http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/aug/17/julian-assange-extradition-ecuador-embassy

It stressed that Ecuador was willing to co-operate with the British and Swedish authorities over the matter of Assange's extradition to Sweden. "In the negotiations with the FCO, Ecuador has been proposing that we would be prepared to accept an undertaking from the UK and Sweden that, once Julian Assange has faced the Swedish investigation, he will not be extradited to a third country: specifically the US. That might be a way out of it and Ecuador has always said it does not want to interfere with the Swedish judicial process; we could facilitate it."

Ecuador are not doing this to be assholes. There is a strong case here for political asylum. Ecuador did assure Sweden that they would co-operate, provided they could assure Assange would not be extradited to the US. Sweden could not assure them of that (something they have done for the US before).

I don't think it's freedom of speech issue. It should be related more to freedom of the press. That has what has been the main failure in my eyes.
Journalism has become a joke in recent times. Reporters have taken sides, news companies have agendas. Hell, just look at how many US news sites wish to have Assange extradited to the US to face charges, based on releasing said information that made the press look like they haven't been doing their job at all this whole time.
Too many self interests and shady deals in journalism nowadays.

I'd like to add, what impression does this give to whisteblowers? That if they express a moral wrong to society they'll be hunted down from all corners of the globe? Way to pursue preservation of shady business/government interests there. That'll teach them for trying to be moral citizens!

With the press there is accountability and ethics, with wikileaks there is neither ...

I'm 100% in support of what Wikileaks did/does. I want more transparency in Government, I do not care for election route, because if 51% of the people don't care about transparency (which they probably don't), then me wanting to know about the murder being done with my money won't account for much.

The argument that this will result in a more closed Government is... odd, to say the least. The types of information available/hidden will stay the same. Sure, the Government might put extra steps in place to prevent further leaks, but then we'd be in the same place as when Wikileaks (and other services) didn't exist. And that's assuming the Government would successfully increase the security of their documents. Government isn't smart enough for that.

---

As for Assange, I do not care for his motives in setting up Wikileaks, whether it be fame, money, or "chaos". I also do not care for him, I think he's a dick. I'm sure the CEO of Activision is a dick... but I'd still buy their products.

As for the whole rape and extradition thing. We can say one thing: Britain would not give a flying fuck if it was anybody else. It seems to me that the British Government are being subject to pressure from the Americans... which worries me, as it means extradition from Sweden to the USA could be large possibility, and the man may never see the light of day, again.

But, I'm torn. Because if the rape claims are legitimate, then Assange clearly needs to be tried. The amount that Government lies to us, and manipulates and demonizes those it wants to target, you just don't know who to trust.

Had the press been doing their job, there would not have been a sudden release of hundreds of cables at once. Things were buried pretty deeply. Had this been uncovered much earlier, the government might not have been so willing towards such immoral acts. They believed they had the press in their back pocket already. Don't you see that? The only ethics in "journalism" today is to ensure the people remain blatantly ignorant to such matters.

By the way, everyone has ethics, including Wikileaks. What right do you have to draw the line at what is considered ethical or unethical to everyone else?

Mostly for. Anything that tries to promote open information and government accountability is generally a good thing. Most journalism is paid off by one political party or another so it's important to get as much info as possible.

Don't particularly like Assange though I think the British and Swedish governments could have handled this with a bit more tact and diplomacy.

The media today doesn't involve journalism, it involves entertainment and spin ...

Journalism involves getting sources to speak on record about issues and release information with their motivations being well know.

Someone who leaks information cherry picks the information to create a particular narative that suits their motivation; and remains anonymous allowing them to capitalize on the leak of information.

Leaking information resulting in political consequences only results in tighter controlls being put on the information and political figures fighting increased transparency. In other words, leaking information works against having a more transparent government.

Cherry picked information? Really, because, you know, the government would be really pissed off if Wikileaks broadcasted stuff that highlighted the government in a good way. But think logically now, government would have released such positive data in a heartbeat. There's a reason why these documents needed to be "leaked", and that's because the government knew that the public would not like them. Explain to me please why this is considered cherry picking?

If anything, you seem to be cherry-picking the arguments here yourself, since leaking documents makes a lot more people aware that government is doing such acts behind their back, and thus a greater demand from the voting public for transparency. Willingly allowing the government to keep these kinds of secrets only keeps the public misinformed. If you want people to demand transparency at elections, then show them why it's needed!

Look beyond wikileaks ...

There has been suggestion that many recently released classified documents were leaked by the administration to benefit the president's election chances. In the past leaked information has also been targeted towards politically hurting other politicians.

Wikileaks is just an organization to make this information public, the people who are leaking the information are doing it for their own reasons; and rarely are these reasons to be an honorable person.

If you want a transparent government demand a transparent government, don't let people spoon feed you shit and call it a leak and think you're getting legitimate unbiased information.