Well surely it’s a good thing he leaked the helicopter video – what recourse do people have when their army is illegitimately murdering people then covering it up?

Sorry, I may have given the impression that I wanted Manning to be toast – I don’t at all. But he broke laws and he will be punished. I just hope a fair and strong judge recognises that he did so out of conscience and his punishment is ameliorated. A brave brave guy.

Given US behaviour in what they consider a “war” e.g. Guantanamo, rendition flights, water boarding and who knows what else, I think he will be squashed like bug.

Laws will be bent back on themselves. I reckon one way or another, Assange will end up either in US hands or dead by their hands.

I reckon one way or another, Assange will end up either in US hands or dead by their hands.

If I was going to put money on it, I’d go for one of the former Soviet republics – they’d be a whole lot less concerned about the political fall out, especially if everyone just blames the Americans anyway.

One of the most interesting features of the whole wikileaks brand of slacktivism is that, despite all the column inches in newspapers worldwide, I’m not aware of any politician or diplomat whose resigned or been sacked as a result. During the same period, the Scottish transport minister resigned because people in Scotland couldn’t drive in snow.

It’s interesting watching a recent programme on Yesterday about the Falklands conflict – it was using pretty much the same level of information about behind the scenes diplomatic activity as wikileaks is distributing now, but because it’s 30 odd years old, it’s now classified as historical window dressing.

I suspect, at the end of the day, that the only person who will suffer as a result of the wikileaks affair is Manning – I suspect he will be hammered to placate the Palin-esque loonies in the US.

atlaz – Member

“I wasn’t aware that there was a cover-up relating to the copter video.”

The official version of events was that there was a firefight ongoing which the helicopter fired upon, and stated that they didn’t know how the kids were injured or how the journalists were killed, and refused to release their cameras. As it turned out the video contradicted that, and also showed the helicopter crew lied in order to get authorisation to fire. So yeah, cover up.

One of the most interesting features of the whole wikileaks brand of slacktivism is that, despite all the column inches in newspapers worldwide, I’m not aware of any politician or diplomat whose resigned or been sacked as a result

Says more about the degraded morality and sense of responsibility of the political class than anything.

I have to say he comes across well on this interview with David Frost.

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6mcSXge4Qo[/video]

The details don’t matter, the principles do.

What? The reason for bringing the person to trial is not important….you sure?
I am not really interestd in your opinon if the swedish judical system when we actually know what the case hinges on it seems utterly pointless. Why discuss the mechanism rather than the details of the case?
How odd and how strange 😉 and wrong

If the Swedish prosecutors let themselves be bullied into dropping prosecuting a viable pointless case, it would be a failure of justice, and shame on them.

Surely both of these statements are true and the only way to decide whihc is happening is to discuss the reason not just say the system is better than Trial by Ordeal?

Isn’t it the case that he can’t discuss details of the complaint against him, and it is only a complaint and not criminal charges, because it breaches his bail conditions?

Wikileaks published information that was leaked to them. Much like the Telegraph publishing MPs’ expenses details. Whilst you could argue that publication created a security risk, the sheer number of people who had access to it tells us that it can’t be all that important. But Wikileaks’ most useful function is that of creating limited accountability for globalised government where currently there is none.

As for the Swedish rape case, the whole thing stinks. They’ve changed prosecutor after the previous one declined to pursue it, and he is yet to be charged.

But what happens when his UK visa runs out next year?

buzz-lightyear – Member
But what happens when his UK visa runs out next year?

Transportation to Australia?

What? The reason for bringing the person to trial is not important….you sure?

The reason is important, but it is also exceedingly simple — he has been accused of breaking the law. It is up to the court to decide whether than accusation is valid. If it is not valid, that fact will come out very quickly.

Why discuss the mechanism rather than the details of the case?

There are a couple reasons for that.
[list]
[*]The details of the case, for now, are just a lot of spin. Even though I have no idea what they are, it’s inevitable in a case of this profile. You won’t know what the facts of the matter are until they come out formally in court, and that’s the irony, since you use spun ‘facts’ to argue against finding out what the real facts are.[/*]
[*]By taking issue with this particular case, you and millions of other people are implying that the way we administer justice is flawed. Although there is no doubt that this is to some degree true, to argue this based on information which is incomplete and no doubt skewed is dangerous. And THIS issue is both more important and more interesting than the details.[/*][/list]

If the Swedish prosecutors let themselves be bullied into dropping prosecuting a viable pointless case, it would be a failure of justice, and shame on them.

