Assange: Biden, Palin, Huckabee Terrorists and Idiots, Should Be Put in Jail

B

buzzy2

Julian Assange Interview with Cenk Uygur on MSNBC's Dylan Ratigan Show (12/22/2010)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB6Ipiy27eo

(7:11)
Cenk Uygur : Joe Biden has called you a high tech terrorist how do you respond to the Vicepresident?

Assange: The terrorists are not us, but, they (Biden, Palin, others) have been calling for my assasination, illegally murdered. Conducting violence or threats of violence in order to achieve a political end, the elimination of a publisher, THAT is the definition of terrorism.

(9:19)
Cenk Uygur: How do you respond to Huckabee calling for your execution, to Palin you are like Al-Qaeda and the Taliban?

Assange: "Just another idiot trying to make a name for themselves, if we are to have a civil society you cannot have senior people making calls on national TV to go around the judiciary and illegally murder people. That is incitement to commit murder. That is an offense."

"Are the United States under the rule of law or are they going into a state of anarchy?"

"Are those great Bill of Rights traditions of due process are just thrown to the wind whenever some shock jock politician can use it to make a name for themselves?"

"They should be held to account, they should be charged with incitement to commit murder"


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB6Ipiy27eo
 
U.S.Code
TITLE 18 CHAPTER 19
§ 373. Solicitation to commit a crime of violence
(a) Whoever, with intent that another person engage in conduct constituting a felony that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against property or against the person of another in violation of the laws of the United States, and under circumstances strongly corroborative of that intent, solicits, commands, induces, or otherwise endeavors to persuade such other person to engage in such conduct, shall be imprisoned not more than one-half the maximum term of imprisonment or (notwithstanding section 3571) fined not more than one-half of the maximum fine prescribed for the punishment of the crime solicited, or both; or if the crime solicited is punishable by life imprisonment or death, shall be imprisoned for not more than twenty years.
 
The Crime of Solicitation

In attempting to discern the sometimes hazy borderline between constitutionally protected expression of beliefs from unprotected inducement of criminal activity, an essential task is to distinguish speech that simply conveys an idea to another person (that later might be acted upon) from speech that amounts to actual participation in the performance of an illegal act. (44) The federal criminal code contains a provision, at Title 18, U.S. Code, Section 373, that serves as a general prohibition on the solicitation of violent criminal activity and may serve to illustrate how lines are drawn in this area. Section 373 provides, in pertinent part, that:

Whoever, with intent that another person engage in conduct constituting a felony that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against property or against the person of another in violation of the laws of the United States, and under circumstances strongly corroborative of that intent, solicits, commands, induces, or otherwise endeavors to persuade such other person to engage in such conduct, shall be imprisoned not more than one-half the maximum term of imprisonment or ... fined not more than one-half of the maximum fine prescribed for the punishment of the crime solicited, or both; or if the crime solicited is punishable by life imprisonment or death, shall be imprisoned for not more than twenty years. (45)

Solicitation proscribed by this statute often will take the form of speech inasmuch as the phrase "otherwise endeavors to persuade" is intended to be construed broadly to cover any situation "where a person seriously seeks to persuade another person to engage in criminal conduct." (46) Criminal "solicitation" and "incitement" are not necessarily synonymous terms. Unlike incitement, the solicitation statute does not impose limits on the immediacy and likelihood of the completed crime. Rather, to be convicted of solicitation, it is sufficient to show that a speaker is serious about crimes of violence being carried out. (47) Solicitation is an offer or invitation to another to commit a crime with the intent that the crime be committed. The crime is complete once a verbal or other form of request is made with the requisite criminal intent. Solicitation is an inchoate crime, rather than a form of advocacy. The harm is in asking, irrespective of the reaction of the person solicited, and the crime of solicitation is completed by the solicitation itself, whether or not the object of the solicitation ever is achieved, any steps are taken toward accomplishing it, or the person solicited immediately rejects it. (48)

By its terms, the federal solicitation statute requires proof of intent that another person engage in violent unlawful conduct, and the circumstances must strongly corroborate that intent. Examples of circumstances strongly corroborative of intent as required for a conviction for soliciting a crime of violence "include the defendant offering payment or another benefit in exchange for committing the offense; repeatedly soliciting or discussing at length in soliciting the commission of the offense, or making explicit that the solicitation is serious; believing or knowing that the person solicited had previously committed similar offenses; and acquiring weapons, tools or information for use in committing the offense, or making other apparent preparations for its commission." (49) Persuasion accompanied by an inducement, such as a money payment (e.g., murder for hire) (50) or an explicit or implicit threat or command evidences sufficient criminal intent and should raise no significant First Amendment issue. However, solicitation cases involving persuasion taking the form of advocacy or urging of unlawful action without adequate evidence of inducement could be subject to First Amendment challenges under the Brandenburg doctrine (Brandenburg v Ohio).
 
Bottom Line:
There is no crime if there is no intent, i.e. if it's just "advocacy". So either they are criminals, or they are just BSters and shock-jocks.
 
I saw a crawler on the news wires where the "Chairman of some House Justice(?) committee" had said, "Neither Wikileaks nor Assange has committed a crime"...

But of course... those who operate in the dark don't appreciate having thier dirty little schemes and comments revealed to the public.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top