Now back to the subject.

This case is a controversial one. It questions the
concepts of ethics, justice, and what governments
should and shouldn't do.

Questions have been raised
about our own military's behaviour in Afghanistan.

People question whether Assange is a campaigner for
the truth, or an attention seeker.

Assange has spent 7 years in self-exile inside a
foreign embassy and 5 years in prison. His health
has deteriorated. He's been indicted for receiving,
possessing, and communicating information to the
public of evidence of war crimes committed by the
US government.

Many claim that reporting crimes should not be a crime.

However where do we draw the line? What if the
publishing of information creates a risk to a
country's intelligence sources - in countries like
Afghanistan and Iraq?

Australian MPs have voted to bring Assange home.

What would it achieve to have him brought to trial in the
US? Can we condemn a journalist for publishing
government behaviour - not matter how unpleasant it may be?
Are we then in a position to be able judge any other government's
behaviour. For example - that of totalitarian regimes?

"Commentators have asked the valid question as to why the media outlets who published Assange's material - outlets like, The New York Times, The Guardian, Der Spiegel, are not also being pursued?"

If that's true, these 'commentators' are idiots.

As I've explained previously (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=21781#382159) the charges against Assange aren't about the publishing of the stolen data but that he encouraged espionage and/or instigated espionage and/or actually took part in espionage. If he merely received the stolen data from Bradley Manning (who now likes to pretend he's a shiela named Chelsea)and published it there would never have been a problem.

But it is alleged, he did much more than just publish as above. The charge is that he had some part in the theft by Manning. That's the crime he faces.

Again, publishing it isn't a crime. Participating in the theft is, it is alleged, a crime. Assange knows this, which is why he's spent half his life trying to avoid the consequences of his actions, just as he tried, and succeeded, in avoiding the consequences of the rapes he's alleged to have committed.

Some more food for thought.

The Guardian, and other media outlets tell us that
a free press still matters.

They point out that journalists often depend on
whistleblowers and the relationship between them
is important in cases where national security is
involved. In the Assange case where the superpower
of the US is involved - the stakes are especially
huge.

I'm having difficulty with the question - should
the national security of a global superpower
like the US over ride the public interest's right
to know?

What I find difficult to accept is - if the case
against Assange succeeds, investigative reporting based
on classified information will be done away with.
Shouldn't freedom of the press be allowed to remain
indifferent? If it doesn't - then we're not any better
than totalitarian regimes. Where the acceptable
information is thoroughly filtered by their governments.

Hi mhaze,
I don't think he did any of those things, he was stiched up.
Indeed as far as all his earlier wikileaks releases were concerned, Obama already decided not to pursue further charges against him.

All that changed when he helped Trump win the election, releasing the Podesta emails a month before the 2016 election as well as the ire of the CIA in releasing their Vault 7 cyber tools, as well as the wrath of Hillary Clinton and all those scum who made up lies about him and were spying on his election campaign.

Podesta emails, probably came from Seth Rich.
It was an internal leak, not an external hack (by Russians)

Assange may have released those Vault 7 hacking tools to show that when the US was blaming Russia, they actually had the tools to deceive computer forensics and blame it on Russia when they were doing it themselves and framing Russia.

You forget he helped put your man in the Whitehouse, Trump should've pardoned him on his first day in office.

NBC News reported ages ago that there was no collusion
between Bradley Manning and Julian Assange according to
military sources.

US investigators have been unable to find evidence directly
linking Assange and Bradley Manning.

http://theguardian.com/world/richard-adams-blog.2011/jan/25/bradley-manning-julian-assange-wikileaks

Swedish authorities dropped the investigation into the
rape allegations against Assange back in 2010. "The evidence had weakened to such an extent that there was no longer any reason
to continue the investigation."

Assange had denied the allegations saying the sex was consensual.
One of the women involved had taken back her claims.

Now back to the topic.

My apologies for the typo.

Here's the link again:

http://theguardian.com/world/richard-adams-blog/2011/jan/25/bradley-manning-julian-assange-wikileaks