Quizzes & Puzzles5 mins ago
Is Assange on his way to the US?
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.
I think this whole things stinks, the septics are upset because he leaks stuff they don't like and the turnips are brown nosing.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by R1Geezer. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Indeed it would be easier fior the US to extradite him direct from here but I think there are difficulties in any case they would have against him (see link below).
So having him go to Sweden and face prosectution there, which if successful would remove him from society plus discredit him, or at least put a serious slur on his character, probably suits the US quite well.
It all seems rather fishy to me
http://www.bbc.co.uk/...ld-us-canada-11952817
So having him go to Sweden and face prosectution there, which if successful would remove him from society plus discredit him, or at least put a serious slur on his character, probably suits the US quite well.
It all seems rather fishy to me
http://www.bbc.co.uk/...ld-us-canada-11952817
Sweden has been a stopping point for illeagle rendition flights that the CIA have been up to.
This is a main reason why his lawyers think he's more likely to be extradited or even just kidnapped in Sweden.
Really QM - what charge do you think he should be banged up for?
Or are you one of these people who don't really think that due legal process is overrated?
This is a main reason why his lawyers think he's more likely to be extradited or even just kidnapped in Sweden.
Really QM - what charge do you think he should be banged up for?
Or are you one of these people who don't really think that due legal process is overrated?
don't know much about the actual charge but the real focus here is that he's pi55ed off the septics by publishing things that they'd rather were not published. The US has many baying for bl00d but I suspect if they personally looked at why, they'd not have an actual reason. Yes QM, you are unusually obtuse here, please explain!
Good grief! I find that Youngmafbog appears to be singing from the same hymn-sheet as I am!
You may not have noticed, Jake, but Assange has been accused of crimes in Sweden. Now, I don't know - and no more do YOU - whether he is guilty of those or not, but I do know that the only way to find out is for him to go there for questioniong and, if so decided by Sweden's legal authorities, tried for those.
Clearly, it is not I but you and your ilk who do not believe that due legal process should be followed in this situation. He has HAD due process here in the UK and now he should move on to Phase 2 in Sweden. Let him face the case the women have raised and - if found guilty - let him take the consequences. (I assume rape is an imprisonable offence in Sweden...though I do not assume he is guilty of it...and hence my use of the phrase, 'banged up'.) He must answer the accusations; it's as simple as that.
R1...Everything he publishes, regardless of consequences including even risk to others' lives, is STOLEN and yet, when he was remanded on bail, he had the gall to ask the judge to keep his bail address secret!
I do not share the idiotic view that Assange is some sort of messiah/martyr; as I said in an earlier thread on this topic, I think he's a very naughty boy!
You may not have noticed, Jake, but Assange has been accused of crimes in Sweden. Now, I don't know - and no more do YOU - whether he is guilty of those or not, but I do know that the only way to find out is for him to go there for questioniong and, if so decided by Sweden's legal authorities, tried for those.
Clearly, it is not I but you and your ilk who do not believe that due legal process should be followed in this situation. He has HAD due process here in the UK and now he should move on to Phase 2 in Sweden. Let him face the case the women have raised and - if found guilty - let him take the consequences. (I assume rape is an imprisonable offence in Sweden...though I do not assume he is guilty of it...and hence my use of the phrase, 'banged up'.) He must answer the accusations; it's as simple as that.
R1...Everything he publishes, regardless of consequences including even risk to others' lives, is STOLEN and yet, when he was remanded on bail, he had the gall to ask the judge to keep his bail address secret!
I do not share the idiotic view that Assange is some sort of messiah/martyr; as I said in an earlier thread on this topic, I think he's a very naughty boy!
QM wrote:
"Everything he publishes, regardless of consequences including even risk to others' lives, is STOLEN and yet, when he was remanded on bail, he had the gall to ask the judge to keep his bail address secret! "
Leaked information is the life-blood of investigative journalism. The New York Times published exactly the same information as WikiLeaks. The Telegraph published leaked information about MPs expenses.
How is it that you regard the WikiLeaks info as stolen, but not the Telegraph info, or that in the New York Times?
You may think that the leaked info endangered lives. Senior American Government, Military, and Intelligence spokespersons have said that it didn't.
"Everything he publishes, regardless of consequences including even risk to others' lives, is STOLEN and yet, when he was remanded on bail, he had the gall to ask the judge to keep his bail address secret! "
Leaked information is the life-blood of investigative journalism. The New York Times published exactly the same information as WikiLeaks. The Telegraph published leaked information about MPs expenses.
How is it that you regard the WikiLeaks info as stolen, but not the Telegraph info, or that in the New York Times?
You may think that the leaked info endangered lives. Senior American Government, Military, and Intelligence spokespersons have said that it didn't.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
Until about 50 years ago, a leak was almost universally seen as "a bad thing"...ie you didn't want one in your gas main or the hull of your boat. In the sense under consideration here, The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as (quote): "An improper or deliberate disclosure of information (eg for political purposes)." It was first used thus in Britain in the late 1950s.
As far as I am concerned, the former adjective...improper...accurately characterises huge swathes of Assange's activities. 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, but what did we gain from learning that ONE person - the US ambassador - thought Cameron and Osborne “shallow”? Most rational Brits thought that anyway and I don’t suppose anyone elsewhere in the world gave a good goldarn!
It is surely obvious that cables between embassies or military commanders and their governments are - or should be - as confidential as any correspondence between us as individuals and our bank managers, solicitors, priests or whomever. Their contents do not belong to anyone who illegally obtains them. It is still unclear whether Assange suborned the soldier who actually stole the material, but whatever the case he knew the information WAS stolen, since it clearly did not belong to that soldier.
If you leave your laptop on a train and I pick it up, am I entitled to publish anything I find to your detriment in correspondence on the hard drive? Of course I’m not and nor is Assange in his circumstances.
Whatever he has been accused of in Sweden, he ought to be made to answer to it there. That’s not just my opinion, it’s the opinion of the judge who pronounced upon his case yesterday. Take the matter up with him.
PS
As far as I am concerned, the former adjective...improper...accurately characterises huge swathes of Assange's activities. 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, but what did we gain from learning that ONE person - the US ambassador - thought Cameron and Osborne “shallow”? Most rational Brits thought that anyway and I don’t suppose anyone elsewhere in the world gave a good goldarn!
It is surely obvious that cables between embassies or military commanders and their governments are - or should be - as confidential as any correspondence between us as individuals and our bank managers, solicitors, priests or whomever. Their contents do not belong to anyone who illegally obtains them. It is still unclear whether Assange suborned the soldier who actually stole the material, but whatever the case he knew the information WAS stolen, since it clearly did not belong to that soldier.
If you leave your laptop on a train and I pick it up, am I entitled to publish anything I find to your detriment in correspondence on the hard drive? Of course I’m not and nor is Assange in his circumstances.
Whatever he has been accused of in Sweden, he ought to be made to answer to it there. That’s not just my opinion, it’s the opinion of the judge who pronounced upon his case yesterday. Take the matter up with him.
PS
Well I can put it no better than birdie, thanks and well done. QM OK the some of the material "leaked" is fatuous titbits for the media but some of it is important stuff, anyway it's not the content but the principle. Assange is only the vehicle, the leakers are others with access to the data. Assange has just put noses out of joint and will no doubt pay the price. I agree 100% with birdie, he'll find his way to a US jail and probably never be seen again, possibly even executed.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.