Julian Assange Arrested - Should He Be Allowed to Testify in Congress?

1. 87

   RJ Schwartzposted 5 years ago

   
   
   John McCain claimed that leaks provided to WikiLeaks by Bradley Manning, which included the diplomatic cables, caused U.S. foreign sources to be harmed.
   
   However, it was in fact an error on the part of a Guardian journalist, not WikiLeaks, that that led to the full unredacted cables leaking to third parties on the web that WikiLeaks published them as well — and not before Assange attempted to warn the office of Hillary Clinton, then U.S. Secretary of State about the unintended leak of the cables.
   
   WikiLeaks had a major impact on the news cycle during the 2016 presidential election, releasing a number of damaging leaks exposing corruption in the Hillary Clinton campaign.
   
   Now that he is in custody, should he be allowed to tell his side of the story or will he be silenced by those who are still trying to keep secrets?

   replyreport
   1. 88

      MizBejabbersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      What side of the story? You are presenting only one side, the Trump side. However history tells a different story.
      
      "Trump on Thursday repeatedly denied knowledge about WikiLeaks and Assange. But, in fact, Trump has a history of supporting WikiLeaks, saying at one rally in 2016: "WikiLeaks, I love WikiLeaks."
      During the campaign, Trump routinely applauded WikiLeaks for its role in disseminating the contents of internal communications stolen from the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign. He even publicly encouraged the Russians "to find the 30,000 emails (from Hillary Clinton's server) that are missing."
      
      https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/11/politics … index.html
      
      As one reporter said, "journalists don't hack." I think they have enough evidence to extradite him to the U.S. Both the U.K. and Ecuador seem to have their fill of him. The judge called him a "narcissist," and Ecuador said he was destructive, destroying their surveillance equipment and trying to install his own and smearing feces on the walls.

      replyreport
      1. 87

         RJ Schwartzposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         I presented nothing but known information - you on the other hand just regurgitated Democrat talking points.  If he was such a "bad guy" then why didn't Bob Mueller interview him?  Why wasn't he extradited when Obama was President so he could be "prosecuted" for the crime you are alleging?
         
         I can't wait until he starts talking myself - from what I hear, he has dirt on every leader in the world, expect Trump (because in his own words, there wasn't any)
         
         With so much damage control hitting the media, it seems that one side doesn't want him coming to America for fear of what?  Seth Rich ?  More ?

         replyreport
         1. 67

            tsadjatkoposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Ralph, Democrat talking points are the mainstay of many here, too many!
            
            But if he has dirt on every leader in the world, do you really think there is any way he will be allowed to reveal it?
            
            If he has that dirt why has he been sitting on it? Maybe he has it set up to be released on his say so as insurance against him being put away or otherwise silenced?
            
            Whatever happens to him will likely provide the answer.

            replyreport
         2. 88

            MizBejabbersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Quite the contrary, Ralph, it seems that you are only regurgitating the Republican side of the story. As IslandBites says, it seems you don't know how extradition works. Now that dear boy Assange was committing destruction inside the embassy. which they consider crimes, the Ecuadorians are washing their hands of him and he can be extradited to either Switzerland (for the alleged rapes) or the U.S. for the hack in which he was complicit, supplying a password for an intended crime against the U.S. "Talking points," you gotta be kidding. I guess you consider anything that doesn't come from Fox to be fake news.

            replyreport
   2. 0

      promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Sure, he can testify before Congress at the same time Barr releases the unredacted Mueller report to Congress.
      
      We certainly don't want anyone to keep secrets about our goverment.

      replyreport
      1. 93

         wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         "Sure, he can testify before Congress at the same time Barr releases the unredacted Mueller report to Congress."
         
         You would play political games with a man's life?  How...liberal!

         replyreport
         1. 0

            promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Please feel free to be more clear.
            
            Or are you trying to say once again that a double standard on truth is OK as long as it benefits Trump?

            replyreport
            1. 93

               wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               What possible reason can be given to wait to allow a man to defend himself until Muellers unredacted report goes to congress?  What is the connection, what does that report have to do with Assange?  But for a political game I can detect no possible connection - can you?
               
               Is it just another example where people do not matter the the liberal machine - where the ends always justifies the means?

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  The reason is called truth in government, especially when both cases are closely related to the various Russia investigations.
                  
                  You can't go public with evidence that benefits Herr Trump and hide other evidence that hurts him.
                  
                  Unless of course you want a dictatorship.

                  replyreport
                  1. 88

                     MizBejabbersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     "Unless of course you want a dictatorship."
                     
                     Which seems to be the direction in which this country is heading. Trump can say or do anything with impunity, it seems.
                     
