Julian Assange: Senate my ticket to freedom

[struggle4progress]

WikiLeaks founder says election to Australia's upper house would prompt US and Sweden to drop their cases against him
Associated Press in Canberra
Sunday 17 February 2013 22.33 EST

The WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has told an Australian news website that his bid to become an Australian senator will serve as a defence against potential criminal prosecution in the United States and Britain

Assange spoke to the Conversation website at the Ecuadorian embassy in London where he was granted asylum in June to avoid extradition to Sweden on sex crime allegations.

If he were to win a Senate seat at elections on 24 September, Assange told the website, the US department of justice would drop its espionage investigation rather than risk a diplomatic row. The British government would follow suit otherwise "the political costs of the current standoff will be higher still", Assange said ...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/feb/18/julian-assange-wikileaks-senate-victory

[msanthrope]

1. He's out of his fuckin' mind....he and Jemima Kahn have parted ways,

apparently.

http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/02/jemima-khan-inside-story-how-julian-assange-alienated-his-allies

He's never voted in Australia, but now he wants to run for office there?

[freshwest]

3. But he is a citizen there, isn't he, even if he's been abroad? Maybe he'll vote this year.

He's maturing quite a bit, don't you think?

[msanthrope]

6. Sure--now that he can vote for himself! Is that a recent pic of him? nt

[freshwest]

10. From the Guardian link - I think that's his latest announcement.

Last edited Mon Feb 18, 2013, 03:03 PM - Edit history (1)

Looks very mellow there and he's put on a bit of weight. Bet they have some good cooks at the embassy.

[msanthrope]

11. I don't think there's a kitchen there--it's really more of a flat. nt

[freshwest]

13. I thought their ambassadors lived there? His quarters may be small, but others live there, too.

Nice neighborhood, too.

[msanthrope]

15. No--I don't think it's a residence. It's a flat within a larger building that houses

other embassies/consulates.

[freshwest]

17. So he's just been sort of camping out in an office? Still, he's heavier than before.

Nothing wrong with that but it could be weight from stress or eating take out. His mother said he has health issues. It looks as if this affair is winding down nicely.

[cali]

20. just about the best neighborhood in the city and a hop and skip

from Harrod's fabulous food halls.

[MADem]

27. It is an office in an apartment building. No one lives there except JA.

It is, in essence, a coverted flat. It's not that big--it's on a portion of the lower floor of a several story building, right across a side street from Harrod's.

[freshwest]

30. But nonetheless, it afforded him 'diplomatic immunity' somehow. I admit, I know nothing of the area.

Much less of how it is possible to have legal protection for one apartment in a building provided by a foreign entity. Thanks for the information.

I see nothing onerous about living there and think his ability to remain out of custody for bail jumping by the UK or rape as Sweden alleges, is remarkable.

Julian has led a privileged life compared to many people. That and the amount of media attention and money passing through his hands is also remarkable.

But I think he's going home, at any rate.

[MADem]

33. An Embassy is all about the law of the land, not a location.

The Colombian Embassy is also in that very same building.

The "Embassy" bit starts at the door to the apartment, not the hallway leading to the door.

There are a ton of "apartment" embassies in London (and other cities, too). Most of the London ones are in that neighborhood, which is pretty nice. It's a good place to live because there are a lot of cops around; the downside is that when there's a demonstration, it can be loud or otherwise a pain in the behind. It would be way out of my price range, anyway--most of my trips to Harrod's involved eye rolling at the price tags!!

[freshwest]

35. You have the advantage of me. I have several people who live in the UK who have begged me to visit.

And I've always wanted to go. If I'm very fortunate, I may make the trip before I pass. I've always wanted to see London and the Lake District from whence my ancestors came here over 400 years ago.

[MADem]

29. He's probably microwaving shit he gets delivered from Harrod's and elsewhere.

If they have even one cook at that small Embassy, I would be surprised--it's just an apartment. He's probably living in what used to be the maid's room! It's about the size of a large closet.

