Category Archives: World Affairs

No Acknowledgment for Photogenic Terrorist

Anders Behring Breivik, Norwegian terrorist

Anders Behring Breivik, Norwegian terrorist

Deep sympathy for the victims of Norway terror attack. Not merely for being killed but also for being undermined by media. Their life has been down-valued by many media outlets since they knew that the suspect wasn’t from the group they prematurely accused. That was when they started to avoid the word ‘terror’, ‘terrorist’ or ‘terrorism’.

Major news channels irresponsibly speculated that it was a ‘classic’ attack obviously carried out by a much referred terror group. In an early report, BBC News recklessly linked the attack to Norway’s involvements in the publication of a controversial religious cartoon, the invasion of Libya and Afghanistan. Only until they were shocked by the fact that the attacker was a ‘non-classic’ individual and a rather photogenic bloke. They weren’t ready to face the reality. Then suddenly those T-words disappeared from their dictionary. News lines were, by then, flooded with the word ‘killing’, ‘massacre’ or simply ‘crime’. The victims’ life was, by then, consequently, revalued down from being taken by a terrorism act to being taken by just a criminal act.

As much as media outlets weren’t ready with the conclusion of the tragedy, public was hard to believe when a picture of a smiling blonde-hair, blue-eyed, white-skin chap came up on the screen and was said to be the terrorist. Or the one whom media refers to as the gunman, the madman, or the killer. Extremist is the worstest word from the media for Anders Behring Breivik. Some people thought that it was too bad to be true. “It doesn’t make sense,” a few say.

It seems unlikely the Norwegian terrorist will anytime soon get acknowledged, particularly, by the western media even though Norwegian police have charged him with acts of terrorism. News sources in Norway, including ministers and experts, have apparently referred to him as a terrorist or his attack as an act of terrorism in many live interviews. Yet, media outlets stand still to prove that there’s no such a thing as objective journalism. Sad!


Will Obama Return The Nobel Prize?

“The said interest shall be divided into five equal parts, which shall be apportioned as follows: /- – -/ one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.” (Excerpt from the will of Alfred Nobel) –

I expected to hear Barack Obama’s statement, during his speech justifying military action in Libya on 28/03, of his willingness to return the Nobel Peace Prize he won in 2009 as what he’s done is not in line with Nobel’s will after all.

The Nobel Peace Prize 2009 was awarded to US President Barack Obama on the grounds that he was to bring diplomacy in resolving world challenges. The announcement of him become the Laureate said that the award was “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.”

“Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts.” –

Is it still relevant after he approved the US military intervention in Libya? Libya is a sovereign country like USA. This is the first war that he has declared since he moved to the White House. His worth for the Prize is, therefore, becoming much more questionable at this very time.

Nobel Peace Prize is normally awarded to individuals or organisations who have done a real action to bring peace on, at least, a part of the globe in the presided year. The Prize for Obama was awarded less than ten months after he took office.

Press questioned how early in Obama’s Presidency the award was being made. In fact the Prize was given by Nobel Committee merely “to demonstrate its support for the approaches he is taking towards global problems” (Committee release). It’s obvious that it was a little too early to acknowledge his worth for the Prize which was based solely on his speeches. Not his action for peace. It was given for what he intended doing and not for what he had done as stated in Nobel’s last will.

To maintain the nobility of the Prize, it’s worth consideration that a Nobel Peace Prize could be withdrawn should a Laureate shows inconsistency. Or, the Laureate him/herself humbly returns it if he/she prefers to betray the values of peace shared by Nobel. Will Obama?

Controversial history

In 1973 Le Duc Tho shared the Nobel Peace Prize with US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. The Prize was awarded to both for negotiating the Vietnam peace accord. Le Duc Tho represented North Vietnam. Kissinger represented US-backed South Vietnam. Le Duc Tho declined the Prize on the grounds that his opponent violated the ceasefire. He is the only person who has declined the Prize.

