[dragonwriter]

> Authoritarians emphasise the fact he broke laws, everyone else appreciates the moral act.

It was an immoral act done as far as I can tell, for immoral purposes, which were successfully attained. That it was also illegal is why it can be punished rather than merely pointed to as the kind of thing that must be tolerated despite its immorality.

The argument has, however, been made that the law as it is prohibits some other acts that are not so immoral and it could not effectively address what Assange did without so doing, and so it should be narrowed (or treated as more narrow by the executive) so as to let Assange go free in order to not chill more legitimate acts. This is, IMO, a not entirely unreasonable argument that I can respect, though I am unconvinced by it as yet.

[dependenttypes]

> It was an immoral act done as far as I can tell, for immoral purposes

The immoral purpose of letting the people know of the crimes that the US army has committed?