Wikileaks and Assange?

Post Reply New Topic

Why then were the charges against Assange originally withdrawn in Sweden? With the original prosecutor stating that there was no evidence against him? Both of those women boasted about their connection to Assange because of those same events, they did not seem to have a problem with it at the time:

http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/12/02/when-it-comes-to-assange-r-pe-case-the-swedes-are-making-it-up-as-they-go-along/

I should add that if wikileaks has any ideology it's anti-government- not anti US government. To my mind it should be supported by anyone who believes in democracy and liberty and believes in seeing world governments being held to account for their actions (often crimes). This is also the reason i'm not suprised to see someone like ascan (who believes in the rights of the police to dole out beatings to student protesters here in the uk) opposed to it. Anyone who isnt an extreme authoritarian should be on wikileaks' side.

I am keeping an open mind, but as I recently posted on the Assange thread in General Discussion, I agree that although the "best" thing in one sense would be for Assange to return to Sweden to answer questions, face any charges that arise from that, etc ... there does seem to be something fishy about the Swedish demand/desire to get him onto Swedish soil.

EnglishLulu's analysis of the situation ( on the other thread; link to it in my opening post ), seems sound and very plausible, especially her point that Assange may be torn between the desire to clear his name/honestly and steadfastly face any eventual charges there etc, and the not unfounded fear that the Extradition may be a ruse, designed to "hand him over " to the USA with the risk of indefinite incarceration.

Between a rock and a hard place. Nightmare situation in fact. I hope that UK lawyers will find some way of bypassing this by for instance denying Extradition and requesting/requiring that the Swedish Prosecutors see Assange on British soil instead.

@ jamieboy: I totally agree with you. Here is another piece on the issue by Greenwald at Salon.com: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn ... index.html
.

As I've indicated, modern liberal mores are to an extent responsible for this. Governments have encouraged the situation by pandering to liberal lobby groups who, within the framework of a warped politically-correct ideology that's more concerned with protecting third-world terrorists than fellow citizens, continually whine about fairness and human rights. To that extent the US government has to share some responsibility as they've put themselves in a position where treason, or even espionage by a foreigner, is considered socially acceptable by many if carried out in the name of these liberal values. These modern values are not compatible with maintaining a stable democracy with a strong military and a robust system of national security. To maintain that has always required actions that the average person would find disgusting or outrageous if they faced them in their everday life, but it's foolish to think that the rights and wrongs of urban society can be used to judge how a government acts in an international context. The media has to take responsibility, too, as they appear all too willing to stoke this liberal outrage by publishing material that is damaging to the nation in which they are based. What the US government should do is arrest the US-based newspaper editors whose papers published these documents and charge them with treason, or whatever else might stick. If that won't stand up in court then the law needs to be changed. It's a crazy country where you can get locked-up for calling a foreigner a racially inappropriate name, yet can publish material that causes your country immense damage with impunity -- that applies to both the US and UK.


If the British government keeps me safe from foreign invasion or terrorist attack, if it allows me to continue to live in relative freedom, then I really don't care if it breaks international or EU law in its pursuit of those ends. Indeed, i'd go further to say it has a duty to break such laws if those laws get in the way of protecting the interests of British citizens. Clearly the same applies to the relationship between US citizens and their government -- it shouldn't be any other way.

ascan-You want British people to be given special treatment morally purely because of the country they are born in. Can you show me some evidence that the British man is distinct from his fellow human being in anyway? Or is this purely a racist , xenophobic and self-serving invention on your part? Thanks

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hl4NlA97GeQ[/youtube]

I expect the British government to give British citizens special treatment just as I'd expect the US government to do the same for its citizens, or the Pakistani government for theirs. Our government is there to serve our interests (something they appear to frequently forget). Whilst I agree that in general we should abide by systems of legislation we've signed up too (the fact that we should have never signed up to some is another argument) there are circumstances, in extremis, where our government has a duty to ignore EU or international law.

As for the British being distinct from other people, it's been shown genetically that the vast majority of the indigenous population (obviously not third-worlders who've arrived recently) have ancestry here dating back several thousand years. That, however, isn't too relevant to this discussion.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3adw9oLBkBI[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXbCwq4ewBU[/youtube]

Well i dont agree with you. Theres no excuse for moral crimes in any context whatsoever. I am in favour of an ethical foreign policy that treats all human beings with respect. I also think this is in the interests of most british people.

For example when mossadeq was in iran in the 50's he was a democratic socialist who wanted to keep oil wealth for the iranian people. Britain deposed him because it was against the economic interests of british oil companies and now we have religous theocrats who are far crueler to the iranian people and far more of a threat to britain. If he'd been left in place Iran would be a secular democracy like Turkey today.

Another example is the presence of Western troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. According to MI5 this situation increases the threat of bombings on the British mainland. So the threat to ordinary British people is far greater.

I was going to point out some more of the fallacies in your previous post, but then I read this one. There is no such thing as a "British" people. Britain is a political creation, combining several other smaller nations and a large group of races, several of which are from places on the continent. There is certainly no pure British race, which is what you seem to be trying to imply. Not every immigrant here is a third or even second worlder either, but they still are not "blood relatives". Your post here sounds like it swerves dangerously close to BNP propaganda. Add to this your belief in a dominant police state that can act above the law (be it local or international) at its own discretion, and you start to sound like quite a worrying (and distinctly unpleasant) individual. Subsequently, its hardly surprising that you find the fascistic activities of the US so very palatable.

Of course if it transpires that you ARE some BNP-bullshit spouting neo-nazi tosser, then I can only pray that you fall foul of an angry lawman on a BS charge, and get to feel the full weight of British Injustice.

