20 Dec 10
Originally posted by sh76Your "whole point" is that someone accused of a criminal offense was unwilling to make public comments regarding the accusers?
And nothing. Why does there have to be an and? That was my whole point.
Any criminal lawyer would strongly advise his client not to do so. And any client who didn't follow such advice would be a fool.
20 Dec 10
3 edits
Originally posted by sh76It's a bit trivial, your point.
And nothing. Why does there have to be an and? That was my whole point.
On reflection, I think it fails, too: if someone had leaked something relevant about Assange to the tabloid guy, Assange would be a hypocrite (in terms of free speech principles) to attempt to suppress it, but since the tabloid guy was too gormless to do anything but ask for the information from the horse's mouth, Assange was not out of line to tell him to get stuffed.
Substitute 'the US government' for 'Assange' and 'any journalist' for 'tabloid guy' and see if you disagree. Should the US government hand over information on request of anyone with a press badge?
As for your 'wuss' charge, I'd need some benchmark whereby to compare your personal courage with Assange's before offering comment.
Originally posted by PsychoPawnI came across a comment to an article published by the Independent that appears to sum things up quite neatly:
I don't know about the CIA or about the prosecutor, but it is odd that these charges were being brought back coincidentally after he released information that is embarrassing to the US and a lot of other countries.
"It seems a lot of people are drawing the wrong conclusions from this business. A lot of the commentary is about one man up against the might of three governments plus the corporate-owned press smear machine. Well, maybe.
But consider; in a really efficient totalitarianism, Assange would simply have been declared an “enemy of the State”, and been vanished. In a slightly less powerful version, he would have been fitted up on some really ugly charge; say kiddy-fiddling; and there would have been copious documents, witnesses and photographs to back it up, utterly regardless of what the truth was.
So let’s look at what has really happened. First the Swedes don’t seem able to decide what to charge him with, if indeed they can charge him with anything. Believe it, if there was a clear-cut case to answer, documents would have been prepared and copies sent to Assange’s defence lawyers by now, and the juicier bits of the charges would already have hit the media. As it is, they seem pretty confused. The case was taken up, then dropped, then taken up again after a politician got in on the act (that’s not supposed to happen, by the way, it’s called political interference in the judiciary and it’s a big no-no). It’s not at all clear, in terms of specific detail, exactly what the case consists of. It is both inconclusive and tainted by evidence that the women colluded and were out to get him. (That’s called "being a hostile witness”, and it’s another big no-no).
The USA seems equally confused. The Espionage Act 1917 doesn’t fit the case. Retroactive legislation would certainly be challenged at law. “Tailor-made” legislation would very probably be challenged similarly. The Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee has said there probably aren’t grounds for extradition. Rendition would lead to a nightmare scenario in which all the cables go public on non-redacted samizdat versions immediately. It’s not at all clear what their best option is. Perhaps it is to play for time, smear Assange, hope people lose interest in the story, and try to foment dissension and splits within Wikileaks, not all of whose leadership agree with Assange’s decision to “grandstand”.
The UK government is not in a much better position. Some people have said a European Arrest Warrant is okay to use even if there are no charges pending, and it’s just a matter of questioning. But Lady Ludford, the Liberal Democrat European justice and human rights spokeswoman, (i.e. a government spokeswoman) said it was “not a legitimate purpose for an EAW to be used to conduct an investigation to see whether that person should be prosecuted”. In other words, this is an abuse of the procedure. It’s also not at all clear if what Assange did is an offence under Swedish law. It’s pretty clear it would be no offence under UK law. So this, again, offers grounds to resist extradition.
Vaughan Smith has actually done the government an enormous favour by offering to house Assange on his Norfolk estate. If Assange had been kept in solitary in Wandsworth on such flimsy grounds very much longer, the cries of “Political Prisoner” would have got loud enough to become extremely embarrassing. Of course, it helps that Vaughan Smith has immaculate establishment credentials; ex-Grenadier Guards and a member of the landed gentry. If some left-wing activist scruff had offered Assange bed and board I doubt if the courts would have been so sympathetic. That’s how things are done in Britain.
But what this all shows is that the Powers That Be are not all-powerful. They do have very substantial powers, true, but these powers have limits. At the moment they seem to be in a bit of a flap as to how to proceed. That is really very encouraging indeed.
Remember, their powers have limits. Never forget this. They can be confused, nonplussed, even occasionally beaten. Never lose sight of this. Because if we do lose sight of it, we’ll give up, and then all really is lost. The Lords of Creation will lord it over us and abuse and exploit us without limit forever.
Remember, none of our rights and freedoms were given to us by gracious and generous masters. They were fought for and taken in struggle. The struggle is never-ending, because of course our masters are always trying to take our liberties back.
As for Assange and Wikileaks, if our masters continue to play for time, they can hope people will lose interest in the story. But that doesn’t seem to be happening. Even the comments from the Daily Mail’s readership are overwhelmingly pro-Assange. People know governments have been lying to us for decades, and are very very sick of it. This case could become a very important turning point. It is one of the most important things that is going on at the moment. Remember, They can be beaten."
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/john-pilger-swedes-are-smearing-him-and-encouraging-the-us-2164320.html
20 Dec 10
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThe are more classy/gutty ways to avoid comment.
It's a bit trivial, your point.
On reflection, I think it fails, too: if someone had leaked something relevant about Assange to the tabloid guy, Assange would be a hypocrite (in terms of free speech principles) to attempt to suppress it, but since the tabloid guy was too gormless to do anything but ask for the information from the horse's mouth, Ass ...[text shortened]... k whereby to compare your personal courage with Assange's before offering comment.
