articles 92 and 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and of the Espionage Act. Argue with them. There are other sources. +1 Not clear what he was taking about. I thought he meant no espionage charges against Assange, which so far is true. If he means Manning then you're right. |
#10
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
The DOJ's Entire Case Against Assange Hinges On This One Critical Piece Of Evidence
"trader_4" wrote in message ... On Saturday, April 13, 2019 at 2:37:24 PM UTC-4, Rod Speed wrote: wrote in message ... On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 16:11:29 +1000, "Rod Speed" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 12:41:54 +1000, "Rod Speed" wrote: wrote in message m... On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 09:58:26 +1000, "Rod Speed" wrote: wrote in message news272be91fmfcrvmblukse5c6m30br36i5n@4ax. com... On Fri, 12 Apr 2019 06:20:35 -0700 (PDT), trader_4 wrote: On Friday, April 12, 2019 at 7:55:48 AM UTC-4, Home Guy wrote: The DOJ's Entire Case Against Assange Hinges On This One Critical Piece Of Evidence Fri, 04/12/2019 - 04:25 Assuming he is successfully extradited (legal experts say there is a chance he might be able to successfully fight extradition, despite the blatant antipathy expressed toward him by British judges), Julian Assange will stand trial in a courtroom in Alexandria, Virginia where prosecutors from the Eastern District of Virginia will try to prove that he broke US law by goading Chelsea Manning into turning over hundreds of thousands of classified documents. To recap: Prosecutors surprised Assange's supporters when they revealed in their extradition warrant that, rather than pursuing him on espionage charges, or charges related to Wikileaks' publication of the classified documents, only one charge had been levied against Assange: conspiracy to hack a government computer. https://www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/i...10.16%20PM.png Assange If convicted, he could face a maximum of five and a half years in prison. In the Assange indictment, prosecutors claimed that after Manning had already handed over hundreds of thousands of documents to Wikileaks, Assange tried to help the former Army private and intelligence analyst crack a password that would have allowed her to access hundreds of thousands of documents. However, Assange never succeeded in cracking the password, at least not as far as prosecutors are aware. What he did allegedly do was conspire with Manning to transmit the documents she had succeeded in stealing, while - and this is key - encouraging Manning to turn over more documents when she expressed reluctance. To support its case, the government has obtained chat logs from March 2010 showing Manning communicating with a mysterious individual who alternatively went by the handles "Ox" and "pressassociation". The government believes this user was Assange. After transmitting hundreds of thousands of war logs from Iraq and Afghanistan and detainee assessment briefs from Guantanamo Bay, Manning said her stash of secret documents had run dry. "After this upload, that's all I really have got left." To which her co-conspirator replied: "Curious eyes never run dry in my experience." The indictment also references a claim made by Manning during her court martial statement that she had discussed the value of the Guantanamo detainee assessments with the person alleged to be Assange. This is flat out wrong. Manning was not a "she" when conspiring with Assange, Manning was a he. The feds may have another fun go at Manning related to this too. Hall him/her in front of a grand jury or force testimony against Assange in court. If he/she lies, back to jail they go.... Certainly there may be a perjury trap to be had there but I bet Manning just keeps pleading the fifth or saying (s)he doesn't know. It wouldn't break my heart to see both of them doing 20 years but that is not in the current charge. I suppose if they do get Assange here they can always charge more. Not if they agree not to do that to get him extradited. All they agreed to is no death penalty. You don't know what they have agreed to yet because they havent even attempted to get him extradited yet. That was the terms the Brits are reported to have. 'reported by some fool of a journo given that the USA hasn't even applied to have him extradited yet, let alone agreed to any of that level of detail on conditions. Other than the death penalty, they don't care. That is just plain wrong. According to the Home Office, the home secretary can bring a limited number of factors into consideration when deciding whether to order a person's extradition. These include whether the person might be at risk of the death penalty or whether the requesting state might try to add additional charges it has not specified. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47917325 And that's the Home Office, not some pig ignorant journalist. You are confusing what they can do and what they said they are going to do in this particular case No I'm not. I think the Brits are ready to get rid of this asshole as fast as they can. We'll see... The ironic thing is, I seriously wonder if we can actually make any charge stick. Yeah, particularly given your constitutional guarantee on free speech. It's not an issue of free speech, it's an issue of freedom of the press. We'll see... If someone illegally obtains secret information and gives it to just Joe Blabbermouth and he hand it out, that's not the same as the Washington Post publishing it. And we'll see what if anything he gets convicted of doing if the poms are actually stupid enough to hand him over to the USA for his kangaroo court appearance. Very fitting in his case. The main contra is that its possible that they may be able to shaft him for trying to encourage Manning to hack into the databases he had access to after communicating with wikileaks on his own initiative. But it isnt going to be easy to force Manning to prove that given your other constitutional guaranteed on the right to not admit to having done a crime. They may have a compelling evidence trail without Manning. They wouldnt be ****ing over Manning if they did. Our journalist shield law here is stronger than just about anywhere in the world. Yes, but that isnt the only thing they can try to convict him of doing. Assange has been locked up in that embassy longer than his likely sentence here. Manning only did 7 years But its less clear whether the US legal system can shaft Assange much more comprehensively for doing wikileaks, not just for 'publishing' what Manning gave him. and we had it red handed for over a dozen espionage charges while in uniform. In any earlier time that should have been the firing squad. There were no espionage charges, that was a lie. Not yet, anyway. Nothing he has done is anything even remotely like espionage. |
