There is an interesting article by Jemima Khan on the Guardian on why did she back Julian Assange, the controversial spokesperson of WikiLeaks who was arrested by the British authority under the request of their Swedish counterpart for alleged rapes or more precisely, performing sex with woman without putting on condoms. Jemima believes that there is a fundamental injustice to the arrest of Assange and thus presented herself in the court to act as a surety for him under the request of Assange’s lawyer.
WikiLeaks offers a new type of investigative journalism and whether it is good or bad is highly controversial but when there are more and more classified information declassified, some people of higher authorities started to feel the pinch. For instance, when WikiLeaks revealed that Singaporean intelligence officials told their Australian counterparts that the de-facto leader of Pakatan Rakyat had indeed been guilty of the conduct he was accused of and it was a set up job, who do you think will feel the pinch? Will such leaks affect the outcome of the ongoing sodomy II trial?
Hence, it is not difficult to understand as to why the United States is so concerned about the extradition of Assange as perhaps they want to keep him shut before more truths are being revealed and those truths especially pertaining to war crime could potentially be tarnishing their credentials and reputations.
WikiLeaks poses threats only to those with hidden secrets and ulterior motives while for ordinary people who has no “cables”; the only leak we are more concerned of is a leaking roof during a raining day.
No comments:
Post a Comment