mounting a crusade to bring Mr Assange, which the media has labeled as a terrorist hacker (never mind the terrorist behavior of complicit Western states) to a standstill. Resilient until now in evading the demands and the efforts of the West in curtailing his operations, the foreboding meeting between Mr Assange and British police may be just what the doctor ordered.
At stake is whether Mr Assange’s leaks have brought increased clarity and understanding as to how Western states seek to engender consensus, even calling in to question practices that on the surface ought to trouble the public.
A Downing Street spokesman said this morning: ‘We unequivocally condemn the unauthorised release of classified information.
‘The leaks and their publication are damaging to national security in the United States, Britain and elsewhere.
‘It is vital that governments are able to operate on the basis of confidentiality of information.’
But perhaps the greater question is what information are we necessarily dealing with and can we really fault Mr Assange in his determination to force a dialogue of said themes?
Mr Stephens said Mr Assange would ‘certainly’ fight deportation on the grounds that it could lead to him being handed over to the US, where senior politicians have called for him to be executed. He said that the WikiLeaks site – which was last week forced to move to a Swiss host after being dumped by US internet companies – had come under siege from ‘a huge number of cyber-attacks’.
Which brings us back to the central question; who is the real terrorist and if Mr Assange is to be deemed as one, shouldn’t that trouble us in so far that information and communiques that inevitably affect us all ought to be made public (despite sweeping terrorism law that says otherwise) and if it turns out that the West are in their own way behaving like terrorists who will arrive after Mr Assange should he be removed to keep them in check?