On the other side, as much as the Prize for US President Theodore Roosevelt in 1906 was seen controversial, the choice of Kissinger has been the most criticised decision in the history of Nobel Peace Prize. Not only did the criticisms target America’s war in Vietnam, it concerned on Kissinger being more associated with the war than with the peace. (Controversies and Criticisms surrounding Nobel Peace Prize)

As president, Roosevelt showed his determination to see the US as a Great Power using military force, primarily in the Caribbean, and this even in the year he became a Nobel Laureate. Many American newspapers found the award curious, and The New York Times later commented that “a broad smile illuminated the face of the globe when the prize was awarded … to the most warlike citizen of these United States.” (Controversies and Criticisms surrounding Nobel Peace Prize)

What Roosevelt said is slightly different from what Obama has said that he “would not hesitate to use military force to defend our people, our interests…”

Recommended reading:

Is It Time to Revoke Obama’s Peace Prize? (Newser)

‘Nobel Peace Prize-winner Barack Obama ups spending on nuclear weapons to even more than George Bush’ (Daily Mail)

Obama ‘doesn’t deserve’ peace prize (The Independent)

Barack Obama ‘did nothing to earn Nobel Peace Prize’ (The Telegraph)

Robert Fisk: Obama, man of peace? No, just a Nobel prize of a mistake (The Independent)

Praise and skepticism greet Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize (CNN)

Surprise Nobel for Obama Stirs Praise and Doubts (The New York Times)

Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize. Is this a joke? (New Statesman)

Praise and skepticism greet Obama’s Nobel Peace Priz

Abstain and Then Regret

It was a shame that the two balancing powers in the UN Security Council—Russia and China—stood abstain in the vote to the Resolution 1973 against Libya on 17 March . And yet, another two BRIC members—Brazil and India—took the same stance. The four world’s emerging economies in the UNSC at the same period 2010-2012—China and Russia are permanent members; India and Brazil are non-permanent members—did not use their voices optimally to keep a peaceful world. China and Russia could have vetoed the resolution. It’s a big question why they did not play their part like they always did on issues regarding military intervention against any country.

The reasons of the abstentions are generally the concerns over consequences to the civilians if a military action is taken. They doubted military intervention would resolve the problem as quoted from the UNSC minutes.

Russian Ambassador to the UN Vitaly Churkin said he had abstained, although his country’s position opposing violence against civilians in Libya was clear… His country, in fact, had pressed earlier for a resolution calling for such a ceasefire, which could have saved many additional lives. Cautioning against unpredicted consequences, he stressed that there was a need to avoid further destabilisation in the region.

Chinese Ambassador to the UN Li Baodong said that the continuing deterioration of the situation in Libya was of great concern to China. However, the United Nations Charter must be respected and the current crisis must be ended through peaceful means. China was always against the use of force when those means were not exhausted.

Brazilian Ambassador to the UN Maria Luiza Riberio Viotti said not convinced that the use of force … will lead to the realisation of our common objective—the immediate end of violence and the protection of civilians. She added that Brazil was also concerned that the measures approved today might have the unintended effect of exacerbating the current tensions on the ground and “causing more harm than good to the very same civilians we are committed to protecting”. No military action alone would succeed in ending the conflict.

Indian Ambassador to the UN Manjeev Singh Puri said today’s resolution was based on very little clear information, including a lack of certainty regarding who was going to enforce the measures. There must be certainty that negative outcomes were not likely before such wide-ranging measures were adopted. Political efforts must be the priority in resolving the situation.

In the end they regret that the execution of no-fly zone has gone too wild. The Arab League, who proposed the use of Resolution 1973, even expressed deep regret.

@jakpost Russia: Stop ‘indiscriminate’ bombing of Libya

@Reuters Arab League says air strikes on Libya differ from the no-fly zone which was called for; aim was to protect civilians not bombard them

@jakpost China expresses regret over allied strike on #Libya

@FRANCE24 Arab League chief slams air strikes despite support for Libyan no-fly zone

@jakpost China paper blasts Western air attacks in Libya

@BBCNews India, which abstained at the #UN Security Council vote, calls for end to #Libya air strikes, from AFP

@BBCNews Russian Prime Minister Vladimir #Putin says UN resolution on #Libya resembles Medieval calls for crusades

@Reuters Putin says Gaddafi regime does not meet democratic criteria, but that does not justify military intervention

What Hillary Wants

As an outsider, she’s made too many wishes. She wants this and that in the event of national turmoil in Egypt and other parts of the globe. On Twitter, take a look at how media echo her expectations. I assume a president gives a statement regarding international affairs after receiving a briefing from its foreign minister. That’s why Obama’s statements sound rephrasing Hillary’s words. Meanwhile, UK simply ‘re-tweets’ US status updates.


Clinton urges orderly transition

Clinton: ‘We want restraint and reform’

US demands release over shooting

UK calls for Egypt ‘transition’


US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says Washington wants an orderly transition of power in Egypt, so there is not a void in governance.


Clinton: I’ll pressure Haiti on election

Clinton calls for a peaceful transition

U.S., UK push Mubarak to fulfill pledge


Obama says Mubarak must deliver on democracy promise:

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs says the US will review aid to Egypt:


President Obama has urged Egyptian leader Mubarak to keep his promises of greater democracy and economic opportunity for his people.


US calls for ‘orderly transition’: Reaction is mixed, with the US calling for reform and Saudi Arabia condemning…

Obama calls for the internet and communication services to be restored in Egypt

Hilary Clinton – Protest show the underscore of deep resistance in Egyptian society and as Pres. Obama said reform is critical


Obama calls on Egytptian authorities to refrain from violence against protesters

SecState Clinton calls on #Egypt government to open up communication channels it has cut.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton calls for restraint from #Egypt government.


Obama: I told Mubarak he must deliver on his promises.


US ‘deeply concerned’ about use of violence against Egyptian protesters; calls on people to protest peacefully: US Secretary of State


U.S. says Mubarak can’t just shuffle the deck | Reuters

Obama says told Egypt’s Mubarak to keep promises

U.S. to review aid policy with Egypt: White House


Clinton urges orderly transition

While Saudi’s King Abdullah has mentioned the keyword ‘infiltrators’, ( I couldn’t agree more with Chavez mocking US’ chameleon-like foreign policy. A foreign policy that’s highly flexible and ‘go with the flow’.


U.S. role in Egypt crisis “shameful”: Chavez

By Andrew Cawthorne | Sun Jan 30, 2011 5:43pm EST

CARACAS (Reuters) – Venezuela’s firebrand leader Hugo Chavez accused the United States on Sunday of a “shameful” role in the Egyptian crisis and of hypocrisy for supporting, then abandoning strongmen round the world.

Chavez, Washington’s leading critic in the Americas, said he had spoken to Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi and Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad for a briefing on the protests in Egypt and elsewhere in the Arab world.

“In Egypt, the situation is complicated, Chavez said.

“Now you are seeing comments from Washington and some European nations. As President Gaddafi said to me, it’s shameful, it makes you kind of sick to see the meddling of the U.S., wanting to take control.”

The United States has urged an orderly transition to democracy in Egypt to avoid a power vacuum but has stopped short of calling on President Hosni Mubarak, an ally of three decades, to step down.

The socialist Chavez has generally cast himself as pro-Arab and opposed to the policies of Israel and the United States.

But in brief comments carried on state TV, he avoided any further specific comment on Egypt, saying only that “national sovereignty” should be respected.

Chavez scoffed at what he said was the United States’ chameleon-like foreign policy.

“See how the United States, after using such-and-such a president for years, as soon as he hits a crisis, they abandon him. That’s how the devil pays,” he said.

“They didn’t even give a visa or anything to the president of Tunisia,” he said, referring to President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali, who lost power this month after failing to quell the worst unrest of his two-decade rule.

Washington and other Western powers have been caught off guard by the popular uprising on Arab streets after long relying on autocratic regional rulers as a bulwark against Islamic extremism.

Chavez spoke after inspecting an army ammunitions depot where predawn explosions killed one person and injured another three, lighting up the sky and terrifying locals.

Though the incident appeared to be an accident, the government said it was not discounting any cause given the depth of feeling against Chavez by political opponents.

Venezuelans have been following events in the Arab world closely, with some Chavez foes privately expressing hopes for a similar uprising against him after nearly 12 years in power.


Whose Concern is Porn in UK & Indonesia?

Two similar cases. One is in the UK and the other one is in Indonesia. While the British government is proposing to ban porn websites to protect children from morals degradation, the Indonesian government is doing the same which is said to secure national income from telecommunication sector. Yet these two cases have risen contradicting reactions from the corresponding public and investors. The government vs. ISPs in the UK with no major opposition from the public. And… tadaaa… the government—with supports from ISPs—vs. public (Black Berry users) in Indonesia. Yes, Black Berry does exist in this country. And its users are still in euphoria. Remember, UK is in the West part of the globe and Indonesia is in the Far East. What can we see from these cases?