I'm betting he's getting bored.

[freshwest]

31. But in some videos he's speaking from the balcony of the building. So he has a room with a view...

And microwaving food from Harrod's is probably not what he is accustomed to. Not that a lot of people live any better, but one still wonders - who's paying for all of this?

So you say his diplomatic immunity is a matter of paperwork and not a physical protection as some had imagined?

I saw posts about how certain people had sought refuge in embassies for years during the Cold War. It was something to attach to the legend of Julian Assange.

Now I'm more confused than ever about this neverending story.

[MADem]

36. That is the balcony off the main living room. He is living in a room at the back, described

thusly:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/20/us-wikileaks-assange-embassy-idUSBRE87J0LP20120820

"It's a small room. It has a window, but I wouldn't describe it as airy. I didn't see any kitchen facilities, though I understand he has access to a microwave. He has access to a shower. A supporter gave him a running machine," said Smith.

..."It's pretty tight. He's divided the room up with a bookcase into a sleeping part and a non-sleeping part," said Smith.

"The key thing is he can work. He can hold meetings, he can invite some people in. He can do what he needs to do."

His immunity is based on the fact that he is on Ecuadorian "soil"--so long as he stays in property rented, leased or owned by Ecudador for the purposes of a diplomatic mission, he is -- for all intents and purposes--in "Ecuador." The minute he steps into the hall leading to the apartment's front door, though, though, he's not. The balcony? That's Ecuador's. Their little sign is attached to it, I believe.

It's not paperwork, it's location that keeps him free from interference...though the Brits do have, on their books, a law that allows them to "hot pursuit" a wanted person in an Embassy--this law came about as a result of a young policewoman getting shot dead from, I think, the Libyan Embassy eons ago. Yes--here it is:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Yvonne_Fletcher

If they 'really, really, REALLY' wanted him, they'd have that door off the hinges and he'd be frogmarched to a paddywagon in moments. They don't 'really' want him, I don't think.

He can serve his sentence in Sweden, or he can serve it in Knightsbridge, and pay for it himself--that's how I think they are looking at it.

I think the people who donated money to wikileaks are paying for his upkeep, meals, laundry, computers and things of that nature. I wouldn't be surprised if he has money of his own, paying himself for his organizational leadership, already put aside. I doubt Ecuador wants rent for the room--they got a lot of "Nose-tweaking Uncle Sam" propaganda out of it (even though the USA is Ecuador's largest trading partner, and Ecuador uses the US dollar as their own currency--no need to go to the currency exchange when visiting Quito or elsewhere). If the US really gave a shit about "getting" Assange, all they'd need to do is threaten the trade relationship with Ecuador and they'd cave in a nanosecond, citing some sort of twisted logic as a reason. I think, if anything, the fact that Ecuador is so sweetly "imprisoning" the guy while playing an orchestra of propaganda serves a LOT of people and nations very well. He's not mischief - making while he's stuck in that back room. His wikileaks pals have pretty much abandoned him, many of them. One of his staunchest supporters --who put up a lot of his bail money (and lost it) is pissed off enough at the guy to write about it (the whole article is worth a read):

http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/02/jemima-khan-inside-story-how-julian-assange-alienated-his-allies

As Bill Leonard, the classification tsar for the Bush administration, says in our film: “The Espionage Act is primarily intended to address situations where individuals pass national defence information over to the enemy in order to allow the enemy to harm us. It would be unprecedented if the Espionage Act was being used to attack individuals who did not do anything more than the New York Times or the Washington Post does every day.”
There is no evidence that US national security was damaged in any way by the leaks, nor indeed that democracy has ever been harmed by an increase in the public’s knowledge and understanding. If Assange is prosecuted in the US for espionage, I suspect even his most disenchanted former supporters will take to the barricades in his defence.

