US not interested in Assange extradition 'saga': ambassador

Not interested? Sure, whatever you say, Mr. Ambassador.

Never heard of sealed indictments, Mr. Ambassador? Maybe we should get one for you.

"He's not the household name in the U.S. that you might think"???

It would appear that Ambassador Bleich AND the Consul General for New South Wales & Queensland, Niels Marquarddt, are both FULL OF SHIT.

remember that DU is not necessarily reflective of reality. Assange is not a topic of discussion in America.

I strongly disagree.

Assange is VERY MUCH a topic of discussion in America.

The fact that he has taken refuge in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London is a major news story, whether you like it or not.

Huffington Post mentions him almost every day, as do other progressive on-line news sites, as well as the mainstream news sources like the New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times etc.

.I listen to CBS news on the local CBS radio station throughout the day, and he is mentioned nearly every day.

Democracy Now, which is on more than 500 radio and TV stations, mentions him almost every day as well, and has interviewed him many times.

As far as your statement, "remember that DU is not necessarily reflective of reality",....Do you think that DU is bullshit? Do you think that DU is some kind of on-line Fantasyland?

I have a friend who didn't know who Romney was around Easter time.

I heard a girl in the break room the other day say she had no idea what the health care "thing" was all about.

Many people do not stay informed even on subjects most of us should know about, so Assange being virtually unknown is nothing surprising to me.

"Huffington Post ..... other progressive on-line news sites..."

This is not where America gets its news.

It is not a topic on the national news broadcasts, the news talk shows, the political campaign. Everyday people don't talk about it because they don't care. It has no impact on them.


No - DU is not BS. It is merely a very small corner of the internet full of smart, politically aware Democrats that are much more informed and passionate about what is happening in the world then the average American. The fact that something is a big deal on DU does not mean it is a big deal in the real world.

implies that DU is not even a small part of "the real world",,..It ultimately comes down to semantics...How do you define "real world"?.....Isn't the Internet a part of the "real world"?..Don't DUers live in the "real world"?...
Aren't WikiLeaks, Julian Assange and Bradley Manning all part of the "real world"?

You are wrong saying "it's not a topic on the national news broadcasts".
It's not a topic that's covered every single day, perhaps, .. but MSM AND the alternative media such as Huffington Post et. al. ARE covering this story, but only when there are new developments, ...such as Assange losing his British court battle to avoid extradition to Sweden, his seeking asylum at the Equadorian embassy, and Bradley Manning's trial.....Those events were and are being covered by the MSM, including the national news broadcasts.

One thing I can agree with you on, however, is
"DU is a very small corner of the Internet full of smart, politically aware Democrats that are much more informed and passionate about what is happening in the world than the average American."

So what they're saying is pirating movies and music will get you $150k in fines per violation if caught...

But the US gov't doesn't care if he released top secret documents?

I'm sorry. Bull shit. It's all bull shit.

The government would have to prove that Assange did something that other reporters and publishers do not do, something more than just publish documents that were given to him by someone who stole them.

The official State Department discussion between Saddam and April Catherine Glaspie from July 25, 1990:

US Ambassador Glaspie:

“I have direct instructions from President Bush to improve our relations with Iraq. We have considerable sympathy for your quest for higher oil prices, the immediate cause of your confrontation with Kuwait. (pause) As you know, I have lived here for years and admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country (after the Iran-Iraq war). We know you need funds. We understand that, and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. (pause) We can see that you have deployed massive numbers of troops in the south. Normally that would be none of our business, but when this happens in the context of your other threats against Kuwait, then it would be reasonable for us to be concerned. For this reason, I have received an instruction to ask you, in the spirit of friendship – not confrontation – regarding your intentions. Why are your troops massed so very close to Kuwait’s borders?”

President Saddam Hussein:

“As you know, for years now I have made every effort to reach a settlement on our dispute with Kuwait. There is to be a meeting in two days; I am prepared to give negotiations only one more brief chance. (pause) When we (the Iraqis) meet (with the Kuwaitis) and we see there is hope, then nothing will happen. But if we are unable to find a solution, then it will be natural that Iraq will not accept death.”

US Ambassador Glaspie:

“What solution would be acceptable?”

President Saddam Hussein:

“If we could keep the whole of the Shatt al Arab – our strategic goal in our war with Iran – we will make concessions (to the Kuwaitis). But if we are forced to choose between keeping half of the Shatt and the whole of Iraq (which, in Iraq’s view, includes Kuwait), then we will give up all of the Shatt to defend our claims on Kuwait to keep the whole of Iraq in the shape we wish it to be. (pause) What is the United States’ opinion on this?”

US Ambassador Glaspie:

“We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America.“


July 23, 2008

Eighteen years ago, the infamous meeting between Saddam Hussein and April Glaspie took place. Most people only recall that April Glaspie, in her ambiguity, may have given Saddam a "green light" to enter Kuwait. But, there was much more to the meeting than this oft-told allegation. Saddam let Glaspie know that he and his government were well aware that the U.S. and Kuwait were attempting to undermine Iraq’s economy. Hindsight shows us today that this meeting dealt with many issues that were involved in the U.S. aggression against Iraq, not just the border problem with Kuwait.

