The Complete Wikileaks Thread(All threads merged here!)

Skatchie

Skatchie

Time Out
Sep 24, 2010
312
0
16
42
Assiniboia
Re: The rape case against Wikileaks' Julian Assange

Kreskin said:
Give me a break. The guy has broken nearly every law there is. You don't think there are any copyright issues? He didn't aid a criminal? He isn't in possession of stolen property?

The problem is everyone thinks that if it involves the internet it's above the law. It's time someone had the balls to put meatballs like him in the slammer. Shack him up with crackers and spammers.
Click to expand...

There aren't copyright issues with government **** that is supposed to be released anyways. He hasn't aided criminals either, he's just released information, and he isn't in possession of stolen property, he's in possession of intellectual property that we all have a right to see.

That's the goal too, for the totalitarian Obamites to shut down the internet. You'll get what you wish for here, unfortunately. The Dems and Republicans want it shut down so it'll happen. THere is no freedom of speech anymore thanks to losers like you that allow it.
 
Skatchie

Skatchie

Time Out
Sep 24, 2010
312
0
16
42
Assiniboia
Or just charge him with sexual assault even though it was consensual and say it was abuse because he didn't wear a rubber. That's actually the case they are making. It's pure political bull sh!t
 
petros

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
117,180
14,241
113
Low Earth Orbit
Threaten death or bodily harm

Under the Criminal Code, it is an offence to knowingly utter or convey a threat to cause death or bodily harm to any person. It is also an offence to threaten to burn, destroy or damage property or threaten to kill, poison or injure an animal or bird that belongs to a person.
Penalties

The offence of utter death threat may be prosecuted by summary conviction or by indictment. If prosecuted by indictment, the accused person is entitled to elect trial by jury and upon conviction is liable to up to five years jail. In most cases, however, the offence is prosecuted by summary conviction, requiring a trial before a lower court justice. In this case, the maximum penalty is 18 months imprisonment.
What the Crown must prove

To secure a conviction at trial, the Crown must prove that the person making the threat did so knowingly. That is, the prosecution must show that he was aware of the words used and the meaning they would convey. It also must show that he intended the threat to be taken seriously, that is, to intimidate or strike fear into the recipient. It is not necessary that the person making the threat intend to carry it out or be capable of doing so. The motive for making the threat is equally irrelevant.
In assessing whether the words constitute a threat, they must be considered objectively. The court must ask: In the context and circumstances in which the words were spoken or written, the manner in which they were used, and the person to whom they were directed would they convey a threat to a reasonable person?
A history of violence between the parties may support a finding that the words were intended as a threat. Whether or not the person making the threat has an apparent ability to carry it out when the words are spoken, his use of gestures or acts, whether the recipient of the words takes them seriously, and disparity in size between the speaker and the recipient of the threat may all be relevant to an assessment of the speaker's intent.

mentalfloss said:
Really? I guess I just don't give a crap myself but is there legislation on that?
Click to expand...
Two new things in one day. You're on a roll.
 
mentalfloss

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
petros said:
Threaten death or bodily harm

Under the Criminal Code, it is an offence to knowingly utter or convey a threat to cause death or bodily harm to any person. It is also an offence to threaten to burn, destroy or damage property or threaten to kill, poison or injure an animal or bird that belongs to a person.
Penalties

The offence of utter death threat may be prosecuted by summary conviction or by indictment. If prosecuted by indictment, the accused person is entitled to elect trial by jury and upon conviction is liable to up to five years jail. In most cases, however, the offence is prosecuted by summary conviction, requiring a trial before a lower court justice. In this case, the maximum penalty is 18 months imprisonment.
What the Crown must prove

To secure a conviction at trial, the Crown must prove that the person making the threat did so knowingly. That is, the prosecution must show that he was aware of the words used and the meaning they would convey. It also must show that he intended the threat to be taken seriously, that is, to intimidate or strike fear into the recipient. It is not necessary that the person making the threat intend to carry it out or be capable of doing so. The motive for making the threat is equally irrelevant.
In assessing whether the words constitute a threat, they must be considered objectively. The court must ask: In the context and circumstances in which the words were spoken or written, the manner in which they were used, and the person to whom they were directed would they convey a threat to a reasonable person?
A history of violence between the parties may support a finding that the words were intended as a threat. Whether or not the person making the threat has an apparent ability to carry it out when the words are spoken, his use of gestures or acts, whether the recipient of the words takes them seriously, and disparity in size between the speaker and the recipient of the threat may all be relevant to an assessment of the speaker's intent.
Click to expand...

Hmm.. well, I think if Assange wants to make a point about free speech he should let this go. Might actually be a good way of strengthening his position.
 
petros

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
117,180
14,241
113
Low Earth Orbit
Tit for tat. If you are in the position of power to carry out a death threat then you shouldn't say stupid **** that is against the law and unbecoming of an elected official.
 
Colpy

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
70
Saint John, N.B.
mentalfloss said:
Why are you putting so much faith in Levant? You do realize this guy wrote a book called 'ethical oil'. He's a spinster, and a bad one at that. "Durr I talked to a guy who was an NDP advocate and I hatedz him."

Good for him. This Ad hominem bull**** is 5th century and has got to stop.

