Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has been arrested

[Joe88]

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47891737

He was kicked out of the Ecuadorian embassy and was forcibly removed by police officers and arrested. He is heard shouting "the UK must resist the trump administration"
The US has requested him to be extradited to the US to face charges https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/11/world/europe/julian-assange-wikileaks-ecuador-embassy.html
He is also facing charges in other countries for other crimes.
He has been already been found guilty with bail breaching in the London.

current timeline
https://www.apnews.com/328522adb35b4445a3fb875d63fb0870

 

[Lacius]

It's about time.

 

[SG854]

This is bad. People think he hacked the DNC and colluded with Russia. He is not a hacker. He is a reporter. People give him documents and he just reports it. He is a journalist and a refugee and yet people are outraged. All because they hate Trump so much they don't care about a man exposing corruption.


This guy was the hero to the left along time ago because he exposed war crimes.
Now many on the left are cheering for his arrest because of the stupid Russia Gate conspiracy theory nonsense. Which has no evidence to support and shown to be false.

It's freedom of speech and freedom of the press unless it's against the government. Then your freedom of speech rights will be restricted. And the U.K. is going full facism, with censorship laws, speech restrictions to where people are getting arrested, and letting the U.S. get Assange. They tried to get him on sexual assault cases which didn't work. Now they are trying to get him on this.



Julian Assange is a foreign journalist and not born in the U.S. And the United States is charging him on criminal charges all because he published truthful information. And people are cheering for this.

 

[Lacius]

This is bad. People think he hacked the DNC and colluded with Russia. He is not a hacker. He is a reporter. People give him documents and he just reports it. He is a journalist and a refugee and yet people are outraged. All because they hate Trump so much they don't care about a man exposing corruption.


This guy was the hero to the left along time ago because he exposed war crimes.
Now many on the left are cheering for his arrest because of the stupid Russia Gate conspiracy theory nonsense.

It's freedom of speech and freedom of the press unless it's against the government. Then your freedom of speech rights will be restricted. And the U.K. is going full facism, with censorship laws, speech restrictions to where people are getting arrested, and letting the U.S. get Assange. They tried to get him on sexual assault cases which didn't work. Now they are trying to get him on this.



Julian Assange is a foreign journalist and not born in the U.S. And the United States is charging him on criminal charges all because he published truthful information. And people are cheering for this.

Being true is not the only threshold for whether or not it's legal (or moral) to publish something.

Edit: Russia's illegal meddling in the 2016 election is also not a conspiracy theory. It's fact.

 

[SG854]

Being true is not the only threshold for whether or not it's legal (or moral) to publish something.

Who cares, he worked with law enforcement to redact information that can get people killed and put national security at risk, and only let out information that is safe that exposes corruption. It is within is right as a journalist to publish information of the corruption in the government and expose Hillary's Emails.

It's in the first amendment. 1st amendment is not just freedom of speech, its also freedom of the press, freedom to peacefully assemble. And freedom to petition government to redress grievances, to make a complaint about the government and they can't do anything to stop you or suppress you. You are siding with a government that serves corporate interests that you are supposedly against.

 

[Lacius]

Who cares, he worked with law enforcement to redact information that can get people killed and put national security at risk, and only let out information that is safe that exposes corruption. It is within is right as a journalist to publish information of the corruption in the government and expose Hillary's Emails.

It's in the first amendment. 1st amendment is not just freedom of speech, its also freedom of the press, freedom to peacefully assemble. And freedom to petition government to redress grievances, to make a complaint about the government and they can't do anything to stop you or suppress you. You are siding with a government that serves corporate interests that you are supposedly against.

These freedoms are not unrestricted. I'm also siding with the law.

 

[SG854]

Being true is not the only threshold for whether or not it's legal (or moral) to publish something.

Edit: Russia's illegal meddling in the 2016 election is also not a conspiracy theory. It's fact.

My comment was about Assange colluding with Russia, not whether they did meddle, which I have stated many times they likely did, like other countries also did, like Israel and China. The issue is collusion not meddling.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

These freedoms are not unrestricted. I'm also siding with the law.

