[ExI] pussy riot case

[Mirco Romanato]

Il 22/08/2012 00:13, Kelly Anderson ha scritto:

> Assange himself is not guilty of treason in the sense that he has not
> personally committed an offense against the country of his birth.
> Nevertheless, he is guilty of promoting and enabling treason.

The problem of Assange is he is not part of any recognized "Family" or 
government. If he was, he would not be prosecuted or persecuted in this 
way. But governments can not allow the same degree of license to common 
people.

> He may be free under US law as I understand it to do what he is doing.
> I hope so. But with freedom comes a certain amount of responsibility.
> He has not exercised that, IMHO.

My opinion is different.
Assange have no responsibility to the US government.
If the US government believe Assange is an enemy of the US they could 
declare him such and deal with him like they deal with enemy combatants. 
At least they could be honest about it (rare merchandise in this day).

Instead, the US government (and a few others) extend its jurisdiction 
outside the US borders and the US citizens, as they wish.
Assange is an example, Kim Dotcom another and probably there are a lot 
more less famous.
It is not different from what Khomeini did when he declared his fatwa 
against Rushdie, even if Rushdie never when in Iran and never published 
anything in Iran.

> The charge against Assange isn't so much "playing with people's
> lives", but making all of civilization less safe by outing secrets
> that might well be more safely kept behind closed doors.

The point is Assange never had any duty to keep US secrets secret.
He never was subjected to US laws.

If the US want its secret stay secret, I would suggest to select better 
people to guard them. I have no problem with the US government punishing 
Manning (he broke a contract he freely entered).

The "making all of civilization less safe" is simply an opinion. 
Personal and respectable, but have no weight. Probably Assange have a 
different opinion.

> I don't have sides. But if privacy is guaranteed to individuals, then
> why not to some extent extend the same privilege to corporations and
> to governments.

Privacy is a personal right - "let me be alone".
Corporations and governments have not a right to "privacy" because they 
exist to mind others business. Corporations don't want be alone, because 
they want sell stuff and services to others. Government are in the 
business of extortion and regulation someone else lives. They never want 
be alone from you. They want be alone with you.

Mirco