Your opinion on Assange

The U.S. is now seeking the extradition of Julian Assange, which is what Assange feared all along.

Many people in the U.S. are angry at Assange for publication of information on the website Wikileaks that revealed classified secret information.

His situation has stirred a lot of controversy, with some people viewing him as a hero, and others hoping he spends a very long time in prison.

In this opinion poll you can share how you personally feel about the situation.
I'm sure people in this forum hold very different views.

 

I'd like to see Assange (and Snowden) returned to the US...and for them to receive a fair trial.

 

Do you trust that they will receive a fair trial and that justice will be done?

Do you blame Assange if he does not believe the trial will be fair?

 

So far he is only facing a maximum of five years if found guilty. More charges coming could change that.

 

He could face multiple different criminal charges for committing the same alleged crime, so it's pretty much only a question of how many charges the prosecutor chooses to throw at him.

(you can read more about that in this thread, if anyone has trouble understanding it)

 

I believe he should be set free. I'm glad he and Chelsea Manning had the courage to reveal the truth.

 

I doubt if either of them would receive a fair trial; not in the current political climate.

 

What about "He deserves prison for conspiring and helping steal government secrets". No one deserves prison for revealing them. 1st amendment rights

 

I think they would get a fair trial.

My guess is that IF Assange is extradited to the US...he will have top of the line lawyers begging him to allow them to defend him. His team will probably make the OJ Dream Team seem like a nightmare.

I have confidence in the system. I have confidence in my country.

 

If he is found guilty of any crimes...he deserves whatever punishment is called for. If he is not found guilty...he should go free.

None of the charges against him will infringe on any 1st Amendment rights.

 

What the judicial system says is irrelevant to what should be. It is only relevant to what will be.

 

Firing squad.

 

I have no idea of what that means.

 

Being found guilty doesn't mean he is guilty and we don't know if the charges will infringe on his first ammendment rights. You trust the system way too much.

 

Live with your negativity.

I think he can get a fair trial here.

I suspect there are many who do NOT want to see him get a fair trial.

 

That's the last thing he wants, is a "Fair trial".
He needs it rigged for him.

 

Those are my thoughts on this also.

Assange...and some of the posters here...DO NOT WANT A FAIR TRIAL.

Okay...that is their right.

But to cloak that disdain for a fair trial with comments about how Assange cannot get a fair trial...demands a response.

Glad you see things that way, Yas.

 

And being found not guilty doesn't necessarily mean he's not guilty, but if there is a better way to deal with accused people what is it?

 

The whole and entire point is that our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror are extra-Constitutional. We have a Second Amendment which expressly declares what is Necessary to the security of our free States. The right wing has no basis to complain about taxes for social services for the Poor, with our welfare clause General and our Commerce Clause in particular.

 

Have a look at this:
U.S. coast guard makes suspected drug smugglers suffer for months in international waters

 

So you would be outraged if it turned out they did not have sufficient evidence that he helped to steal those secrets, yes or no?

And if the only thing Assange did to "conspire" was tell Manning how to hack a password, you view that as a crime and Assange deserves everything he's got so far?

Even though we're talking about a non-U.S. citizen who was in another country who just sent a message.

Do I have this correct?

 

Snowden is the only one of the two we should have any right to arrest and bring to trial. Assange:

• Is not a US citizen.
• Did not commit any criminal act on American soil. I'm not sure if he's ever even been on American soil.

I don't see any legal way the US can assert jurisdiction over the man. It just doesn't pass the smell test. I feel the same way about the Russians Mueller indicted - except Butina, the Red-headed Sparrow. What they did, was done from Russia. They never set foot on US soil. If we can assert jurisdiction like that, what is to prevent another country from doing the same to one of our citizens? This is insane.

 

Kinda my thoughts. The idea we could assert jurisdiction on this is nuts.

 

You have a right to those opinions.

I'll reserve judgement until after legal proceedings are finished.

 

The U.S. has asserted foreign jurisdiction on fraud cases before, particularly letter scams seeking to defraud old people out of their money, which while it can be viewed from one perspective as setting a disturbing precedent (based on the legal principle of jurisdiction) there are very real victims who've been scammed out of hundreds of thousands of dollars and who's lives have been ruined. So it can be a blury line.

Obviously each application of law sets a precedent for another type of application of the law, so it gets into a slippery slope.