Julian Assange (WikiLeaks) granted asylum

[logroller]

You would be VERY hard pressed to find a post of mine where I defended any actions of the government, especially anything criminal. I do think the government needs to be held accountable, but that hardly absolves other criminals from their actions. And that's what you guys are trying to do, declare innocence on the part of Assange/Manning because they may have exposed illegal activity amongst the endless amount of information they passed along. Neither action should make the other any less legal. It matters not WHEN the information took place. If we're talking about 2 crimes here, if that's what you're getting at, then the crimes need to be handled separately. NOTHING in any of these documents would allow us to ignore the criminal actions that took place to bring them to light. However great some may see these actions, it was still criminal actions that brought them to light. Is that what we're shooting for here in the US? If we can't handle something legally, use criminal actions instead?

As to your analogy, the thief should rightly so be locked up immediately for his criminal actions. If anything was discovered that can legally be held against the victim, then that gets handled separately. But we simply can't tell the thief that we'll get back to him another day as the other crime took place first.

A crime is a crime is a crime. We don't get to pick and choose, and for Any reason declare a crime not a crime - that's what our justice system is for.

Oh gimme a break Jim. This isn't about justice, it's about power. Information is power; and assange upset the overhelmingly superior advantage the us govt has. If justice were the mantra of the us government, we'd of paid reparations to Nicaragua over the contra affair; instead we enjoyed the veto power (our's, the sole vote against) of the icj's determination. What's that you said earlier about the accused bing able to determine the validity of charges???

Jafar, you talk of 'checks and balances'. Isn't the whole point of what Wikileaks has done is that it's set about BUSTING UP those checks and balances ?

Assange has done this to a number of countries .. he's a wrecker. He couldn't have possibly believed that anything other than harm could come from his activities.

And note who his friends and supporters are .. most notably, creatures of the LEFT, such as John Pilger, who I've mentioned previously. Pilger is both anti-British Establishment, and anti-American. He was advocating actions of civil disobedience several years ago, because of American activities in the War on Terror !!

But as for Assange, it's my understanding that though America hasn't been his only victim by any means, he has singled out America for particular focus. No wonder the Left likes him.

Final point. American and UK citizens both elect their Governments, therefore, they elect those who have Governmental influence in the matters that Assange has seen fit to meddle with. So tell me, Jafar, who elected Assange and his friends to THEIR positions, who do THEY democratically represent ?

If the answer is 'nobody did' .. AND IT IS .. then one can argue that Assange has been undemocratic in his attacks, and even that they amount to an assault upon democracy itself.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the purpose of checks and balances to limit the over zealous agencies of govt; not those who oppose their actions or undermine that zeal.
The exposé of government actions against people to the public being interpreted as subversive of democracy reaks of authoritarianism.

Even if he thinks he's safe, he may not be. There IS legislation in British law which would provide (if the UK ever used it) for the Embassy to lose its status as one, in which case, the Embassy would become British soil, therefore fully accessible to our authorities.

This is problematic, though, because if the diplomatic inviolability of foreign Embassies was brought into question more generally, the effect worldwide could be potentially ruinous.

My guess - Westminster will wait .. for a while. If they become convinced that this is too unbreakable a stalemate, though, they will revoke the status of the Embassy and go in to take Assange into custody. I don't believe we'll wait 'forever' before acting.

http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2012/08/1...lemate-embassy

I don't discount the authority of the UK to do so; of course they can. He with the greatest power to enforce the rules is in no way bound by them-- that's what assange exposed. But don't try to sell the state's authority as righteous or just; when it's plainly about the power to impose their will.