Swedish Judges Says Assange Allegations 'A Mess'

[JDPriestly]

17. K&R

Because how in the world do you prove that a woman did not give consent to sex without a condom unless you rely on hearsay evidence. Two witnesses may be enough in some cases, but when the two witnesses were corresponding on the internet before bringing their charges and when their other evidence, physical evidence is lacking? It might be worth a try if you don't have to extradite the defendant.

But there is something very suspicious about the fact that Sweden was trying to extradite a potential defendant on so little evidence.

Now there may have been some really strong evidence that I cannot picture, but what in the world it could be, I do not know. I think that if better evidence than belated hearsay had existed, the press would have found out about it by now. That is because the attempted extradition of Assange was so controversial.

And, how are we to prevent our governments from committing war crimes, atrocities and other international crimes, if those who know about the crimes and evil dare not speak out?

Think of it. What if the USSR had successfully silenced Solzhenitzyn? Would we now know about the horrors of the gulags?

Whistleblowers deserve our support.

If Manning spoke up out of conscience, his sentence, if any, should be very light.

It is easy to punish the whistleblower for breaches of national security, but who punishes the war criminals themselves? The only punishment they ever get is that others learn the truth about their cruelty.