US denies 'wild' Assange claims of witch-hunt

[struggle4progress]

Source: AFP

... State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said that the United States had nothing to do with efforts by Britain to extradite Assange, who is wanted for questioning by Sweden on allegations of rape and molestation.

"He is making all kinds of wild assertions about us when in fact his issue with the government of the United Kingdom has to do with whether he's going to face justice in Sweden for something that has nothing to do with WikiLeaks, it has to do with charges of sexual misconduct," Nuland told reporters.

"He is clearly trying to deflect attention away from the real issue, which is whether he's going to face justice in Sweden," she told reporters.

"That case has nothing to do with us. It's a matter between the UK, Sweden and now Ecuador has inserted itself," she said ...



Read more: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5imZtc4HVwF1VBMSf6mSAG9bAFPVQ?docId=CNG.45bf3fdeef66db84ae5e2d1e4824730d.d11

[lsewpershad]

1. Yea right

Who in the world believes American non involvement? Ask almost anyone in anyone in most contries of our world, the moon. mars etc.

[newthinking]

112. At this point the US and UK are essentially obstructing justice

Ecuador approved asylum because they the US would not specify that they would not take advantage of his going to trial in Sweden to extradite Sweden. Ecuador feels (rightly in MHO) that Assange will not get a fair shake in the US.

Assange does need to go to Sweden, to go to court on charges or alternatively for Justice to clear his name. So the US is clearly not telling the truth, because if it was just about the charges in Sweden, well the US is the one keeping that from happening.

[AntiFascist]

2. Ummmm, hello....

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-57496488-503543/assange-extradition-negotiations-hit-a-wall/

"Ecuadorean negotiators have been trying to get assurances in writing from the Swedish government that Assange would not be at risk of extradition to the United States."

[struggle4progress]

6. I just happen to have right here a very nice link for you to read:

Legal myths about the Assange extradition
A brief critical and source-based guide to some common misconceptions.
By David Allen Green Published 20 August 2012 13:49

Whenever the Julian Assange extradition comes up in the news, many of his supporters make various confident assertions about legal aspects of the case.

Some Assange supporters will maintain these contentions regardless of the law and the evidence – they are like “zombie facts” which stagger on even when shot down; but for anyone genuinely interested in getting at the truth, this quick post sets out five common misconceptions and some links to the relevant commentary and material ...

Assange has been afforded more opportunities to challenge the warrant for his arrest than almost any other defendant in English legal history. This is hardly "persecution" or a "witch-hunt".

The English side of the process is now almost over: there is a valid European Arrest Warrant which has to be enforced as a matter of international law ...

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-myths-about-assange-extradition

[AntiFascist]

10. So the crux of the issue then is....

"Also Sweden (like the United Kingdom) is bound by EU and ECHR law not to extradite in circumstances where there is any risk of the death penalty or torture. There would be no extradition to the United States in such circumstances."

The State Dept. would likely claim that "we do not torture under any circumstances" (no matter how untrue that may be). But what about the death penalty? Wouldn't Assange possibly face the death penalty for espionage or treason?

See: http://www.policymic.com/debates/13053

In this case, the Ecuadorians could seek reassurances from both UK and Sweden that he not be extradited for this reason.

[cstanleytech]

31. Actually if we were to extradite him wouldnt he be safe

from torture (aka waterboarding) since he would not have been captured in a combat zone but rather extradited legally so he would be in the custody of US law enforcement and not military custody?
Not that I think the US will try extradite him because atleast imo he isnt worth the time or the money.

[Agnosticsherbet]

56. Assange is not an American Citizen, and so could not be charged with treason.

And though a lot if information was released that would be construed as damaging to the United States, he would not be punishable under the Espionage act by the death penalty unless:

[link:http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=1202|Espionage
US Code, Title 18, Ch. 37, Sec. 794]
    (a) Whoever, with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used
to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign
nation, communicates, delivers, or transmits, or attempts to
communicate, deliver, or transmit, to any foreign government, or to any
faction or party or military or naval force within a foreign country,
whether recognized or unrecognized by the United States, or to any
representative, officer, agent, employee, subject, or citizen thereof,
either directly or indirectly, any document, writing, code book, signal
book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map,
model, note, instrument, appliance, or information relating to the
national defense, shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for any
term of years or for life, except that the sentence of death shall not
be imposed unless the jury or, if there is no jury, the court, further
finds that the offense resulted in the identification by a foreign power
(as defined in section 101(a) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act of 1978) of an individual acting as an agent of the United States
and consequently in the death of that individual, or directly concerned
nuclear weaponry, military spacecraft or satellites, early warning
systems, or other means of defense or retaliation against large-scale
attack; war plans; communications intelligence or cryptographic
information; or any other major weapons system or major element of
defense strategy.

I've seen no indication that the information released lead to the revelation of a a person or persons working for the U.S. that lead to their death, nor have I heard that it reveled information about nuclear weapons or satellites. If that were true then he could be given the death penalty.

Even then, I am not sure that he released that information to injure the United States or provide an advantage to a foreign nation.

[AntiFascist]

62. Thanks for digging that up...

one concern may be articles such as this one, entitled:

"The CIA Should Kill Julian Assange"

http://www.rightwingnews.com/foreign-affairs/the-cia-should-kill-julian-assange/

"In a case like this, where informants who risked their lives to help us may be killed along with their families, the people responsible for leaking the information deserve to be hung for treason."

I'm only citing this as an example of the right-wing foaming at the mouth.

Also, Ecuadorian Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino:

"The minister specifically expressed concerns that if Assange were extradited to the United States, he might face charges of treason or espionage and, if convicted, be sentenced to death."

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/08/16/world/americas/ecuador-assange/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

[Agnosticsherbet]

67. First, Assange would have to be charged and a an international warrant issued for him to be

extradited to the U.S. I have read unsubstantiated reports that there may be a sealed indictment, no warrant has been issued and without that warrant he does not fall under any extradition treaty.

