• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What did Assange do wrong?

Estro Felino

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
We all know that Assange is expected in the US to face a trial.
I haven't understood yet what he has done.
Explain me, a jurist. Thank you in advance.
:)

 
Shadow Wolf

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Estro Felino said:
We all know that Assange is expected in the US to face a trial.
I haven't understood yet what he has done.
Explain me, a jurist. Thank you in advance.
:)

Click to expand...
Last I checked distributing classified material without authorization is a crime. Possessing classified material without authorization is a crime. Accessing classified documents without authorization is a crime.
Regardless of personal opinions, how is that hard to understand? If you're going to do the crime then be ready to do the time. He did the crime and has been fighting being made to own up to it. He clearly violated the law and assisted in it in many more situations.
And while I don't know the extent of the laws in this area, he did help interfere in the 2016 documents so that may potentially be another round if charges in America.
 
Shadow Wolf

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Heyo said:
He spoke truth to power. A dangerous habit.
Click to expand...
He broke the law. This is a fact. Personal opinions do not change facts. He is a criminal. His crime isn't "spoke truth to power." That is a personal opinion, not a legal opinion or the nature of his crimes.
 
Secret Chief

Secret Chief

Very strong language
Honours and awards
 
Estro Felino

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
Shadow Wolf said:
Last I checked distributing classified material without authorization is a crime. Possessing classified material without authorization is a crime. Accessing classified documents without authorization is a crime.
Regardless of personal opinions, how is that hard to understand? If you're going to do the crime then be ready to do the time. He did the crime and has been fighting being made to own up to it. He clearly violated the law and assisted in it in many more situations.
And while I don't know the extent of the laws in this area, he did help interfere in the 2016 documents so that may potentially be another round if charges in America.
Click to expand...
Disclosing penally relevant document is not a crime. At least within the EU, where we have an exclusively rule of law tradition.
There are certain e-mails disclosed that are penally relevant both in national and international penal courts.
If those e-mails enter a penal courtroom, it is highly probably that certain democratic party politicians will be held accountable for certain things which are penally relevant in Europe.

There is something in our juridical system that is called scriminante (there is no equivalent in English because of the Common law systems) . Scriminante is whenever you commit a crime (disclosing a document, for example) but the content of that document is penally relevant and the penal relevance is much higher than the document disclosure itself.
For example, you disclose a document proving a person murdered another person.

So Assange can ask for the status of political refugee in Italy.
 
Last edited:
Estro Felino

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
Shadow Wolf said:
He broke the law. This is a fact. Personal opinions do not change facts. He is a criminal. His crime isn't "spoke truth to power." That is a personal opinion, not a legal opinion or the nature of his crimes.
Click to expand...
I give you another example.
In Italy I can record a conversation with a police officer without his her consent. And if that recording is penally relevant, that can be used as evidence against the officer within a penal courtroom.
In the US (if I am not wrong), such a piece of evidence cannot be admitted by a court.
 
Last edited:
Secret Chief

Secret Chief

Very strong language
AE80663B-812A-4635-871A-44C94AA2B6BA.jpeg
 
Secret Chief

Secret Chief

Very strong language
Shadow Wolf said:
Last I checked distributing classified material without authorization is a crime. Possessing classified material without authorization is a crime. Accessing classified documents without authorization is a crime.
Regardless of personal opinions, how is that hard to understand? If you're going to do the crime then be ready to do the time. He did the crime and has been fighting being made to own up to it. He clearly violated the law and assisted in it in many more situations.
And while I don't know the extent of the laws in this area, he did help interfere in the 2016 documents so that may potentially be another round if charges in America.
Click to expand...
Legality is not the same as morality.
 
Heyo

Heyo

Veteran Member
Shadow Wolf said:
He broke the law. This is a fact. Personal opinions do not change facts. He is a criminal. His crime isn't "spoke truth to power." That is a personal opinion, not a legal opinion or the nature of his crimes.
Click to expand...
Maybe he broke US law while not being in the US. That's only criminal in the mind of an US imperialist. The US don't rule the world and their laws are void anywhere outside of the US.

Did he break British law? If he did, why isn't he tried in the UK?

This is not a judicial question, it is a political one.
 
John53

John53

I go leaps and bounds
Premium Member
Shadow Wolf said:
He broke the law. This is a fact. Personal opinions do not change facts. He is a criminal. His crime isn't "spoke truth to power." That is a personal opinion, not a legal opinion or the nature of his crimes.
Click to expand...

That's true. He was founder of an organisation that published classified material and assisted someone in stealing it (allegedly, innocent until proven guilty). The morals of what he did is another question.
 
Gargovic Malkav

Gargovic Malkav

Well-Known Member
Estro Felino said:
Law needs to be based upon ethical principles.
That is, law has to side with those who thirst for justice because they have a profound ethical sense.
Click to expand...

Opportunists know this too.
And some of them can make those who sincerely thirst for justice eat out of the the palm of their hands.
When it turns out these people have been supporting a demagogue all along, it may be so hard on their conscience to face it, they'd rather try to find reasons to justify such "necessary evils", or make up some fantasy that deviates from what actually happened.

People are complicated creatures...
 
Estro Felino

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
John53 said:
That's true. He was founder of an organisation that published classified material and assisted someone in stealing it (allegedly, innocent until proven guilty). The morals of what he did is another question.
Click to expand...
I am not getting this.
So if I live in the United States and I steal some documents proving Mr X murdered Mr Y, I will be tried and jailed for theft?
 
Estro Felino

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
Gargovic Malkav said:
Opportunists know this too.
And some of them can make those who sincerely thirst for justice eat out of the the palm of their hands.
When it turns out these people have been supporting a demagogue all along, it may be so hard on their conscience to face it, they'd rather try to find reasons to justify such "necessary evils", or make up some fantasy that deviates from what actually happened.

People are complicated creatures...
Click to expand...

So who is the opportunist here? Assange?
 
Yerda

Yerda

Veteran Member
Shadow Wolf said:
Last I checked distributing classified material without authorization is a crime. Possessing classified material without authorization is a crime. Accessing classified documents without authorization is a crime.
Regardless of personal opinions, how is that hard to understand?
Click to expand...
Because it's a basic principle of democracy that information in the public interest should be known by the public.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top