3 ms·
Presumably the implication is that not mentioning the contents of the video which Assange is accused of illegitimately accessing is like not mentioning in an in
by dane-pgp 6y ago
Presumably the implication is that not mentioning the contents of the video which Assange is accused of illegitimately accessing is like not mentioning in an indictment for a thief that the object stolen was a loaf of bread to feed their starving family.
Whether that is an apt analogy and whether this "failure to mention" represents a deficiency in an indictment is perhaps best left to the reader.
- fit2rule 6y agoActually, its best left to the courts. Public opinion and support of Assange has already been diverted through malfeasance on the part of the US military. Omitting this video from their charges is an admission that this is not really about accessing military secrets illegally - but rather, punishing a legitimate publisher for exposing war crimes.
- vntok 6y agoThat analogy would be more apt in "not mentioning in an indictment for a thief that in addition to thousands of precious pearls, emeralds, sapphires and diamonds, one of the objects stolen was a loaf of bread to feed their starving family."
- JackFr 6y agoA better analogy would be a thief broke into my home, and stole cash, jewelry, electronics and also a handgun that had been used in a crime. The prosecutors are absolutely right to prosecute the thief, but upon discovering that I had the handgun used in a crime they really should look into that too.
- vntok 6y agoYours is a good analogy indeed. Sure, the prosecutors can and should refer the case of the smoking gun to their colleagues from a crime unit. But the thief still goes to prison for stealing cash, jewellery and electronics.
- E5JBK7UJPT 6y agoAssange didn't access anything. He published what was leaked to him.