Second, the political fallout if the United States were to assassinate Assange while in an Ecuadorian embassy in England would be enormous. He is not considered a danger to the U.S. as a terrorist or as a military threat. Such an action would be legally considered an act of war against both England and Ecuador in accordance with international law. The U.S. does target foreign nationals, and even a few citizens, who are listed as terrorists, Assange just doesn't qualify. And it is Right Wing News, who have less credibility than World Net Daily or a Ouija board.

Shown elsewhere here at DU, Ecuador is worse then than U.S. when it comes to press freedom. It appears to be a political move by a government happy to tweak the nose of the U.S. And, clearly, he doesn't understand the incredible difficulty of charging anyone with treason in the U.S.

[AntiFascist]

69. Again, I only posted that as an example of the rabid right wing....

Last edited Tue Aug 21, 2012, 07:24 PM - Edit history (1)

I recall talking heads appearing on tv also calling for his death, so stupidity is not just limited to the internet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange

Calls for Assange's assassination

On 30 November 2010, Tom Flanagan, a former aide to the Canadian prime minister, Stephen Harper, called for Assange's assassination. Flanagan later retracted his comments, after a Vancouver lawyer filed a complaint with the Calgary Police against Harper,[186] and Canadian nationals filed complaint with the ombudsman of CBC news.[187]

On 1 December 2010, Republican Mike Huckabee called for those behind the leak of the cables to be executed,[188] a view partly supported by Kathleen McFarland, former Pentagon advisor under Nixon, Ford and Reagan[189] and current Fox News national security expert.

On 6 December 2010, during a segment of the Fox Business show Follow The Money, Fox News political commentator and analyst Bob Beckel stated, "A dead man can't leak stuff. This guy's a traitor, he's treasonous, and he has broken every law of the United States. [...] And I'm not for the death penalty, so [...] there's only one way to do it: illegally shoot the son of a bitch." Other guests on the program agreed.[190]

Assange responded on the Guardian newspaper website, to a reader's question about Flanagan's remarks, by contending that "Mr. Flanagan and the others seriously making these statements should be charged with incitement to commit murder."[191]

Assange is way too high profile to be directly assassinated, and I agree that it is not likely to happen. I don't know how knowledgable the foreign minister is, but my feeling is that the legal issues are complicated enough that they could be discussed diplomatically utilizing legal experts.

[newthinking]

114. We have already crossed a lot of bounderies under previous law

In this era we are essentially making up the law at will. Established precident does not have nearly as much power as it had in the past. The US has made it clear by the treatment of whistle blowers even under the current administration that anyone involved in whistleblowing and arrested in the US can expect harsh treatment and previous measurements and protections in bringing someone to Justice no longer are necessarily adhered to.

[Agnosticsherbet]

118. Perhaps inside U.S. borders, or on the battlefield, but extradition is defined by treaties

and to extradite him from England or Sweden we must follow the word of those treaties.

For me, with Assange, the issue is not whistleblowing, it is a willingness to use the prestige gained by his development of wikileaks to hide from the law in Sweden. The good he has done with wikileaks does not place him above the law. Let him face his accusers in court, answer the charges, and be convicted or found innocent.

Should the U.S. indict him, issue an international warrant, and apply for extradition I will consider what he is being charged with here. He has not been charged here. No warrant has been issued. Neither England, Sweden, nor Ecuador will allow him to be slipped out the back door in a diplomatic pouch.

[Bacchus4.0]

30. good stuff, thank you n/t

s

[HERVEPA]

53. You might want to read some the responses to Green's article

This one specifically:

"While this article makes some excellent points, there is one counter-point missing. The article suggests that Sweden is no more likely to hand Assange over to the USA than the UK is, or to allow him to be kidnapped.

This, I suggest, is incorrect. While the UK is complicit in the torture of its nine of its citizens, of individuals who had legal residency in the UK, who ended up in Guantanamo, it did not allow a CIA "snatch team" to kidnap them and whisk them to a secret torture prison. But Sweden did allow this. Maybe Swedish security officials were hoodwinked, Maybe Swedish politicians felt the US made them look like fools. Maybe the Swedish public felt betrayed, but the fact remains Sweden has already failed to protect human rights from US snatch teams.

Sweden has already failed. The UK, on the other hand, has protected Mr Assange, and the UK government could not allow a snatch team to kidnap him now, even if they wanted to. For this reason he is safer from being kidnapped in the UK than he would be in Sweden".

[struggle4progress]

57. In actual fact, we do not know the story of the UK's cooperation with Bush II on such matters

due to the UK's Official Secrets Act. A number of people, including members of Parliament, have been attempting for years, with only slight success, to discover to what extent the UK cooperated with Bush II's illegal rendition programs. The original official story was that there was no connection; then the UK admitted to allowing two (!) flights to refuel at Diego Garcia; later, having originally denied it, the UK admitted it had allowed rendition flights to us UK airspace; stone-walling continues

We may simply know more about the Swedish case because Sweden has a much more transparent government than the UK. The Swedes should certainly have known better than to rely on Egyptian assurances, given Egypt's record: it was a mistake that had severe consequences for the men handed over, and for that reason alone it should not be minimized. Although Sweden made this disgraceful mistake in late 2001, only a few months after 9/11, many other European governments cooperated substantially in criminal renditions of the Bush era over an extended period

A few links:

Kenyans allege British involvement in rendition and torture in Uganda
Claims by two Muslims accused of role in bomb attack during 2010 World Cup date from after coalition came to power
Ian Cobain
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 24 April 2012 17.34 EDT
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/24/kenyans-allege-british-involvement-rendition

CIA wins fight to keep MPs in dark on rendition
Court keeps UK role secret – as No 10 calls for police to question Labour ministers
Wednesday 11 April 2012
Cahal Milmo
Nigel Morris
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/cia-wins-fight-to-keep-mps-in-dark-on-rendition-7631357.html

[newthinking]

113. You completely avoid the crux of what is occurring

But then from your other posts it is pretty clear you are in agreement on extradition.

[byeya]

3. I think "witch hunt" accurately describes it.

[Autumn]

4. By all means it's a 'wild' claim.

I wonder if Victoria Nuland has a bridge for sale.