The list of alienated and disaffected allies is long: some say they fell out over redactions, some over broken deals, some over money, some over ownership and control. The roll-call includes Assange’s earliest WikiLeaks collaborators, Daniel Domscheit-Berg and “The Architect”, the anonymous technical whizz behind much of the WikiLeaks platform. It also features the journalists with whom he worked on the leaked cables: Nick Davies, David Leigh and Luke Harding of the Guardian; the New York Times team; James Ball; and the Freedom of Information campaigner Heather Brooke. Then there are his former lawyer Mark Stephens; Jamie Byng of Canongate Books, who paid him a reported £500,000 advance for a ghostwritten autobiography for which Assange withdrew his co-operation before publication; the Channel 4 team that made a documentary about him which resulted in his unsuccessful complaint to Ofcom that it was unfair and had invaded his privacy; and his former WikiLeaks team in Iceland.

The problem is that WikiLeaks – whose mission statement was “to produce . . . a more just society . . . based upon truth” – has been guilty of the same obfuscation and misinformation as those it sought to expose, while its supporters are expected to follow, unquestioningly, in blinkered, cultish devotion.
...On the subject of Assange, pundits on both the left and the right have become more interested in tribalism than truth. The attacks on him by his many critics in the press have been virulent and highly personal. Both sides are guilty of creating political caricatures and extinguishing any possibility of ambivalence. “On the other handism” doesn’t make great copy, but in this particular debate everyone is too polarised. The kind of person who spends his life committed to this type of work, wedded to a laptop, undercover, always on the move, with no security, stability or income, is bound to be a bit different. I have seen flashes of Assange’s charm, brilliance and insightfulness – but I have also seen how instantaneous rock-star status has the power to make even the most clear-headed idealist feel that they are above the law and exempt from criticism.

If he went back to Sweden, the only people who would "bother" him would be the Swedish authorities, who would ask him questions about his conduct with those women. Sweden has some very specific laws about rape that are taken more seriously there than in some other countries. Failing to use protection when one partner wants said protection, even during consensual sex, is--as it should be--a serious offense. I think it's bothersome that so many people are suggesting that these women are "tools" or agents or what-have-you, and/or somehow "responsible" for JA's fate. The one responsible is JA--who couldn't/wouldn't keep his member in his pants and who behaved irresponsibly.

I think his fifteen minutes of fame are nearly up. As soon as the movie about him is released and has either succeeded or failed, I think he'll drop off the radar again. I don't claim to know a thing about Australian politics, but I can't imagine people voting for this guy for any office, not even dogcatcher.

[struggle4progress]

37. Under modern international law, embassy space is still considered territory of the host country,

except that certain persons there may enjoy certain immunities from prosecution by the host country (unless there is agreement from the guest country), and the embassy itself is traditionally regarded as inviolate (again, unless there is agreement from the guest country). But the same international instruments that ensure (say) the immunities of the ambassador and his family, and that require the embassy itself to be respected, further make clear that the laws of the host country continue to apply within the embassy itself, and to the ambassador and embassy staff, and must be respected. This fact may be useful to the host country, if (say) an embassy is used for activities that are illegal in the host country: when declaring embassy staff persona non grata and demanding their removal for illegal activities, the host country may point to both international treaties and host country law and need not engage in pointless discussion about whether the activities would have been legal in the country whose embassy this is

[MADem]

42. That British law isn't terribly popular outside UK, but it is on the books!

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1987/46

And it does contravene some aspects of international law, or at least get out in front of it...

[struggle4progress]

46. Perhaps you responded in the wrong place? Or perhaps you misunderstood my post?

Everything I said is based on the international treaties governing embassies, ambassadors and their families, and embassy staff.

