By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Whatever happened to Julian Assange?

Kasz216 on 22 April 2011
PureDante said:
Kantor said:

The real answer to your question is that people got bored of Julian Assange shortly after he was arrested and began complaining about Libya and Obama's lack of ability to reduce debt instead.


Thanks, lol. So, Obama's up for impeachment, or what?

"President Obama moved forward without Congress approving. He didn't have Congressional authorization, he has gone against the Constitution, and that's got to be said," Kucinich told Raw Story. "It's not even disputable, this isn't even a close question. Such an action -- that involves putting America's service men and women into harm's way, whether they're in the Air Force or the Navy -- is a grave decision that cannot be made by the president alone."

"And I'm raising the question as to whether or not it's an impeachable offense. It would appear on its face to be an impeachable offense," Kucinich said. "Now, it doesn't necessarily follow that simply because a president has committed an impeachable offense, that the process should start to impeach and remove him. That's a whole separate question. But we have to clearly understand what this Constitution is about."

The anti-war Democrat pointed to this quote from candidate Obama in 2007: "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

 

"So what the president did is, by his own words, outside the Constitution," Kucinich said. "This isn't a case of him not knowing. He knows clearly that he has not complied with the Constitution. And that's a very serious matter because he's using the ultimate authority of a president."



Around the Network
scottie on 22 April 2011
Kasz216 said:
scottie said:
Kasz216 said:

 

 

Haha, yeah. It's going to be hard finding an impartial jury for him. Even for those of us who recognise that he is performing a very important role in society, it is still very obvious that he is very weird and pretty much an all round jerk.

Which is why I find the "he was set up" rumors funny.  I mean, everything in his character suggests that it's something he COULD do.

If a government was going to set him up... they'd pick a more predudical crime that he was more likely to be convicted on.

Hack his computer and download children porn.  That's what you would do if you were going to try and set him up.


I agree, but I hope the jury will look for more evidence than just that



PureDante on 23 April 2011
Kasz216 said:
PureDante said:
Kantor said:

The real answer to your question is that people got bored of Julian Assange shortly after he was arrested and began complaining about Libya and Obama's lack of ability to reduce debt instead.


Thanks, lol. So, Obama's up for impeachment, or what?

"President Obama moved forward without Congress approving. He didn't have Congressional authorization, he has gone against the Constitution, and that's got to be said," Kucinich told Raw Story. "It's not even disputable, this isn't even a close question. Such an action -- that involves putting America's service men and women into harm's way, whether they're in the Air Force or the Navy -- is a grave decision that cannot be made by the president alone."

"And I'm raising the question as to whether or not it's an impeachable offense. It would appear on its face to be an impeachable offense," Kucinich said. "Now, it doesn't necessarily follow that simply because a president has committed an impeachable offense, that the process should start to impeach and remove him. That's a whole separate question. But we have to clearly understand what this Constitution is about."

The anti-war Democrat pointed to this quote from candidate Obama in 2007: "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

 

"So what the president did is, by his own words, outside the Constitution," Kucinich said. "This isn't a case of him not knowing. He knows clearly that he has not complied with the Constitution. And that's a very serious matter because he's using the ultimate authority of a president."

Well, that's more than enough perfect convincing for him to be kicked off the throne; although hes just a puppet like any other president, whats stopping congress from actually beginning the process? Cause hes the wanna-be-token "african american"? If it wasn't for his "race", I honestly don't believe he would've been elected, or given the benefit of the doubt of his unknowning acknowledgment of his own commanded venturing into libya. 



All of this, of course, is just my opinion.

Skyrim 100%'d. Dark Souls 100%'d. 
Dark Souls > Skyrim.
Halo 4 is the best damn FPS since Halo 3.
Proud pre-orderer of 2 PS4's and an Xbox One. 

Currently Playing: Dark Souls II, South Park
Playstation 4: MGS V GZ, Killzone: Shadow Fall, NBA 2k14.

Mr Khan on 23 April 2011
scottie said:
mchaza said:

While an fellow Australian, I am against Juilian Assange. There stuff that people shouldn't know, if there were no serects the fabric of global society would collapse into chaos. So releasing military documents from the US, UK ect are going to have alot of stuff on on China, Russia vice versa. and this is how wars can start people, i dont think Julian was thinking that leaking serect miltary documents could start some unwanted tenison between global super powers. 

So overall He should not be executed because that is not an harsh punishment, but instead locking in an room with no communication with tonnes of serect documents and when he does talk to someone they turn around and say " are you man". He will then go into insanity because no one beleives him. 


He released diplomatic documents, not military ones. In the course of releasing them, he revealed that there are dozens, if not hundreds of American diplomats, and diplomatic staff, that are dangerously underqualified for their jobs, and are not capable of rising up to the responsibility of their jobs. It is these people, not Julian that are likely to start wars. Who the fuck gossips about foreign politicians in your official notes?

