[Closed] Julian Assange?

An oleagenous, self interested plonker in my view.

Both

Righteous hero that is an annoying twerp who you would never get tired of slapping

As above.

Who?

TJ does he rermind you of anyone 😉

He has annoying mannerisms but only a moron would let that prejudice the view that what he is doing is nothing but good. He is showing the people who pay for governments what they are paying for and its clear that those governments don't like it.

or they very much do but don't want you to know that they do 😉 tin foil hat, anyone?

interesting interview with him on Radio 4.
Attention seeking for sure , good job not 100% sure on that as very little of what he has said/revealed has changed the world - it more confirms gossip tbh.
As others noted there is nothing about Israel which is a very interesting omission.

oleagenous = Word of the day 😉

Nice house, . . . .

He'd be better off just settling down and using it as a wedding venue . . .

He'd be making people happy, be surrounded by happy people every weekend, . .what's not to like?

Junkyard - Member
TJ does he rermind you of anyone

For me he's quite an odd character and stranger that he has started this up from what I consider as a safe, quiet politically sterile/incorrect place of Townsville.

Heard his interview this a.m. which really didn't nail why he was doing all this, but missed out on the piece on what was happening about the Swedish Court Case - outside his assertion that he wouldn't get a fair trial in Sweden (Sweden FFS! They're more likely to jail themselves for wasting his time and throw in a sauna, jacuzzi and a SAAB for good measure!)

If we consider this constant gathering of leaks as subversive then so is the recent entrapment of Vince Cable - 'politician says something in private shocker'

Still - as a country I think we have been fed enough rubbish for long enough about 'successes' in various 'theatres of war'.

'there is nothing about Israel'

apart from the assassination of the Syrian security chief by sniper?

Hero. 100%

Can't believe some people would have more of an opinion about his character than what Wikileaks is doing.

annoying, vain git
whos just confirming what our politicians and press are too afraid to tell us about all the unpleasant things in the world, often done in our name
i think a lot of people would rather stick their head in the sand and ignore what wikileaks is doing

The public has a right to privacy correct?

All of you free speech liberals who champion him as a hero, tell me you subscribe to the right to privacy.

Yes?

Well then surely governments also have a right to privacy for some areas of their work; do you really expect the machinations of international diplomacy to work if the internal mechanics can be compromised so readily and made available for public consumption?

Christ next thing we know we'll be expecting the Security Services to stop being secret.

Oh wait, hang on....

Even if he turns out to be a rigid singlespeeding 29er, anyone who tries to make the people that run our lives more transparent is a hero.

idave - that was what Syria thought not what Israel thought - big difference
Nothing on what USA said re Israel and Palestine , the invasion, the wall, the settlements etc nothing.
Interesting that dont you think

Separated at birth?

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

Oh and I agree with TJ.

Nothing on what USA said re Israel and Palestine , the invasion, the wall, the settlements etc nothing.
Interesting that dont you think

Maybe that's what his 'safety net' file contains, now that would shut the Americans up i'd imagine...

anyone who tries to make the people that run our lives more transparent is a hero

So you're saying you think we should be disclosing tactical military information about troop movements, or publishing the names and activities of MI5 agents and operatives?

Do you think that's going to make the world a better place and keep you safe whenever you get on a tube or bus in London?

What was the point of releasing that list of sites which the US considered of strategic importance, other than to keep his name in the media? So the US has a list of sites which they'd rather not see targeted by terrorists. Wow. We really needed to know that didn't we?
Attention seeking cretin.

Am I alone in thinking that the guy who really needs saving from the full weight of the legal system is Bradley Manning. Unlike Assange, they actually HAVE him in a military prison (in solitary since May) and are discussing whether a charge of treason (a capital offence) is something they can make stick.

All the talk about some hazy CIA plot to get Assange to Sweden so they can ship him to the US in an Ikea container isn't particularly threatening when you consider Manning is facing most of his life in prison or, potentially, a firing squad.

Probably Manning would consider a firing squad to be something of a relief. His treatment in custody exposes the lie that the US is some sort of shining example to the world just as much as do the Wikileaks cables.

[url= http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/no-naps-and-no-clothes-in-bed-mannings-cell-life-2164841.html ]http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/no-naps-and-no-clothes-in-bed-mannings-cell-life-2164841.html[/url]

Sweden is looking pretty dark to me right now. What other country in the world has ever chased a rape suspect to this degree? It clearly has ulterior motives.

