So your argument is that he should be presumed guilty until proven innocent?
Assange to go!
- Thread starter Hitman_Leon
- Start date
Caporegime
He doesn't deny having done any of this.
Can you show me where he admitted to it?
Soldato
Yes in his plea of guilty.
Soldato
No my argument is he should have had his day in court and the US should have made their case before a jury, sovidence and witnesses and all that stuff. But he didn’t, he hid in the UK
Imo I think he did it. He got arrogant and thought he was above to law and so broke it and worked with Chelsea Manning to break the password. Play stupid games…..
A coerced guilty plea isn't an admission, it's a false confession. Is there any admission other than a coerced plea deal?
From what I understand, Manning only sent part of a password hash and didn't say where it was from, so if Assange had attempted to crack the password then it would've been a failed attempt and he wouldn't have known what the password was for. Manning already had legitimate access to all of the databases from which she downloaded data, logging into another user account using a cracked password wouldn't have provided her with more access than she already possessed. Furthermore, the US government had no clear evidence that Assange was the person behind the 'Nathaniel Frank' username who Manning was communicating with.
It's possible the US government just wanted to make an example out of him for daring to expose US war crimes, and that the computer hacking allegations had no real merit. I have no idea if he was innocent or guilty, but obviously a lot of people are biased because they don't agree with what he did.
Soldato
You realise that using a password that doesn’t belong to you is illegal right? If someone who worked in UK intelligence asked you to help crack a password do you think that would be legal or illegal? Just the effort regardless of whether or not it was successful makes you guilty of conspiracy.
As I understand it Manning didn't say what the password was for, so Assange (if he was Nathaniel Frank) might've assumed it was Manning's own password that she had forgotten.
Last edited:
Associate
Lolol
Y'right there Stella?
Soldato
So a person working in US intelligence who says they can get top secret docs for you asks for help with password and you think.... well it could be something completely innocent
The old line about having a bridge to sell you comes to mind if you are that naive.He broke the law and managed to avoid answering for it in court for years and has now entered a guilty plea of his own free will to avoid jail.
In your head he is innocent and been a victim of coercion and nothing is going to change that opinion so this is kind of pointless.
In my head he's a POS that worked with Russia to get Trump elected in 2016 and any pretence that he was politically neutral ended right there. Now Australia is stuck with him as many countries won't let in a convicted felon, including us thankfully.
Last edited:
Even if you assume he knew Manning didn't have permission to try and crack the password, you've ignored the fact that the US didn't show any clear evidence proving that Nathaniel Frank was Julian Assange.So a person working in US intelligence who says they can get top secret docs for you asks for help with password and you think.... well it could be something completely innocent
The guilty plea was certainly coerced, but whether he is innocent or not I don't know. If you look at the evidence objectively then it does look somewhat flimsy on the face of it. The hacking allegations come down to a few offhand remarks by an unknown person in a short discussion about password cracking, which was proven did not occur because Manning didn't send all the information required to crack it.