Exclusive: secret Assad emails lift lid on life of leader's inner circle

But it appears the couple enjoy a loving relationship.

I tried it once with cheese and wine, tastes horrible, the Swiss must be high to enjoy this.

Syrian president Bashar Assad will have to answer some difficult questions about his private life after a series of affectionate emails from three women was leaked to the public.

The dictator, who is married to British-born Asma Assad, appears to have received messages from two young public relations aides telling him that they miss him, while a third woman, said to be a jewellery designer, writes: 'I can't see a life without you'.

Another email, which was sent in December and came to light yesterday, contains a photograph of an unknown woman dressed only in white lingerie as she presses herself against a wall.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2116653/Married-Assad-s-trio-women-revealed-cache-emails-leaked-Syrian-rebels.html#ixzz1pTIar2Ax

to testify before parliamentary committees and newspapers are closing down over couple of hacks
listening to voicemail massages of few two-bit showbiz C-listers, but it is perfectly alright to steal
and publish thousands of private e-mails of a foreign country's president? I am just wondering what
legal principle is at work here. Is it legal to snoop on all foreigners or only "evil Arab dictators" are
fair game? Or is it the nature of information revealed that makes illegal hacking into legal journalism?
Or is it being a "pro-democracy activist" that renders one immune from any prosecution? Or is it
sending the hacked materials to The Guardian instead of News of the World that makes all the legal
difference? Just curious.

and neither is publishing them. Thus the papers that published Wikileaks material, or the hacked emails from the climate researchers at the University of East Anglia, are not being arrested. It's those who do the hacking - unauthorised use of the systems, be they emails, voicemails, or others - who get arrested (such as Bradley Manning, or the many Anonymous members recently arrested, as well as the News Corp employees), or those who commission others to do this.

Of course, "couple of hacks listening to voicemail massages of few two-bit showbiz C-listers" is a ridiculous mis-characterisation. Those hacked included the deputy Prime Minister, MPs, and hundreds of people, including grieving families or murder victims, with far more than 'a couple of hacks' paying for it. They are also accused of large, regular bribes to the police and Ministry of Defence employees for information; and of tailing an investigating police officer on behalf of a murder suspect.

The Syrian opposition activists who got hold of these emails almost certainly did break the law - Syrian law. I'm sure Assad would arrest them if he got the chance.

I marvel at a DUer choosing to defend and minimise Murdoch's hacking activities, if it gives them the chance to defend Assad too.