I won't look into the details of the Assange case but still go around saying the charges are wrong.

[howard112211]

Here is why: Presumption of innocence as layed out by the US constitution. I will assume that he is innocent until the accusers can prove before court that he is not.

Before an actual trial has happened, basically, one has two options: Either one assumes that he is innocent OR one makes the case based on the evidence that he isn't.

What is not a constitutionally valid option is saying "I will remain indifferent until his guilt or non-guilt is determined by a court.", as some have done here repeatedly, because it implies that it is somehow the defendants job to prove his innocence. It isn't. The burden of proof lies with the accuser.

I know this is not a very popular stance these days, since it now seems to be a common belief, all across the political spectrum, that people are potentially guilty until proven innocent.

This is not the Polanski case: Polanski was foud guilty by a court. This is not the OJ Simpson case either: The people who claim OJ was guilty are making their case based solely on the evidence that is available to them, not based on any presumption.

If you want to accuse Assange, you must make the case that he is guilty.

Rest my case.

[dipsydoodle]

1. Your Constitution

has no meaning or merit whatsoever outside of the USA so what's the point in quoting it with reference to a case in Sweden ?

[DrDan]

2. so why are the charges wrong - isn't that what happens prior to any trial

some charges are made?

Then up to a prosecutor to prove them?

[dipsydoodle]

9. He hasn't been charged

He's wanted for questioning in connection with.......Aside from that - if subsequently charged the seriousness of the crime was downgraded by one last week to penalties of between a suspended sentence and 4 years in prison.

[DrDan]

23. I was simply questioning the wording of the OP

seems confused about the difference between being charged and being convicted

[Ozymanithrax]

3. Since we are not a court of law...we have a right to an opinion...

So, if someone has the opinion Assange is guilty, or innocent, or a dancing warthog, their opinion is valid. The Constitution does not require presumption of innocence in individuals except when they are members of a jury.

In my opinion, Assange is not a dancing warthog.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

4. Julian Assange runs Wikileaks.

The act of even obtaining these confidential materials - through ANY means - is illegal. Just holding onto the information and not immediately returning it to the government is illegal.

So unless you want to claim that either A) Wikileaks did not have any confidential government information, which is difficult since they clearly posted said material all over the internet or B) that Assange does not, in fact, have any ties to Wikileaks (again, a rather difficult assertion to make), then yeah, I think you can say he's guilty of a crime. The questions are which crimes do they want to charge him with and how do they make them stick.

[WinkyDink]

5. Many acts in the name and cause of justice are illegal, because TPTB want to REMAIN TPTB.

Tom Paine.
Gandhi.
The Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Daniel Ellsberg.
The Berrigan Brothers.

Need I say "etc."?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

8. ...but it's still illegal.

Which is the whole point of this particular discussion. If you don't care that it's illegal, as it seems you're saying, that's a different conversation with no real context in this discussion.

[elias7]

14. But where does the illegality lie?

Was the New York Times committing a crime in possessing the classified papers that Ellsberg gave them, or was just Ellsberg guilty.

I view wikileaks as a media outlet, gutsy enough to do what other media outlets won't, i.e. give air to whistle blowers.

I also think that Assange is a side show. Wikileaks will go on with or without him. What he did or did not do is irrelevant to the content of the publishing.

[Ozymanithrax]

10. Non-violent non-compliance with a law is acceptable when faced with...

unjust laws.

Gandhi used that technique, violating laws made by the British, such as their law against weaving to force Indians into buy British Cloth, or their law against making sea salt to force Indians to buy salt.

I'm not a fan for violent overthrow of a state, though even that is legal when the citizens are given no other choice.

But in fighting injustice or tyranny, it should also be understood that those who violate laws may face punishment.

You can not make an omelet without breaking eggs.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

6. If what you say is correct (forgetting 1st amendment) then New York Times broke the law

because they obtained the leaks/cables too.

And to say these "materials" should be returned to the government is absurd.

And the govt failed to secure these materials - who is getting fired over that?

I'm sure that our correct govt can trump up some more charges to try to shut up the
messenger.