                     
                     In a society where impunity is the norm, violence becomes normalized. — David Luhnow, WSJ.

                     replyreport
      2. 88

         MizBejabbersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Of course not, not even if they hard national security. The U.K. is saying that the Assange/Manning Wikileaks etc. harmed their national security, too, so I guess somebody should testify about something. This can't be straightened out unless they do.

         replyreport
2. 88

   lobobrandonposted 5 years ago

   From what I have read, the UK has agreed with Ecquador that they will not extradite him to countries with a death sentence or where he can be killed. So, unless they do not keep their word, which will be bad, there's no question of him speaking up in Congress, right? Or do you mean via Skype or something?

   replyreport
3. 88

   IslandBitesposted 5 years ago

   
   
   Erm. Really? I guess you have no idea how asylum and extraditions work.

   replyreport
4. 94

   Glenis Rixposted 5 years ago

   I hope that we do not deport Assange from the UK to the US. The video clips that I have seen on the news of the shootings by US forces suggest to me that they were committing war crimes and that, therefore, reporting them was in the public interest.

   replyreport
   1. 93

      wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      ??  News videos "suggest" to you that US military personnel are war criminal and it is thus legal and proper to hack into computers?  This seems an odd excuse to forgo a trial.

      replyreport
      1. 94

         Glenis Rixposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         He didn’t do the hacking. He is a reporter and was offered news.

         replyreport
         1. 89

            GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            You could be right Glennis Rix, but would your opinion change if it was found that he encouraged or directed, or facilitated the hacking that produced the "news" he reported?
            
            Since I don't know if he did or didn't, and am still struggling to develop an opinion, that was a sincere question.
            
            GA

            replyreport
            1. 94

               Glenis Rixposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               Clearly, hacking is wrong and a criminal offence; encouraging or facilitating it is also a criminal offence. So Assange, if he encouraged it, should face the consequences. However, there is a difficult moral dilemma. What was revealed in the leaked videos was also a criminal offence and, in my view, state sponsored murder - which is what happened -is also a serious crime and was rightly exposed. I can only guess that Assange’s partner in crime approached him with a proposal along the lines “ I can provide you with video evidence of a war crime”. What would any one of us done faced with a similar dilemma to the two men? Brushed it under the carpet ?
               
               You could take one of two black or white views. Either they are criminals or they are heroes. Unfortunately, things are not always black or white and I see this as a grey area. Are there mitigating circumstances that ought to be taken into account by a sentencing judge?
               
               My concern is that the severity of any sentence imposed on Assange would reflect not only facilitating hacking (if that is what happened) but also the fact that he shamed the military by exposing a brutal military attack on unarmed civilians and journalists. Have the people who authorised and perpetrated that crime been brought to trial?

               replyreport
               1. 89

                  GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  I understand what you are saying Glennis, but the first question must be settled before the contingencies of your point(s) can come into consideration.
                  
                  That "first question" is whether he facilitated or promoted the data acquisition.
                  
                  GA

                  replyreport
                  1. 87

                     Will Apseposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     Apparently he helped set up a cloud data drop online (where Manning could send the stolen data) and Wikileaks provided the password for it.
                     
                     Bottom line: it's a BS charge to get him to the US where the jackals will fight over his fate.
                     
                     No civilized country should consider extradition to the US where sentencing regimes are so harsh .
                     
                     He should certainly face trial in Sweden, however. The allegations are clear, significant and the women concerned deserve their chance to see their grievances properly judged.

                     replyreport
         2. 93

            wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            And a fence, receiving and selling stolen goods, is not a criminal.
            
            We disagree on that point.

            replyreport
         3. 88

            MizBejabbersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            He claimed to be a "journalist". Too many people don't know what journalists are and what they are not. I have two degrees in journalism, so I believe I'm qualified to debate you. Real journalist use real news sources. They don't hack or help someone to hack into computers. In other words real journalists don't commit crimes themselves to get their story. Real journalist don't put in jeopardy the national security of a country to get their sensationalism. But I notice that you called him a "reporter". Anybody can set up a website and call himself a reporter, but Assange called himself a "journalist," not a "reporter."

            replyreport
5. 89

   GA Andersonposted 5 years ago

   Hi Will, First, I thought I heard that the charges in Sweden had been dropped. I suppose I should check that out.
   
   Then, if all he did was provide the password for a place to drop the data, I don't see that as rising to the charge of assisting the hacking.
   
   Generally, and without addressing the specifics of the Wikileak releases, I don't think exposing a majority of categories of government secrets should be illegal. I recognize exceptions of course but as a concept, I don't think the government should have the power to muzzle the press. And whether you see Assange as a journalist, or not, I think Wikileaks' actions do fall within the realm of journalistic functions. The example of the Pentagon Papers comes to mind.
   
   GA

   replyreport
   1. 94

      Glenis Rixposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      The case in Sweden was dropped and has now been re-opened, according to BBC news. Hopefully, he will be sent there to stand trial.

      replyreport
6. 67

   tsadjatkoposted 5 years ago

   So a president exercising his freedom of speech means we’re heading toward a dictatorship? America, governed by a constitution since it’s inception which is the antithesis of a dictatorship is heading toward a dictatorship? Hmmm That kinda sounds, what?...looney? Who thought speech could “Trump”  the constitution and turn America into a dictatorship?

   replyreport