141–150 of 172 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Assange is accused of a crime. Should he be forgiven because some other people are also accused of crimes?
He should be forgiven because there should be an exception for whistleblowing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here's a 2012 article detailing what Sweden provided: https://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/media/2012/09/legal-mytho... i.e. basically they showed Sweden had charged him with stuff which was a crime in both Sweden and the U.K., a bunch of courts agreed that the charges looked at least reasonable and were valid grounds for extradition to Sweden, and then Assange went to the Equadorian embassy. I think that extraditing h…
Sweden never charged him with anything. As the link you've provided clearly states they've issued the "request for interrogation", and since he wasn't available prosecutor gave order for him to be brought in for the interrogation, followed by an Interpol warrant for arrest since he was now in another country. Only after interviewing him Swedish prosecutor would decide whether to proceed with the case and officially c…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US cannot seek the death penalty for people extradited from the EU. Well ok, they technically can break their own treaties but then no EU nation will ever extradite to them again. And many other countries require similar assurances which would now be worthless. Incidentally, the maximum penalty for the charges is five years, which is far short of a death sentence.
He can face more charges later, possibly more are already under seal. It is very unlikely he will face capital punishment, there is also legal precedent from the '60s in federal cases that makes it so.
> Extradition is prohibited by statute if:
> ...
> there are no speciality arrangements with the requesting country – ‘speciality’ requires that the person must be dealt with in the requesting state only for the offences for which they have been extradited (except in certain limited circumstances)
Here's the relevant law: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/41/section/95
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lying about the war crimes was treason in my view
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lying about a war for corrupt reasons surely qualifies.
No, it doesn't. It certainly qualifies as official malfeasance, but treason in the US is defined narrowly in the Constitution (as an express reaction against “treason” being expansively applied.)
Imagine if the leaks showed that the officials wasted money in some other way such as taking gold reserves and destroying them in a nuclear explosion, or sending gold reserves to cronies in other nations. Theft is theft.
Our enemies arguably want us to waste money on unnecessary wars. The officials exposed by Assange were acting in concert with our enemies.
Keep in mind all the crimes by US officials that Assange revealed. In my view many of those crimes committed by officials are treason, yet all have been swept under the rug.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which of his crimes looks like treason? He didn’t hack anything, his only “crime” is providing a publishing outlet. (And yes, Assange is highly biased and anti-American, which is not good, but publishing leaks shouldn’t be a crime.)
It's funny to label someone anti-american, when all they've done is expose america's crimes and ways of manipulating the rest of the world. Makes you think what does being pro-america mean.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Accusation of whataboutism is a thought-stopper. What-about-X allows you to put things in perspective. Things - including crimes (or alleged crimes) - don't exist in isolation. It depends who they happen to (I wouldn't care much to punish the person who helped murder a dictator and bring democracy, for example), it depends if they help stop bigger crimes (I'd applaud the small guy that does a crime to bring down much…
Complaining about whataboutism being called out is even more tangential and thought-stopping than actually calling it out. Whataboutism is not a valid defense, it's a deflection in the form of a red herring.
I think people claim whataboutism because they lack an understanding of scope. Assange published secrets, ok. That is possibly a crime. But the secrets revealed far worse crimes.
Would you defend Jerry Sandusky by saying that an informant being convicted of shoplifting was the most important part of the Sandusky case?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
What better aid to our enemies than spending trillions on a futile war?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it doesn't. It certainly qualifies as official malfeasance, but treason in the US is defined narrowly in the Constitution (as an express reaction against “treason” being expansively applied.)
What better way to give aid to our enemies than to conduct an expensive war on false pretenses and illegally classify information that would have likely led to public distaste for the war? Imagine if the leaks showed that the officials wasted money in some other way such as taking gold reserves and destroying them in a nuclear explosion, or sending gold reserves to cronies in other nations. Theft is theft. Our enemie…
Giving money to our enemies would be a better way to give them aid. Or weapons. Or supplies. Or pretty much anything, really.
One thing which is not giving aid to our enemies is to fight a war against them, on whatever pretenses, which results in massive quantities of said enemy's soldiers dying. That's almost exactly the opposite of "aiding" our enemies.
You may disagree with the efficiency of our military expenditures, but inefficiency in prosecuting military action is not even remotely the same thing as providing aid to our enemies.