WikiLeaks and Julian Assange

[Pumbaa]

After the level of debate on the student riots thread, which I found to be suprising, I was wondering what are the boards views on Assange and WikiLeaks?

It is my personal opinion that the release of the cables, as well as the war logs, were in the public interest, and that modern 'democratic' governments need an independent media to hold them to account if they fail to do so themselves. The people persecuting Assange and calling for his head fail to do so for the people who have committed the crimes etc in the first place. It seems to me to be unjust to champion the freedom of speech and lack of censorship, then go and pressure corporations to severe links and limit the actions of the organisation, then persecute Assange and try and censure the contents.

Thoughts?

 

[Dai.]

All I'm going to say is I'm ashamed of the government.

 

[scotsman]

He's taking it too far, but the Governments response is shameful. It's so convenient how these rape charges appeared the day after his first leak.

Jingoism and intolerance are in the air.

 

[Aussie_Rail]

Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Foreign Affairs Minister Kevin Rudd should be doing more to help him and provide him better consular assistance, after all he is an Australian citizen and being locked up in the way he has surely isn't right when he went to them in the first place.

Julian Assange should not be subject of a witch hunt, especially by the Americans when its entirely their own fault. No one would be seeing things if they didn't better look after their own matarial.

And from what we have seen, all these leaks have done is humililate, partiularly the Americans and have shown us just how arroagant and at time thick they are.

What concerns me is, that he's being held by UK authorities while the Americans scramble to come up with a legitimate excuse to have him extradited to the U.S, surely that cannot be aloud, if this proves to be the case.

 

[mumrar]

Well, firstly the charges. These are old charges that were dismissed from prosecution by Sweden's chief prosecuter some time ago. They have resurfaced since a Swedish politician, also a lawyer, brought the case for the plaintiffs. He is accused of, I believe, 3 sexual assaults and 1 rape on the charge list. He surrendered himself to police, along with his passport which means he can't travel, and bail in the region of £180,000 was posted. This must surely be the most ridiculous case of bail refusal, and I'm afraid an indication that the UK is playing lap dog to the US once again.

As for the leaks website and it's content, the strong Western nations rely on a web of deep secrets and subterfuge in order to appear whiter than white. This is what permits the US in particular to think it can go around the globe telling countries that are 50 times plus older than itself what to do.
I firmly believe that what the leaked documents have contained regarding US, UK and Iraqi forces conduct is far more important than how the information got there. Make no mistake, we are possibly going to be led on a rrcoaster ride by the media who will be manipulated by the government as required. All in the name of similar secrets about ourselves, which the US has no doubt threatened to make public, about events where the US have already been sounded out by Wikileaks.

What happens with this case of the following few weeks is going to have larger repurcussions on the way information is held, used and controlled by governments. So called developed nations are the very best at hypocrisy, and it's the ability to hide and control information that allows it. How else do you think we can wander the ld telling everyone they aren't allowed anything nuclear in case they make weapons, whilst being able to call on the very same weapons ourselves?

 

[Ferret]

After the level of debate on the student riots thread, which I found to be suprising, I was wondering what are the boards views on Assange and WikiLeaks?

It is my personal opinion that the release of the cables, as well as the war logs, were in the public interest, and that modern 'democratic' governments need an independent media to hold them to account if they fail to do so themselves. The people persecuting Assange and calling for his head fail to do so for the people who have committed the crimes etc in the first place. It seems to me to be unjust to champion the freedom of speech and lack of censorship, then go and pressure corporations to severe links and limit the actions of the organisation, then persecute Assange and try and censure the contents.

Thoughts?

Why did you find the amount of debate about the students and their rioting surprising?! Alas, not everybody out there is totally left wing, whatever people at Universities say

As for Assange, it all appears very convenient doesn't it! Doubtless he'll pay a heavy price for upsetting the Americans but it's certainly opened a few eyes. It also raises a wider issue about just how secure Government databases are, and whether any Government will ever be able to propose that ID cards are a good idea again.

 

[Oswyntail]

... This must surely be the most ridiculous case of bail refusal, and I'm afraid an indication that the UK is playing lap dog to the US once again....