Or Hillary can do more spying, like she did to the UN, to try to find something to blackmail
all of the right people.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

7. The New York Times offered the material back to the government

And gave them the opportunity to provide input on what to hold back before going to print. Furthermore, at that point, the information was already available to the public thanks to Wikileaks.

Absurd or not, the law is the law. Obtaining confidential government information is illegal - period - regardless of the ineptitude of that government to keep it secure.

[tekisui]

11. Your premises are false.

Both of them. Neither of the things you mentioned are illegal.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

15. US Code 18.798 says otherwise.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00000798----000-.html

[tekisui]

18. If you parse that section out, Assange is most likely not in violation of it.

First the release for the information must be used "in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information". It then goes on to further specify what must have happened.

The US would have a hard time proving the benefit to a foreign government or the detriment to the US. Even Biden has said, no harm has been done.

Going further into the statute, (1) and (2) have no relevance. (3) deals with how the US gathers intelligence. The cables have mentioned some of the targets of intell gathering, but not the how it is obtained and exchanged. (4) also deals with the intell gathering, and is specifically saying the classified info that is released be a product of the intell gathering.

I don't think that any of these 4 statutes apply to Assange. Nor, can the intent or effect of the first part be shown.

Nothing here. If you want to argue that what wikileaks has done violates this code, you will have to include NYT, Guardian, Slate, LATimes, the State Dept., DU, and any other outlet that published the info.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

20. Wikileaks had already released the information by the time any other organization reported it.

So by that time, the cat was out of the bag, so to speak. Furthermore, those outlets all gave the government an opportunity to request redactions and provide feedback as to why specific pieces of information shouldn't be reported, which according to Supreme Court precedent, shields media outlets from prosecution to a significant degree.

As for the other part, regarding Assange, "...in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States..." Don't neglect the interests part of the law. Running rampant on our diplomatic efforts clearly violates the interests of the United States.

[EFerrari]

12. Not really.. Maybe obtaining the material can be a crime

but it's not a crime for the media to disclose it. The crime in that instance would be harming the national security of the United States, not disclosing classified information, according to Abbe Lowell at Mr. Conyers' hearing last week. His statement is here:


http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/Legaland @ 21:57:18

In this session, the need for a new law to protect material that should be classified and not all the garbage that is classified now was repeated over and over again.

[tekisui]

19. Exactly. One of points of the release was exposing the over-classification

of the workings of our government.

[TorchTheWitch]

13. what case are you talking about?

The sex crimes case in Sweden or some possible future case concerning the leaked documents in the US?

[treestar]

16. Which set of charges?

This is true, of course.

Sweden does what it does per its laws.

He may have violated US laws, that will shake out.

[AngryAmish]

17. Utterly wrong.

The presumption of innocence (as known in the US) is what a finder of fact (jury or judge) must keep in mind when evaluating evidence in a criminal case. It says nothing about what people not in that position may think of a particular case.

Here we have a criminal case in Sweden. They have their own standards of guilt and innocence and it is widely agreed that the court system of Sweden is fair and protects human rights.

Anyway, in the US we have a 1st Amendment that allows us to think and express opinions on almost any issue. We are allowed to share these opinions with others.

The Bill of Rights is a list of things the government cannot do to citizens. It has no bearing on what citizens can do to each other - or in your case, what we may think or discuss with other people.

[RZM]

22. You're spot on about Sweden

It's not like he's being summoned to Pakistan to answer charges of defaming the Prophet Mohammed. Sweden's sexual assault laws do sound rather odd to me, but I trust the rule of law there, as do international monitoring organizations dedicated to assessing such things.

I think the way Assange supporters get around this is arguing that the charges are somehow orchestrated by the US government. That might be the case, though it's far from certain. Right now, as far as I can tell, this is a Swedish affair.

[GodlessBiker]

21. The Constitution presumes innocence in a criminal trial. That presumption is not ...

constitutionally required when individuals make personal judgments about people's guilt of this or that.

The Constitution does not require that someone "make the case that is guilty" before judging that they are guilty. In a criminal court, yes. In life, no.

I have judged him not guilty without seeing all of the evidence that Sweeden has. So what?