1.       Who has the interests in porn websites.

2.       How big the public trust to the government is.

3.       How either society interprets the freedom of information.

In Indonesia, for most issues involving foreign interests, public normally goes for the national interests. They tend to blame their government of being too weak in protecting the national interests. It seems the other way around this time. They don’t believe in the economic motive used by the government. They would even be more reluctant if the government used morale justification.

The BBC One’s Panorama has made a documentary on the impact of porn to teenagers and children. Watch Panorama: Too Much Too Young!


Operators demand RIM filter porn

The Jakarta Post, Jakarta | Tue, 01/11/2011 10:24 AM | National

Telecommunication companies have urged the government to force RIM (Research In Motion), the manufacturers of BlackBerry smartphones, to filter pornographic content, the Information and Communication Ministry says.

The companies that sent the request letter were PT Telkomsel, PT Indosat, PT XL Axiata, PT Natrindo Telepon Seluler, PT Smart Telecom, and PT Hutchinson CP Telecommunication, Communication and Information Ministry spokesman Gatot S. Broto said in a press release received Monday.

“The telecommunication companies sent the letter on Dec 1, 2010 to the Post and the Telecommunication director general, asking for help from the ministry. They demanded RIM filter all negative content that could be accessed with BlackBerry without reducing the service quality,” Gatot said.

The demand echoed a previous request sent by the ministry on July 21, 2010, along with Indonesian Internet Service Providers to all parties, Gatot said as reported by

Communication and Information Minister Tifatul Sembiring has said RIM had until January 21, 2011 to block pornographic content.


BlackBerry maker says it is committed to filtering porn content

The Jakarta Post, Jakarta | Mon, 01/10/2011 12:23 PM | Headlines

Three days after Communications and Information Minister Tifatul Sembiring threatened to shut down internet access on BlackBerry in Indonesia unless access to porn sites was blocked on the smartphones, maker Research in Motion (RIM) said it would install a filter for its subscribers in Indonesia as soon as possible.

In a press release made available to The Jakarta Post on Monday, RIM said it shared Minister Tifatul Sembiring’s sense of urgency on internet content filtering solutions.

“RIM has been engaged with its carrier partners and the government on this matter and continues to make it a top priority to implement satisfactory technical solutions with its partners as soon as possible,” the statement read.

A test by the Post showed that porn sites could still be accessed via BlackBerry web browser, but   the sites could not be opened on other smartphones such as IPhone.

However, critics are worried that such a threat by the minister would lead to another form of censorship by the government.


Tifatul: RIM must filter out porn by Jan. 21

Nani Afrida, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta | Mon, 01/10/2011 6:25 PM | National

Communication and Information Minister Tifatul Sembiring has set a deadline of Jan. 21 for BlackBerry manufacturer, Research in Motion (RIM), to ban all access to pornographic sites.

“Should the company [RIM] ignore our deadline, we will impose a sanction, including revoking the permit, in accordance with the prevailing law,” Tifatul said during a meeting at the Jakarta Convention Center in Jakarta on Monday.

He said the government would use Law No. 36/1999 on telecommunications, Law No. 11/2008 on information and electronic transaction and Law No. 44/2008 on pornography to enforce this threat.

Tifatul said RIM would not get any special treatment from the government, citing that all telecommunication companies operating in Indonesia must obey the regulation.



U.K. plan to ban web porn draws concern from providers; Experts say it’s ‘technically not possible’

By Philip Caulfield

Tuesday, December 21st 2010, 10:50 AM

A proposal to block Internet porn in Britain is causing an uproar among Internet service providers, web experts and digital privacy advocates who say the plan won’t work.

British Culture Minister Ed Vaizey said in an interview with the Sunday Times that the government wanted to cut off access to pornographic websites to protect children.

Under the new proposal, ISPs would block household computers from all porn sites, and parents who wanted to watch porn would have to opt in – that is, specifically request the ability to view porn websites.

“This is a very serious matter,” Vaizey said. “I think it’s very important that it’s the ISPs that come up with solutions to protect children. I’m hoping they will get their acts together so that we don’t have to legislate, but we are keeping an eye on the situation and we will have a new communications bill in the next couple of years.”

The plan is still in its early stages, and the British government is working to set up a meeting with ISPs to discuss the issue.

But while ISPs said they support the idea, many think any plan to cut off access to the millions of porn websites was a long-shot.

“Unfortunately, it’s technically not possible to completely block this stuff,” Trefor Davies, chief technology officer at Britain’s ISP Timico, told BBC.