You seem to believe that Ecuador's London embassy is regarded as Ecuadorian territory.It's not: it's regarded as UK territory, but under the existing international law certain immunities and privileges extend to the embassy, the ambassador, and (to a lesser degree) perhaps to some embassy staff

These immunities and privileges do not remove the obligations of embassies, ambassadors and their families, and embassy staff to respect the laws of their host countries, though they do substantially limit enforcement options of the host countries: to enter embassy premises, or to arrest ambassadors or their family members, typically requires consent of the country whose embassy it is

But no provision requires the host country to tolerate illegal activities on embassy premises, by ambassadors or their family members, or by embassy staff. If illegal activities occur on embassy premises, or that ambassadors or their family members or embassy staff violate the laws of the host countries, the situation is in clear contravention of the obligation to follow host country law, explicitly noted in the international instruments

This is generally true, without any reference to the peculiar UK law produced by the 1985 Libyan embassy crisis: nothing I have said, here or or in my prior post, depends on the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987. Ecuador's London embassy is simply not regarded as Ecuadorian territory under international law: it remains the territory of the UK, subject to certain immunities and privileges

[MADem]

47. The bottom line, though, is that embassies are treated as "immune" or however you want to put it,

particularly when the issue has political overtones. This is why the Chinese didn't bust down the doors when one of their own took refuge in our embassy, even though we don't technically "do" political asylum.

It happens--and countries tend to be reticent to bust down the door because they don't want it happening to them in their missions, which is why Assange is, with the assistance of Ecuador, paying for his incarceration in Knightsbridge, rather than the Swedes paying for it in Sweden.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/08/17/julian-assange-chen-guangcheng-more-famous-embassy-stays-photos.html

[struggle4progress]

49. Yes, embassy grounds are, in effect, immune from enforcement of host country laws, by long tradition

and under international instruments having general scope. However, Article 41 of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations clearly and explicitly states:

1. Without prejudice to their privileges and immunities, it is the duty of all persons enjoying such privileges and immunities to respect the laws and regulations of the receiving State. They also have a duty not to interfere in the internal affairs of that State ...

3. The premises of the mission must not be used in any manner incompatible with the functions of the mission as laid down in the present Convention or by other rules of general international law or by any special agreements in force between the sending and the receiving State ...

[freshwest]

38. The framing of all these stories has been an eye opener for me - the motives and manipulation.

Last edited Mon Feb 18, 2013, 05:13 PM - Edit history (1)

And I still don't see any great horror in his living situation. It is better than billions on this planet. Not trying to drag him down to the dirt, but it is the poor and disadvantaged that we seek to help the most, and they are held up as posters for all that is going wrong and why we have to fight oppression. I don't see this man as a martyr at all.

Thanks so very much for giving me more information on this. I was extremely busy at the time of the Libyan embassy event and even the bombing of the plane and Libya by Reagan. I sought out the story of the young woman killed that led to the UK going into embassies. It was framed as an example of the illegal acts of the British, but reading the story and seeing this picture touched me:



We are being presented with tangled agenda in this affair and it challenges a lot of sacred cow beliefs here. This is a great time to come to realize what is real and what is advertised. After reading so many of these threads, I've come to the conclusion this is about marketing for some businesses and not about speech.

Considering speech, it is not absolute in the world of money. We can lie, curse and say things about each other and politicians without consequences. But when a person is at work those rights do not apply. Real people don't get away with this in their life.

We may want to believe that disclosure online or elsewhere will give the world more freedom in the blink of an eye, but it's not happened. It reminds me of the Rapture theology, some of this. There is no miraculous rescue from our complex lives, or at least I don't see one.

I appreciate you taking ime to explain so much I never knew. I always learn more about the world outside of the USA on these threads. Wow.

[MADem]

40. Her death resonated with many, and re-ignited the "girls can't do that" debate WRT to policing.

She was one of the first women to do full-scale (as opposed to "woman's jail" type) policing, out on the street. She was very young and engaged to marry. Her murder got a lot of coverage. This pic was rather iconic




as were others of her dying in the street, held by her fiance, and her funeral. Margaret Thatcher made a bit of political hay off her death.

