View previous topic | View next topic

Wikitwonks is still at it

Page 1 of 45
Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 43, 44, 45  Next

CB27
787008.  Fri Feb 11, 2011 1:20 pm Reply with quote

I've been reading some of the news from the extradition hearing, and I'm finding some of the claims made quite interesting.

Considering Wikileaks is supposed to be about revealing truths, the legal team for Mr Assange do not seem overly bothered by this idea.

Going back over the last few days, the vast majority of reporting on Mr Assange has been when he and his lawyer have held press conferences, yet he tried to claim that his client would be prejudiced against because of publicity.

He then tried to claim that the Swedish courts are held in public, but this seems to be a blatant lie because only the evidence is heard privately, the arguments aer heard in public. For me this is a lie rather than a mistake or misunderstanding, no lawyer worth their salt would be expected not to find out about the Swedish legal system before arguing against it in a hearing.

Now we are also told that the Swedish PM criticised Mr Assange, therefore he had "shown complete contempt for the presumption of innocence". To quote what the PM actually said:

Quote:
Unfortunately, this is the kind of thing you hear when (a lawyer) trying to defend a client gives a condescending description of other countries' legal systems, but everyone living in Sweden knows that is not in line with the truth.

Let's not forget what is at stake here: It is women's right to get a hearing on whether they have been the victims of abuse, I find if very regrettable that (Assange's defence team) in this way is trying to... make their rights appear worth very little"

This seems to me in answer to some of the claims made by the lawyer, not at attack no Assange himself, and surely we'd expect our own PM to rebuff similar claims if they were made against the UK courts?

Whether Mr Assange is innocent or guilty is not somethign I can contemplate or pronounce uopn, I don't have the details of the case, but I do find it ironic that a man who claims to be persecuted for trying to uncover the lies of others, is allowing his own legal team to use lies to help him avoid a recognised legal hearing.

 
bobwilson
787080.  Fri Feb 11, 2011 9:35 pm Reply with quote

I'm broadly in agreement with you CB (smelling salts will be provided in the foyer).

But a few things

Quote:
Considering Wikileaks is supposed to be about revealing truths


No - wikileaks is "supposed" to be about revealing hidden information of public interest. The two are not synonymous.

I'm also not sure that Assange's "lawyer" should be described as his "lawyer" - he seems to be acting more as a legally trained public relations adviser. Certain aspects of his conduct could probably get him referred to the Law Society on a charge of "bringing the profession into disrepute".

I have to say - if I were in Mr Assange's position I'd choose a different lawyer - and a different PR person too. But then - I have a fair bit of experience with dealing with individuals being prosecuted/persecuted by offical departments and finding the right representatives for them.

Quote:
Going back over the last few days, the vast majority of reporting on Mr Assange has been when he and his lawyer have held press conferences, yet he tried to claim that his client would be prejudiced against because of publicity.


That's a bit dodgy. There is already a public persona for Assange - this won't be changed before any trial. It makes sense to emphasise that Assange is already public property - it's rather ridiculous to claim (as you appear to be doing) that by not following up on the public persona you'd somehow return Assange to "just another case".

 
Neotenic
787763.  Mon Feb 14, 2011 6:04 am Reply with quote

Quote:
No - wikileaks is "supposed" to be about revealing hidden information of public interest. The two are not synonymous.



Just out of curiousity, could you furnish us with an example of an instance where revealing something which is not true would be in the public interest?

 
CB27
787786.  Mon Feb 14, 2011 7:27 am Reply with quote

You never heard of Roswell?


:)

 
Neotenic
790931.  Fri Feb 25, 2011 4:42 am Reply with quote

So poor little Julian has lost the first round of his extradition hearings, and in the following press conference pours scorn on the legal systems of both the UK and Sweden, along with quite possibly his most worrying call yet.

He has called on people to 'make this case bigger than him' - which, to me, sounds like exactly the opposite of what should really be happening.

I would have thought that a free and fair trial would entirely ignore the other activities of the accused, and any public profile, and would focus on determining whether the allegations made against him were true.

This, together with his legal team being pretty squarely caught in presenting misleading information in statements does rather make it look that Assange is rather more interested in simply saving his own skin than any form of justice in the broader sense.

This is especially the case when one considers that he is not fighting extradition to Russia or Sudan, but to Sweden, which ranks in the top five least corrupt countries on earth according to Transparency International, so it does rather jar with the picture he and his team are painting.

