You might want to be kept in the dark about what is being done in your name, with your money, but some of us do not.



And as for: "irrespective of whether there are moral horrors being committed" ... Wow. Just wow.

We cannot just have carte blanche on all information, just because some people think they have the right to know. If leaking information puts lives at risk then the 'leaker' should be prosecuted and jailed if found guilty, but if it's just embarrassing to whoever wants it kept secret, then go for it, leak away. TBH, I don't know enough about what he has leaked and have never visited his website and am just making comments in the general area of leaking info.

The interesting thing here is publishing secret information in the US is NOT a crime.

They leaked masses of stuff. I remember, for instance, US diplomatic emails where someone was calling for the US government to launch 'economic war' against Europe because the continent is opposed to letting Monsanto use its GM stuff over here.

Justified in my opinion, clearly about an organisations financial gain. and no respect for another group of nations to act on its own laws.



Oddly enough, I am sat at home this very minute doing one of my companies online course, this one being Information Security Essentials and the acronym being used a lot is CIA, which in this case stands for Confidentiality, Integrity and Availability.

And if its of the same calibre as the example you gave, great. Not so sure about the leaking of classified stuff that could lead to loss of life etc. but of course that's the "sexy" stuff that Wikileaks made their name from. In general I don't have a problem with the principle.



Not a fan of Assange though. Like I say, if his website is leaking useful stuff, OK, but "Wikileaks" is publishing, not "Julian Assange plc". He's become a massive self publicist imo. The sort of person Wikileaks should be leaking stuff about.



If he has committed an offence it must be dealt with but it will be interesting to see where it leads if he does go to Sweden.

Agreed. I think he's become a bit of a martyr for geeks, frankly.







I think the Swedish judicial system is pretty fair. It's not as though we're allowing his extradition to, say, Saudi Arabia.

Whether it is unusual or not is completely irrelevant. Handing someone over to another country without charge is not the kind of justice we should readily associate with.



It doesn't take a genius to figure out it only takes some trumped up reason or another to result in you being spirited away to some country where you are out-of-sight and perhaps more likely to be extradited to the non-EU nation whose political machinations are the real driving force behind events.

You mean the one recently described by Glenn Greenwald as "barbaric"?

Like I say I know little about the case, just thought i'd ask what was going on.

who?

I was reluctant to say 'who'. I though I 'should' have known who he is.

Glenn Greenwald is an American lawyer, civil rights activist and constitutional expert.

So is the implication here the courts looked for any possible way to extradite him which would imply political pressure was behind the judgement?

What he thinks is 'barbaric' is detention on remand.



Perhaps he should look at his home country's judicial system first.

You mean, the guy fighting Bradley Manning's corner and one of America's most vociferous campaigners for constitutional and legal reform?

I mean that claiming that remand is "barbaric" is crass. It is a stupid, crass comment.



His own country murders innocent people in the name of justice: if remand is "barbaric", I can't imagine how he'd find the appropriate hyperbole for that.

It's worth noting that Wikileaks recently published e-mails by the private intelligence gathering Stratfor group (a sort of "shadow" CIA with all kinds of murky links to arms manufacturers, oil companies etc.) claiming a sealed indictment has been drawn up against Assange. This effectively means that once the US gets its hands on him he'll be thrown in some hole somewhere and never seen again.



I should point out that Strafor is dirty as well as unconstitutional. By farming out intelligence work to private companies the US effectively bypasses due process. And it's getting worse. Obama has clamped down on leaks like no other President threatening all kinds of horrors to anyone not toeing the line. Convictions have skyrocketed and civil rights activists everywhere are blowing their stacks.



British laws are incredibly difficult even for the US to crack. There are all kinds of legal protections to prevent miscarriages of justice and an army of top lawyers who are prepared to fight civil rights abuses purely on conscience.



But Sweden is an altogether different proposition. Extradition to the US is far easier and you can bet Hillary Clinton will be wielding all the power she can muster to expedite Assange's transfer once we kick him out.



It's tragic really. After all, despite the US's protestations there's no evidence that any of Wikileaks' publications (which are no different to leaks newspapers publish around the world each and every day ) have resulted in anything more than political embarrassment. But I guess that's dangerous enough.

INDEFINITE remand (which is what he's facing) without charge IS barbaric. Christ, even Winston "Let's gas those pesky Arabs" Churchill baulked at such you daft clot!

And how many cases in Sweden see someone held without charge for indefinite times?

Don't they jail some categories at weekends only for things that would get you 20 to life in the states.



I must admit, I have always believed Sweden to be 'lenient' on its criminals, was I wrong.

OK lets assume this is the US master-plan. I read about why he has another 14 days to appeal. A supreme court screw up basing a judgement on something not tested in open court that was spotted by his QC in a 117 page document first seen by her at 08:30 and she was in court at 09:15.





But once that is dealt with is there anything to suggest our incredibly difficult to crack British laws are going to be abused to get him extradited?



It all seems to hinge on a European arrest warrant being issued by a Swedish prosecutor and if the prosecutor is a suitable person to issue it.



Is there anything to suggest our courts are bending the rules to say he is OK to issue it?

And this is relevant to Julian Assange's treatment in what way?

Born in Australia, lived there until he finished his studies.



Has lived in Iceland, Kenya, France, Germany, Tanzania and Egypt.



From what I see his only connection to Britain is a period of free lodgings in Norfolk, so why are we getting all this involved with him, shove him on a plane back to Aussie and let them deal with it.

The decision was passed 5 in favour and 2 against. Two of the five in favour subsequently stated that they would have voted the other way had they known Assange's arrest warrant had not been issued by a court or a judge. The issue here is not the integrity of those passing judgement - it's the parameters they were ordered to work within passed down by government.