Assange Watch

[emordnilap]

A fair appraisal of Assange's position is here.

While it is true that Assange has violated his bail conditions, he is merely a suspect before charges that have not even been formally laid. The gravity of his offences hardly qualify as matters of terrorist import,

And (Steve will like this) from the same source:

Anything or anyone who threatens this dominance — or just disagrees with it, or simply wants to be left alone by it — is automatically judged an enemy of the imperial state. You must accept the system. You must get with the program. You cannot question it. The beliefs or religion or ideology of the resister (or perceived resister) do not matter in the slightest. Even the impact (or lack of impact) of the resistance doesn’t matter. It is resistance that it is the crime.

I wonder, is there no flat roof on the embassy?

[emordnilap]

Mr Hague's conveniently short memory:

“This afternoon our two Embassy compounds in Tehran were stormed by several hundred people, putting the safety of our diplomats and their families at risk and causing extensive damage to our property.

“The United Kingdom takes this irresponsible action extremely seriously.

“It amounts to a grave breach of the Vienna Convention which requires the protection of diplomats and diplomatic premises under all circumstances."

[UndercoverElephant]

Even the impact (or lack of impact) of the resistance doesn’t matter. It is resistance that it is the crime.

Yep. The United States is quite literally a terrorist nation. It literally terrorises anyone who resists its will. It does this openly.

Which means we have something of a paradox here. The US wants, ultimately, to string Assange up by his balls for leaking their secrets. But in order to actually get hold of him, officialdom has to pretend he's really wanted on obscure sex charges in Sweden, and the politicians have to pretend that they don't really know it's all about getting him to the hands of the Americans. And the longer the affair drags on, the weirder the whole situation will look. How are they going to justify a large police presence around the Ecuadorian embassy, 24/7 and with no sight in end, for a fugitive who is wanted for having sex without asking to use a condom first? They could justify it if they said "He's wanted in the US for his wikileaks activities", but then they can't extradite him to Sweden!

If he stays where he is, I think he is now safe. The political consequences of storming the embassy are too severe, and the longer he stays put then the harder to it will become to justify his extradition.

[emordnilap]

Precisely my point when I wondered aloud why real rapists don't have unlimited resources thrown at their pursuit.

I can't honestly see this farce turning out well for JA. And what is Australia doing/saying? Are they making serious attempts to protect one of their people? I haven't seen anything yet.

[Little John]

A fair appraisal of Assange's position is here.

While it is true that Assange has violated his bail conditions, he is merely a suspect before charges that have not even been formally laid. The gravity of his offences hardly qualify as matters of terrorist import,

And (Steve will like this) from the same source:

Anything or anyone who threatens this dominance — or just disagrees with it, or simply wants to be left alone by it — is automatically judged an enemy of the imperial state. You must accept the system. You must get with the program. You cannot question it. The beliefs or religion or ideology of the resister (or perceived resister) do not matter in the slightest. Even the impact (or lack of impact) of the resistance doesn’t matter. It is resistance that it is the crime.

I wonder, is there no flat roof on the embassy?

That articles is an outstanding piece of writing.

[Catweazle]

Obviously the Embassy will be under 24hr CIA / MI5 surveillance, it would cause chaos if hundreds of people visited daily to collect Equadorian passport application forms, especially if they all wore blond wigs on the way out.

[RevdTess]

Obviously the Embassy will be under 24hr CIA / MI5 surveillance, it would cause chaos if hundreds of people visited daily to collect Equadorian passport application forms, especially if they all wore blond wigs on the way out.

Not to mention those Anonymous masks.

[Little John]

Update on that article from Chris Floyd.

http://www.chris-floyd.com/

Just to make it clear, sexual assault is a very serious matter. To say that the accusations now being made against Assange would not constitute a crime under U.S. or UK law is not to diminish the right of all women to be free from sexual assault in any form.

But these concerns have nothing to do with what is being played out in London right now. Assange has not actually been criminally charged with sexual assault, although this claim is repeated unceasingly in stories about the situation. [Including my post above, when I carelessly wrote "charges" in place of "allegations"; now corrected.] He is wanted for questioning in a case involving such allegations; a case which was at first dismissed by a prosecutor then reopened later by a different prosecutor. This prosecutor did not charge Assange with a crime, but wanted to question him further in the process of re-examining whether formal charges are warranted.

Now here is one of the many bizarre turns in this story. Assange was in the UK after the case was re-opened. If the prosecutors wanted to question him, they could have done so at any time, either by coming to London or interviewing him via video hookup. There are ample precedents in European and Swedish law for either course. They refused to do so. (They have also refused Ecuador's offer to have Assange interrogated in their London embassy.) Assange has also said he would return to Sweden for questioning if the government there would guarantee he would not be extradited to the United States. This was also refused.

