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

One could argue the reverse has more objective validity.

 

If he is a man of principle and moral integrity, then it would be prudent for him to come and face his accusers. Bet he won’t. And what does that say about him?

 

I do agree, there needs to be a court of law to settle claims of contract violations, but it best be written in the contract what remedies will apply for those breaches, and not some super court riding roughshod over free, sovereign, independent nations.

As to Assange, if he’s relying on the UN to save his butt, I’d remind him of the UN’s handling of Nikolai Glushkov and Jamal Khashoggi. They did nothing. Assange’s best bet, if he’s the hero he claims he is, is to come to America, willingly, and face his accuser.

So far, Lori Loughlin has shown more courage.

 

It’s freedom of the press, not freedom of skullduggery.

 

Staying locked up in an embassy for 7 years is tantamount to prison. Obama granted commutation to Manning and it's a good bet he would have done the same to Assange. All the more reason why he never have gone into that building in the first place.

 

He went in to avoid extradition to the US, and some denied we were gonna to do, and it seems assange was right, as we had a secret indictment, just waiting for him to come out, or get kicked out. We got him kicked out with a change in presidents in equador.

Assange does not trust the american justice system, and all too well understands that our intel can frame anyone that they want to frame. Especially someone not an american citizen.

The obama admin must have been talking about assange, for why else would hillary ask why we could not just drone him? She was S of S when she asked. What if she was president? We can see how her sociopathic mind operates.

 

Manning is American. It makes sense for him to attend an American Court. Assange is not. I could see your argument if it were about Snowden. I could also see your point if it were to be as you say but that is not what is expected. I have read lots of other people who like yourself say he is innocent on the given indictment so that may be so. I have read Obama did not think they would get him on the current indictment. So as you say he could go and come away having proved his innocence and leave the door open for other whistle blowers. I think you know that the reason for not doing this is that you would walk a long way to find someone apart from yourself who does not believe a lot more charges may come later and the reality is that it does happen that sometimes someone can go into court, sure they will come out having been proven innocent, yet the court has found the person guilty - sometimes to be released innocent after ten or twenty years in jail.

The information Manning provided is available without him going to live in a US jail. Did it ever result in those involved in the killing being charged or is it just the person who made the evidence available who is to face jail. If, as you say and I have since heard others say, he is not guilty of the indictment then rationality would suggest that is a trick to get him to the US for some other charge.

 

Assange has a realistic chance of being acquitted in the US court.
I think it will be hilarious if he ends up in the US, spends about a year in jail during the duration of the trial and then gets acquitted and ejected from the US like a used condom - that’s after self-imposed imprisonment for 7 years at the embassy + time in U.K. violating the bond terms + time in the US for duration of the trial. It’s like getting a 9 year sentence for being a complete ****** bag!

 

Whether "open and shut" is not clear, the basic premise of the government's case is that Assange is criminally liable for the assistance he provided to Manning in obtaining clasified documents and concealing his access. We don't have enough information to tell whether the government can sustain whatever burden it may have in proving Assange assisted Manning in obtaining the published documents and/or in concealing his efforts to do so. Critics of the government appear convinced there's no way they'll ever prevail in this case and they go on about Constitutionally protected freedom of the press, but the government's claim has more to do with unlawfully obtained information and assisting in getting it, this is not a Constitutionally protected right. Assange didn't "merely expose the data", he helped Manning get it (or at least this is what the government claims).

 

Assange did more than receive stolen property, he downloaded it on to the web, into the public venue, without vetting, without reason, without any principle other than showing off to the world how smart he is, and with the morality of a pig. His claim to morality is his claim the public has a right to know. Maybe, but it certainly hasn't the right to know about field agents, destabilization of foreign enemies, troop movements, military weapon secrets, future clandestine operations, and romantic interludes. His unwillingness to face a court of justice brands him for the coward he is. His stand is nothing more than a miscreant's love of "sticking it to the man".

Assange! Quit cowering and start towering. Stand tall, or accept your fall.

 

Seriously the US or the 'National Security State' as I am repeatedly hearing it called recently has serious problems.

To give an example of the US and war crimes. Vijay Prashad

He talks about how the US does not want to talk about the real crimes it committed. I can see now why Trump brought in so much military. A National Security State is not a democracy. This is just, as I have heard so many people say, another move to end journalism as the US moves towards the Abyss.

You guys have got things back to front. If you were a Democracy you would be going by democratic values and your interest would be to clean up your military. As you are not your interest is to harm anyone who will show to the world the US as it really is.

