Not for the bloke in the pub claiming he bought them.

Newspapers break the law too, don't use them as a shining example.

It doesn't serve any public interest, it's self promotion. I didn't give a monkey's about it or him, other than thinking he'd get his comeuppance for it, until he started thinking he was above the laws of our land.

Optimistic as ever

What, like the offical rules and regulations for detainees of the states in Guantanmo Bay or Abu Gharib? or the 758 files on the prisoners held in Guantanmo bay, that bank of America utilised private security firms to plan cyberattack on wikileaks, Iraqi war logs.

Indeed so much of its in the public interest that every time theres a big 'wikileak' dump, the national newspapers source stories from it.

What governments, corporations etc and how they do it, and go about it is always in the public interest.

Its not just the US and UK, wikileaks covers just about every country in the world.

Edited by jamiemartin721 (28 Feb 2013 6.17pm)

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Unsure why it is costing the tax payer 3 mill or so to have Security sat outside the embassy. Call them off and if he wants to leave then arrest at Airport etc.

If he manages to get smuggled out in a diplomatic bag even better. Who realy gives a s***.

I don't, personally, have an issue with Wikileaks.
I don't even have an issue with Assange (aside from the facts that he seems overly arrogant and cocksure, he may be a rapist, and he shafted his friends financially without a second thought for his onwn benefit by getting them to stump up bail money for him in good faith and then doing a runner).

My issue is purely with the rule of law.

Sweden have asked for his extradition legally to face court for a crime committed in their country, as they are entitled to. Their claim has been tested in court and been found to be valid (or at least valid enough to warrent him facing their courts), and he's run off - everything about what the US may or may not do once he's in Sweden is pure conjecture (it strikes me that they'd be far more likely to get the UK to extradict him than Sweden, since we are more likely to bend over and say "thank you, sir, may I have another" but even that is largely irrelevant).

He's been before the court of the land and they have deemed it right that he should go to Sweden to face trial, and he's run off and is hiding - everything else is irrelevant to this particular case.

"Don't send me to Sweden or the nasty Amercians will get me" is not a basis for evading justice.

I agree with you there. Even though the charges seem remarkably convient in timing, if theres a case to answer then he should be extradited to Sweeden, with an offical undertaking from the US and Sweeden that no further extradition be sought.

I'm inclined to agree with you that its just an excuse because he might actually be guilty (in the current spotlight, its hard to see Sweeden actually extraditing him).

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Fully agree. On the point about disclosure though, all countries have degrees of classification which will include a level where the FoI Act would not apply, and quite rightly.

If, for example, our Ambasasador in Molvania wants to provide an open and accurate assessment of the Government and politicians where he is based, this will almost certainly include his opinion and/or information on the level of corruption in the country. This is information which, if it were to be leaked, would damage relations. For full and honest information to be provided, the documents must be protected from disclosure or they would not be written at all.

A very substantial part of the UK-related wikileaks are FCO telegrams whose disclosure does nothing except harm the UK.

Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand!

My opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I am right.

(Member of the School of Optimism 1969-2016 inclusive)