New US charges against Julian Assange could spell decades behind bars

I don't think you can compare this to an ordinary crime, because we are talking about a crime of information. Information is not a physical thing.

That's not a good analogy. If someone stole your information and made a copy of it, and then gave me the information, it's not such a certain thing that that the information I now hold in my hand still belongs to you; it's not the same physical thing.
Just as if someone stole a valuable diamond ring from you, paid a jeweler to make a copy of it, and give the copy to me. I'm not actually holding your property.

 

Stealing is stealing even if it's digital information.
You're just spouting silly juvenial relativism used by pimply face teens to justify pirating media. Sorry this hasn't been a valid excuse either for a long time either. If it isn't yours and you're not authorized to access it then you're commiting a crime by accessing it. Think about a hacker accessing your bank records. The bank still have them after the hack, but the hacker will go to jail nonetheless when caught.

 

I disagree. I think you can't so simply draw a moral equivalence between something which is physical and not physical.
When you steal something physical, you are denying the owner the proceeds of their labor. This is not necessarily the case when information is copied.

If you wanted to draw an analogy to using intellectual work without paying for it, we could have that discussion too, but you seem to be shifting the goalposts, and even in that case it's not so obviously morally wrong as stealing something physical.

As soon as you start talking about criminalizing information, you're talking about criminalizing the internet and potentially criminalizing free speech. It's a slippery slope. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with many of the laws that already exist (another discussion, but relevant to briefly touch on here).

And then of course there is the inherent tension that exists between necessary secrecy and transparency in any democracy.
We are talking about something that the people theoretically, on some level, have a right of control over. (i.e. The people "own" the government, another way your attempted analogy does not hold up the best)

 

And that's why Manning was punished. Assange was not actually the one who "accessed" it. (Not that I'm saying he automatically deserves punishment if he did)

We could be starting another debate here, one that I do not want to go into.
Morally, it's not so clear a hacker is doing anything wrong accessing records, but when accessing bank records, it's generally implicitly clear that they are accessing them for only one purpose, to commit a crime. So if that is made a crime, it's only out of pragmatic reasons and not necessarily inherent moral ones.

You can't make a moral argument built all on the foundation of already established law.
It's a disingenuous argument.

 

Assange acted as a fence, somebody who deals in stolen goods. That's criminal!

You keep arguing for morality as if that trumped legality. It doesn't and the law is clear.

 

Since when does the US have the right to sue a foreigner like Assange for things he did not do in the US.

It's all about revenge ... Revenge for Assange to release these secret documents showing the true face and crimes of American troops and services. This is about Verbechen, which is a Verbechen also according to US law ... but with a current president and his followers and fans who want to have American war criminals as heroes and declared acquitted, this criminal approach of the United States, of course, is clear ... and nobody is surprised.

No ... I'm not a fan of Assange ... for me he is a human * peep * hole. But this fact does not make his publications a crime!

 

So, if I've an accomplice steal your stuff and deliver it to me in an other country for me I'm in the clear?
This means that every hacking crimes not commited in the same country can't be prosecuted using your flawed logic...

 

Yep ... this is the way as it is ....

Let me ask you this way:

Let's say an American Citizen is someone like Assange and he has published something same confidental and secret he got delivered about bad things happened in China. Let's say he is arrested in a country which has an extradition treaty with China. Is it for you OK that this American citizen is handed over to China out of same reasons as now Assange?

 

If he commited the crime, he has to do the time.

Next time don't be a criminal.

 

So, if I hack into your bank account in Germany from the US and transfer all your money to my bank account then that is not going to be considered a crime by you. Did I get that right?

 

Of course they do .. Obama went after whistleblowers big time - not talking Manning or Snowden here either - the ones that tried to out Gov't crimes through legitimate channels. Much of the stuff that is declared "Top Secret" has little to do with National security and a whole lot to do with Gov't criminality. With each administration we inch closer to Orwellian Tyranny.

 

Whether or not it was a crime to me has less relevance in that the result of the action is a better system. I am glad that we have the info of what happened. I don't like the idea of punishing someone for doing something that results in a better system. Manning took an oath, Assange did not.

 

I already acknowledged your point.

To me that seems besides the main point here. Though it is a good argument why the release of the information did not endanger lives.

And I would point out, Manning only released the information with the intent that it would go public.

 

Crimes are not always prosecuted based on the result of the outcome, though.

 

no, but the judgement is. Prosecutors job is to process the charges when a crime has been committed, The judge is more leeway in sentencing.

 

It is interesting that Manning was one of those who Obama chose to pardon. After 8 years of turning his back on his past record of fighting for civil liberties and going after whistleblowers -he was perhaps trying to make amends.

The difference between Manning and Assange of course is that Manning actually committed the crime.

 

Dealing in stolen goods is also a crime.

 

Another disingenuous argument, because like I explained before, it's different when those "stolen goods" are information.

And trying to apply parallels with already existing law to support a moral argument is logical fallacy.

 

Prosecutors get to determine when a crime has been committed.
The laws are not so black & white as people imagine. It's not paradoxical to say that all sorts of common legal things are actually against the law.
The laws that exist criminalize non-crimes, or at least they can if a prosecutor decides it's a crime (or maybe put another way, the prosecutor gets to decide what is a crime, within the confines of the law, but those confines are much broader than most ordinary people imagine).

What I'm trying to point out is that the conceptions most people have about "rule of law" are a myth.

Lots of laws aren't completely fair, or can be used in unfair ways.

 

Not for the NY-Times ...

 

Then no hacker will ever get convicted for identity theft which is just information after all... oh wait, they do!

 

Failure to prosecute is not an exoneration. Beside the NYT is backed by the democrat while Assange is hated by them.

 

A very bad comparison ...
Assange got the documents from an American whistleblower and then published them.
The US, while initially claiming to help the whistleblower hack into the system, but everyone knows it's bullshit.
Where is there a crime of Assange?
But above all ... what about the content that was published? The official US reaction only talks about endangering American soldiers, etc. ... but as for the crimes of US soldiers and others, it's not a word ... and I'm talking about crimes that are too close to US law crime and that are concealed should be in front of the American people!

 

I'll pass on the Orwellian Tyranny but otherwise I agree with you.

 

OK but this has nothing to do with the fact that your claim that Assange committed some crime by publishing classified info is false with respect to precedent.