#11
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
The DOJ's Entire Case Against Assange Hinges On This One Critical Piece Of Evidence
Some gutless drug crazed drunken ****wit desperately cowering behind
trader_4 spewed just the **** that you'd expect from a desperately cowering drunken drug crazed gutless ****wit. |
#12
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
The DOJ's Entire Case Against Assange Hinges On This One Critical Piece Of Evidence
On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 07:14:33 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote: wrote in message .. . On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 04:37:13 +1000, "Rod Speed" wrote: wrote in message and we had it red handed for over a dozen espionage charges while in uniform. In any earlier time that should have been the firing squad. There were no espionage charges, that was a lie. From Wikipedia She was charged with several offenses in July, replaced by 22 charges in March 2011, including violations of Articles 92 and 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and of the Espionage Act. Just because someone claims something in wikipedia... And I get it was just another example of the use of shotgun charges with no evidence of any espionage at all. Argue with them. No thanks, I'm not talking to them. There are other sources. Then cite them. https://www.wired.com/2010/07/manning-charges/ according to the charge sheet, Manning downloaded a classified video of a military operation in Iraq and transmitted it to a third party, in violation of a section of the Espionage Act, 18 U.S.C. 793(e), which involves passing classified information to an uncleared party, but not a foreign government. The remaining criminal charges are for allegedly abusing access to the Secret-level SIPR network to obtain more than 150,000 U.S. State Department cables, as well as an unspecified classified PowerPoint presentation. What part of "Espionage Act" confuses you? You can read for days if you like,m including the court transcripts the indictments various court papers about appeals or whatever your search engine turns up. |
#13
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
The DOJ's Entire Case Against Assange Hinges On This One CriticalPiece Of Evidence
|
#14
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
The DOJ's Entire Case Against Assange Hinges On This One Critical Piece Of Evidence
On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 16:29:42 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote: On Saturday, April 13, 2019 at 2:37:24 PM UTC-4, Rod Speed wrote: wrote in message ... On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 16:11:29 +1000, "Rod Speed" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 12:41:54 +1000, "Rod Speed" wrote: wrote in message m... On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 09:58:26 +1000, "Rod Speed" wrote: wrote in message news272be91fmfcrvmblukse5c6m30br36i5n@4ax. com... On Fri, 12 Apr 2019 06:20:35 -0700 (PDT), trader_4 wrote: On Friday, April 12, 2019 at 7:55:48 AM UTC-4, Home Guy wrote: The DOJ's Entire Case Against Assange Hinges On This One Critical Piece Of Evidence Fri, 04/12/2019 - 04:25 Assuming he is successfully extradited (legal experts say there is a chance he might be able to successfully fight extradition, despite the blatant antipathy expressed toward him by British judges), Julian Assange will stand trial in a courtroom in Alexandria, Virginia where prosecutors from the Eastern District of Virginia will try to prove that he broke US law by goading Chelsea Manning into turning over hundreds of thousands of classified documents. To recap: Prosecutors surprised Assange's supporters when they revealed in their extradition warrant that, rather than pursuing him on espionage charges, or charges related to Wikileaks' publication of the classified documents, only one charge had been levied against Assange: conspiracy to hack a government computer. https://www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/i...10.16%20PM.png Assange If convicted, he could face a maximum of five and a half years in prison. In the Assange indictment, prosecutors claimed that after Manning had already handed over hundreds of thousands of documents to Wikileaks, Assange tried to help the former Army private and intelligence analyst crack a password that would have allowed her to access hundreds of thousands of documents. However, Assange never succeeded in cracking the password, at least not as far as prosecutors are aware. What he did allegedly do was conspire with Manning to transmit the documents she had succeeded in stealing, while - and this is key - encouraging Manning to turn over more documents when she expressed reluctance. To support its case, the government has obtained chat logs from March 2010 showing Manning communicating with a mysterious individual who alternatively went by the handles "Ox" and "pressassociation". The government believes this user was Assange. After transmitting hundreds of thousands of war logs from Iraq and Afghanistan and detainee assessment briefs from Guantanamo Bay, Manning said her stash of secret documents had run dry. "After this upload, that's all I really have got left." To which her co-conspirator replied: "Curious eyes never run dry in my experience." The indictment also references a claim made by Manning during her court martial statement that she had discussed the value of the Guantanamo detainee assessments with the person alleged to be Assange. This is flat out wrong. Manning was not a "she" when conspiring with Assange, Manning was a he. The feds may have another fun go at Manning related to this too. Hall him/her in front of a grand jury or force testimony against Assange in court. If he/she lies, back to jail they go.... Certainly there may be a perjury trap to be had there but I bet Manning just keeps pleading the fifth or saying (s)he doesn't know. It wouldn't break my heart to see both of them doing 20 years but that is not in the current charge. I suppose if they do get Assange here they can always charge more. Not if they agree not to do that to get him extradited. All they agreed to is no death penalty. You don't know what they have agreed to yet because they havent even attempted to get him extradited yet. That was the terms the Brits are reported to have. 