Written By:
Mike Smith - Date published:
3:31 pm, December 12th, 2021 - 29 comments
Categories: blogs, journalism, Media, uk politics, us politics -
Tags: assange
I should have known not to be hopeful. British justice is an oxymoron which makes a mockery of official references to our ‘like-minded countries’ in the Five Eyes. The decision by senior judges in the UK to overturn a previous court decision not to extradite Julian Assange to the US is an example of state persecution of a person with the courage to speak out against crimes of the state.
The decision is as shameful as it is wrong. John Pilger has more on what he describes as ‘the judicial kidnapping of Julian Assange.’
What else could you expect from the UK and US rulers of the world mentality. Perhaps if he changed his name to Navalny he would become a hero and released immediately. Double standards is the name of the game for these De- mock- crazy nations.
Pricks !!
You have reminded me to contribute to Wikileaks.
"Australia, where the bloody hell are you???"
I was just reading this article today by Abigail Shrier:
What I told the students of Princeton – Show some self-respect and reclaim your freedom
and I didn't know this about Wikipedia, but it does explain some inconsistencies I found on the site.
I would always be cautious with using Wikipedia as a source and would be very surprised if such is allowable for any kind of academic paper. When I was teaching secondary pupils it was discouraged. Too easy to use as your first stop and then often one reading is all you have time for. Wikipedia is just as easy to manipulate as any social media with links that march you around in a potentially proscribed manner.
I've used wikipedia as a source in an academic paper. Had no troubles at all. I wouldn't use it to source some issues but on plain facts it's ok.
Agree. The idea is good. The real world execution would always have compromises.
Sure. However we aren't exactly secondary school students. At least from what I see of the demographics on this site.
Anyone who stops at just one source on anything critical is by definition is just as thick as a piece of 4×42. People who avoid going to look at opposed sources or who fail to examine their own ability to understand on anything that is crucial are generally known as born suckers.
Not to mention that I personally have a very high scepticism about academic and scientific papers – having seen far too many that figured out the conclusion they wanted and then run all of the evidence through that lens. Anyone who treats them as gospel is just a gormless fool in my opinion.
Generally I like Wikipedia because it has the same underlying protection that you find in academic papers – links to sources and quotations. That means you can dig into those while figuring out the crap factor of whatever you're reading.
In fact it is often better – most academic papers and texts referred to are often inaccessible. Even then.. you'd be surprised at the number of errors I routinely find in even in engineering specifications that shouldn't have them. I usually test the bits that I have to rely on.
Just the opinion of a non-academic with a few degrees and a lot of experience of not relying on much unless I can see the source materials.
It is like everything other source – use with caution. And as you say keep it out of the hands of kids unless you want to see a lot blatant plagarism… Like I used to out of encyclopedias when I was at school.
Oh. Well then. Could be I'm wrong. Always been a bit wary of the editing process especially with anything to do with politics. I have used it as a link for an argument on this site (a geographical map) so I'm not against it as one source so long as wider reading also occurs.
This of course is far from over – am I right in thinking the final court will be the European Court of Justice?
No, that's either the UK Supreme Court or ECHR.
https://www.disabilityrightsuk.org/brexit-and-european-convention-human-rights
Love to see what RL has to say about this.
He's always been a great defender of Assange
Appreciated.
I've been out all day and only just got to this. Short answer – same as the OP.
A useful distinction to make here is that as with virtually all nations – the US is irrationally sensitive about military security. If Wikileaks had stuck to the political domain Assange would not have been touched. This is not so in Russia or China where any criticism of the government is highly risky.
Nonetheless Assange’s underhand treatment by the US has been disgusting and they and everyone else who carried water for them, really should have a long hard think about what has happened.
So no connection between political and military in your opinion? Even given the revolving door between the Pentagon, Whitehouse and military hardware manufacturing?
Jimmy Dore, Glenn Greenwald made some scathing remarks. But this one struck me
https://twitter.com/existentialcoms/status/1469828414563446784?s=20
100%
This has always demonstrated to me the bankruptcy of our supposed independence.We rattle the sabres for human rights whenever it's an adversary of the US at fault.,but our moral cowardice (nice little phrase borrowed from Ad)is starkly exposed in the most craven way when it comes to Assange.He's begun to have strokes, I think he'll die in prison
Imagine if Navalny died in prison
We rattle the sabres for human rights whenever it's an adversary of the US at fault
Yes the hypocrisy is unsupportable and indefensible. Nonetheless for every Assange on the US account – there are literally thousands if not millions elsewhere in the world we never get to hear about or know their names even.
Just because the US has lost it's way completely on the Assange story – does not mean it's adversaries are suddenly lily-white.
it might be indefensible…but you just can't help yourself…defending..it.
Blatantly putting words into my mouth. Consider retracting.
'nonetheless'….everyones doing it!
Boycott China over human rights.
Turn a blind eye to Saudi Arabia ,when they murder someone in their own embassy.
Wonderful world…beautiful …people.
"Imagine if Navalny died in prison"
Putin would have cheered, clicked his heels and declared a National Holiday?
"Imagine if Navalny died in prison" That can't be far off, I should think.
10 months and waiting
The US home of the free and Brave protector of democracy and freedom of speech.
I wonder if some horse trade has not been arranged. The US under Biden, and the US under Trump are rather different beasts. Some tidy process that doesn't result in Assange's death in English custody in Belmarsh no doubt appeals to longer sighted English civil servants.
Disappointing response from Ardern and a disappointing lack of interest from the media, in her 4pm press conference.
She was asked if NZ would consider asylum for Assange. She simply replied "No".
No explanation or justification, and annoyingly no one in the media asked her to justify her position.