Assange's Prosecution

[David Barrett]

https://twitter.com/dbarrett/status/1412690988024307717?s=19

Alright Karl and Punk and all the rest who claim to give a shit about this,
what are you going to do about it, or does your anger only extend to
complaining on this list?

David

On Wed, Jul 7, 2021, 1:27 AM David Barrett <dbarrett at expensify.com> wrote:

> That's an incredible video. I think it lays out a very clear argument that
> the hacking charges against him are trumped up and flimsy, and will never
> carry in court. If that video is accurate, and there truly is nothing more
> to the case than what has been presented, Assange's defense attorneys
> should have no trouble, should it ever go to trial -- which looks very
> unlikely due to the UK continuing to block extradition.
>
> (Though Assange is actually imprisoned in the UK for skipping bail by
> hiding out in the Ecuadorian embassy for years to avoid rape charges --
> which is a completely different matter that still needs to be settled.)
>
> But very little of this is new. We are just rehashing the same old
> discussions, and fear mongering about what might have happened had he
> actually just showed up in court for his various accusations.
>
> I know there is a great deal of skepticism that he would get a fair trial
> in the US. A lot has been made of the hundred plus years of jail time when
> you add up all of the accusations.
>
> But Chelsea Manning was facing 135 years in prison, and served only seven
> -- for directly leaking information in a way that I think we all agree as
> far more serious than what Assange is charged with. And that was military
> court, which is far more strict than Assange would face.
>
> I'm not sure why we assume by default that Assange is going to face a
> greater sentence than Chelsea Manning, given that the case against him is
> so much weaker, and his actions are so much easier to defend on first
> amendment principles.  It's entirely possible that had he just showing up
> in court, he would be a completely free man running WikiLeaks in the clear.
>
>
> Regardless, the main reason I'm continuing this conversation is I'm trying
> to get anyone to specify precisely what they would like done that is
> different than what is happening. Not some vague hand wavy outcomes that we
> prefer, but who specifically should do something different, and
> specifically what.
>
> Do you want a law changed? Specifically which one, and how? Who do you
> want to change it exactly, and what is the process for asking them to do it?
>
> Or is the conclusion of all of this discussion is simply to ask Biden to
> drop the case?  If so, say that. How should we convince Biden to do it?
> Have you written him a letter or taken any action whatsoever to actually
> constructively encourage the outcome? Or are you hoping that Biden reads
> your mind and just intuitively senses that's what you want?
>
> It's easy just to complain, and there's plenty of that being done here.
> It's hard to actually fix things, and that's what I'm trying to encourage
> you all to participate in.
>
> I think Jim Bell has done the best job yet of linking to this very
> succinct summary of the issue, which drives the conversation forward
> constructively. I am going to tweet this out and ask the Biden
> administration to drop the case against Assange to clear the way for him
> too face Justice in Sweden.  What are you going to do?
>
> David
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 5138 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20210707/870f3621/attachment.txt>