What did you do when the Olympic Torch passed by?

[LadyArowana]

I thought it was amazing how this thread had managed to go quite so far off topic and have no relevance at all to period properties, then I read a little more about the Assange case and it seems a lot of his troubles go back to his failure to install a proper damp proof membrane, so maybe we have returned to an area of forum expertise after all.

 

[biffvernon]

Yes, but as we know, damp-proof membranes are often not always appropriate in old buildings that relied on natural methods of protection.

 

[biffvernon]

That Moore/Stone article is a good defence of freedom of speech and all that good stuff, but says nothing about any alleged US war crimes.

Oh yes it does:

Since WikiLeaks’ founding, it has revealed the “Collateral Murder” footage that shows the seemingly indiscriminate killing of Baghdad civilians by a United States Apache attack helicopter; further fine-grained detail about the true face of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars; United States collusion with Yemen’s dictatorship to conceal our responsibility for bombing strikes there; the Obama administration’s pressure on other nations not to prosecute Bush-era officials for torture; and much more.

Watch the “Collateral Murder” video.

 

[FamilyWiggs]

Watch the “Collateral Murder” video.

I don't know the rights and wrongs of that episode (and certainly there appear to be plenty of wrongs ), but again biff I'd pick you up on your language.

Ordinary inncent "civilians" don't tend walk around in the middle of the day openly carrying AK47s. I couldn't see if they also had RPGs as the pilots suggested - maybe they did, maybe they didn't.

Nothing is black and white, especially in a warzone. But I'd say being shot at is an occupational hazard if you walk around with a gun in a warzone. Equally, being shot at if you fly an Apache helicopter through a warzone is an occupational hazard, and no doubt this was in the mids of the pilots too. Its also an occupational hazard for the journalists bravely reporting from the frontline. A camera on a shoulder probably looks quite like an RPG sadly.

Again, I'm not defending them, just saying there is always a second side to a story (especially the great "America is totally evil" meme...which is about as true as the "McDonalds is pure evil" line you use).

On second thoughts, let me declare an interest. When that video was first released a couple of years ago, I dontaed £25 to Wikileaks online to support their work.

 

[Flyfisher]

It's a shame that Assange didn't spend it on damp proof membranes.

 

[LadyArowana]

Yes, but as we know, damp-proof membranes are often not always appropriate in old buildings that relied on natural methods of protection.

Biff told me he doesn't think that the owner of the building is necessarily right to insist that one is used.

 

[Flyfisher]

Legal myths about Assange's extradition:
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-myths-about-assange-extradition

 

[biffvernon]

Indeed, lots of myths in that article!

Here's a programme broadcast in Australia recently. It has not been broadcast in the UK or Sweden. Far too many inconvenient truths. If you want to understand what's going on devote the 46 minutes it needs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDaUGB3sjbs&feature=share

 

[Zebra]

I thought it was amazing how this thread had managed to go quite so far off topic and have no relevance at all to period properties, then I read a little more about the Assange case and it seems a lot of his troubles go back to his failure to install a proper damp proof membrane, so maybe we have returned to an area of forum expertise after all.

:lol:

 

[Gareth Hughes]

Indeed, lots of myths in that article!

Here's a programme broadcast in Australia recently. It has not been broadcast in the UK or Sweden. Far too many inconvenient truths. If you want to understand what's going on devote the 46 minutes it needs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDaUGB3sjbs&feature=share

How many Australian current affairs documentaries are usually broadcast in the UK or Sweden? None. So the non-broadcast of this one is hardly evidence of a media conspiracy of silence. The story has its fascinations and horrors for you and me, but finding a slot to broadcast this in wil not be a high priority for Uk and Swedish broadcasters simply because the majority of their audiences couldn't care less about it now, and wouldn't care much more about it if they were forced to sit and watch the whole thing.

 

[biffvernon]

Oh I didn't mean to imply that there was anything odd that the Australian programme had not been broadcast here. The point is that this ABC documentary tells a very different story to that being given by the British media. Craig Murray's treatment on Newsnight a couple of evenings ago has raised questions about the BBC's impartiality. It contrasts starkly with the Australian counterpart.

