> Assange is accused of going beyond leaking into assisting Chelsea Manning get pass security systems.
1 out of the 18+ charges brought against him are for that. It's also a minor crime that would carry a 5 year penalty, which is hardly worth all this effort. The other 170 years of charges related to violations of the espionage act, and it's not at all clear that they would even apply to Assange who is not a U.S. citizen or military contractor.
> because they viewed him as sympathetic.
I've never viewed him as sympathetic. It takes a completely unrestrained ego to try to be the "public front-man" for Wikileaks. On the other hand, what's happening to him now is a clear abuse of the law and extradition process. Add to that the years of mistreatment he's been through, and I find it very easy to see him in a sympathetic light.
> But he’s undermined that with his connections to Russia.
How so? Did he actively seek out Russian documents so he could release them?
> hostile governments can use this information to jeopardize American national security
This misses the obvious. Hostile foreign governments _already_ had this information. How or why they were using it before is beyond us. Releasing it does serve their interests, but it's no longer possible for them to monopolize it either. The only difference is, after it was released, we all had it.
> If you’re neither sympathetic nor on the right side of the law, you’ve got a problem.
Yes, but that's _precisely_ the reason we invented courts in the first place, to ensure that even in these ambiguous circumstances that justice can be seen to. It's troubling that you see this as the exact reason he won't receive justice at all... and again, it's what makes it so easy for me to view him sympathetically again.
> How so? Did he actively seek out Russian documents so he could release them?
Julian Assange hosted a show on RT, he was literally on the payroll of the Russian government. Also suspicious is that Wikileaks basically has only leaked documents that look bad for western democracy. There’s one leak of critical of Russia, but it has basically nothing of substance in it. When you claim to be for radical transparency and work for the country that regularly has reporters murdered, it strains belief.
>Julian Assange hosted a show on RT, he was literally on the payroll of the Russian governmen
Assange made a show and sold broadcast rights to RT. Small but distinct difference in that he was never under pressure to follow what Russia wanted, they just wanted to broadcast his point of biew.
>There’s one leak of critical of Russia, but it has basically nothing of substance in it.
Why would anyone with information damaging to Russia choose to leak data to a primarily English organization, with no Russian speaking employees, and mainly Western readers?
And it was a pretty good show, too. Seriously, Assange is not a bad interviewer, and he managed to get some pretty difficult-to-book (to put it lightly) people on the show.
I thought the West is open to criticism, but it looks like I'm wrong. The West is open to criticism, if and only if the criticisizer also critisizes the West's enemy. How open minded it is.
1 out of the 18+ charges brought against him are for that. It's also a minor crime that would carry a 5 year penalty, which is hardly worth all this effort. The other 170 years of charges related to violations of the espionage act, and it's not at all clear that they would even apply to Assange who is not a U.S. citizen or military contractor.
> because they viewed him as sympathetic.
I've never viewed him as sympathetic. It takes a completely unrestrained ego to try to be the "public front-man" for Wikileaks. On the other hand, what's happening to him now is a clear abuse of the law and extradition process. Add to that the years of mistreatment he's been through, and I find it very easy to see him in a sympathetic light.
> But he’s undermined that with his connections to Russia.
How so? Did he actively seek out Russian documents so he could release them?
> hostile governments can use this information to jeopardize American national security
This misses the obvious. Hostile foreign governments _already_ had this information. How or why they were using it before is beyond us. Releasing it does serve their interests, but it's no longer possible for them to monopolize it either. The only difference is, after it was released, we all had it.
> If you’re neither sympathetic nor on the right side of the law, you’ve got a problem.
Yes, but that's _precisely_ the reason we invented courts in the first place, to ensure that even in these ambiguous circumstances that justice can be seen to. It's troubling that you see this as the exact reason he won't receive justice at all... and again, it's what makes it so easy for me to view him sympathetically again.