Your siding with a corrupt government that created laws in their interests and benefits. Trying to get him on the espionage act.

 

[Lacius]

My comment was about Assange colluding with Russia, not whether they did meddle, which I have stated many times they likely did, like other countries also did, like Israel and China. The issue is collusion not meddling.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------


Your siding with a corrupt government that created laws in their interests and benefits. Trying to get him on the espionage act.

First, I said nothing about collusion, and that doesn't mean Assange didn't commit a crime. Second, I'm not anti-government.

 

[chrisrlink]

though i side with the law on this (for national security reasons) it doesn't make it right for the CIA to spy on an average citizen without going through the same legal path to get a warrant to tap phones it's scary really i can understand terrorism as the cause but whats to stop them from throwing warrants out the window for say drug/weapon raids or even software piracy (looking through someones electronic media without a warrant) this is happening saddly

 

[GhostLatte]

Meanwhile Snowden is just chilling in Russia.

 

[SG854]

First, I said nothing about collusion, and that doesn't mean Assange didn't commit a crime. Second, I'm not anti-government.

Then why even bring it up as if it had anything to do with what I was saying.


So your ok with the war crimes them not being out in the open? And side with the gov. Hillary had a private server which she bleached to cover up evidence, then was easily let off the hook. She has classified, top secret information in these servers. Any other person that tried that would be in jail. A man was jailed for taking photos of top secret information for memories of his time working in gov, and didn't share it with anybody, but was still jailed.



Did Assange illegal get the information or was he given the information. Two separate cases here. So far there is nothing with him colluding to get information. So it's within his right as a journalist to publish that information.

 

[CallmeBerto]

 

[nando]

Then why even bring it up as if it had anything to do with what I was saying.


So your ok with the war crimes them not being out in the open? And side with the gov. Hillary had a private server which she bleached to cover up evidence, then was easily let off the hook. She has classified, top secret information in these servers. Any other person that tried that would be in jail. A man was jailed for taking photos of top secret information for memories of his time working in gov, and didn't share it with anybody, but was still jailed.



Did Assange illegal get the information or was he given the information. Two separate cases here. So far there is nothing with him colluding to get information. So it's within his right as a journalist to publish that information.

maybe i'm remembering this wrong, but he didn't just release information, he strategically waited and released information at key times to affect the elections. there is more going on then just reporting here.

 

[SG854]

maybe i'm remembering this wrong, but he didn't just release information, he strategically waited and released information at key times to affect the elections. there is more going on then just reporting here.

Is there? Or is it just circumstantial coincidence? People connecting dots that really means nothing.



What's ridiculous is they let Hillary of the hook because they said she showed no malice for having these servers. They get a guy for having picture of top secret information on his phone for memories, but they accuse him of malice, but Hillary having top secret information herself and trying to bleach servers and telling her assistants to break black berry phones is somehow not malice. But its way past the time putting her in jail now, so its pointless on trying to get her on this now.

 

[nando]

Is there? Or is it just circumstantial coincidence? People connecting dots that really means nothing.



What's ridiculous is they let Hillary of the hook because they said she showed no malice for having these servers. They get a guy for having picture of top secret information on his phone for memories, but they accuse him of malice, but Hillary having top secret information herself and trying to bleach servers and telling her assistants to break black berry phones is somehow not malice. But its way past the time putting her in jail now, so its pointless on trying to get her on this now.

it is not coincidence when he was taunting the reveals.

" although he did promise to publish information regarding the presidential election “every week for the next 10 weeks.”

that's not reporting, that's a coordinated attack


what kind of reporter holds on to vital reporting for 10 weeks? had he released that info as soon as he had it, the democrats might have gone with a different candidate, but his intent was an attack, not reporting.

 

[Lacius]

Then why even bring it up as if it had anything to do with what I was saying.