Here is another interesting aspect of this conversation. Today, the U.S. public is complaining about gasoline prices, yet Saddam Hussein told April Glaspie that $25 a barrel was an equitable price and that some of his Arab counterparts wanted to increase the price. In 2003, the U.S. public was told that Iraq had to be invaded to ensure the flow of oil from the Middle East. Just the opposite was true.

Transcript of the meeting between Saddam Hussein and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, July 25, 1990

Transcript:
http://www.uruknet.de/?p=m45924&hd=&size=1&l=e


"yet Saddam Hussein told April Glaspie that $25 a barrel was an equitable price and that some of his Arab counterparts wanted to increase the price"

And there you have perhaps the biggest reason for taking out Saddam. He was pumping too much oil and depressing the OPEC price. So Bush,Baker, big oil banks and their good friends and partners in Saudi Arabia and OPEC conspired to crush the Iraqi military, demoralize the Iraqi people through deprivation, and later with the help of 16 Saudis, remove Saddam. This is the only reasonable conclusion to reach that covers all the evidence.

Or after that the "protection" we failed to give those returning to the north. I'm sorry I'm having a senior moment and can't remember the name for the northern Iraqis, many of whom were killed by Hussein while attempting to return to their region after we left.

What did Saddam Hussein and Little Miss Muffet have in common?











They both had Kurds in their way...

That is not under dispute. Ergo, Julian is merely trying to avoid a Swedish inquiry. He could deal with that independently of the US. In fact it would be harder for the US to get him from there.

And what is the US waiting for, if it is so interested. Why not do it before he thought of going into the Ecuadorian Embassy?

Why didn't our evil nation try to get him already then?

Britain's rules about extraditing to countries where the suspect might be treated in an improper way, though I can't remember if it was just countries where the crime might get the death penalty or something broader. I'll see if I can remember where I read the article about why Sweden was easier to get Assange than Britain.

http://justice4assange.com/US-Extradition.html

- snip -

Wouldn’t the UK be more likely to extradite Assange than Sweden?

Some critical voices claim that the UK-US extradition treaty is more permissive than the Sweden-US extradition treaty. Extradition to the US, they claim, would be simpler from the UK than from Sweden.

This argument fails on several points:

The UK’s extradition treaty does not have the temporary surrender (’conditional release’) clause. The UK’s judicial review process, while far from perfect, has a number of practical review mechanisms. The nearest equivalent case, of Gary McKinnon - a UK citizen who has been charged for hacking US military systems - has been opposed in the courts for 8 years.

Public opinion and the media (to a greater extent) are more sympathetic to Julian Assange in the UK than in Sweden. Public pressure could draw out the process of extradition to the United States in the UK. In Sweden the media climate is hostile (see Media climate in Sweden) due to the sex allegations. Public outcry would be significantly weaker and therefore less likely to stand in the way of a strategically convenient extradition.

In the UK, Julian Assange is better able to defend himself, muster support and understand the legal procedures against him. In Sweden on the other hand, the language barrier prevents him from effectively challenging the actions against.

The UK is politically better positioned to withstand pressure from the United States than Sweden. Sweden is a small country of nine million people close to Russia. It has grown increasingly dependent on the United States. In recent years Sweden has complied with directives from the United States in a manner that has not been scrutinised by Parliament, as has been revealed by the disclosed diplomatic cables (see Political Interference).

MORE

I could not find it.

Good on you, and thank you again.

http://justice4assange.com/US-Extradition.html

- snip -

Wouldn’t the UK be more likely to extradite Assange than Sweden?

Some critical voices claim that the UK-US extradition treaty is more permissive than the Sweden-US extradition treaty. Extradition to the US, they claim, would be simpler from the UK than from Sweden.

This argument fails on several points:

The UK’s extradition treaty does not have the temporary surrender (’conditional release’) clause. The UK’s judicial review process, while far from perfect, has a number of practical review mechanisms. The nearest equivalent case, of Gary McKinnon - a UK citizen who has been charged for hacking US military systems - has been opposed in the courts for 8 years.

Public opinion and the media (to a greater extent) are more sympathetic to Julian Assange in the UK than in Sweden. Public pressure could draw out the process of extradition to the United States in the UK. In Sweden the media climate is hostile (see Media climate in Sweden) due to the sex allegations. Public outcry would be significantly weaker and therefore less likely to stand in the way of a strategically convenient extradition.

In the UK, Julian Assange is better able to defend himself, muster support and understand the legal procedures against him. In Sweden on the other hand, the language barrier prevents him from effectively challenging the actions against.

The UK is politically better positioned to withstand pressure from the United States than Sweden. Sweden is a small country of nine million people close to Russia. It has grown increasingly dependent on the United States. In recent years Sweden has complied with directives from the United States in a manner that has not been scrutinised by Parliament, as has been revealed by the disclosed diplomatic cables (see Political Interference).

MORE

This is a news report with no substance. The ambassador's opinion is of no interest.

The President needs to speak out on this -- what is going on?

He's right about that, and the same goes for Manning.

I have 2 grandkids in the Air force for cripes sake, and neither one of them have heard of either one of them.

Actually, it's disingenuous on the ambassador's part. Whether he is a household name or not, doesn't have any particular bearing on the U.S.'s intentions or the importance of the issue.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002901092

Diane Feinstein,a prime defender of the Surveillance State, renews her assault on the 1st Amendment