The US Is Preparing to Prosecute Julian Assange

Of course, it isn't completely black and white. If it's alleged you killed someone in one country, and then flee across the border, should you be extradited? Given enough evidence, yes, that sounds just.

So how about if somebody mails a bomb to an address in another country, is it just to extradite them? It's hopefully illegal in most countries, so why not try them in the country in which they were when they committed the crime, in this case building the bomb?

Cyber-crime also seems clear cut, but there's equally grey scenarios, like hacking utilities to cause harm. But for copyright infringement it's hard to see how it's just, even it it was on a commercial level.

Likely for the same reason that they don't actually care about the cost-effectiveness (or even statistical effectiveness) of their medical treatments. Their stated goal, learning about what's going on in the world, is not the same as their actual hidden goal.

Hypothesizing here, but a few possible reasons why people might not care that much about finding the truth in the news:

* They are more interested in having the news support their preconceptions about the world -- which are in turn based on whatever benefits them most -- so they can then use the media as "evidence" in persuasion, arguments, and other political conversations * They believe that having "their" news channels dominate the public sphere will lead others to passively accept their tribe's opinions, which then has benefits for them * They are eager to reinforce their own beliefs, choices, and biases so they can avoid the painful and expensive process of reassessing their beliefs and reconfiguring their life around those new beliefs

Again, this is all conjecture, but it is moderately supported by the anger that people hold toward news outlets that cater to the opposition.

> In my view we should not expect journalistic work to strengthen existing convictions but to challenge them and add empathy and nuance to our views of the world.

We should, and those of us who think about these things will. But sadly most of us won't. The incentives aren't there, and they likely won't be there until it's too late. Thus the endless cycles of conflict throughout history.

>Again, nothing suggesting they are knowingly working with the Russians

And replied with a link to Assanges' show. I'll admit, "working" is too vague of a word to use, all my other posts use "collaborate," as selling the show to RT could be called "working with." However, if that contact is the damning evidence that you claim it is, the same evidence is available linking Ventura (and Larry King) to the Kremlin. Why aren't you calling for them to receive the same treatment?

>Ah, the Captain Renault defense. . (Sure, I collaborate with the Nazis, but I'd just as soon collaborate with the other side if they were winning!)

Still no evidence of collaboration has been shown. And nothing like that scenario, I'm sure he'd have gladly had his show run on both channels at the same time. More people would see his views and he'd make more money for his work.

>This isn’t a direct link between Assange and the Kremlin,

The second is the TV show, and the third is just ridiculous. Russia is the place where it is most difficult for the US to access Snowden, basically the same for the bodyguards, and one tweet showing both Assange and Russia are antisemitic? They even follow it by saying

>Again, none of these even hint that Assange is a Russian agent. What they do show, when put together, is that Assange doesn’t see Russia as an enemy or a target.

Which seems fairly obvious. He's not a Russian agent, he just views the country that has passed a law calling him a "non-state hostile intelligence service" to be a bigger enemy.