[zarriak]

The warrant for his arrest has been revoked by Sweden and the Swedish prosecutor found he committed no crime. He is not expected to face the law as anyone else, the UK government has already committed crimes in deleting emails regarding him but nobody went to jail. The UN has also ruled that he is being held in arbitrary detention. The only time you get punished is when you go against the US empire. Who was punished for the murder of the two journalists in Baghdad? You only face the law when you are inconvenient.

Due to the embarrassment of the CIA w/r/t to the recent leaks the US government is going to try to prosecute a publisher of classified information for the first time ever.

[MatthewWilkes]

He has committed crimes in the UK that he is wanted for. The charges in Sweden were dropped for practical reasons, something the UK should also have done. It's a sunk cost fallacy, they've spent a huge amount of time and money trying to arrest him despite it not being practical.

[orcs]

To be fair I don't think deleting emails in accordance with their procedures is a crime. And that being the case why would anyone go to jail?

[boomboomsubban]

There is no reason to expect their procedures are legal, this thread is an example of government procedure shown to be illegal.

[orcs]

And also no reason to expect their procedures to be illegal either. True enough about the surveillance, but the two things aren't connected, just because one procedure was illegal doesn't make all government procedures illegal.

[boomboomsubban]

>And also no reason to expect their procedures to be illegal either

Being illegal would be a good reason for going to jail, which is the question you asked.

[orcs]

But they're not illegal so the point is moot. Also illegality does not mean jail. The severity of an illegal action dictates that.

[boomboomsubban]

>But they're not illegal so the point is moot

They aren't? We both agreed that procedure could be a illegal, what reason do you have to assume this procedure is legal?