Everyone, that's the point. Diplomats are there to get under the surface as much as tread across it, because you have to understand this gossipy stuff which can have as much impact as the real stuff



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Mr Khan on 23 April 2011
PureDante said:
Kasz216 said:
PureDante said:
Kantor said:

The real answer to your question is that people got bored of Julian Assange shortly after he was arrested and began complaining about Libya and Obama's lack of ability to reduce debt instead.


Thanks, lol. So, Obama's up for impeachment, or what?

"President Obama moved forward without Congress approving. He didn't have Congressional authorization, he has gone against the Constitution, and that's got to be said," Kucinich told Raw Story. "It's not even disputable, this isn't even a close question. Such an action -- that involves putting America's service men and women into harm's way, whether they're in the Air Force or the Navy -- is a grave decision that cannot be made by the president alone."

"And I'm raising the question as to whether or not it's an impeachable offense. It would appear on its face to be an impeachable offense," Kucinich said. "Now, it doesn't necessarily follow that simply because a president has committed an impeachable offense, that the process should start to impeach and remove him. That's a whole separate question. But we have to clearly understand what this Constitution is about."

The anti-war Democrat pointed to this quote from candidate Obama in 2007: "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

 

"So what the president did is, by his own words, outside the Constitution," Kucinich said. "This isn't a case of him not knowing. He knows clearly that he has not complied with the Constitution. And that's a very serious matter because he's using the ultimate authority of a president."

Well, that's more than enough perfect convincing for him to be kicked off the throne; although hes just a puppet like any other president, whats stopping congress from actually beginning the process? Cause hes the wanna-be-token "african american"? If it wasn't for his "race", I honestly don't believe he would've been elected, or given the benefit of the doubt of his unknowning acknowledgment of his own commanded venturing into libya. 

Because Kucinich, while i love the hell outta the guy's politics, is quite frankly a nut. If what Bush did didn't rise any official impeachment noise, none of what Obama's done yet qualifies.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Around the Network
Kasz216 on 23 April 2011
Mr Khan said:
PureDante said:
Kasz216 said:
PureDante said:
Kantor said:

The real answer to your question is that people got bored of Julian Assange shortly after he was arrested and began complaining about Libya and Obama's lack of ability to reduce debt instead.


Thanks, lol. So, Obama's up for impeachment, or what?

"President Obama moved forward without Congress approving. He didn't have Congressional authorization, he has gone against the Constitution, and that's got to be said," Kucinich told Raw Story. "It's not even disputable, this isn't even a close question. Such an action -- that involves putting America's service men and women into harm's way, whether they're in the Air Force or the Navy -- is a grave decision that cannot be made by the president alone."

"And I'm raising the question as to whether or not it's an impeachable offense. It would appear on its face to be an impeachable offense," Kucinich said. "Now, it doesn't necessarily follow that simply because a president has committed an impeachable offense, that the process should start to impeach and remove him. That's a whole separate question. But we have to clearly understand what this Constitution is about."

The anti-war Democrat pointed to this quote from candidate Obama in 2007: "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

 

"So what the president did is, by his own words, outside the Constitution," Kucinich said. "This isn't a case of him not knowing. He knows clearly that he has not complied with the Constitution. And that's a very serious matter because he's using the ultimate authority of a president."

Well, that's more than enough perfect convincing for him to be kicked off the throne; although hes just a puppet like any other president, whats stopping congress from actually beginning the process? Cause hes the wanna-be-token "african american"? If it wasn't for his "race", I honestly don't believe he would've been elected, or given the benefit of the doubt of his unknowning acknowledgment of his own commanded venturing into libya. 

Because Kucinich, while i love the hell outta the guy's politics, is quite frankly a nut. If what Bush did didn't rise any official impeachment noise, none of what Obama's done yet qualifies.


I dunno.  I mean Kusnich has a pretty open in shut case in that "Obama himself said it was illegal."

It doesn't nessisairly make it illegal, but it's certainly a "got you" moment that should be adressed... since it's basically the most blatant and sevre backtracking from his campaign yet.  (Which is saying something, current Obama makes George "I'm a uniter not a divider" Bush look like the king of campaign promises.)


Me I always liked Dennish Kusinich.  Say what you want about the guy... but he believes what he says, and rarely betrays it.... AND he's not afraid to change his mind.   As can be seen by him going from Pro-Life to Pro-Choice.

I mean, people portray him as crazy... but he's nowhere near the actual "Far left" of the democratic party when it comes to senators.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/2010voteratings

Though I may be a bit defenisve only because he was my representative for most of my life.