> Not only were his communication constantly monitored for years, already a breach of client attorney privilege, the US considered flagrant assassination as a potential way to handle him.
Not sure how OP could be more clearer
Not sure how OP could be more clearer
Did they try? The US also "considers" invading Canada. Consideration means nothing. And the US monitors people suspected of crimes all of the time. I'm tired of hearing about hypothetical "unfair" trials.
Once again, the alternative you guys seem to want is a world where people that you like can do whatever they want. You like Assange and because of his celebrity status no trial can be fair- very convenient. Nobody famous has ever stood trial?
My 2 cents
Even when they have a warrant allowing them to monitor a suspect, which they do not seem to have acquired here, those do not allow the breaking of attorney–client privilege.
My "alternative" is that the US obeys the limits placed on them, and conducts fair trials of alleged criminals.
And again, I don't like Assange. What I like is the right to a free press and a fair trial.
If you caught a policeman planning to shoot an innocent African American, or if a neo-nazi was found to be planning to blow up a synagogue, would you not suggest taking legal action?
If I planned to kill someone just like the us govt did, I would be in prison the next day.
Assange should be given a fair trial. But the government spying illegally and planning to kill him doesn't give anyone confidence in that.
Planning to kill him is terrible, but was the spying actually illegal? With all the permissions the government has on spying, I have such a hard time determining if any single instance of spying is illegal or not, regardless of whether it's ethical.
Also "illegal" may not be the right term. Similar actions by intelligence operatives led to the Ellsberg case being dropped, but no charges were filed as a result of those actions.