Hard News: Media 2011
56 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 Newer→ Last
-
I should note that there has, in my view, been some crazy stuff said about the likelihood of Assange's extradition from Sweden. Both the Swedish-US extradition treaty specifically and extradition law in general excludes the very kind of "crimes" the US is thinking of pinning on Assange. If the Americans try it, they will not find it easy.
I don't think extradition is a legal possibility, given the inherently political nature of the "crime" and the punishment the US is likely to impose (hint: 23-hour a day lockdown in a SuperMax prison - which is what they're doing to wikileaks' source right this minute - is regarded by the European Court of Human Rights as torture. Sweden can not legally extradite or refoul someone to such treatment). I think the real concern is not extradition, but rendition. And the Swedish government has a dirty history with the US there...
-
Good but not good enough. We really to know that there will be a full year of Media 7 next year.
-
I would hope, (but cannot be sure) that even despite the US's history of illegal rendition, they would not actually try to get away with it on someone so obviously in the public eye?
For better or worse, we are watching him, and the US would lose any and all moral authority in world-wide public opinion if Assange mysteriously turns up in the USA or even just disappears... The US is already held in low enough regard by many, but the US must surely know trying that would align a whole world of animosity against them?
-
The minister, Jonathan Coleman, had apparently hoped to make an announcement about the channels and funding before Christmas, but it’s likely that the government’s alarming fiscal projections are occasioning a rethink.
That makes sense... and doesn't make sense. I don't really see what difference it makes in this situation whether the government is losing $12.5b or $15b. That isn't a problem that will go away by trimming little bits of expenditure.
Anyway, it's not like the media have noticed that there's a crisis there anyway. I could count on one hand the number of words the DomPost has written about the budget crisis (or the NZAid crisis), at least in the A section...
-
Simon Grigg, in reply to
they would not actually try to get away with it on someone so obviously in the public eye?
I think global public eye matters little to many in the US ruling elite, who I'd argue are almost oblivious to it (and are now on record saying that European Human Rights law is but an irritant). However it clearly does matter to Obama, who remains the most globally aware and sensitive, perhaps given his personal history, of any US president since Carter.
I'd imagine Assange is reasonably safe from rendition or anything of that sort until Jan 20, 2013 at least.
-
Raymond A Francis, in reply to
Sounds to me as if you have never done a real budget Christopher
There is a big difference between $12.5 and $15 Billion deficient
And one of the ways to deal to the difference is by trimming non-essentials
It is no fun but it has to be done -
giovanni tiso, in reply to
It is no fun but it has to be done
Ah, the old misleading analogy between the state's budget and a household budget...
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
The US is already held in low enough regard by many, but the US must surely know trying that would align a whole world of animosity against them?
You mean more than doing this?
-
Greg Dawson, in reply to
Ah, the old misleading analogy between the state's budget and a household budget...
Maybe we can look into getting a cut-price home brand version of government instead of the .... oh wait.
-
Is this 15 billion just government debt and/or private debt?
-
FletcherB, in reply to
You mean more than doing this?
Yes... WAY more than that.
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
Is this 15 billion just government debt and/or private debt?
It's the government's cash deficit.
Yes... WAY more than that.
To you renditioning and torturing Assange would be WAY worse than arresting and torturing Manning? How so?
-
Christopher Nimmo, in reply to
There is a big difference between $12.5 and $15 Billion deficient
Yeah, it's essentially the same as the difference between $10b and $12.5b. If TVNZ 6 and 7 are non-essentials to be cut to reduce the deficit to $12.5b, surely they should also have been non-essentials to cut to reduce the deficit to $10b.
-
James Butler, in reply to
To you renditioning and torturing Assange would be WAY worse than arresting and torturing Manning? How so?
I only read him as implying it would be more likely to look bad to more people. Arguable, but very different to actually being worse.
-
Matthew Poole, in reply to
I'd imagine Assange is reasonably safe from rendition or anything of that sort until Jan 20, 2013 at least.
I wouldn't count on that. With or without presidential sanction there are ways to get Assange before a US federal judge that don't incriminate any identifiable individual. Once he's in front of said judge, how he got there is immaterial.
Should some part of the US national security apparatus decide that he's a PITA for sufficiently significant values of P, rendition becomes a purely mechanical question. It's not like the US is lacking in people with the requisite skills and capabilities to have Assange miraculously appear on the doorstep of the office of a US Marshall with no evidence as to how he arrived.
-
And, of course, there are the critical stories that literally won’t go away: how will the news media handle climate change?
You mean other that scaring the crap outta people with disaster pawn. I'd like to know that too.
-
Matthew Poole, in reply to
You mean other that scaring the crap outta people with disaster pawn.
Leave chess out of this!
-
Simon Grigg, in reply to
I only read him as implying it would be more likely to look bad to more people.
Manning, from being almost forgotten in this, has been elevated in the past 72 hours to a global cause celebre. I still don't think it will get the poor bastard a pillow.
They really don't care what we, beyond the borders, think.
Once he's in front of said judge, how he got there is immaterial.