'reported by some fool of a journo given that the USA hasn't even applied to have him extradited yet, let alone agreed to any of that level of detail on conditions. Other than the death penalty, they don't care. That is just plain wrong. According to the Home Office, the home secretary can bring a limited number of factors into consideration when deciding whether to order a person's extradition. These include whether the person might be at risk of the death penalty or whether the requesting state might try to add additional charges it has not specified. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47917325 And that's the Home Office, not some pig ignorant journalist. You are confusing what they can do and what they said they are going to do in this particular case No I'm not. I think the Brits are ready to get rid of this asshole as fast as they can. We'll see... The ironic thing is, I seriously wonder if we can actually make any charge stick. Yeah, particularly given your constitutional guarantee on free speech. It's not an issue of free speech, it's an issue of freedom of the press. If someone illegally obtains secret information and gives it to just Joe Blabbermouth and he hand it out, that's not the same as the Washington Post publishing it. This will get down to whether Wikileaks is a journalistic operation. In this day when any asshole with a blog is a journalist, the difference between Assange and Katy Graham gets pretty fuzzy. - and we had it red handed for over a dozen espionage charges while in uniform. In any earlier time that should have been the firing squad. There were no espionage charges, that was a lie. Not yet, anyway. Manning was charged and plead on several charges of the espionage act. It is unlikely they could make that stick on Assange tho. |
#15
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
The DOJ's Entire Case Against Assange Hinges On This One Critical Piece Of Evidence
On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 16:31:17 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote: On Saturday, April 13, 2019 at 3:48:53 PM UTC-4, wrote: On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 04:37:13 +1000, "Rod Speed" wrote: wrote in message and we had it red handed for over a dozen espionage charges while in uniform. In any earlier time that should have been the firing squad. There were no espionage charges, that was a lie. From Wikipedia She was charged with several offenses in July, replaced by 22 charges in March 2011, including violations of Articles 92 and 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and of the Espionage Act. Argue with them. There are other sources. +1 Not clear what he was taking about. I thought he meant no espionage charges against Assange, which so far is true. If he means Manning then you're right. I think all of the gender confused pronouns makes it clear I was talking about Manning. |
#17
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
The DOJ's Entire Case Against Assange Hinges On This One Critical Piece Of Evidence
wrote in message ... On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 07:14:33 +1000, "Rod Speed" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 04:37:13 +1000, "Rod Speed" wrote: wrote in message and we had it red handed for over a dozen espionage charges while in uniform. In any earlier time that should have been the firing squad. There were no espionage charges, that was a lie. From Wikipedia She was charged with several offenses in July, replaced by 22 charges in March 2011, including violations of Articles 92 and 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and of the Espionage Act. Just because someone claims something in wikipedia... And I get it was just another example of the use of shotgun charges with no evidence of any espionage at all. Argue with them. No thanks, I'm not talking to them. There are other sources. Then cite them. https://www.wired.com/2010/07/manning-charges/ Again, that's just some journo. Show us the charge sheet. according to the charge sheet, Manning downloaded a classified video of a military operation in Iraq and transmitted it to a third party, in violation of a section of the Espionage Act, 18 U.S.C. 793(e), Doesn't mean that doing that is actually espionage, stupid. which involves passing classified information to an uncleared party, but not a foreign government. That's not espionage, whatever that stupid legislation claims, stupid. The remaining criminal charges are for allegedly abusing access to the Secret-level SIPR network to obtain more than 150,000 U.S. State Department cables, as well as an unspecified classified PowerPoint presentation. Not espionage either. What part of "Espionage Act" confuses you? It no news that much of your stupid legislation has nothing to do with the title of a particular act, stupid. You can read for days if you like,m including the court transcripts the indictments various court papers about appeals or whatever your search engine turns up. None of which shows that anything Manning did is actually espionage. |
#18
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
The DOJ's Entire Case Against Assange Hinges On This One Critical Piece Of Evidence
