[ihasa]

To be fair on Pickles he was only responding to Les's comment about Aussie support being 'a given', top of page.

[les3547]

Disgusting behaviour by both the UK and the US. Revenge not justice is the agenda here.

It is the point of thread, as you say. If the US is out for revenge and if Assange didn't really rape or endanger a woman, then I hope Assange finds peace in Ecuador. However . . .

But Wikileaks is a conduit for information, not an editing house. . . . On the whole, the disclosures which the press have discovered among all the terabytes of data have overwhelmingly been a good thing. If some sections of the press decide to run with embarrassing personal comments about foreign leaders that's their own lookout, but the bruising of a few egos is a small price to pay for shedding light on the often shameful ways of our governments (and military).

. . . getting back to my off-topic point, I don't think Wikileaks behaved as a heroic conduit of information in this case. Assange seems to have taken over Wikileads in a dictatorial manner, deciding unilaterally the US documents should all be published. The "small price" you say is warranted by his actions does not seem to apply to this leak, which seems malicious to me, and only meant to embarrass. If we are going to expose corruption, why not limit leaks to that sort of information? Why the arrogance to think it's okay to expose all of a nation's confidential communications? If Assange does something heroic, we should support that no matter whose feathers it ruffles; but when he uses his position to glorify himself, then we should call him on that too. This leak was unworthy of Wikileaks. Another opinion:

Why do the Left worship the WikiLeaks 'God'?


I caused a minor stir on the internet when I announced last week that I was giving up blogging.

Over the past five years I, along with thousands of other bloggers, have played a small part in holding the mainstream media and politicians to account. I’ve tried to encourage public authorities to be more transparent and open about what they do, and often caused them a few headaches when they’ve refused. So you might think I would be a cheerleader for WikiLeaks boss Julian Assange and his self-styled mission to expose what goes on at the heart of government.

You’d be wrong. Far from being a 21st Century hero, I have come to regard Assange as a dictatorial charlatan whose real agenda is not the furtherance of greater transparency, but the furtherance of Julian Assange and his anti-American agenda. His ego seems to be without equal and he’s now reached the dangerous point of believing his own publicity. So much so that some of his staunchest supporters, such as the Guardian journalist Nick Davies, have cut off contact with him.

WikiLeaks started off as a noble cause. It sought to shine light into the nooks and crannies of public life which had up until now remained closed off to us mere mortals. Whistleblowing is often uncomfortable, yet WikiLeaks provided a forum for the powerful to be brought to book. In journalistic terms, there was a point to it, as their work on scientology and the Trafigura scandal concerning the dumping of toxic waste in Africa showed.

But its ethics and operations are now coming under serious scrutiny, and rightly so. Whenever anyone – journalist, or otherwise – reveals confidential information there has to be a point to it. By releasing three million random documents, illegally obtained from U.S. government computers, WikiLeaks put paid to its reputation in one fell swoop.

Had Assange and his cohorts sorted through the documents and filtered out those with a genuine public interest, he could have been seen as a modern-day hero. But he released everything in the name of so-called transparency. He did it because he could – the prerogative of every dictator in history.

. . . . In the WikiLeaks case, lives and national security have been put at risk. But we shouldn’t be surprised. Assange proved he was out of control in August when he demanded $700,000 from Amnesty International which had politely asked him to ensure WikiLeaks did not publish names of Afghan civilians who might then be targeted by the Taliban. Some called it blackmail.

It is, I suppose, possible to argue that every piece of government information should be made publicly available, but anyone who really believes that hasn’t given a thought to the anarchic consequences which would follow. Surely national security, at the very least, has to be a consideration?

Julian Assange purports to believe in total openness – except when it comes to himself. He delights in asking politicians what they have got to hide. We might ask Mr Assange the same. There is little in this issue that is about high principle. It is about political motivation and one man’s desire to be treated as a demi-god. Assange is not a terrorist, as the increasingly ridiculous Sarah Palin suggests. But he is a narcissist and would-be demagogue.

Read more at ONTD Political: ONTD_Political - Why do the Left worship the WikiLeaks 'God'?

[Clavius]

Whenever anyone – journalist, or otherwise – reveals confidential information there has to be a point to it.

The trutch itself is the point.

[GeneV]

This just in!

"The US, meanwhile, has said it "does not recognise the concept of diplomatic asylum as a matter of international law"." Read that again. Then again. Now weep; it's all that's left to you.

