I’ve been in Tblisi this last four days, (Pics coming,) with the other senior security managers – so all trained investigators of one background or another – from East Europe. As you might imagine, both the Assange and the Dewani cases came up a couple of times in discussion over a few bottles of absolutely top notch Georgian wine, and champagne, which I can whole-heartedly recommend.
The consensus on the Dewani case was that there is a definite whiff of fish in the air and the husband certainly has some questions to answer.
As far as the Assange case goes, the consensus was that we would treat the allegations by the ladies concerned quite seriously and, given the apparent facts, we would launch an investigation, so we would all be on-side with a decision by the UK courts to extradite him to Sweden.
As far as the leaks are concerned, there was much scoffing at the Septics information security regime. We analysed what had happened as far as we could with the information to hand, and measured how it has apparently been done – how the information was leaked in the first place, that is – against our own information security procedures and rules. We do not believe that any Company employee, even an IT Admin, still less an outside hacker, could get access to such a spread of information in the first place, let alone assemble such an extraordinary amount of classified information spanning such a wide spread of subject matter without tripping alerts in the security admin systems. (As you can imagine, being a tobacco company, it has been tried 🙂
On another aspect of the matter, Assange is in this country, and he has committed a crime in that he has both had in his possession, and released in public in a way which could benefit enemies of this country, classified information to which he is not entitled, so why don’t we arrest him, lock him up and chuck the key into the deepest part of the North Sea?
In another life, as I believe I have mentioned before, part of my job was to read the crash-landings, once a year, to my assembled Company. I reproduce the relevant part of the Official Secrets Act below. Note sub-section c.
1. Penalties for spying. — (1) If any person for any purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State—
(a)
approaches, [F1inspects, passes over] or is in the neighbourhood of, or enters any prohibited place within the meaning of this Act; or
(b)
makes any sketch, plan, model, or note which is calculated to be or might be or is intended to be directly or indirectly useful to an enemy; or
(c)
obtains, [F1collects, records, or publishes,] or communicates to any other person [F1any secret official code word, or pass word, or] any sketch, plan, model, article, or note, or other document or information which is calculated to be or might be or is intended to be directly or indirectly useful to an enemy;
Boadicea's Chariot 
PS. I stuck this up as a post ‘cos I wanted to comment on both cases and it was easier to do it this way.
How is everyone?
Hello Bravo, I’m ok thanks, the ice is keeping me active, I’m nearly qualified to enter Dancing on ice 🙂
In the Mail today there are photos of the Wikileaks HQ, it’s like a subterranean 007 film set.
Oh bugger, the link hasn’t worked
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1337014/WikiLeaks-bunker-Julian-Assanges-subterranean-Bond-villain-den.html
Oh bugger, it has 🙂
Re the Honeymooners, I find it strange that anybody would want to murder so beautiful a woman, let alone her husband. It should not make a difference that she was beautiful, but it does. However, from the word go, we here in CT were suspicious about the event. Still not sure what the motive might be, possibly insurance. If it is the groom, he does seem to have been very casual about the whole affair. Handing money over under the watchful eye of CCTV, seems foolish.
Re Assange, it would seem to me that the rape laws in Sweden are a joke. I do not mean to trivialise the crime of rape, but I think that is exactly what their laws do. Those women had consensual sex, and there is no getting round it. The broken/absent condom is a red herring. It would be interesting to know if either was on the pill. And if they were, would they ever consider having sex with a man known to be HIV positive even if he did wear a condom. In other words were they really scared of catching the disease and/or getting pregnant? The reality of the matter is, white heterosexuals who are not drug users have a very low chance of getting HIV through sex. In SA, less than 0.3% whites are HIV positive versus over 14% blacks. If the women concerned have not been got at by the Yanks, then I can only conclude that they are acting out of revenge for having been spurned or two-timed by Assange. Legally he may prove to have broken the law, but morally, based on what has been published so far, he is blameless. Well, that is my opinion – uninformed as it is.
As for being a spy, how do you regulations effect someone who has not signed the Official Secrets Act? How do the rules fit in with the freedom of speech. From a layman’s perspective, he appears to me to be innocent. He did not acquire the information illegally. He has not signed the OS Act (I assume). The information concerns the governments of various countries and therefore concerns their citizens. Most countries have a freedom of information law.