I can think of little more gutless than agreeing to do an interview, getting a medium grade question and stomping off like a 5 year old while insulting the interviewer for doing the job that you knew he was going to do when you agree to be interviewed.
Watch that clip, Assange comes off like a petulant child.
20 Dec 10
Originally posted by no1marauderThen why would he agree to do the interview in the first place? And why is he stomping off like a child when the reporter asks a relatively simple question? Can't he say "I really can't comment on that for legal reasons"? No, he has to get bratty and blame the reporter for doing his job.
Your "whole point" is that someone accused of a criminal offense was unwilling to make public comments regarding the accusers?
Any criminal lawyer would strongly advise his client not to do so. And any client who didn't follow such advice would be a fool.
20 Dec 10
Originally posted by sh76I'd say he had a number of personality flaws (have you seen his old online dating profile?) -- but really, so what? The Wikileaks story's a whole lot bigger and more important than that.
The are more classy/gutty ways to avoid comment.
I can think of little more gutless than agreeing to do an interview, getting a medium grade question and stomping off like a 5 year old while insulting the interviewer for doing the job that you knew he was going to do when you agree to be interviewed.
Watch that clip, Assange comes off like a petulant child.
20 Dec 10
Originally posted by Bosse de NageMy OP has nothing to do with wikileaks. Of course wikileaks is bigger than Assange's personality flaws. Is a point not worth making because it is not as big as other points out there?
I'd say he had a number of personality flaws (have you seen his old online dating profile?) -- but really, so what? The Wikileaks story's a whole lot bigger and more important than that.
20 Dec 10
Originally posted by sh76Noted that you think Assange's personality is more important than the work he is doing.
Then why would he agree to do the interview in the first place? And why is he stomping off like a child when the reporter asks a relatively simple question? Can't he say "I really can't comment on that for legal reasons"? No, he has to get bratty and blame the reporter for doing his job.
The reporter asked a loaded question that he(she?) knew that Assange wouldn't answer. The interview was not intended to revolve around the criminal case obviously; in case you haven't noticed, there's plenty of other issues involving Assange and wikileaks other than a criminal case that it would be unwise for the defendant to comment on other than to assert his innocence. Asking if accusers in a sexual assault case are liars is not the type of question designed to elicit a meaningful response as you and the reporter well know.
20 Dec 10
Originally posted by sh76You started the thread complaining about how he acted in an interview; obviously you think that's important somehow. On the other hand, you haven't had much comment about wikileaks before.
Strawman...
Never said that...
Said the exact opposite of that a few posts up...
Shoe fits and all.
20 Dec 10
Originally posted by no1marauderFirst of all, I did comment on wikileaks.
You started the thread complaining about how he acted in an interview; obviously you think that's important somehow. On the other hand, you haven't had much comment about wikileaks before.
Shoe fits and all.
Second, to the extent I did not comment, it was because I did not have anything new to add to the existing extensive discussion, not because I did not think it an important issue.
Third, no inference can be drawn from how much a person comments on a story to how important that person thinks the story is.
That shoe is 6 sizes too irrelevant.
20 Dec 10
Originally posted by Bosse de Nageone of the best posts i think i have read in RHP forums, highly recommended.
I came across a comment to an article published by the Independent that appears to sum things up quite neatly:
"It seems a lot of people are drawing the wrong conclusions from this business. A lot of the commentary is about one man up against the might of three governments plus the corporate-owned press smear machine. Well, maybe.
But consider; i ...[text shortened]... /opinion/commentators/john-pilger-swedes-are-smearing-him-and-encouraging-the-us-2164320.html
21 Dec 10
Originally posted by sh76I think that, if you watch the video again, it seems that Assange is willing to answer the question until the interviewer uses the terms 'forced her legs apart' and 'holding her down'. This would appear to point to the interviewer's sensationalist, tabloid tendencies as Assange notes.
The are more classy/gutty ways to avoid comment.
I can think of little more gutless than agreeing to do an interview, getting a medium grade question and stomping off like a 5 year old while insulting the interviewer for doing the job that you knew he was going to do when you agree to be interviewed.
Watch that clip, Assange comes off like a petulant child.
It is also wrong to accuse him of being a hypocrite with regard to the comparison of his reactions and the leaks. The reason being that the leaks are 'free flows of information' which are factual realities whereas what he is accused if is probably, at best, unsubstantiated allegations and, at worst, a fit up.
21 Dec 10
Originally posted by sh76I think he is just fed up with the lies and didn't want to go on the merry go round of spin. It is easy to say someone should have acted this way or not acted that way when you are not standing in his shoes. He is going through an enormous amount of pressure!
He calls the reporter a "tabloid shmuck" because he had the gall to politely ask him a question that was something along the lines of "Are these women lying when they say these things about what you did?" Regardless of what you or anyone thinks of wikileaks, the guy's got a glass chin to rival that of Michael Spinks.
Even if he wins his freedom from the sexual misconduct charges he still has to wonder if the USA is going to prosecute him. The USA doesn't even have a case against a journalist and my government knows it, so Eric Holder says they will try to argue Assange is not a journalist.
Assange knows the deck is being stacked against him and I'm sure it worries him and he is sensitive to every smear. It is enough to make any person paranoid, but as they say "just because someone is paranoid does not mean nobody is out to get them". They are clearly out to get him and you don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to see that. Essentially what you are saying is he should handle the pressure better even though you have never been through that much pressure yourself. I have my doubts you would handle it any better.
You want him in an American prison, so it doesn't surprise me that you are being overly critical. Seems to me that you hate him for exposing the truth about government lies. Why are you such a supporter of lies over the truth?