181–190 of 792 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
These espionage charges aren't about "Hillary's emails". https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/05/28/indictment...
I am not talking about Hillary's emails. He leaked diplomatic cables. [1] https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wikileaks-releases-classifie...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He leaked war crimes.
He leaked war crimes AND he leaked the information I mentioned.
- he’s not a us citizen
- none of the “crimes” happened on US soil
- he’s a world famous journalist with prior work
- was charged with bogus crimes in Europe in an attempt to arrest him. All dropped
- the person who stole the files he released is already free and the tax payers paid for their transition
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thank you for the tactful disagreement and I appreciate your perspective. I also believe journalism is necessarily adversarial and should be allowed to exist with little encumbrance. However, I do think there is a line that needs to be drawn at some point as to what is journalism, versus what is propaganda for a specific agenda masquerading as journalism.
> However, I do think there is a line that needs to be drawn at some point as to what is journalism, versus what is propaganda for a specific agenda masquerading as journalism. Why does the intent/purpose of the publisher matter here in any way from a legal prospective? I fear that your opinion of his purpose is forming your opinion of its legality.
Does that mean that Anne Sacoolas will be extradited to the UK?
We are creating really shameful times. History will not judge us lightly.
Only in the sense of a Solzhenitsyn nightmare. There are breathing, ideologically-bent individuals pushing this. Who are they, and how do we hound them like they have hounded him.
> There are breathing, ideologically-bent individuals pushing this. Who are they… For starters, there are the majority of Americans who believe he should be extradited. (In second place, those who don’t care.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I do not think it is a loss for freedom of the press, I think it is an opportunity for the courts to define what a journalist actually is, vs. not. Perhaps the courts will side with Assange and we will find that this is First Amendment protected activity. I personally do not believe it is, but I do think that this situation is a bit unique to modern times and is likely to set precedent one way or the other.
Russia also does this. Inconvenient journalists are designated "foreign agents", for instance. Redefining journalist can let you imprison any and every journalist.
We are creating really shameful times. History will not judge us lightly.