This may well be the case, but, unfortunately, because of the nature of the accusations, bail refusal is the only correct path. If you consider the charges in isolation, without the Wikileaks environment, you would not object - in fact, most people would wonder why bail was considered.
That said, I am inclined to believe in the conspiracy theories. The US (and its allies, including the UK) do not always follow the rules, but what they like least of all is to be embarrassed. There is actually very little that is new, certainly nothing that is new and shocking, in the leaks, but they have reinforced an image of the USA that is not palatable. And now the USA is on its high horse, they cannot be seen to back down. Personally, I have faith in the Swedish authorities.
Much more shocking is the case of the autistic man being extradited for "hacking" the Pentagon. Much the same response to "embarrassment", but the UK is playing along.

 

[LE Greys]

I often think it is a bit self-defeating anyway. The US government might respect someone who stands up for themselves rather than someone who gives in all the time. We are supposed to be their allies, not their servants, and allies sometimes have to tell people they are working with where to get off. Tricky to do while still remaining on their side, but it would be better than this.

As for the charges, they do seem awfully "convenient". Not quite as convenient as the suicide of Dr Kelly when he was embarrassing the government over the Iraq War dossier, but still very convenient. That's as far as I go.

 

[Mojo]

What concerns me is, that he's being held by UK authorities while the Americans scramble to come up with a legitimate excuse to have him extradited to the U.S, surely that cannot be aloud, if this proves to be the case.

This isn't the case. He was arrested pending possible extradition to Sweden. The USA might try and issue their own warrant soon, but that is not the reason he is currently being held, as that is not allowed.

 

[GB]

because of the nature of the accusations, bail refusal is the only correct path

Why it the correct path? Accusations are just accusations untill proven otherwise. Unless there is a real danger to the public or exceptional circumstamces then bail seems only right to me. Given that he voluntarily handed himself in and gave up his passport, and that fact that these seem to be old allegations, I'm struggling to see where the risk is.

 

[Aussie_Rail]

This isn't the case. He was arrested pending possible extradition to Sweden. The USA might try and issue their own warrant soon, but that is not the reason he is currently being held, as that is not allowed.

Yes, there was mention that the U.S.A might try lodge a request from Sweeden if he does go to trial there to take him once the Sweeds were finished with him.

 

[mumrar]

This may well be the case, but, unfortunately, because of the nature of the accusations, bail refusal is the only correct path.

Are you telling me that you're of the belief that bail is refused for anyone accused of sexual offences or rape? Whilst I can't bring up any statistical fact, I know from reading about cases in the paper that very often bail with conditions are granted, and I'm sure that most of these people are not able to wager up close to a quarter of a miion pounds as security for the bail either.

This is why it is clearly bollocks. When questions were asked before the bail hearing, their was no expectation from anyone, least of all Assange's barrister, that bail would be refused.

 

[starrymarkb]

This may well be the case, but, unfortunately, because of the nature of the accusations, bail refusal is the only correct path. If you consider the charges in isolation, without the Wikileaks environment, you would not object - in fact, most people would wonder why bail was considered.
That said, I am inclined to believe in the conspiracy theories. The US (and its allies, including the UK) do not always follow the rules, but what they like least of all is to be embarrassed. There is actually very little that is new, certainly nothing that is new and shocking, in the leaks, but they have reinforced an image of the USA that is not palatable. And now the USA is on its high horse, they cannot be seen to back down. Personally, I have faith in the Swedish authorities.
Much more shocking is the case of the autistic man being extradited for "hacking" the Pentagon. Much the same response to "embarrassment", but the UK is playing along.

Wasn't a murderer who was facing extradition in the same week granted bail?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I wasn't in court to hear for myself, but I can inform you that the general principle behind a decision to refuse bail is that such a decision is made after hearing representations from the Prosecuting Counsel, and only partially would it be influenced by the severity of the alledged offence.
In this case, I understand that it was largely the argument that he was at risk of failing to attend the Court for trial (and we can probably assume that the prosecution believed that there was a risk of him leaving the UK, one way or another).

Anyway, that decision was Appealled in his favour and he was, today, granted bail.
However, the counter-arguments against today's decision will be heard on Thursday or Friday of this week and those arguments by the Sweedish Counsel may, of course, reverse that decision. So he's still in jail until that time, at least.

His trial is listed for 11th January.

Reuters story here

 

[2561Minoru]

All I'm going to say is I'm ashamed of the government.

I agree with you on that one, though he should not have really done it anyways