BBC News - Julian Assange: UK wants 'amicable solution'

The U.S. is not a party to the OAS treaty regarding "diplomatic asylum" and this is a very dubious application of that concept as a general matter of international law. BBC News - Q&A: Julian Assange and asylum Some would weep if this flies. You are charged with rape by one country, you are afraid that the country charging you with rape will extradite you to a third country which might seek to press other charges, and so a fourth, country invites you to stay there.

[GeneV]

Nope, I said it's just not very plausible that the 'lady' is telling the truth. And not only for that reason, but for a number of reasons.

- Her stature would have allowed her to fight off Assange easily.
- She escorted him happily AFTER the 'rape'.
- She only claimed rape after Assange's Wikileaks leakages.

Rape is very unlickely. The motives for making up a story about rape is clear and plausible.

And that is for a court or extradition tribunal to decide. Courts hear what live witnesses say and evaluate them. That is a far cry from making conclusions from what one reads on the internet.

[GeneV]

Does anyone here remeber David Hicks and the disgraceful treatment he got at the hands of our 'great and true friends'?

Hicks did better than John Walker Lindh, so it is not like the U.S. favors its own citizens. Hicks was captured by a local faction fighting in Afghanistan and sold to a foreign faction fighting in that country. That is absolutely not how extradition works. The process involved here is. Drawing conclusions about how a formal, public, constitutional process will work based upon what happens to suspected combatants in a war zone is a huge stretch.

I am equally offended by how prisoners taken in that war were treated, and I am not in agreement with those wars themselves. However, that says nothing whatsoever about the justice system. The problem in that case was that Mr. Hicks was NOT handled through the process of the international or U.S. justice systems.

[GeneV]

The trutch itself is the point.

Have you ever been asked "Does this make me look fat?"

[pickles]

Well done. You quite clearly missed the entire point of the thread. It's not about him but about the process, or distortion of.

Disgusting behaviour by both the UK and the US. Revenge not justice is the agenda here.

No mate...You've missed the point..not me.
The "point"..... is that this guy has been charged with various offenses, & he should, like anyone else, be "facing the music", and not "hiding", in a Foreign Embassy.
Cheers, Pickles.

[bossa]

No mate...You've missed the point..not me.
The "point"..... is that this guy has been charged with various offenses, & he should, like anyone else, be "facing the music", and not "hiding", in a Foreign Embassy.
Cheers, Pickles.

Assange has NOT been charged with anything. You're clueless.

[SteveM]

And that is for a court or extradition tribunal to decide.

You don't truly...inside..believe that do you? I think about the stake for those involved. There is a lot to justify the means....not that I am defending it in any way, and not that I am defending sexually inappropriate behavior if it happened. One has to be realistic......the sex charges are simply too convenient....too easy. There is too much at stake to it all to be boiled down to be this simplistic. Doesn't matter if you read it on the internet, in a paper or if you are the lawyers involved.

[bossa]

You don't truly...inside..believe that do you? I think about the stake for those involved. There is a lot to justify the means....not that I am defending it in any way, and not that I am defending sexually inappropriate behavior if it happened. One has to be realistic......the sex charges are simply too convenient....too easy. There is too much at stake to it all to be boiled down to be this simplistic. Doesn't matter if you read it on the internet, in a paper or if you are the lawyers involved.

There are no sex charges. He is only, ostensibly, wanted for questioning which, many believe, is likely to evolve into charges or extradition to the USA. I believe it's a setup to get him to the USA.

[SteveM]

There are no sex charges. He is only, ostensibly, wanted for questioning which, many believe, is likely to evolve into charges or extradition to the USA. I believe it's a setup to get him to the USA.

I agree. Questioning?.....process?....given the gravity of the situation, this is highly naive, or at least wishful thinking, in wanting to believe that out societal structures would stand ground in such high stakes.

[Clavius]

Have you ever been asked "Does this make me look fat?"

Yes, lots of times. It took me a while to find someone who actually appreciates that honesty.

[Frogfish]

No mate...You've missed the point..not me.
The "point"..... is that this guy has been charged with various offenses, & he should, like anyone else, be "facing the music", and not "hiding", in a Foreign Embassy.
Cheers, Pickles.

You are on a different page .. I suggest you study the facts and then read back through the thread.

[pickles]

Assange has NOT been charged with anything. You're clueless.

Doesn't change a thing..You know that as well as I do, and that is....He would be...if he wasn't hiding....or maybe you've received more information than most of the World press. And if he wasn't worried about being charged, why is he hiding......ah, ok......I guess you'll say, & refer to, some form of "conspiracy" by the U.S. & Britain....yeah right.
Cheers, Pickles