| We have a man who is wanted for questioning relating to sexual offences and is actively trying to escape the charges. In any normal situation, we would all say that he should go and face the courts and if guilty do the time. Pro-Assange people claim that he should not face the courts on the grounds that this will be used to extradite him to the US. These same people are saying that someone who may be guilty of a crime in Sweden are saying that the law shouldn't apply to him. The law is not an end, it's a means to achieve Justice. If we fear that justice is more threatened by his extradition, it makes perfect sense to support the decision not to extradite him. As John Adams wrote, "It is more important that innocence be protected than it is that guilt be punished, for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world that they cannot all be punished. But if innocence itself is brought to the bar and condemned, perhaps to die, then the citizen will say, "whether I do good or whether I do evil is immaterial, for innocence itself is no protection," and if such an idea as that were to take hold in the mind of the citizen that would be the end of security whatsoever." * Again, pro-Assange people claim that the law should not apply to him, that he was doing a good thing by exposing the redacted information, but are strangely silent on the fact that he posted the whole thing online and put these lives in potential danger.* Assange is not an US citizen nor was he in the US. Exactly what law prohibited him from publishing that information? I find it interesting that people can suspend their views of justice based on the allegations of political meddling. Or maybe they just disagree with you on what is actually justice, or how it can be better protected. |