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

Wouldn't we normally see American liberals supporting what European nations support?

 

One man's sin isn't another man's guilt. Though some betray that which they've sworn to uphold, the ideal still remains and must be lived up to by the good. The American Armed Forces exist for only one purpose, to protect and defend the right's man. Therefore it is impossible for American Armed Forces to be guilty of any war crime, individual's may betray; the standard remains.

 

Assange, quit hiding.

 

Civil disobedience may be justified, must be so in a court of law. Assange, come and state your case.

Ayn Rand: "Civil disobedience may be justifiable, in some cases, when and if an individual disobeys a law in order to bring an issue to court, as a test case. Such an action involves respect for legality and a protest directed only at a particular law which the individual seeks an opportunity to prove to be unjust. The same is true of a group of individuals when and if the risks involved are their own."--http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/civil_disobedience.html

 

The argument is he has no ethical obligation to face judgement, particularly when there are no guarantees that proper justice will be carried out.

There is good reason to believe proper justice may (and will) likely not be carried out in this case.

He did not have any problem facing Swedish justice, but to face Swedish justice very likely would have been tantamount to facing American judgement.

One could say that a country's justice system is only as fair as the country they choose to hand a defendant off to, and their justice system in turn is only as fair as the country they choose to hand the defendant off to.

 

If he doesn't believe American justice is fair he shouldn't have put himself in its crosshairs.

 

Not when that court of law is not legally obligated to see that proper justice is done.
And it's not, so it is justified.

 

He's an Australian citizen and wasn't in America at the time.

 

In America a citizen would never be expected to be obligated to put themselves in harm's away.

Yes, there are numerous exceptions to that but that is a general principle.

It is not justice to punish people for failing to submit themselves to judgement.

I think perhaps in the UK they have a very different idea of individual rights and the moral position of government than the US.
If you generally believe that government is always right and government can solve all problems in society, then of course you would blame Assange for not submitting himself to that judgement.

 

Why don't you apply the same standards to government?
Why was Sweden hiding whether they would extradite him to the US? Why is the US hiding evidence? (So far there has been no evidence submitted by the US to him or publicly that would justify him being arrested)

Your argument fails to hold up because you are applying some double standards.

 

Your argument hinges on what exactly the definition of "steal" means.
Assange did not personally go into those government computers.

Surely you're not implying that information itself can be global government property? (i.e. presumably you don't think government has the right over information simply because they lay claim to it)

 

He didn't have to be in America to participate in the attempted hacking of an American computer.

 

Your argument hinges on the exact definition of "attempt" or "assist".

Assange is accused of sending an electronic message to Manning telling him/her how to crack a password so that Manning could take information out of a computer without Manning being identified as the person who took that information. Manning already had access to that information anyway, even without needing to crack the password.

Your argument would be that an Australian citizen sending an electronic message to someone else about how to crack a computer password, which happens to be in America, is a crime in America, and that Australian citizen should be arrested and extradited to America.

That's as simple as it can be summarized.

 

Well, damn, if he gets his ass to court, the government will show him all the evidence you are demanding. Tell him, "Better go now, go now, go now, before it's too late and you cry, "It's not my fault. It's the evil American justice system."

 

There are two issues. First, what if there is no adequate evidence? Second, what if what he is accused of doing should not be a crime?

 

Easy. Let him make his case to 12 honest men. Or is it your assertion there aren't 12 honest men in America? Perhaps we could bring in some of Maduro's people. I'm sure they'll treat him right.

 

You do not understand how the jury system can work. It's not always fair and logical. The prosecutor could easily get them to convict for reasons that are Unconstitutional. Meanwhile the reasons that might be Constitutional may not have adequate evidence.
The court could prevent Assange from being able to make certain arguments to the jury.
The jury can vote guilty based on evidence that is impossible to verify or corroborate (it would likely have to do with electronic evidence, just data in a computer that could have been put there by nearly anyone).

The case is somewhat complicated and the jury may not be intelligent enough to discern the issues.
Or there are legal means for the prosecutor to be able to select biased jurors out of the potential jury pool to increase the odds of winning the case.

Also the evidence presented in front of the jury could be done in secret.

 

But much more polite than the one from sky who was interrogating the man who put up the bail money for him. She was doing it worse with abuse and getting furious with him 'are you going to let me speak' he says nothing, 'really ...could you do that' when she was supposed to be the interviewer. Everything was also said in a sarcastic tone like it could not be true. I don't usually watch Sky but it was the most disrespectful interview I have ever seen.

 

The government cannot engage in torture being a signator of the Geneva Convention. It also cannot legally murder US citizens without due process of law. The US has committed war crimes and the reporting of those war crimes is a noble undertaking considering you will probably be killed or imprisoned for doing so.

 

Like that Canadian citizen nabbed while he was on a flight transfer just going through a US airport and sent to the Middle East to be tortured.
Wasn't the American government doing the torturing so I guess that's technically okay.

Also, just to let everyone in this thread know, American prisons are not so nice. I'm sure many Europeans would consider them almost torture.
The "human rights" standards are a bit lower than in they are in France, the UK, or Sweden.

 

Until something better comes along, I'll trust America's jury system; at less here, the government has to prove he violated the law; at least here he can present his case.

With respect to transparency, it will be televised; and I'm sure the UN will come to his aid, the Progressives will provide the lawyers and pay his expenses, and ANTIFA and SEU will provide the muscle--and if it muddies up Trump, the liberal media will provide Assange with moral cover.

Assange! Come on over. I want to hear what you have to say.

 

The issue isn't whether he violated the law, the issue is how that law is going to be interpreted.

 

I don't know where you are getting this from. That is not what it says in the indictment.

 

Not necessarily, parts of the case might be conducted in secret. It's possible for the government to claim "national security" reasons.

Do you remember the World Court trial of Slobodan Milosevic? They convicted him based on a secret witness that he wasn't allowed to know who he was.

Also trials in the US are generally not allowed to be televised or recorded. Usually press reporters have to take written notes, though the transcript of the trial typed by the court reporter can be made available.

 

Wow. I missed that. When did facts become interpretations? Post, Post-Modernism?