Julian Assange, Journalist or Criminal?

So if we get him from the Brits, should we lock him up and throw away the key? If we don’t will he remain a security threat? Or is he protected by the First Amendment? He's been nominated several times for the Nobel Peace Prize.

According to news reports, there's a suspicion that Assange helped Manning, or colluded with him, to steal government intel. If that's true, Assange is a criminal. The First Amendment doesn't cover criminal acts such as theft of intellectual property and hacking secure, government computer systems. If Assange hacked the DNC, he is also a criminal.

According to news reports, there's a suspicion that Assange helped Manning, or colluded with him, to steal government intel. If that's true, Assange is a criminal. The First Amendment doesn't cover criminal acts such as theft of intellectual property and hacking secure, government computer systems. If Assange hacked the DNC, he is also a criminal. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

That makes sense. If you’re hacking or stealing that’s not protected by the first amendment

According to news reports, there's a suspicion that Assange helped Manning, or colluded with him, to steal government intel. If that's true, Assange is a criminal. The First Amendment doesn't cover criminal acts such as theft of intellectual property and hacking secure, government computer systems. If Assange hacked the DNC, he is also a criminal. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Agree 100% IB

I can't help but compare the actions of Chelsy Manning to that of Daniel Elsberg of Pentagon Papers fame.

Elsberg contended he acted because the Papers, which were a document put forth by the Johnson Administration to bolster the US position in Vietnam, or at the least, make it look better.

Manning said he did what he did because He wanted Americans to know more about our involvement in Foriegn governments.

Asange is supposedly accused of helping Manning secure the documents. His contention is the US is carrying out illegal wars all over the world and needs to be exposed.

Elsberg was found not guilty by a jury. So his actions are considered noble by many in later years.

This could get interesting.,Manning has since became a woman, and is out of jail. Asange is out of the embassy and now faces years of incarceration.

Unless he gets the right jury.

Yes but did Ellsworth get anyone killed? Many intelligence experts say that Manning stole operational details about ongoing operations and Assange published them. People died on account of those two.

From David Ignatious of the Washington POST:
"Assange wants to fight his case under the banner of press freedom. His problem is that the Justice Department has drawn its indictment carefully enough that the issue is theft of secrets, rather than their publication. That’s why so many press advocates seemed to be distancing themselves from Assange after the news broke Thursday."

Do journalists spend 7 years hiding in an embassy?

I can't help but compare the actions of Chelsy Manning to that of Daniel Elsberg of Pentagon Papers fame.

Elsberg contended he acted because the Papers, which were a document put forth by the Johnson Administration to bolster the US position in Vietnam, or at the least, make it look better.

Manning said he did what he did because He wanted Americans to know more about our involvement in Foriegn governments.

Asange is supposedly accused of helping Manning secure the documents. His contention is the US is carrying out illegal wars all over the world and needs to be exposed.

Elsberg was found not guilty by a jury. So his actions are considered noble by many in later years.

This could get interesting.,Manning has since became a woman, and is out of jail. Asange is out of the embassy and now faces years of incarceration.

Unless he gets the right jury. Originally Posted by Jackie S

I read that Manning is back in jail for refusing to cooperate with a probe on Assange's conduct.

Now we know what happened to WTF.

The government or agencies of the government should not be entitled to an expectation of privacy. It is our government after all. That said, individuals, private citizens, who are compelled into service(Grand Jury) should be able to serve with an expectation of anonymity or privacy in order for the system to work. The lines have been convoluted in the last 20 years.

Finally something both sides agree on. The Republicans hate him for exposing secret national intel. The dimretards hate him for helping to dash Shrillary's dreams.

Is he a criminal? Probably. Is he a journalist? Nope. Just a tattletale.

And, as we all know... Tattletales always lose in the end.

According to news reports, there's a suspicion that Assange helped Manning, or colluded with him, to steal government intel. If that's true, Assange is a criminal. The First Amendment doesn't cover criminal acts such as theft of intellectual property and hacking secure, government computer systems. If Assange hacked the DNC, he is also a criminal. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

"If" is the operative term.

Among Assange's first revelations was a video, "Collateral Murder", of a U.S. gunship killing Reuter's reporters in Iraq wherein Assange did his best to obscure the images of several men carrying AK-47s and RPGs and highlight the Reuter's crew carrying camera equipment. The distortion by Assange was intentional and nefarious. I have no respect for this cretin.

However, it's Tucker Carlson's position that the only thing Assange did was embarrass powerful people. There is, per Carlson, the possibility that the U.S. won't be able to prove its case in a British court and extradition won't happen. I suspect Carlson may be right about the British judge quashing the extradition.

"If" is the operative term.

Among Assange's first revelations was a video, "Collateral Murder", of a U.S. gunship killing Reuter's reporters in Iraq wherein Assange did his best to obscure the images of several men carrying AK-47s and RPGs and highlight the Reuter's crew carrying camera equipment. The distortion by Assange was intentional and nefarious. I have no respect for this cretin.

However, it's Tucker Carlson's position that the only thing Assange did was embarrass powerful people. There is, per Carlson, the possibility that the U.S. won't be able to prove its case in a British court and extradition won't happen. I suspect Carlson may be right about the British judge quashing the extradition.



Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Carlson has an interesting point of view. He’d probably consider him a journalist, not a criminal. He believes his sin was to expose the dirty laundry of the Washington elite, like failings in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s blatant favoritism towards Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders in the 2016 primaries. He points out the Washington Post, which years ago did something very similar to Assange in publishing the Pentagon Papers, was squarely on the side of Assange until he messed with the Democratic Party in the 2016 election.

Thanks for posting the link

"If" is the operative term.

Among Assange's first revelations was a video, "Collateral Murder", of a U.S. gunship killing Reuter's reporters in Iraq wherein Assange did his best to obscure the images of several men carrying AK-47s and RPGs and highlight the Reuter's crew carrying camera equipment. The distortion by Assange was intentional and nefarious. I have no respect for this cretin.

However, it's Tucker Carlson's position that the only thing Assange did was embarrass powerful people. There is, per Carlson, the possibility that the U.S. won't be able to prove its case in a British court and extradition won't happen. I suspect Carlson may be right about the British judge quashing the extradition.



Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Carlson has an interesting point of view. He’d probably consider Assange a journalist, not a criminal. He believes his sin was to expose the dirty laundry of the Washington elite, like failings in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s blatant favoritism towards Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders in the 2016 primaries. And of course the Clinton campaign emails. He points out the Washington Post, which years ago did something very similar to Assange in publishing the Pentagon Papers, was squarely on the side of Assange until he messed with Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party establishment in the 2016 election.

Republicans are enraged too, just like with the Pentagon Papers, because Assange disclosed the military/intelligence complex’s dirty laundry.

Thanks for posting the link