[movonne]

5. I see you are baaaack...is this the only subject you

write on??

[struggle4progress]

8. Folk often post news stories here in LBN. I'm sorry if you disapprove of the news

[Pharaoh]

16. Apparently

you do not get the Twit ter feed.............

[struggle4progress]

94. No, I long ago decided to eschew twitter

[Electric Monk]

24. Nope, but when they post on a subject, they sure POST ON A SUBJECT

eg. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=55496

[struggle4progress]

25. What can I say? The guy got himself into the news: his Swedish girlfriends complained to the police;

his holocaust-denier buddy was immediately turning out web-content accusing the women of being radical feminists and CIA stooges; by skipping out of Sweden while his lawyer was negotiating an interview with the police, he managed to get Sweden grumpy enough to swear out a warrant on him; then he manages to be associated with a huge breech of US military security; he fights the Swedish warrant through the UK courts, losing at every level, then jumps bail, thereby stiffing his friends of three or four hundred thousand dollars; and he holes up in an embassy and convinces Ecuador to start an international diplomatic incident around him, on some completely idiotic strategy that will finally accomplish nothing except pissing-off Sweden and the UK. In addition to which, his support is largely based on crackpot theories, loudly repeated over and over again without any coherent attention to details

[dipsydoodle]

7. That's just a clever choice of words

referring only to the issue in Sweden and skirting any issues with the US.

[polly7]

9. Well, but of course. nt.

[KoKo]

11. Have you watched this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101749910

[struggle4progress]

14. I read the transcript some time back and linked to it in a post of mine

[april]

12. Just got the book about Bradley Manning

has anyone read this yet ?

[Fumesucker]

13. You have already said that not believing the government does not mean one is a conspiracy theorist..

[struggle4progress]

27. I recommend every sober activist should cultivate a certain healthy paranoia, but I also recommend

Last edited Tue Aug 21, 2012, 08:41 PM - Edit history (1)

sober activists be aware that close association -- with unhinged people, who don't care about getting the facts right and who therefore can't think straight -- is guaranteed to limit one's effectiveness

[triplepoint]

15. Isn't this the SAME "U.S." that claimed it didn't torture?

Last edited Tue Aug 21, 2012, 12:34 AM - Edit history (2)

and the same one that told Saddam Hussein that we wouldn't respond militarily to his invasion of Kuwait (last century)? Sure....sure...the check is in the mail, and I promise Victoria...I promise not to come in your mouth this time EITHER!

[HooptieWagon]

17. Then the US wont have any problem guaranteeing they wont extradite him.

[struggle4progress]

18. You believe a citizen of country A, currently in country B, facing criminal process in country C,

and therefore hiding in country D's embassy in B, can demand that country E (which has never sought to extradite him) must guarantee never to seek his extradition, because the citizen of country A says he believe country E could prosecute him for espionage?

What is the exact legal theory here? People who have paranoid delusions of prosecution for espionage can never be extradited without their permission? People with a lifelong history of computer hacking can never be extradited without their permission? People who leak stolen documents can never be extradited without their permission?

[HooptieWagon]

19. Sure, when countries C & E are complicit in rendition and torture.

And the guarantee needn't be permanent as you stated. It can merely be long enough for the case in Sweden to end and Assange leave. Then if US wants him, they can negotiate with country hes residing in.

[struggle4progress]

28. Have you bothered to review relevant Swedish law and the international governing such matters?

[AntiFascist]

20. See my post 10 above...

Country D is just asking for reassurances from country C that it will follow its own laws. I wouldn't say that Assange has paranoid delusions of persecution when certain Republicans in Country E are systematically calling for his death.

[struggle4progress]

37. You advocate an entirely incoherent view. On the one hand, you believe that Country C is so corrupt

Last edited Tue Aug 21, 2012, 11:27 AM - Edit history (1)

that they cannot be trusted to follow their own laws; and yet on the other hand, you want them to promise they will follow their own laws

If you consider them to be so corrupt that they cannot be trusted to follow their own laws, then what would be accomplished if they did promise to follow their own laws? Surely your retort under those circumstances would be: I have already said that I do not believe anything you say, and so I also do not believe this promise! The scenario offers nothing but a further wasteful delay of everyone's time and energy

[AntiFascist]

40. Your argument is way too general...

this is all part of the diplomatic process. It's not that Ecuador distrusts Sweden to ever follow its own laws in every case. They are just, in as diplomatic a way possible, making sure that they are aware of the law in this specific case, and are requesting reassurance.

When a case is brought before a judge, the judge is not expected to be an expert on the law surrounding the case. It is the job of the attorneys to make the judge aware of every legal angle that is relevent to either the defense or the prosecution. I believe it is a similar situation where diplomats are bringing this concern before the government of Sweden, which might then consult with its own legal experts, and generate their own legal response.

If this is wasting your time then please don't bother to respond.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

43. the main problem with making such a promise

is that since there is no requests by the US that currently exists there is nothing for Sweden to promise not to extradite him to the US for.

without something specific they would more or less be granting a blanket promise of not sending him to the us.

meaning(and i don't think this would ever happen) even if the US were to give Sweden ironclad evidence that would under normal circumstances extradite people to any other country they would be prevented from doing so to the US due to earlier blanket promise not to extradite.

I don't think you'd find any country that would grant such a blanket promise to anybody(especially not to somebody wanted within the country and having fled it)

or to put in very short: each such request should be decided on its own merits.

[AntiFascist]

49. Again, a blanket promise is much too general and probably not necessary...

all I would think they need from Sweden is reassurance that Assange will not be extradited to the US in case there are espionage or treason charges raised against him, based on their existing laws which protect against extradition when there is possibility of the death penalty. Why is this so difficult?

[hack89]

50. And when the US promises to not ask for the death penalty, what then? nt

[AntiFascist]

55. Who really has the power to make this promise?

sentencing is usually a judicial function, which is a seperate branch of government. Also, Ecuador is asking for assurances from Sweden, not the US, so US feedback is not being solicited.