I think I read that in some of the released papers, it was revealed that some government sector in Sweden had done a deal with the USA, arranged so that they could avoid informing the Swedish Parliament of such co-operation, even though it was a legal requirement that the Parlement be informed.

They side stepped legalities as it was realised Parliament would strongly object to what was going on. This situation, if correct, leaves parts of the Swedish government open to any demands from the USA just to cover up their own illegitimate behaviour.

If they are happy to lie to their own parliament, what chance Assange? If he is extradited to Sweden, they may as well just hand him to the USA.

What bewilders me is why no politicians are being warned or arrested for incitement to murder given the very public calls by them for him to be illegally assassinated.

Whatever Assange has done or not done - to throw aside the neutrality and fairness of any justice system is utterly despicable and must be by default, a much worse crime.

Manning is accused of leaking classified information. They seem to have enough evidence to have arrested him and kept him held pending those charges being brought against him in a military court.

There is due process, which is being followed. Are you suggesting that they should ignore the evidence and just say, 'OK well since it's all in the public interest then to hell with anyone else's safety'?

getee what would have made buses in london a lot safer would have been us never invading iraq that way a bunch of young british lads from leeds would never have become radicalised and decided to blow themselves and a lot of others up

yup manning is stuffed- in solitary denied blankets etc etc apparently suffering a breakdown

and the US governments harrassing of paypal, amazon, visa has exposed them as repressive and hipocritical, along with death threats from politicians making assange seem even more righteous

DrJ - According to what I read, his treatment is normal for someone in a military prison and on suicide watch. Certainly doesn't sound like fun but by all accounts he's not been singled out for special punishment. Having never been in a US military prison, I can't comment on whether that's true though.

Still, he's heading for a legalised lynching. The net is full of blog posts of the type "Lets give him a fair trial, find him guilty then have him shot".

@ Atlaz,

I don't think Bradley Manning is having much fun right now:

[url= http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/14/manning/ ]http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/14/manning/[/url]

If he wasn't a suicide risk when he was first locked up, I would imagine he might be by now.

Not saying it's fun. Just saying nothing I've read indicates he's been singled out for this sort of treatment, just that it's standard for someone in his situation.

geetee I can't see how wikileaks is more likely to make some nutter strap a bomb to his chest and walking onto a bus than say, bombing his country in an oil grab whilst lying about it. (On preview, what kimbers said)

That list of Oil Pipelines, Nuclear facilities, border crossings was originally sent to 2.5 million people in the US - a not very secret list of very obvious targets. It was published to point out that foreign diplomats are being asked to spy on certain sites of importance to the US.

The world will be a safer and better place if governments around the world are upfront about foreign policy, and stop hiding behind political rhetoric and grandstanding. This is what wikileaks and any good journalism should be exposing.

Finally, I agree with the general sentiment about Bradley Manning.

PeterPoddy:
Who?

🙄

geetee you seem to think that these cables are top secret military strategy - they're not even classified secret, for the most part. Tens of thousands of personnel had access to them. I think you and others ares very eager to put down what Wikileaks is doing purely because you don't take to Assange's character - in other words the government character assassination is working just fine, and the propaganda is being lapped up by the masses.

Consider this: Wikileaks is distributing truths - it is not made up. In contrast we and the US went into Iraq on the basis of [b]un[/b]truths - and over a million people are now dead. It's pretty clear to me who the criminals are.

getee what would have made buses in london a lot safer would have been us never invading iraq that way a bunch of young british lads from leeds would never have become radicalised and decided to blow themselves and a lot of others up

That is the most jejune comment on this thread.

There have been radicalised Islamic terrorist attacks for about the past 50 years; pretty much since the establishment of Israel as a separate state and the ensuing political issues that arise from that. Invading Iraq is just a convenient excuse.

Witness (both) 9/11 attacks, which I think predates the invasion of Iraq.

I think I am going to invest in a website that sells tin foil hats, clearly some money to be made.

Interesting slant re Israel - the fact that none of the cables refer to chat between Israel and the USA proves that it must be happening and dodgy ?? There were no cables to Elvis or Aliens, which clearly proves that they are both alive and well and living in Tulsa.

