4 ms·
> Assange, if he did what he's accused of doing, clearly crossed the line He exposed criminal actions that the U.S. was doing. He did so by using a source that
by thefucnjosh 6y ago
> Assange, if he did what he's accused of doing, clearly crossed the line
He exposed criminal actions that the U.S. was doing.
He did so by using a source that had fully legal means of obtaining that evidence.
>The rules in the US are already very liberal here.
Why is Snowden in Russia then?
Why is it that those people who are actually experienced with the US government, choose other countries rather than the protection of whistle-blower laws?
Perhaps it's because the people who run our country don't actually abide by any laws and are instead just criminals?
- StavrosK 6y agoNot to mention that Snowden's only condition for returning to the US is that he receives a fair trial.
- jdeibele 6y agoWhy <is> Snowden in Russia? It seems clear that the release of the material was endorsed by Russia, whether they knew about it or not. Trump is not demanding his return. And Russia is not going to send him back because it would show a bad example for anybody else contemplating "doing a Snowden".
- laurent92 6y agoPause a second: I keep seeing the same arguments again and again about Assange. All of them have surfaced and settled. Next step should have been to invent some sort of court where those arguments are debated, dismissed or retained, and we should tally the arguments and determine who’s wrong. The justice system has existed from before Napoleon and it still seems it’s the fourth wheel of the shopping cart. Its role is to fix things in society by sanctioning malevolent people a posteriori, to prevent them from acting further and discourage candidates to malevolence, and determine where is the line in cases where there is no winner. So when is the last time our justice system fixed anything in our society, and why have we stopped innovating in terms of democratic advances?