[hack89]

59. The DOJ will be the prosecuting agency - they can agree to a no death penalty stipulation

happens all the time - pre-trial agreements are the rule rather than the exception.

As for Ecuador asking for assurance, yes I understand that. My point point is that a Swedish promise to not extradite to the US if the l death penalty is in play is easily circumvented by the US government promising not to impose the death penalty.

[AntiFascist]

64. My point is that the DOJ would then have to be involved...

and the US is not even willing to admit to planning a trial.

[hack89]

66. It is in America's best interest to have Assange in a Swedish prison cell

the last thing the president wants is a huge spectacle of a trial that creates a political martyr if he is convicted or a huge embarrassment if he is acquitted. Being branded a common rapist is a much better way to neutralize Assange.

So I wouldn't be surprised if they were to make such a promise. I would hope they would explicitly promise not to extradite Assange at all to ensure he has no wiggle room to avoid going to Sweden.

But I am also convinced that the president will not do anything until after the election - no point in giving Romney a sharp stick to poke him with. Much rather be hearing "Akin, Akin, Akin" leading up to November instead of "Assange, Assange, Assange."

[tama]

73. I didn't know

that you have direct access to what president thinks. That being the case, you are obvious threat to US State Secrets and National Security.

[hack89]

75. It is obvious that a Assange trial is a no win situation.

it is not even clear that he broke US law so the chances of an acquittal are very high. Can you imagine how much more stature Assange would have as the man who took on America and won? The administration really wants him in Swedish cell.

[tama]

65. Yep

And the Swedish decision NOT to extradite even in case of promise of no death penalty - e.g. just life sentence de facto or de jure and torture a la Manning - would be ultimately an administrative decision that can overrule judicial decision to extradite Assange. Meaning that if Swedish government wanted, it could give Ecuador and Assange guarantees against extradition for the duration of legal procedures in Sweden. But it - right wing government that uses Karl Rove as political advisor - chooses not to.

[hack89]

68. Assange screwed up by fleeing Sweden after being told of his interview

why would Sweden be in mood to give Assange anything he asks for after he poked the entire Swedish legal system in the eye and ran to avoid arrest? He is a fugitive from justice. That is why the Swedes are taking a hard line - they know all he cares about is going to jail for rape - he he was scared of extradition to America why the hell did he run to America's number one ally? And why was he able to stay in Britain for two years without the US asking Britain to extradite him?

[tama]

72. Well

rest aside the "he ran" slur, if we are to believe that what struggle4progress publishes on DU represents THE Swedish opinion, they are now close to if not at lynch mentality against Assange - not least because the whole thing has made Sweden look bad in many ways and question its international fame as the bestest country in world in all regards. The case has turned into matter of national pride, which does not spell good for justice. That kind of public sentiment in highly public case is of course anything but a guarantee of a fair trial in Sweden, so in that sense publishing all the hostile opinions from Sweden is counterproductive.

As for your second question, because of government secrecy all we can do is to speculate, and simplest speculation is that it would have been pointless to ask Britain to extradite him, because he was already wanted by Sweden and the legal process was going on, and it would be pointless to officially ask Sweden to extradite before they got him and can deliver. US was probably just as surprised by the seeking of asylum as Britain was. And before you ask, it would be pointless to ask Ecuador to extradite him to US, as they granted asylum against that very possibility.

[hack89]

76. The fact that he ran was confirmed by his lawyer in a British court.

his lawyer testified that on the 22nd and 23rd of September 2010 he was notified three separate times by the Swedish prosecutor that Assange would be interviewed on the 28th. He left Sweden on the 27th. He ran.

[tama]

88. His lawyer testified

that now that he was asked to check his inbox messages he sort of remembered he had received emails about arranging interview from prosecutor on 25th. No mention that Assange was informed of this. And the source you are referring says that the mention of warrant came day after Assange had left - but mentions date 27th for both events, which I found weird. No mention of what Assange himself was informed of, if anything, and when.

[hack89]

89. He had three messages on the 22nd and the 23rd.

if you want to believe that it was pure coincidence that his client left the country the night before the interview, go right ahead.

In cross-examination the Swedish lawyer confirmed that paragraph 13 of his proof of evidence is wrong. The last five lines of paragraph 13 of his proof read: “in the following days [after 15th September] I telephoned [Ms Ny] a number of times to ask whether we could arrange a time for Mr Assange’s interview but was never given an answer, leaving me with the impression that they may close the rape case without even bothering to interview him. On 27th September 2010, Mr Assange left Sweden.” He agreed that this was wrong. Ms Ny did contact him. A specific suggestion was put to him that on 22nd September he sent a text to the prosecutors saying “I have not talked to my client since I talked to you”. He checked his mobile phone and at first said he did not have the message as he does not keep them that far back. He was encouraged to check his inbox, and there was an adjournment for that purpose. He then confirmed that on 22nd September 2010 at 16.46 he has a message from Ms Ny saying: “Hello – it is possible to have an interview Tuesday”. Next there was a message saying: “Thanks for letting me know. We will pursue Tuesday 28th at 1700”. He then accepted that there must have been a text from him. “You can interpret these text messages as saying that we had a phone call, but I can’t say if it was on 21st or 22nd”. He conceded that it is possible that Ms Ny told him on the 21st that she wanted to interview his client. She requested a date as soon as possible. He agrees that the following day, 22nd, she contacted him at least twice.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/20110224-Britain-Ruling-Assange-Extradition-to-Sweden.pdf

[tama]

90. You have made it clear

what you want to believe. I do my best to follow your stated principle of sticking to facts. In that regard, thanks for freshing my memory with requoting the source.

[hack89]

91. So it was pure coincidence that Assange left Sweden the day before his arrest? Really? nt

[tama]

93. In previous sentence it was interview

now it's arrest. Please make up your mind which incoherent line you want to keep repeating ad nauseam.

