Breaking news: Julian Assange arrested in London

But ironically isn't that still a free speech issue though?

The allegation now seems to be that he told Manning how to hack into a computer.

That is a form of speech too, but not one that should be protected?

I see a very blury line here.

Assange is still being charged due to "speech" either way. Isn't that correct?

(It's not like he actually did anything physical to aid Manning)

 

Actually - as it turns out - that is not what Assange is being charged with. By the wording of the articles I had read previously .. it seemed as if he had attempted to get into some password protected file on a hard-drive. He was never charged with hacking the Gov't mainframe or anything like that.

As it turns out - this is not the case either. Manning had already dumped gigabytes of files to Wiki and nothing was password protected. The charge being brought against Assange is for helping Manning to cover is tracks after the fact - by helping him with some password that is required to do this. There is however no physical evidence that Assange did this.

Your comments in relation to a "Fair Trial" are a bit of an oxymoron. Using the terms "fair trial" and Kangaroo court in the same sentence.

 

Okay, but to be fair, isn't it possible he would have been sentenced to more prison time if he had not already spent 7 years in self-imposed prison?

It's still too early to say what will happen, and we may never truly know what would have happened, so you're not really on solid ground claiming that.

 

See post 227. Movies often reflect the law but my analogy claimed nothing of the sort - so this is a bit of a straw man.

Hacking in Australia is irrelevant to this case.

That there are ulterior motives is without question - be it Trump collusion or the Gov't being very pissed off about having Gov't crimes uncovered. I would say the latter is the biggest motivation. Unfortunately our Gov't has a track record of engaging in third world kangaroo tactics when it comes to those who would out Gov't crimes.

 

Oh, so there's always a free speech exception. A very slippery slope, that.

What happens in a hypothetical situation where it's impossible to reveal extreme government abuse without that information posing a risk to lives?

 

From skateboards to spying, Assange arrest followed drawn-out dispute with Ecuador

QUITO/WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Ecuador’s decision to abruptly end Julian Assange’s seven-year asylum in its London embassy on Thursday followed a long deterioration in relations, driven in part by suspicions he was secretly fuelling corruption allegations against President Lenin Moreno.

...

Moreno’s government accused WikiLeaks of being behind an anonymous website that said Moreno’s brother had created offshore companies that his family used to fund a luxurious lifestyle in Europe while Moreno was a delegate to a U.N. agency.

Moreno denies wrongdoing.

The leaked materials, dubbed the “INA Papers,” contained private photographs of Moreno and his family. After the release of the materials, Moreno said that Assange had no right to “hack private accounts and phones,” without directly accusing him.

WikiLeaks tweeted about the reports but, in messages and statements to Reuters, strongly denied that Assange was responsible for the leaks or had anything to do with their initial publication.

... https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...n-out-dispute-with-ecuador-idUSKCN1RO026?il=0

 

Are you kidding?

Is bank robbery a free speech issue?

Would kidnapping someone and torturing that person to obtain information...be a free speech issue?

I see some VERY blurry thinking on your part here, Kaz.

No, it is not correct. It is far from being correct.

What you are suggesting is that any reporter can do anything to get information...including extortion, murder, theft, torture.

That is nuts.

Helping physically is not an element of the crime.

 

Get real...then get back to me.

 

Then the person that intends to do the reporting should consult with a Judge and get legal permission to release the information.

 

So sending information about how to illegally obtain information, should be a crime, in your view?

A big enough crime that a country can extradite a non-citizen from another country, all because of some electronic correspondence?

 

Rumors are swirling that:

1) Assange wiped feces all over the walls and the room where he was "living"
2) He is being brought to the US where he will be discussing "all things" Clinton and her email scandal and server and how he got all the emails and the 2016 election.
3) He has serious hygiene problems that keep people from coming within 2-3 feet of him without gagging.
4) His pants are greasy because he wipes his hands on them and uses them as a napkin when he eats. He always eats with his hands and never uses silverware.

Unreal, if true.

 

So it's possible the new Ecuadorean President may have lied about the poop being smeared on the walls in the embassy because Wikileaks revealed corruption in his family, something that's very common in these Latin American countries.

Common for corrupt officials to enrich their own family members, using them as a proxy.

 

Not only that - the "lives are at risk" can be claimed for just about anything - and as we have seen - this is exactly what the Gov't is wont to do in many similar cases going including some of the most ridiculous extremes.

Any criticism of Gov't - such as revealing war crimes - could be criticized on the basis of "putting lives at risk". For example - showing that video of the helicopter mowing down civilians in Iraq - could be claimed to incite the enemy against our soldiers. "lives are at risk".

Reporting on the high civilian death toll by US and allied forces during the battle for Raqqa could be cited as "putting the lives of our soldiers and Americans at risk" by inciting the terrorists.

This is a classic Utilitarian argument - "if it saves one life" / "Harm reduction" as justification for law.

Not good in general and often the arguments are fallacious Utilitarianism - not even good Utilitarian arguments.

 

It sounds like he had motive, although he wasn't the one who made the claim, either.

The interior minister, Maria Paula Romo, told reporters on Thursday that Assange had been “allowed to do things like put feces on the walls of the embassy and other behaviors of that nature.”

Valencia told the congress that embassy cleaning staff described “improper hygienic conduct” throughout Assange’s stay, adding that a lawyer representing Assange had attributed the issue to “stomach problems.”

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...n-out-dispute-with-ecuador-idUSKCN1RO026?il=0​

It sounds like an odd thing to make up about someone. I expect it's true to at least some extent.

 

Don't blame me for your inability to handle reality ... followed by running to the playground to stick head deep in the sandbox of denial.

Name one thing in my post that was not "real" - as opposed to your made up accusations - accusations that turned out to be false. Not intended falsehoods perhaps but, falsehoods nevertheless.

It is one thing to make a mistake - this is only human. It is the fool that runs and hides from correction.

 

Easy for the President to put pressure on ambassadors and ministers to say things.
He's the one deciding the fate of her career.

Could be some extreme exaggeration of reality, with some basis in fact.

 

Some people don't want to confront mentally troubling realities, and it's easy for the mind to come up with excuses to explain it away.

 

Get serious. Perhaps Russian Journalists should just call Putin to get his permission prior to releasing damaging information about him.

Like "Judges" are available for consultation - even if one were wanting to do such a thing. If you have one on speed dial - please give me the number as I have would love to get the opinion of a Judge prior to filing a court case.

 

You sound like you're advocating for Assange more than anything. I don't mean to do the opposite here. Just sharing info. Yep, the new Ecuadorian president appears to have motive to attack Assange, though that doesn't mean he is making things up or having others do so. It could be, but that would be empty speculation at this point.

 

I still believe the Administration (and Barr) want Assange to testify about where he got Hillary's emails. No insults intended, that should concern you VERY MUCH if you are part of the DNC. See Pompeo's meeting with Equador.

 

So would believing the loose talk about Assange being a bad guest at the embassy.

 

If the allegation is true he advised a particular person on how to crack a particular computer, not as an abstract but knowing said person would commit multiple federal crimes thereby.

If the allegation is true.

 

Even though he's not a U.S. citizen and was in another country.

Sounds like U.S. legal jurisdiction is really being stretched out on a global scale.

 

Oh yea, I think they really want that information. I wonder if Crowd Strike is getting nervous? They will be called back to testify or just be indicted for lying and for covering up for Hillary.

Hillary was at the Beacon Theatre in NYC last night crying over Assange. She has to be nervous about what information he will be giving to our DOJ.

 

We might already know more about that than Assange does, but yes, that would be interesting to hear. I hear he is a pretty stubborn guy who won't give up his sources, though.