peter lindsay

Physics Teacher,


This conversation is closed.

The Julian Assange decision?

I am ambivalent in the true sense regarding Mr Assange. I see the importance of an organisation like wikileaks but can also see the potential for damage if care isn't taken. I also have some reservations regarding Mr Assanges motives. All this is not really my question. My question is; does the identification of a public prosecutor as a judicial authority fly in the face of how western court systems are supposed to operate? I thought the Judiciary was supposed to be independant of the prosecution and the defence allowing equal creedence to be given to statements from both sides and independant conclusions to be drawn. Identifying the prosecution as a judicial authority gives them more standing within the system than the defence council.

Closing Statement from peter lindsay

I think there is general agreement that there is something odd going on regarding the actual court decision, whether you are an Assange supporter or not. My personal prediction is the US will leave him in Sweden even if he is extradited from Britain. Having him in the US would just cause more problems so while ever court procedings keep him busy I think the US will ignore him. If he plays it right he might just fade away over time. Then he can go back to what he was doing in the first place.

  • thumb
    May 31 2012: The recent decision is regarding an appeal against the decision to extradite Mr Assange from the UK to Sweeden to stand trial for sexual assult (the UK has an extradition treaty with Sweeden so the default position is to send those who Sweeden asks for). However, the treaty states that the request should come from a Judge, while in this case the extradition request came from a public prosecuter. This deviation from the norm formed the basis of Mr Assange's appeal. The Court has stated that he should be extradited.

    Like Peter, I'm ambivolant about Wikileaks, but I do feel sorry for Mr Assange about the validity of these charges. I have a nasty feeling that he is being set up.
  • thumb
    Jun 5 2012: Does anyone rememnber that our first (at least my first) introduction to Assange was here on TED in an interview with Chris. I think he is one of our own and deserves some loyalty for trying to make the world a better place.
    • thumb
      Jun 5 2012: I was unaware of that, I am a TED nOOb relatively speaking. I'll look for it on youtube
      • thumb
        Jun 5 2012: HI Peter- we ;love our New bees!
        Another idea is to put "Assange" into thd search box above and a goodly number of things pop up.
        • thumb
          Jun 6 2012: Just watched the interview with Chris. Thanx for the heads up. It was interestng to see Assange mid 2010 coming across as a "mysterious whistle blower". I think perhaps he could have avoided his current predicament had he kept away from cameras. In the end I can't help but feel he put himself and the future of wikileaks at risk by being too personally visible. I wonder what he would change if he had a do over.
  • thumb
    Jun 1 2012: wikileaks has shown the twofaced nature of government we all suspected but usually have to wait 30 years to see via freedom of religion laws.

    Overall a good thing.

    Cult of personality about JA is a bit lame.

    Not sure of the politics involved in this case - would not be surprised if he ends up in jail in the usa. Sweden has very different laws on what constitutes rape. If JA broke these laws he is subject to them.

    I guess the legal point is whether a prosecutor is considered an appropriate judicial authority. I understand the plaintiffs went shopping for a JA until they found one.
  • thumb
    May 31 2012: I see parallels with this case and that of Strauss Kahn. Try and expose corrupt governments...get accused of sex abuse....try and regulate derivatives....the same. These people have already been tried and sentenced...even if they actually manage to escape incarceration, the mere suspicion and publicity means they will never be trusted again. There's somebody pulling the strings to make sure it happens...
  • thumb
    Jun 3 2012: Prior to the request a complaint had to be filed. I do not know about other countries laws but here the case must be submitted to a grand jury and if probable cause exists then a trial date is set. I would think there is probally a good case especially because he is a high profile individual. I am sure that no country wants to be thought of as judically stupid.

    That governments do stupid things ... yep ... no doubt. Always have always will. That someone would betray their oath and tell secrets to expose the errors, that this could cause a vote of non confidence in the standing government and cause civil disturbance and the fall of the political system is unforgivable.

    We have problems. I do not think that the wikileak method of resolution is the right approach.

    Some of the comments lack substance. Sort of like a rape case. She wore make up and a nice dress. She looked very nice and drove the accused to the act of rape. So he is not to blame. It is all her fault. Strauss Kahn had a history and very high priced lawyers. They played the spin game very well. I was not convienced.

    JA is a very high profile and should have never placed himself in any position where doubts could arise. Not the act of a smart man.

    So many governments have been found corrupt that people are losing faith in elected officials. The problem is that politicians are doing nothing to belay those doubts. Instead they are causing more doubts and more concerns.

    All the best. Bob
    • thumb
      Jun 3 2012: As I say the activities of wikileaks are a cause of concern, but I was mostly surprised by the lengths the judge went to to find a way of allowing the extradition. He ended up considering the subtle nuances of the term "judicial authority" in the french translation of the extradition treaty which seems like he was trying very hard to find a way of dropping the hot potato. Passing it to Sweden anyway. You can't help but feel that Assange is the elephant in the room whenever Obama and Cameron are together.