Here's Craig Murray's response: http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/08/naming-anna-ardin-on-newsnight/

Everyone who thinks they have any opinions about the whole affair should suspend judgement until they have seen the Four Square programme from ABC, Assange: Sex, Lies & Sweden http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDaUGB3sjbs&feature=share

 

[Pford75]

Biff - we can debate the issues endlessly...but really the only 'right' way of dealing with the charges is for them to be heard in a court of law. I don't believe alleged rape can be ignored (due to the impact on both plaintiff and accused) and it is in everyone's interests that this issue is resolved.

I both support Assange's attempts to highlight duplicity by governments, but also feel he is seeking to avoid justice on this matter. I'm disappointed that many seem to polarise Assange and this incident as black or white. Exposing US hypocrisy does not grant immunity from prosecution or allow someone to sexually assault women.

 

[Flyfisher]

The point is that this ABC documentary tells a very different story to that being given by the British media.

That's the great thing about the media, isn't it? It caters to all opinions and inclinations. :wink:

The fact point is, none of us really know what's going on except what we read, see or hear from the media, so if we can find such contrasting views out there then we're not really any better informed by just picking those that appeal to our own prejudices, are we? Still, it passes the time I guess.

I tend to agree with Pford75. A court of law is the place to sort all this out - if we can't rely on that then we're in real trouble.

 

[Lime]

A court of law is the place to sort all this out - if we can't rely on that then we're in real trouble.

Therein lies the problem.
The courts are compelled to follow international agreements made and agreed by politicians.
Consequently we are in real trouble.

Would I trust the US courts to treat me fairly?
The answer has to be no because I'm not an US citizen.

 

[Flyfisher]

. . . . best not to break laws in foreign countries then.

 

[biffvernon]

really the only 'right' way of dealing with the charges is for them to be heard in a court of law.

There are no charges.

Some courts of law cannot be trusted.

Did you watch the ABC programme? Or just believe the propaganda in the British media?

 

[FamilyWiggs]

Oh dear Biff. We know you like conspiracies and seeing things under the beds.

But the point is, as has been said a number of times on this thread, the courts are the proper place to test this out.

Firstly in the case of the extradition request and appeals processes (including appeals as far as the Supreme Court). Which has been done.
Secondly in the Swedish courts, if/when charges are laid. Which needs to be done.

It really is as simple as that. The rest of it is political diversionary tactics.

Does anyone else find it ironic that Ecuador and its president are apparently standing up for the principle of freedom of speech and freedom from persecution? :roll:

Journalists jailed for criticising the president: http://www.amnesty.org.au/news/comments/26279/

Mistreatment of indigenous peoples and other things: http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/ecuador

"I think this is ironic that you have a journalist, or an activist, seeking political asylum from a government that has – after Cuba – the poorest record of free speech in the region, and the practice of persecuting local journalists when the government is upset by their opinions or their research," José Miguel Vivanco, director of Human Rights Watch's Americas division told the Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/19/ecuador-free-speech-julian-assange

etc etc.

 

[FamilyWiggs]

There are no charges.

You know that is disingenuous.

In Sweden the 2nd round of questioning is akin to charges being laid in the UK system. The court considered this when assessing whether the extradition request had been properly made. But you know that already.

 

[biffvernon]

You haven't watched the ABC film yet then, nor read Glenn Greenwald in today's Guardian?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/22/julian-assange-media-contempt

The trouble with people who have fallen for the propaganda is that they don't realise it, and then find denial the psychological imperative when faced with evidence that contradicts the internalised paradigm.


And now that you have read Greenwald's piece you will see that when I wrote he "There are no charges" I was not being disingenuous but was stating an important and true fact.

 

[FamilyWiggs]

You haven't watched the ABC film yet then, nor read Glenn Greenwald in today's Guardian?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/22/julian-assange-media-contempt

The trouble with people who have fallen for the propaganda is that they don't realise it, and then find denial the psychological imperative when faced with evidence that contradicts the internalised paradigm.

The trouble with conspiracy theorists is they can only see the conspiracy.

Someone stands accused of questionable sexual acts that merit testing in a court as to whether they constitute an offence or not. The request to extradite to that jurisdiction has been tested in all three levels of English law and found competent. The UK is obliged by international law and treaty to comply with the request and surrender the suspect.

No conspiracy. No propoganda. Just simple facts. Everything else is just fluff. Nothing more.

Oh, is that coffee I can smell? Must be time to wake up Biff.