Newsnight tonight, BBC2, live.
Allowed HTML - you can use:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>
Allowed HTML - you can use:
Newsnight tonight, BBC2, live.
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>
Given that extradition between the UK and the US hasn’t been the most difficult thing to arrange in the past – perhaps some people here should be asking why he feels safer here than in Sweden – might it not just be that he knows he is guilty of the crime of which he is accused? Some perhaps also be asking why such a large number of people who he has worked with in the past now don’t have a good word to say for him. On the other hand you could just carry on believing he is right on because he doesn’t like America and is there by definition a good guy.
@N_ – I respect your view, but we still disagree. Ultimately, persistence with repeating well-known but conveniently ignored facts, to counter the MSM approach, is best placed to win the day. Radicals such as Craig won’t win by appearing bonkers (and note I am making no such judgement).
If the Wallenbergs are offered as a “they own the government” theory, then additionally a cynical opponent like Aaronovitch will claim your real theory is “Jewish wealth”, regardless of its veracity. That becomes a further trap to get out of.
Anyway, I found this article on the topic; their WWII history is very interesting, as are the comments.
Hoping the debate will be shown. Interested to see how Craig defends Assange actions. Though a sympathiser with the idea of Wikileaks and an admirer of Assange’s bravery in “whistle blowing” I fail to understand his actions in avoiding the Swedish legal case. I remain unconvinced because i can’t believe that he is more likely to get deported to the USA from Sweden than from Britain.
Best of luck
@resident dissident – you are welcome here, but it is probably better to assume good faith of everyone on this thread. If Assange is proven guilty of a sexual crime then I can’t imagine anyone here would want for him to get away with it – I certainly would not.
What is your view of the Swedish refusal to meet with him in London, or their refusal to explain that refusal?
I appreciate people accused of common crimes do not normally get to set the circumstances of their meeting with police, but given his status as a whistleblower, I think there is a public-interest defence in making such a allowance. What is your view on that?
Out of interest, and perhaps relevant to explain your view on Assange, what is your view about Wikileaks? Shining light on dark corners of US imperialism, or an impediment to the natural secrecy reasonably required by modern international governance?
@Bob (new) – I think the relative likiliness of extradition from either country is very complex, since it is not just subject to the political views of each Establishment and each country’s sensitivity to covert American pressure, but the structures/conventions of their legal systems as well. I don’t know whether you or I could make a judgement on it, since we’re not international law experts (I presume!).
There were some speculations here if you’re interested, but then there’s a lot of views both ways on the web (from both the Left and the Right). My present position is that Assange’s legal advice is that he would be best to stay in the UK, and in general anyone is well advised to pay heed to their solicitors!
Ah, it seems Craig is not ‘up against’ Aaronovitch but ‘a woman’ and a ‘critic of Assange’s behaviour’. What a nice way to trivialise this. because of course ‘women’ are only concerned with sexual issues and not about the political and diplomatic ramifications of the case as a whole.
I do hope he points out that this is not a gender issue. I do hope he points out this is not a trial of sexual morals, because otherwise where would the current mayor of London be?
And I hope that there will be room for real debate. But given that Newsnight is approvingly showcasing some ‘think tank’ suggesting that social housing be taken away and sold off (the ‘area’ thing is a distraction) before cutting to a ‘debate’ and has started this Assange debate off with ‘he’s not the messiah, he’s a very naughty boy’ I doubt it.
Btw, of course: if anyone can point to a video of the debate after it has aired, please add a link in the comments.
NB many of the most coherent commentators on CiF were women disputing these attempted definitions of ‘rape’ in this extremely murky case which should never have been publicised in the first place, and pointing out that the women in this case have been let down by the justice system and the prosecutors.
Todd Akin. George Galloway. Craig Murray. Anti-women, pro-rape.
@Alan Campbell – that view is seriously unhinged.
@tech – I agree. I heard at least a year ago that one/both of them had withdrawn their claims. However if there were any truth in either/both, the chances of a fair trial are probably slim now anyway.
(I’m in no way trying to diminish the claims made by the two women, who must be assumed to be making the claims in good faith. But the politicisation and publication of their cases may well influence the fairness of a trial, and this must be taken into account by their public prosecutor.)
I just watched the interview, to see that Aronovitch had been replaced by some woman. I thought that Craig was good, but too self effacing. He named Anna Ardin as one of the women, but was not able to finish his point because the woman went all mouthy. He should have pointed out that Newsnight runs under British law, and the injunction does not apply here but instead he waffled about how her name was well known. Not a good answer and it allowed her to keep giving it tongue.
What a page full of total wankers.
All three are sympathetic to religious extremism. Makes it easy to lightly dismiss rape and the rights of women.
Sure would be nice to have a link to that interview.
Resident Dissident and Bob (New):
Q: Why didn’t the US just extradite Assange from the UK?
A: The US knew that an application for extradition would have alerted Assange, who could then have taken refuge in an embassy. The US preferred Assange to be taken into custody, and thus deprived of that option.
@Alan, I suspect you know that Craig is not remotely sympathetic to religious extremism, as his past articles attest – especially regarding Iran. You’ll have to do better than that. See my points to @Resident Dissident if you want to try something trickier.
@Jeff T, you’re welcome to join in if you have a civil point to make. Even Alan makes half an effort, and we’re quite used to his ad hominem!
So now the BBC exists to defend justice and shine a light on alleged criminal acts committed at home and abroad? I don’t seem to recall any such concern for justice being shown when allegations of war crimes and illegal invasions have been made against members of the Westminster government. Another hole in the damm of the regime
Ben Franklin, it will go up on the Newsnight page later tonight or tomorrow. Alternatively you can watch it via the BBC Player.
By the way, the knowledge that Anna Ardin got slung out of Cuba for mixing with pro-American groups needs to be more widely known. I would hope that the Cubans will have a dossier on her and release it. If it can be shown that she is a Langley asset rather than just a fellow traveller it would help Assange greatly.
Alan Campbell, is telling lies the only way you can support your cause?
Agreed technicolour, what a stereotype presentation, steering past the facts, the moment Craig spoke facts, they both talked over him.
Newsnight editors felt assured of his good behaviour towards women, and or in the company of.
Ms indy on sunday is ill informed, lax towards the Swedish state’s lack of concerns for both women, not a word about the abysmal performance of the Swedish prosecutor Ms. Nye, her dithering and failure to divert global publicity via her Swedish publications.
Why does Ms Harris fail to mention these monumental failures? then there is the failure to interview Mr. Assange when he was volunteering and the subsequent clearing to go abroad, leave Sweden.
just as some dumbstruck Guardian reporters, Ms. Harris has just outed herself as ‘Hatchet Joan of bandwaggoning fame’, no different to Galloway, who must have been playing with himself whilst jumping to his sexist conclusion, on to the band wagon hey ho hey ho.
Ms Harris wants a little fame, bless. Maybe next time she is better informed and less lead by the nose.
Naming one of the victims on air. Stay classy, Craig.
I think this is deeply disturbing. If, as it may be, Assange used these women selfishly for sex, what should be the penalty? What should a man get from a legal system for fucking consensually, though without a condom, or having a stiffy in bed? Ten years? A day? A swift kick in the chestnuts?
And, at the same time, as I sadly predicted, the background to this case – Bradley Manning, the persecution of Wikileaks, the real revelations of Wikileaks, the real evidence that the US will extradite Assange from Sweden, because they can, and they want to – go unflagged.
Sometimes the personal is not political.
Alan Campbell
At least try and fucking talk the language, the illiterate wanker that you are, it is misogynist and not “Anti-women”, with men like you there is no need for fucking women, you are just doing fine when it comes to bitching and whining. (no disrespect to proper women)
Pro-rape, this is the fucking limit, next we potential rapists (all men excluding the wankers like A. C.) that we all are, we will be accused of rape for not ogling at the attention whores.
If only we had a parliament filled with Craig and George kind of men, sure as the day is long life would have been a higher quality experience than the current miserable existence to watch “our war” on the telly.
Spending our money to kill the Afghans and Arabs over there, and to keep us in hunger and destitution over here, due to the incompetent bastards the likes of you filling the seats in the parliament
Sorry all but, I have hit my bullshitter tolerance limit.
Alan Campbell, “Victims”? You’ve decided on Assange’s guilt already, have you?
Galloway, Akin, Assange. Different political beliefs, all vile misogynists.
Anyone know if there was a reason Aaronovitch pulled out? I’d check if he has a Twitter feed, but I am not sure I could bring myself to read it!
@Ken, about the two women. If either/both are plants – and that is not at all established as far as I know – they still deserve to have their rape claims heard, providing they still stand by them. My view is that if the Swedish prosecutors came to London, they’d not subsequently be able to construct a case that would go to court. (If they questioned Assange and then decided to press ahead with a court case, his next move would be very difficult. I imagine he would then be best obtaining assurances from the Swedes that subsequent extradition would be denied, and then if that assurance is given, go voluntarily to Sweden).
Alan Campbell, on what evidence do you regard Assange as a misogynist?
Alan Campbell:
You can’t handle the truth.
Craig:
Kick Aaro’s backside good and hard!!!
Alan Campbell/Aaranovitch:
Is that the line you are going to take in your debate with Craig? You are in big trouble, pal………