Ecuador Grants Julian Assange Asylum; U.S. Seen as "Hidden Hand" Behind U.K. Threat to Raid Embassy

[marmar]

from Democracy Now!:

As Ecuador prepared to announce its decision on granting asylum to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, Britain threatened to raid the Ecuadorean embassy in London where Assange has taken refuge for the past two months. Britain told Ecuador that giving Julian Assange asylum would not change a thing and that it might still revoke the diplomatic status of Quito’s embassy in London to allow the extradition of the WikiLeaks founder to Sweden to face questioning over alleged sexual misconduct. We’re joined by Michael Ratner, an attorney for Julian Assange and president emeritus of the Center for Constitutional Rights, and by Ben Griffin, an activist with Veterans for Peace UK, participating in a vigil in support of Assange outside the Ecuadorean embassy in London. "Is this really about the U.S. being the 'hidden hand' behind what the British are doing so that they can eventually get a hold of Julian Assange, try him for espionage and put him into a jail?" Ratner asks. "That’s what’s really going on here. Let’s not kid ourselves."

.........(snip).........

AMY GOODMAN: For more on the latest developments, we’re joined by Michael Ratner, an attorney for Julian Assange, president emeritus of the Center for Constitutional Rights here in New York, joining us by Democracy Now! video stream.

Michael, can you talk about what is the latest that you understand at this point? Ecuador holding a news conference as we speak, they’re holding it in Spanish, and they’re extremely—they started off by talking about how critical they are of Britain, saying it’s violating international law for threatening the Ecuadorean embassy in London.

MICHAEL RATNER: You know, Amy, we don’t know what answer the Ecuadoreans are going to give. We know that today they’re deciding on whether to give Julian Assange asylum or not. We’re obviously been on pins and needles about this. We’re hopeful that they will. Julian Assange has every right to asylum under the law. The law is clear. The U.S. itself actually gives asylum to people who are journalists, whistleblowers. They’ve done it for Chinese journalists and others. So the idea that he might not be entitled to asylum is completely outrageous to me. The fact that the British—and I was as shocked as anybody—that the British said yesterday that they might invade the embassy to get their hands on Julian Assange is such an incredible violation of international law that it’s unheard of. I mean, think about had the Chinese gone into the U.S. embassy to get Chen out in China, or had the Brazilians gone into the Honduran embassy to get Zelaya out. This is unheard of in law, it’s unheard of in diplomacy, and it’s an outrageous and egregious undermining of the right of a country to give asylum. Asylum is considered to be a humanitarian and apolitical act. You undercut that, obviously, not just for Julian Assange but for every person who seeks asylum in the world, by saying another country can simply grab him.

AMY GOODMAN: We are joined right now outside the Ecuadorean embassy in London by Ben Griffin, an activist with Veterans for Peace UK, a veteran. Ben, why are you standing outside the embassy right now?

BEN GRIFFIN: ...Julian as a persecuted war resister. This guy has released the Iraq War Diaries, the Afghan War Diaries, the "Collateral Murder" video. He’s done more to highlight the true cost, the true nature of war, so we’ve been supporting Julian since he—since he was threatened with extradition almost two years ago. .....................(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.democracynow.org/2012/8/16/ecuador_grants_julian_assange_asylum_us

[xchrom]

1. Du rec. Nt

[Robb]

2. Question: Assange has been, more or less, in UK custody

since he turned himself in back in 2010. If the US is guiding the Brits, why hasn't he been taken in the interim? Why the elaborate ruses to get him to Sweden first?

[SidDithers]

3. Don't confuse the conspiracy theorists...

Sweden and the UK's heightened interest in Assange has nothing with his skipping out on international arrest warrants, and everything to do with Karl Rove.

Or something.

Sid

[marmar]

5. "Don't confuse the conspiracy theorists"

What clever repartee !!!

[sabrina 1]

61. Lol, especially since when facts are available you have to wonder why the CTs

are still not in possession of them. The Conspiracy Theory is that this whole man hunt is just about Sweden asking a journalist a few questions. Biggest Conspriracy Theory ever!

[treestar]

19. The Bilderbergers are in on this

You just know it!

[sabrina 1]

56. Except he didn't 'skip out'. He was always available to the Swedish Government for

questioning, they refused to question him, in Sweden and two hours away in London. They did lie about their reasons for refusing to question him in London, but those lies have now been thoroughly debunked and their new excuse for refusing to speak to him that 'Swedish Laws are confusing'.

Fortunately the facts of this case have been available from the beginning.

And yes, Karl Rove was a political adviser to Sweden's Right Wing PM and an old friend of Sweden's Foreign Minister. He just happened to be in Sweden when all this began. We all know that Rove had no interest in protecting Bush from being exposed as a war criminal.

Btw, Rove skipped out on subpoenas from Congress? He ended up in Sweden after being forced to resign due to his alleged involvement in the firing of the US Attorneys. But he was an innocent man so why would he obey a subpoena from the US Congress? No way would Rove be behind the firing of the US Attorneys.

Whatever happened to those subpoenas btw? No one went to Sweden to force him out of hiding and take him back to the US to answer the US Congress's subpoenas?

[Puglover]

4. Question:

Do you really think the Brits surrounded the Ecuadorian embassy and threatened to forceably extricate Assange simply because of an alleged rape in Sweden? That doesn't even make sense.

[Robb]

6. That's not an answer.

Why the elaborate maneuvers to get him to Sweden? Why not simply scoop him up in the UK?

[Puglover]

7. Ok I'll answer.

I don't know. Your turn.

[Robb]

8. Fair enough.

On your question, no; I do think however it is an action consistent with a police force that feels it's been had, and very much in the public eye. Whatever else happened before, when he jumped bail and ran to the embassy, Assange spat in the eye of the system that's had him in custody since 2010, and they're acting unsurprisingly pissed off about it.

And they feel like they have to act even more pissed because he's got every camera on the globe pointed at him.

Do you think it's at all strange, though, that the notion is that the US is orchestrating all this to get him to Sweden to grab him there, when grabbing him in the UK at some point in the last (nearly) two years would've been accomplished without so much as a shrug from the authorities there?

[Puglover]

9. Thanks.

Yes I do find it strange but not at all unbelievable. I find it stranger that Britain is willing to even suggest entering another countrys embassy against their wishes. As Ratner said on DN can you imagine what would have happened if the Chinese had gone into our embassy to get Chen out. It's a very murky path Robb. It's sort of like the reasoning not to torture. Because we don't want OUR troops tortured. (Although I realize the Taliban et al don't play nice)

I also think the only reason that every camera on the globe is pointed at him at the moment is that Britain is posturing that way they are. But oddly enough it didn't even make NBC's news last night. (Unless I missed it.)

[hifiguy]

10. IIRC, invading another country's embassy is an

act of war. The only way any of this makes any sense is if the end game is to put Assange in the hands of the US.

For some decades now the US has acted as if a violation of US law anywhere in the world means that person can be seized and imprisoned even if that person has never set foot in a US jurisdiction. This began with the imbecilic "war on drugs" and was expanded substantially during Chimpleton's "war on terra."

The point of all this crap is to get Assange either in Sweden, which would ship him to the US, or in London, where he would be shipped to Sweden and then to the US despite the fact that Assange has no contact with the US whatsoever. He will then be disappeared, renditioned for torture, clapped in to Gitmo or "suicided." At best, he would receive the same inhumane and torturous treatment Bradley Manning has received.

Connect the dots, people. DUers are too smart as a group to pretend that this isn't what's going on here.

[Puglover]

11. I can only imagine the howls of outrage if Ecuadorian troops were surrounding

the British embassy in Quito threatening to forcebly enter to extricate God knows who. I can just hear Rafael Correa being called a thug.

[hifiguy]

12. Exactly!

[Robb]

13. Yeah, but you don't have an answer to my question either.

Why not take him from the UK while he was in their custody? Why all this complicated business with Sweden?

Occam's Razor: we don't want him.

[hifiguy]

14. He was at a private home in the UK.

Raiding a private home, particularly the home of a well-to-do person, would be very hard to cover up. The British media, unlike ours, tends to ask questions. Viz, the way they put Mittwit on the BBQ when he was there embarrassing himself before the Olympics.

[Robb]

16. Raid? Are you kidding me?

Do you really think the UK would refuse a simple request to extradite?

[SidDithers]

41. Wait. You say the Brits are prepared to raid a sovereign Embassy to get Assange...

but raiding a private home would have been going too far.



Sid

[The Magistrate]

42. You have To Pay Attention, Sir: the Reference Was To A Possible Abduction By U.S. Agents

That probably would draw a certain degree of notice in England....

[SidDithers]

43. But the question remains, Sir...

If the British are complicit in the conspiracy to get Assange to America, why would it need to be an abduction by U.S. Agents? Couldn't the British authorities have found a reason to bring him in while he was under their control for 2 years, and then quietly hand him over to the Americans?

I really think many are reading too much into the attention on Assange. I think he pissed off the Swedes by fleeing the country before he was about to be arrested. Then, after exhausting his legal appeals against extradition from the UK to Sweden, he pissed off the Brits by skipping bail and hiding in the Ecuadoran Embassy.

I think that countries take their judicial systems pretty seriously, and are apt to act vigorously when attempts are made to subvert those judicial systems. IMO, that's why Sweden and the UK are not backing down, and are not likely to do Assange any favours.

Edit: and I apologize in advance if the "Sir" in my title should instead be a "Ma'am". Truthfully, I don't think I've ever noticed your gender and it's not in your profile. Either way, you still have my utmost respect

Sid

[The Magistrate]

45. What was Being Posited In the Exchange You Stepped Into, Sir, Was Abduction

That would, however 'quietly' it might have been staged, have proved a very dicey political proposition in England, where they do still like to remember themselves as empire and us as colony....

I disagree with your view that what is going on now is simply a reflection of two countries 'taking their judicial systems seriously'. The threats by the English government against the Ecuadorean embassy are extraordinary, and utterly out of proportion to the matter, were it simply an ordinary question of criminal investigation. Something well above and beyond any ordinary question of criminal investigation is going on here, and 'taking their judicial system seriously' is not nearly sufficient to make up the weight of difference between what has happened and what could be normally expected.

One can only speculate, of course, regarding a reason for delay by the U.S. in this. It is reasonably well established that there is a grand jury proceeding in the matter of Wikileaks. My best guess would be that action in the matter awaits the outcome of Mr. Manning's trial, possibly securing his testimony against Mr. Assange. It is possible sealed indictments already exist.

[riderinthestorm]

15. Sweden's already been exposed as participating in illegal CIA rendition actions, the UK has not

I'm guessing the UK simply won't "go there". They've done a ton of war crimes but I'm going to guess this is a line they won't cross.

I believe the UK has also been stung being labelled as the US's "poodle" and there's going to be some pushback if Assange is illegally renditioned from the UK to the US. The howls of outrage would be pretty loud. I'm guessing Cameron would be out within a week, if not less if he had allowed it.

[Robb]

17. A simple extradition request would be honored.

No need for black helicopters, if we asked the UK to deliver Assange, we'd get him.

Why didn't we ask? We dont want him.

[hifiguy]

21. There is no cognizable legal basis for extraditing Assange to the US.

AFAIK, Assange has never set foot in the US though I may be wrong. THe US operates under the insane presumption that if you break a US law anywhere in the world you are subject to US jurisdiction regardless of the law of the country you were in at the time you committed the act.

The only way to get him here and disappear/rendition/Gitmo/suicide him is via subterfuge. Connect the dots for christ's sake.

[Robb]

22. Wait, you think he has to set foot on US soil?

Is this Capture the Flag?

Look, all we'd have to do is charge him with something and the UK would ship him over. Not complicated.

[hifiguy]

24. Let me try and explain this, Sparky,

using a smaller scale example. Let's say I spend a year in Wottalottaland as a Peace Corps volunteer. It is legal to sell, smoke, and possess cannabis in Wottalottaland. I smoke, sell and possess cannabis legally while I am there.

Given the logic being applied in the Assange case to my hypothetical the US government can have me extradited from Wottalottaland and then tried and imprisoned in the US for selling and possessing cannabis because I have "broken" US law by doing so even though I was resident in Wottalottaland during the entire time I was supposedly breaking the law. That is the current logic the US government uses.

[Robb]

27. What US law has Assange broken?

Hint: none. No crime, no charges. No charges, no extradition. No extradition, no reason for Assange to continue pretending otherwise. He can go to Sweden and face the music on the rape allegations safely.

[riderinthestorm]

23. They're going to just make up a charge of "enemy combatant" or something else ridiculous

The lack of a credible charge isn't any kind of barrier. They've extradited a LOT of people without any real charge: they're sitting in Gitmo, or like Padilla in solitary, or killed off outright like Alawki. The US has a grand jury working on it right now and I'm sure they'll come up with something.

That doesn't mean the UK wants to be exposed as the US's poodle again. Cameron would never survive, not even a week if that went down. And the US does want to extradite Assange.


Source: Sydney Morning Herald

EXCLUSIVE
August 18, 2012
Philip Dorling

AUSTRALIAN diplomats have no doubt the United States is intent on pursuing Julian Assange, Foreign Affairs and Trade Department documents obtained by the Herald show.

This is at odds with comments by the Foreign Affairs Minister, Bob Carr, who has dismissed suggestions the US plans to eventually extradite Assange on charges arising from WikiLeaks obtaining leaked US military and diplomatic documents.

The Australian embassy in Washington has been tracking a US espionage investigation targeting the WikiLeaks publisher for more than 18 months.

The declassified diplomatic cables, released under freedom of information legislation, show Australia's ambassador, the former Labor leader Kim Beazley, has made high level representations to the US government asking for advance warning of any moves to prosecute Assange.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/us-intends-to-chase-assange-cables-show-20120817-24e1l.html

[Robb]

25. Cameron wouldn't survive a US extradition request? Absurd.

I think you overstate UK support for Assange. A government would topple in a week? That's laughable.

[riderinthestorm]

26. Oh FFS, not literally. Cameron's downfall would be assured however as soon as he agreed nt

[Spider Jerusalem]

39. No, actually, most UK voters are not too fussed over what happens to Assange one way or another.

It certainly wouldn't bring down the government if the US formally charged Assange and sought his extradition, and it was granted following an appeal. A prime minister is not going to face a vote of no confidence in the Commons for carrying out the UK's obligations under international extradition treaties; to suggest that would happen is frankly absurd and just reveals your general ignorance of the British system. Cameron and the Tories are probably gone at the next election anyway (at present Labout have a ten point polling lead), but more for their mishandling of the economy and failed austerity policies than anything to do with Assange or extradition...those are the things voters actually care about.

[riderinthestorm]

49. Sorry to disagree, most data I've seen say the British public DOES care about Assange

IF you have information disproving that, then feel free to show it. Cameron's in deep trouble regardless but pandering to the US over Assange, especially in an extra judicial move, will play very badly.

[Spider Jerusalem]

52. I live in the UK, and I can tell you confidently that you're quite wrong.

And if the US presents a properly executed warrant for Assange's arrest with a request for extradition the UK is bound by treaty obligations to honour it. Nothing "extrajudicial" about it.

[riderinthestorm]

53. Prove it. Your assertion doesn't match what I've read. nt

[Spider Jerusalem]

57. What you've read where?

Again, I actually live in the UK. I would say this probably makes me more qualified to offer an informed opinion than someone who's read something on a website. None of the people I know or talk to cares very much about what happens to Assange. Most of the people I know also think Cameron is a c*nt. This opinion is not informed by the UK government's actions in l'affaire Assange at all, but is based on other considerations which are of much greater interest to people (like, the economy, and public sector cuts). But hey, if you want to set yourself up as an expert in British public opinion because "I read something", go right ahead.

[riderinthestorm]

67. I'm Irish

but have many British friends and cousins (one set of grandparents are British). So I too have anecdotal evidence that says differently than you however I've also read it over the course of many months while following the story on several sites. I don't have a lot of time to search but here's a link to a poll that was just put out today....


http://www.thejournal.ie/julian-assange-ecuador-extradition-london-poll-561734-Aug2012/

Right now its at 57% supporting Julian Assange. So I'm inferring from things like this that I read and then making a statement. Unlike anecdotal stories from friends.

[Spider Jerusalem]

68. Online polls are self-selecting and ultimately meaningless

only people who actually care one way or another about the question will respond.

[riderinthestorm]

70. Its more than you got. And it supports my position. You asked, I answered. nt

[HooptieWagon]

28. A US extradition request would have to make public

the nature of the charges. The US would have to follow through with those charges, complete with witness cross-examination, examining of evidence, public scrutiny, and the right to appeal the process to higher courts. That is not what the US wants. They want to simply indefinately detain Assange in a secret location to shut him up. Can't do that with extradition... can do that with rendition.
In short, US wants Sweden and UK to do the dirty work and take the heat, so the US doesn't have to.

[Robb]

29. Nonsense. We charge people with sensitive access all the time.

What "nature of the charges" couldn't be handled by the usual handling of sensitive information in a court case?

You're reaching.

[riderinthestorm]

30. There's a few hundred people in Gitmo who'd like an answer to that question as well nt

[Robb]

32. Exactly! We could charge him and put him in Gitmo.

With current legal frameworks to which the UK is a party.

All we'd have to do is charge him. And yet we haven't.

[The Magistrate]

37. That You Know Of, Sir: There Are Such Things As Sealed Indictments

The existence of charges is not always made public until after an arrest has been effected. It is a legitimate law enforcement tool in many circumstances.

[Robb]

48. Then why not effect an arrest?

Have people never been arrested and extradited on sealed indictments?

[The Magistrate]

62. They May Not Feel They Have A Sufficiently Air-Tight Case Yet, Sir

If pressed to speculate, my view would be that U.S. action against Mr. Assange awaits the outcome of Mr. Manning's trial.

[riderinthestorm]

50. Its going to be a sealed indictment. The grand jury is working on it as we speak nt

[Robb]

51. Right. The secret grand jury.

I would expect they would've worked in more haste, given such a close ally was holding the man in question for nearly two years.

[riderinthestorm]

54. There is a grand jury

"Another sign is the existence of a secret grand jury that has been empanelled in Alexandria, Virginia, to investigate WikiLeaks. Assange told Democracy Now! that seven WikiLeaks staffers and volunteers have been subjected to this investigation. Google and Twitter have been issued subpoenas ordering the companies to turn over private data on users believed to be affiliated or connected to WikiLeaks, and the organization suspects that Facebook has also been issued similar subpoenas. The US government has subpoenaed WikiLeaks’s domain registrar, Dynadot, for server data. The government has subpoenaed Sonic.net for the private e-mails of WikiLeaks volunteer Jacob Appelbaum, who has been detained multiple times at airports by federal agents who have questioned him about his links to WikiLeaks.

Justice Department spokesperson Dean Boyd said in late June, “There continues to be an investigation into the WikiLeaks matter.” Also, in a June motion hearing in the case of Pfc. Bradley Manning, the soldier accused of releasing classified information to WikiLeaks, it was revealed that the FBI has a 42,135-page investigative file into WikiLeaks. Only 8,741 of the pages are allegedly relevant to Manning’s case. That means more than 30,000 of the other pages likely involve evidence the US government has on Assange and WikiLeaks staffers or volunteers. It is hard to imagine that this investigative file would be put together if the US government did not plan to prosecute someone. Not to mention, Manning is charged with “aiding the enemy” and military prosecutors have established in court that the “enemy” is Al Qaeda.

Finally, the political climate in the United States is ripe for an Assange extradition. Senator Dianne Feinstein, head of the US Senate Intelligence Committee, has renewed her call for Assange to be tried for “espionage.” Congress members have mounted a bipartisan offensive against “leaks” by President Barack Obama’s administration on Obama’s “kill list,” cyber warfare against Iran and a CIA underwear bomb plot sting operation in Yemen. The Obama administration has indicted an unprecedented number of people under the Espionage Act for “leaking” or whistleblowing. And, House Republicans have expressed support for jailing journalists if they don’t comply with a political witch hunt for “leakers.” "

http://www.thenation.com/article/169209/fate-julian-assange#

[sabrina 1]

79. On what basis? The US has no charges filed against Assange, so on what basis

would they be asking to extradite him to the US? .

[leftstreet]

47. +1

[sabrina 1]

64. In that case, Chen Guangcheng was spitting in the face of the system also when he

sought asylum in the US Embassy.

In fact, seeking asylum when your freedom and life are threatened is using the system as it was intended to be used.

Top US officials in this country have demanded that Assange be assassinated. He has every right to seek asylum under the system.

I don't think even the Chinese were asking for the death penalty in the case of Chen Guangcheng.

[whatchamacallit]

94. Biased conjecture = the worst kind of CT

Congrats!

[sabrina 1]

58. Because they still have not been able to find a crime to attach to him.

They are working on it with the Grand Jury in Virginia. Once they have conjured up that crime, with an indictment, they won't care if he is in Sweden or Britain.

[tama]

77. Can't say for sure

but from what I've gathered, Swedish route has been considered easier than than asking British gov to hand Assange to US custody. Both in terms of legal loopholes and political climate. First of all Brits have legal responsilities to respond to the Swedish request of extradition which would override any US request. Once Sweden had Assange behind bars it would not have such restrictions and could use the legal loophole provided by the bilateral US-Sweden extradition treaty. Politically close ties of Swedish gov to US - and to Karl Rove especially - as well as history of Swedish participation to CIA renditions are certainly not suggestive that they would not be willing to please US.

[treestar]

20. It does make sense

Nations think of their sovereignty. They tend not to take kindly to situations where their ability to govern their own physical nation is questioned. Here the Ecuadorians are thumbing their nose at the British.

I have to wonder at them, too. Are they trying to get attention for their nation, which usually gets little? If the US is such a monster, why are they doing this? Seems they could only suffer. Like we change their puppet government to a new one or something.

[Puglover]

34. Your lack of facts is showing. Seriously.

"Their puppet government" Yes Treestar, "attention" is the barometer of a nations relevance. As I said, I can just hear your outrage if the situation were reversed.

[treestar]

35. Usually it's the Julian fans who refer to the US and its propensity to

create "puppet government" in other countries. Your post is just out of thin air. It's the same people who are so sure the US has nothing better to do than persecute poor Julian (who leaked classified documents of ours) who insist on that. Surely they would be willing to accuse the US of shenanigans in Ecuador too?

Why are they granting a clearly frivolous asylum case? Julian is not "persecuted" by facing charges anyone else would face had they done what he did. Again, does leaking US documents make him an angel who violates no other criminal laws?

[sabrina 1]

80. What did he do? There are no charges against him. You keep conveniently forgetting

that fact. If he did do something, the Swedish prosecutors have had two years to tell the world what he did, and what their evidence is. A list of quickly cobbled together allegations, which he denies btw, and which contradict known exculpatory evidence available early on in this case, doesn't explain your claim that 'if anyone did what he did they would be wanted'.

Do you know anyone else in the history of the world who was listed as more wanted than Gadaffi, Bin Laden, Pinochet, for a possible broken condom? For Gadaffi eg, the international warrant was an orange alert, for Assange it is a red alert.

So what did he do that makes him worse than Gadaffi, Bin Laden and Pinochet? The Brits refused to extradite Pinochet on actual charges, with evidence, of Genocide.

How does Assange even begin to compare to these people?

And your use of the word 'fans' is an insult. I don't give a shit about Assange as an individual, it's very possible if I knew him I would not like him at all.

Is it ever possible for you to give credit to DUers for actually caring about such things as JUSTICE even for someone they may or not like? Easy to stand up for someone you like, but the real test of someone's principles is when they will not defend those they like when they are doing something wrong.

[treestar]

89. Well he obviously did something to invoke the Swedish justice system

Just go and take care of it. The Swedish justice system is acceptable.

The US will take me excuse is lame. The US could have already done so. And if he's so brave, he should face US justice to justify what he did. Ellsberg did.

[sabrina 1]

92. The Swedish Justice System has rendered two human beings for torture to

Egypt, among other not so commendable things. The Swedish Government which relied on Karl Rove to get itself elected, is no shining example of democracy and continues to disgrace itself every day it continues to involve itself in this outrageous persecution of an Editor and Publisher of a News Organization.

What he did everyone knows, he practiced real Journalism, one of the most serious crimes against the Corporate rulers of the world, as evidenced by the released documents by Anonymous which exposed their determination to destroy him, simply because he had the courage to publish inconvenient truths and facts. Certainly no one has denied that what he, along with the NYT, La Monde, Der Spiegel, The Guardian published was false information.

But hey, if you support Corporate rule, he sure is an enemy of the Corporate State, and no doubt every effort should be made to silence him. Democracies otoh, welcome the kind of transparency, as Latin America countries did when their dirty laundry was exposed by Wikileaks, practiced by real journalists.

Assange and Wikileaks have exposed more than the leaked documents from various countries when they started their organization to help Whistleblowers all over the world. They exposed who is for democracy and not just mouthing that support and who is not.

[treestar]

99. He needs to face up to it

If the world is so evil, no one can be a hero opposing it without facing up to it directly. Rather than hiding and whining about it.

You go at it directly if you really mean to oppose it.

[riderinthestorm]

82. This is paternalistic bullshit. The Swedes are riding the two women and TELLING them they were raped

It's disgusting.

The paternalistic GALL of the Swedish state bringing this case on, against the wishes of the women. The sheer scale of rape in the US, during our wars, hell even Sweden (which has some of the worst rape prosecution stats in Europe) and everyone's getting worked up over THIS case?

My heart just breaks for real rape victims who often wait (forever) for justice.

This political stunt is hideous, especially in its treatment of women. Especially the women involved in the Assange case, who've been told by their paternalistic state that they don't really know that they've been "raped"! And that despite the women's adamant desire to NOT press charges, the paternalistic state believes it can supersede the wishes of its own citizens and advance the case FOR them). I can't even imagine being the women involved - if this ever comes to a resolution in Sweden they will be forced to become hostile witnesses (if they can be found. One of them has fled the country) detailing their sex with Assange?!

Ick. Just completely patriarchal and disgusting.

[girl gone mad]

83. I doubt there are many "Julian fans" here..

just fans of justice and human rights.

If you want to have an honest discussion, start by setting aside your desire to belittle others.

[tama]

78. Simply

they consider US gov hostile and barbaric - which it is. There has been peaceful and democratic revolution going on in Ecuador since election of Correa, as part of the continent wide progressive process. License for US military base has not been renewed, there has been new constitution drafted and accepted in referendum, there has been coup attempt by local police forces on US payroll, US ambassador has been expelled as consequense of Cablegate, Ecuador is open about its intention to use local natural resources for the benefit of local people in ecologically responsible way instead of shipping them to US and EU consumers for the benefit of big corporations.

Naturally from those of the neocolonialist mindset we hear nothing but the usual hollow supremacist attitudes and ignorance. Days of Monroe doctrine have gone and US hast lost its neocolonialist and imperialist grip over the southern continent. Succesful pro-US coup in Honduras was not the norm, but the exception of many similar failed attempts.

[treestar]

18. The Evil US has Mysterious Ways

And of course is behind everything that happens to poor pitiful little Julian. The Evil US must be doing it this way to prolong Julian's pain or something.

It's all a big conspiracy and the US has nothing better to do.

[hifiguy]

31. Really....

Are you that unfamiliar with all the clandestine ratfucking that the CIA and military intelligence have been involved in since WW II? The subterfuge directed at peace movements, the civil rights movement, Occupy, and countless other acts of malfeasance. Propping up dictators, assassinating nationalist reformers, atrocities in Central America. For christ's sake the CIA and MI killed a President of the United States in broad daylight.

No, TPTB always act perfectly ethically and in the best interests of the citizenry.

[treestar]

36. I know all about that. What has it got to do with this?

Does that mean we have no right to protect ourselves via classified information? And that anyone who leaks it is supposed to be able to break those laws with impunity? Why doesn't he face the music, like any other person who took actions of civil disobedience did?

[hifiguy]

38. One, he's not a US citizen.

Two, he has never set foot on US soil.

US law does not have "universal jurisdiction." Legally, the US has no jurisdiction over Julian Assange. By the government's logic in this case I could be arrested and imprisoned for possessing and selling cannabis while residing in a country where that possession and sale was completely legal.

[The Magistrate]

40. A Little Trickier Than That, Sir

If, in that country where possession and sale was legal, you sold to someone who intended to smuggle the stuff into the U.S., knew that was his intention, and helped plan how he might bring it off successfully, you would fall afoul of U.S. law, as having conspired to smuggle contraband, and possibly even as having conspired to distribute ( if you knew he intended to sell any of it ). Even just knowing of your customer's intent would probably qualify you. An extradition request might well be granted, and in any case, U.S. courts have ruled that once a person is in the hands of U.S. law enforcement, and on U.S. soil, how the person came to be so situated is of no consequence, so a DEA agent, if so inclined, could simply force you onto a private plane at gunpoint and land you in Miami, where you would be arrested formally. Whether this is how it ought to be or not is a separate matter; it is how it is.

It is quite possible for Mr. Assange to be charged under U.S. law for a variety of conspiracy and fraud counts, without the slightest protection from the case in which New York Times reporters simply had classified documents dumped on their doorstep.

[hifiguy]

44. I assume that this is permissible because

the SCOTUS, somewhere long the line, said it was.

It is a horrifying concept, however and pretty much makes a mockery of the notion of other nations' soverignty.

How would it work out if I, an American in Trashcanistan, bought a pound of weed from Ahmed, an Trashcanistan native, and resold it to Borat, a Trashcanistan native, who then resold it to other Trashcanistanis and none of them ever got within 2,000 miles of the US? It seems to me that the US government, if it wished, could do exactly the same thing to me as in the other hypothetical. It has been doing as much for at least the last ten years in other contexts.

[The Magistrate]

46. So Long As None Of Them Intended Smuggling It Into the United States, Sir, No Violation Of U.S. Law

The cartel organizations do send much of their product into the U.S., so everyone involved, from grower to end seller, is considered to have broken U.S. law.

The various Islamic militants in arms, viewing themselves as at war with the U.S., and acting accordingly, become legitimate objects of U.S. military power, and in many instances, police agencies enforcing U.S. law.

Money transactions, by both the above strains, can often violate U.S. laws against money laundering or trading with sanctioned states, or supporting a proscribed organization, by involving institutions chartered in the U.S. or a sanctioned state, or passing to or through a proscribed organization.

Communications, passing through facilities physically located in U.S. jurisdiction, or owned by entities chartered in the U.S., may well come under U.S. law.

[tama]

86. US considers it has "legal" right to take legal actions

against third parties that trade with Cuba, that have anything to do with illegal drugs in any country (without CIA and DEA permission), to assassinate anyone in any country considered a terrorist and enemy of US on grounds of TWAT, to militarily invade any country it sees fit, etc. "PAX AMERICANA" and US as world police are American ideas and perceptions. The imperialist mindset, Sir, is that they own the world to the extent that they can control it and nothing is enough except more and more. And I do remember the neocon declaration of NEW American Century. So far I haven't seen any indications that Wall Street and London City and the governements they own had stopped pursuing control over the whole world and beyond. That does not mean that they have been very succesfull recently, rather more hysterically afraid than ever before...

[treestar]

65. Well now you've knocked the floor out of the claim he "fears extradition" to the US

He has violated no US law and the US has no jurisdiction.

[hifiguy]

66. That doesn't mean that the CIA or US Military Intelligence

pay any attention whatsoever to "quaint" notions like legal jurisdiction. Didn't you learn anything under eight years of the Chimpleton and Darth?

[treestar]

69. When did even Shrub do something like this?

Or something like you are accusing our country of doing.

Gitmo was bad, but no one was there who didn't have to do with Afghanistan/Iraq/911.

Give it a rest. We are no longer putting even those types of people there.

[riderinthestorm]

71. Padilla had nothing to do with Iraq or Afghanistan. Awlaki either (he was droned without trial)

Oh and so was Awlaki's 16 year old American son, neither of whom had any relation to Afghanistan or Iraq....

Bush had a notorious record of extraordinary renditions. Too many to list. Do a google search but this is getting ridiculous.

[treestar]

90. Padilla was still being accused of terrorism - a dirty bomb

But we no longer do those things, and our court system struck down what happened to Padilla.

We are not going to go back to the Bush Era just for Julian. Give it a rest. He didn't even do anything to us.

There is a grand jury on this matter! If they don't indict him, there is not even anything to face. What is wrong with people here?

Look at what happened to the Pussy Riot. You know, this country and its justice system are simply not that bad as you make them out to be.

[riderinthestorm]

95. Bitter laughter. The US no longer engages in extra-judicial, illegal actions??!!

Really!!

This blatant re-writing of history is ridiculous, especially on this board, where the illegal actions of the US are occurring as we speak. We've killed American citizens without trial under Obama, we've tortured American citizens under Obama (Manning just happens to be the only we've heard about....)

Pussy Riot happened in Russia. And yet you think there's something wrong with "us" and the FACTS of this case????

Unfuckingbelievable.

[treestar]

96. You are unbelievable

This country does have a justice system. It may not be perfect. But it's something Julian could face. It is supposed to be fair. We have the First Amendment and trials are public. This is absurd. You are laughing as if we are what, some sort of modern USSR? This is ridiculous! It's as bad as the made up reality of the right wingers.

Come to the US and face the charges - that would be the best way to expose our "crimes."

We still have trial by jury and a bill of rights.

[riderinthestorm]

97. We are a rogue state. Gitmo tells me that every day. So does Padilla, driven mad

and Manning, close to driven mad.

We have assassinations going on at the express direction of our own President who keeps a personal tally. We have OWS protesters who are illegally removed from protesting, we have demonstrators illegally removed from demonstrating at public events.

What's really unbelievable is that YOU don't know all of this.

[treestar]

98. Totally delusional

Any Ows protestor has a public trial. We are still under the rule of law.

[riderinthestorm]

100. Hear that folks? We're "still" under the rule of law!

Everybody got it?! Don't question the state! Nothing to see here, run along....

[hifiguy]

72. There was a bounty system in place

when the US first went into Afghanistan. Turn over a "terrorist" and collect a nice big pile of US dollars. There were oxcart drivers and cabbies imprisoned at Gitmo for years, turned in to the US by people pursuing personal vendettas. Denounce your enemies to the Americans as "terrorists" and get rich, at lest by Afghan standards. Meanwhile, the hapless schmoes turned over to the Americans were tortured at Abu Ghraib, subjected to rendition or slapped into the slammer indefinitely and with no right of counsel.

It's all there in the history books.

[riderinthestorm]

73. I'm starting to get ill. Even DUers are forgetting Bush's rendition, crimes, unlawful detentions at

Gitmo and elsewhere?

I'm really wondering if there needs to be some mods involved with some of this. The deliberate and willful re-writing of history, BUSH'S history, is frightening, even here on DU. That post was nothing short of staggering imho....

[hifiguy]

74. Some people's ignorance of history

is both appalling and unforgivable.

[riderinthestorm]

75. They can't be democrats. Not even knowing that Bush had plenty of extra-judicial

renditions, "extraditions", illegal detentions, assassinations etc. I'm sorry but there's no you are a Democrat if you don't know that about Bush. Hell, even most of the Rethugs know about it (which they're actually PROUD of and boast about )

[Hydra]

87. It's an unfortunate trend

And it's a symptom of the "Good German"/Banality of Evil effect.

The insane war crimes, as I've called them and had posts deleted for: "Pissing on Nuremberg," are becoming "acceptable" and in time will be considered "necessary."

This didn't change when we elected President Obama, even though as a candidate he outlined why we needed to stop doing these incredibly evil and repulsive things and take the higher path.

You're right, it's incredible to see people whitewashing history even here, where we all witnessed it and put down our words of condemnation and horror at such act...but there will be a price to pay for such willful blindness and support of the illegal and just plain evil.

[riderinthestorm]

88. Its frightening Hydra. I'm deeply worried.

Watching this episode with Julian Assange, and the international implications of violating embassy sovereignty...? That's centuries of history going down before our very eyes.

And then there are actually DUers who don't see/remember/understand the actions of the Bush I and II eras (and Reagan and to a smaller degree Clinton - who I love by the way, anyway.. ).....

I need a support group!

Its crazy.

[girl gone mad]

85. More reading, less posting.

Seriously. You are embarrassing yourself here.

[tama]

84. It means

that you, together with all of us, should be protected from US classified information and other forms of secrecy for actions that don't bare daylight. Transparency is for our protection from government evils.

And as for Assange, he is not taking actions of civil disobedience and his journalistic work as publisher is not in any way illegal, and as a revolutionary his first duty is not get caught by hostile governments. On the other hand US campaign against Wikileaks has been unlawful without precedent.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

91. because hes a coward... plain and simple.

[backscatter712]

93. Gosh, your well-argued and impeccably considered logical arguments are quite persuasive!

[hifiguy]

33. Delete of dupe

[sabrina 1]

55. Simple, but you would have to have followed the case to know.

What excuse would the US have had to request an extradition? What charges do they have against him? Sarah Palin and Joe Lieberman or even Biden calling him a terrorist and traitor (despite his Australian citizenship, but then we're talking about Palin and Lieberman) , would not have convinced the British Court to hand him over. In fact all those statements bolstered his own case against extradition.

Sweden claimed they wanted him for questioning, and claimed they had a case, which no one has yet seen after two years.

[midnight]

59. K&R for safe passage.

http://rt.com/news/ecuador-icc-assange-asylum-942/


Ecuador may file appeal to ICC if UK refuses Assange safe passage

[hifiguy]

60. Update on proposed Brit invasion of Ecuadorian embassy.

According to today's NYT, this is apparently off the table at least for now. Senior British diplomats pointed out to Cameron that if he did it to the Ecuadorians he could expect the same thing to be done to British embassies. Bad precedent and all that, eh wot? Apparently that sound advice prevailed.

[The Magistrate]

63. Indeed, Sir: In Latin America, It Would Become Awfully Difficult To Be An English Diplomat

And doubtless in any number of other, formerly colonial places as well....

[orpupilofnature57]

76. Nothing to do with that insurance policy , Hah ?

He's a smart man and stifling him would be a detriment to Information and holding OUR government Accountable for what they tell us about OUR military.