New US charges against Julian Assange could spell decades behind bars

Same one that gives the person who hires a contract killer more time than the person doing the killing

 

The problem with that is the Obama Justice Department couldn't make that charge stick. That's why they stopped pursuing him. Obama commuted Chelsie Manning's sentence so the next administration could extract what they wanted from her. They keep putting her in solitary confinement to break her. They wouldn't have been able to do that if Obama had pardoned her.

 

Does anyone remember Ruby Ridge or Waco?
Assange and Manning is PERSECUTION in action!
Witness.
So they don't surround you and shoot you and say "sorry".
Nor oopsy burn you alive to save you.
Now they just use the full weight of the gov't ala Red Scare
to deny you your FREEDOM because of gov't embarrassment.


Persecution of Manning and Assange needs to stop!
They deserve Medals of FREEDOM.
And both paid a personal price already.


Moi

FREE Meng Wanzhou!
​

 

If Assange is part of the theft, then every investigative journalist is guilty as well. You can't prosecute one person without prosecuting them all.

All this against Assange is nothing more than a vendetta for having exposed Clinton's criminality before the election. The information was given to him by the insider Seth Rich and he was killed for it.

Funny how we're now prosecuting those who expose criminal actions, rather than those who are committing crimes. Very mafia mentality there. But then again in a society without any moral boundaries, what can one expect?

 

Wow!

And Yes.

 

I don’t do crazy conspiracy theories

 

That's why I watch MSNBC mostly.

 

Wrong. Killer and contactor gets the same time.

Any felony that results in a death gets automatically upgraded to first degree murder.

Both conspired to commit the murder. Which is a felony. That conspiracy resulted in a death of a person

 

To those who love and value liberty, he'll be a martyr. To the true believers and graspers of political power, he's a heretic and blasphemer.

 

So I guess I have to post some sentences from previous cases?

 

I believe that's a different type of situation, and not directly comparable.

You are talking about one person intentionally causing the murder of someone else, in a very direct way, promising to pay money.

To generalize that concept to what happened here is problematic for a variety of different reasons.

For one thing, the email didn't actually directly tell Manning to commit a crime.

It didn't try to convince Manning to commit a crime or offer any incentive or threat to do so.

The information about how to hack the password wasn't to allow Manning to access the information, but to allow him to not have to submit his personal password to access it, which would have identified him.
It would be like if a person told a thief how to not leave his fingerprints when breaking into a safe, not so much telling them how to break into the safe.

 

How about actuary tables like Life Insurance companies use.

It sure seems to be the case that working for the Clinton's
can be damaging to one's longevity. Si?

http://etherzone.com/body/


Just because I'm a conspiracist
doesn't mean it isn't!


Moi

Did It! ​

 

That’s what jury is supposed to decide.
Let’s get Assange here and try him.

 

Juries are not always fair, you know this.
And the laws are not always fair. Many laws can be interpreted in all sorts of different ways.

Not only that but he will be very likely sitting in prison before his trial for 14 to 16 months before the trial even starts.

We are talking about subjecting an Australian man to American jurisdiction who was not in the US when he allegedly committed the crime. And we are talking entirely about a crime involving information.

Will he be entitled to a jury trial before he can be extradited to the US? No.

Once the UK sends him off to the US, the decisions about what happens to him will be entirely out of their hands. It's not like they can order him to be brought back if they don't like the decisions made in US court.

 

He participated in the theft of data. Let judges decide which laws are fair or not.

 

That's kind of a vague way of stating it. He didn't actually commit the theft.

Is simply telling someone how to hack into a computer enough substance to be legally considered 'assisting a crime' ?

And not even actually assisting the crime at that, but assisting to cover up the crime. (Because Manning already had access to the data, but just wanted to do it in a way that would not reveal his/her personal identity)

 

Well, I think it’s up to a judge or jury to decide, not you or me. It’s not like in the US being acquitted of a crime is an impossible thing. Look at OJ Simpson, Casey Anthony and quite a few other controversial trials.

 

The question is whether that judge/jury should be in the UK or whether that judge/jury should be in the US.

If the UK extradites him, they're placing his fate outside the hands of the UK courts.

A court in the UK is not equivalent to a court in the US. There are different laws, and different public sentiments. Prosecutors driven by different motives.

 

****-hole countries are often characterized by kangaroo justice systems. The charges against Assange are kangarooland on steroids.

 

Well, the US is the victim here. That’s why he should be tried in the US.
And again, your objections to extradition is not logical. People on trial have a pretty good chance of being acquitted.

 

Also I'm doubtful that an average group of people in a jury could sort out all the details and reasons logically, since this is a very complicated case, for a variety of different reasons.
There are numerous different reasons a jury should not follow the exact wording of the law, but they may not know that, and the judge will likely not allow them to be told.

The supposition that we can trust a jury presumes that we can trust the laws that are already there in the first place, which is not necessarily the case.

There is sometimes a tension between exactly what the law says versus what is right or Constitutionally appropriate.

 

The whole "risking the lives of public officials" narrative is a nonsense argument.

The lives of these officials was put at risk by Manning. Once information is "out there" it is no longer "Top Secret". Once the secrecy has been breached - a secret is no longer a secret.

Good thing Assange published the material. Otherwise the breach of secrecy could have been far more serious. Manning could have secretly sold the material to various foreign intelligence agencies. That would have put the lives of the agents at risk.

Releasing the information publicly then served make the Gov't aware that secrecy had been breached - the Gov't could then quickly get those named out of harms way. If the secrecy breach as not know - this would pose a far greater danger to the lives of those who's cover's had been blown.

 

How does anything above relate to Assange endangering national security ?

 

His argument is that release of information could jeopardize American objectives and possibly lead to undercover operatives lives being put at risk.

 

Well, in the US you can opt for a trial without a jury.
Anyway, are you against juries because of Assange or in general? Is there a better way to try him in the US? See, I’m afraid you made up your mind and resist the idea of Assange being tried here because you are afraid that many people disagree with your conclusions. I don’t like Assange and would love to see him in prison, but given Casey Anthony and OJ Simpson precedent, I can’t be 100% certain. Yet, I still support jury trial. Why can’t you do the same and let others decide?