4 ms·
Reading over these comments, I feel there are two common takes on the matter. And it’s shows why discussing certain topics is just painful. one side seems to b
by mint2 6y ago
Reading over these comments, I feel there are two common takes on the matter. And it’s shows why discussing certain topics is just painful.
one side seems to be just pointing out and clarifying the laws and evidence, the side seems to refuse to accept what seems to be a straightforward explanation.
You might disagree with the laws, you might think they are unfair, or think they are applied unequally or selectively, and that is fine. All those things are unarguably true in general.
But by the definition of conspiracy, I don’t get why so many commenters are trying to argue that what assange did does not fit that description.
If your objections were any of the reasons I mentioned earlier, that would make total sense. But rejecting that what he did technically can be described as conspiracy per the definition under United States law? It just makes you look unreasonable.
Is the USA out for assange? Yes, they’ll throw anything they can find at him. And it looks like they found something. Whether that is a good state of affairs is not relevant for the discussion at hand.
they’ve got him with this charge. Denying it won’t help him. Denial of a fact helps no one. Realize you lost the battle and move on so you can win the war or whatever analogy along those lines you want to use.
- boomboomsubban 6y ago>But by the definition of conspiracy, I don’t get why so many commenters are trying to argue that what assange did does not fit that description. Classifying this as "conspiracy" violates the first amendment. What he did should be expected behavior of the press, I won't just abandon this encroachment and move on.
- K0balt 6y agoThere appears to be no proof that it was in fact assange who was communicating with manning. Wiki leaks affiliated? Almost certainly. Assange? No actual evidence. (that I am aware of) IMHO this is the salient weakness in the case for extradition. The fact that the same exact argument could be used against any wiki leaks affiliated individual at that time makes it a witch hunt instead of a legitimate legal proceeding.
- boublepop 6y agoA journalist receiving information from a source is not conspiracy, evne if that information is obtained illegally. That’s the core og he case, if you disagree then all the other journalistic entities involver should be on trial before we even start talking about a potential extradition for Assange. This whole endeavor is a clear and blatant attack on freedom of information. It should be clear to everyone across the globe by now. The American government does not care if it commits war crimes, however it will go to extremes to punish any journalists or whistleblowers who expose these war crimes.