wrote in message ... On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 21:18:21 -0400, Home Guy wrote: While needlessly full-quoting, wrote: Manning only did 7 years and we had it red handed for over a dozen espionage charges while in uniform. In any earlier time that should have been the firing squad. For exposing US war crimes, Manning should have been put to death? Do you know how sickening that is? And you bomb, invade, destabilize and destroy other countries when you think (or when you false-flag) war crimes are happening there. There are no bigger hypocrits and schizophrenics on planet earth than americans. Do you remember what the Pentagon Papers were all about? Do you really want to bury your head that far down deep into your ass and kill those that expose your country's war crimes? Is that how sick your are as a person, or a country? I am just not sure I want privates in the army to be able to decide which secrets are OK to release and which ones are not. Doesn't matter what you want. Buried in a big data dump like that can contain information about agents in the field or operations that are still active. Just as true of what Elsberg exposed. |
#19
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
The DOJ's Entire Case Against Assange Hinges On This One Critical Piece Of Evidence
On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 12:27:38 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote: wrote in message .. . On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 21:18:21 -0400, Home Guy wrote: While needlessly full-quoting, wrote: Manning only did 7 years and we had it red handed for over a dozen espionage charges while in uniform. In any earlier time that should have been the firing squad. For exposing US war crimes, Manning should have been put to death? Do you know how sickening that is? And you bomb, invade, destabilize and destroy other countries when you think (or when you false-flag) war crimes are happening there. There are no bigger hypocrits and schizophrenics on planet earth than americans. Do you remember what the Pentagon Papers were all about? Do you really want to bury your head that far down deep into your ass and kill those that expose your country's war crimes? Is that how sick your are as a person, or a country? I am just not sure I want privates in the army to be able to decide which secrets are OK to release and which ones are not. Doesn't matter what you want. Even less so about what you think. Buried in a big data dump like that can contain information about agents in the field or operations that are still active. Just as true of what Elsberg exposed. Phillip Agee, Snowden, lots of them. The problem is what else gets released when you make a big data dump like that. It is a gold mine of information for foreign intelligence organizations about your means and methods. All that assumes you didn't just blow some agent's cover and get him killed. |
#20
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
The DOJ's Entire Case Against Assange Hinges On This One Critical Piece Of Evidence
wrote in message ... On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 12:27:38 +1000, "Rod Speed" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 21:18:21 -0400, Home Guy wrote: While needlessly full-quoting, wrote: Manning only did 7 years and we had it red handed for over a dozen espionage charges while in uniform. In any earlier time that should have been the firing squad. For exposing US war crimes, Manning should have been put to death? Do you know how sickening that is? And you bomb, invade, destabilize and destroy other countries when you think (or when you false-flag) war crimes are happening there. There are no bigger hypocrits and schizophrenics on planet earth than americans. Do you remember what the Pentagon Papers were all about? Do you really want to bury your head that far down deep into your ass and kill those that expose your country's war crimes? Is that how sick your are as a person, or a country? I am just not sure I want privates in the army to be able to decide which secrets are OK to release and which ones are not. Doesn't matter what you want. Even less so about what you think. Buried in a big data dump like that can contain information about agents in the field or operations that are still active. Just as true of what Elsberg exposed. Phillip Agee, Snowden, lots of them. The problem is what else gets released when you make a big data dump like that. It is a gold mine of information for foreign intelligence organizations about your means and methods. All that assumes you didn't just blow some agent's cover and get him killed. Regardless of all the mindless hyperventilation about that possibility, it didn't actually happen. And Elsberg got a very decent result doing what he did. Bet lots are much more circumspect about what they do with yanks outside the USA post the Snowden revelations too. Quite rightly too. |
#21
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Lonely Psychopathic Senile Ozzie Troll Alert! LOL
On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 10:56:07 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rot Speed,
the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again: Some gutless drug crazed drunken ****wit desperately cowering behind trader_4 spewed just the **** that you'd expect from a desperately cowering drunken drug crazed gutless ****wit. LOL Lost yet another argument, you retarded obnoxious senile pest? -- The Natural Philosopher about senile Rot: "Rod speed is not a Brexiteer. He is an Australian troll and arsehole." Message-ID: |
#22
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Lonely Psychopathic Senile Ozzie Troll Alert! LOL
On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 12:23:31 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rot Speed,
the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again: FLUSH the clinically insane auto-contradicting senile asshole's latest troll**** ....and nothing's left! -- "Anonymous" to trolling senile Rot Speed: "You can **** off as you know less than pig **** you sad little ignorant ****." MID: |
#23
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Lonely Psychopathic Senile Ozzie Troll Alert! LOL
On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 10:53:07 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rot Speed,
the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again: FLUSH 238 !!! lines of sick troll**** ....and much better air in here again! -- Richard addressing Rot Speed: "**** you're thick/pathetic excuse for a troll." MID: |
#24
