Julian Assange arrested - fierce international reaction pro & con

[Anonymous]

Actually he is not a "whistle blower" .. technically a  "whistle blower"  follows a legal  protocol under the law to point out what they consider to be serious problems or govt maleficence



This guy published info gained by a spy / thief who also was not a  "whistle blower"  ... which in itself may be legal





Hold the phone!! .. DOJ is charging that this Aussie egomaniacal flake helped Manning crack the passwords that got into systems - in  which case it becomes a whole other thang than publishing stolen info ... it would legally make him a partner in serious crime

I thought a whistle blower is a snitch.

 ac_dunno

[cc]

In colloquial terms, it is. In US legal terms, it is a formal process detailed in law



The process is designed to allow people to "snitch if you will" formally, their message considered properly and moved up the line to higher levels and agencies when  warranted. They are protected from retaliation .. and actual bad stuff is to be made corrected and what can be made public.



In contrast, this rogue duo just stole all they could and published it. Included were operational details and names and addresses of service personnel etc. ... several things they released put many  people at great risk and compromised several important strategies of diplomacy and war



If the Aussie actually helped crack passwords as charged, he's no longer just a publisher of info, he's committed very serious crime and is in for very serious consequences.

That said, getting him into a US court is a difficult political process

[Bricktop]

I have a question.



The person who "stole" the data has been tried, convicted...and then pardoned.



Thus, at law, Assange cannot be accused of the theft.



He simply used the data on his website. Now, I tend to agree that to do so in the manner described was reckless and endangering. But that is not a crime, especially when the act was committed outside of the US, and its jurisdiction.



Based on those allegations, the UK could not possibly approve extradition if the Court is satisfied that no crime was committed. To obtain extradition, the complainant must establish a bona fide case to answer (not proof of guilt).



So where's the crime?

[cc]

Again, regardless of Miss Manning's conviction - "If the Aussie actually helped crack passwords as charged, he's no longer just a publisher of info, he's committed very serious crime and is in for very serious consequences. "

[Bricktop]

Good luck proving that.

[Frood]

They grasping at straws since they would have to prosecute every media outlet who also published the revelations. So they pretend it's about hacking instead.

[caskur]

I have a question.



The person who "stole" the data has been tried, convicted...and then pardoned.



Thus, at law, Assange cannot be accused of the theft.



He simply used the data on his website. Now, I tend to agree that to do so in the manner described was reckless and endangering. But that is not a crime, especially when the act was committed outside of the US, and its jurisdiction.



Based on those allegations, the UK could not possibly approve extradition if the Court is satisfied that no crime was committed. To obtain extradition, the complainant must establish a bona fide case to answer (not proof of guilt).



So where's the crime?

They haven't seen the Julian Assange movie....lol

[Bricktop]

^^^ Hahahahahahahaa....

[Wazzzup]

I heard a reliable source on the radio say he was a whistle blower of sorts, but also endangered people by releasing classified info.



His biggest crime, of course, was doing things Hillary didn't like.

[Bricktop]

I heard a reliable source on the radio.

Well, it has to be true, then.



He was just a petty journo who get handed a bag of gold from a twisted private in the US army (and who was strangely exonerated by a US President).



American outrage is hypocrisy at it's finest. This is, after all, the nation that deifies journalists for uncovering Government conspiracies and corruption.

[Anonymous]

I heard a reliable source on the radio say he was a whistle blower of sorts, but also endangered people by releasing classified info.



His biggest crime, of course, was doing things Hillary didn't like.

The US justice system's purpose is to protect the criminal Clintons.

[Frood]

I heard a reliable source on the radio say he was a whistle blower of sorts, but also endangered people by releasing classified info.



His biggest crime, of course, was doing things Hillary didn't like.

I believe it was the Guardian and others who didn't check details before releasing, not Wikileaks.

[Anonymous]

I heard a reliable source on the radio say he was a whistle blower of sorts, but also endangered people by releasing classified info.



His biggest crime, of course, was doing things Hillary didn't like.

I believe it was the Guardian and others who didn't check details before releasing, not Wikileaks.

The Guardian released information that Julian Assange was accused of releasing?

[Frood]

I heard a reliable source on the radio say he was a whistle blower of sorts, but also endangered people by releasing classified info.



His biggest crime, of course, was doing things Hillary didn't like.

I believe it was the Guardian and others who didn't check details before releasing, not Wikileaks.

The Guardian released information that Julian Assange was accused of releasing?

A number of orgs had info to corroborate possibly? Can't remember exactly why, but Wikileaks never endangered with their efforts. Other orgs weren't as meticulous about redacting, accidental or not.

[Anonymous]

I heard a reliable source on the radio say he was a whistle blower of sorts, but also endangered people by releasing classified info.



His biggest crime, of course, was doing things Hillary didn't like.

I believe it was the Guardian and others who didn't check details before releasing, not Wikileaks.

The Guardian released information that Julian Assange was accused of releasing?

A number of orgs had info to corroborate possibly? Can't remember exactly why, but Wikileaks never endangered with their efforts. Other orgs weren't as meticulous about redacting, accidental or not.

I forget the details around Wikileaks and Assange.