WikiLeaks about to hit the fan

What the hell are you talking about? ...and no, I don't read bodice ripping literature, those are far to boring to even consider.

But they fly off the shelves I'm told Cal. That was what I was asking you to explain. You not reading such trash is really not that significant.

I'm talking about striking a chord in Miss and Ms and Mrs average's breast as measured in checkout thermometers.

You do want science taught in schools don't you?

Science IS taught in school. Go to sleep spendius, you had too many pint of beer.

Not the French thank god they had a long and proud history of raping and murdering innocents that put the US to shame.

I love them sinking a green peace ship on foreign soil killing a numbers of people aboard at the time.

Not even the post war Germans who own terrorists just happen to do a mass suicide by hangings themselves at a high security prison.

Not the English who did their own torturing in Ireland.

My my a three votes down! We must have one hell of a lot of Europeans lovers on his thread.

Hmm on the subject of the moral Europeans let see we had address the French, the Germans and the English in my voted down posting but not our friends the Swedish.

A very moral people who not only shown great willingness to profit by the Nazis seizing gold from the Jews in the 1930s to the 1940s but who had been very very slow over the last 70 years to return 60 tons or so of the gold to the few survivors or their descends.

Yes, the Europeans surely can give the US a moral lesson.

Maybe some folks are voting down things that have nothing to do with the topic of the thread, regardless of which continent they pertain to.

Interesting theory however I must had missed the voting down of postings that attacked the US and hold out the Europeans as examples of peoples with great morals.

I'm guessing you did, in fact, miss them.

I sure did miss any large numbers of votes down on the US haters postings.

Well, stay tuned for the next five seconds and you'll see this and the previous 4 posts all voted down because they have nothing to do with Wikileaks, Daniel Assange, or anything else that's actually related to the topic. And that includes my own posts.

That's funny. I usually don't pay attention to any voting, but I just checked, it's actually only BillRM that gets voted down.

No, not actually. I've been voting down anything off-topic. Nothing personal - just trying to keep my screen focused. Down we go...

Given JPB that there seem to be some on this thread who think that the same people who are willing to keep 60 tons or so of gold removed from the teethes of Jews are yet far too moral to dream of going along with the US and others in pursuing false charges again Assange , somehow I think there is a relationship.

Nah, you all do. Once in a while I counter vote, but mostly I leave all of that be.

Irrelevant.

I just gave you an "up" vote ! Weird though as spendius and I have been off topic too.

Anyway, the Guardian has posted the full allegations agains Assange in Sweden.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden

And voted down (at least by me). Again, the voting up and down doesn't necessarily mean agreement or disagreement, and it's not personal. I'm just trying to keep what shows up on my screen related to the topic at hand.

Thank You!

edit: I think...

What A Sordid Tale!!!

This is a good example of how a statement taken out of context or presented in isolation can, possibly, be used to make an invalid point.

The US finding European standards for human rights violations to be an "irritant," does not mean that the US finds human rights to be an irritant or has no interest in protecting them.

If there is a material difference between the US and European standards there must be a reason and it doesn't necessarily follow that the reason is the US is less concerned than Europe for human rights.

The Council of Europe, may indeed be the most authoritative human-rights body for European countries, but that doesn't make it most authoritative human-rights body for the world, or for that matter, above criticism.

It would be more helpful if the Guardian had specifically detailed the difference in standards that may impact the Assange case.

There is reference to a request by the European court of human rights (Same as the Council of Europe or a distinct entity?) for information concerning UK extradition hearings where it is believed prisoners could be sentenced to life without parole in the US.

This can't involve Assange because Sweden not the US is seeking his extradition from the UK, and while I knew other countries (including European) believe the death penalty is a violation of human rights, since when has life imprisonment without parole been added to the list of verboten punishments?

The Guardian goes on to report US intentions to meet with the new secretary general of the Council of Europe, Thorbjorn Jagland:



I would have thought that the Guardian as well as all of its enlightened readers would be please to learn that US officials want to meet with and discuss of mutual interest.

Apparently not so:



Apparently the Guardian is convinced that any and all discussion with US officials involves those officials applying pressure on their counterparts.

But then we know all too well how those crafty and duplicitous American diplomats reveal their perfidy in one section of a secret cable but take great pains employing misleading euphemisms in another. Of course, when they wrote "review," they meant "pressure."

A good comparison, Bill. The USA ranks right up there with the worst of the worst.

Your three votes down may come from USers who aren't happy with the eloquent "defences" you offer for the US's numerous crimes.