What did Assange do wrong?

[Estro Felino]

I guess Italy must be the perfect society.

Of course not. Not at all.
As for justice, law is more rich and substantial...than in the US for example.

If a woman knows a delinquent killed her husband, she will do anything to jail that hideous man.
She can even steal him documents, if these prove he did it.
Thirst for justice and truth are the pillars of our society.

Whistleblowers are seen like heroes. Demigods.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Of course not. Not at all.
As for justice, law is more rich and substantial...than in the US for example.

If a woman knows a delinquent killed her husband, she will do anything to jail that hideous person.
She can even steal him documents, if these prove he did it.
Thirst for justice and truth are the pillars of our society.

Whistleblowers are seen like heroes. Demigods.

Yeah, and that is better with evidence and all that, right?

 

[Estro Felino]

Yeah, and that is better with evidence and all that, right?

Yes. Because in a penal trial it is documents, tangible things that substantiate claims.

 

[Secret Chief]

He raped a woman.

Are you sure? I don't recall the trial. When was he found guilty?

- Julian Assange: Sweden drops rape investigation

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes. Because in a penal trial it is documents, tangible things that substantiate claims.

That is your individual assessment. I have another. Which is The True One?

 

[Gargovic Malkav]

Since this is a debate, I would like some feedback.
Do you think this is ethical, from a philosophical point of view?

Thank you, when you put it this way, you come across as more honest.
I dislike it when people ask a question in an OP, and then treat any response they don't like as a deflection or something of the like and then complain about how their question isn't being answered.

To answer your question regarding your hypothetical situation: I believe the "written law" isn't everything.
Bureaucracy can be a relentless machine sometimes, even though it is supposed to make life more fair and bearable in an organized way (I guess things being strictly organized and made official isn't always the right thing to do imo, as it tends to restrict freedom and common sense).

I think I'd personally be willing to forgive the criminal offense of such a whistleblower, but understand things aren't that easy when you are a representative of a system.
Also, I cringe at the thought that people would look up to such a person when they get away unpunished, and then try to imitate their behaviour which may result in more social control and "witch hunts".

I don't know what to make of Assanges case, though.
Like I said, I feel like I know too little about the situation to have an opinion on it.

 

[Estro Felino]

Thank you, when you put it this way, you come across as more honest.
I dislike it when people ask a question in an OP, and then treat any response they don't like as a deflection or something of the like and then complain about how their question isn't being answered.

To answer your question regarding your hypothetical situation: I believe the "written law" isn't everything.
Bureaucracy can be a relentless machine sometimes, even though it is supposed to make life more fair and bearable in an organized way (I guess things being strictly organized and made official isn't always the right thing to do imo, as it tends to restrict freedom and common sense).

I think I'd personally be willing to forgive the criminal offense of such a whistleblower, but understand things aren't that easy when you are a representative of a system.
Also, I cringe at the thought that people would look up to such a person when they get away unpunished, and then try to imitate their behaviour which may result in more social control and "witch hunts".

I don't know what to make of Assanges case, though.
Like I said, I feel like I know too little about the situation to have an opinion on it.

If I had wanted to speak of penal law, penal procedure and extradition, I would have chosen the "Law" category instead.
I chose "political debates" because I think that from a political-philosophical point of view, it is very suspicious that the United States want to try someone for simply exposing the truth.
Which is what the FBI should do. The FBI works for the people, right? For the commoners.
They work for the truth and justice.

It is normal that if some documents frame Mr X's bad behavior, Mr X will do anything to keep them secret.
And to punish whoever tries to disclose them.
I am making a very logical point here.

 

[Gargovic Malkav]

If I had wanted to speak of penal law, penal procedure and extradition, I would have chosen the "Law" category instead.
I chose "political debates" because I think that from a political-philosophical point of view, it is very suspicious that the United States want to try someone for simply exposing the truth.
Which is what the FBI should do. The FBI works for the people, right? For the commoners.
They work for the truth and justice.

It is normal that if some documents frame Mr X's bad behavior, Mr X will do anything to keep them secret.
And to punish whoever tries to disclose them.
I am making a very logical point here.

Yes I think I understand your point.
But I feel your point is not the only only one I want or should understand.

 

[John53]

Of course not. Not at all.
As for justice, law is more rich and substantial...than in the US for example.

If a woman knows a delinquent killed her husband, she will do anything to jail that hideous man.
She can even steal him documents, if these prove he did it.
Thirst for justice and truth are the pillars of our society.

Whistleblowers are seen like heroes. Demigods.

So the wife gets to be judge and jury. Too bad if she's got the wrong person.

 

[Estro Felino]

So the wife gets to be judge and jury. Too bad if she's got the wrong person.

I perfectly understand the enormous difference between Roman Law and Common Law.
For example, is it true that if I record a conversation without the consent of the interlocutor, I cannot use that recording in a courtroom? As piece of evidence, I mean. In the US.

 

[Stevicus]

We all know that Assange is expected in the US to face a trial.
I haven't understood yet what he has done.

He bruised the wrong egos.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Especially because evidently a certain president said he was a Christian.
I am sorry for him, after reading those disclosed email, nobody believes his religion is Christianity.
His religion is most likely another one. Another Abrahamic religion, let's say.

Yeah, it is down to single person's religion and that is the wrong one.

 

[Estro Felino]

Yeah, it is down to single person's religion and that is the wrong one.

peace
Frieden
pace
fred

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

peace
Frieden
pace
fred

There is no one way to do that. If we had that, we wouldn't be, where we are now.

 

[exchemist]

Are you sure? I don't recall the trial. When was he found guilty?

- Julian Assange: Sweden drops rape investigation

Not sure to a criminal standard, admittedly, but to a civil standard (balance of probability) yes.

 

[Estro Felino]

I think Assange shows that you are born a prince or a princess, despite the outcomes of life.
Because you cannot buy lordliness. Either you are lordly or you are not, even if you own billions.
I would like to remind this to the wealthy people who hate Assange.

Assange is lordly.

 

[Yerda]

Not sure to a criminal standard, admittedly, but to a civil standard (balance of probability) yes.

He might be a rapist. It's too easy to dismiss claims against someone who has a public enemy thing going on. I remember seeing a picture of him and the alleged victim that was taken the following day and she was smiling with her arm round him if I recall. I thought at the time that was strong evidence that she was lying but if I'm honest that's what I wanted to believe.

If he wasn't holed up in that embassy for years to avoid extradition to America we could have found out.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I think Assange shows that you are born a prince or a princess, despite the outcomes of life.
Because you cannot buy lordliness. Either you are lordly or you are not, even if you own billions.
I would like to remind this to the wealthy people who hate Assange.

Assange is lordly.

And that is a lawyer argument? As in, I rest my case and that is the Law.

 

[Estro Felino]

And that is a lawyer argument? As in, I rest my case and that is the Law.

There are two kinds of lawyers.
The mercenaries (the great majority) and the social justice warriors.
I studied law because I am thirsty for justice.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

There are two kinds of lawyers.
The mercenaries (the great majority) and the social justice warriors.
I studied law because I am thirsty for justice.

Thanks, that explains a lot.