Very good article about Assange and Ecuador in the Guardian

[xiamiam]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/16/julian-assange-asylum-ecuador

a few paragraphs from the center of the article..hard to swallow...but true, my fellow Americans..unfortunately

snip

The idea of the US government as a human rights defender, which was believed mostly in the US and allied countries, was premised on a disregard for the human rights of the victims of US wars and foreign policy, such as the 3 million Vietnamese or more than one million Iraqis who were killed, and millions of others displaced, wounded, or abused because of US actions. That idea – that the US should be judged only on what it does within its borders – is losing support as the world grows more multipolar economically and politically, Washington loses power and influence, and its wars, invasions, and occupations are seen by fewer people as legitimate.

At the same time, over the past decade, the US's own human rights situation has deteriorated. Of course prior to the civil rights legislation of the 1960s, millions of African-Americans in the southern states didn't have the right to vote, and lacked other civil rights – and the consequent international embarrassment was part of what allowed the civil rights movement to succeed. But at least by the end of that decade, the US could be seen as a positive example internally in terms of the rule of law, due process and the protection of civil rights and liberties.

Today, the US claims the legal right to indefinitely detain its citizens; the president can order the assassination of a citizen without so much as even a hearing; the government can spy on its citizens without a court order; and its officials are immune from prosecution for war crimes. It doesn't help that the US has less than 5% of the world's population but almost a quarter of its prison inmates, many of them victims of a "war on drugs" that is rapidly losing legitimacy in the rest of the world. Assange's successful pursuit of asylum from the US is another blow to Washington's international reputation. At the same time, it shows how important it is to have democratic governments that are independent of the US and – unlike Sweden and the UK – will not collaborate in the persecution of a journalist for the sake of expediency. Hopefully other governments will let the UK know that threats to invade another country's embassy put them outside the bounds of law-abiding nations.

snip

[MADem]

1. Another very good discussion from the perspective of Swedes; same publication.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/16/julian-assange-few-friends-left-sweden?intcmp=239

Assange has few fans left here. On the contrary, his unholy alliance with Ecuador's political leadership casts a shadow over what was, despite everything, his real achievement: to reveal shattering news through the revolutionary medium of WikiLeaks.

Patiño praised Assange as a fighter for free expression, and explained that they had to protect his human rights. But Ecuador is a country with a dreadful record when it comes to freedom of expression and of the press. Inconvenient journalists are put on trial....President Rafael Correa is patently unable to tolerate any truths that he does not own. Reporters Without Borders has strongly and often criticised the way that media freedoms are limited in Ecuador. Assange is a plaything for the president's megalomania.

Most of the women in Sweden who dare to report experiences of sexual assault to the police, despite the exposure that this brings, will find that the case is dropped because it is her word against his, and the other evidence is slight or non-existent. That is quite probably what would happen in this case, if Assange only dared come to Sweden for questioning. There is no reason to believe the fantastic conspiracy theories which say that the women's accusations are just a way to get at Assange.

The press chief of the Swedish foreign ministry said on Thursday that the fear of Ecuador's foreign minister that Assange would be sent on to the US by the Swedes, and even be executed, are utterly groundless. Both Swedish law and Sweden's obligations under the European convention on human rights mean Assange could not be extradited to the US if he were wanted for a crime which might lead to the death penalty.

[xiamiam]

2. i disagree with this article which you have posted as a rebuttal.

At this point, you either know whats going on or you dont.

[MADem]

6. The article is not a rebuttal--it is another perspective.

A point that I noted when I posted it.

[Swagman]

12. yet it's 'perspective' contains falsehoods

and that is not right.

But at least it again demonstrates that there is no stone left unturned in their pursuit of Assange.

[TomClash]

15. Well said

You gleaned the intent of both the article and the post quite well, responding in a civilized manner.

[Cha]

4. I, for one, appreciate

the article, MADem.

[MADem]

7. Anytime! nt

[Swagman]

11. The Guardian piece you site is an opinion piece that is inaccurate and

perpetuates the furphy that Patiño jails journalists.

He does no such thing.

The Ecuador press is overwhelmingly right wing , it is free and without restrictions and is owned by the rich (surprise) and constantly accuses of Patiño of falsehoods.

What he does do is launch defamation proceedings against journalists and that has to be proved in court. If found guilty a journalist can be jailed under their laws by a judge, not a politician.

Now the attacks upon Ecuador begin.

Not a word, not a single word in that article about why Sweden does not do what all other investigators do when they believe there is a serious crime...travel to interview the suspect, not demand the suspect travel to them (which of course Assange has already done and the Chief Prosecutor in Sweden dismissed the case as groundless)

Someone please explain when LA detectives have invited a suspect in NY to travel to them ??

[MADem]

17. Yes, that's why I called it a good discussion from the perspective of Swedes...!

You can play word games and who's-zooming-who all day, bottom line is that it ain't easy being a journalist in Ecuador. They aren't treated well. You can call them "right wing" all you want, too--like that excuses their maltreatment. A nation with a free press doesn't intimidate people or shut down broadcasts because they don't like what people say--that is what fucking THUGS do.

Human rights groups warn that since president Rafael Correa came to power, a number of journalists and publishers have been sued for defamation, some have had their premises raided, and radio stations have been shut down.

...Ecuador has agreed to protect Julian Assange, but it's not a country known for protecting its media.

In fact the government of Rafael Correa has become notorious for its mistreatment of local journalists.

The Brazilian O Globo has called president Correa the champion of press repression.

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2012/s3569972.htm

Your failure to understand Swedish law is not the problem of the Swedes--it's your problem. You're superimposing what you've learned from USA television onto the laws of another land, and your opinions are not operative to the execution of their laws.

Usually, when an arrest warrant and an extradition request are received from a country, after the accused has strung out all his options appealing the extradition, there is not an "interview," the suspect is taken into custody, handed over, and shipped off to the country where he's charged. Example--Ira Einhorn who hid out in France for years after murdering his girlfriend. No one "interviewed" him--he ducked and ran for years, and when he ran out of options and legal cover, and USA agreed to not kill him for his death penalty crime, France nabbed him and handed him over--no "interviews." Game-set-match.

[Ya Basta]

3. "Ecuador grants asylum to Assange - FULL SPEECH by Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino"

[StrictlyRockers]

5. Mayyybeee...

"The press chief of the Swedish foreign ministry said on Thursday that the fear of Ecuador's foreign minister that Assange would be sent on to the US by the Swedes, and even be executed, are utterly groundless. "

Yeah, maybe that's true. Or, maybe it isn't. If I were Mr. Assange, I would not bet my life on this guy both knowing what he is talking about and also telling the truth about it.

[Egalitarian Thug]

8. It seems we've already forgotten that he was ducking the U.S. Stasi when this incident took place.

Read or listen to Noam Chomski on the methods of power. Assange is so screwed. The most powerful governments on earth, and keepers of the status quo are determined that he is going to be made an example of.

I found it quite interesting that this is going on while we (our government) steadfastly refuses to even investigate financial crimes. Even Bush the Lesser's record of investigating and prosecuting financial criminals is better than President Obama's. Under 41 there were 30,000 requests for investigation in the S&L looting, while after collapsing the global economy there have been maybe a dozen (I think it's even lower, but don't feel like looking it up now).

There is a radical and blatant movement away from even the pretense of justice for the powerful taking place and we don't seem to care.

[girl gone mad]

14. Yes, the contrast w/ Goldman Sachs and now Corzine is stunning.

Our government is refusing to prosecute rampant financial fraud in the face of overwhelming evidence. Meanwhile, government operatives call for the head of Assange, based on nothing more than allegations from disreputable parties.

[freshwest]

9. This answers the question I've been asking all along:

We can infer that the Swedes have no legitimate reason for the extradition, since they were repeatedly offered the opportunity to question him in the UK, but rejected it, and have also refused to even put forth a reason for this refusal. A few weeks ago the Ecuadorian government offered to allow Assange to be questioned in its London embassy, where Assange has been residing since 19 June, but the Swedish government refused – again without offering a reason. This was an act of bad faith in the negotiating process that has taken place between governments to resolve the situation.

Former Stockholm chief district prosecutor Sven-Erik Alhem also made it clear that the Swedish government had no legitimate reason to seek Assange's extradition when he testified that the decision of the Swedish government to extradite Assange is "unreasonable and unprofessional, as well as unfair and disproportionate", because he could be easily questioned in the UK.

I'd say 'there's something rotten in Denmark,' but they aren't doing this. Many people should be made to explain why they are refusing to resolve this matter in a reasonable manner.

Thanks very much for posting this. The level of journalism in the Guardian far exceeds most of our biased corporate media in the USA.

[Swagman]

13. only one country has acted with honor in this tawdry affair: Ecuador

[struggle4progress]

10. Mark Weisbrot should quote the UK case more honestly

Weisbrot writes here: ... Former Stockholm chief district prosecutor Sven-Erik Alhem also ... testified that the decision of the Swedish government to extradite Assange is "unreasonable and unprofessional, as well as unfair and disproportionate", because he could be easily questioned in the UK ...

But somehow he neglects another part of Alhem's testimony, that entirely undermines Weisbrot's hallucinatory thesis that Assange has a reasonable fear of a second extradition to the United States:

... There was at one stage a suggestion that Mr Assange could be extradited to the USA (possibly to Guantanamo Bay or to execution as a traitor). The only live evidence on the point came from the defence witness Mr Alhem who said it couldn’t happen ...
City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court (Sitting at Belmarsh Magistrates’ Court)
The judicial authority in Sweden -v- Julian Paul Assange
Findings of facts and reasons

[Scuba]

16. Human rights protector? No, we're playing the role of drunken bully.