Filtering systems are often imperfect, he said, and a giant porn filter would block access to websites that were not hosting pornographic material.

“The cost of putting these systems in place outweigh the benefits, to my mind,” Timico told BBC.

Nicholas Lansman secretary general of ISPA, the U.K.’s trade association for ISPs, said online safety was a priority issue, but that the responsibility of monitoring what children view online should fall to parents.

“ISPA firmly believes that controls on children’s access to the Internet should be managed by parents…with the tools ISPs provide, rather than being imposed top-down,” Lansman told the BBC.

He also said that ISPs currently block illegal and “abhorrent” child abuse content, but that blocking lawful pornography content would lead to the blocking of legitimate websites.

ISPs Virgin Mobile and BT, which already have programs that block some content, and Talk Talk have said they support the idea.

There have been successful attempts to stop Internet porn in the past.


No More Porn for UK Web Surfers?

Published December 20, 2010| NewsCore

The UK Government plans to combat the early exposure to sex of children by blocking Internet pornography — unless parents request it.

The move is intended to ensure that children are not exposed to sex as a routine part of the Internet. The move follows warnings about the hidden damage being done to children by sex sites.

The country’s biggest broadband providers, including BT, Virgin Media and TalkTalk, are being called to a meeting next month by communications minister Ed Vaizey and will be asked to change how pornography gets into homes. Instead of using parental controls to stop access to pornography — so-called “opting out” — the tap will be turned off at source. Adults will then have to “opt in.”

The new initiative is in advance of the imminent convergence of the Internet and television on one large screen in the living room. It follows the success of an operation by most British Internet service providers (ISPs) to prevent people inadvertently viewing child porn websites.

Ministers want companies to use similar technology to shut out adult pornography from children. Pornography sites will be blocked at source unless people specifically ask to view them.

TalkTalk, which includes Tiscali and the British version of, is already introducing a new free service early next year called “bright feed,” which allows people to control the Internet so that all devices are automatically covered without the need to set up individual controls.

Homeowners can either specify which adult sites they want to receive or put a cinema-style classification on their feed to restrict what is received according to age ranges, such as U, 12 or 18. A survey by Psychologies magazine this summer found that one in three children aged 10 in Britain had viewed pornography on the net.

Vaizey called it “a very serious matter. I think it is very important that it’s the ISPs that come up with solutions to protect children.

“I’m hoping they will get their acts together so we don’t have to legislate, but we are keeping an eye on the situation and we will have a new communications bill in the next couple of years.”

Claire Perry, a lawmaker and a keen lobbyist for more restrictions, said “unless we show leadership, the Internet industry is not going to self-regulate.

“The minister has said he will get the ISPs together and say ‘Either you clean out your stables or we are going to do it for you.’

“There is this very uneasy sense for parents of children that we do not have to tolerate this Wild West approach. We are not coming at this from an anti-porn perspective. We just want to make sure our children aren’t stumbling across things we don’t want them to see.”

Previously the Internet Services Providers’ Association (ISPA) had told MPs that such a blanket ban would be expensive and technically difficult to operate. But Miranda Suit, cofounder of the charity Safermedia, which held a conference on Internet porn last month, said, “Technically we know it can be done because the ISPs are already removing child porn after the Government put pressure on them.

“In the past, Internet porn was regarded as a moral issue or a matter of taste. Now it has become a mental health issue because we now know the damage it is causing. We are seeing perverse sexual behavior among children. Legislation is both justifiable and feasible.”

She quoted the example of two underage brothers sentenced to at least five years’ detention this year for a sadistic sex attack on two other boys in South Yorkshire. The brothers were said to have had a “toxic” home life where they were exposed to pornography.

This weekend some ISPs appeared ready to introduce an “opt in” clause voluntarily. Andrew Heaney, executive director of strategy and regulation for TalkTalk, said “Our objective was not to do what the politicians want us to do but to do what was right by our customers.

“If other companies aren’t going to do it of their own volition, then maybe they should be leaned on. Legislation is a sledgehammer but it could work.”

A spokeswoman for Virgin Media said, “We already have an opt-in approach on mobiles. We’ve taken this approach as mobiles are taken out of the home — and kept in a pocket — whereas parents can control what happens within the home and online.

“We’re able to block sites, so it would be possible to do the same on the Internet. It is just about finding the right approach.”

A spokesman for BT, which has a “clean feed” system to block access to illegal sites, said “We do what we can to protect children.”


