5 ms·

It depends on what you mean by a "fair trial". The standard argument for his trial not going to be fair is that he will convicted under the espionage act of 191

It depends on what you mean by a "fair trial". The standard argument for his trial not going to be fair is that he will convicted under the espionage act of 1915. The law behind this act has no exceptions that allow whistleblowing, or otherwise allows the defender to argue that he acted in the nation's interest. That means that Assange, in order to be found innocent, have to convince the court that he didn't leak any classified information in the first place, which is clearly beside the point. It is not enough to convince the court that he acted in good faith, or that what he did was the right thing.

2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
You are presupposing the outcome.
- polytely 4y ago
  I mean there is no other likely outcome when tried under this law, or do you suppose that he will not be tried under the espionage act? because if that is the case I have a bridge to sell you.
SilverBirch 4y ago
Yeah I mean I wouldn't call that an issue about not getting a fair trial, that's just an issue where you don't think the law is just. But you know, you don't get to just opt-out of the laws you don't like. At the end of the day this could be appealed right up to the Supreme Court, but you have to actually have the trial to find out whether it was fair.
- jakobnissen 4y ago
  Ultimately it's a game of semantics. I'd say a trial is not fair if the law is intentionally built to not weigh any kind of moral defense. What, for example, would you say about extraditing Western journalists to China and have them stand trial for whether they criticized the CCP? Would that be a fair trial?
  - SilverBirch 4y ago
    I would say that the legal and constitutional frameworks of the US and China have some slight differences. In fact, basically I would say that if you're going to claim that the US laws and legal system won't give you a fair trial, you're essentially saying that there is no legal system in the world where you can get a fair trial and therefore you're advocating for Assange to essentially never face any legal scrutiny.
    - hulitu 4y ago
      > In fact, basically I would say that if you're going to claim that the US laws and legal system won't give you a fair trial, you're essentially saying that there is no legal system in the world where you can get a fair trial Team america, world police.
- DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
  Assange is an Australian journalist who was outside the United States when he published this material. It doesn't matter what barbaric laws the United States has on the books to go after journalists. Assange should not be subject to the laws of whatever tin-pot regime wants to get their hands on him and punish him for airing their dirty laundry in public.
abduhl 4y ago
>> It is not enough to convince the court that he acted in good faith, or that what he did was the right thing. You’re right! Convincing a court that you acted in good faith or did the right thing is almost never enough in a criminal trial. “I killed that man because I really thought he was a bad guy” doesn’t make you innocent of murder and neither does “I was going 150 miles per hour in good faith” make you innocent of reckless driving. That’s how our justice system works. Your approach is completely untenable and would lead to wildly different results for two persons who each engage in the exact same illegal conduct. It might be enough to get a jury to nullify though.
- jakobnissen 4y ago
  That is simply not correct. Nearly all laws have exceptions which mean you can be found innocent under the right circumstances, even if you admit to doing whatever you're charged of. For example, you can kill people in self-defense many places in the world. Ambulances and firetrucks can drive 150 mph if they are doing it to save people's life.
  - abduhl 4y ago
    These are defenses to a crime and they are explicitly provided for in the law. You don’t just get to assert a random defense just because you want to, which is what your approach is. There is no “good faith” or “did the right thing defense” to the law here, as you noted. Defenses are not required for all criminal laws and, in general, do not exist for crimes.
dbbk 4y ago
I think it's a good thing that he did it. However, there is no disputing that he had absolutely no authority to. He is guilty. And he knew that when he did it.
- impossiblefork 4y ago
  How do you mean, did not have authority to? Assange was in Iceland at the time, and in Iceland there is a duty to assist people in distress. It is not unlikely that Assange had some hint that something like what was done to people like Khalid El-Masri was going on, and it was through his acts that this was revealed. Such laws generally justify basically anything, provided that you have a reasonable suspicion that a person is danger.

2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago

You are presupposing the outcome.

polytely 4y ago
I mean there is no other likely outcome when tried under this law, or do you suppose that he will not be tried under the espionage act? because if that is the case I have a bridge to sell you.

SilverBirch 4y ago

Yeah I mean I wouldn't call that an issue about not getting a fair trial, that's just an issue where you don't think the law is just. But you know, you don't get to just opt-out of the laws you don't like. At the end of the day this could be appealed right up to the Supreme Court, but you have to actually have the trial to find out whether it was fair.

jakobnissen 4y ago
Ultimately it's a game of semantics. I'd say a trial is not fair if the law is intentionally built to not weigh any kind of moral defense. What, for example, would you say about extraditing Western journalists to China and have them stand trial for whether they criticized the CCP? Would that be a fair trial?
- SilverBirch 4y ago
  I would say that the legal and constitutional frameworks of the US and China have some slight differences. In fact, basically I would say that if you're going to claim that the US laws and legal system won't give you a fair trial, you're essentially saying that there is no legal system in the world where you can get a fair trial and therefore you're advocating for Assange to essentially never face any legal scrutiny.
  - hulitu 4y ago
    > In fact, basically I would say that if you're going to claim that the US laws and legal system won't give you a fair trial, you're essentially saying that there is no legal system in the world where you can get a fair trial Team america, world police.
DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
Assange is an Australian journalist who was outside the United States when he published this material. It doesn't matter what barbaric laws the United States has on the books to go after journalists. Assange should not be subject to the laws of whatever tin-pot regime wants to get their hands on him and punish him for airing their dirty laundry in public.

abduhl 4y ago

>> It is not enough to convince the court that he acted in good faith, or that what he did was the right thing. You’re right! Convincing a court that you acted in good faith or did the right thing is almost never enough in a criminal trial. “I killed that man because I really thought he was a bad guy” doesn’t make you innocent of murder and neither does “I was going 150 miles per hour in good faith” make you innocent of reckless driving. That’s how our justice system works. Your approach is completely untenable and would lead to wildly different results for two persons who each engage in the exact same illegal conduct. It might be enough to get a jury to nullify though.

jakobnissen 4y ago
That is simply not correct. Nearly all laws have exceptions which mean you can be found innocent under the right circumstances, even if you admit to doing whatever you're charged of. For example, you can kill people in self-defense many places in the world. Ambulances and firetrucks can drive 150 mph if they are doing it to save people's life.
- abduhl 4y ago
  These are defenses to a crime and they are explicitly provided for in the law. You don’t just get to assert a random defense just because you want to, which is what your approach is. There is no “good faith” or “did the right thing defense” to the law here, as you noted. Defenses are not required for all criminal laws and, in general, do not exist for crimes.

dbbk 4y ago

I think it's a good thing that he did it. However, there is no disputing that he had absolutely no authority to. He is guilty. And he knew that when he did it.

impossiblefork 4y ago
How do you mean, did not have authority to? Assange was in Iceland at the time, and in Iceland there is a duty to assist people in distress. It is not unlikely that Assange had some hint that something like what was done to people like Khalid El-Masri was going on, and it was through his acts that this was revealed. Such laws generally justify basically anything, provided that you have a reasonable suspicion that a person is danger.