You're wrong it's clearly craft-individual.

Mate if you can parse it like that and remain unaffected then great, someone needs to do this job - and I personally wouldn't want it to be me. And I'm grateful to the people who do it. Even those who say it doesn't affect them. But I don't think characterizing the people who are affected by these things as weak is helpful or fair. That is where I had an issue with what you said. Why do or say things to discourage empathy in the human population, or portray it as a negative attribute? I think it's a good trait and one that it would be nice to have more of in general not less, and in my mind the people who are affected by this are probably those with more empathy. After all if these images were just pixels to everyone, and we could all just refuse to process them at a conscious level, then why is the job of removing them even necessary?

You think that admitting that you have enough empathy for other people, that looking at pictures of their suffering for hours on end would affect you... makes you weak? Seriously? I'd rather be your version of weak and retain my humanity thanks. Especially since your sole criteria for being weak, seems to be a lack of empathy. You know who I'd trust to look after my kids? Who I'd rather have a beer with?... hot tip, it isn't someone who is ok with looking at this sort of stuff, and is so devoid of empathy that they are convinced seeing it for hours on end wouldn't affect them.

Would your definition of free will include having available all of the information needed to make an accurate decision? My point is that it is a spectrum not a dichotomy... Or is reading between the lines too difficult?

He was already interviewed though wasn't he? Or does it need to be since the case was reopened?

I agree I think that is a reasonable response. Although irrespective of the EAW framework, if the questioning is valid in Serbia why wouldn't it be in the UK? I also aren't willing to immediately jump to the conspiratorial conclusion... but it's looking suspect to me, and I don't see why an agreement can't be reached that allays the extradition fears. Either through questioning in another country or a guarantee being given that he won't be extradited.

Ok fine, but how would it hurt the proceedings to compromise in this case? If his fears are legitimate then surely an exception can be made or a guarantee can be made that he won't undergo extradition? If the only reason that the questioning is not being done in the UK is because of sheer bloody mindedness, that what does that say about the people conducting the case? Surely even the two girls allegedly involved in this would benefit from a speedy resolution? Why didn't they question him when he was there, despite him offering...? Why was the case dropped and reopened? Remember the monetary blockade on wikileaks by the US? Remember that they got kicked off amazon and the apple store? Remember that twitter was subpoenaed for users associated with wikileaks by the US government? Remember that death threats were made against Julian Assange by prominent Americans on national tv? Why was an interpol red notice issued for Assange, when even Gaddafi only warranted an orange? Yeah someone sure has questions to answer, but I don't think it's Assange.

Yeah. Except that you are wrong (which is ok) in a willfully ignorant manner (which is not). All of the cables were read and vetted and wikileaks even posted journalistic comments on many of them. The only ones that weren't were released due to the incompetence of David Leigh at the guardian.

No. This may be news to you but we don't live in a world of perfect dichotomies. It is possible to like Obama and prefer him to Romney while at the same time disagree with some of his decisions. "If you've disagreed with your mother, you must therefore hate her and feel she is the embodiment of evil." ... THAT is what you sound like... if you really think like this, I feel sorry for you as it must be difficult to function in the world at large.

Your argument breaks down when you assert that the government has a right to its own secrets. I disagree with that, in a democracy none of the things that were released in the cables should have been secret. The distinction between the privacy of a democratically elected organisation and an individual is obvious. The distinction between the examples in your first paragraph has more to do with the loaded phrases you use, and is less obvious. The only distinction I can conjure up is that in the first case the actor is perhaps acting out of self interest and in the second, perhaps he is not.

Except that according to your definition even Iraq - prior to US invasion/liberation - was also a democracy.... if the simple ability to cast a vote is all a democracy requires then the bar is set pretty low and almost any country in the world could probably limbo under it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_presidential_referendum,_2002 Perhaps we should consider being more nuanced regarding the definition? Unless you want the word to be meaningless?

I don't think it's because the tweets were offensive... offensive is fine, he was probably visited by the cops because of the multiple death threats... I don't see how the absence of death threats is going to curtail the public debate personally... in fact I'd wager it would improve it.

Wow that is the most complex troll I've seen in a while. Congratulations sir, I award you one internet... pity that you won't be able to view all of it correctly.

Err What? How exactly has he treated Bradley Manning badly?... It seems to me that he held up his end of the bargain perfectly.

I've been following this in the guardian recently and it seems to me that they have been spending a suspicious amount of time trying to assassinate Assange's character. Just read their take on the recent release of the un-redacted cables... and their other articles that seem to serve no purpose but to try and damage his reputation. They are all collected here if you care to waste a few hours... http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/julian-assange?INTCMP=SRCH All I see are a long list of ad-hominem and poisoning the well fallacies, and this is being generous - some of it they have clearly just made up. You think he's arrogant?... So what? I'd say he has a right to be. Unlike many of the other arrogant people, running their mouths off he's actually done something useful. Doesn't anyone think its ironic the organisation that has done the most to disseminate valuable information is being given the tabloid treatment by what is supposedly one of the UK's leading left-wing papers? Jealousy? People need to grow-up and look at the issues instead of focusing on a fallible man and getting excited when you find a fault. Who else here would stand up to this level of scrutiny as well as he has?