Is Assange on his way to the US?

[R1Geezer]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12564865
I think this whole things stinks, the septics are upset because he leaks stuff they don't like and the turnips are brown nosing.

[mightywease]

Great posts birdie1971 - you have I think encapsulated all the pertinent points in this case

[reefer]

Excellent post by birdie all the yanks want is to blacken his name and make him an outcast then he will dissappear over to America.
Strange how they did not want to prosecute him then the yanks get invovled and he now has a case to answer.

[rojash]

QM

I notice that you avoided mentioning the New York TImes in your reply - do you think they should be prosecuted as well.

It should also be pointed out that the stuff that WikiLeaks published was redacted to remove info that could endanger lives. The US were offered the opportunity to advise on, or carry out the redactions, but refused.

You also repeated your claim that lives were put at risk, despite the fact that the White House denies it.

[Quizmonster]

Rojash, I think that ANYONE who steals or uses material they KNOW to be stolen should be prosecuted, whether that material is my letters to my bank or the US military commanders' cables to the White House.
More to the point here - given that it IS regarding what the questioner asked - is my conviction...clearly shared by the judge whose verdict was pronounced yesterday...that Assange should be extradited to Sweden to face whatever charges have been laid against him there.

[birdie1971]

Quizmonster - “I'll take your bet Birdie...my penny to your pound, the loser to pay the amount involved to a charity of his/her choice.”

You're on!


You make some interesting observations. I would like to comment on a specific point though. You state that, “I think that ANYONE who steals or uses material they KNOW to be stolen should be prosecuted...”.

I'm sure you recall the MP's expenses scandal? Until the other day, I believed that the information that was published in the Telegraph and in other news outlets was obtained legitimately through Freedom Of Information requests. However, this isn't the case – the information was actually obtained 'illegally' (by someone who was actually employed by HM Government to censor certain aspects of MPs' accounts), placed on a CD and surreptitiously delivered to a news reporter. In fact, the UK Government still hasn't 'officially' published the unexpurgated accounts of all MPs. I'm going to flagrantly promote a book I've just read on precisely this matter – 'The Silent State' by Heather Brooke – essential reading if you're interested in how UK democracy operates.

[birdie1971]

Continued...

To me, the question of publication isn't about how the data has been obtained. It is about whether or not publishing the information is in the interest of the wider general public.

You clearly don't think that the recent Wikileaks information falls into this category. I disagree.

[Quizmonster]

Birdie, the following is extracted from my earlier post, timed at 0842 Fri 25th...
"And there are leaks and leaks. Some are clearly for the good of society as a whole and others not. For example, if BA were found to be skimping on their aircraft servicing programme, we’d all as potential passengers deserve to know that."
That surely makes it perfectly plain that I am in total agreement with you as regards what you call "the interest of the wider general public." Are you, then, telling me that every single one of the multi-thousands of documents Assange has published fits into that category of information?
Concerning your final sentence above, I'd say that only about 0.0001% of (quote) "the recent Wikileaks information falls into this category." Certainly, if a military atrocity had occurred, we ought to know, HOWEVER the information was obtained, but it is crystal clear to me that Assange's desire is to create the maximum of anti-Americanism he can as well as the maximum of self-aggrandisement and supposed potential 'martyrdom'.
Again, though, regarding the Swedish business, is it your contention that he deserves to get away scot-free, even if he IS guilty of what he is suspected of, for no reason other than the supposed American rendition/kidnap nonsense?
Don't forget, the minute he flies out of Sweden a free man - whether before or after a trial or before or after serving a sentence - your £1.00 is forfeit! Cheers

[birdie1971]

Of course I don't think that anyone who has committed a crime should get off scot-free. I never suggested that for one minute. I mealy wanted wanted to bring your (and others) attention the disparity of what is being reported in the mainstream media (ie. that he is wanted for a sexual assault or even a rape) and the reality – that the charge is effectively, the misuse of a condom.

When you hear of blatant lies being told in the mainstream media, I don't think it's naïve to assume that strings are being pulled by powerful individuals to discredit a person or organisation.

With regards to the public interest element of your argument, I do believe that it was in the public interest to publish the documents – on this point we'll have to agree to differ.

I hope I lose my pound. I really do.

[Quizmonster]

We need to leave it at that, Birdie, I guess. He may yet slither away on appeal, even within the British legal process, but I really hope he doesn't. I'll say no more on this thread and simply watch matters unfold. Cheers, again.