[hack89]

95. He still ran the day before he was to see the prosecutor. Why would he do that? nt

[tama]

97. Because there was a meeting in Britain he wanted to participate? nt

[hack89]

101. Or he knew the interview was the final official step before his arrest. nt

[GliderGuider]

102. Was he legally obliged to stay?

If not, I'm not sure what the point of your complaint is. I fail to see what the argument about him leaving Sweden is supposed to do beyond smear him a little more, so long as there was no legal prohibition against him leaving. You can claim it makes him look bad, but that's about it.

Assange is definitely guilty of arrogance and naivete, but he's serving his sentence for those shortcomings right now, in the embassy.

[hack89]

103. He was legally obligated to respect the resulting arrest warrant.

When the prosecutor tells you to come in for an interview and you decide to blow her off one tends to lose the moral high ground. The problem was not leaving Sweden - it was refusing to come back.


I would never call Assange naive - calculating yes. Scared of arrest - yes. But naive - no. He knew exactly what he was doing.

[tama]

104. Naive

When it comes female groupies giving him rockstar treatment, yes he has been naive. And what all the fame and glory did to his ego and interest in his public image, also naive. Also very humane.

[hack89]

105. But very calculating when it comes to keeping out of a Swedish prison cell

his every action over the past two years from leaving Sweden ahead of arrest, to fighting extradition in the UK to finally taking asylum in the embassy makes it very clear that he will do anything to avoid answering to those rape charges.

[GliderGuider]

106. My response:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021179854

[hack89]

107. Meh

so because he is weak and naive he gets a free pass? Don't think so.

[GliderGuider]

108. Fuck no, he's not getting a free pass.

He's getting exactly what's coming to him. Assange is screwed six ways from Sunday. This thing isn't a rape case against an odious man you dislike. I realized today that it's actually a classic Greek tragedy, with Assange playing the part of Icarus, Achilles, and Agamemnon. Make no mistake, he angered the Gods. Sophocles himself couldn't have written a better script.

[hack89]

109. Sophocles would have picked a more noble protagonist. nt

[GliderGuider]

110. Maybe so, but you write a tragedy with the character you have

not the one you want or wish you had.

To paraphrase another hubristic little twerp.

[tama]

111. In regards to all characters and issues you are correct

This ain't Sophocles play. It's Pure Euripides play. GliderGuider is horribly wrong, how could anyone ever make the mistake of calling an obvious Euripides' Greek Tragedy a Sophocles' Geek Tragedy!!!??? ;P

[GliderGuider]

115. Is it time for me to fall on my sword????

[tama]

116. I don't see you as Ajax

Only names that come to mind are Sophocles plays, Prometheus Unbound and the Oedipus trilogy. The punishment for your vile crime will be as hard and severe. For just punishment thou shalt read this article I just googled with smiling enjoyment and relaxed state of mind:

http://monash.academia.edu/GeoffBerry/Papers/315526/Myth_Identity_and_Ecological_Crisis_Prometheus_and_Oedipus_Go_Shopping

[GliderGuider]

117. That's not punishment, it's foreplay.

This essay explores the way we construct identity in contemporary society, utilizing the mythological framework of western culture as its guiding thread. It begins by working through the following questions: what could it mean to be or to become human in the face of today's environmental crisis? Furthermore, how do we continue to attain a consistent identity that is satisfying at both personal and collective levels as anthropocentrism is destabilised and our place in the wider ecosystem is decentred and reconstituted accordingly? I hope my conclusion will achieve some resonance both with the times, thechanges indicated by them, and the deep stream of mythic symbol coursing beneath our conscious attempts at adaptation.

Be still, my beating heart. I love it already. Thanks!

[Bodhi BloodWave]

77. such a promise tho also goes against international law

international law require all extradition requests to be dealt with on their merits. Additionally such a promise by Sweden(the government) wouldn't be worth anything legally as the final word on any such extradition request would be decided by an independent Swedish court.

I'm fairly sure that Assange knows both of the above things which is likely why he has made such a request as he knows its an impossible thing for Sweden to grant

[tama]

98. In the final word

administrative power, ie. Swedish Government, can overrule High Court decision and stop the extradition even if court says yes. At least in Sweden according to US-Sweden extradition agreement.

Assange cannot know what is not obviously know true, the Swedish administrative power has been expelled by Wikileaks pro Assange web site and confirmed in Swedish article posted by struggle4progress which was hostile to Assange.

[Matilda]

21. Are these good enough for you?

US senator calls to prosecute Assange

http://www.smh.com.au/national/us-senator-calls-to-prosecute-assange-20120701-21b3n.html


Sarah Palin has demanded that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is hunted down like Osama bin Laden.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1334341/WikiLeaks-Sarah-Palin-demands-Julian-Assange-hunted-like-Al-Qaeda-terrorist.html


“I think the man is a high-tech terrorist. He’s done an enormous… He’s done an enormous damage to our country, and I think he needs to be prosecuted to the, the fullest extent of the law; and if that becomes a problem, we need to change the law." (Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell)

http://www.politicususa.com/mcconnell-assange-terrorist.html


US Vice-President Joe Biden says the Justice Department is exploring a legal pursuit of Julian Assange, describing the WikiLeaks founder as a dangerous "hi-tech terrorist".

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/joe-biden-calls-julian-assange-a-hitech-terrorist-20101220-1923y.html


When such highly-placed people in the U.S. are capable of this kind of rhetoric, I think Assange is right to fear for his life.

Or perhaps you think such statements are reasonable?

[RogueBandit]

23. Thanks Matilda

I keep struggling on how to respond to these posts about how there is no real threat to Assange by the US. You did good, thanks Matilda.

[struggle4progress]

29. Sarah Palin didn't last one full term as governor of Alaska. Who gives a fuck what she says?

[Matilda]

32. If she reflects opinion from the right-wing, it's definitely a matter of concern.

And that's just one of four quoted.

[RZM]

42. No, it's not a matter of concern

What Sarah Palin says is not very important.

And frankly, neither is what the rest of them said either. Two senators and the vice president making vague noises about how they 'think he needs to be prosecuted' means next to nothing.

[frylock]

45. how many terms has Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell served?

should we stop giving a fuck what he sez too?