As I said elsewhere, citing the book The Starfish and the Spider, the US/Swedish heavy handed approach has opened a can of worms as can be seen by the cyber attacks on the Swedish government, Visa, Master Card, Pay Pal etc. Amazon next.
Just one person’s take on things.
I am mystified by both cases.
Sipu. You don’t have to sign the Official Secrets Act. It is law. Neither the general concept of freedom of speech, not the FOI laws apply to classified information, for clear and practical reasons. That is why it is
c-l-a-s-s-i-f-i-e-d,
for christ’s sake!
And I did make a point of directing your attention to sub-section c. You are a real prat sometimes, mate – it doesn’t matter a tuppeny fig what you think of the law, it is the law. I don’t agree with all of our laws either, IT IS THE FREAKIN’ LAW. He is in Britain and some of the information belongs to the British Government. Why we don’t hang the idiot out to dry, I do not know.
If you must break the law, do it to seize power: in all other cases observe it.
Julius Caesar
🙂
There are many cases were military people, civil servants, lawyers etc, have lost sensitive information only for it to turn up in the press. Wikileaks is just the same but on a more massive scale and, it’s driven by one man. Every government department wants to keep its ‘secrets’ safe and employ an army of spooks to pry out the other guy’s secrets. Wikileaks has peed on the giant firework that is the security industry and has devalued the coinage, this is what has inflamed the various governments involved.
As to the guy’s arrest and accusations of rape after the event of the leaks, a few Hollywood films spring to mind where someone has found information and is then hounded and charged by the ‘authorities’. I’m not saying the guy is innocent or otherwise but it is following a well trodden scriptwriters path.
He is a brave man, but a fool. Someone will donner him good and proper shortly.
OMG. There is a difference between ‘losing’ something and deliberate theft. They don’t shoot you for losing something, though it is generally not a career-enhancing move. There is also a difference between bureaucratic ‘secret,’ and the real thing. Exposing classified information can kill people. All good fun though, innit? /sarc
Bravo
It so happens I think the guy who runs wilileaks should be strung up by his knackers as I’m sure he is giving succour and comfort to those who wish us harm. My comments were more about the ham fisted way they are trying to silence him, there is many a dark alley where he lives.
Humblest apologies, OMG.
Howzit Bravo
We are very very angry about the negative press that we have received as a country because of this arsehole’s (can I say arsehole here? did I spell it correctly?) behaviour.
Wherever I go people are talking about it, I’m delighted that even where you are this case has made headlines, people here are working towards and looking forward to a South Africa where we can hold our heads high.
This is perhaps the only time that I’m pleased that we don’t have the death penalty anymore (if we had the Brtits wouldn’t send him back) he’ll get 25 years in Pollsmoor, he’ll wish he was dead after 6 months.
Soutie. If he did what it looks as if he might have done, he would deserve whatever he might.
…get.
I think your response was a bit harsh. I was not challenging you, I was asking for clarification and was giving what I admitted was an unqualified opinion. Believe it or not 99.9% of people are unqualified when it comes to discussing the law concerning official secrets. And it was you who raised the Official Secrets Act. I inferred that the people you were reading “the crash-landings,” to (though why you have to use jargon is beyond me. What the hell do crash landings have to do with anything?) were people who had signed the OS Act. Hence my question. We are not all James Bond wannabes, you know.
In any event, given that he has so obviously, according to what you have told us, broken the law, there should be no problem arresting him for espionage. But guess what? He has not been arrested on those grounds. And guess what else? The Americans said that they were investigating matters to see whether he had broken any US laws. Silly, silly Americans. They should have called Captain Oxo who would have told them just what a naughty man he had been and how exactly he had broken the rules. I know you are a brilliant and multi-talented man, but maybe, just maybe you are mistaken in your assessment? Now, remove your head from your bottom and behave nicely.
Bravo, It is the USA which is screaming blue murder, where they have about 2.5 million people legally able to access the information – some secret! Apparently he has not committed any crime in the USD Statutes, so I would find it extremely hard to accept that he has broken any British ones.
He did not steal the information – he simply published it, as did numerous other media outlets round the world.