Not much to add to the discussion, except that I have heard that Brittish judges look more ascance at extradition warrants than do Swedish ones, which is why Assange is trying to stay in Brittain.

Well, it depends on context, Macbeth, but it's not surprising you lack any depth of knowledge on this judging by your previous contributions. 15,000 years ago most of the landmass of Britain (I'm including Ireland as part of Britain geographically with no political connotation) was covered in an ice sheet and the remainder was a polar desert, so nobody lived here. We weren't an island either because of the lower sea levels caused by so much water locked up in the ice caps. Things didn't become conducive to human habitation until about 11,000 years ago, so it's kind of stating the obvious to say our ancestors originated at some point "on the continent" as you put it. However, they didn't come directly (although note context here because on a deeper timeframe they did) from Asia, or Africa, as the thirld-worlders who've turned up here recently have. Anyway, to cut a long story short, most of us here who think of ourselves as real Irish, welsh, scot, English, or often a mix of the aforementioned are related to people who colonised this piece of land sometime after 11,000 years ago and prior to about 6000 years ago.

Here's a quote from a summary in Oppenheimer (2007), The Origins of The British.

"...three-quarters of British Ancestors arrived long before the first farmers. This applies in varying proportions to 88% of Irish, 81% of Welsh, 79% of Cornish, 70% of the people of scotland [...] 68% of the English [...] These figures dwarf any perception of Celtic or Anglo-Saxon ethnicity based on concepts of more recent, massive invasions..."

The above is based on modern genetic analysis. Now, I guess you'll still challenge the concept of being "British", or "indigenous". So lets consider a group who are widely held to be "indigenous": The native Americans. They are believed to have colonised North America sometime after around 16,000 years ago crossing from Asia when sea levels were low just as our ancestors crossed from Europe. Recently (1800s) the native Americans and their culture were systematically destroyed to be replaced by an alien one, just as is happening to us in Britain, now. You see similarities? It's just as valid to talk of indigenous Americans as of indigenous Britains.

Last edited by ascan on 20 Dec 2010, 5:49 am, edited 1 time in total.

Morality is rather subjective, jamieboy. Was it moral to cause mass civilian casualities in Germany and Japan back in the 1940s? Was it moral to conscript 18 year olds and send them to their deaths? By todays standards, and even by the standards of many in the 1940s, it would be unacceptable, yet it means we don't speak German and don't greet each other with Heil Hitler.

I agree that it's best to conduct foreign policy ethically, where that doesn't interfere with British interests.

"To cut a long story short".. meaning you never read the whole story in the first place.
According to Oppenheimer, the greater percentage of DNA links people in the British Isles to the Basques. That's not a pure "British" race. That's Ancient Iberians. Likewise, Oppenheimer himself points out that the Scandanavian contribution is underrated s well. Fimally, He is arguing against the theory that the original "Britons" were whole-heartedly displaced or even wiped out by the Angles/Saxons and playing down Celtic influence. He isn't arguing that the Britons are pure-bloods, or even saying that there is no mixing. He's just saying that what mix there IS, wasn't caused by the Saxons etc.

Likewise being a "Briton" or genetically related to "Britons" (referring in this sense to the pre-invasion residents of this area) is not the same as the modern concept of "British" that you think is under threat, and it certainly isn't related to any cultural dissolution by "third worlders". (Again with the third worlder thing. Do you even register the fact that plenty of immigrants are NOT from the third world? Are Poles third worlders?) Modern British culture has almost nothing to do with our genetic links to past "Britons". It DOES have a lot to do with the later smaller invasions which according to Oppenheimer failed to replace "British" (or Iberian to be precise) genetics. Modern British culture also owes a huge amount to its colonial past, bringing in influences from all over the world. Even our language is liberally peppered with everyday words of "third world" origin.

The REAL problem with uncontrolled mass immigration is not the dissolution or destruction of "British" culture, but the creation of large ghettos of markedly different cultures who refuse point blank to consider integration and are often actively hostile to our culture.

Still sound like a BUF member. As for lacking depth of knowledge: you can bollocks. Insulting my intelligence doesn't make you sound any less like you vote BNP, or hide the fact you're abusing sensible scholarly articles about ancient migration to create some kind of proto-british purity legend. Judging by the contents of YOUR previous (and current) posts, you're a reprehensible fascist throwback with poor comprehension of the reality of British cultural sources or immigration who supports State unaccountability and oppression through some misguided belief that it will lead to "security and safety" Frankly your vision of how things should be is quite frightening, and well worthy of resisting, because history has provided clear examples of what happens when people don't stand up to such activity. The destruction of the Native Americans is a GREAT example of what happens when the security of one race is placed above that of another, but not in the way you would like it.

On the contrary, heavy going as it was in places I did indeed read it, as well as several other books on the subject, Unlike you, who is so keen to knock me down a peg or two that he had to look it up on Wikipedia.


I never said he was. You're not paying attention, Macbeth. You think i'm a neo-nazi and so assume that I subscribe to a neo-nazi ideology. Obviously I don't.

The original point I was making was in response to a comment by jamieboy where he asked if British man was distinct from his fellow man. To that end I was making a distinction between us (Welsh, Irish, scots, English -- the indigenous inhabitants) and Johnny-come-lately foreigners. I'm basically saying that most of us have ancestry that goes back to when this land was first colonised after the last glaciation. That distinguishes us from them. Simple, really. Anyway, I maintain that indigenous British is as valid a concept as indigenous American.


Really? I've never been accused of that before.