Latest Breaking News

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)

7. Probably because they are searching for a crime. They have a person but no crime and they want to

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 05:30 AM

Aug 2012

find one, just to teach anyone else who gets the idea that they can publish actual news without permission. And we wonder why the MSM is so trite. This could happen to them. Joe Lieberman is advocating prosecuting the NYT. That has to have a chilling effect on journalists, and every journalist watching what is happening to Assange knows that they better be careful now and not get any ideas.

The article says this GJ may take years?? Years? This is pure intimidation and just plain wrong. If a crime was committed, then say what it was.

They have no crime, but they want to silence, not just him, but others also. After Lieberman's threat, it's doubtful the NYT will take any chances should a whistle-blower provide them with any info.

This is a sad time in the history of this democracy. And so few are willing to condemn any of this.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

47 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Spain's Judge Garzon Says U.S. Secretly Working to Have Wikileaks Founder Tried There [View all] Hissyspit Aug 2012 OP

Calling Ecaduor....! hlthe2b Aug 2012 #1

We'll see what a big man Assange is MannyGoldstein Aug 2012 #2

You're so right, who did he think he was publishing facts, imitating real journalism, which everyone sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #4

We are such a great democracy. Secret juries hiding behind closed doors trying to figure out a way sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #3

Thats's it: "Behind closed doors". Ghost Dog Aug 2012 #6

Probably because they are searching for a crime. They have a person but no crime and they want to sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #7

Very well put. Ghost Dog Aug 2012 #32

I second Sabrina's response.... midnight Aug 2012 #35

Somewhere, someplace ... Fantastic Anarchist Aug 2012 #9

"The Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution must be rolling over in their graves." msanthrope Aug 2012 #11

I was not talking about how they felt about Grand Juries being used appropriately. sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #17

Yeah--Judith Miller though that being a journalist would protect her--so she leaked the news of an msanthrope Aug 2012 #19

Like so many assumptions, your assumptions here are wrong also. sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #21

How is it you are unfamiliar with what this GJ is investigating? House's subpeona has been online msanthrope Aug 2012 #23

Assange did not flee Sweden's jurisdiction. You need to educate yourself about this case. sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #25

Sabrina, the Belmarsh court made a finding of fact that he did flee. You can't have your own facts. msanthrope Aug 2012 #28

From what I remember he sought permission to leave and was given it... midnight Aug 2012 #36

Criminals Lie. That's why you have sworn court proceedings. msanthrope Aug 2012 #37

So he's a 'criminal' now? When was he convicted? And what are/were the charges? sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #38

Sabrina, obviously no one can make you read the findings of the court. msanthrope Aug 2012 #41

And no one can convince you that to be a criminal, you first have to be charged, then tried sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #42

Is Mr. Bush not a criminal? Well, then Assange is not a criminal to you. nt msanthrope Aug 2012 #43

Are you serious? sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #44

Well, then we agree on something! Without charge, trial, or conviction, a person can be a criminal. msanthrope Aug 2012 #46

Yes. As president he had the law rewritten after he was guilty of breaking them... midnight Aug 2012 #47

... Garzon said he had no idea what was going on in the US ... struggle4progress Aug 2012 #5

"Judge"Garzon???? Not anymore. What a match for Assange. nt msanthrope Aug 2012 #8

US & Spain's chief prosecutor discussed how to force Garz�n hand into dropping investigation of US Hissyspit Aug 2012 #10

He wiretapped prisoners speaking with their attorneys. That's his conviction. msanthrope Aug 2012 #12

prisoners or criminals? n/t AlphaCentauri Aug 2012 #13

Does it matter? You can't illegally wiretap a person and their attorney. nt msanthrope Aug 2012 #14

The attorneys were suspected of being involved in the massive fraud which was the sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #27

You want to defend political prosecutions against anyone who goes after crimes from sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #15

The Gurtel case was about bribery and corruption, not terrorism. msanthrope Aug 2012 #16

I do not defend wire-tapping at, but I have not seen you object to it sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #18

Sabrina I have no doubt you read my post upthread where I objected to it. msanthrope Aug 2012 #20

No, he got the smackdown which was initiated by the supporters of War Criminals sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #22

Kindly tell me which judge of the 7 is a supporter of 'War Criminals?' msanthrope Aug 2012 #24

I don't need to tell you about any of those judges. Many people, far more informed than I sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #26

Sounds to me like he got exactly what he deserved for colluding with Prosecutors against a msanthrope Aug 2012 #29

Yes, 'Conservative judges' sort of like our own SC ruling on Gore V Bush. sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #30

Which decision? The one convicting him, or the one acquitting him? msanthrope Aug 2012 #31

The one that selected him for prosecution. See my post above. You didn't answer the question sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #33

Well, why would you prosecute the prosecutors when they didn't msanthrope Aug 2012 #34

Garzon was responsible for acting on the information given to him which he did. sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #39

Okay...it's all a big plot then...nt msanthrope Aug 2012 #40

Selective prosecution, pushed by the Far Right against a hugely respected Human Rights sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #45