Jullian Assange has been arrested following removal of asylum by the Ecuadorian Government

"These people" not relevant to Assanges fate though. US charges will still be pending no matter what Sweden does. I'm not advocating anything but a definitive SCOTUS ruling on the 1st amendment.

 

You added the link to the first post 10 minutes after you initially posted it (you know we can read when you edited it, don't you?). Initially the post just had you quoting me & nothing else. You put up the other link while I was replying to a subsequent post of yours.

I am reading it now. Thus far it is a nasty, misogynist hit piece on the women. I'm still waiting for the bit where it explains that the case has been dropped because some new information turns up. Lets see if that turns up.

 

I was answering directly another post, can you not figure that out? I answerd his question. If what he wrote was accurate, so was what I said.

 

​

It seems to me you two are arguing over nothing.[/QUOTE]
Arguing? I'm ignoring him, and the distraction.

 

Many people in the US are not going to care about anything that happens to Assange because they are assuming he is a rapist.

I've had to deal with this in every thread about Assange, both the two ones right now and past threads.

 

Gets caught making things up. Throws tantrum and storms off. pathetic.

 

You two are arguing over nothing.

If I'm wrong, please inform me of what actual political points you two are specifically arguing about.

 

OK, article read. Care to point to the bit that backs up your claim - which I think was that the charges were dropped after new information. Just quote the relevant bit. If it was there it wasn't very clearly stated.

Even with the obvious bias of the article it was pretty clear that Assange is a sexual predator who thinks he can do as he pleases. probably not the best way to 'prove' your case.

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-arrested-police-london-n991236

I have no problem with the U.S. charging this dirtbag.

 

That's not how I read it.

One could argue that he was a bit of a pig though.

 

Could you be more specific on why you think he should be charged?

And how long do you think he should be sentenced to?

Should it always be a crime to reveal government secrets, even if those secrets are about government abuse and may have big political ramifications once they are made known?

 

Chelsea Manning (or what ever its name is) stole classified U.S. military documents. Assange, by publishing them on Wikileaks, conspired to publish those papers. That's a crime, period. Yes, it should be a crime to reveal government secrets. I may be a flaming liberal, but I have friends who have served in the U.S. military, including a high school classmate who was a career Navy Seal, and a college classmate who worked overseas under official State Department cover. It's not for me, you or any other *sshole to judge what should and shouldn't be a secret, as is the same for the "judging" of what is government abuse. Way, way above my pay grade, and f*** anyone who disagrees. None of the decisions to classify information is made in a vacuum, and the public does NOT have a right to know everything, period.

As to how long Assange should be sentenced, for as long as the statue calls for. I hope the son-of-a-b*tch rots in prison.

 

What he has been charged with is conspiring with Manning to steal classified docs. The 1st amendment, and any SCOTUS ruling on that, can't help Assange on that charge. If the DOJ can prove Assange conspired with Manning, he's in serious trouble.

 

No ... it's about every country having its laws and these laws are often different from country to country ... and it may be that something in one country is not an offense at all, in another it is a criminal offense.
How stupid, idiotic, ridiculous, wrong or silly a law is or not does not matter at all. As a citizen of the country, I have to abide by the law and a guest who enters the country must comply with it for the duration of the visit. This is basically true and every guest must also inform me beforehand ... this is his duty, because ignorance protects against punishment not and as little as the personal view and opinion of the guest to the law and whether it is punishable in his home country or Not!
A rationale based on the motto "What you criminalized in your country is ridiculous and criminal in my country ... and that's why I do not have to stick to it" is irrelevant!

If you were then arrested there in this country, sorry, blame yourself and zero pity!

If you are subsequently charged / accused when you are back home, etc., then it depends on whether your country has a extradition treaty with the other country .... or ATTENTION ... also other countries with the country where you have been accused and the person is traveling there. Then it can be tight for those ... like now for Assange!
UK has an extradition agreement with Sweden and the US!

If Assange had fled to Switzerland instead, he would be safe at least from extradition to the US, because there is none with the US. Whether I do not know Sweden ... and no desire to look now, sorry!

 

So you're saying you have to abide by all the laws of the countries that any of the countries you visit have an extradition agreement with?

If Assange does end up being charged in the U.S. (which is what he feared) he was not in the U.S. when the alleged crime occurred, nor is he a U.S. citizen.

 

He has been to court. The judge did not like him and called him a narcissist. He is being held in jail and is being sent to the Crown Court for sentencing next month - indicating a sentence of more than 6 months is expected. The US is apparently saying he could go to jail for up to to 5 years which sounds a bit less than people were saying

https://www.theguardian.com/media/l...rested-at-the-ecuadorean-embassy-live-updates

 

The disturbing thing about that is the government could then ban any criticism against the government by having it classified.

Isn't the whole point of the First Amendment for the press to be able to complain about government?
How are you going to be able to complain about government abuse if it's illegal to talk about?

 

There's a big distinction between being employed by government and then betraying those secrets versus being a reporter and passing on those secrets to the public.

Obviously Manning betrayed government secrets that were entrusted to her/him. But I still believe there should be better whistle-blower protections when the abuse going on is bad enough, and the public interest outweighs the importance of official secrets, and going through the established chain of command won't do anything.
That's kind of a different topic though.

 

Assange is not a reporter, Wikileaks is not journalism. Hell, Fox News is more journalistic than Wikileaks and I hate Fox News.

Whistle-blower protections should not apply to the publication of classified military information, that may jeopardize the lives of troops, support personal, or intelligence assets. You ask how are you going to complain about government abuse if it's illegal to talk about it? F*ck that, I'll flip the question back on you - how is anyone going to enter an all volunteer military, then furthermore volunteer for the most dangerous duty, i.e. all Special Forces, or join the intelligence service to serve your country, if every f*cking order, and every f*cking operation, is going to be divulged to and questioned by the public.

 

I suspect the whole thing is staged and Julian Assange will be released within 6 months. Something on the order of Guilty as charged - Seven years behind bars - Time already served.

 

You would have been okay with the leaks if he had removed names and specifics about intelligence operations overseas?
Isn't there some way to make known abuses without compromising foreign operations that are undercover?

 

"The government could then ban any criticism...by having it classified." Blah, blah, blah. Leaking of classified material will more likely get someone killed, than the government classifying everything.

And the whole point of the First Amendment, vis-a-vie the press, if for the press to be allowed to function free of excessive or intrusive government oversight. That said, like an individuals First Amendment rights does NOT extend to being legal to yell "fire" in a crowded theater, the First Amendment does not give the press carte blanche to audit every aspect of the governments activities. The government, primarily the executive branch, has, in the exercise of their duties to the national defense, the absolute right to classify information that if divulged, would compromise the executive branch's ability to function in the national security and national defense of the country. The only entities who have the absolute right to audit the executive branch's activities is the legislature (Congress) and the judicial branch (courts). Not the press, and Wikileaks is NOT the press anyway.

 

You are suggesting sanity. We do not live in such times. - although whether he would be guilty as charged would be questionable.

 

The problem is, it's the government deciding whether that information would be harmful.

Sounds a lot like China.

 

Wikileaks has jeopardized none of that so you are only .....