http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvmfOaZ34Pk#t=35m30s thing is with the internet.. I'm sure your aware- once you release something.. it's not like sticking a piece of paper on a corkboard.. it's quickly recorded and copied why he got into the mess he did later and began redacting information.. but it was too late
Just read through the whole thread, I'm surprised about some ommissions though. AFAIK Diplomatic status applies to the premises agreed between governments and the individuals granted diplomatic status. The plates identify the owner of the vehicle, and the diplomatic tags indicate to police that specific considerations apply, but so far as I'm aware (I'm not 100% sure on this), the vehicle can be stopped & inspected (observing those conditions) if a crime is observed - such as transporting a wanted man. If I were Assange, I'd be more concerned about getting a makeshift blade in the back while in Swedish prison than being whisked away in some rendition abduction - such acts generally happen without witnesses and you can be sure there will be cameras around whenever he shows his face. But, the biggest omission here is actually Sweden's record on rape : http://www.gn.apc.org/network/news/sweden-has-worst-rape-conviction-record-europe I'll keep my thoughts on Assange the man to myself.
Obviously it wasn't too late, because nobody has suffered as a result of the release of this information. Assange's argument of "The end justifies the means" is absolutely no different from that made by the politicians whose decision to invade Afghanistam and Iraq has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians and millions of refugees driven from their homes. The Allied support of their own local interpreters who, for working with the Allied forces, have come under threat by the Taliban or terrorists has been abysmal. There is plenty of proof of innocents suffering there. We have yet to see one person having suffered from the actions by Wikileaks.
well let's put this in a washington think tank for a minute.. you either come out and say nothing happened because of the leak.. hopefully it will blow over and future allies won't be scared to help because of our inability to keep this kind of intelligence or you scare them away.. I'm no genius- but even a stretch weight can see that's why they said what they said.. what assange did was just unbelievably stupid.. like I put him around george bush intelligence if he really believes what he's saying.. but what it really was- he's just a fame whore.. like a con artist who loves the spotlight.. watch the end of the wikileaks documentary.. they try to spin him in the best light early on.. but if you ignore the spin and look at what the man does and says, form your own opinion- there's nothing there to like.. other than he was able to get the leaks in the first place here's the end of the documentary where you see how he treats his closest friends.. openleaks came about.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDJqb3jXeN8#t=6m26s
Character assassination is the ultimate slight of hand. The reason the Allies may want to reconsider their alliance with the US is because of its immoral behaviour and its utter lack of loyalty towards the nations and people it expects to side with it.
We don't have to like him for his message to be valid. Stop focusing on the main, focus on the message.
I have been in his situation, Its not as easy as you may think. You do things you never thought you could do, it eats away at you all the time. There are no rational responses to accusations like this. Trust me, the police will do all they can to make you guilty and they do not care about the truth. They want numbers.
I have, for my eternal shame, worked for two different law-enforcement organisations and from my experience this is sadly too true. Their remit is to investigate, establish the facts and present those facts to the court when appropriate, but what really happens is that as soon as a case suitable for a court hearing is reported virtually all investigation work goes into securing convictions and the strongest possible sentence rather than establishing 'truth' and ensuring a just outcome.
Since when has Sweden become regarded as some toady of the US with a dodgy legal system? Have many people been extradited from Sweden on similar matters that would have been safe in the UK? Isn't Sweden a neutral country, not a member of NATO and any extradition case brought there by the US could be appealed to the ECHR? Is there a shread of evidence that the US has anything to do with the Swedish case whatsoever? And if you are busy rubbishing the Swedish case do you want us to ammend our extratidition arrangements with other EU countries to exclude people accused to sex offenses? No matter how much you dislike the US, I don't see why it means you approve of his behavior in refusing to answer these charges? People are too quick to take the line of "My enemy's ememy is my friend".
I dont think anyone is. Most people agree that he is just being overly paranoid, and that he is quite likely safe in Sweden. And yeah, when it comes to the prosecution of sex offenses, Sweden appears to have a pretty dodgy (i.e. neglectful) record, which makes their persistence in this case look all the more politically motivated.
And is it plausible that they want to charge him with rape to please the US? Really? That wasn't my perception of Sweden's poistion with the US.
I suspect that Swedish prosecutors want to look good by prosecuting a very public figure for sex offenses, because their public track record on this hitherto has been poor. I think it's national rather than international politics. The current centre-right Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt's party is more pro-American than Sweden has been historically, and supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq and Swedish membership of NATO. It has some ties with the Republican Party.
I think all most right parties in euro could be described as having some ties to the republicans in that people in politics will have events and symposiums etc. Most centre-left will have the smae with the democrats and of course it is the current hardly neo-con administration that would be trying to prosecute him if they did ever request and suceed in an extradition.
Sure. As I said: I think this is about Swedish national, rather than international politics and Assange has just lost the plot a bit. Then again, maybe he knows something we don't...
I think that I have already pointed out that if it was just a matter of his guilt, he would have taken his chances with the Swedish courts. Surely a man as arrogant as he is made out to be would think he could blag his way out of this one? Surely playing the 'political prisoner' act from a mellow Swedish prison for the few years of a sentence would keep him more live in the public eye than going into hiding in some South American third-world backwater where he does not speak the language and has no money or means to sustain himself?
I believe that he may well have acted inappropriately with those women. He strikes me, in his public appearances, as the type to believe he's untouchable - It wouldn't surprise me if he thought that what he was doing with those women was acceptable because of his almost celebrity status. I do believe that, at the time (And I've not looked since), it looked a little fishy in terms of his potential extradition to the US. However, I don't know the ins and outs of that little affair, beyond the idea that the US would very much like to arrest him about it. Do I believe Assange is a coward? No. A bit of a paranoid asshole, sure, but a coward I think is just a bit too much of a stretch.
You gave your opinion, yes. I don't have to agree with it though. As for Assange's motives, are you privy to information we are not? If not, then how can you point out what they are?
I have underpinned my opinion with logic. You have done nothing more than speculate on his guilt and motives, in a way that does not stand up to scrutiny. So can you?