Check this out if you still have an irrational death warrant for these guys:
So, Why is WikiLeaks a Good Thing Again?
Click to expand...

Ezra Levant is hardly neanderthal.........actually, he's brilliant.

And he is absolutely correct about the oilsands.........you can buy your oil here, or you can but it from Nigeria, Venezuela, or Saudi Arabia et al.........because oil ain't going away yet. Personally, I'd rather see the money coming here, than going to the above mentioned bunch of nasties.

I read his book Shakedown. A wonderful indictment of the threat to our freedom, and the persecution of Ezra simply because he did what every single newspaper and magazine in the western world should have done when threatened with violence by the Islamists.....he printed the Mohamed cartoons, and was one of very few with the cojones.....then he defended that action brilliantly, and single-handedly brought the Thought Police of the Human Rights Tribunals into richly-deserved disrepute.

Look it up on Youtube.

Watch it all.........there are 3 or 4 sections.....a lesson on how to really speak truth to power.

And, he is open-minded enough to engage in polite debate, and keep some very surprising friends:

YouTube - Ezra Levant : Political Analyst and Guest Speaker

Notice his offer of space for opposing views........gee wilikers, I'd like to see some of THAT from the left. (your "This Ad hominem bull**** is 5th century and has got to stop." was very revealing, and so typical. (unfortunately)

Ezra says it loud and clear.......and I like that. And he allows for other opinions....I like that, too.

BTW, did you actually READ the link you posted????? Let me quote:

Sgt. Stachnik's mother, Avril Stachnik of Waskatenau, Alta., said Tuesday she was outraged when she first heard the friendly-fire claim.
"It's a lie, for starters," she said. "I talked personally to some of his friends, and this is not how it happened."
Click to expand...

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010...s-friendly-fire-allegation.html#ixzz17a1aHbf7
​
 
Last edited:
Kreskin

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
Re: The rape case against Wikileaks' Julian Assange

Skatchie said:
There aren't copyright issues with government **** that is supposed to be released anyways. He hasn't aided criminals either, he's just released information, and he isn't in possession of stolen property, he's in possession of intellectual property that we all have a right to see.

That's the goal too, for the totalitarian Obamites to shut down the internet. You'll get what you wish for here, unfortunately. The Dems and Republicans want it shut down so it'll happen. THere is no freedom of speech anymore thanks to losers like you that allow it.
Click to expand...
Intellectual property is property. It wasn't public information. It was stolen word-for-word copy and paste cables.

I hope they throw away the key on yet another internet idiot who makes his claim to fame on something other than his own merits.
 
petros

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
117,180
14,241
113
Low Earth Orbit
Re: The rape case against Wikileaks' Julian Assange

Kreskin said:
Intellectual property is property. It wasn't public information. It was stolen word-for-word copy and paste cables.

I hope they throw away the key on yet another internet idiot who makes his claim to fame on something other than his own merits.
Click to expand...
Nope.

Not even close.

What is Intellectual Property?

Intellectual property (IP) refers to creations of the mind: inventions, literary and artistic works, and symbols, names, images, and designs used in commerce.
 
Colpy

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
70
Saint John, N.B.
petros said:
Tit for tat. If you are in the position of power to carry out a death threat then you shouldn't say stupid **** that is against the law and unbecoming of an elected official.
Click to expand...

Flanagan is not in a position of power. He made no threat. He has no connection with Obama, so he was not counselling murder. The idea that he could be charged is a bad joke.
 
Machjo

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
Re: Of wikileaks, julian assange, and assassination threat-as-joke of tom flanagan an

FiveParadox said:
On the question of WikiLeaks (which I have been more than happy, until this point, to feverishly avoid), I am of the view that there are legitimate reasons for the State to keep secrets from its citizens, for reasons of national security. This is the driving rationale behind the Security of Information Act (formerly the Official Secrets Act) in Canada. This Act, though, provides that breaches of such security can be defended where it is proven that it can be established to have been "in the public interest" (as per s. 15(1)). This has no bearing of course, in relation to the work of WikiLeaks, but it is a judicial principle to keep in mind.

As interesting as some of this information has been, the release of special operational information of our own nation, or of other nations, should be enthusiastically condemned, and prosecuted to the maximum extent possible. It does raise the bigger issue, though, of whether much of this information--and let's be clear, a lot of this does not have any relevance to national security--should have been made secret in the first place. It raises questions of accountability and transparency.
Click to expand...

Seeing though that the people are the state, then does the state not have a right to its own secrets?
 
Kreskin

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
Re: The rape case against Wikileaks' Julian Assange

petros said:
Nope.

Not even close.

What is Intellectual Property?

Intellectual property (IP) refers to creations of the mind: inventions, literary and artistic works, and symbols, names, images, and designs used in commerce.
Click to expand...
The cables were clearly privately owned property that the owner did not put in the public domain. You can describe it in your own words but you don't have the right to steal government intellectual property and post it on the internet. Go to the government of Canada's websites and see for yourself. There are notices written to notify you that the information (which is not for the purpose of commerce) cannot be reproduced without written consent. And the information they refer to is already posted for public consumption.

Important Notices - Health Canada
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom