Posts by Simon Grigg
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Media 2011, in reply to Matthew Poole,
the only way the US can prosecute Assange is either for him to slip up and travel through the US (not going to happen), or get him to US soil by extra-legal means.
Or, the most likely scenario in my opinion, for the US to charge him and request extradition and one of the following to happen 1) the UK gives precedence to that request 2) Swedish MOJ defer their claim, or 3) the UK courts decline to extradite to Sweden then he's extradited to the US.
-
Hard News: Media 2011, in reply to SteveH,
One of the problems with going after Assange is that he is merely the publisher - he didn't actually steal or leak the material. That's not the case with Manning. And Manning is US citizen.
Neither is close to insurmountable. The first is covered by a charge of conspiracy to commit espionage or steal the documents, and with that in mind the idea seems to be to try and break Manning and use him as the key prosecution witness.
The second - have a word with Manuel Noriega. Or David Hicks. Or countless others in Gitmo.
That is merely the official reaction; every newspaper in the country would have a field day, and so-on.
Once they had him in the US it matters little what we think. And I also think you overstate the reaction from the police, parliament and the judiciary. In the name of the 'special relationship' the UK government and its various bodies are happy to bend over when so demanded - or so history post Suez tells us.
The non-tabloid press, or at least that on the centre left - The Guardian & The Independent- would make a noise (which would make no difference). However, I can't imagine the much more widely read Sun (seven times the readership of the combined two left-centre broadsheets), Express or Daily Mail making a huge fuss - quite the opposite. Or The Times or Telegraph for that matter.
-
Some of the malls here give free umbrellas as you leave into the rain. The protocol is that you are supposed to return them next time you visit. The Thai people do as a matter of course. The tourists perhaps less so (since the protocol is not written) although I suspect the many Japanese get it. It's a nice touch even if it's in the thirties outside and you dry almost instantly.
As an aside and perhaps being too picky but the greater unbroken Jakarta metropolitan area is around 40m souls. If you cut that down to the administrative region it's around 22m and 2nd after Tokyo.
These measurements as these megatropolises (megatropoli?) continue to grow and merge are increasingly meaningless I guess.
-
Hard News: Wikileaks: The Cable Guys, in reply to giovanni tiso,
You know Neil I'm absolutely twatcocked if I can see what your point is in any of this?
Neil has access to a wide range of high level internal Bush memos and papers on Iran which he won't share. I'm putting pressure him to come clean.
Bush, apparently, was a "moderating influence in contrast to his reputation". A peacemaker I guess.
-
Hard News: Media 2011, in reply to James Butler,
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?
-
Hard News: Wikileaks: The Cable Guys, in reply to Neil Morrison,
Neil, common sense tells anyone that you don't make a person ambassador to the most high profile job in the US diplomatic corps to hide them away or get rid of them. That link speculates quite the opposite - he was moved there for two reasons 1) to get him away from hour to hour decision making - he is, I think we can say, very aggressive, and that aggression served a better purpose at the UN than in complicated nuanced decision making at the White House; 2) to reassure the hard right.
The last part was political expediency.
The phrase 'moved sideways' means neither up or down (and I did not say promoted - please don't continually put words in my mouth to make your point). There he pushed, very loudly, the agenda that drove both Bush's White House and the neo-cons that played such a big part in framing that administration's 8 years.
I'm not sure how that works.
Thank you.
-
Hard News: Wikileaks: The Cable Guys, in reply to giovanni tiso,
I'm getting a very strong sense of déjà vu here...
Indeed.
Neil, in that last post I think you've just dismantled both your arguments.
-
Hard News: Wikileaks: The Cable Guys, in reply to Neil Morrison,
you think that's unlikely?
I think anyone spending more than a brief moment considering it would think it's very unlikely.
so you're quite certain that we cannot know if Saudi Arabia wanted the US to bomb Iran but on the other hand quite certain that Saudi Arabia wanted Israel to bomb Iran.
Once again, I really don't think you've read a single thing that I or anyone else has posted. The phrase "there has been informed speculation" does not = "quite certain".
I give up.
-
Hard News: Media 2011, in reply to FletcherB,
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.
-
Hard News: Wikileaks: The Cable Guys, in reply to Sacha,
Israel having a crack at them was the more plausible scenario, with equally worrying outcomes for the region and for their US sponsors.
I think there has been informed speculation that Saudi Arabia has offered to clear the airspace required for such a crack.
The other factor which is often missed too is that the attack window which opened at the end of 2006 after US mid terms, closed in late 2007 as the Presidential elections loomed. Going to war - a third war - heading into a presidential election was not deemed to be GOP candidate friendly.
Not that John 'bomb-bomb-bomb Iran' McCain helped of course.