Chris Hedges..... He says she has said what they say against Assange is not true, has already tried to commit suicide while in solitary and so was put back into solitary - clearly torture for her.

They speak about how even the New York Times spoke well of Assange but after being told to destroy him, changed their position so that as was spoken about in another post, they used Wikileaks material and even got awards for doing so, but they never gave credit to Wikileaks and they cheered on the arrest of both Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning.

Wake up America!

 

Let me answer your claim with your own quote:

Why would you demand something from Assange that you would not demand from those accusing him?

 

Lori Loughlin actually committed a crime, however absurd and trivial.

Assange has committed no crime in exposing the crimes of the Washington government.

 

I heard WikiLeaks described (on radio today, by someone who was able to gain regular access to Assange in the embassy) as a post box into which anyone can anonymously post material which the poster (or any whistle-blower, eg Manning) wishes to expose. According to this visitor, Assange says he has no knowledge of the identity of any poster of said material.

If this is the case, there is no skulduggery on the part of Assange's WikiLeaks.

(Btw, we both agree the UN cannot protect anyone.....but our remedy for that terrible situation is at polar opposites)

 

In other words, Assage will be held responsible for hosting a site that allowed someone else to make a post telling Manning how he could hack into the computer.

That would be like if the owner of Political Forums were arrested because one of the other posters here told someone how to hack a computer.

I suspect this is just a shallow rouse by the prosecutor to get Assange extradited so he can be accused of other things, other things that should be Constitutionally protected.

They won't specifically charge him with this until he's in US custody and the UK, Sweden, Australia can't do anything about it anymore.

 

Bit like democracy-it's an ass but its better than the alternative. The jury system imo is the best system we have. I mean, what's your alternative?

 

That he's a normal every day modern human being without principles but lots of talent that caught up with him....if he's found guilty

 

who then checks the material because that sounds like it could just be a place for anyone to post any kind of untrue propaganda?

 

His unwillingness to be imprisoned, makes him a coward? What a strange place your mind has found itself. How can he continue to expose war crimes, and the fact that our CIA can frame anyone they want to, blame them for a hack, and then use this lie to go to war with the nation they framed, if he submits himself to prison?

If assange had been around, before we went full bent into vietnam, and exposed that the pentagon had evaluated going into vietnam, and had concluded we could not win it, we could have saved 58,000 american lives, one being one of my family members who died...and for what? You are beginning to piss some vietnam vets off, like me.

Your priorities are really screwed up.

It has never been proven that his publishing the Manning leaks lost any american lives. That is a fact. Sure, it compromised some people, but that's it. And we have no business invading sovereign nations in the first place. Hell, assange revealed the taliban offering up osama bin laden, and we didn't take them up on the deal. Nothing assange has ever published been anything but the 100 percent truth. Unlike our press. He has a 100 percent truthful, factual record.

Assange's crime is that he is an idealist, and despises gov'ts that are evil actors. He despises people who work for us, and abuse their power, acting in our name, and then hide the things that they do in our name that no decent moral human being would ever do.

I don't see any difference between your attitude and those that assange exposed. He never exposed any planned attack that informed our enemy, that they then used to max out kills of american soldiers.

 

And if he did commit crimes - no worse that those who claimed Iraq has WMD.
Oh, they didnt have to seek a friendly embassy did they?

 

Good point, which the interviewer did not raise.

From Wikipedia:

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/421949/everything-you-need-to-know-about-WikiLeaks/

<<Wikileaks is a self-described “not-for-profit media organization,” launched in 2006 for the purposes of disseminating original documents from anonymous sources and leakers. Its website says: “Wikileaks will accept restricted or censored material of political, ethical, diplomatic or historical significance. We do not accept rumour, opinion, other kinds of first hand accounts or material that is publicly available elsewhere.”>>

I'm not sure if that entirely answers your question.

Note from the same article:

<<A website also needs hosting, and Wikileaks has apparently had to shift its hosting at least once after being dropped by a chosen provider: Amazon’s commodity hosting service shut down the site for terms of service violations after being contacted by U.S. Senator Joseph Lieberman.>>

 

Let him come to court, the accusers present their case, the defense counters, and 12 honest souls render their verdict. Best of all scenarios.

 

So, let him plead not guilty, like Lori, and have his day in court. Or don’t you believe there are 12 honest souls in America?

 

Your over looking one salient fact; he knew what Miss Channing was doing, helped her get it, and posted it no matter if innocents were harmed or not. As of right now, he looks like punk.

 

And one could argue the earth is flat, the Holocaust didn’t happen, and Armstrong didn’t walk on the moon. As-a-matter-of-fact, many do; not me.