Whilst I agree with you (mostly)
and think he should be extradited to Sweden, the problem is that if he goes to Sweden, he'll probably be extradited to America, and then they'll chuck him in a deep dark hole without chance of a fair trial and hope the world forgets about him (like they did with Bradley wassisname), so he does sort of have a point.
(, Thu 16 Aug 2012, 9:53, Reply)
If sweden does do that then the responsibility is on them
I'm not convinced that he shouldn't answer for what he's done.
His actions have screwed the whole diplomatic system over.
(
Cerebus Sticky! Sticky! Stick! Stick!, Thu 16 Aug 2012, 10:03,
Reply)
But it hasn't screwed over the diplomatic system
the documents they published are in the wild, and the diplomatic system still works.
(
masakatsu best of all the burger meats, Thu 16 Aug 2012, 10:09,
Reply)
How do you know it's working?
Unless you're a diplomatic you've got no way to know that people have trust again in the system.
And seeing as it's been credited for kicking off the arab spring (how many people have died in that?) I can expect a lot of people are going to clam up until they have confidence in it again.
(
Cerebus Sticky! Sticky! Stick! Stick!, Thu 16 Aug 2012, 10:17,
Reply)
I don't think it would have made it better, do you?
Anyway I said it had been "screwed over" not that it had stopped working.
(
Cerebus Sticky! Sticky! Stick! Stick!, Thu 16 Aug 2012, 10:21,
Reply)
you implied that it wasn't working
by asking the question "how do you know it's working?".
Your other point "unless you're a diplomatic" you cannot know it's working. By your own argument, you cannot expect that people will clam up "unless you are a diplomatic". I could point to Craig Murray as a case in point. The UK still has diplomatic relations with Uzbekistan.
I'll also wager that revolution in Arab countries had more to do with education and access to the internet.
I don't particularly like Julian Assange. I'd like to see him stand trial for the charges, and either be jailed for them, or see his name cleared. I'm not a particular supporter of Wikileaks either. My point would be that the law should be applied fairly, and should be applicable to all parties.
(
masakatsu best of all the burger meats, Thu 16 Aug 2012, 11:20,
Reply)
Yay linguistic argument!
I asked "how do you know it's working?" because I inferred from your comment "the documents they published are in the wild, and the diplomatic system still works." that you thought my previous comment of the system being screwed was in error and everything was hunky dory.
I can assume that a system built of secrecy and trust may well have suffered a set-back when that trust and secrecy is blown out of the water.
Can you point at "Craig Murray" as a case a little harder because i'm not sure of your point other than to highlight governments don't like it when diplomats are indiscrete.
I'ld take that wager and so will Assange seeing as he and the left wing press are linking the Wikileak publications to the Arab spring.
They've had education and internet in Arab countries for a long time.
But I grant you they did get the information from the internet.
If the law is to be applied fairly to all parties then he should abide by the countless extradition trials he's gone though here and face his accusers in a Swedish court and not break the bail conditions he agreed upon to avoid being held on remand.
(
Cerebus Sticky! Sticky! Stick! Stick!, Thu 16 Aug 2012, 11:38,
Reply)