I'll come back to this. For the moment, this post is something of a place-holder. Still, I do want to follow what Jack of Kent has to say about Assange, since I think he (the former) has pretty good judgment on legal issues. Unfortunately, he makes a few snarky debating points aimed at John Pilger, but there are also legitimate points about the legal situation.
More later - meanwhile, feel free to discuss.
I get the impression that there is perhaps a little too much attention on Assange's personal/legal situation and not enough on the Wikileaks revelations. Not sure what others think however.
My interest is in the rule of law being followed, so I'm interested in intelligent discussion of the former when there's a high-profile case that arouses possibilities of it being subverted. I'm not saying it has been subverted in Assange's case at this stage. But there are reasons for the media, bloggers, etc., to watch carefully.
Personally, I have no interest in the actual revelations beyond that of anyone else. I have no expertise in such matters, and very little to offer on the subject that would show any particular insight. I do have some views, and I may express them as time goes on, but they are fairly peripheral to my focus on issues such as the rule of law. I mean, I don't think my views on these things are stupid ones, but nor are they especially insightful ones.
I'd rather concentrate here on whether Assange is being treated the way we would like the law to treat someone in his situation, whether he's a hero or a villain.
Post a Comment