Wikileaks: Goooone

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jamo

I think you missed the point!;)

Legal advice is that 'if' the US can charge him, then he can rely on any defence available to him under US law, including those protections provided by the Constitution.

---

Freedom of speech in the United States From that learned journal Wikipedia. [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution"]First Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:US-GreatSeal-Obverse.svg" class="image" title="Great Seal of the United States"><img alt="Great Seal of the United States" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/be/US-GreatSeal-Obverse.svg/125px-US-GreatSeal-Obverse.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/b/be/US-GreatSeal-Obverse.svg/125px-US-GreatSeal-Obverse.svg.png[/ame]
Speech critical of the government In the midst of World War I, Charles Schenck, then the general secretary of the Socialist party, was found guilty of violating the Espionage Act after a search of the Socialist headquarters revealed a book of Executive Committee minutes. The book contained a resolution, dated August 13, 1917, to print 15,000 leaflets to be mailed to men who had passed exemption boards.[7] The contents of these leaflets intimated a fervent opposition to the draft, comparing conscripts to convicts and urging potential draftees to "not submit to intimidation."[8] Schenck's appeal of his conviction reached the Supreme Court as Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919). According to Schenck, the Espionage Act violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court unanimously rejected Schenck's appeal and affirmed his conviction. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., writing for the Court, explained that "the question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." I don't need to say anything else!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by akelly

Hicks was an enemy combatant, not an "Australian terrorist".

"one of Australias most shameful deeds" - really...? You may want to read your Australian history more closely.

---

One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter, this is not the point I'm making. David Hicks is an Australian citizen who was kidnapped from Afganistan by the Americans. Whether he was a terrorist or an aspirising Mother Teresa is not the point. Every Australian has the right to expect support from their government when in trouble, without fear or favour. David Hicks was abandoned by his country when he needed their help and support. Every Australian has an automatic right of support from their government. Hicks was abandoned. The message this sends to Australians overseas doesn't really instill you with confidence should you run foul of another countrys authorities. IMHO Hicks is a terrorist ****head but he is an Australian terrorist ****head and deserved his countrys best efforts which was not forthcoming.
As for..........."one of Australias most shameful deeds" - really...? You may want to read your Australian history more closely. There is nothing more fundamental than your countrys support in time of need. If your country doesn't stand up for its citizens, what good is it ?

Deano:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies

Freedom of speech in the United States From that learned journal Wikipedia. First Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Speech critical of the government In the midst of World War I, Charles Schenck, then the general secretary of the Socialist party, was found guilty of violating the Espionage Act after a search of the Socialist headquarters revealed a book of Executive Committee minutes. The book contained a resolution, dated August 13, 1917, to print 15,000 leaflets to be mailed to men who had passed exemption boards.[7] The contents of these leaflets intimated a fervent opposition to the draft, comparing conscripts to convicts and urging potential draftees to "not submit to intimidation."[8] Schenck's appeal of his conviction reached the Supreme Court as Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919). According to Schenck, the Espionage Act violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court unanimously rejected Schenck's appeal and affirmed his conviction. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., writing for the Court, explained that "the question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." I don't need to say anything else!

---

That's nice!;)

But what's it got to do with my post? :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies

.................Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., writing for the Court, explained that "the question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." ..................

---

From what's been published to date...........................embarrassing, yes, but a ..'clear and present danger', hardly. Even in that screwiest of legal systems you'd be pulling a pretty long bow to carry that one off.

Deano:)

This guy should be be shot, if he had come up with who shot JFk, or Aliens did land in New Mexico then that would be good reading, posting information on pipe lines, military installations, under sea cable locations etc etc etc, is hardly the brightest thing to do. So what if the US did this and that, or the uk or Oz, why should we then general public need to know this, anything that impacts on the troops on the ground doing there job, is a bad thing, who's side his he on.....

I just can't help to question nation's reactions to it - they must have a LOT to hide for them to justify their responses. A la USA - we'll create new laws to charge him under if we have to!

The front page of the West Australian today - "World's Most Wanted Man Arrested." I never realised Assange was the world's most wanted. I must be behind in the times!

Behold the 'popular press' who do they really satisfy really?
The owners have more money than you or I, so are they really serving us with a version of events that is the truth or are they pushing something of a ficticious version that appeals to their equally minted buddies??!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

Behold the 'popular press' who do they really satisfy really?
The owners have more money than you or I, so are they really serving us with a version of events that is the truth or are they pushing something of a ficticious version that appeals to their equally minted buddies??!!

---

The West Australian actually prints truth?? Ever? I only open it for the Sudoku :p and even then thats only because we get it plonked into our department in the hospital.

Now.. back on topic. Bad WikiLeaks. Tut tut.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeanoH

One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter, this is not the point I'm making. David Hicks is an Australian citizen who was kidnapped from Afganistan by the Americans....Deano:)

---

Man, you keep saying that Hicks was kidnapped - I dont think you have a grasp of what happens on the battlefield! Hicks wasn't kidnapped - he was a prisoner of war. Now I dont agree with what went on at Gitmo - no argument from me there - but pure and simple, Hicks was fighting with an enemy force and was captured. He was not kidnapped, there was no ransom demands and he did not have any rights to "consular assistance" under the Geneva Conventions.

As for the terrorist/freedom fighter argument - tell it to the families of the victims of Lockerbie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by juddy

This guy should be be shot, if he had come up with who shot JFk, or Aliens did land in New Mexico then that would be good reading, posting information on pipe lines, military installations, under sea cable locations etc etc etc, is hardly the brightest thing to do. So what if the US did this and that, or the uk or Oz, why should we then general public need to know this, anything that impacts on the troops on the ground doing there job, is a bad thing, who's side his he on.....

---

Ahhh, ummm....

Oh never mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by disco2hse

Ahhh, ummm....

Oh never mind.

---

:D:D:D