I have to say tho, he is a creepy looking guy if one was judging a book by it's cover.

we and the US went into Iraq on the basis of untruths

Er, not we didn't. I clearly recall the following:
Sadam had at least had WMD
Had used WMD on the Kurds
Had already invaded Kuwait and Iran
Had obstructed UN inspectors ad infinitum

As it turns out, he was playing a poor game of brinkmanship bluff and double bluff and it cost him his life.

purely because you don't take to Assange's character

I've held the view that what he was doing was wrong since the story became main stream but until this morning, I never had any idea of his character. I listened to the interview on Radio 4 and frankly I think he comes apart at the seams with his arguments on why he shouldn't be extradited.

100% Hero, anyone who sees it otherwise has been duped by the global Zionist conspiracy

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The lizard people made him say that dont believe him

There have been radicalised Islamic terrorist attacks for about the past 50 years

What he has done that some people seem to miss is to highlight the absolutely shoddy security systems that the US has in place. Sadly, rather than respond by tightening up their own security, the yanks are chucking their toys out of the pram and whinging about the damage being done. Remember, someone just copied all this stuff onto a disk and handed it over -if there is stuff of tactical/national importance, it could have gone somewhere far worse, and if not, what's the problem?

Yes but not here by UK born Muslims against us _ I am fairly confident they did not do this because of Israel what do you think?

That is a fair point and I think that if you had been able to ask these men in detail about their motives, I've no doubt that they would cite the invasion of Iraq as a key motivator.

However I don't think that the process of radicalisation in the UK is new or even confined to a post Iraq-invasion world. I think this process has been going on for much of this decade and the last.

I also don't think there is much point in trying to understand the 'logic' of the reasoning behind someone prepared to strap a bomb to themselves and blow themselves up in the name of whatever god they pray to. Frankly, it's the sign of a lack of logic not to mention conscience.

There is however a lot to be gained by studying the mechanism and process of radicalisation and in doing so, I don't think you can gain much insight without referring to geo-political landscape including Iraq, Afghanistan, ****stan, Israel, Saudi Arabia, the UK and US etc.

DrJ - According to what I read, his treatment is normal for someone in a military prison and on suicide watch.

Could be right - which makes it even worse, surely? What purpose does it serve to prevent him even from exercising?

anyone ever visit the site? Did you see the video of the journalists being shot up by the US helicopter, and the subsequent shooting of the car that tried to rescue the kids who had been shot and the troop leader who told his men to drop them?

[i]we and the US went into Iraq on the basis of untruths[/i]

Er, not we didn't. I clearly recall the following:
Sadam had at least had WMD
Had used WMD on the Kurds
Had already invaded Kuwait and Iran
Had obstructed UN inspectors ad infinitum

Good grief. We invaded Iraq on the basis that he HAD WMD, and could use them within 45 min. Have you forgotten already? As for invading Iran - yes, he did. At whose encouragement?

The US, and UK I have to assume, were perfectly well aware of the WMD situation - they just did not want to know. Sanctions alone had already killed half a million under 5 year olds in Iraq (UN report), and then the killing was ramped up many-fold. Get real - well over a MILLION Iraqis are dead now, and the excuses are just lies.

Te absence of hot Israel gossip probably has more to do with security level than anything else - the current tranche of cables are more in the line of embarrassing tittle tattle than the kind of earth shaking stories that might come out in the case of Israel.

Talking of WMDs - one middle east coutry def has not only WMDs, but Nuclear WMDs - they also have blatantly invaded another country, and continue to do so every day, in blatant defiance of UN and world governments resolutions.

I saw those Dr and that is where it is very good exposing hypocrisy and letting us know what really happens.
I do believe that diplomats should be able to speak freely in private memos with their home country and learning diplomatic tittle tatlle serves very little purpose.

and twice in a day i find myself in accord with tj. 😯

but oleaginous (sp)? and jejune? is it the time of year when stw people are sleeping on the oed?

as for assange/manning. is it just me or does there seem something just a bit off that assange's bail, what was it, two hundred grand, is stumped up within days and yet wikileaks promised money to the manning defence fund (promised before the financial restrictions) and a mere $50000 has yet to surface. wikileaks not quite so forward about leaking their financial details on that one.

I do believe that diplomats should be able to speak freely in private memos with their home country and learning diplomatic tittle tatlle serves very little purpose.

I don't entirely disagree with that, but when the issue is, for example, the US Secretary of State involved in espionage in the UN, then I think we have a right to know what is being done.

Modern day hero, exposing exposing the dirt behind what many consider to be 'model countries'.

If the yankies put as much effort into hunting Bin Laden, as they have Assange, we would have been out of Afghanistan within a month of entering it...

