David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 8/21/2010 2:04 PM DGDevin spake thus:

Approval of someone's politics shouldn't make us assume that any
charge against that person must be false. Assange isn't exactly a
saint; although hackers might think of themselves as folk heroes
even when they're breaking the law. But he gets the same
presumption of innocence as anyone, and since the charges have been
withdrawn he gets the benefit of the doubt.

Just curious what you know about Assange that makes you say he's "not
exactly a saint". I ask out of ignorance, as I don't know much about
the guy; I'm planning on doing some research online but haven't done
so yet.
I do consider him a hero for what he's done. This doesn't mean, of
course, that he doesn't have flaws or imperfections, as you alluded
to. But to me it's the important things that people do, not the
picayune human foibles they may be subject to, that matter in the end.

It's goals vs. process. In the main, liberals are after the results -
methods be damned, "the end justifies the means" type of thinking.
Conservatives look first at the method, "no good can come from an immoral
act."

To liberals, ending the war is the goal (for reasons passing understanding),
so the loss of a few lives is irrelevant.