Julian Assange

[SethG]

The US gets kicked more than it should. It's Government however does have a knack of repeatedly shooting itself in the foot. I like to separate the actions of a Governmentt from its people. Having travelled the US extensively over 20 years you can't define it in catch cry slogans. Nor can you define any other country same. Each has a rich layered tapestry so complex and generally good.

It's just my two cents, but I agree with you and never mind the criticism. There's a huge difference though between a friendly "so, what the heck you doing over there on healthcare??" and some of language that gets tossed around.

It's the difference between saying to Australians "Hey, what's up with the way you guys treat indigenous peoples and asylum seeking immigrants"

and the currently accepted alternative meant to do nothing but cause offense:

"Australia is getting bad press but it can get worse.... if you guys think you have the right to act in that manner.... I'd lose *enormous* respect for your country... I would find myself opposed to Australia in any way.... appalled at the arrogant actions of your country (or actions I speculate you might undertake at some future point) ....does your country really believe it's so superior it can treat people that way without reprisal.... do you want to become a pariah state and lose what allies you might still have.... what's next (Nazi) concentration camps and (Nazi) goose stepping? (You mean the Nazi's that we spent nearly a half million American lives on stopping???)

Bottom line, in my opinion the language used is just pure invective used to create a highly negative atmosphere of disrespect and hostility. When you reach the point of using an Internet forum dedicated to cigar smoking and a quiet camaraderie and then tip it in the direction of accusing the US of being Nazi's over a debate about one Internet weirdo with some stolen emails, it deserves a comment in return.

[El Presidente]

It's just my two cents, but I agree with you and never mind the criticism. There's a huge difference though between a friendly "so, what the heck you doing over there on healthcare??" and some of language that gets tossed around.

It's the difference between saying to Australians "Hey, what's up with the way you guys treat indigenous peoples and asylum seeking immigrants"

and the currently accepted alternative meant to do nothing but cause offense:

"Australia is getting bad press but it can get worse.... if you guys think you have the right to act in that manner.... I'd lose *enormous* respect for your country... I would find myself opposed to Australia in any way.... appalled at the arrogant actions of your country (or actions I speculate you might undertake at some future point) ....does your country really believe it's so superior it can treat people that way without reprisal.... do you want to become a pariah state and lose what allies you might still have.... what's next (Nazi) concentration camps and (Nazi) goose stepping? (You mean the Nazi's that we spent nearly a half million American lives on stopping???)

Bottom line, in my opinion the language used is just pure invective used to create a highly negative atmosphere of disrespect and hostility. When you reach the point of using an Internet forum dedicated to cigar smoking and a quiet camaraderie and then tip it in the direction of accusing the US of being Nazi's over a debate about one Internet weirdo with some stolen emails, it deserves a comment in return.

[El Presidente]

"Australia is getting bad press but it can get worse.... if you guys think you have the right to act in that manner.... I'd lose *enormous* respect for your country... I would find myself opposed to Australia in any way.... appalled at the arrogant actions of your country (or actions I speculate you might undertake at some future point) ....does your country really believe it's so superior it can treat people that way without reprisal.... do you want to become a pariah state and lose what allies you might still have.... what's next (Nazi) concentration camps and (Nazi) goose stepping? (You mean the Nazi's that we spent nearly a half million American lives on stopping???)"

You could use that exact line on our Asylum immigration policy. Many people internally and from around the world are.

I would rebutt it with a counter argument or I could tell all to mind their own business as we are a sovereign nation. One leads to dialogue and understanding (I didn't say agreement) and the other really adds little.

FOH is a community revolving around cigars but where discuss many topics of interest. Insult has never been tolerated but broad discussion of topics (excluding US politics) encouraged. Wikki Leaks is an international issue. Extradition is an international issue. We are an international forum.

While I found Kens post extreme I don't know anyone outside the US who loves the place more. Attacking a government is not attacking its people. I found the argument blurred but he can clarify if he wants to.

Just my 2 cents Seth and no intent to offend.

[CanuckSARTech]

While I think the initial idea (in my perception) of Wikileaks - a forum for whistleblowers revealing illegal or immoral activities by governments or businesses - is admirable and has my full support, it has changed to become a platform for Assange's ego and whatever personal agenda he has. This latest leak of cables, which are more gossip than anything else, does not support the original intention. ....Assange seems more interested in himself than preserving Wikileaks as a forum for whistleblowers, which is very sad.

Very well put, and I fully agree.

