Slashdot Mirror
Assange Wins Right To Submit Appeal
beaverdownunder writes "Julian Assange has won the right to submit an appeal of his extradition to Sweden on 'public interest' grounds. He now has two weeks to come up with a convincing argument for Britain's Supreme Court. From the article: 'The judges ruled that Mr Assange's case is of general public importance, but the Supreme Court could still refuse to hear his case. Mr Assange now has 14 days to formally lodge an appeal, meaning his stay in Britain, where he has been staying since his arrest in December last year, is certain to stretch into 2012.'"
... and only then will he be truly safe!
So being famous lets you get another appeal?
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3713222.html
wikileaks is effectively dead and Assange is spending all his time defending himself in lawsuits.
Public punishment by never ending prosecution.
I hereby suggest and call for support at slashdot, to point out the importance of having to ascertain the importance of a fair ethical consideration to be of importance for Julian Assange's appeal.
Since the courts themselves surely is not to decide such an inquiry of ethical consideration (they should not, not on behalf of 'public interests grounds' anyway), it only makes sense that the courts is to learn about the grounds for understanding the moral implications regarding JA's peculiar situation as an human being, activist and a journalist.
This injunction would be a simple call for decency, where the problems around the legal framework itself would warrant the supreme court to learn about and relate to various dangers regarding human freedom, insofar as faculties of justice and similar civilized types of public fora are concerned.
I just have to ask --- does it *really* make someone a loser if they support the principles behind defending someone, even if they're confident that person is "scum" or a loser?
From plenty of accounts I've read online, I get the idea that yes, Assange is a pretty nasty character and seems to have little respect or regard for women, as well as no qualms about backstabbing someone if it furthers his personal agenda.
Does that mean his entire wikileaks project is a bad thing? I don't think so. Maybe it took an unsavory individual like hm to risk such an undertaking in the first place? The law of the land should work objectively, not subjectively based on peoples' opinions of the individuals being charged with crimes.
http://i.imgur.com/66fp5.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/EjALn.jpg
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
Oh, I now see that 'ascertation' is perhaps not a word. I should have used the word 'ascertainment'.
'Ascertainment' is a proper noun; I do would like to get feedback and maybe get to learn if this is good grammar or not.
'The ascertainment of fair ethics' -- what I wrote as my correction
Expose names of diplomatic and espionage parties on the web before asking their permission?
If you leave the barest minimum safe stopping distance between you and the car in front, cars will take that space up as if you were leaving it for them.
Why do we still care what this egomaniacal idiot does?
It's funny, but when this guy had his servers, etc., he was "cock of the walk". But when he got hit with legal troubles and the money dried up, now, all of a sudden, he's on the receiving end. I wonder what he thinks about now that his whole life has been de facto "wiki-leaked' for all the world to see. Don't get me wrong, I'm not pontificating on the morality of WikiLeaks - once the info is out of the bag, you can never really put it back in. However, I am simply commenting on the irony of Mr. Assange's situation. And, assuming that all his legal troubles can be put behind him, what kind of future will he have? My point is that this guy will always be under the microscope. Will he ever be able to have a "normal" life ever again? I;m doubtful about this. John V. Karavitis
If you want pointers on your grammar, here it goes.
I hereby suggest and call for support at slashdot, to point out the importance of having to ascertain the importance of a fair ethical consideration to be of importance for Julian Assange's appeal.
That section is very repetetive and unclear. What is it you wish to be pointed out? The importance of a fair ethical consideration of Assanges appeal? If so, a better wording might be
"to make known the importance of a fair ethical consideration of Julian Assange's appeal."
Since the courts themselves surely is not to decide s
"Is" would not be the proper word here, since "is" is only used for third person singular, and "courts" is third person plural ("courts" would fall under "they", not "he, she, or it"). Ditto in the second part of your sentence, use "are" instead of "is". Grammatically, the rest of your sentence is fine.
Everything else is fine, though your third sentence is awkward ("warrant" in the way you are using it typically goes with an "ing" ending-- such as "warrant the supreme court learning"). Ascertainment and Ascertation i have never heard used as words; they may be proper english words, but are likely to make your sentences muddled and confusing. I would recommend using a thesaurus for synonyms of "ascertain" for better choices.
I just want to point out that I never asked you for your opinion beyond that simple question pertaining to the proper use of grammar for one instance (the headline), so to expect me to care about your suggestion about using a thesaurus is abit naive and rude I think. It should also be mentioned that I chose to make use of the word 'ascertainment' for a good reason, for which one is to accept the most important task in a discussion about ethics, simply being the task of bringing about an awareness of ones specific argumentative discourse in order to pertain an awareness of its limitations, as the problems are discussed.