I'd imagine EVERY country has stuff like this on diplomatic cables, a large number of them considerably worse.

"Righteous hero of the people or self serving git?"

That's not an XOR, he can be both at once. He interviewed very badly on R4 this morning - complete lack of skill.

Because of this I'm more inclined to think he's the genuine article.

jejune my ass(anage) !
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article684324.ece

Have a go at stealing the cables yourself...

[url= http://www.jeuxjeuxjeux.fr/jeu/ne+te+fais+pas+attraper/wikileaks.html ]Clicky[/url]

it's not easy!

Correct DrJ but is anyone really surprised that diplomats spy? Hardly news IMHO

Is it too early to say I'm incredibly bored with the whole thing and don't give flying, er, thingy about what happens to Julian Massage?

He's irritating, but I approve of the concept of wikileaks - I am also fairly convinced that the charges against him are trumped up.

This is an interesting take on it though - essentially, at least in America, all the revelations that have come out in the NY Times basically support US foreign policy.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=22389

And sorry but this is ridiculous:

Er, not we didn't. I clearly recall the following:
Sadam had at least had WMD
Had used WMD on the Kurds
Had already invaded Kuwait and Iran
Had obstructed UN inspectors ad infinitum

As it turns out, he was playing a poor game of brinkmanship bluff and double bluff and it cost him his life.

Here

Reports by the US Senate's committee on banking, housing and urban affairs -- which oversees American exports policy -- reveal that the US, under the successive administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush Snr, sold materials including anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever germs and botulism to Iraq right up until March 1992, as well as germs similar to tuberculosis and pneumonia. Other bacteria sold included brucella melitensis, which damages major organs, and clostridium perfringens, which causes gas gangrene.

Classified US Defence Department documents also seen by the Sunday Herald show that Britain sold Iraq the drug pralidoxine, an antidote to nerve gas, in March 1992, after the end of the Gulf war. Pralidoxine can be reverse engineered to create nerve gas.

The Senate committee's rep orts on 'US Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual-Use Exports to Iraq', undertaken in 1992 in the wake of the Gulf war, give the date and destination of all US exports. The reports show, for example, that on May 2, 1986, two batches of bacillus anthracis -- the micro-organism that causes anthrax -- were shipped to the Iraqi Ministry of Higher Education, along with two batches of the bacterium clostridium botulinum, the agent that causes deadly botulism poisoning.

One batch each of salmonella and E coli were shipped to the Iraqi State Company for Drug Industries on August 31, 1987. Other shipments went from the US to the Iraq Atomic Energy Commission on July 11, 1988; the Department of Biology at the University of Basrah in November 1989; the Department of Microbiology at Baghdad University in June 1985; the Ministry of Health in April 1985 and Officers' City, a military complex in Baghdad, in March and April 1986.

The shipments to Iraq went on even after Saddam Hussein ordered the gassing of the Kurdish town of Halabja, in which at least 5000 men, women and children died. The atrocity, which shocked the world, took place in March 1988, but a month later the components and materials of weapons of mass destruction were continuing to arrive in Baghdad from the US.

http://www.rense.com/general29/wesold.htm

Yeah the guy is a bit of a nutter but the basic facts check out.

Also,

US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld helped Saddam Hussein build up his arsenal of deadly chemical and biological weapons, it was revealed last night.
As an envoy from President Reagan 19 years ago, he had a secret meeting with the Iraqi dictator and arranged enormous military assistance for his war with Iran.
The CIA had already warned that Iraq was using chemical weapons almost daily. But Mr Rumsfeld, at the time a successful executive in the pharmaceutical industry, still made it possible for Saddam to buy supplies from American firms.
They included viruses such as anthrax and bubonic plague, according to the Washington Post.
The extraordinary details have come to light because thousands of State Department documents dealing with the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war have just been declassified and released under the Freedom of Information Act.
At the very least, it is highly embarrassing for 70-year-old Mr Rumsfeld, who is the most powerful and vocal of all the hawks surrounding President Bush.
He bitterly condemns Saddam as a ruthless and brutal monster and frequently backs up his words by citing the use of the very weapons which it now appears he helped to supply.

Read more: http://www.****/news/artic l'e-153210/Rumsfeld-helped-Iraq-chemical-weapons.html#ixzz18lTxBrO8

And the much derided UN weapons inspectors - who were attacked mercilessly as ineffective by Blair etc - turned out to be completely right about Iraq having no WMDs by then.