Some things just absolutely need to be kept secret. He's doing this to stroke his own ego. His own labelling of himself as a "journalist" is a joke anymore - it gives a bad name to true journalists and investigators everywhere.

Hey, I loved Wikileaks and what it did with the release of the Iraq helicopter footage, and some of the early Iraq documents. It helped illustrate a needed point, and helped give the world a much-needed slap in the face - hey, guess what, the U.S. administration isn't telling you everything, and at that, they are completely skewing what they should be telling you. There were a lot of things there that showed an exact opposite thing happened, as opposed to what the U.S. administration said about, multiple and varied events.

It did what "journalism" as a media is supposed to do - it held people accountable, by proving and establishing and showing facts.

Now, this current crap....

This is nothing more than gossip. Hell, my ambassador doesn't like your ambassador. My country thought your country should have been a bit more firm in demanding changes from this third country. Just a bunch of crap.

None of this is of any journalistic "tactical" advantage. It doesn't disprove any government policies or objectives as stated. It doesn't show any crimes or offences being committed. It's just airing out some diplomatic "dirty laundry", and doesn't do anyone any good.

It's almost like he's releasing this stuff to spite the U.S., and just to push the envelope that much further, to show what a big man (read: ego) he is. [Yes, that contained sarcasm].

Hey, like I said, I agreed with some of the earlier stuff, and think there's a benefit to the Wikileaks webpage as a whole. But all this recent stuff with these diplomatic cables is just the gossipy spreading of private, confidential mail, with no true positive benefit.

[Fuzz]

Oops. Looks like this topic might head down the banned from discussion path.

Let's change the topic a little. What are your views on the leaking of govt cables? Is it a crime to release private communications, even if sent by public servants? (Think about this before you answer, as even the dude down at the post office can be considered a public servant, and you really don't want to here what he thinks of you and your questionable porn habit. )

Though you may not have actively stolen the cables, is it right to publish them for all to see? Does not a govt employee have the right to a little privacy too?

Oh and Ken, hell yeah the poll is a little skewed! I found it hard to think of any redeeming things about Assange.

[El Presidente]

Hey, like I said, I agreed with some of the earlier stuff, and think there's a benefit to the Wikileaks webpage as a whole. But all this recent stuff with these diplomatic cables is just the gossipy spreading of private, confidential mail, with no true positive benefit.

I will disagree with you here

1.

Our former Prime minister Kevin Rudd ...a stated fluent Mandarin speaking Chinaphile was in a "leak" giving advice to Hillary Clinton on how they need to take a stronger stance on China which may mean Military Action in the future.

The Chinese found it no doubt rivetting that their perceived "Friend" thought this way.

The Australian public found out how two faced the former prime minister really was (well...a perception reinforced).

2.

Former Labour opposition leader leader Mark latham once famously characterised the Liberal Party here as a "Conga Line of Suck Holes" for their cosy relationship with the US.

It was beautiful reading to see the decision maker king pins of the labour Party giving "secret briefings" to US diplomats.

Ohhhhh the Irony!!!!

The Australian Public (and media) has received a tremendous insight into the machinations of Australian Politics.

Priceless!

[Fuzz]

I will disagree with you here

1.

Our former Prime minister Kevin Rudd ...a stated fluent Mandarin speaking Chinaphile was in a "leak" giving advice to Hillary Clinton on how they need to take a stronger stance on China which may mean Military Action in the future.

The Chinese found it no doubt rivetting that their perceived "Friend" thought this way.

The Australian public found out how two faced the former prime minister really was (well...a perception reinforced).

2.

Former Labour opposition leader leader Mark latham once famously characterised the Liberal Party here as a "Conga Line of Suck Holes" for their cosy relationship with the US.

It was beautiful reading to see the decision maker king pins of the labour Party giving "secret briefings" to US diplomats.

Ohhhhh the Irony!!!!

The Australian Public (and media) has received a tremendous insight into the machinations of Australian Politics.

Priceless!

Surely, you are not surprised by any of that? I mean, c'mon! An honest politician is like a Tin Man with a heart, they just don't exist!

[CanuckSARTech]

My only question is can you draw a parralel between Deputy Director of the FBI William Mark Felt, Sr secretly feeding government documentation to Woodward and Bernstein? Should Woodward and Bernsein be prosecuted for publishing that classified stolen information?

As much as I am suspicious of Assnage's charachter, I think that an extradiction and prosecution would send a shiver through every serious journalist in the world.

There is a big difference there, and it's very notable when you put it up against the diplomatic cables' leaks.