There ought not be anything remotely amusing with the multiple use of the word 'importance', even though it might look like I have been repeating myself in that argument given one can regard the word 'import' seriously. To put it bluntly; the argument has serveral clauses in which none are trivial and all are of import for the sake of this particular argument. In other words; being aware of the intended meaning with ones statement, has to be regarded as principally or substantially different than any other reflexive mode of argumentative discourse (debate), a discourse that otherwise risks undermining the proposed validity of ones own opinions if one is not attentive for that which you already had an opinion about.
The sole purpose of using that particular word in the headline was; to convey a poignant yet esoteric introduction to my argument, an argument in which and throughout the entire sentence one ought to keep in mind the brevity of the sentence as such while simultaniously being aware of the different clauses therein.
I was not attempting to insult or ridicule. You asked for grammar comment, and I did so. Your first sentence was extremely difficult to understand, and I dont think that needs ridicule, but I would be remiss not to point that out. I suggested a thesaurus because my time was limited, and that was the extent of the help I could provide, without knowing more specifically what you were trying to express.
I commented on the use of "ascertainment", which, if it is an english word at all, is very much non-standard, awkward, and hard to follow.
I spent a good deal of time trying to be helpful in a way that most non-native speakers I have dealt with indicate they prefer (that is, explain when they are wrong and why), and you seem to be upset about it. Usually if a non-native speaker is expressing themselves in a way that will make it difficult for a native speaker to understand, they want to be told; apparently you do not. Im sorry I spent any time whatsoever trying to be helpful, since it appears I wasted my time and upset you in the process.
In other words, the argument simply means: Ethics is a 'public interest', the court(s) rely on ethics and the presumably unpresedented situation with Julian Assange is warranting a discussion in supreme court, as a matter of ethical concern.
It is of importance to understand that your suggestion is wholly of a different nature discussion wise: What ought to be important for the sake of making an appeal in my view, is to have the court(s) become aware of a set of presumably unpresedented ethical problems, and NOT what you suggested, that was akin to assuming that the court(s) ought to be interested in your opinions about how unethical the court(s) treatment of Julian Assange is.
These are really two wildly different problems, one is about Julian Assange, the other is about ethics as such. I bet the court(s) will want to hear about the problem concerning ethics as such (related to morals). One is case specific (mine) and the other is person specific (yours).
If you dare to report information without permission and censorship, no law or principle will be safe to protect your life from being permanently harmed. The more blatant disregard of the rule of law the better... right up to the edge of the victim becoming a motivating character.
The fame and sex may not have been worth it but somebody had to take the brunt of the backlash of the power elite. Governments especially like to make symbolic examples of the small people to terrorize the others. By focusing largely on him the others have not got hit as badly. The drawback is a huge potential risk if they mismanage how they handle that small target. In a way, they make him more powerful by being the focus of Goliath.
In his case an outright assassination ("accident") would not be effective and would result in more people inspired to fill his role, so they make everybody FEAR being him-- a reporter/relay of leaks; the target audience. The leakers have been treated far worse for the same reasons-- to send a stronger message to potential leakers.
It is a form of terrorism. Instant death isn't so bad, many people rank fear of public speaking right up above instant death (ranking fear, obviously a rational person will overcome the emotion and choose to live on.) One doesn't need to threaten death to a group of people to MAKE them act the way you want and follow up with symbolic bombings. You can ruin a few symbolic people to make the rest conform.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
What's this guys beef if he is innocent? The more he fights extradition for questioning, the guiltier he looks.
I don't buy for one femtosecond the concept that the Swedes are acting as a proxy for the Americans to punish him. (Though I might if it was the British. sorry.)
Trust me, if the American government wanted him that badly, he would already have been disappeared, Britain or not, by extraordinary rendition with a bag tied over his head, into a black prison and never seen again.
Assange looks like a man trying to dodge a rape conviction. All women, and any man with sisters, wives or daughters should be outraged!
there are 3 kinds of people:
* those who can count
* those who can't
I agree with your first statement; freedom, truth and liberty don't mean there are no secrets. But the issue here seems to be a belief that sites like wikileaks are somehow "wrong" for making public the secrets they've come across.
I'd counter that if we're so hung up on the idea of it being "wrong" to intercept a nation's military secrets, it should be immoral and unjust to EVER employ a spy to steal secrets from another nation.
In reality, it's all one big political game. Every nation tries to make secret plans that the others, in turn, try to steal. Sometimes the spies even turn on their own employers and work for the other guy. Sometimes they even get caught and become national heroes anyway, like that woman in the U.S.S.R. (who even has action figures being made of her over there, these days).
The difference with a site like wikileaks is two-fold though:
1. They're not actively spying or stealing ANYTHING. They're simply publishing things that other people drop at their doorstep.
2. They're releasing it to EVERYONE, not just a direct enemy who will still keep it a secret, except now hopes to use it against the country it was taken from.