The British Government is laughing off any revelations on what British sources are quoted by American diplomats as saying. They can hardly claim with the next breath that it is a Breach of any sort of the UK’s Official Secrets Act. If it had been, there would have been a massive wave of injunctions against the UK media publishing anything about it – not that such an injunction would have been at all effective in suppressing the information. When you launch yourselves as a Government interested in Freedom of Information, you can hardly go round arresting media personnel who espouse that cause…
It is another appalling lapse of the US security industry within their own Government, with faces red enough to boil a line of kettles. They are absolutely deperate to find someone to hang out to dry for their embarrassment.
Bravo, It is the USA which is screaming blue murder, where they have about 2.5 million people legally able to access the information – some secret! Apparently he has not committed any crime in the USD Statutes, so I would find it extremely hard to accept that he has broken any British ones.
He did not steal the information – he simply published it, as did numerous other media outlets round the world.
The British Government is laughing off any revelations on what British sources are quoted by American diplomats as saying. They can hardly claim with the next breath that it is a Breach of any sort of the UK’s Official Secrets Act. If it had been, there would have been a massive wave of injunctions against the UK media publishing anything about it – not that such an injunction would have been at all effective in suppressing the information. When you launch yourselves as a Government interested in Freedom of Information, you can hardly go round arresting media personnel who espouse that cause…
It is another appalling lapse of the US security industry within their own Government, with faces red enough to boil a line of kettles. They are absolutely desperate to find someone to hang out to dry for their embarrassment.
As for the law being the FREAKING law, that often means diddly squat. The book I mentioned cites the example of Napster enabling people to breach copyright laws. The hacker group known as Anonymous are breaking the law in closing down all those sites. It is unlikely that any of them will be charged for what they have done and continue to do. They seem to be holding the upper hand, for the moment anyway. The issue is that if enough people deem the law or political system to be unjust, they may try a variety of methods to bring about change. Your problem seems to be that you ignore any moral objections and blindly follow orders.
Sipu. More BS. Sod all to do with the case at hand – either of them. You’re good at that, introducing frivolous side-tracks. If some poor sod is murdered because of something put out on wikileaks, write to the family and tell then that it’s OK because some hackers are trying to shut down Napster.
You are seriously weird, sometimes.
Bravo I agree with your analysis re UK law 100%.
Sweden has quite differing law to the UK re rape, I think it is difficult to see the equivalence.
Assange is quite obviously a low class slimeball with the morals of an alley cat. Interesting that as he does not have a job that he lives very high on the hog on the contributions from well meaning idiots to Wikileaks. Interesting that he seems unwilling to return to Australia, I wonder where his son is? Apparently he has tried to get residence in both Sweden and Switzerland, seemingly neither wanted him, of course the UK would let any piece of shit over the threshold!
A thoroughly unpleasant and dubious individual.
I am quite sure that what has not been leaked is likely to be far more damaging than that which has. I suspect that the only thing that will stop this performance will be a large deposit in a Swiss bank for Assange. I think he has taken the gamble to make himself a rich man in one fell swoop, not that we shall ever know the truth of half of it.
The SA slimeball needs a thorough investigation of his company accounts and how much travel insurance he took out on the poor deluded bitch! Bet he’s damn well nearly bankrupt.
Apparently his family runs a chain of ol people’s homes which is in trouble…
The External auditors have already scotched the gutter press rumour mill that their business is in trouble, but that won’t make any difference to anyone determined to try the man before he reaches a court!
CWJ
Not so, not at all, stick him in court, that’s what we want and all we ask!
Nothing to do with gutters, conspiracies or tourism, give the man his day in court, we’d love to hear his side.
Oh, hang on, he’s going to fight extradition, employed a ‘publicist’ (what for? is he thinking of writing a book?), get him in court!
In fact it’s my money and my taxes being spent to give him the opportunity! No hanging on required!
Missed that update cwj – remember I’ve been in Georgia the last couple of days.
Sorry my comment was lost. Probably my fault.
Soutie.
He is in court. He is not allowed bail at the moment. He did not try to escape.
If there is a case to answer then he will eventually be extradited.
I understand your anger but emotion should not be part of the legal process.
Bravo
I’m sure you are aware that I disagree with just about everything you have written about the Assange case. But I’ll respect your right to write it!
I am probably an anarchist at heart and I do not believe that one should conform to the law simply because it is a law. Nor, I think, do you – since you are extremely critical of the raft of PC legislation that has been enacted in the UK.