[struggle4progress]

46. You might want to review the powers granted, by the constitution or by any law

under the constitution, to the Senate Minority Leader, with respect to the prosecution and adjudication of criminal cases

We all breathlessly await the results of your review

[frylock]

47. you must be breathless from all that goal post moving

[treestar]

38. Doesn't matter what they say

The power to press charges in the US is not in Sarah Palin's hands. Or Joe Biden's. Or McConnell. Highly placed people in the US only have the power their offices are assigned.

[tama]

48. Obama administration had and has the power

to remove political impunity from the war criminals of Bush administration. Not only have they refused to use that power, but they have also actively protected the war criminals from any and all criminal prosecution.

[hack89]

51. What "political immunity" are you talking about?

ex-politicians do not enjoy any special legal protections.

[tama]

60. Quick google:

"In a 6-5 ruling issued this afternoon, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals handed the Obama administration a major victory in its efforts to shield Bush crimes from judicial review, when the court upheld the Obama DOJ’s argument that Bush’s rendition program, used to send victims to be tortured, are “state secrets” and its legality thus cannot be adjudicated by courts. The Obama DOJ had appealed to the full 9th Circuit from last year’s ruling by a 3-judge panel which rejected the “state secrets” argument and held that it cannot be used as a weapon to shield the Executive Branch from allegations in this case that it broke the law. I’ve written multiple times about this case, brought by torture/rendition victim Binyam Mohamed and several others against the Boeing subsidiary which, at the behest of the Bush administration, rendered them to be tortured."
http://www.salon.com/2010/09/08/obama_138/

State Secrets. What the case against Wikileaks and Manning is all about. "State Secrets" and "National Security" to protect torturers and war criminals.

[AntiFascist]

52. I'm sure that Obama is in the dubious position of having to protect the office of the President...

I would hate to compare him to Richard Nixon, but in this case he may have to defend the alleged illegal actions of his predecessor, otherwise the respect for the office itself would suffer.

[tama]

58. IIRC

Obama has background as constitutional lawyer and swore to uphold US Constitution - which DU agreed that the previous admin blatantly violated in numerous ways. If Obama is true to some of the noble ideals he occasionally speaks about, political realism - I'm sad extreme cynicism has become the norm of realism - may be understandable some way or other. Whether it is acceptable is for each to decide.

And as for respect for the office, Republican persecution of Clinton with impeachment is much more resent example of the US political climate and disregard for the office, or rather international ridicule of the office, as was also the first selection of Bush by politically selected court. Not much left to protect as far the office goes... and Obama chose not to protect constitution as his priority.

[AntiFascist]

70. Sexual misconduct was somewhat unique with Clinton....

in the case of Bush-Obama we are talking about right-wing driven foreign policies that carried a certain amount of momentum between administrations. Obama may be able to do more in a second term, but I can see why he is caught between a rock and hard place during the first term, and he doesn't want to provide any more fuel for Romney to defeat him with in the election.

[tama]

74. Wishfull thinking

Of course I wouldn't have anything against Obama becoming new man on second term and leaving his mark in history in radical and positive way, those are good wishes and I hope they come true. But of course just speculation, I try to stick to facts to the best of my ability as I got no vote in US - thank goodness!

[treestar]

61. So far they "refuse" to press charges against Julian either, or ask for his extradition

But the DOJ are the ones who can do it. Sarah Palin can demand it fifty times - Sarah Palin has no power to start a proceeding.

[tama]

63. Obama DOJ has shown

that it's first priority is not human rights, justice, constitution and all that jazz, but State Secrets to protect torturers and war criminals from legal action, and to persecute and torture those who publish those crimes. The policy has been consistent and clear.

[treestar]

87. That's just a shallow statement

You have no analysis to even support that hypothesis.

It is drawn up on a few selected facts.

[tama]

92. How else do you analyze

Obama DOJ succesfully pursuing State Secret status against any and all legal actions against previous admins rendition&torture program? It's not hypothesis, just plain fact.

[joelz]

22. Just why would anyone

believe the state department that would kinda be like battered wife- syndrome

[lib2DaBone]

26. Deny all you want... The USA Tortures Prisoners and Kills innocent people with drones....

Rather than admit that we are wasting $40 Billion per month and torturing prisoners... we will persecute a whistle blower.

[struggle4progress]

33. Well, here's the rub: US military spending and US foreign policy are both ripe targets

for activism

But intelligent activists try to accomplish something

Assange's sleight-of-hand here -- in which he brokers Swedish allegations against himself into a three-ring circus of a diplomatic crisis with himself at the center, as Ecuador farts in the general direction of Sweden and the UK, all the while pretending to stick the US in the eye -- has certainly convinced a number of people that by supporting the Julian Everyday! show they (say) strike a blow against torture or a make a great leap forward for human rights -- when (in fact) they do nothing at all except fuck up their own minds with Assange's paranoid hallucinatory self-justifying crap

You want to wander pointlessly in the swamps? Be my guest ...

[davidthegnome]

36. So your argument...

is that he hasn't accomplished anything and therefor is insignificant... that he's delusional and we should ignore his stuff... or that we're delusional for believing the US can manipulate other Nations into extraditing a prisoner some high ranking officials really want?

I'm not a fan of Assange, but I have no reason to really dislike him, beyond his arrogance. I do think it odd that the Brits threatened an Embassy over the issue - as I would imagine that some laws take priority over others (especially those involving diplomatic immunity, in most cases). He is wanted for questioning, but has not been charged with a crime.

Yes, I think he should go to Sweden and face whatever he has to, but I don't blame him for being worried. If he ends up in the US, or in our custody, I suspect he will spend time in one of our "special" prisons.

I don't think Assange is that important, I think what he has done is important. What he has done is proven that putting a "classified" stamp on something doesn't necessarily mean you can keep it hidden. If we had a reliable media, we wouldn't need people like Assange. We don't have a reliable media. So, if it takes a man like Assange to get the truth out, so be it. Torturing him, putting him in prison... nothing that can be done now is going to put the jack back in the box.

