Posted on 04/18/2018 6:48:03 AM PDT by davikkm
We all know we are fighting to keep our First Amendment and Second Amendment Rights, but it is not looking good. Julian Assange could tell you about how it feels to have no contact with others, no phone privileges, and no Internet access. He has been in a type of solitary confinement for weeks now. No one has any access to him – not even his Mother. Pamela Anderson made the statement, “He is being tortured to death.”
He will be extradicted to the United States if he leaves the Ecuadorian Embassy, and he feels he will be jailed or worse. The leader of Ecuador has changed, and the new leader is cooperating with the US. You know, of course, that all charges had been dropped against Assange in Sweden.
Things were looking better, when some US officials visited the Embassy speaking with the Ecuadorians in charge there. There had been some speculation Trump might pardon Assange, but now surely we know that will not happen.
(Excerpt) Read more at investmentwatchblog.com ...
Poor old Assange... the only man to imprison himself and then claim to being tortured.
Trump should consider pardoning Assange. However, the rest of the article’s attack on the end of net neutrality is itself a distraction from the plight of Assange.
When your life’s goal is to publish state secrets, don’t be surprised if states whose secrets you’ve compromised will do anything to shut you up.
If Assange steps out that door, he WILL be arrested & convicted & jailed (if not executed).
Trump can’t pardon Assange. Much as we may like what he does, he’s a legitimate enemy of the US.
There’s a reason whistleblowers suffer unpleasant consequences for their actions, even if they’re justified in blowing said whistle.
Did we just change tyrants or is the swamp too thick?
Drain the swamp. Send in the Marines. Frog walk all the unelected
!@#$%^&*()!@#.
Would you vote to convict him?
“Would you vote to convict him?”
No, I would not
I’d be careful to read the exact letter of the law, which at the moment I presume imposes severe penalties for publishing state secrets.
And I’d convict Hillary of exactly the same thing (deliberately exposing secrets to foreign entities capable of easily breaching “bathroom server” security).
I think some laws should be broken under certain circumstances, but am under no delusion that doing so won’t be prosecuted just because I approve.
Upon review of the exact circumstances & laws, I might opt for “jury nullification”.
I wouldn’t be surprised if other jurors didn’t, though.
Daniel Elsworth was worse. He stole the Pentagon papers. The NYT published.
Originally I thought I would convict him. As the years have gone by and more Swamp secrets have come out of what he has released I have moved toward nullification as the appropriate response.
Yes there were things that should not have been released - but I feel more good has been done by what has been exposed, plus he has not released everything he obtained from what I understand - so he isn’t being totally reckless.
So true. The lot of a whistleblower is not a happy one.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.