Yebiga,

So we pull out of Afghanistan and leave it to the Islamists ? Is there another way you know of ? Please share.

Yes, it's a nasty world, full of all manner of b@stards. Would that it were not, that every person was just a slightly soiled angel.

But you work with the cards you've got.

Leave Afghanistan to the Taliban ? Yes ? No ?

Joe

What exactly is an Islamist?
This is the rhetoric of Fox News.

Remember the supposed 19 terrorist hijackers - 17 were apparently Saudi's. The wikileaks documents reveal that US intelligence is openly aware that the Suadi's fund 90% of all the global terrorist activity!

My dear loudmouth - pause a moment - who has benefitted from all these terrorist activities? Who has made money and who has suffered.

Iraq has what 30% plus of world oil reserves and Afghanistan provides the world with 90% of its Heroin. It was in fact the Taliban who had significantly reduced poppy production. The US occupation has restored production to their pre-taliban days. You can be proud of our troops achievements.

The nasty people in the world are in the mirror - all you have to do is look.

This post has gone completely off-topic. If it doesn't get back on topic I will delete posts. Graham Y Moderator

Sorry, Graham.

Both Assange and Liu Xiao Bo deserve fair trials, they should be an integral part of modern, civilized societies.

My point, Yebiga, was that Assange seems to be being treated as one might expect: he has been accused of committing fairly serious offences, arrested and bailed.

Meanwhile, Liu Xiao Bo has repeatedly asked, campaigned for, written about, the most basic freedoms, of speech and assembly, for the people of his country, and has simply asked that his government observe its own laws. He hasn't broken any laws. But he gets no trial and eleven years. His wife gets arrested and taken God-knows-where simply because she is his wife.

Assange is likely to get a well-publicised trial: Geoffrey Robertson alone will guarantee that.

Liu Xiao Bo gets no trial. I suppose a Nobel Peace Prize is some consolation, though.

What an opportunity it would be for open government and respect for human rights and free speech, to campaign for them both simultaneously :)

Can Get-Up walk and chew at the same time ?

Joe

With respect to the arrest of Assange, it is interesting, with the passage of but little time, to re-evaluate some observations I made upon another thread in relation to this matter. ( http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4159#104640 ) I had said therein:

"It is interesting seeing the lawyer acting on behalf
of the Swedish authorities attempting to put words in
the [UK] bail hearing court's mouth, reported thus:

"Lawyer Gemma Lindfield, on behalf of the Swedish
authorities, reminded the court during the hearing
it had "already found that Mr Assange is a flight
risk". She said: "It's submitted that nothing has
changed since last week to allay the court's fears
in this regard.""

Interesting the focus upon Assange being a 'flight risk'
when he surrendered himself to UK authorities in the first
place, isn't it?

Are the words 'flight risk' echos of the language habitually
used with respect to persons sought for extradition to the US
that describes such as 'fugitives' in advance of any conviction,
by any chance? The slight difference in terminology a result
of sequential US English/Swedish/UK English translations of
diplomatic communications, perhaps?"




Now to learn that Gemma Lindfield, an officer of that UK court, was in reality acting on behalf of the (UK) Crown Prosecution Service, after her having deceived, or permitted the deception of, other officers of that same court in the persons of those appearing as counsel on behalf of Julian Assange, the accused, in such a way as to lay the responsibility for the appealing against the first granting of bail against those representing the Kingdom of Sweden, when it was in reality the government of the UK that sought that denial of bail!

What an utter shameful disgrace upon British justice, or, more correctly, the 'political master class' who these days misdirect it!

I can only wonder as to why the CPS thought it had any right to seek to deny bail to an Australian citizen who had voluntarily surrendered to UK authorities, in a way that was at the expense of the reputation of the Kingdom of Sweden, a friendly power.

Forrest,

This is a link to a Swedish site concerning the CPS's role in challenging bail.

Swedish DPP Keir Stamer said, "The Crown Prosecution Service acts here as agents of the government seeking extradition, in this case the Swedish Government."

http://www.thelocal.se/30888/20101216/