LONDON – WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on Thursday vowed he was ready to fight a lengthy legal battle after a British judge ruled he should be extradited to Sweden to face allegations of rape. Lawyers for the 39-year-old Australian said they would appeal against judge Howard Riddle’s decision to reject defence arguments that Assange would face an unfair trial that would breach his human rights.
Speaking after the hearing at Belmarsh Magistrates’ Court in London, Assange criticised the European system under which he was detained in December over claims that he sexually abused two women in Sweden. “It is a result of the European Arrest Warrant system run amok. There was no consideration during this entire process as to the merits of the allegations against me,” he told around 100 journalists from across the globe.
Celebrity backers including socialite Jemima Khan and rights campaigner Bianca Jagger also attended the hearing. Several dozen supporters, some of them in orange Guantanamo Bay-style jumpsuits, demonstrated outside the court.
It has always been my beielf that sometimes the right, or ethicsl, thing to do is not the legal thing to do. Sometimes a reporter must balance whether the news should be reported, regardless of the legal results. But, this decision shouldn't be made lightly, especially if you work for a news agency rather than work as a freelancer. The best route would be to consult your editor, ethics committee, lawyers, and experts in the field. Precautions must be made. If you decide to go ahead and break the law, I think two questions must be answered first. Does your action hurt anyone or make the situation worse? Also, can the end result be met in a different fashion.I believe that WikiLeaks made the right decision. The papers published didn't hurt anyone. Rather, it shows what the government has hidden. However, I did look at several of the documents on their website, and I don't think there was a need to publish it all as raw information. The best course of action would have been to write a series of articles that expanded on the documents. In the end, I think that the question of breaking the law to inform the people is a case-by-case situation. Sometimes we need to and sometimes we don't.
Comments are closed.