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Lonely Psychopathic Senile Ozzie Troll Alert! LOL
On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 12:27:38 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rot Speed,
the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again: I am just not sure I want privates in the army to be able to decide which secrets are OK to release and which ones are not. Doesn't matter what you want. Your entire pathetic existence doesn't matter, you clinically insane 85-year-old trolling piece of senile ****! And you KNOW it! BG -- FredXX to Rot Speed: "You are still an idiot and an embarrassment to your country. No wonder we shipped the likes of you out of the British Isles. Perhaps stupidity and criminality is inherited after all?" Message-ID: |
#25
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Lonely Psychopathic Senile Ozzie Troll Alert! LOL
On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 15:49:21 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rot Speed,
the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again: wrote in message ... On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 12:27:38 +1000, "Rod Speed" wrote: wrote in message ... On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 21:18:21 -0400, Home Guy wrote: While needlessly full-quoting, wrote: Manning only did 7 years and we had it red handed for over a dozen espionage charges while in uniform. In any earlier time that should have been the firing squad. For exposing US war crimes, Manning should have been put to death? Do you know how sickening that is? And you bomb, invade, destabilize and destroy other countries when you think (or when you false-flag) war crimes are happening there. There are no bigger hypocrits and schizophrenics on planet earth than americans. Do you remember what the Pentagon Papers were all about? Do you really want to bury your head that far down deep into your ass and kill those that expose your country's war crimes? Is that how sick your are as a person, or a country? I am just not sure I want privates in the army to be able to decide which secrets are OK to release and which ones are not. Doesn't matter what you want. Even less so about what you think. Buried in a big data dump like that can contain information about agents in the field or operations that are still active. Just as true of what Elsberg exposed. Phillip Agee, Snowden, lots of them. The problem is what else gets released when you make a big data dump like that. It is a gold mine of information for foreign intelligence organizations about your means and methods. All that assumes you didn't just blow some agent's cover and get him killed. Regardless of all the mindless hyperventilation Now THAT's exactly what all your trolling here is, you forsaken senile pest who OBVIOUSLY got NOBODY in real life to talk to! G -- Bill Wright addressing senile Ozzie cretin Rot Speed: "Well you make up a lot of stuff and it's total ******** most of it." MID: |
#26
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
The DOJ's Entire Case Against Assange Hinges On This One CriticalPiece Of Evidence
On Saturday, April 13, 2019 at 10:27:50 PM UTC-4, Rod Speed wrote:
wrote in message ... On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 21:18:21 -0400, Home Guy wrote: While needlessly full-quoting, wrote: Manning only did 7 years and we had it red handed for over a dozen espionage charges while in uniform. In any earlier time that should have been the firing squad. For exposing US war crimes, Manning should have been put to death? Do you know how sickening that is? And you bomb, invade, destabilize and destroy other countries when you think (or when you false-flag) war crimes are happening there. There are no bigger hypocrits and schizophrenics on planet earth than americans. Do you remember what the Pentagon Papers were all about? Do you really want to bury your head that far down deep into your ass and kill those that expose your country's war crimes? Is that how sick your are as a person, or a country? I am just not sure I want privates in the army to be able to decide which secrets are OK to release and which ones are not. Doesn't matter what you want. Buried in a big data dump like that can contain information about agents in the field or operations that are still active. Just as true of what Elsberg exposed. BS. Ellsberg did not hand over raw, unfiltered data from cables and the like, which is what Manning did. He handed over a study of the US involvement in the Vietnam War, which was very unlikely to have any identifying information in it that could expose US agents, methods, etc. The Pentagon had prepared it and there was no reason to ever put that kind of information in it. Further, he turned the PP over to NY Times and WAPO, responsible news organizations that would further try to keep from publishing anything like that. Manning just gave over unfiltered data to Assange who put it out to the world. |
#27
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
The DOJ's Entire Case Against Assange Hinges On This One Critical Piece Of Evidence
On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 15:49:21 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote: wrote in message .. . On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 12:27:38 +1000, "Rod Speed" wrote: wrote in message ... On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 21:18:21 -0400, Home Guy wrote: While needlessly full-quoting, wrote: Manning only did 7 years and we had it red handed for over a dozen espionage charges while in uniform. In any earlier time that should have been the firing squad. For exposing US war crimes, Manning should have been put to death? Do you know how sickening that is? And you bomb, invade, destabilize and destroy other countries when you think (or when you false-flag) war crimes are happening there. There are no bigger hypocrits and schizophrenics on planet earth than americans. Do you remember what the Pentagon Papers were all about? Do you really want to bury your head that far down deep into your ass and kill those that expose your country's war crimes? Is that how sick your are as a person, or a country? I am just not sure I want privates in the army to be able to decide which secrets are OK to release and which ones are not. Doesn't matter what you want. Even less so about what you think. Buried in a big data dump like that can contain information about agents in the field or operations that are still active. Just as true of what Elsberg exposed. Phillip Agee, Snowden, lots of them. The problem is what else gets released when you make a big data dump like that. It is a gold mine of information for foreign intelligence organizations about your means and methods. All that assumes you didn't just blow some agent's cover and get him killed. Regardless of all the mindless hyperventilation about that possibility, it didn't actually happen. Actually there have been a number of agents and assets that disappeared after these releases. For obvious reasons the CIA is not going to admit they were agents. |
