Foxy,

Why not look at the High Court judgement?

https://cdn.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/judgment-summaries/2020/hca-12-2020-04-07.pdf

The conviction was quashed because there was reasonable doubt. That is a legal technicality in as much as any not guilty verdict is a legal technicality. My idea of getting off on a legal technicality is hiding in an embassy until the statute of limitations comes into play.

As for Jules having done no harm and done nothing wrong, he did put people's lives in danger and incur expenses in removing persons from the danger he put them in. As an analogy, consider this scenario: I am concerned about road safety for cyclists, so I go for a drive and play chicken with some cyclists. Some crash with damage to their bikes and injuries that aren't too serious. Other are able to avoid collision. When arrested, I claim that my actions were to raise awareness of the dangerous conditions faced by cyclists on our roads and would ultimately make the roads safer. I answer the suggestion that I might have killed someone with the comment, "Then it would be their fault because they know the risk they take when they go for a ride.".

Would you think that I had done no harm and done nothing wrong? To make it easier for you, imagine that George Pell was driving.

Fester,

The complainant was believed by a jury, by a majority
judgement and by a substantial body of public opinion.
The High Court appeal did not ask whether Pell committed
the offences. It asked whether the two majority
judges in the Victorian Court of Appeal, in dismissing
Pell's earlier appeal made an error about the nature of
the correct legal principles or their application.

Pell got off on a legal technicality. His past record
in Ballarat and elsewhere - speaks for itself. The man's
a turd and although you can't polish a turd (unless its
fossilized) sprinkling glitter on it will not prevent
the stench.

Fester,

You seem to be indicating that if you yourself got hold of some stolen whistle-blower information about crime committed by China and the CCP, and you publish it, China has the right to extradite you from Australia?
Even though you have never been in China?

Foxy,

Pell faced the legal process and was acquitted by it. No legal technicality. That people have their own opinion of his guilt is how things are, and a good reason why we need a legal system that attempts to determine guilt objectively. In contrast to George, Jules is too gutless to face a legal process.

JF

If I released information about Chinese agents that put their lives and the lives of their families in danger, causing the Chinese government to expend resources to save those people, I would likely have broken Chinese laws. If there were an extradition treaty between China and Australia I would expect China to try and have me extradited to face trial. To think it okay to put lives in danger because they are in another country doesn't sit well with me. I think such action morally reprehensible, regardless of the motive.

Fester,

Tobacco companies put lives at risk in other countries, where taxpayers fund Medicare cancer treatment and undertaker tax deductions.
Assange is innocent and his speaking the truth has killed nobody.

Julian Assange has already been put through enough. To go after him further is nothing more than a desire for ongoing punishment. Yet with our political leaders and their actions, the punishment is often low to zero. I have no problem with Julian Assange being freed, and I think the message is clear, if you do anything like Julian Assange has been accused of, don't expect to get off lightly. You'll face punishment in a range of ways, shapes and formats.