Surely both of these statements are true and the only way to decide whihc is happening is to discuss the reason not just say the system is better than Trial by Ordeal?
You don’t really know what the reason is, so you’re discussing nothing. If you would let the case run its course, the real facts would come out, and only at that point, having all information, will it be appropriate to discuss whether this case was a politically motivated sham or not.

It offends me that, given that one of the two main purposes of the justice system is to find the TRUTH about an event, people are against using it on the basis of the mistaken notion that they already know the truth because they read a newspaper. They don’t. You don’t.

It’s dangerous.

Your argument is that Assange has been tried in the court of public opinion, found innocent, so we don’t need to go to a real court in this case.

Is next week going to be TheyEye has been tried in the court of public opinion, found guilty, so we don’t need to go a real court in this case?

Screw that.

Once again, for the hard of thinking–
You: “let’s not spend any more time trying to find out the truth, because I already know what the truth is”
Me: “the hell you do!”

am sure you can think of other examples of abuse of power if you try really hard I assume in other non third world countries – do only they have “bad” justice?

Ermmm, UK anyone

In the words of the (banned) song…

There were six men in Birmingham
In Guildford there’s four
That were picked up and tortured
And framed by the law
And the filth got promotion
But they’re still doing time
For being Irish in the wrong place
And at the wrong time
In Ireland they’ll put you away in the Maze
In England they’ll keep you for seven twenty eight long days
God help you if ever you’re caught on these shores
The coppers need someone
And they walk through that door

No leaks on US – Israeli relations…

… as said, probably because of higher internal security classification…
.
.
.
.
.
.
but Mossad are likely more effective / less restrained than the CIA????

Words of banned song should read

‘We got the wrong people but the murderers still walk free’? 🙄

[EDIT] the alleged murderers become politicians [/EDIT]

Once again, for the hard of thinking–
You: “let’s not spend any more time trying to find out the truth, because I already know what the truth is”
Me: “the hell you do!”

Not really – it’s more like “we already have some cause to doubt that the truth will emerge and be acted upon, so we feel uncomfortable gambling someone’s freedom on the chance that we are wrong”

Words of banned song should read

‘We got the wrong people but the murderers still walk free’?

Quite right – but that is the often overlooked element of mis-carriage of justice, surely?

Apply political pressure – whether it be direct, or just indirect pressure on the Police * to get results, and the whole thing is liable to go tits up.

There were a string of faulty convictions in the UK through the 70s and 80s (and not just terrorist / politcally sensitive ones) – but I well remember the Gov’t of the day being arrogant, condescending and patronising regarding those cases – a question of “who on eartth should question or criticise our system of justice…”

Shedding light on the politically murky can only be a good thing

ETA – * or insert “Swedish prosecutor”

JA says he’s scared about going to Sweden. Fair enough, but until he faces this complaint, he’s not going to be able to clear his name which will hobble his ability to operate Wikileaks.

I guess what he is hoping is that he can undertake the discussion with the Swedes while in the UK. It should become clear, again, then that there is no prosecution because there has been no crime.

I am puzzled by JA’s obvious cagyness over the two women – something went on that he is hiding. But what?

Clearly you can wrongly accuse someone of a crime and try them if you dont want to look at the claim to see if it has any merit [whilst deciding to let “justice be seen to be done” then that is your choice.

Your argument is that Assange has been tried in the court of public opinion, found innocent, so we don’t need to go to a real court in this case.

i can articulate my own argument thank you.
NO this is not my case at all i cant say more as It would require you reading about the claim and you refuse.

Once again, for the hard of thinking–
You: “let’s not spend any more time trying to find out the truth, because I already know what the truth is”
Me: “the hell you do!”

you seem bright and articulate but disagreeing with your view does not make someone hard of thinking.
you say I dont want to find the truth when you dont know any details of the charge and refuise to think for yourself on this issue such rich irony whilst you accuse me of being hard of thinking
Yor points are valid if the charge s had any weoght as they have very little weight indeed it is is not that relevant

rkk01 – agreed. There was some pretty shoddy convictions which ultimately played into the hands of terrorists rather than convicting the right people. So much for the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth!

Assange – surely a video link from London to a Swedish court would be cheaper, more cost effective and better all round; or is that too dangerous a precedent?