General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAssange must face court, says Jemima Khan
London, June 22 (IANS) WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange must face court and answer sex crime allegations in Sweden instead of trying to avoid extradition and taking refuge inside the Ecuador embassy, Jemima Khan, one of the people who collected his bail money, has said.
Jemima, daughter of British billionaire James Goldsmith and former wife of Pakistani cricketer-turned-politician Imran Khan, was among those who put up a total of 240,000 pounds bail for the 40-year-old WikiLeaks founder.
Assange's supporters risk losing their money after he spent two nights in the Ecuador embassy in Knightsbridge, central London, the Telegraph reported.
Jemima said Assange's alleged victims deserved justice too, and that he should respond to the allegations ...
http://www.newstrackindia.com/newsdetails/2012/06/22/311--Assange-must-face-court-says-Jemima-Khan-.html
ananda
(28,866 posts)and you pay with your life and your freedom.
Robb
(39,665 posts)Bodhi BloodWave
(2,346 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
clang1
(884 posts)reorg
(3,317 posts)"For the record, in response to those asking about Assange & bail money... I personally would like to see Assange confront the rape allegations in Sweden and the two women at the centre have a right to a response," she wrote on Twitter.
"But there is no doubt that Assange has a real fear of being extradited to the US nor that the US gov is out to get WikiLeaks," she wrote.
For those who didn't bother clicking the link.
Robb
(39,665 posts)paranoia is a lifesaver in his business.
Robb
(39,665 posts)struggle4progress
(118,295 posts)She can afford it, of course, but his run for the embassy makes her look a bit like a airhead to the general public and to her social class
Robb
(39,665 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(101,321 posts)She guest-edited the New Statesman (serious left-of-centre British political mag - equivalent of The Nation, perhaps) and got the scoop of Hugh Grant recording the ex-Murdoch journalist on phone hacking - before the big story broke:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2011/apr/10/observer-profile-jemima-khan-wikileaks
EFerrari
(163,986 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)while he's in the UK court system.
upi402
(16,854 posts)I worry these days...
warrprayer
(4,734 posts)would agree
Robb
(39,665 posts)I'd be willing to bet Manning is a lot less enamoured with Assange than he was at the start of things.
warrprayer
(4,734 posts)... that you are wrong.
Robb
(39,665 posts)I don't. I bet he has a whole lot of regrets that center around Assange's inability to live up to promises he doubtless made.
But of course neither of us know.
warrprayer
(4,734 posts)that if Manning had the courage to do what he did, he had to be convinced in his heart that he was right. Moreso now that he has sacrificed his life for it.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Robb
(39,665 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Robb
(39,665 posts)0 for 2.
reorg
(3,317 posts)JonLP24
(29,322 posts)Manning is facing charges due to that hacker ratting him out. I don't know if Assange promised no reprisals but the reveal of source isn't on him.
Robb
(39,665 posts)Assuming for a moment it is Manning, of course.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)Assange was supposed to do. If Manning is the source then it is Manning's fault for revealing himself to that hacker fella.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)and neither have admitted to knowing the source. Manning, it is alleged, outed himself to Adrian Lamo, a government informant. Wikileaks does not guarantee protection from reprisals if they identity of a source is revealed.
But, of course, you knew this.
So, both Wikileaks and Assange is 2-0.
girl gone mad
(20,634 posts)commenting on this story.
With a deep void of knowledge, and in substitution a surplus of slanted conjecture.
randome
(34,845 posts)It grows! IT GROWS!!!!!
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
Robb
(39,665 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Robb
(39,665 posts)She was annoyed with the Daily Mail headline which did not include the entirety of her tweet. The article in this OP however does.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Khan's original tweet: "For the record, in response to those asking about Assange & bail money... I personally would like to see Assange confront the rape allegations in Sweden and the two women at the centre have a right to a response,"
Nothing about must face court.
Subsequent tweet which followed shortly after: "But there is no doubt that Assange has a real fear of being extradited to the US nor that the US gov is out to get WikiLeaks,"
Because of the 140 character of twitter, some people spread one thought over two or more tweets. Savvier users will number them (i.e., 1/3, 2/3, 3/3) so that their followers will know to expect more.
This is what she meant by only half her tweet...
https://twitter.com/Jemima_Khan/status/216218913200021505
@Jemima_Khan
Annoyed by journos quoting only half my tweet about Assange & deliberately ignoring other half. Distorts point. The curse of 140 chars
If she were able to write more than 140 characters, her tweet would have looked like this:
"For the record, in response to those asking about Assange & bail money... I personally would like to see Assange confront the rape allegations in Sweden and the two women at the centre have a right to a response, but there is no doubt that Assange has a real fear of being extradited to the US nor that the US gov is out to get WikiLeaks,"