#28
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
The DOJ's Entire Case Against Assange Hinges On This One Critical Piece Of Evidence
"trader_4" wrote in message ... On Saturday, April 13, 2019 at 10:27:50 PM UTC-4, Rod Speed wrote: wrote in message ... On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 21:18:21 -0400, Home Guy wrote: While needlessly full-quoting, wrote: Manning only did 7 years and we had it red handed for over a dozen espionage charges while in uniform. In any earlier time that should have been the firing squad. For exposing US war crimes, Manning should have been put to death? Do you know how sickening that is? And you bomb, invade, destabilize and destroy other countries when you think (or when you false-flag) war crimes are happening there. There are no bigger hypocrits and schizophrenics on planet earth than americans. Do you remember what the Pentagon Papers were all about? Do you really want to bury your head that far down deep into your ass and kill those that expose your country's war crimes? Is that how sick your are as a person, or a country? I am just not sure I want privates in the army to be able to decide which secrets are OK to release and which ones are not. Doesn't matter what you want. Buried in a big data dump like that can contain information about agents in the field or operations that are still active. Just as true of what Elsberg exposed. BS. Ellsberg did not hand over raw, unfiltered data from cables and the like, which is what Manning did. He handed over a study of the US involvement in the Vietnam War, which was very unlikely to have any identifying information in it that could expose US agents, methods, etc. Thats bull**** on the methods. The Pentagon had prepared it and there was no reason to ever put that kind of information in it. Thats bull**** on the methods and if it was that useless to anyone why did it have such a high security rating ? Further, he turned the PP over to NY Times and WAPO, responsible news organizations that would further try to keep from publishing anything like that. Just as true of wikileaks. Manning just gave over unfiltered data to Assange who put it out to the world. In fact much of it was published by the NY Times and WAPO etc deliberately. |
#29
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
The DOJ's Entire Case Against Assange Hinges On This One Critical Piece Of Evidence
wrote in message ... On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 15:49:21 +1000, "Rod Speed" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 12:27:38 +1000, "Rod Speed" wrote: wrote in message m... On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 21:18:21 -0400, Home Guy wrote: While needlessly full-quoting, wrote: Manning only did 7 years and we had it red handed for over a dozen espionage charges while in uniform. In any earlier time that should have been the firing squad. For exposing US war crimes, Manning should have been put to death? Do you know how sickening that is? And you bomb, invade, destabilize and destroy other countries when you think (or when you false-flag) war crimes are happening there. There are no bigger hypocrits and schizophrenics on planet earth than americans. Do you remember what the Pentagon Papers were all about? Do you really want to bury your head that far down deep into your ass and kill those that expose your country's war crimes? Is that how sick your are as a person, or a country? I am just not sure I want privates in the army to be able to decide which secrets are OK to release and which ones are not. Doesn't matter what you want. Even less so about what you think. Buried in a big data dump like that can contain information about agents in the field or operations that are still active. Just as true of what Elsberg exposed. Phillip Agee, Snowden, lots of them. The problem is what else gets released when you make a big data dump like that. It is a gold mine of information for foreign intelligence organizations about your means and methods. All that assumes you didn't just blow some agent's cover and get him killed. Regardless of all the mindless hyperventilation about that possibility, it didn't actually happen. Actually there have been a number of agents and assets that disappeared after these releases. Not because they were killed by someone reading what wikileaks exposed. For obvious reasons the CIA is not going to admit they were agents. Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something. |
#30
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Lonely Psychopathic Senile Ozzie Troll Alert!
On Mon, 15 Apr 2019 03:31:22 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rot Speed,
the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again: Actually there have been a number of agents and assets that disappeared after these releases. Not because they were killed by someone reading what wikileaks exposed. Source (other than your psychopathic "mind"), you endlessly bull****ting senile cretin? For obvious reasons the CIA is not going to admit they were agents. Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something. An even sillier troll from you than you usually manage, senile Rot, and that's saying something! -- "Anonymous" to trolling senile Rot Speed: "You can **** off as you know less than pig **** you sad little ignorant ****." MID: |
#31
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Lonely Psychopathic Senile Ozzie Troll Alert!