[JDPriestly]

39. Well said. Thanks.

I for one came to distrust the media when it became very obvious that Bush had simply lied us into a war in which over 3,000 of our soldiers plus who knows how many private contractors died and in which we killed, many, many, countless Iraqis.

Until the American people are well enough informed that a war like the War in Iraq becomes impossible we will need a dissident media in addition to what we have. And how that dissident media gets its information is less important to me than that it get full information.

Yes, the government should be able to protect truly important military secrets, but as we see from Wikileaks, they have gone way beyond that and have now established themselves as the manipulators and controllers of the media. That is unacceptable.

[struggle4progress]

96. No. My argument is that it is very fuzzy-headed thinking to believe that one is striking

a decisive blow, against corporate rule or against militarism or against the lobbying power of the military industrial complex, by supporting Assange's self-aggrandizing posturing or his endless games to avoid the Swedish allegations

[sabrina 1]

99. Did you know that the Stratfor emails revealed that one of the talking points to use against

Wikileaks was to pretend they 'had accomplished nothing'. I always wondered where that ridiculous talking point came from. Just FYI so you can avoid using talking points designed to mislead people. Most likely you had no idea that you were doing that.

[Cha]

34. Of course he's trying to "deflect"..

that's what I thought, anyway.

[idwiyo]

35. LOL, is that the same government that said it doesn't torture?

Oh well, they must be telling the truth this time, or are they?...

"...Nuland, in line with previous US statements, declined comment on the scope of US prosecution over WikiLeaks.

"...A military court is trying Bradley Manning, a young soldier suspected of leaking the documents to the activist website.
Assange called for the United States to release Manning, saying he was being treated harshly in detention.
The UN special rapporteur on torture, Juan Ernesto Mendez, in March said that Manning had been subjected to "cruel, inhuman and degrading" conditions including prolonged detention. A previous State Department spokesman, Philip J. Crowley, resigned last year after criticizing Manning's treatment..."

[sendero]

44. Another...

.. lying functionary. Anyone that would believe a word these people say would have to have an IQ under 90.

[Vidar]

71. The US has long since squandered its credibility.

[GliderGuider]

78. The time line tells a very different story...

"L'affaire Assange" has nothing to do with rape or diplomatic cables.
It's all about Assange's threat to expose BoA. That's when the shit hit the fan.

Let's look at the time line...

Wikileaks was launched in 2006. Little happened to the organization or Assange for the next 4 years, despite releasing vast volumes (2 million or more) of embarrassing diplomatic traffic.

Then in early 2010 Assange revealed that Wikileaks had a bank executive's hard drive, at first suspected then later pretty well confirmed to be from BoA.

And my, how things changed...

Aug 2010: The first arrest warrant for Assange is issued in Sweden, but dropped a day later - then reinstated a week and a half after that.
Oct 2010: Daniel Domscheit-Berg defects from Wikileaks and subsequently deletes the BoA files he stole from the Wikileaks server.
Dec 2010: Second Swedish arrest warrant issued for Assange;
Dec 2010: Wikileaks web site is shut down, and its financial conduits are closed.
Feb 2011: Anonymous hacks HBGary's servers. The resulting email dump reveals that BoA had hired HBGary to being down Wikileaks by any means available.

And we all know what's happened since then.

All this fuss and drama about war crimes and rape, when all along it was about the money.

That's the way the system works - throw up a smokescreen and have a bunch of willing dupes (paid disinformants? useful idiots? naive? single-issue people who are invested in rape or security issues? Probably a combination of all of them) ready to blow the smoke around, to obscure the actual movement of the troops.

It's not about rape.
It's not about war crimes.
It's not about diplomatic embarrassment.

It's about money.
It's always about money.

The American government stooges can say whatever they want, it's a witch-hunt by a government that has been completely suborned by the financial system.

[struggle4progress]

79. Assange doubts value of Bank of America e-mails (February 11, 2011)

Rick Rothacker | Charlotte Observer

CHARLOTTE, N.C. — WikiLeaks has data from Bank of America Corp., but founder Julian Assange isn't sure whether it holds any big news and it may be difficult to interpret, according to a Reuters report this week.

The information consists of e-mails from an executive's computer hard drive, according to Reuters, which cited people familiar with Assange's private discussions. The most recent messages are from 2006, which would preclude information about the bank's 2008 Countrywide Financial Corp. and Merrill Lynch & Co. acquisitions.

"Assange privately acknowledged the material was not self-explanatory and that he personally was unable to make much sense of it," the Reuters story Wednesday stated, citing the sources. "Assange indicated it would require a substantial amount of effort by financial experts to determine whether any of the material was newsworthy" ...

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/02/11/108626/wikileaks-assange-doubts-value.html

Assange seems to have been a bit of a poseur on the bank emails

[GliderGuider]

80. We know what your opinion is.

The timeline tells a very different story than the one you're promoting so assiduously.

Which category do you fall into?

[struggle4progress]

81. Here's the timeline on BoA:

December 2010:
... On Tuesday, the Times of London published the first newspaper interview with WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange since his release from Wandsworth prison in London. In it, Assange elaborates slightly on the planned release in 2011 of a trove of documents from a major U.S. bank, which I first reported last month. “We don’t want the bank to suffer unless it’s called for,” Assange told the Times‘ Alexi Mostrous. “But if its management is operating in a responsive way there will be resignations” ...
12/22/2010 @ 7:15AM
No, WikiLeaks Has Not 'Confirmed' It Will Target Bank Of America
http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2010/12/22/no-wikileaks-has-not-confirmed-it-will-target-bank-of-america/

December 2010:
... Do you have an account at Bank of America? If so, you may want consider the latest warning about the bank’s stability from Wikileaks’ Julian Assange. In a series of tweets this morning, Wikileaks warns that Bank of America may be unstable and that users should consider moving their money to another banking institution ...
Wikileaks Warns on Bank Of America: ‘Place Your Funds Somewhere Safer’
Mac Slavo
December 18th, 2010
http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/wikileaks-warns-on-bank-of-america-place-your-funds-somewhere-safer_12182010

January 2011:
... Whether Mr. Assange is bluffing, or indeed has Bank of America in its sights at all, the bank’s defense strategy represents the latest twist in the controversy over WikiLeaks and Mr. Assange ...
Facing Threat From WikiLeaks, Bank Plays Defense
By NELSON D. SCHWARTZ
Published: January 2, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/03/business/03wikileaks-bank.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all

January 2011:
... "I think it's great," Assange told the venerable US television news magazine 60 Minutes on Sunday evening. "We have all these banks squirming, thinking maybe it's them ...
Assange relishes US banks 'squirming' over 'megaleak'
Accuses America of chucking free speech in rubbish bin
By Cade Metz in San Francisco
31st January 2011 05:06 GMT
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/01/31/assange_says_us_cant_take_wikileaks_down/

February 2011:
WikiLeaks has data from Bank of America Corp., but founder Julian Assange isn't sure whether it holds any big news and it may be difficult to interpret ...
Assange doubts value of Bank of America e-mails
Posted on Friday, February 11, 2011
Rick Rothacker | Charlotte Observer
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/02/11/108626/wikileaks-assange-doubts-value.html

April 2011:
What ever happened to the cache of banking secrets Wikileaks was supposedly going to release early this year? ...
The Great Wikileaks Bank of America Hoax
Published: Tuesday, 26 Apr 2011 | 9:49 AM ET
By: John Carney
Senior Editor, CNBC.com
http://www.cnbc.com/id/42762811/The_Great_Wikileaks_Bank_of_America_Hoax

[GliderGuider]

82. The last link of yours is pure spin.

WASHINGTON | Mon Aug 22, 2011 1:53pm EDT
(Reuters) - Some internal Bank of America files obtained by WikiLeaks have been destroyed, according to a former close collaborator of Julian Assange, the whistleblowing website's founder.

In an email to Reuters, Daniel Domscheit-Berg, who last year was fired by Assange as WikiLeaks' co-spokesman, confirmed that he had destroyed "roundabout" 3,000 submissions WikiLeaks received related to Bank of America.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/22/us-bankofamerica-wikileaks-idUSTRE77L55P20110822

It was all over the net and in the newspapers on August 22 and 23.
http://www.google.com/search?q=wikileaks+bank+of+america+destroyed

He doesn't say when between September 2010 (when he was fired from Wikileaks) and August 2011 he destroyed the files.

If I didn't know better, I'd say something about you that might be against the TOS.

[struggle4progress]

83. The split at Wikileaks over the handling of issues associated with the sex-charges was significant

It wasn't merely a matter of Daniel Domscheit-Berg being fired or walking out the door.

Volunteer Birgitta Jonsdottir, a member of the Icelandic parliament, also left around the same time. Her case is somewhat amusing, since she was shocked! and outraged! when the US government tried to get her Twitter records. In principle, I'd agree with her, but there's a sad irony here, because although she wants her privacy respected, she obviously doesn't feel the same about the privacy of others

Intern James Ball also left around the same time: he was concerned by evidence that Assange's friend holocaust-denier "Israel Shamir" was sharing unredacted US State Department cables in Belarus to help the government identify dissidents

If Daniel Domscheit-Berg was "fired" in September 2010, then how could he have access to Wikileaks assets a year later?

Assange was saying in February 2011 that the BoA emails weren't interesting after all. Presumably he still had them then, right? Or are you trying to tel me that the BoA emails were destroyed prior to February 2011 and Assange was just a lying blowhard in February?

[GliderGuider]

84. The split with D D-B wasn't about sex.

And the prevailing theory is that he either took the files with him on his way out the door or obtained them shortly after he left. Remember that Wikileaks was a very loosey-goosey, distributed organization. It's entirely possible that Assange didn't know the files had been purloined until much later. We do know that he admitted on August 22 that he'd destroyed them.

And what Assange said was not exactly that the files "weren't interesting". What he actually said was:

WikiLeaks has data from Bank of America Corp., but founder Julian Assange isn't sure whether it holds any big news and it may be difficult to interpret, according to a Reuters report this week.

"Assange privately acknowledged the material was not self-explanatory and that he personally was unable to make much sense of it," the Reuters story Wednesday stated, citing the sources. "Assange indicated it would require a substantial amount of effort by financial experts to determine whether any of the material was newsworthy."

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/02/11/108626/wikileaks-assange-doubts-value.html

Quite a far cry from "not interesting" or "a hoax".

[struggle4progress]

85. In December 2010 Assange was threatening to take down a bank or two, and by February 2011

he wasn't sure he had anything. So the January midpoint -- in which he chuckled about how much fun it is to watch the banks squirm -- might be actually be very informative about what he was really up to

[GliderGuider]

86. It also might be informative to find out what Domscheit-Berg was up to as well...

But we won't.

[sabrina 1]

100. We do know that Wikileaks claimed to have been informed by a former intel agent that Domscheit

Berg was working with the FBI. I have to say, even before the revelations that he had stolen and destroyed the documents some of which included material on the Banks to be released by Wikileaks, that I never trusted him. He is now one of the most discredited people and anyone using him to discredit Wikileaks, either does not know what he did, or does, and hopes we do not.

Last time I saw him he was having a conversation on a small blog where he was directly asked if he had been working for the FBI. He denied it, but not very convincingly. His excuses for destroying those documents, which included exposures of Human Rights abusers, as well as the Bank info, went against everything he still tries to claim he believes in, to respect and protect the work of Whistle Blowers who risked their freedom and lives to get that information to the public.

Regardless, he saved the Banks from the much awaited leaks promised by Assange which started this whole circus.

[PufPuf23]

119. I expect better than BS from the State Department.

My home and that of my ancestors for generations deserves better.

Prosecute the war and financial criminals and their apologists.

We should have no lower standard as patriotic Americans and humans, of faith or secular.

Transparency in the time of ncrisis is a virtue and the ends do justify the means or all is lost.

For my time on Earth all is lost so this opinion is non-biased. lolol

Virtue and kindness as human traits seem to be counter to human gene pool evolutiojn at the present (if ever).