The "deepthroat" issue of leaks, and many other whistleblower leaks, are generally about a specific activity. A specific crime or an absence of justifiability by a government servant or entity in a given action/activity. One particular event, or a series of inter-related and criminal events. When these issues happen, yes, there is a theft, in essence, to get documents out into the press. But, there is a "justifiable exemption" that in essence quashes the act of theft, being that the theft brings to light a wrong that's ten-fold more serious, in an effort to have a wrong righted. The whistleblower themselves do it not for personal gain, and instead for the public good, again, to right a huge and unjustifiable wrong. In an analogy that I heard before, a whistleblower uses a small, sharp scalpel, to remove a cancer - it'll hurt a bit, but it ensures future health and well-being.

What Assange is doing with these releases of these diplomatic cables is NONE of that. He's not righting a wrong. There's been (to date) no evidence of any crimes being perpetrated. All he's doing is airing a dirty laundry list.

He's using a shotgun to shoot off an arm, just to try to get rid of a hangnail on a baby toe.

[El Presidente]

Surely, you are not surprised by any of that? I mean, c'mon! An honest politician is like a Tin Man with a heart, they just don't exist!

Fuzz I am a cynic and know many politicians..... of course suprised by none of it!

However for all those who wave the labour party flag...go the rallies...a little light was shone on their world, on their leaders. If 1000 more political cynics were created I would be thrilled!

[CanuckSARTech]

I will disagree with you here ....

But, while that's juicy, no crimes. Just opinions and thoughts, no matter how misguided/coniving/two-faced/etc., etc.

Now, if Rudd sent a comunique to Hillary, and told her what the codes were for the Chinese missles, or gave them some diagrams of their future planned military exercises, for better enabling the U.S. some huge military tactical advantage, then that would be something. Rudd would then be committing espionage.

Calling someone a "conga line" isn't a crime, no matter how un-diplomatic and rude it may be.

Over 200,000 some-odd cables, and about 4-thousand or so leaked so far, and I haven't seen anything worthy of justifying this blanket release. No evidence of wrongdoing or crimes. Namecalling is immature and unwise for diplomatic relations, but not a crime.

Hey, like I said before, I admire whistleblowers, and like many others, while I agree with many of America's policies, I disagree with just as many. That's world politics, c'est la vie. No country is perfect. And, I think the U.S. is being just as stupid and self-serving with the way they are using clout with Assange (potentially having PayPal, Visa, Mastercard get on him, using the clout of Interpol charges, extradition, etc., etc.). But Assange (and the military private) are not doing this with a purpose or a goal to help the general public.

[El Presidente]

There is a big difference there, and it's very notable when you put it up against the diplomatic cables' leaks.

The "deepthroat" issue of leaks, and many other whistleblower leaks, are generally about a specific activity. A specific crime or an absence of justifiability by a government servant or entity in a given action/activity. One particular event, or a series of inter-related and criminal events. When these issues happen, yes, there is a theft, in essence, to get documents out into the press. But, there is a "justifiable exemption" that in essence quashes the act of theft, being that the theft brings to light a wrong that's ten-fold more serious, in an effort to have a wrong righted. The whistleblower themselves do it not for personal gain, and instead for the public good, again, to right a huge and unjustifiable wrong. In an analogy that I heard before, a whistleblower uses a small, sharp scalpel, to remove a cancer - it'll hurt a bit, but it ensures future health and well-being.

What Assange is doing with these releases of these diplomatic cables is NONE of that. He's not righting a wrong. There's been (to date) no evidence of any crimes being perpetrated. All he's doing is airing a dirty laundry list.

He's using a shotgun to shoot off an arm, just to try to get rid of a hangnail on a baby toe.

Fair argument.

However "Airing a dirty laundry list" is what political journalists do every day in media around the world. They embarrass politicians (with leaked information) and on the rare occassions the embarrassment is bad enough it may lead to policy change/resignations/end or harm political careers.

I still can't for the life of me see where this is different except on scale? If he is prosecuted for it what danger does it put journalists in? If he has had no hand in procurement of the information (theft) but it landed on his PC....surely it is open game as long as the information does not lead to the physical harming of any individual? He is still open to civil charges of defamation but I don't see a line up of peole chasing that line which says something in itself.

This is what makes the issue of Wikki Leaks so intiguing. A core questioning of what the right of "Freedom of Information" is. I don't see it as a bad debate to have at all.

[CanuckSARTech]

Though you may not have actively stolen the cables, is it right to publish them for all to see? Does not a govt employee have the right to a little privacy too?

