Rex Murphy: Removing Julian Assange’s halo


View Poll Results: Assange is responsible for a number of Innocent Deaths
Yes 11 50.00%
No 5 22.73%
He was right to release the files 7 31.82%
He was wrong to release the files 6 27.27%
Do not give a hoot about repercussions. We had to know. 1 4.55%
The US Govt will eventually catch him 4 18.18%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 22. You may not vote on this poll

DaSleeper
+2
#241
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

I enjoyed the Vietnam references. but you still haven't provided anything that says we have obligations or that charges are to be laid.

GASP!!! So what are our obligations to the rats? Can you post those please?

Aside from moving them I can see that you have way Too much empty space between your goal posts.
Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeperView Post

I wonder if there would be any outrage from some in this forum if TIPS (external - login to view) information were to be made public????

 
mentalfloss
#242
Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeperView Post

Report: Afghan leaks dangerously expose informants' identities (external - login to view)

Quote:

"It's possible that someone could get killed in the next few days,” Robert Riegle, a former senior intelligence officer, reportedly told the paper.

That was in August 2010.
 
petros
#243
Ohhhh it's MORAL obligations but not LEGAL obligations. I see.
 
CDNBear
+1
#244
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

That was in August 2010.

Isn't hindsight awesome.

To bad it isn't a legal consideration.

But don't let that fact get in the way.

Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Ohhhh it's MORAL obligations but not LEGAL obligations. I see.

Who said that?

There are provisions in the AR and UCMJ, to protect informants. It's the same legal standard as applies to Law Enforcement CI's.

If you admit to the error in your assertions, or prove them, I'll be happy to pass along the Code.
Last edited by CDNBear; Dec 28th, 2011 at 10:40 AM..
 
DaSleeper
#245
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

That was in August 2010.

I wasn't aware of any statute of limitations on this sort of treasonous document posting.....
 
mentalfloss
#246
Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeperView Post

I wasn't aware of any statute of limitations on this sort of treasonous document posting.....

I never said there was.

But clearly in 2011, hundreds of afghans were not under any threat.
 
CDNBear
#247
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

I never said there was.

Just implied.

You have to love the cowards way out.
 
DaSleeper
+1
#248
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

I never said there was.

But clearly in 2011, hundreds of afghans were not under any threat.

What's your view on TIPS (external - login to view) being made public????

I guess petros would consider them rats unless such a phone call would reveal who had stolen his truck???
 
petros
#249
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

Isn't hindsight awesome.

To bad it isn't a legal consideration.

But don't let that fact get in the way.

Who said that?

There are provisions in the AR and UCMJ, to protect informants. It's the same legal standard as applies to Law Enforcement CI's.

If you admit to your the error in your assertions, or prove them, I'll be happy to pass along the Code.

Sure point out where foreign rats have protection under laws that apply to the US military personnel.
 
CDNBear
#250
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Sure point out where foreign rats have protection under laws that apply to the US military personnel.

Your comprehension issues are acting up again.
 
petros
#251
Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeperView Post

What's your view on TIPS (external - login to view) being made public????

I guess petros would consider them rats unless such a phone call would reveal who had stolen his truck???

Afghanis can phone crime stoppers and get Canadian rights? Really?

Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

Your comprehension issues are acting up again.

A paid informant isn't US military personnel.
 
CDNBear
#252
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

afghanis can phone crime stoppers and get canadian rights? Really?

Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

A paid informant isn't US military personnel.



Quote: Originally Posted by cdnbearView Post

your comprehension issues are acting up again.

lmao!!!
 
mentalfloss
+1
#253
Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeperView Post

What's your view on TIPS (external - login to view) being made public????

 
CDNBear
#254
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

...

Maybe you should reply in context to that string of commentary.

That way you wouldn't look so silly.

But I can imagine how you would want that to actually be moving of the goal posts.
 
DaSleeper
#255
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Afghanis can phone crime stoppers and get Canadian rights? Really?

A paid informant isn't US military personnel.

Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

lmao!!!

Absolutely....
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

I guess you don't like my TIPS analogy only because it destroys your reasoning in defending Assange ?
 
petros
#256
Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeperView Post

Absolutely....


I guess you don't like my TIPS analogy only because it destroys your reasoning in defending Assange ?

Can a confidential informant be made to testify in court?
  • A: Possibly. A confidential informant or source is a person who assists the police by providing information used to charge or convict another person of a crime. The informant might be acting only out of a sense of duty to help apprehend violators without regard to personal gain. This kind of informant is called a "citizen informant." Other informants provide information in exchange for money. And still other informants provide their information in exchange for leniency in matters involving their own wrongdoing.
    Prosecutors (external - login to view) must disclose the informant's identity if it would be relevant or helpful to the defense, or essential to giving the defenant a fair trial. Common examples of this are where the informant was an eyewitness to, or a participant in, any of the offenses that were charged.
    An informant can be made to testify at either a pretrial hearing or at a trial. For example, if the informant's identity is ordered disclosed because she was the source of information for a search warrant (external - login to view), and was present and witnessed the illegal acts that resulted in the warrant being issued, the informant might have to testify as a witness at a hearing before trial in which the defense argues the warrant was improperly issued.
    If the police or prosecutor don't want to reveal the identify of the informant, either for the informant's safety or so as not to "blow his cover" so the informant can be used in future cases, they'll go to great lengths to avoid having the informant testify. But in the end, it's up to the judge. She'll balance the request not to disclose the informant's identity against the constitutional rights of the accused to present a defense and to have a fair trial.
 
CDNBear
+1
#257
Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeperView Post

I guess you don't like my TIPS analogy only because it destroys your reasoning in defending Assange ?

...

Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeperView Post

It's also called selective reasoning....

Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Can a confidential informant be made to testify in court?A: Possibly. A confidential informant or source is a person who assists the police by providing information used to charge or convict another person of a crime. The informant might be acting only out of a sense of duty to help apprehend violators without regard to personal gain. This kind of informant is called a "citizen informant." Other informants provide information in exchange for money. And still other informants provide their information in exchange for leniency in matters involving their own wrongdoing.
Prosecutors must disclose the informant's identity if it would be relevant or helpful to the defense, or essential to giving the defenant a fair trial. Common examples of this are where the informant was an eyewitness to, or a participant in, any of the offenses that were charged.
An informant can be made to testify at either a pretrial hearing or at a trial. For example, if the informant's identity is ordered disclosed because she was the source of information for a search warrant, and was present and witnessed...

Quote has been trimmed, See full post: View Post
Your point?
 
DaSleeper
+2
#258
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Can a confidential informant be made to testify in court?A: Possibly. A confidential informant or source is a person who assists the police by providing information used to charge or convict another person of a crime. The informant might be acting only out of a sense of duty to help apprehend violators without regard to personal gain. This kind of informant is called a "citizen informant." Other informants provide information in exchange for money. And still other informants provide their information in exchange for leniency in matters involving their own wrongdoing.
Prosecutors must disclose the informant's identity if it would be relevant or helpful to the defense, or essential to giving the defenant a fair trial. Common examples of this are where the informant was an eyewitness to, or a participant in, any of the offenses that were charged.
An informant can be made to testify at either a pretrial hearing or at a trial. For example, if the informant's identity is ordered disclosed because she was the source of information for a search warrant, and was present and witnessed...

Quote has been trimmed, See full post: View Post
TIPS informants in Canada subject to US law???????
 
petros
+1
#259
Who phoned TIPS from A-Stan?
 
DaSleeper
#260
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Who phoned TIPS from A-Stan?

Are you so dense that you don't know what an analogy is or you simply deflecting again?
 
mentalfloss
#261
Apparently the threat level from a hypothetical TIPS release of unknown quantity and duration is the same as the afghan releases from last year which have had no security-related impact.
 
CDNBear
+1
#262
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Who phoned TIPS from A-Stan?

LMAO!!!

Serpentine, serpentine!!!

Peter Falk - Alan Arkin - The In Laws - Serpentine Serpentine - YouTube



Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Apparently the threat level from a hypothetical TIPS release of unknown quantity and duration is the same as the afghan releases from last year which have had no security-related impact.

The moral and ethical malleability of your principles, is noted.
 
petros
#263
Did you ever point out the law that says US or Canada or some EU nations are REQUIRED to protect informants? No, you didn't. Still waiting for that. Anytime you're ready.
 
CDNBear
#264
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Did you ever point out the law that says US or Canada or some EU nations are REQUIRED to protect informants? No, you didn't. Still waiting for that. Anytime you're ready.

Just because I haven't said why I haven't posted them, since the last page, doesn't change that fact.

Start by going back and answering my challenges, than we can start having a reasoned discussion.

Until then, you are the only impediment.
 
petros
+1
#265
Post the obligations or STFU.
 
CDNBear
#266
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Post the obligations or STFU.

LMAO!!!

Just keep...

Peter Falk - Alan Arkin - The In Laws - Serpentine Serpentine - YouTube



You look funny.
 
mentalfloss
#267
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Post the obligations or STFU.

You expect him to?

He's the master of dodging, lol


 
petros
#268
It's hard to post what doesn't exist.
 
DaSleeper
#269
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Did you ever point out the law that says US or Canada or some EU nations are REQUIRED to protect informants? No, you didn't. Still waiting for that. Anytime you're ready.

So I guess You have quit trying to prove that what Assangy did was morally right and have now backed down to a tactic of deflection.......Now where did that damned rabbit go? over there????
 
petros
#270
So it is morals and not legal? **** morals.
 

Similar Threads

8
Gun registry usless: rex murphy
by Nuggler | Sep 17th, 2011
3
brittany murphy rip
by spaminator | Dec 24th, 2009
no new posts