You're being extremely 'jejune' if you really believe that WMDs was anything other than a convenient excuse.

can't be bothered to read all that.

Although light is the best disinfectant, if no exchange is private no one will ever say anything.

(yes, it's an exaggeration)

So it's always a balancing act about what should be public and what should not. And who can make that call? I don't know. But it certainly shouldn't be this fool. Neither troop movements nor diplomatic cables should have gone up on the site.

And how many women do you get to assault for free if you run a controversial media outlet?

And how many women do you get to assault for free if you run a controversial media outlet?

Did you bother reading the details of the case either? I really struggle to see where the 'assault' part comes into it.

theyEye

No doubt because you can't be bothered to read into it (you are a perfect citizen, behaving just as the powers want you to, well done) you seem to have missed quite a lot.

Troop movements? When did that get leaked?

As for women assaulted - do you think it is odd at all that both women continued to be host to Assange after the alleged incidents? Continued to hold parties for him? Or how about "Miss A" continuing to tweet about her association with him, but then trying to delete those posts once she found out about the other woman?

No doubt you can't be bothered to read this either

Regarding the leaked cables, they make an interesting study of US foreign policy thinking. In some cases they reveal that authorities have been out-and-out politiking the public.

The mission of Wikileaks to to expose this so that the public are better informed about the decision making their governments make. Clearly some information must remain secret to protect our people. But in general there is a tendency to overuse secrecy to hide political games. The protection of information is the responsibility of its users and in this the State Dept. has utterly failed and is humiliated. The responsibility of journalists like Wikileaks is to redact the material to prevent danger to individuals, which is happening.

This kind of journalism is a vital cornerstone of democracy, needed to keep governments accountable. While John Humphreys took Assange apart today, I think Wikileaks has revealed far more about the real politics that John has in his entire lifetime grilling politicians on the radio.

[b]It is a shame in a way that Assange is such a typical geek: clever, idealistic, liberal, ethical*, but extremely egotistical and irritating. Does he ride bikes perchance?[/b]

*assuming you think the sex charges are trumped up, which after looking at a few details, I do.

Is it too early to say I'm incredibly bored with the whole thing and don't give flying, er, thingy about what happens to Julian Massage?

No, not too early - I'm sure that the powers-that-be will be more than happy that one more member of the public doesn't give a rat's ass about who gets killed and who gets tortured, so they can get on with milking the world dry in peace.

Correct DrJ but is anyone really surprised that diplomats spy? Hardly news IMHO

Lots of things have come out that maybe we suspected in a paranoid sort of way, but I personally am shocked that all my worst fears are not only true, but more awful than I imagined.

DrJ +1

Reading the above posts the truth is that governments are becoming ever more remote from the people they purport to serve. Politicians seem to have forgotten their electorate - it seems the more they shout of freedom and democracy the less democracy and freedom their actually is.

Was it not Voltaire who said - I don't agree with what you say but I will fight for your right to say it. Assange as strange as he is has actually lifted the lid on just how rancid politics really has become. Do any of you here really think that Iraq was a good idea? Seriously? Not in my name and certainly not at that price - said it before it started (GWII) and have said it ever since. Perhaps this is the necessary development of open and accountable democracy?

lifted the lid on just how rancid politics really has become

Do you honestly believe this is as bad as it's ever been? I'm sure that if you had unfettered access to documentation about what countries got up to in the 50s and 60s you'd have an aneurysm.

grumm your liberal fool

I really struggle to see where the 'assault' part comes into it.

Anybody who rocks the boat and gets people thinking is alright with me.

Assange does come across pretty poorly - doubly so when you consider the serious inflationary hype about what wikileaks has actually revealed (IMHO).

His persecution (if that's not too strong a word), though, is incredible - and the most convincing thing to me that wikileaks might amount to more than a dissemination vehicle for liberal-baiting gossip. The military-industrial complex in action, really.

Bradley Manning is toast, let's face it. As a US soldier, he knew what he was doing, got caught (through basically bragging about it AFAICT), so he can expect rough justice. Whether he's a hero or not depends on your POV, but there's nothing down for the lad either way.

Junkyard - Member
grumm your liberal fool
I really struggle to see where the 'assault' part comes into it.

