3 ms·

The alternative is to let people stand trial when they've violated legitimate laws, in front of a jury of their peers. The Unconstitutional, Orwellian Espionag

The alternative is to let people stand trial when they've violated legitimate laws, in front of a jury of their peers. The Unconstitutional, Orwellian Espionage Act that Assange is accused of violating is a stain on the US "justice" system and an affront to everyone who believes in free speech and the Constitution.

2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
Isn't it claimed that he assisted people who were committing cybercrimes? That's not journalism. If only there was a way to figure out the truth- a trial perhaps.
- boomboomsubban 5y ago
  What he supposedly did isn't relevant in the arguments being made. His right to a fair trial has already been compromised, and there's ample reason to suspect the US will continue to ignore that right.
- stephen_g 5y ago
  It’s ridiculous to this non-US person that the United States thinks they should have jurisdiction here. This is an Australian citizen who published in the UK and Europe. The whole case is baseless, he’s not subject to the US’s Espionage Act. And of course the ‘assisting hackers’ stuff is nonsense that was tacked on when it looked like the initial indictment wouldn’t stick because of the rules about not extraditing for political crimes. But the core point still stands - the general consensus remains that it would be impossible for Assange to have a fair trial in the US legal system.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
    IANAL but I've been told by a lawyer that international law is messy. The US has jurisdiction if your host country says that they do. Countries are also free to tell the US to pound sand. I'd just like some answers. I'd like it to be tried in court. I don't think the trial would necessarily be unfair. These conversations go in circles because we are all denied the truth so we argue hypotheticals.
    - boomboomsubban 5y ago
      What answers do you want? The "assisting people with cybercrimes" shit you brought up was already covered in Manning's trial. Manning asked Assange to crack a generic Windows account so she could theoretically access data she already had access to more secretly. Assange said he'd try. The only answer unknown is whether he did try, and I doubt the US has any evidence showing that he did. That's it. The trurth to all his charges is basically already out there.

2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago

Isn't it claimed that he assisted people who were committing cybercrimes? That's not journalism. If only there was a way to figure out the truth- a trial perhaps.

boomboomsubban 5y ago
What he supposedly did isn't relevant in the arguments being made. His right to a fair trial has already been compromised, and there's ample reason to suspect the US will continue to ignore that right.
stephen_g 5y ago
It’s ridiculous to this non-US person that the United States thinks they should have jurisdiction here. This is an Australian citizen who published in the UK and Europe. The whole case is baseless, he’s not subject to the US’s Espionage Act. And of course the ‘assisting hackers’ stuff is nonsense that was tacked on when it looked like the initial indictment wouldn’t stick because of the rules about not extraditing for political crimes. But the core point still stands - the general consensus remains that it would be impossible for Assange to have a fair trial in the US legal system.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
  IANAL but I've been told by a lawyer that international law is messy. The US has jurisdiction if your host country says that they do. Countries are also free to tell the US to pound sand. I'd just like some answers. I'd like it to be tried in court. I don't think the trial would necessarily be unfair. These conversations go in circles because we are all denied the truth so we argue hypotheticals.
  - boomboomsubban 5y ago
    What answers do you want? The "assisting people with cybercrimes" shit you brought up was already covered in Manning's trial. Manning asked Assange to crack a generic Windows account so she could theoretically access data she already had access to more secretly. Assange said he'd try. The only answer unknown is whether he did try, and I doubt the US has any evidence showing that he did. That's it. The trurth to all his charges is basically already out there.