If Assange is guilty of publishing secret documents then so is just about every other newspaper in the English speaking world. If he is to be hounded for publishing these documents then so should the New York Times, the Daily Telegraph and the Australian, etc. Since the US is not planning on trying to shut down any of these publications it seems very clear to me that they are not only trying to find a scapegoat to take the world’s attention away from the fact that their ‘security system’ is insecure, but also the fact that they have acted illegally in spying on UN officials.
As it happens, it would seem that he has not broken any laws. The US is rummaging through its law books to ‘try to find’ something with which to charge him and I have no doubt the UK is doing much the same. So, to my disgust, is our PM. If he has broken UK law, why is he not being charged in the UK where they have him nicely under lock and key – a lock and key that he accepted voluntarily?
There is far too much hype about the ‘lives’ that he has endangered. In fact most of the reports that I have heard, including some from the US, have stated categorically that NOTHING he has published has or is likely to cause problems.
On the question of ‘bad’ law, I can only agree with Sipu. A law that declares that a woman can call ‘rape’ two or three days after entering into consensual sex is not just bad law, it is despicable law.
CWJ. The law is a little different in the US.
http://www.jerrypournelle.com/view/2010/Q4/view652.html
Note that the official secrets act says nothing about stealing the information, merely obtaining or recording and Assange has certainly done that, wouldn’t you say? (PS, there are copies of UK docs in the stuff…)
Well yes, I’m inclined to agree with you, but we are talking about Sweden here, Boadicea.
When in Rome and all that unfortunately applies. We all agree that smuggling drugs into certain countries is stupid and the death penalty is applicable. I see no difference here.
Yes, Araminta, I’m aware of that – I’m sure there are plenty of daft laws in the UK and here too, but it seemed appropriate to use the Swedish law on rape to illustrate my point that there are some L.A.W.S. that are B.A.D. 🙂
Absolutely, Boadicea but in the case of Assange, then he may have fallen foul of the “bad laws”, or it may just be a convenient excuse.
He does, however, have to answer these charges, or not, depending on the extradition laws.
Having researched his history earlier, I absolutely disagree with CO’s view of him, by the way. I do not get the impression that he is motivated by money, nor that he is a “slimeball and etc”.
One can disagree with what he did, but from my limited research he seems to be a bit of an odd-ball but he has done some seriously impressive work.
There was a guy on one of our news programmes a couple of days ago who is writing a book about Assange, and has had several interviews with him. He was asked to describe Assange. He, more or less not in so many words, said that he was a bit of an odd-ball. A loner who wanted to make a difference to the world. He certainly did not imply that he was motivated by money. He came across as a bit of an idealist. He is a Queenslander, who lived through the Bialke Peterson era and had first hand experience of what it’s like to live under a regime of silence.
As I understand it, he was in Sweden when the first charges were made and he offered to talk to the prosecutors in Sweden but was told there was no case to answer and he could go. The fact that he voluntarily walked into custody in the UK seems to me to indicate that he is not trying to run. But, I could be wrong.
The whole episode seems to me to be quite ludicrous.
The man obtains material that has been leaked from the US. 2.5 million people have access to that material – just how sensitive is it? And if it is that sensitive, why have 2.5 million people got access to it and why wasn’t it better protected?
He publishes it on the Internet, and newspapers around the world also publish it. He is singled out to be persecuted – and I use that word deliberately – while other ‘publishers’ walk away without one word of criticism. The US rush around trying to find something to charge him with and put pressure on Visa, Paypal and other organisations to freeze his funds – which they do. This has to be illegal – he has not been tried or convicted and they can’t even find anything to charge him with.
The only difference I can see between what Assange has done and newspapers is to publish the original documents on the Internet. Newspapers cannot easily reproduce however many thousands of original documents in their papers – whereas it is relatively simple to do so on the web. By publishing the originals no one can refute their authenticity or provenance. It’s very easy to ‘spin’ a summary of an original document – not so simple when the whole thing is out there for anyone to read from Outer Mongolia to the Rocky Mountains – or even Beijing!
The US’s humiliation of losing those documents as well as what they reveal is available to anyone anywhere who cares to log on. Hardly surprising that they are lashing out the way they are!
There is a lot of hot air here, but very little fact and even less logic.
Swedish rape laws are a matter for the Swedes – fair enough – and one must abide by their laws when in their country. However, the accounts of the start-stop-start prosecution (see my translated Aftonbladet post) are troubling even Swedish journalists and commentators. That process will run its course, but it must be allowed to do so without political interference from the USA. The likelihood of this appears vanishingly small, but we should hope.
Julian Assange’s character is irrelevant to any legal aspects, whether they are rape or leak related. He is said to be an abrasive character who gets on well with people when he wants to, but who can be obnoxious at other times. Hmm, ring any bells? Christina’s description is pure Christina, and can be safely ignored as the vacuous prattling of someone who makes knee-jerk reactions without reference to the facts – or without researching them. Keep ’em coming, Christina, I enjoy them immensely. 🙂
Assange’s son lives in Queensland; Assange is a loyal Australian who, for all his peripatetic wanderings, is legally resident in Australia.
Publication of leaked material. Assange and Wikileaks have done nothing that the editor of the New York Times hasn’t done. Or many other global newspapers. The material was stolen by an American soldier, who is allegedly in custody. Not by Assange, nor by the editor of the NYT.
Official Secrets Acts in USA, UK and Australia. Bravo displays uncharacteristic ignorance in this area, which is fully demonstrated by the fact that none of these countries have raised charges against Assange on the basis of their OS acts. Assange has not broken any of those laws, nor can he be a traitor (an American accusation) because he isn’t an American; nor can he be guilty of espionage against America because he has not been in that country and he has not incited anyone else to steal their country’s secrets.
It is interesting to speculate whether the Yank laws have a clause (that is present in the UK and Australian OSAs) cautioning against “over-classification”. It would appear that they don’t.
American illegal acts.
I think that’s enough to be going on with. 😀
There actually were some laws broken — but not by Assange. If anything, the USA should think Assange for pointing out how shoddy the protection of State Department secrets is. I’m rather tired of this and insist that my German citizenship be respected so that I am not lumped into the Obamastani mess that was once America.
I direct attention to sub-section c of section 1 of the official Secrets Act, again. I am quite aware of the law and its potential reach, thank you Bearsy, and Assange has, quite clearly, broken UK law in this case as far as classified UK information is concerned – which was my point before the obfuscation started to set in. He’s in the UK, he’s broken the law, arrest and charge him – If the UK govt wanted to charge Assange they have plenty of scope under the Act. (I point out, again, that the Act says nothing about stealing, Bearsy…ignorant is as ignorant does…)
I have no beef with criticism of the information ‘security’ nonsense in the States and I pointed out the difference between US law and UK law as far as freedom of the press – protected by the Constitution in the STates – is concerned.
In which case, why should I not come into your house and take away your television, because it is better than mine and I want it?
What I have written here before is that I demand that the law be applied equally to all, and that there be one law for all. Criticise the Law (the Law in general, I mean,) all you like, and there is plenty to be criticised, but the case remains that the law is, until changed, the law.
Assange is one of these self-important egoists who believe that they know better than anyone else, and that any damage caused by their actions is not important because of the ‘greater good’ their actions are designed to serve – the greater good by their own definition, that is.
Surely Bravo the point is that it is not UK classified information that Assange has published – it is American, and even America is finding it hard to know what to charge him with?
Whatever his motives, and I would suggest that you know no better than I, he is entitled to due process of law before his funds are seized. No one should issue death threats against him, or his family.
Furthermore, if he is as guilty as you say, then all those newspapers who have also published those documents should be prosecuted. You know as well as I that that is not going to happen.
As I’ve said elsewhere, I believe I have the right to know that members of my government have been having shonky dealings with America. I pay them to represent me – not American interests. And the only people who are likely to get hurt by my knowing this are dishonest politicians.
Boa, as far as I am aware, the material, though stolen from US govt. servers, contains classified information from many governments, not just the UK. I doubt whether the self-serving little bugger will be making any visits to Saudi Arabia, or Iran, or China – or even South Africa, any time soon…
You’re quite right that my knowledge of his motives is no better than yours – merely an opinion.
I have no beef about Government shenanigans being exposed. I do, however, think it is intelectually dishonest to condone breaking laws when you agree with the purpose of the law-breaker, and condemn it when you do not, which seems to be the case with much of the argument I’ve seen in posts on these subjects in these pages – and indeed here in this post.
Not worth talking to you Bravo. 😥
Going into a sulk because someone disagrees with you?
You are being disingenuous. We are talking about BAD LAWS, i.e. those that are immoral, impractical, unjust, damaging to society etc. Your example, i.e. property rights, is not a bad law. For millennia, people have protested against bad laws. Many have broken them and have subsequently been vindicated, including Emmeline Pankhurst, Oscar Schindler, Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela. The fact is that most sensible people know when a law is intrinsically wrong. Of course if you break it you risk the penalties, but the act of breaking it does not make you a slime ball, as you seem to imply. I am glad I was not one of your squaddies when you were a Lance Corporal.
Not sulking at all, dear chap. Once your red haze clears and your lynch mob testosterone dissipates, I’m sure we can revert to sensible debate. 😎
Bravo
Why is it that my points are never addressed:
1. If the man is guilty of crimes in America, the UK or in Australia why has he not been charged? He either has, or has not broken the laws of those countries – yet all we have heard is that those three countries are ‘trying’ to find something with which to charge him. They’ve had months and weeks to do that – and, as yet, the best legal minds in the world have come up with – nothing. Hence my conclusion that he has broken no laws.
I have not said that I condone law-breaking – since no one can tell me what law the man has broken. But, I most certainly do object to lynching, whether it be by a bunch of rednecks or by government agencies.
Furthermore I want to know whether when / if these countries ‘find’ a law under which to prosecute Assenge, will they then prosecute every single newspaper, television company that has published those documents? Will they put pressure on world the financial companies to withdraw funding, and demand that those companies shut down?
That’s why I deleted My post ‘No, Bearsy’. 🙂
Is it the case that it is being argued that the Official Secrets Act is a bad law? I would be interested to see that argument.
Is it the case that it is being argued that Sweden’s Rape Law is bad law? If so, that is, surely, a matter for the people of Sweden. As Araminta pointed out, when in Rome…
Law. What is it, exactly? I suggest that it is nothing more than a set of conventions that free people, in association, agree to observe in order to regulate their social interactions – rather than the free-for-all that ensues if there is no such agreement. As I see it, that is pretty much the basis for the Common Law in the UK, or, at least,(Including its variations in Scotland.)
I see, Sipu. You say that my example, property rights, is not bad law. A communist would disagree. Who is right?
Unlike you, I confine myself to a subject that is under discussion. What you think I imply is up to you, I mean nothing but what I write. My opinion of this particular person is written above. Arguing from the particular to the general would be an error.
Boa,
I don’t know. The act seems quite clear. He has documents in his possession. He has made records. Why he is not being prosecuted, I don’t know.
I stand corrected. Though it would seem pretty clear to me that he has broken the Official Secrets Act in the UK.
I have no idea how press freedom laws operate around the world. I know it’s different in the US – see above. I have no clue about the law in UK – though I believe it comes under common law rather than statute, which leaves it open to argument, unless covered by things like the Official Secrets Act or FOI statutes. Perhaps someone more clued in on the law might enlighten us.
When in Rome could also mean when in Nazi Germany, or when in Zimbabwe? could it not? How would you behave if ordered to send 6 million Jews or 30,000 Matabele to their deaths? No, do not tell me, I don’t want to know.
If the Official Secrets Act allows the government to commit crimes, such as ‘extraordinary rendition’, genocide, or assassination etc then one could certainly argue that there is a case for breaking the law by divulging those secrets.
With regards to what Law actually is, I would argue that there is a difference between rules and laws. Laws, which are created by the government, specify what activity is permitted and what is not. Rules, which are created by the community serve as GUIDELINES for how to behave. – Do not steal, kill, rape, harm, damage etc. Do help others, show courtesy, respect society, cooperate with the community, work to support yourself and your family etc. – If, and of course it is a big IF, everybody were to follow the rules, the need for laws would be greatly reduced. However, though some do not, most people are inclined to follow the rules. But governments increasingly remove responsibility for that inclination by imposing laws where they are not required. What may be appropriate in one community may not be appropriate in another. Left to their own devices, communities do generally figure out how to make things work best for them. I suggest that people are becoming increasingly disenchanted by the number and nature of laws that blight our lives
You keep saying that I do not stick to the subject. But you said “I want to comment on both subjects”. That is precisely what I was doing. Or were you not inviting comment from anybody else? What is the point of posting if you don’t want comments? Bravo, you really are not as clever as you think you are. In addition, you see everything in black and white and you do not tolerate being challenged or contradicted. Show a little modesty and toleration for the thoughts and opinions of others.
You have still not answered the question raised by Boa and me and I think CWJ. If Assange has broken British law, why have charges not been brought against him?
Ah, I see you have at least responded to my last question.
…when in Nazi Germany…
I have no idea whatsoever what it is like to live under a totalitarian regime of any kind – except as one with diplomatic immunity in China where my behaviour was constrained both by diplomatic conventions and local law. I defy anyone to answer your question. It’s alright sitting here with a nice cup of tea tut-tutting about people’s behaviour but unless you were there – oh, btw, did you obey the apartheid laws? (And that is a straight question that goes to your Nazi etc question. I mean no implications of any kind.)
This is just a giant storm in a teacup. If the Americans don’t want their stuff splattered all over the internet they should be more careful with it. Personally I couldn’t give a XXXX what happens to Assange.
Jazz, concur on both counts.
Bravo, perhaps the UK Justice Secretary needs some advice on the Official Secrets Act?
He has already stated that what Assange has done is not a criminal offence in the UK.
QUOTE
Justice Secretary Ken Clarke told Britain’s Channel 4 News he didn’t know much about WikiLeaks and hadn’t had any contact with U.S. officials about it. While he condemned the WikiLeaks disclosures, he also struck a sympathetic note.
“I disagree with what WikiLeaks has done,” Clarke said, citing the damage it had dealt to international diplomacy. But he added: “some of the things it’s revealed — let’s be fair — are of genuine public interest.”
“On balance it’s done a great deal of harm, but that’s not a criminal offense,” Clarke said.
UNQUOTE
😀
CWJ, magic! 🙂
CWJ! – Fantastic!
In answer to your question, I only spent a little more than a year living in SA during the apartheid era and to be honest, it did not really effect me. But let me tell you about Rhodesia where I grew up and in whose army I did my National Service. There was a fellow there an instructor by the name of Corporal W who had left the British Army to join ours. While still under going basic training, we were on an exercise near the Botswana border. During that stage of the war there was a curfew from 05.00 til 18.00. Corporal W’s platoon had set up an ambush. A black kid of about 10 or 11 was running home just as the clock hit 18.00. Corporal W shot him. A short while later I confronted him over the incident. I spent 3 days in DB for insubordination. Now I am not saying that I did anything magnificent, but though he had obeyed the letter of the law, he was morally wrong and I objected to it. Many people just turn a blind eye to such events. Later on I was transferred from an all white unit with my friends to a black unit because I had complained to my CO about the treatment of prisoners. If something is wrong, you stand up to it, regardless of what the law says.
Mention of curfews, Sipu, if you will permit a mild diversion, reminds me that a midnight curfew was in force in Seoul in the late 1970s. Army/Police roadblocks were set up every night on all the major arterial routes. Koreans were not permitted to be out after midnight. Non-Koreans could be, but had to approach such blocks with healdights off, interior light on, and at a snail’s pace, stopping to be checked/waved through. The CEO of Korea Merchant Banking Corporation, a very English Englishman at the time, either didn’t see the roadblock or was sufficiently tired and emotional to drive straight through. His rear tyres were machine-gunned to ribbons almost instantly. He sobered up apparently, almost as quickly, whilst the rest of us treated roadblocks with a great deal more respect for the rest of our time in that beautiful country!
CWJ No. 54. That takes care of that then.
It wouldn’t be the first time Ken Clarke has opened his mouth just to put his foot in it, but in this case, I think he has struck the right note…
http://www.awesomestories.com/assets/auschwitz-uprising-sonderkommandos-revolt
I fought communism Bravo, my mates and I stopped Castro, we stopped Nujoma, the cubans and swapo.
I have no doubt, even today that we did the right thing. Look at Namibia and Angola over the last 20 years, a shambles!
We never actually fought the ANC, they were nowhere. The ANC were always a political movement, I realised this as far back as ’76, (perhaps even before, but ’76 seems to crystallise it for most of us)
So yes, we supported the ‘apartheid regime’ simply because we absolutely refused to allow the russians to extinguish us, they didn’t, nobody else will.