The Wikileaks collection

[JMA]

JMA,

Returning to your earlier posts 201 & 202, there is an odd BBC News report entitled: and cites John Pilger:

Link to a heated studio discussion:http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today...00/9301452.stm

Good stuff... I like robust debate.

The side effect of the idiotic USG reaction is that it pushes basically conservative people like me and many others into the same camp as the "lefties" like Pilger and Michael Moore and further isolates the USG from their local and international support base.

I have no idea whether such an attempt is likely, but our UK-USA extradition agreement is rather one-sided and subject of considerable opposition to so far successful extraditions (bar one case IIRC). If Assange was returned to Sweden I doubt if Sweden has such a extradition agreement as the UK's.

The issue of ex post facto laws or retroactive or retrospective laws are not considered acceptable even in the US.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is applicable:

Article 11
Paragraph 2: Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

One would have thought that the USG (after the Guantánamo Bay fiasco) would have realised that they also need to play by the rules. Seems not.

This Keystone Cops approach to Assange and WikiLeaks does nothing for the US reputation across the world... which since the hanging chad, dimpled chad or pregnant chad comedy is close to laughing stock levels. I for one am sad about this (FWTW).

[JJackson]

Good stuff... I like robust debate.

I would strongly advise against following David's link to the Today program. It was not good stuff, or a debate, it was however robust.
Today, and its sister program PM, provide some of the UK's better broadcast news and analysis but this was a waste of their airtime as it was not two people articulating opposing ends of the debate but two idiots trying to shout over the top of each other - net result we never get to learn anything. This is not uncommon in party politics but as both were 'journalists' I expected better.

[Old Eagle]

if he had paid attention in Consideration of Others classes.

"No means No."

[davidbfpo]

JJackson,

In response to your post:

I would strongly advise against following David's link to the Today program. It was not good stuff, or a debate, it was however robust.

That is why I added in my post:

there is an odd BBC News report

and then a caveat:

Link to a heated studio discussion

. Two traffic light signals I consider enough.

I thought the BBC News item was really odd, with no meaningful explanation, nor did John Pilger IMHO explain his suspicions in the 'discussion' about a potential extradition to the USA.

I too like BBC Radio 4's Today programme, but it has too frequent editorial lapses and gives airtime to the views of tiny minorities, such as Omar Brookes and IIRC Anjem Choudhry.

Pilger has his very clear position, the 'discussion' was badly managed and even 'robust' is being polite - thanks JMA!

[JMA]

JJackson,

In response to your post:

That is why I added in my post: and then a caveat:. Two traffic light signals I consider enough.

I thought the BBC News item was really odd, with no meaningful explanation, nor did John Pilger IMHO explain his suspicions in the 'discussion' about a potential extradition to the USA.

I too like BBC Radio 4's Today programme, but it has too frequent editorial lapses and gives airtime to the views of tiny minorities, such as Omar Brookes and IIRC Anjem Choudhry.

Pilger has his very clear position, the 'discussion' was badly managed and even 'robust' is being polite - thanks JMA!

You did well to post that David and if you find more please do so as well... I for one would welcome becoming better informed from all sides of the issue.

This sort of stuff should be required listening for the officer corps IMHO.

[JMA]

I would strongly advise against following David's link to the Today program. It was not good stuff, or a debate, it was however robust.
Today, and its sister program PM, provide some of the UK's better broadcast news and analysis but this was a waste of their airtime as it was not two people articulating opposing ends of the debate but two idiots trying to shout over the top of each other - net result we never get to learn anything. This is not uncommon in party politics but as both were 'journalists' I expected better.

The two represented the two extremes of this Assange/Wikileaks debate. Please don't advise people not to listen to all sides of a particular debate. I my opinion people should be encouraged and educated to personally decide on where they stand on an issue and not be guided by Big Brother.