It's also why a lot of British people said "Good enough for him" when Qadaffi was cornered and killed. This murder and Lockerbie are still in the minds of many.

[freshwest]

41. But the death of Qadaffi was billed as a vicious plot by Obama...

Last edited Mon Feb 18, 2013, 07:03 PM - Edit history (1)

And the ever present 'banksters.' I was ignorant as to why some of my friends in the UK have such negative opinions about other countries, including Greece.

Some said here that the release of the Lockerbie bomber was all about oil, but the story of this young woman's mother appealing to have him sent home to get the truth of who gunned down her girl and others from inside the embassy was not presented to us.

I am as much as anyone, inclined to 'follow the money' or financial interest, there could have been some, but that was striking. As intended, to persuade us 'sheeple' as some call anyone who does not toe the CT line, no matter what.

Most of us did not know this recent history. Once again, thanks for the information.

[MADem]

45. There were hard feelings about that, and also the fact that

some of the IRA bombings in UK involved explosives that were procured via Libya. Many hard feelings--the UK coverage of Qaddaffi's demise was closer to "Ding Dong the Witch is Dead" because a lot of people had a personal and visceral dislike of the man.

Gaddafi death hailed by David Cameron
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/gaddafi-death-hailed-by-david-cameron-2373468.html

The Sun with their "usual restraint" called the guy a dead dog (disturbing images) :
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/features/3889160/Dead-Dog.html

The injury that killed him was rather gruesome (fair warning--very disturbing image): http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/395224/20121017/gaddafi-killed-bayonet-stab-anus-libya.htm


The US perspective doesn't always tell the whole story. Where you sit depends on where you stand on issues, often as not!

[freshwest]

52. From that first link, where you sit certainly does decide where you stand!

...Mr Cameron said he was "proud" of the role Britain played in Nato airstrikes to protect Libyan civilians after the uprising against Gaddafi's rule began in February.

DUers fought over American planes being sent there. Those who supported NATO were labeled warmongers, not caring about killing civilians with the air strikes, and that Obama wanted endless war. There were rumors CIA agents manufactured civilian groups to make people think there was opposition to a loved Qaddaffi. I fell in the 'let them fight it out alone' camp, as I thought the past had been forgiven. I did not know the history of the region, other than Reagan bombed to kill Qaddaffi. I couldn't see that man doing anything right, and still can't.

Different groups pumped up opposition during the NATO bombing runs, such as the GOP and Infowars. They claimed it was not humanitarian, that Qaddaffi was being targeted as part keeping a PNAC-style foreign policy for the oil. Or that Obama was doing dirty work for all the global banksters. The different currency they said Qaddaffi was going to use was the basis of the attacks. That idea was floated about Iraq and Iran going to the Euro thus becoming bankster targets. That's why I've let up on that theme, it's crying wolf now, it's as convenient as the red scare on the right. It's almost as deep as the Assange story has become.

And he said today was a time to remember Gaddafi's victims, including those who died when Pan-Am flight 103 was bombed over Lockerbie, Wpc Yvonne Fletcher who was gunned down in a London street and all those killed by the IRA using Semtex explosives supplied by Libya...

I haven't heard anyone argue about those events, except to say the UK was the offending party historically and bring up police state tactics to excuse the actions of the IRA. In the USA, it was Ireland that was seen as the victim, but over time I learned the relationship between the Emerald Isle and England goes back much further and is very complex. IDK if anyone would have supported Qaddaffi in those days except as part of revolution against the Empire in some form.

There is a built-in bias against police in many quarters, even the unarmed police as the UK had at that time. Police reflect the population, and we have plenty in this country who insist on arming themselves in full military gear, ready to go to war with the government and want to be able to outgun the police. There have always been outrages committed by those in power historically. But in modern America, they reflect the reality of the public's martial mentality.

Anyway, I've got to go out and do some things. Appreciating another thought provoking thread where I get to put in my little two cents in and get some good information from DUers with a wider perspective on events than I have been focused on most of my life.

[riverbendviewgal]

51. I been to Harrods

Their food is very high quality and delicious. Lots of very fresh food. Their veggies and fruit look like art and taste define.

[grantcart]

7. excellent, objective article.

[msanthrope]

9. Thanks--check out the AlJazeera one in post #8...an eye opener. nt

[freshwest]

12. It is well written and goes into a lot of details. Lots of facts I hadn't heard, too.

[msanthrope]

14. Israel Shamir was the source of the CIA/honeytrap rumour---

http://www.counterpunch.org/2010/09/14/assange-beseiged/

How many DUers accepted the smear of an alleged rape victim based on bullshit from an anti-semite and a Wikileaks ally?

[freshwest]

18. I wonder where he came up with that story? Seems so - IDK - theatrical.

I know that a lot of people are ready to jump on anything that reminds them of something bad. I'm hoping some of those who were so unhappy about this drawn out drama will be relieved and realize that things aren't so horrible as it seemed. Nothing is for sure until he goes home again but it might happen. Then this will be laid to rest and we can start moving forward again.

[KarenRei]

50. Connecting the dots

Yeah, and basically to sum up the article: AA wrote articles for a group... which is connected to another group... which is headed by a guy... that some professor says is connected to another group... which is headed by a guy.. which a blog says is a CIA agent. Oh, and she worked with a women's rights group in Cuba, and that group once held a parade in florida where a guy who blew up a plane marched alongside Celene Dion. Therefore, CIA agent!

Nah, not good enough. All we have to do is connect the dots and we can find out who's *really* behind this conspiracy. Let's see.... AA was involved in the same political party as politician and actor Gert Fylking... who voiced a vehicle in the Swedish version of the Pixar movie "Cars"... which was written by Dan Fogelman... who also wrote "Crazy, Stupid Love", starring... Kevin Bacon! My god, Kevin Bacon is behind all this!

Amazing how you can prove essentially anything you want when you do what that original Counterpunch article did.

[MADem]

26. I think you've hit the nail on the head. nt

[freshwest]

2. Looks like a win-win to me! Onto the Future for our intrepid internet pirate.

Or something like that. We needed to hear more about him. Thanks for the update, S4P. The weather Down Under should be pretty good by then.

[msanthrope]

4. Correa just won re-election, so Assange isn't needed anymore. Could get

interesting.

[freshwest]

5. You think that's why he supported Assange? He can't dump him now, though.

Julian was promised... something by him. But it would be ungrateful to not visit Ecuador on his way home to Australia, though.

[msanthrope]

8. Part of the reason--the Wikileaks/Ecuador/Belarus fracas is pretty complex--

Here's a really good article on what's going on....an eye-opener.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/09/20129410312450511.html

[freshwest]

16. ZOMG. Lukashenko has a bad reputation, now look at Correa. *Not nice people.*

This at the link doesn't help Assange in the court of world opinion, either:

Few media reports have noted the special irony in the juxtaposition of the Assange and Barankov cases: a rights group is demanding a full accounting from WikiLeaks on claims that it may have actively collaborated with the Belarus dictatorship.

This is some of what was hinted before by S4P, I think. Everyone sounds like a criminal or very corrupt now. Naturally, I've only got these news stories to go by.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

19. Bravo for whistleblower senators. We could use a few in our congress.

[Nye Bevan]

21. "Vote for me! If I win, might be able to avoid trial for sexual assault!"

Yep, quite a compelling campaign slogan. What Australian in their right mind would not vote for this guy?

Go Julian!

[Arcanetrance]

22. I don't like this at all.

I know people like to hail him as some kind of hero and claim a vast international conspiracy. But the truth is this man is an alleged rapist and I don't think it's right to ignore that. If he were to answer those charges I would be much more open to supporting him as far as the other things go.

[freshwest]

24. But their belief is strong because of history. In msanthrope's post above:

Last edited Mon Feb 18, 2013, 07:34 PM - Edit history (1)

14. Israel Shamir was the source of the CIA/honeytrap rumour---

How many DUers accepted the smear of an alleged rape victim based on bullshit from an anti-semite and a Wikileaks ally?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022392215#post14

From the link quoted, you can see how deep the rabbithole is:

...An American Tea Party website the RightwingNews.com suggested that “a CIA agent with a sniper rifle rattle a bullet around [Assange’s] skull the next time he appears in public as a warning”. Rest assured that the CIA is wiser than the Tea Party. They at least have learned the lesson of Che Guevara. Nowadays they ruin a rebel’s reputation instead of wasting a bullet. They won’t raise Assange up to become a martyr, they simply use his own erstwhile allies to reduce him to a laughing stock. They stain him with opprobrium. It is much more certain and final than the marksman’s shot. History is witness to their growing efficiency in using this tactic. In the 70’s, they could only bring themselves to say that Philip Agee was a womanizer and a drunkard. Nowadays they do not stint at charges of pedophilia, for example to humiliate Scott Ritter for failing to go along with George W Bush’s charade of Iraqi WMD. As you might expect, the rape campaign against Assange might be just an initial volley. Perhaps they will decide he is a pedophile too. The unspoken threat is enough to send some faint-hearted supporters of WikiLeaks scurrying for cover.

The bullet can always come later, once the victim has been successfully isolated by the smear campaign. The Gospels tell us that hardly anyone followed Jesus to Golgotha, though just a week earlier the people of Jerusalem hailed Him with hosannas. A Jewish anti-Gospel explains that this was the result of a successful smear campaign managed by Judas, a surprisingly modernist reading for an early medieval story.

For a smear that really sticks, you need to get it from an ex-apostle. An accusation by a Caiaphas does not impress. If you are targeting a leftist, hire leftists. For example, Trotskyites were willing and useful tools against the Communists. Pseudo Anti-Zionists are currently being used to hamstring a genuine Pro-Palestinian movement. Who are the Judases of this campaign against our Julian?

http://www.counterpunch.org/2010/09/14/assange-beseiged/

Those themes come from thousands of years of history, very emotionally heavy. There are reminiscent of the feelings in threads on Dorner and the LAPD. Some of Assange's supporters deny he and the ladies were unhappy with how their evening's private entertainment ended. It's more interesting to go with the idea that the ladies were CIA agents paid to seduce Julian, and he's the real victim.

There is the reek of the 'Bush = Obama = CIA rendition' hanging in the air. So, even if he did as alleged, he will be tortured or 'disappeared' by the global cabal of all-powerful banksters. Not because of the crime of rape but he was standing up against the evildoers at the top of the pyramid, but because they can't stop torturing people at the least, or want all global justice movements to die for sure as they destroy him. That is sure to get people upset.

I find these articles and insights on the workings of the parties surrounding the various factions, Anonymous, Wikileaks and Julian fascinating. Interesting how the 'far left' and the Tea Party agree in some things. There is a consistent theme, an insinuation that the Democratic Party and Obama are out to destroy human rights as part of a global conspiracy.

One can't shake the feeling once one has gone there, can't get down to the grass roots unless one feels they are doing that with the Tea Party, Occupy, Ron Paul, Green or Libertarian folks who connect with each other, in their own secret groups. It is something the media guides people into doing. All else is considered 'kissing up to the Man' but it takes going in government to learn how complex needs and demands create the seeming contradictions to change things or to keep them going as they are.

Trying to make sense of these stories, but would like to see an equal amount of attention given to the human rights of people I can see and hear. Not media figures living in a world of intrigue. The media reports of their exploits read like a movie script and I'm skeptical of them.

JMHO...

[Arcanetrance]

25. That is very interesting and informative.

Personally I don't object to what he did with wikileaks and don't want to see him be a political prisoner. I am gonna research more on the rape charges for my part I haven't followed that part to closmy biggest issue with him are those charges and him fleeing from them.