Given the fact that Swedish prosecutors have repeatedly turned down opportunities to question Assange about the case -- even though they say this is their sole aim -- it is not entirely unreasonable to assume, as Assange has done, that there is some other intention behind the process that has led to the standoff we see today. If the primary concern was justice for the two women involved in the allegations, who have had the case hanging over their heads for almost two years, Assange could have been questioned by Swedish authorities at any time during that period, and the process of resolving the case, one way or another, could have moved forward. But this has not been done.

As Assange's lawyer, Per Samuelson, notes:

In August 2010, Assange was interviewed by the police for the first time, then released. A month later, the prosecutor requested an additional police interrogation be held, insisting this time that it be done with Assange behind bars. She called for Assange's arrest, issued a European arrest warrant and ordered that he be deported from the UK. Stockholm district court and the Svea court of appeal upheld her request and arrested Assange in absentia.

Neither Assange nor I can understand the motivation. Why couldn't the second police interview be conducted with Assange at liberty? Assange is not a Swedish citizen. He does not reside in Sweden. His work has worldwide impact and he must be able to travel freely to accomplish this. He would happily have presented himself for interrogation and, had the case gone to trial, willingly returned to Sweden to face charges. All this could have been done while he remained at liberty. Had Sweden handled the case in this way, the issue would have been resolved a long time ago.

Instead, Sweden insists on Assange's forcible removal to Sweden. Once there, he will immediately be seized by police and put in jail. He will be taken to the detention hearing in handcuffs, and will almost certainly be detained. He will remain in custody for the duration of the proceedings. This is unnecessary. The prosecutor is at liberty to withdraw the arrest warrant and lift the detention order, and a hearing in Sweden could be arranged very quickly. The prosecutor could also arrange a hearing in the UK or at the Swedish embassy in London.

Again, it seems evident that the Swedish authorities did not want to pursue any of these options, but have instead sought relentlessly to put Assange in a Swedish jail and keep him there. Whatever their motives for this heavy-handed course of action, concern for victims of sexual assault does not seem to be among them.

[frank_begbie]

Just listening to "Any Questions" on radio 4

I'm in shock. Unbelievable bias.

"Just go back to Sweden and face the music, you have nothing to fear"

[JavaScriptDonkey]

Eight generations ago the pioneer of my family was released from Newgate prison and allowed to emigrate to Boston with several members of his illegal church flock. They arrived on Sept. 18 1634 on the ship "Griffin. " as part of the Great migration of Puritans to New England.
England was indeed an evil empire then and would be today if you had the means.
To state that the USA is an evil empire above all others is to be simplistic at best.

I'm happy to be corrected but I think that the Puritans that left did so not to find liberty but to found a country devoid of it. Those that stayed fought the English Civil War and brought a Puritan to the level of a King yet few of those who left chose to return.
In America they had found a place where they could be completely intolerant of all other religious practices, a facet which led to the later explicit separation of church and state.

They also kept slaves.

Freedom it seems wasn't an inclusive concept.

[Little John]

Just listening to "Any Questions" on radio 4

I'm in shock. Unbelievable bias.

"Just go back to Sweden and face the music, you have nothing to fear"

It's seems to be concerted across all programmes on the BBC where he may be mentioned. There has to be some serious orchestration of this as a policy from on high. By the time it gets down to the studio floor, presenters must be either too stupid, too indifferent, too sycophantic or too scared to do anything other than as they are told.

However, on this occasion , the bias just seems so blatant, so out-there, that I can't imagine how on earth the policy could have been propagated down the chain of command in anything other than a crass, direct and blindingly obvious way.

[JohnB]

Just listening to "Any Questions" on radio 4

I'm in shock. Unbelievable bias.

"Just go back to Sweden and face the music, you have nothing to fear"

He was invited to phone Any Answers tomorrow. That could be interesting.

[frank_begbie]

Just listening to "Any Questions" on radio 4

I'm in shock. Unbelievable bias.

"Just go back to Sweden and face the music, you have nothing to fear"

He was invited to phone Any Answers tomorrow. That could be interesting.

Yes, I'll give it a listen.

Whatever happened to the famous BBC balance?

[biffvernon]

Talking of facing the music, here's some that is all part of the same war we are fighting:

Pussy Riot: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjfRfMEA ... e=youtu.be


And the back-story to Assange is published here: http://www.guardianbookshop.co.uk/Berte ... 0852652398

[DominicJ]

If you personaly, we're wrongfully accused of rape in Sweden, you would be extradited before the end of the week, and no one would bat an eyelid.

Asange has powerful "friends", you dont....