Taking the Wikileak II

Initially I was fairly convinced that the denial of service attacks Wikileaks complained of were more likely to be a result of the massive number of hits generated by huge international interest in the site than a denial of service attack.

I am more fond of the idea of occam’s razor than of conspiracy theories. I really don't think most of the supposed possible conspiracists are smart or watertight enougn to have a hope in carrying them off.

I am still fairly certain that much of Wikileaks DOS type problems were/are generated by massive and continuing interest in their site, just search engine traffic is likely to be enough to cause problems.

Having said that it does seem they may be subject of a concerted campaign to silence them, or at least make it so much bother keeping going they are rendered ineffective.

PayPal has made it more difficult for people to make donations, by permanently restricting their account. MasterCard is apparently restricting payments to the site and their Swiss bank, PostFinance has closed Julian Assange's account. we are apparently expected to believe this is all a pure coincidence and all alleged to be unmotivated by any political consideration.

What is the old saying? "Once is chance. Twice is coincidence - but three times is enemy action."

Then there is the problem Wikileaks seem to be experiencing with finding hosts and with their domain name.

I still believe that some of what they are releasing should not be easily available, or necesarily in the public domane at all. I worry it may risk lives.

It does seem that, less through any conspiracy than simply by, frankly p*ing off a lot of powerful people and interests, 'They' may really be out to get Julian Assange and Wikileaks.

It all sows a seed of doubt about the attempts to extradite Assange.

EU threat to Britons right to trial

I had always been under the impression that, in Britain, an accused person should have their day in court to defend themselves - That we don’t hold trials and convict people in their absence.

I know it is inconvenient and spoils government figures - rather like that old fashioned, un-dynamic, not new or forward looking, idea of ‘innocent until proven guilty’. Rather than the reverse, so beloved of many other (no doubt dynamic and forward thinking) European nations, or the right to remain silent.

So it is a little disturbing to find that there is a meeting of EU Justice ministers planned for next week, where the Attorney General is apparently planning to do a ‘Gordon Brown’ and rubber stamp measures that could change all that boring old fashioned stuff about having your day in court.

Patricia Scotland QC (Baroness Scotland of Asthal, Attorney General) is planning to rubber stamp the extradition of British nationals, who have been convicted in absentia, for imprisonment in European jails.

Also included is a planned hand-over of "a wide range of personal data". Won’t that be so much more effective once the government imposes it’s ID card system on us and they have even more personal data to give away?

So imagine for a moment you have had a fortnights holiday in Spain. Unbeknown to you, you are somehow implicated in an offence. They can’t find you when they get round to wanting to speak to you and you are back in the UK. They can’t immediately trace you. You get convicted in your absence…

The first thing you know is when you are arrested for extradition to start your sentence in a Spanish jail.

Any sane citizen should be concerned that Government ministers are continuing with their bad habit of blithely signing away yet more British rights.

Shadow Home Secretary, David Davis said: "Now there is a real risk that British citizens will be abandoned to face European punishments without trial,"

Cilivl Liberty Group has concerns over EU arrest warrants

It seems the European Arrest Warrants (EAW), requiring the arrest and extradition of suspects from one EU country to another may be being abused. Why would we be surprised?

Statewatch, the civil liberties group has obtained a secret (it would be) EU report. Campaigners are concerned that the EAW does not allow refusal, if the offence does not exist under national laws and makes no requirement for a proportionality test.

The Secret report concedes: "The principle of proportionality requires that in each case a comparison be made between the seriousness of the offence and resources to be deployed in the executing state and, in particular, that it involves the deprivation of liberty of an individual."

"The EAW does not include any obligation for a proportionality check either by the issuing or executing member state, nor does it include any grounds for non-recognition related to it,"

It seems fast-track extradition warrants are often being issued for relatively minor offences, demanding the costly extradition of people for offences such as possession of 0.45 grams of cannabis, the theft of two car tyres - and in one instance piglet rustling. Officials are concerned that the warrants are being used "disproportionately" to the seriousness of offences.

The Warrants can even be applied when the offence is not even an offence under the laws of the country the warrant is executed in.