Julian Assange (WikiLeaks) granted asylum

[jimnyc]

Traitor to who? I was not aware he was american.

Oh, then in that case he might as well just take a vacation in Miami if he did no wrong!

The Espionage act of 1917. Both are clearly guilty of this crime, Assange and Manning. Maybe not a "traitor" by the modern definition, but a conspiracy to do as much in which he was involved. But guilty of the espionage act is an open and shut case, as if the act was written with his actions in mind.

[Noir]

Oh, then in that case he might as well just take a vacation in Miami if he did no wrong!

The Espionage act of 1917. Both are clearly guilty of this crime, Assange and Manning. Maybe not a "traitor" by the modern definition, but a conspiracy to do as much in which he was involved. But guilty of the espionage act is an open and shut case, as if the act was written with his actions in mind.

As has already been pointed out by lawyers in the States, the wording of the Act is so broad that any News editor who reported what wikileaks reported could be charged and convicted. That's an awful lot of traitors...

[jimnyc]

As has already been pointed out by lawyers in the States, the wording of the Act is so broad that any News editor who reported what wikileaks reported could be charged and convicted. That's an awful lot of traitors...

Lame, lame lame.Give us a history of when it's been used, please....

"IF" someone brought it forth incorrectly, I believe a judge and jury would see the case for what it is and appropriately use the wording of the act to the alleged crime in front of them. But this hasn't happened anyway, has it? The fact is, the reason that the act was written, was not for the lame reasons you bring forth, but for the exact things that Manning/Assange conspired to do.

But back to your lame point - if these people could just as easily be charged and convicted, let's discuss the misuse of this act before going forward. Please cite for us where these editors or reporters have been charged, and let's dissect the reasoning behind them meeting the act of 1917. Surely there had to be good reasoning to charge these editors and surely a judge or jury saw valid reason for their "crimes" to be connected, and find them guilty of this act. So let's start there.

I'll answer for you, it hasn't happened, and the charges wouldn't stick in such a lame comparison, and this is why no charges were ever brought forth in such a lame comparison.