On Mon, 15 Apr 2019 03:26:05 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rot Speed,
the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again: BS. Ellsberg did not hand over raw, unfiltered data from cables and the like, which is what Manning did. He handed over a study of the US involvement in the Vietnam War, which was very unlikely to have any identifying information in it that could expose US agents, methods, etc. That¢s bull**** on the methods. Sounds more like you are a bull****ter on meth, senile Ozzietard! BG -- Bill Wright addressing senile Ozzie cretin Rot Speed: "Well you make up a lot of stuff and it's total ******** most of it." MID: |
#32
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
The DOJ's Entire Case Against Assange Hinges On This One CriticalPiece Of Evidence
On Sunday, April 14, 2019 at 1:26:18 PM UTC-4, Rod Speed wrote:
"trader_4" wrote in message ... On Saturday, April 13, 2019 at 10:27:50 PM UTC-4, Rod Speed wrote: wrote in message ... On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 21:18:21 -0400, Home Guy wrote: While needlessly full-quoting, wrote: Manning only did 7 years and we had it red handed for over a dozen espionage charges while in uniform. In any earlier time that should have been the firing squad. For exposing US war crimes, Manning should have been put to death? Do you know how sickening that is? And you bomb, invade, destabilize and destroy other countries when you think (or when you false-flag) war crimes are happening there. There are no bigger hypocrits and schizophrenics on planet earth than americans. Do you remember what the Pentagon Papers were all about? Do you really want to bury your head that far down deep into your ass and kill those that expose your country's war crimes? Is that how sick your are as a person, or a country? I am just not sure I want privates in the army to be able to decide which secrets are OK to release and which ones are not. Doesn't matter what you want. Buried in a big data dump like that can contain information about agents in the field or operations that are still active. Just as true of what Elsberg exposed. BS. Ellsberg did not hand over raw, unfiltered data from cables and the like, which is what Manning did. He handed over a study of the US involvement in the Vietnam War, which was very unlikely to have any identifying information in it that could expose US agents, methods, etc.. Thats bull**** on the methods. The Pentagon had prepared it and there was no reason to ever put that kind of information in it. Thats bull**** on the methods and if it was that useless to anyone why did it have such a high security rating ? That's stupid even for you. The Pentagon Paper were classified because it was a review of how the US got into the war, how it got escalated, it's status, what the reality was, etc. That doesn't mean that names of agents, intel methods, etc were needed to be in there. It had been written and reviewed with the intention of it being distributed within the govt, anything that could disclose agents, methods, etc, would have been taken out. And further, it went to NY Times and WAPO, who would try not to print anything they thought would endanger anyone or methods. That's very different than a Snowden or Manning just dumping raw files. Further, he turned the PP over to NY Times and WAPO, responsible news organizations that would further try to keep from publishing anything like that. Just as true of wikileaks. BS. Assange doesn't give a rat's ass what he puts out. |
#33
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
The DOJ's Entire Case Against Assange Hinges On This One Critical Piece Of Evidence
"trader_4" wrote in message ... On Sunday, April 14, 2019 at 1:26:18 PM UTC-4, Rod Speed wrote: "trader_4" wrote in message ... On Saturday, April 13, 2019 at 10:27:50 PM UTC-4, Rod Speed wrote: wrote in message ... On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 21:18:21 -0400, Home Guy wrote: While needlessly full-quoting, wrote: Manning only did 7 years and we had it red handed for over a dozen espionage charges while in uniform. In any earlier time that should have been the firing squad. For exposing US war crimes, Manning should have been put to death? Do you know how sickening that is? And you bomb, invade, destabilize and destroy other countries when you think (or when you false-flag) war crimes are happening there. There are no bigger hypocrits and schizophrenics on planet earth than americans. Do you remember what the Pentagon Papers were all about? Do you really want to bury your head that far down deep into your ass and kill those that expose your country's war crimes? Is that how sick your are as a person, or a country? I am just not sure I want privates in the army to be able to decide which secrets are OK to release and which ones are not. Doesn't matter what you want. Buried in a big data dump like that can contain information about agents in the field or operations that are still active. Just as true of what Elsberg exposed. BS. Ellsberg did not hand over raw, unfiltered data from cables and the like, which is what Manning did. He handed over a study of the US involvement in the Vietnam War, which was very unlikely to have any identifying information in it that could expose US agents, methods, etc. Thats bull**** on the methods. The Pentagon had prepared it and there was no reason to ever put that kind of information in it. Thats bull**** on the methods and if it was that useless to anyone why did it have such a high security rating ? That's stupid even for you. We'll see... The Pentagon Paper were classified because it was a review of how the US got into the war, how it got escalated, it's status, what the reality was, etc. And that includes METHODS, ****wit. That doesn't mean that names of agents, intel methods, etc were needed to be in there. It had been written and reviewed with the intention of it being distributed within the govt, anything that could disclose agents, methods, etc, would have been taken out. And further, it went to NY Times and WAPO, who would try not to print anything they thought would endanger anyone or methods. Not even possible with the METHODS in the pentagon papers. That's very different than a Snowden or Manning just dumping raw files. No it is not. The same attempt to not endangering individuals was done. Further, he turned the PP over to NY Times and WAPO, responsible news organizations that would further try to keep from publishing anything like that. Just as true of wikileaks. BS. Assange doesn't give a rat's ass what he puts out. Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a ****ing clue about anything at all, ever. Have fun listing the individuals he exposed deliberately. |
#34
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
The DOJ's Entire Case Against Assange Hinges On This One Critical Piece Of Evidence
"trader_4" wrote in message ... On Sunday, April 14, 2019 at 3:06:20 PM UTC-4, Rod Speed wrote: "trader_4" wrote in message ... On Sunday, April 14, 2019 at 1:26:18 PM UTC-4, Rod Speed wrote: "trader_4" wrote in message ... On Saturday, April 13, 2019 at 10:27:50 PM UTC-4, Rod Speed wrote: wrote in message ... On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 21:18:21 -0400, Home Guy wrote: While needlessly full-quoting, wrote: Manning only did 7 years and we had it red handed for over a dozen espionage charges while in uniform. In any earlier time that should have been the firing squad. For exposing US war crimes, Manning should have been put to death? Do you know how sickening that is? And you bomb, invade, destabilize and destroy other countries when you think (or when you false-flag) war crimes are happening there. There are no bigger hypocrits and schizophrenics on planet earth than americans. Do you remember what the Pentagon Papers were all about? Do you really want to bury your head that far down deep into your ass and kill those that expose your country's war crimes? Is that how sick your are as a person, or a country? I am just not sure I want privates in the army to be able to decide which secrets are OK to release and which ones are not. Doesn't matter what you want. Buried in a big data dump like that can contain information about agents in the field or operations that are still active. Just as true of what Elsberg exposed. BS. Ellsberg did not hand over raw, unfiltered data from cables and the like, which is what Manning did. He handed over a study of the US involvement in the Vietnam War, which was very unlikely to have any identifying information in it that could expose US agents, methods, etc. Thats bull**** on the methods. The Pentagon had prepared it and there was no reason to ever put that kind of information in it. Thats bull**** on the methods and if it was that useless to anyone why did it have such a high security rating ? That's stupid even for you. We'll see... The Pentagon Paper were classified because it was a review of how the US got into the war, how it got escalated, it's status, what the reality was, etc. And that includes METHODS, ****wit. So then provide us with some examples of the classified intel methods that were disclosed in the PP. You can't. It wasnt just INTEL methods, ****wit. That doesn't mean that names of agents, intel methods, etc were needed to be in there. It had been written and reviewed with the intention of it being distributed within the govt, anything that could disclose agents, methods, etc, would have been taken out. And further, it went to NY Times and WAPO, who would try not to print anything they thought would endanger anyone or methods. Not even possible with the METHODS in the pentagon papers. That's very different than a Snowden or Manning just dumping raw files. No it is not. The same attempt to not endangering individuals was done. So, cite for us the individuals endangered by the PP. Never said there were any. I clearly said METHODS, ****wit. Noted that you couldnt cite even a single individual endangered by what Manning or Snowden exposed. |
#35
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Lonely Psychopathic Senile Ozzie Troll Alert!
On Mon, 15 Apr 2019 05:03:07 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rot Speed,
the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again: That's stupid even for you. We'll see... We'll see you trolling like there was no tomorrow, you 85-year-old trolling senile pest! -- "Anonymous" to trolling senile Rot Speed: "You can **** off as you know less than pig **** you sad little ignorant ****." MID: |
#36
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Lonely Psychopathic Senile Ozzie Troll Alert!
On Mon, 15 Apr 2019 05:32:52 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rot Speed,
the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again: Never said there were any. I clearly said METHODS, ****wit. Noted that you couldn¢t cite even a single individual endangered by what Manning or Snowden exposed. Noted that you ARE a trolling ****wit, senile Rot! -- The Natural Philosopher about senile Rot: "Rod speed is not a Brexiteer. He is an Australian troll and arsehole." Message-ID: |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
No evidence Clinton deserted; very solid evidence that Bush did | Metalworking | |||
No evidence Clinton deserted; very solid evidence that Bush did | Metalworking | |||
No evidence Clinton deserted; very solid evidence that Bush did | Metalworking | |||
No evidence Clinton deserted; very solid evidence that Bush did | Metalworking | |||
No evidence Clinton deserted; very solid evidence that Bush did | Metalworking |