The inherent right to privacy, by a person/entity/government, can be quashed if it serves a greater good. It's a weighing of balances. That's my understanding of it anyway, and I believe it's set out very similarly in the various case/statute law of mostly all western democracies.

The way I've seen it put before is like this. If you're infringing on someone's inherent right to privacy, in any domain, there has to be a justifiable and quantifiable explanation and benefit. That's how police get a warrant to bust into a house and run a drug raid. You prove that you have demonstrable evidence of a particular wrong/crime, you weigh the odds, and go from there.

Police get a warrant ahead of time, as that's the law. A whistleblower has to end up having a judge and/or the public decide afterwards.

The way the courts look at it is that some evidence maybe wasn't obtained fully legally and proper (ie - jailhouse confession, or a whistleblower case). But, the courts then rule if not allowing the evidence would "put the administration of justice into disrepute" by disallowing it. Basically, weighing the greater good.

Stolen cables, in this case, I think could be excused and justifiable, if the theft of them somehow brought to light and thus corrected a greater wrong. As it stands, it just stealing someone's secret mail - theft.

[El Presidente]

Over 200,000 some-odd cables, and about 4-thousand or so leaked so far, and I haven't seen anything worthy of justifying this blanket release. No evidence of wrongdoing or crimes. Namecalling is immature and unwise for diplomatic relations, but not a crime.

However, who is in a position to judge justification for release? In todays media world "titillation" is enough. You are right that" Namecalling is immature and unwise for diplomatic relations, but not a crime." ....but neither is disclosing it.

Wikki Leaks will stop eventually. No doubt security on such correspondence will be tightened. However the prosecution of Assange would take it to a whole new level potentially undermining reporting freedoms for Journalists everywhere.

By the way, Assange is now a registered Australian journalist not that it means much.

[El Presidente]

The inherent right to privacy, by a person/entity/government, can be quashed if it serves a greater good. It's a weighing of balances. That's my understanding of it anyway, and I believe it's set out very similarly in the various case/statute law of mostly all western democracies.

The way I've seen it put before is like this. If you're infringing on someone's inherent right to privacy, in any domain, there has to be a justifiable and quantifiable explanation and benefit. That's how police get a warrant to bust into a house and run a drug raid. You prove that you have demonstrable evidence of a particular wrong/crime, you weigh the odds, and go from there.

The way the courts look at it is that some evidence maybe wasn't obtained fully legally and proper (ie - jailhouse confession, or a whistleblower case). But, the courts then rule if not allowing the evidence would "put the administration of justice into disrepute" by disallowing it. Basically, weighing the greater good.

Police get a warrant ahead of time, as that's the law. A whistleblower has to end up having a judge and/or the public decide afterwards.

Stolen cables, in this case, I think could be excused and justifiable, if the theft of them somehow brought to light and thus corrected a greater wrong. As it stands, it just stealing someone's secret mail - theft.

While not a lawyer, I think you will find that argument incorrect when it comes to Journalists (at least here). Definition of "In the Public Interest" is so broad specifically to protect the rights of Journalists.

Wikki Leaks would have no problem fitting within the definition under Australian Law which I suspect is attuned to broader Commonwealth law.

[CanuckSARTech]

However, who is in a position to judge justification for release? In todays media world "titillation" is enough. You are right that" Namecalling is immature and unwise for diplomatic relations, but not a crime." ....but neither is disclosing it.

Wikki Leaks will stop eventually. No doubt security on such correspondence will be tightened. However the prosecution of Assange would take it to a whole new level potentially undermining reporting freedoms for Journalists everywhere.

By the way, Assange is now a registered Australian journalist not that it means much.

AFTER the fact????

To me, that's just him trying to stroke his ego, and also maybe try to wrap himself in the blanket of "journalistic integrity" and "freedom of the press", after the cows were let out of the barnyard.

Hey, great discussion on here, but I just disagree with his operation of it.

Journalists air dirty laundry lists by having snitches and such - granted, sometimes a document here or there too. I think was does in fact make this sooooo different is that it is on such a grand scale, and this isn't a snitch or confidential informant telling a few juicy details. This was a whole database that was duplicated, copied, and stolen. It wasn't a solo e-mail that just "happened" across this young privates e-mail inbox; he specifically sought it out, and perpetuated a theft of encrypted data. Stolen material, en masse, that's being disseminated for no reason of understandable journalistic integrity or benefit to the public good.

But, I'm just starting to think about something. And, I'm no lawyer here either.

