NYT's Former Editor Defends Wikileaks

[sabrina 1]

24. First, Sweden has failed, after two years, to even file charges against him. So I wouldn't

use that as an example of how to 'get' him. Their failure to do so appears to be based on what the more credible prosecutor's take on this was, there simply is no evidence on which to base charges.

Sweden's judicial system has suffered a huge blow to their credibility world-wide. Either they have a case or they don't. Since after 2 years they have filed no charges, it can be assumed they have no case. They do have one insane lawyer though, driving this. Not good for any charges they may file in the future.

Third, I have tried to get this across to you before....the 1st Amendment does not absolve a journalist of criminal liability. Mr. Assange will not be prosecuted for his speech....but for his actions.

No need to get it across to me. I am fully aware of that which is why I keep asking what these illegalities are and getting a run around and lots of 'ifs' and 'assumptions'. People don't get charged based on assumptions and 'suppose he did this or that'.

Just provide the evidence that Assange had anything to do with Manning's actions many of which took place, btw, before he even contacted Wikileaks.

If you really are in ignorance about this essential fact in the case against Manning, and how he came about the software, and how it implicates Assange, then I suggest you read the timeline of Manning's charges, detailed on FDL, cite above.

'Charges' are not evidence, are they? And we've all read about military tribunals' 'charges' against other detainees and how much credibility they had.

I am asking for non-biased evidence, something that is tangible. All I'm getting is what the prosecution is 'alleging'. And the treatment of Manning which has led many observers to believe was to try to get him to implicate Assange, won't help the credibility of the prosecution.

There is a very high bar regarding freedom of the press in this country, and despite the demands of such luminaries as Sarah Palin, the courts have always been very, very reluctant to rule in favor of limiting the rights of the press.

I very much doubt any court in this country, when a case is related to the 1st Amendment, will convict someone of a crime, whose only actions involved collecting information to disseminate to the public. Especially when the practices of that News Organization were well known and have won multiple awards over the course of the years, up to now for their work.

Iow, any attempt to convict Assange of a crime better have some pretty serious evidence of a crime. He is not a stupid man and was being hunted by other governments for his work, before the US public was ever aware of him. So I doubt he suddenly became careless when it came to a country as powerful as this one.

You seem to be searching for a reason to convict this news organization of something, which I find very troubling.

In the Ellsberg case eg, the SC sided with the NY Times even though the information leaked and published, and no doubt the NY Times was in communication with the leakers, caused far more 'harm' from the POV of the government. They decided that the public's need to know trumped the Government's need to be secretive.

Any attempt to prosecute Assange will come up against the 1st Amendment and the NY Times case and unless we've lost more of our rights than many of us thought, any prosecution of a news organization will become a worldwide event with the US on trial as a democracy, as much as the organization they are attempting to silence.