[freshwest]

28. I don't want him to be a political prisoner, don't know what really happened with the women.

The newspaper stories that have been posted here are often are so biased, one way or the other, that it's hard to find what is credible, although this thread had some that weren't. Lots of loaded statements of support or disdain from many viewpoints.

There were posts on why Wikileaks got in trouble with VISA and MasterCard. It wasn't the government, but the fear of those companies of being sued and once again, not by the government. It was based on what appeared to be a pattern of manipulating banking share prices for hostile takeovers with bad news stories. Remember a few years ago when Anon claimed they were going to release the records of Bank of America and going to bring down the whole mess?

Nothing ever came out of all of that but a sense of outrage and the faith that Wikileaks and Anonymous were going to come and save the day for everyone. That still hasn't happened and I wonder if it was a diversion to keep people's minds off the real power brokers who elected the Tea Party to do real damage to millions of people.

The Belarus angle in one of the posts on this thread from AlJezeera was startling in the games being played behind the scenes in Ecuador. Those who said that Correa's hands were not clean, were howled at for being anti-Assange. At the same time, Correa was being hailed as a defender of the free press or whatever from the evil UK/American global cabal. He looks like another corporate stooge and not a friend of the oppressed at all.

In all of these stories, I've considered how different the lives of the players in this saga are from ordinary people. And just where the kind of money that has passed between hands here came from and where it is going. Wikileaks was attacked by Anonymous as profiting off the work of their hackers who were serving prison time. It is my belief that Manning was used - but others claim he was not or that he was mentally off.

The amount of money Wikileaks gave to Manning's defense fund was very tiny in comparison to the millions they were taking in through donations for their stated causes. The film that spawned a great deal of Wikileaks fame which you can purchase or see for free on youtube, came from what Manning provided to them for free and at the loss of his own liberty. There was more bewailing of the not-so tortorous treatment of Julian in the embassy after he jumped bail in the UK than about Brandley.

I was happy at the debut of Wikileaks and many other things I'd seen on the internet regarding social change. I met or listened personally to Daniel Ellsberg, Mike Gravel and John Kerry. All during the time they were in the course of their anti-war actions and they were punished in various ways, including arrests in street actions. I respected the VVAW and other groups of the day on social justice, the environment, women, gay and labor rights, and anti-war actions. I worked in and traveled the country with them.

If we were being manipulated back then, honestly, I don't know. But the way the media has been for so long and having learned so much more, I am skeptical of everything but the desire to live freely.

[treestar]

39. One article I read

He's not a real big problem to the evildoers. Wikileaks released so much material, that no one could absorb it all. So they had to partner up with journalists. Naturally, Julian got into battles with the journalists. But then what came to light was nothing that shocked people.

[freshwest]

43. True. But it made millions for Wikileaks. One thread spoke of many millions per month.

[treestar]

23. Now THAT'S convenient

So the US will drop its nonexistent charges?

Looks like the maximum number of news cycles that Julian can do without attention has rotated.

[freshwest]

32. You're neglecting the charges of double-secret charges...

Wait, I just tripped over myself...

[SidDithers]

34. ...

Sid

[SidDithers]

44. IMO, this is about money...

Wikileaks is cut-off from most funding sources. Word is that they're in bad financial condition.

So, reform as a political party, with Assange running for office under the Wikileaks Party banner. Now, they're eligible to accept political donations, and might even be eligible for public financing (not sure of Australian election laws. In Canada, a party gets federal funding if they get enough votes)

Though I don't know who'll donate after he suckered his big money friends into donating his bail money.

Sid

[MADem]

48. There's not much "they" left--a lot of his former acolytes have seen the light and left the cult.

The "Anonymous" crowd don't want anything to do with him anymore.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/oct/12/anonymous-distances-itself-wikileaks