Broadband operators to face porn ban?

Adrian Holliday | Dec 20th 2010

Broadband service providers like BT And Virgin could be forced by the government to block porn sites – or give users an “opt-in” to access them. Communciations minister Ed Vaizey wants a meeting with broadband players in an effort to protect children from web pornography.

Porn warn

“I’m hoping they will get their acts together,” he told the Sunday Times, “so that we don’t have to legislate, but we are keeping an eye on the situation and we will have a new communications bill in the next couple of years.”

Practically it would mean adult sites would be automatically blocked. But some internet players are already concerned about how much such a move would cost to implement.

It’s not clear just how much the global porn industry is worth though some estimates put the figure close to £40bn, perhaps more. But whatever the numbers, the government is rightly concerned about the increasingly sexualisation of children, and the best way to protect themn.


Will the broadband providers co-operate? They will likely argue that they are there to provide a service for their customers, and not be a tool for government social policy. Making it harder for customers to see porn could conceivably cost them lost revenues too.

BT, Virgin, Talk Talk, BSkyB, Orange and 02 are responsible for streaming most UK internet content. We asked BT for a response. They sent us a press release on the issue.

“BT takes child internet safety seriously and works closely with the government to support the prevention of illegal activities online,” it said. “We are aware of the adjournment debate and the ministers stated intention of holding a round table. We would be happy to take part to discuss the issues raised.”

However it added that there are “many legal, consumer rights and technical issues that would need to be considered before any new web blocking policy was developed.”


Softening a Conspiracy

I haven’t found anything newsworthy from the headline “U.S. to temporarily send 1,400 more Marines to Afghanistan”. Of course ‘temporarily’ as it’s a temporary (I hope) invasion. If it’s not temporarily then it emigrates the troops and occupies the country. This is the example of an unnecessary-use-of-words-to-soften-a-conspiracy. The use of ‘temporarily’ doesn’t give an excuse to the intention what so ever. It’s still an invasion. It would be much more newsworthy if it said “U.S. to send home 1,400 more Marines from Afghanistan”.


U.S. to temporarily send 1,400 more Marines to Afghanistan

WASHINGTON | Thu Jan 6, 2011 4:33pm GMT

(Reuters) – U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates has authorized a temporary deployment of an additional 1,400 Marines to Afghanistan, a U.S. defence official told Reuters on Thursday, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The Marines are due to arrive in Afghanistan in the coming weeks, the official said, bolstering U.S. forces ahead of the spring fighting season. U.S. forces in Afghanistan currently stand at about 97,000.

(Reporting by Phil Stewart; Editing by Bill Trott)


Don’t Worry You’re An Australian

It wouldn’t be that simple Ass. Since you’re an ‘ally’, they will provide you with a selection of treatments. You’d be offered with waterboard or dance naked before you’d be hanged to death. During your stay in the jail, they’ll give you some nicknames: AsSange-da, Ta-leaks-ban or maybe Ham-assange. You’ll see from the jail Sweden and Australia being invaded and burned down.


WikiLeaks Founder: ‘I Could Die In A US Jail’

11:37am UK, Friday December 24, 2010

Huw Borland, Sky News Online

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has claimed he could be killed if he is detained in an American jail.

But, in an interview with The Guardian, he also said it would be “politically impossible” for Britain to extradite him to the United States for alleged espionage.

Assange is currently on bail in the UK amid moves to extradite him to Sweden on sex assault charges.

American authorities are reportedly considering whether they could extradite him to stand trial for espionage over leaked US diplomatic cables.

The WikiLeaks website has distributed about 1,900 of the more than 250,000 embassy documents it claims to possess.

Many of them contain critical or embarrassing US assessments of foreign nations and their leaders.

Assange told the paper, if he was extradited to America, there was a “high chance” of him being killed “Jack Ruby-style” in the US prison system.

Ruby is the man who shot dead Lee Harvey Oswald before he could stand trial for the murder of President John F Kennedy.

But Mr Assange also believed it would be difficult for the British to hand him over to the Americans, if there was strong public support for him in the UK.

“It’s all a matter of politics. We can presume there will be an attempt to influence UK political opinion, and to influence the perception of our standing as a moral actor,” he said.

He added: “Legally the UK has the right to not extradite for political crimes.

“Espionage is the classic case of political crimes. It is at the discretion of the UK Government as to whether to apply to that exception.”


%d bloggers like this: