Assange opposed at CSU

[Guest]

Good to see that the darling of Britain's assorted ragbag of anarchists and anti-Americans is getting some grief for his planned videolink debate at Cambridge.

Is it right that this intellectually challenged, arrogant, despicable little twit, wanted by an independent nation to answer serious criminal charges irrespective of his release of privileged information in the USA, should be given a platform?

I mean, any one who goes to the Ecuadorean Embassy to seek asylum on human rights grounds must surely be living in a parallel universe anyway.

"Visit Ecuador. South American Champion of individual liberties and free expression".

Not.

It would be funny if it weren't so serious and such a waste of public money.

[Serial_Apologist]

Good to see that the darling of Britain's assorted ragbag of anarchists and anti-Americans is getting some grief for his planned videolink debate at Cambridge.

Is it right that this intellectually challenged, arrogant, despicable little twit, wanted by an independent nation to answer serious criminal charges irrespective of his release of privileged information in the USA, should be given a platform?

I mean, any one who goes to the Ecuadorean Embassy to seek asylum on human rights grounds must surely be living in a parallel universe anyway.

"Visit Ecuador. South American Champion of individual liberties and free expression".

Not.

It would be funny if it weren't so serious and such a waste of public money.

Before targetting with your usual blunderbuss, I think you've got some assorting to do there, Simon

[ahinton]

Good to see that the darling of Britain's assorted ragbag of anarchists and anti-Americans is getting some grief for his planned videolink debate at Cambridge.

Is it right that this intellectually challenged, arrogant, despicable little twit, wanted by an independent nation to answer serious criminal charges irrespective of his release of privileged information in the USA, should be given a platform?

I mean, any one who goes to the Ecuadorean Embassy to seek asylum on human rights grounds must surely be living in a parallel universe anyway.

"Visit Ecuador. South American Champion of individual liberties and free expression".

Not.

It would be funny if it weren't so serious and such a waste of public money.

OK, one bit at a time; here we go.

By what evidence and upon what grounds does Mr Assange qualify as "the darling" of any group of people in Britain?

For what reason and on what grounds do you apparently seek to imply that Mr Assange is ill thought of by any group of people in Britain besides "anarchists and anti-Americans"?

How do you define "anarchists" and identify "anti-Americans" as such?

What makes you think (as you appear to do) that Mr Assange's organisation has only, or has only ever intended to, "release privileged information" in USA that is deemed by some to be "privileged" there and none in any other country that is deemed by some to be "privileged" in that country?

What depth of personal knowledge of and other incontrovertible corroborating evidence about the activities of Mr Assange qualifies you to describe him as "intellectually challenged", "arrogant", "despicable" or a "little twit"?

Since when has being "wanted by an independent nation to answer serious criminal charges" been synonymous with being guilty thereof without trial, as the sense of the sentence in which you refer to them appears to attempt to imply?

Who has the right to determine whether or not Mr Assange "should be given a platform" and whom do you see as having given it to him? For that matter, what exactly do you regard as "a platform" in this context, especially given that, were Mr Assange ever to be extradited to Sweden (or go there openly of his own accord) and were he then to face trial on criminal charges there (and even this is uncertain), the Swedish courts and, by association, the Swedish government would thereby be giving him a further one?

By "irrespective of" I assume you to more properly mean "aside from".

What you "mean" about "any one who goes to the Ecuadorean Embassy to seek asylum on human rights grounds" is unclear to the extent that (a) Mr Assange is actually living in the same universe (and even country, for that matter) as you and I and (b) as what might appear to justify such an action on such grounds will not be the same for everyone, each case must be judged on its own merits and take due account of its specific circumstances and the people and organisations involved.

I cannot but agree that Ecuador's record on "individual liberties and free expression" leaves much to be desired (as I happen to know to my own cost), but it is not the liberties of individual Ecuadoreans or the freedom of expression permitted to them that is of relevance here but the rights of (a) Mr Assange to seek asylum in Britain's Ecuadorean Embassy and (b) that Embassy to grant it to him.

I don't think that it would be "funny" under any circumstances, frankly (other than to someone with a warped sense of humour) but, as far as "a waste of public money" is concerned, exactly how much of which country's public money is being wasted on precisely what here and who is guilty as a consequence?

Back to the drawing board, methinks...

[ahinton]

Before targetting with your usual blunderbuss, I think you've got some assorting to do there, Simon

We know that he's given to blundering but somehow I cannot quite imagine him travelling by bus to do it...

[Serial_Apologist]

We know that he's given to blundering but somehow I cannot quite imagine him travelling by bus to do it...

[Flosshilde]

wanted by an independent nation to answer serious criminal charges irrespective of his release of privileged information in the USA,

Assuming that you mean Sweden, he hasn't actually been charged with anything. There are allegations, which are a very different thing.

[MrGongGong]

Good to see that the darling of Britain's assorted ragbag of anarchists and anti-Americans is getting some grief for his planned videolink debate at Cambridge.
.

Good to see that the followers of the beardyman are doing as he would have done.

what's an "assorted ragbag" ? and does one need custard to go with it ?

[Tony Halstead]

serious criminal charges i

No. no and no again...an allegation is NOT a criminal charge!

[teamsaint]

No. no and no again...an allegation is NOT a criminal charge!

not in some folks eyes, Waldy !
as somebody once said to me, "That Mandela must have done something wrong to be put in prison".

[Budapest]

Good to see that the darling of Britain's assorted ragbag of anarchists and anti-Americans is getting some grief for his planned videolink debate at Cambridge.

Is it right that this intellectually challenged, arrogant, despicable little twit, wanted by an independent nation to answer serious criminal charges irrespective of his release of privileged information in the USA, should be given a platform?

I mean, any one who goes to the Ecuadorean Embassy to seek asylum on human rights grounds must surely be living in a parallel universe anyway.

"Visit Ecuador. South American Champion of individual liberties and free expression".

Not.

It would be funny if it weren't so serious and such a waste of public money.

Assange has been doing what any good journalist should do: exposing lies, corruption and outright criminality in governments and corporations. I'm still not able to understand why so many people have a problem with this???

With regard to Assange seeking political asylum in Ecuador, I think it's a very sad day for Western Democracy when an Australian citizen has to seek political asylum in a South American embassy in London.

With regard to President Rafael Correa of Ecuador, please bear in mind that the mainstream media in the West has been taken over by big corporations (you don't get any real news anymore). I'm not saying Correa is perfect, but what he did was to prevent big corporations taking over the media in Ecuador.

[David-G]

... please bear in mind that the mainstream media in the West has been taken over by big corporations (you don't get any real news anymore).

Just wondering if you can give me an example of some real news that you think I might not have got.

[Pabmusic]

...With regard to Assange seeking political asylum in Ecuador, I think it's a very sad day for Western Democracy when an Australian citizen has to seek political asylum in a South American embassy in London...

We were here just a few weeks ago.

It is disingenuous of you to say that "an Australian citizen has to seek political asylum in a South American embassy in London". Assange does not have to do this - he chose to do so, having exhausted other channels in his prolonged attempt to avoid extradition to answer allegations of sexual misbehaviour in Sweden.

Various smokescreens have been put up, but none of them justifies Assange's running from the Swedes. In fact, the things that have been said (not necessarily on The Radio 3 Forum, of course) in support of Assange could all have been said about Jimmy Savile's victims, or those at the Wrexham children's home: "it wasn't rape", "it was acceptable at the time", "it's very difficult to prove", "it's only one person's word against another's", "the accusers are motivated by greed or revenge", "it's a put-up job", "it's a conspiracy", etc, ad inf. We do not accept those explanations in the Savile or Wrexham cases, or indeed in any other circumstances I can think of; we should not in this one.

[ahinton]

We were here just a few weeks ago.

It is disingenuous of you to say that "an Australian citizen has to seek political asylum in a South American embassy in London". Assange does not have to do this - he chose to do so, having exhausted other channels in his prolonged attempt to avoid extradition to answer allegations of sexual misbehaviour in Sweden.

Various smokescreens have been put up, but none of them justifies Assange's running from the Swedes. In fact, the things that have been said (not necessarily on The Radio 3 Forum, of course) in support of Assange could all have been said about Jimmy Savile's victims, or those at the Wrexham children's home: "it wasn't rape", "it was acceptable at the time", "it's very difficult to prove", "it's only one person's word against another's", "the accusers are motivated by greed or revenge", "it's a put-up job", "it's a conspiracy", etc, ad inf. We do not accept those explanations in the Savile or Wrexham cases, or indeed in any other circumstances I can think of; we should not in this one.

You make some good points here, especially in noting that Mr Assange does not have to do what he did but has chosen to do so. I remain to be convinced not of his right to do so but of his wisdom in doing so, since it hardly enhances his case or his credibility; if indeed he is not guilty of crimes in Sweden, his only conceivable excuse for "hiding" from Swedish justice would appear to be his unpreparedness to take the risk that he might otherwise be forcibly removed to US from that country in order to stand trial there for his organisation's disclosure of US "priviliged" information and how great a risk that might or might not be is anyone's guess, frankly.

I do not, however, agree with you that things said in support of Mr Assange could all have been said about Savile's victims, even if only because those of Savile's victims who are now beginning to come forward will be unable to bring Savile to trial for what he is alleged to have done, so the possible list of excuses that you then cite above would be merely academic in the Savile case because Savile died before any of his highly questionable history entered the public domain. Perhaps Assange is concerned that the Swedes might succeed in trumping up charges and convicting him despite his innocence, but I am far more inclined to believe that his desire to hide from them is grounded in a fear of what US might do to and with him were he to agree to go to Sweden to stand trail there.

All that said, the principle of divulging "privileged" information is indeed the duty of a conscientious journalist provided that he/she has only honourable motives in so doing at all times and provided also that he/she takes due care to do so only to expose issues that are genuinely in the public interest rather than merely to show off and attract personal accolades.

[Pabmusic]

...I do not, however, agree with you that things said in support of Mr Assange could all have been said about Savile's victims, even if only because those of Savile's victims who are now beginning to come forward will be unable to bring Savile to trial for what he is alleged to have done, so the possible list of excuses that you then cite above would be merely academic in the Savile case because Savile died before any of his highly questionable history entered the public domain. Perhaps Assange is concerned that the Swedes might succeed in trumping up charges and convicting him despite his innocence, but I am far more inclined to believe that his desire to hide from them is grounded in a fear of what US might do to and with him were he to agree to go to Sweden to stand trail there.

All that said, the principle of divulging "privileged" information is indeed the duty of a conscientious journalist provided that he/she has only honourable motives in so doing at all times and provided also that he/she takes due care to do so only to expose issues that are genuinely in the public interest rather than merely to show off and attract personal accolades.

A good post, Ahinton. Well, I accept that Savile's being dead does make things academic, but I worked for the Chief Prosecuting Solicitor for Hampshire for several years in the 1970s and am well aware just how difficult it was in that climate to bring home convictions for any kind of sexual assault. And - surprise, surprise - the things I quote were all seriously put forward regularly then, and all have been said in support of Assange now, several on these boards.

As to the US interest, well, Assange has been in the UK since late 2010, and the US could have asked for his extradition at any time - we are often told that the current treaty with the US makes extradition a "rubber stamp' job - but they haven't made such a request. What is the basis for thinking they'll do so once he gets to Sweden? No one that I've heard suggests it's easier to extradite from Sweden than from the UK.

None of this is a judgement on the rightness of Wikileaks. However, many people seem eager to assume a conspiracy to get Assange to the USA, whilst overlooking the (just as likely) fact that Assange doesn't want to face his accusers and is hiding behind the 'good work' of Wikileaks. I say 'just as likely', but (applying Occam's razor) it's rather more likely, since we wouldn't have to accept an international conspiracy involving at least three governments.

[ahinton]

A good post, Ahinton. Well, I accept that Savile's being dead does make things academic, but I worked for the Chief Prosecuting Solicitor for Hampshire for several years in the 1970s and am well aware just how difficult it was in that climate to bring home convictions for any kind of sexual assault. And - surprise, surprise - the things I quote were all seriously put forward regularly then, and all have been said in support of Assange now, several on these boards.

Well, yes, of course all of those lame but dangerous excuses and more were put up in the past and still are - but, to me at least, this very fact effectively appears to weaken the rationale behind Assange's decision to protect himself from any possible requirement to face justice in Sweden and to strengthen what could otherwise be his bravado; if he really believes that, even if guilty, he might well get away with his crimes on the basis of at least one of those excuses being trotted out on his behalf and in his interests and made to stick, it's hard to see why he's nevertheless chosen to hide himself in preference to being found innocent (even if guilty), which would surely constitute a massive boost to his ego, were it not for his likely fears of what US might do to him thereafter (unless, of course, he could devise plans in advance to be whisked away to the safety of the Ecuadorean Embassy in Sweden immediately following the outcome of his trial there).

As to the US interest, well, Assange has been in the UK since late 2010, and the US could have asked for his extradition at any time - we are often told that the current treaty with the US makes extradition a "rubber stamp' job - but they haven't made such a request. What is the basis for thinking they'll do so once he gets to Sweden? No one that I've heard suggests it's easier to extradite from Sweden than from the UK.

I cannot be certain, but I suspect that US and UK may have come to a secret agreement that US would not seek to extradite him from UK in order to avoid the risk of damaging relations between the two nations but would be prepared to extradite him from Sweden as this would not be regarded by US as even involving such risk in the first place; it does seem rather difficult to explain what might seem to be the uncharacteristic reticence of US in this matter since Mr Assange entered UK. OK, the case of the NatWest three might be seen as flying in the face of such an argument, but I suspect that there's no lack of smoke without an absence of fire...

None of this is a judgement on the rightness of Wikileaks. However, many people seem eager to assume a conspiracy to get Assange to the USA, whilst overlooking the (just as likely) fact that Assange doesn't want to face his accusers and is hiding behind the 'good work' of Wikileaks. I say 'just as likely', but (applying Occam's razor) it's rather more likely, since we don't have to accept an international conspiracy involving at least three governments.

Fair comment; the problem with determining the facts is the determined silence on the various matters by all concerned - the US government, the British government, the Swedish government and Mr Assange himself. I do not personally accept that the notion of any "conspiracy" to get Mr Assange to US holds much credibility, even if for no better reason than that no particular need for one would necessarily have to be behind any US extradition order, since the issue of any such order can and almost certainly would be done in an above board manner rather than behind closed doors. Furthermore, the matter of Mr Assange's activities in Sweden is so far complicated - and might ultimately be compromised - by the lack of absolute certainty that, were he extradited to Sweden or decide after all to go there of his own accord, criminal charges would indeed be brought for which he would be obliged to stand trial in a Swedish court; this would appear to be little more than a possibility rather than an out-and-out certainty at present and hints have already been leaked (albeit not by Wikileaks!) that his accusers might not necessarily insist on his being charged and tried. Were his accuser to decide after all not to do this and no trial therefore proceeds, Mr Assange will have won a moral victory of sorts and have had his time wasted, although any such victory will soon turn Pyrrhic if US do then seize him.