 
CB27
791012.  Fri Feb 25, 2011 8:21 am Reply with quote

If only there was a website where people could provide information on the quiet, and without fear of being exposed, to show the lengths this man and his team have gone to in order to avoid a proper and legal trial...

 
Jenny
791074.  Fri Feb 25, 2011 12:25 pm Reply with quote

That definitely deserves a LOL!

 
bobwilson
791182.  Sat Feb 26, 2011 1:32 am Reply with quote

Neo wrote:
CB wrote:
Considering Wikileaks is supposed to be about revealing truths


bob wrote:
No - wikileaks is "supposed" to be about revealing hidden information of public interest. The two are not synonymous.


Just out of curiousity, could you furnish us with an example of an instance where revealing something which is not true would be in the public interest?


(I've taken a few liberties Neo - but I think that's what you meant?)

The answer to your question is - No. Do you need me to expand on that?

 
CB27
791249.  Sat Feb 26, 2011 9:02 am Reply with quote

bobwilson wrote:
The answer to your question is - No. Do you need me to expand on that?

If I may, I'll expand it further:


N...................o........................

 
PDR
791256.  Sat Feb 26, 2011 9:37 am Reply with quote

Neotenic wrote:
Just out of curiousity, could you furnish us with an example of an instance where revealing something which is not true would be in the public interest?


If it was discovered that a senior government official's claim not to have been involved in (say) illegal phone hacking was untrue would it be in the public interest to reveal that?

PDR

 
Neotenic
791785.  Mon Feb 28, 2011 9:02 am Reply with quote

Yeah, but you would still be revealing the truth about a situation.

Bob's rather bizarre assertation was that the truth and 'hidden information that should be revealed in the public interest' were not always synonymous - so I was just wondering (as I still am) when it is in the public's interest to be told about a hidden falsehood.

 
PDR
791799.  Mon Feb 28, 2011 9:51 am Reply with quote

Ah - get your drift.

But I'm more interested to know what leverage the new Irish tea-shop will use to re-negotiate its bail-out. I must say I think this will be an amusing spectator sport.

PDR

 
Neotenic
791810.  Mon Feb 28, 2011 10:42 am Reply with quote

Yeah - as far as I can see, they only have two things that could be renegotiated, being the rate of interest and the length of the term for repayment.

If the loan gets paid back at the same rate over a longer term, it'll cost them more, and if they can reduce the rate and increase the term it'll probably cost about the same - so the best they could hope for, probably, is a lower rate over the same term.

Of course, irrespective of what the politicians say to their electorate, it's a matter of whether the IMF, the ECB and us are open to renegotiations in the first place - and I think it's probably too early for that, myself - so it'll probably turn out to be something of a rash promise from the hustings that hangs round their necks.

 
PDR
791814.  Mon Feb 28, 2011 10:51 am Reply with quote

That's my read as well. I suspect it will be as effective as a pledge to remove tuition fees...

:0)

PDR

 
suze
791844.  Mon Feb 28, 2011 12:44 pm Reply with quote

Just quickly on that Irish election, since it's not had much coverage here.

Not all of the seats have been declared yet, even though the election was on Friday. This may concern Nick Clegg in particular, since Irish elections use Single Transferable Vote.

It's not identical to the system which is to be the subject of a referendum in the UK, because the UK proposal will still only return one member per constituency; the Irish system returns three members for most constituencies. (Some return four or five.) But it does required quite a lot of counting, as would the system proposed here.

Another odd feature of Irish elections is that parties field multiple candidates in each constituency, and to some extent they campaign against each other. (Contrast with the PR systems used in most of Europe, where one votes for a party; in Ireland, one votes for a person.)

Anyways, some numbers. The old government had been Fianna Fáil (LibDem, ish), but that party has collapsed from 77 seats to 18, only five ahead of Sinn Féin. The Labour Party has won its highest number of seats ever with 33 to date, and seem likely to enter into a grand coalition with Fine Gael (70 seats). Which may seem odd to some, because Fine Gael is a Conservative-type party; it began its life in the 1930s as a Fascist party.

The Socialist Party of Ireland (a member of the Committee for a Workers' International) and the Socialist Workers Party have both taken seats. One of the new Trotskyite TDs is Richard Boyd Barrett, who is the son of the actor Sinéad Cusack and is on record as a supporter of Hizbollah.

 

Page 1 of 45
Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 43, 44, 45  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group