But, I'm wondering if the fact that there's jurisdictional issues might be a reasoning behind the "crime" labelling of this.

The data was stolen by an American private. Theft. It was then handed over to (non-journalist) Assange, and not a "certified" journalistic entity. He's a private citizen, running a webpage/private business, not a registered "press/media" outlet. Again, not sure if this comes into play with the whole "freedom of the press thing". Then, this stolen information, already declared stolen and illegal material prior to it's release, was then released on a non-American webpage by a non-American.

I'm not alleging non-American bias by the U.S. government on this.

But, what I'm saying is, what if there's no "freedom of the press" being granted in this case, because at the time the "crime" was committed, he wasn't a member of the press, nor was his webpage, and also the fact that the crime of further broadcast wasn't primarily committed while he was within the confines of the U.S., which would then grant him potential freedoms under the U.S. Constitution???

Like I said, I'm not a lawyer, but these issues could be in play. Besides, he's right now only being sought by Interpol for the potential rape charges in Europe. So, I'm not sure if the lack of charges (I think) from the U.S. speaks to anything also.

[CanuckSARTech]

While not a lawyer, I think you will find that argument incorrect when it comes to Journalists (at least here). Definition of "In the Public Interest" is so broad specifically to protect the rights of Journalists.

Wikki Leaks would have no problem fitting within the definition under Australian Law which I suspect is attuned to broader Commonwealth law.

LOL. Who knows. Neither you or I are lawyers - and we both funnily admitted that.

Thank gawd that we have the rational sober-thought of Ken to keep us all in check.

[El Presidente]

Journalists air dirty laundry lists by having snitches and such - granted, sometimes a document here or there too. I think was does in fact make this sooooo different is that it is on such a grand scale, and this isn't a snitch or confidential informant telling a few juicy details. This was a whole database that was duplicated, copied, and stolen. It wasn't a solo e-mail that just "happened" across this young privates e-mail inbox; he specifically sought it out, and perpetuated a theft of encrypted data. Stolen material, en masse, that's being disseminated for no reason of understandable journalistic integrity or benefit to the public good.

I think you will find that the Wikki Leaks Organization have plenty of "Registered Journalists" amongst them. It is not Assange alone.

From your argument above (selected extract) the essence of "scale" is a non issue legally. One document or a 250,000 the same laws apply (theft/Public Interest/Journalistic Freedoms).

It will be interesting to see how it plays out. Legally I would think he is on solid ground on this issue and he has a heavy hitter legal team. The supplier of the information is obviously in some trouble.

Should this ever go to trial I can see his QC Geoffrey Robertson having a field day.

"Your honour...today every serious Journalist in the world contemplates a life behind bars"

He would proceed to list thousands of precedents of leaked (stolen) government documents leading to front page news stories going back 100 years.

He would have a field day.

[Fuzz]

On a side note, what do you think of the actions of his supporters and detractors? How far will this escalate? Global hacking by his techno supporters and assassinations orchestrated by embarrassed governments?

I find it intriguing that this one dude has caused such a ruckuss.

[CanuckSARTech]

On a side note, what do you think of the actions of his supporters and detractors? How far will this escalate? Global hacking by his techno supporters and assassinations orchestrated by embarrassed governments?

I find it intriguing that this one dude has caused such a ruckuss.

I think we've all just made this forum a target.

Being that we all smoke Cuban cigars and say fie to the rules.

Everyone is being an extremist, on all sides, in this whole debacle.

[El Presidente]

On a side note, what do you think of the actions of his supporters and detractors? How far will this escalate? Global hacking by his techno supporters and assassinations orchestrated by embarrassed governments?

I find it intriguing that this one dude has caused such a ruckuss.

Imagine a world where no government responded on the issue. No interviews, step comments nothing. A world where politicians didn't even mention his name nor referred to WL.

Assange would be pissed and it would all blow over in months.

Politicians are without doubt the stupidest people on the planet.

[CanuckSARTech]

Imagine a world where no government responded on the issue. No interviews, step comments nothing. A world where politicians didn't even mention his name nor referred to WL.

Assange would be pissed and it would all blow over in months.

Politicians are without doubt the stupidest people on the planet.

Here here!!!!

[Ken Gargett]

When you grow up in the US you get to hear this kind of stuff constantly, we're constantly being judged and it usually begins with phrases like "doesn't have the right" and "I'll lose respect for..." and since we're a superpower we'll get the usual "arrogance" and "believe they are superior." And it all comes back to whether or not we're going to lose more fairweather allies.