So your ok with the war crimes them not being out in the open? And side with the gov. Hillary had a private server which she bleached to cover up evidence, then was easily let off the hook. She has classified, top secret information in these servers. Any other person that tried that would be in jail. A man was jailed for taking photos of top secret information for memories of his time working in gov, and didn't share it with anybody, but was still jailed.



Did Assange illegal get the information or was he given the information. Two separate cases here. So far there is nothing with him colluding to get information. So it's within his right as a journalist to publish that information.

I don't have time to point out each thing you got wrong here, so I'm just going to say that it's irrelevant what anybody else did wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right.

As for the topic at hand, Assange did more than release information. Among other things, he coordinated with another person in an attempt to crack DOJ passwords, which is illegal.

 

[SG854]

it is not coincidence when he was taunting the reveals.

" although he did promise to publish information regarding the presidential election “every week for the next 10 weeks.”

that's not reporting, that's a coordinated attack


what kind of reporter holds on to vital reporting for 10 weeks? had he released that info as soon as he had it, the democrats might have gone with a different candidate, but his intent was an attack, not reporting.

So did Snowden. You are talking hundreds of documents to go through redact and see what is safe to not put us in National Security risk. So of course they wont release it all at once.

I don't have time to point out each thing you got wrong here, so I'm just going to say that it's irrelevant what anybody else did wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right.

As for the topic at hand, Assange did more than release information. Among other things, he coordinated with another person in an attempt to crack DOJ passwords, which is illegal.

They let Hillary off the hook on the case of intent. But fine i'll give you the Hillary Clinton case, i don't want to focus too much on her since I don't care about her anymore. She was innocent on that she was unaware. But this Julian Assange business is about her emails and other gov information.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/kristian-saucier/
https://www.factcheck.org/2016/10/spinning-the-fbi-letter/

As for the topic at hand, Assange did more than release information. Among other things, he coordinated with another person in an attempt to crack DOJ passwords, which is illegal.

Did he? Innocent until proven guilty. So far none evidence has shown up.

 

[Lacius]

So did Snowden. You are talking hundreds of documents to go through redact and see what is safe to not put us in National Security risk. So of course they wont release it all at once.



They let Hillary off the hook on the case of intent. But fine i'll give you the Hillary Clinton case, i don't want to focus too much on her since I don't care about her anymore. She was innocent on that she was unaware. But this Julian Assange business is about her emails and other gov information.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/kristian-saucier/
https://www.factcheck.org/2016/10/spinning-the-fbi-letter/





Did he? Innocent until proven guilty. So far none evidence has shown up.

Right, that's what is alleged, which means it is a good thing he has been arrested. That's how the criminal justice system works, and that's how it should work.

If the evidence isn't there, he will be found not guilty.

 

[osaka35]

Humans can be many things at one time. They can be heroes and criminals. they can be neither. actions are weighed indepedently of each other.

Governments should be as transparent as humanly possible. As their first reaction is to be as secretive as humanly possible, there has to be checks and balances. This is journalism. This is why we hold journalism and freedom of speech and press in such high regard. Generally, we trust those who publish such things to assess the need for transparency to the need for protection of lives. You do not trust the government to unbiasedly assess the value of transparency. We trust journalist with this, not the government. Journalist are protected by the USA Constitution for this reason. Or we used to be protected, at any rate.

Assange's organization published everything. No assessment or judgement calls. just published what they were given after verifying they were legit. They did time some releases so as to get more publicity, but that's more about making sure "news" organizations actually reported on the government properly for a change. Some on the left don't like him, because someone leveraged wikileak's good name to influence the election. They did this by leaking *only* things that made the DNC and the democrats look squiffy. Not necessarily the whole story, just the story they hoped would create a false impression. Which wikileaks leaked without assessing the need to understand how it would affect people because of their ideological perspective. Which is probably why some on the right likes him. Wikileaks released them because they release what they get. Which is their decision, and that is their decision to own up to. The hate on the methodology is different than the hate on fundamental necessity of protecting whistle blowers.

So, journalist? Or information facilitator?

Regardless, I doubt he deserves the treatment he's going to get.

 

[CORE]

This I dont agree with same as Snowden.