It is the bit where after the consenual sex act they found out he had "cheated" with the other one ...that is when it became an assault ...way after the event freely took place. Despite the sexual acts taking place at different times the women filed the charges together at the same time...seems a clear smear campaign to me

basically a smear test then.........

"Bradley Manning is toast"

Completely agree. He signed-up to classified data handling rules which he has willfully breached. The punishment is punitive.

tankslapper cant decide if I s****ed more than I groaned then - chapeau

Completely agree. He signed-up to classified data handling rules which he has willfully breached.

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?

I wasn't aware that there was a cover-up relating to the copter video. There was an interesting interview with one of the soldiers on the scene after the attack was finished (he's the one who got the surviving kids medical aid) and he said they definitely recovered weapons from the ground so it wasn't like the people shot initially were just standing around. Given he's been fairly honest about the attack and the aftermath, he sounds quite genuine. He also gives reasons for the gunships opening up on the van as well.

Completely agree. He signed-up to classified data handling rules which he has willfully breached. The punishment is punitive.

Usually there is a trial before you get punished ...

atlaz watch the video it is as clear as clear can be that they are just shooting people

grumm - Member

Did you bother reading the details of the case either? I really struggle to see where the 'assault' part comes into it.

No, I didn't bother reading the details. Maybe he committed a crime, maybe he didn't. I don't know. And neither do you. Read all the guardian editorials you like, and you still won't know.
The point of any court case is to understand the full details of whatever happened, to then allow a decision on the basis of information which is as full and complete as possible.
It is a reasonable process. Now let it do its job instead of basing your judgements on propaganda, from whichever side.

glenp - Member

No doubt because you can't be bothered to read into it (you are a perfect citizen, behaving just as the powers want you to, well done) you seem to have missed quite a lot.

Troop movements? When did that get leaked?

You're right, I haven't bothered to read what's been leaked. Don't care. The information will not change my view of any government, as it's very minor compared to the other, much more fundamental gripes I have with 'the system'. Reading wikileaks would be like reading a negative review of the brakepads on a tesco dual suss. Your assumption that I'm a good citizen is foolish.

Attacking the illustration, glenp, even if incorrect, doesn't invalidate the point. Let me repeat:

In order for any organisation, be it government or business, to function efficiently, some information flows have to be kept confidential. Yet transparency is, without doubt, also instrumental to good decision making. So a balance has to be struck, but it's a very delicate one. I don't know who is qualified to decide where that balance is, but it's certainly not Assange.

Completely agree. He signed-up to classified data handling rules which he has willfully breached. The punishment is punitive.

Punitive or tantamount to inhumane?

The point of any court case is to understand the full details of whatever happened, to then allow a decision on the basis of information which is as full and complete as possible.
It is a reasonable process

the state to be nice and a fair arbiter of truth and justice

Ummm, what?
Sweden isn't a third world country, and nor do I expect them to do a run around justice by convening a military tribunal.
Therefore the state is not an arbiter at all, but rather only one of two sides in an argument before an independent judge and jury.
It's a good system (given competent lawyers which in this case I doubt will be a problem). I anticipate Assange will get a fair trial with a just outcome. Mistakes do happen, but I like to think they happen rarely.

You want transparency but you won’t read the information on this case how odd.

I want transparency so that I can find out things that matter to me. I want transparency so that you can find out things that matter to you.

Gawd, I don't know why I keep arguing on this forum. To argue with you is to imply that I care what you think, which just isn't the case... Just for the sport of it, I guess. Otherwise I might have to do some work...

You want people to agree with you or you dont care what they think How strange.
The state decides to charge hence why they can charge someone and be fair or unfair on this - I am no expert on the Swedish justice system. I think we can agree that even with an impartial judiciary the state still has a great deal of say in setting the rules [law]if not in interpretting them. I 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?
As you refuse to read the details of the case indeed there is little point discussing the case as one of us is, intentionally, ignorant.

You want people to agree with you or you dont care what they think How strange.

How strange.

how odd.

As you refuse to read the details of the case indeed there is little point discussing the case as one of us is, intentionally, ignorant.

It's true that a state can be unfair or political in choosing which cases to put before the court. This can be an inconvenience, but if a case is without foundation, it is usually thrown out very quickly.

The point is that the adversarial justice system with an independent judiciary is, overall, an excellent and successful structure, which is not easy to influence unduly. It is better at achieving justice than anything else Man has invented. It is this system's job to establish the facts of this case, and you should let it do its job rather than argue for short circuiting it based on your own opinions of what these facts are.

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