I enjoyed your comment, Alan.

Cheers

While I don't agree entirely with Alan, there is a vast difference between what Assange did and what the newspapers did.

Firstly Assange corresponded with Daniel Manning not only encouraging him to steal state secrets, but offered him help and advice on how to do it which makes Assange at least guilty of the same charges that Manning faced.

Secondly, while the newspapers were circumspect in publishing information that exposed wrongdoing by the US military, Assange published everything incl names of agents, private diplomatic correspondence etc that lead to the deaths of several people.

Assange has essentially been caught in a web of his own making.

Julian Assange is a gifted hacker who called himself a journalist, after writing and selling news stories based upon the theft of information from other people's computers. If journalism societies have awarded him honours, that does not say much for the ethics of journalists today.

The theft of official secrets from government sources may be viewed by the public as either creditable or reprehensible. The litmus paper test for public approval depends upon whether or not the official information being stolen and published is in the public interest. Daniel Ellsberg's theft of US government secrets during the Vietnam war was considered by the majority of the US public to be creditable, as it completely contradicted the public statements by US officials that the USA was winning the war. You can't publically tell the public you are winning a war and then privately among officials admit that you are not. However, Ellsberg stole and published only those papers which clearly demonstrated that US government officials were blatantly lying to the public.

Ellsberg did not steal 750,000 official documents and then sell them to any hostile organisation or government who was interested in these files, and looking for something, anything, to stick it too the yanks. That action is most definitely an act of espionage.

The question therefore becomes whether or not a state can request extradition from a second state, by a second state resident who has committed a crime against the first state. Up to now, this has never been an issue because such actions were almost unheard of, or not considered legally valid. But times have changed. We now have hacking. It is now possible to commit a serious crime like espionage against a state from another state. As an ally of the USA, it is not in the interests of Great Britain to allow residents within their borders to commit acts of espionage against a close ally. So they are going to extradite Assange, and the yanks will lock him up forever as a warning to every other arrogant hacker, that they can't steal US secrets without consequences

The only crime Assange committed is publishing evidence and exposing the war crimes committed by the USA and its allies. The UK is keeping him in high security prison for skipping bail on a Swedish charge long dropped but re-opened under US pressure. Sweden is the rape capital of Europe. The definition of rape in Sweden includes unprotected sex; it was alleged that a condom broke during consensual sex. The Australian govt. intervened for a jailed soccer player, non-Aussie citizen in Thailand, but will not help Assange, an Australian citizen.

'the war crimes of the USA and it'a allies", says Francesca.

We live in a strange world where the world's most advanced, democratic and free countries are considered the enemy by the Francesca's of the world, while despots and tyrants are now the good guys.

London to a brick that Francesca broke her neck trying to immigrate into the countries that she now expresses contempt for.

Well said Francesca;
And the new charges against him are all bogus as well.
Chelsea Manning was trying to entrap Assange but he didn't take the bait;
- To try to break a password for Manning to obtain access SIPRnet -

Check all the facts and look at Mannings history;
Where he was stationed, who he trained with and who he worked for;
And then look into the history behind the 'Secure Dropbox' for Wikileaks and the the big news organisations in the US.

A US Government operation to get whistleblowers to use a certain safe and encrypted online tool - which they actually had a backdoor into.

He didn't do it, and that's why Obama Administration with Eric Holder as AG didn't prosecute previously.

This is because he knows how and who he got the hacked DNC info from.
- And he can prove that it was a leak not a hack and also about the murder of Seth Rich.
And also because Hillary and the Deepstate want payback and also he released the CIA's Vault 7 hacking tools.
(Which more or less prove that any or all evidence against him could be fabricated)
- Or they could just force Manning to testify against him anyway.

And also the Ecuadorian embassy has handed over all Assange's computers etc, including his legal defense to the US.

The bottom line is he hasn't really done anything wrong.
- He released info no different to other news sites -

The difference is the other news sites work WITH government to make sure you don't see certain info;
Which makes them gatekeepers, not news sites responsible for bringing facts to the public.

Don't listen to these other fools Francesca,
They just love wars and the US government blowing innocent women and kids up and taking over countries for corporate greed, Israel and the mighty Petrodollar.
They have no care of ethics or right or wrong just USA, USA!!