> I think he did what is alleged

‘Think’ is the operative word here. Assange would not have had a jury trial if extradited without the plea deal, and for a jury trial, mere opinion isn’t enough to convict

Well yes, the fact that he was held without trial for a long time is worse than the fact he did a plea deal.

But certainly a causal factor in a plea deal being reached. Without the extended incarceration (and the threat of prolonging it) there would have been little leverage to get Julian to sign the dotted line.

Given that he was released with time served, I don't think US prosecutors gained much from allowing him to plea. What is the motivation for them to pressure him to do so when they are not seeking any additional outcome?

He is now a convicted felon. The US can avoid further diplomatic damage with one of its military and economic allies while still securing legitimacy for their protracted judicial overreach (across continents no less) and deterring whistleblowers in the future. In exchange, Julian gets to leave his shoebox.

This is totally symbolic. There's no practical downside to him being a felon in the US and a free man in Australia.

> totally symbolic

Err, yep. An effective symbol in all the ways I mentioned. Namely:

> securing legitimacy for their protracted judicial overreach

and

> deterring whistleblowers in the future

all while

> [avoiding] further diplomatic damage with one of its military and economic allies

Mission accomplished for the US "national security interest".

You are fear mongering for the first two, and the damage for the third was already done a long time ago, would not be undone even with a full pardon.

I'll be very honest. You have a bias. You will fit everything to that bias. You don't care about how the legal system works, or that the plea deal was a great deal for him compared to what they could have pursued. Note that when they got that guilty plea on ONE CHARGE which is inconsequential for him, they dropped a lot of other stuff.

> You are fear mongering for the first two

You're kidding right? This has had a chilling effect on journalists and whistleblowers worldwide. A large part of Julian's support base are journalists, including many of those that won awards from the published leaks that got him in trouble.

Blow the whistle, and then maybe be in solitary for 5 years? An agent from a three letter agency shows up in the middle of your investigation, and reminds you about your life, family, and friends, and what it might be like to not see them for a very long time. Or maybe just don't blow the whistle.

> You don't care about how [...] the plea deal was a great deal for him compared to what they could have pursued

Not sure where you got that idea. As you imply, it's not anywhere near as bad as, say, Julian had been locked up in supermax until he died, but I think 5 years in solitary has secured enough deterrence. And the conviction is the veneer of justification that the US needs to avoid admonition for blatant and prejudiced torture, while enabling them to cease the ongoing diplomatic hassle (and negative press).

> I'll be very honest. You have a bias.

I'll be very honest. You have a bias. /s

Actually, being honest, I don't even know that you do. But believing it doesn't make it true, and saying it here doesn't really further the discussion.

I'll leave you to have the last word

Isn't that the definition of a jury trial? That the opinion of the jury decides whether or not the defendant is convicted?

Yes, 'decide' based on evidence not 'opine'. The jury is properly instructed to only assess the facts of the case as presented by the defense and prosecution. There's some wiggle room as to what a 'reasonable person' might consider to be plausible, but ultimately juries will only convict if they can unanimously agree that the defendant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. This is clearly distinguishable from opinions of the public, or a potentially biased panel of judges in a military court.

The thing is, I'm not on any jury, and I'm expressing my opinion. I never claimed to be a juror, judge, or anything. I'm saying it's my personal opinion that his case is different from the many people I've read about who were railroaded by the criminal justice system, pressured to plea guilty and serve time. Typically those look very different from an espionage act case or compromised government emails, or whistleblower-like scenarios, or questions of press freedom, whatever. Often it looks more like some African American dude you've never heard of being wrongfully accused of a violent crime or drug offense.

> Typically those look very different from an espionage act case [...] Often it looks more like some African American dude you've never heard of being wrongfully accused of a violent crime or drug offense on flimsy evidence.

I suppose? There's maybe some qualitative distinction to be made. But essentially I'd say that Assange was:

> railroaded by the criminal justice system, pressured to plead guilty and serve time.

Though time already served was factored into the sentencing. The pressure to plead guilty was the prospect of dying in solitary confinement.

I mean, this isn’t a jury trial, it’s a forum discussion, and opinions about current events are legitimate. If not, we should delete the entire thread.

Not quite what I meant. GP was suggesting Assange's just desert. My counter to that, is that it couldn't be known if it was just for Assange to be forced into a plea bargain using extended incarceration as leverage, as Assange would not have been assessed by an properly instructed jury, which is the best (least worst) way we have of knowing if someone is guilty beyond reasonable doubt and in absence of bias that a military court might have.

> If not, we should delete the entire thread

TBF, I don't think 'I think Assange is guilty/not guilty' without any factual backup is really a worthwhile contribution to the discussion.