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 <[email protected]> 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 > > > > > > > >
