I agree with this. The fact is we need organizations out there that keep the government honest.
The government makes the argument that they have a whistleblower process internally and that people should use that if they have a problem. If you ask me that’s like the fox guarding the hen house.
Our government was never meant to get this big and this powerful. I think that our founders would actually be supportive of people like Julian Assange. Those men were rebels and they exposed the hypocrisy of the Brits and used force to break away. Julian Assange is merely a publisher of information.
Steve Jobs had AIDS? Now that is a bombshell there! Holy crap! On second thought, very little was reported as to what he died of except only he was dealing with an illness! There is a lot to digest in these dumps!
Alan Dersherowitz makes a good point when asking if Assange is another “Pentagon Papers case” The reference is when the New York Times leaked classified information and was given a pass under 1st Amendment rights.
"If the New York Times, in 1971, could lawfully publish the Pentagon Papers knowing they included classified documents stolen by Rand Corporation military analyst Daniel Ellsberg from our federal government, then indeed WikiLeaks was entitled, under the First Amendment, to publish classified material that Assange knew was stolen by former United States Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning from our federal government.
So if prosecutors were to charge Assange with espionage or any other crime for merely publishing the Manning material, this would be another Pentagon Papers case with the same likely outcome. Many people have misunderstood the actual Supreme Court ruling in 1971. It did not say that the newspapers planning to publish the Pentagon Papers could not be prosecuted if they published classified material. It only said that they could not be restrained, or stopped in advance, from publishing them. Well, they did publish, and they were not prosecuted."
So really the question is if Assange were extradited would they try to tact on a litany of other charges in order get him prison time? It would no doubt be a double standard and as it is the US GOV has a weak case IMO!
Interviews is not a litmus for making a strong case, its what the strength of evidence that is presented that is. It all depends on the credibility of witnesses who testify during the trial.
Well no shit but apparently they have the direct email chain between Assange and Manning to hang him with in which Assange was encouraging him to download the files and send them to him and similar emails relating to the hack of the DNC.
Supposedly they do, but they still have to prove it is Assange! I already pointed this out earlier. The burden of proof is going to be tough to prove, which is why the Gov has a weak case!
Of course they will, that’s what courts are for. The Metadata apparently proves it was him sending and receiving them from his little room in the embassy.
Right! My point is they can charge him with anything they want, but proving it in a court of law is another matter. Their banking on trying to turn Manning against Assange so that his testimony will be in exchange for immunity. He (she?) is already in jail for refusing to to testify against Assange to a grand jury!