It's the same old garbage every time and it gets really old. The US is a sovereign nation, we'll do as we please without any need to play it out in the court of international opinion.

this is my second and last attempt to respond as the first was deemed inappropriate and deleted, though how it could possibly be more inappropriate than what it was responding to is beyond me.

the attitude, which thankfully - at least in my experience - is not a universal one across america, that we'll do what we want (and if that isn't arrogance, then i need a new dictionary) is one that appalls pretty much the rest of the world. might is right? it is also an attitude that leads to responses, whether they be mildly verbal or something far more extreme (i am apparently not allowed to refer to specific events), that in turn cause outrage (and on occasion, rightly so).

perhaps instead of dismissing this garbage as old, it might be worth considering the underlying causes. you might find attitudes would change.

the comment re allies suggests that you feel that allies must always fall in behind whatever view you might have or actions you might take. it is a two way street.

as for dismissing australia as a fairweatrher friend, that is both deeply offensive and shows a complete lack of any knowledge or understanding of the history of our two countries.

[El Presidente]

this is my second and last attempt to respond as the first was deemed inappropriate and deleted, though how it could possibly be more inappropriate than what it was responding to is beyond me.

the attitude, which thankfully - at least in my experience - is not a universal one across america, that we'll do what we want (and if that isn't arrogance, then i need a new dictionary) is one that appalls pretty much the rest of the world. might is right? it is also an attitude that leads to responses, whether they be mildly verbal or something far more extreme (i am apparently not allowed to refer to specific events), that in turn cause outrage (and on occasion, rightly so).

perhaps instead of dismissing this garbage as old, it might be worth considering the underlying causes. you might find attitudes would change.

the comment re allies suggests that you feel that allies must always fall in behind whatever view you might have or actions you might take. it is a two way street.

as for dismissing australia as a fairweatrher friend, that is both deeply offensive and shows a complete lack of any knowledge or understanding of the history of our two countries.

I deleted it and If you thought there was no fury like a woman scorned you would be wrong

The world holds the USA/UK/Canada/Brittain/Germany/France/Italy/Switzerland/Sweeden/Japan/Holland etc (including Australia) to a higher set of accountabilities.

We are purportedly beacons of light and freedom. Look through that group and we are also allies in most things.

Do we agree on everything? No. We are often appalled at aspects of each others behaviour (whaling/Abuh Graide/Oz Asylum seekers/Seal Bashers/Polanski/Kosovo/Nazi bankers/Rainbow Warrior bombings/etc) but while we support each other it is not without question and nor should it be!

Mates are the people who walk in the door when your friends walk out. Mates tell you one on one to "pull your head in" because you are out of line. Mates cover for you because they have a deep bond.

We all share this planet. It is not the US planet nor the Chinese planet nor the Russian planet. The decisions made by each leading country affects all. It reverberates throughout the planet. Allies/mates consult, negotiate and enact where possible in unison as opposed to one out independent acts. There should always be an open and honest dialogue.

In relation to Assange it just may be the case that US allies say prosecution is a step too far. They may be bloody right! It is a time for cool heads stepping back into clear space and consideration, contemplation, discussion. It is certainily not a time for enactment of Sovereign right sentimentalities. It will end up in a hell hole.

[Ken Gargett]

[quote name=

In relation to Assange it just may be the case that US allies say prosecution is a step too far. They may be bloody right! It is a time for cool heads stepping back into clear space and consideration, contemplation, discussion. It is certainily not a time for enactment of Sovereign right sentimentalities. It will end up in a hell hole.

in other words, let's hope sanity prevails. which is pretty much what i said a squillion posts ago.

i agree with most of your previous post (except of course the tawdry attempt to justify censorship of ideas, namely by deleting me) except this -

"The world holds the USA/UK/Canada/Brittain/France/Italy/Switzerland/Sweeden/Japan/Holland etc (including Australia) to a higher set of accountabilities." we may hold ourselves to what we believe are higher standards, or think we do (and it may be wiser to say different standards rather than higher ones). but i think the rest of the world would be a smidge offended at that. travel through the mid east or africa or asia and they don't see us, the uk or the states (no offence meant here but i suspect one could say especially the states) as any beacons on the hill. there are of course specific exceptions but in general, life goes on and what the states or us etc, is pretty much irrelevant.

[Fuzz]

(except of course the tawdry attempt to justify censorship of ideas, namely by deleting me)

Whoa! You mean there might be a Wikileak of Ken's deleted post?!