I'm not so sure. 18 months ago, yes, but given the fact that an election season is on its way in early 2012 and the level of intellectual and legal (rather than political or popular) support that wikleaks has in the US, it could turn into the very shitfight that Obama and the Republicans don't need in the next year or so.
Rendition to date has been largely authorised by the executive and to the best of my knowledge has ceased since Obama took office - or am I wrong on that?
-
Matthew Poole, in reply to
Once he’s in front of said judge, how he got there is immaterial.
I’m not so sure. 18 months ago, yes, but given the fact that an election season is on its way in early 2012 and the level of intellectual and legal (rather than political or popular) support that wikleaks has in the US, it could turn into the very shitfight that Obama and the Republicans don’t need in the next year or so.
Rendition to date has been largely authorised by the executive and to the best of my knowledge has ceased since Obama took office – or am I wrong on that?
By “immaterial” I mean “The judge won’t examine it.” After all, arrest-without-warrant is effectively kidnapping that gets legitimised post-fact. Procedural arguments about the legality of that “kidnapping” can’t take place until it’s been determined that, actually, there was no case to answer.
That doesn’t mean that there won’t be the most epic of shit-fights, of course, but it does mean that getting Assange in front of a judge would simply be the beginning of a very nasty, protracted battle between the Judiciary and the Executive, probably with the Legislature weighing in for good measure, and with the only resolution being for Obama to grant Assange a pardon or order Justice to drop all charges; at which point the Republicans would doubtless commence impeachment proceedings for treason.As far as the cessation of rendition, who knows? We’re told it’s stopped, but CIA hasn’t exactly got an illustrious history of following orders and keeping the Legislature in the loop. And they’re not the only body who could carry out such a task. I’m sure plenty of Xe operatives are itching to help Assange have a nasty “accident”.
-
andin, in reply to
awright porn i'tis then.
-
FletcherB, in reply to
I only read him as implying it would be more likely to look bad to more people. Arguable, but very different to actually being worse.
Thankyou James. yes, that is my meaning.
Way more people are aware of Assange than Manning.
And I also think a wider section of the ordinary non politicized populations of all western countries (at the very least) would find kidnapping a foreign national (accused of essentially, causing them embarrasment) from a different foreign nation (with or without the help of that nation, which help could not be publicly acknowledged even if offered)... way more internationally provocative than how they treat a US citizen arrested in the USA for actual Spying/treason/breach of security.
I do not approve of torture of any sort, and I do agree that Mannings treatment amounts to such... but it seems to be psychological torture, not physical? (which is not OK, but possibly less bad?) It also seems only a small amount worse that what constitutes ordinary solitary confinement for run of the mill prisons in the USA according to recent doco's I've watched on TV1 (prisoner X). It's all fucken barbaric to me.. but it's obviously not enough to create world-wide derision.
There are a reasonable minority of the world who view the USA as some world dominating laww-less despots who keep their position through violence. And others who see them as flawed but essentially OK world leaders/world police with several (many) regrettable issues that are not big enough to over-ride the general OK-ness.
I think (hope) that Disappearing an Australian from Sweden that the whole world was watching might push the balance on that average view... from flawed but OK to not OK. I think whole populations would put pressure on their governments to no longer do business with the USA.
I think that the USA would ostracize itself from the world with a maneuver like that?
Gio- Do you think the US could get away with most people not caring, or do you think my whole take on western world opinion is wrong-headed, and they are already in this position? (or other?)
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
Gio- Do you think the US could get away with most people not caring, or do you think my whole take on western world opinion is wrong-headed, and they are already in this position? (or other?)
You're right when you say that more people are aware of Assange than of Manning, but that in itself is a demonstration of how well the US have contained the damage of the Iraq cables leak. I also think that it's a lot easier to paint Assange than Manning as a villain, yet they're managing to detain and torture Manning for exposing war crimes without fear of tarnishing their reputation at home or abroad.
-
It’s not like the US is lacking in people with the requisite skills and capabilities to have Assange miraculously appear on the doorstep of the office of a US Marshall with no evidence as to how he arrived.
I really strongly doubt that this is true, at least as long as Assange is in another country's justice system.
PS:
Sounds to me as if you have never done a real budget Christopher
-
I don't really see what difference it makes in this situation whether the government is losing $12.5b or $15b.
It's the problem with mindnumbingly large numbers. Ask someone if it's ok that their pay packet is $1,200 this week instead of $1,500 then they get upset. Multiply that by a million and it's "What's a billion here or there?". It's a serious lot of money.
-
Christopher Nimmo, in reply to
It’s a serious lot of money.
But does it make a difference over whether a a service is essential or not? If cost-cutting is the solution to all the government’s financial woes, then it should have been prepared for that when it was projected to lose $12.5b, which is desperate enough. And if the service was essential when they were losing $12.5b, then surely it is still essential $2.5b later?
I’m not OK that the government is losing $2.5b more than expected. I’m really pretty angry about it. But they aren’t doing so because of poor spending, they’re doing so because of lower revenue, and they have lower revenue because of regressive tax changes and not spending to jumpstart the economy.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.