Making sure he pleads guilty to something that isn’t a crime equals America not having freedom of speech.
Worse, it validates the precedent that non-U.S.-citizens can be prosecuted for breaking U.S. law over things they did outside of the U.S.
Really happy that Assange gets to go home, since he’s suffered enough personally, but I really don’t like the precedent that I can be prosecuted in, say, Israel under Israeli law for things that I did in Wisconsin (e.g. boycotting).
That precedent doesn’t need validation. It’s ancient. It’s international law. Don’t fuck around and then run off to an ally.
Wat? Are you thinking of Snowden?
No?
He was not in trouble for leaking information. He literally helped Chelsea hack into classified files she didn’t have access to, he actively participated in breaching security inside the US military. Very illegal no matter where you stand.
This is just blatantly false. Repeating government propaganda doesn’t make it true. He did not hack the military he told someone what a VPN is.
Alright it take it back, he tried to help crack a password, but he likely failed. Looks like he was still actively pushing Chelsea to gather more classified info. I’m sorry but this is not the behavior of a journalist
In a pretrial hearing in Manning’s case, prosecutors presented evidence that Manning had asked Assange—who was instant messaging with Manning under the name Nathaniel Frank—if he had experience cracking hashes. Assange allegedly responded that he possessed rainbow tables for that, and Manning sent him a hashed password string. According to Thursday’s unsealed indictment, Assange followed up two days later asking for more information about the password, and writing that he’d had “no luck so far.” The indictment further alleges that Assange actively encouraged Manning to gather even more information, after Manning said she had given all she had.
It’s not clear if Assange ever successfully cracked the password. According to the indictment, that password would have given Manning administrative privileges on SIPRNet, allowing her to pull more files from it while concealing the traces of her leaks from investigators.
You’ve got a giant nothing burger there don’t keep digging deeper.
There’s a reason all serious journalists are defending Assagne and describing the case against him as a very dangerous precedent against press freedom.
The fact of the matter is that Assange’s policy of “leak everything” mainly only applied to the United States, which put united states assets (spies in authoritarian regimes) in danger and ended up in prison. And Assange did not extend the same courtesy to the Russians when documents were leaked from their end, and would redact and editorialize the leaks. Stack that on top conspiring to steal classified information and its not so much of a nothing burger as you call it. Yeah, let’s give blanket immunity to “journalists” who actively try to steal state secrets, leak it straight into a pipeline, and selectively put our -only- our allies in literally mortal danger while protecting that of our adversaries. Come on dude.
Holy shit these libs defending war criminals because “muh Russia”.
Did Russia claim to have freedom of speech?
What makes you think I’m defending the actions of the US? I remember watching the drone video when I was 18 years old, it was incredibly shocking and it forever changed how i saw the US military. Alternatively, do you support assange releasing the name of people in Authoritarian regimes who were working with the US? Who were imprisoned or possibly killed?
What I’m pointing out is that assange is not your ally, despite him exposing the atrocities of the US, much less a journalist. There are codes of ethics that journalists follow (and laws they have to follow as well) and if he did that, it likely could left him in a better position legally. Instead he was cavalier, and possibly even malicious with his actions. He should have kept a lawyer that specializes in whistleblower law on staff. But he probably thought because he was in Europe he could do whatever the fuck he wanted without consequence.
Did Russia claim to have freedom of speech?
I’m done here, it almost seems you are missing the point on purpose. This case is very clearly not about freedom speech.
Too bad his sexual misconduct was never explored
Unfortunately, he managed to escape trial until the statute of limitations ran out. But of course, some will defend him as a completely holsum rapist who was framed by the CIA, because you can’t believe those lying Swedish women, especially when the accused flees the country known for its humane justice system as soon as he hears he’s charged.
Or something bizarre along those lines.
Wow to the people downvoting you need to rethink your definition of informed consent. Julian Assange is a repellent sociopath to anyone with two eyes and an open mind.
