US, UK Betray Basic Values To Get Assange At Any Cost
from the sad-day dept
While I've covered numerous aspects of Wikileaks, I've shied almost entirely away from the arrest of Julian Assange and the extradition fight to have him sent to Sweden, as well as the questions involving asylum in Ecuador. For the most part, I considered those things to be outside the scope of what's normally interesting around here. Whether or not you think the claims of what he did in Sweden were legitimate or trumped up, it was wholly separate from what he did with Wikileaks. That said, with the news today that Ecuador has, in fact, granted asylum to Assange, there are a few tidbits that have made the story extra interesting.First up, is the absolutely astounding and shocking news -- as released to the public by the Ecuadorian embassy -- that the UK literally threatened to enter the embassy in order to get Assange and ship him to Sweden:
"You need to be aware that there is a legal base in the UK, the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987, that would allow us to take actions in order to arrest Mr Assange in the current premises of the embassy. We sincerely hope that we do not reach that point, but if you are not capable of resolving this matter of Mr Assange's presence in your premises, this is an open option for us."If you don't follow diplomatic and embassy issues, this might not seem like a big deal, but it's huge. While it's mostly a myth that embassies are considered the sovereign territory of the countries they represent, under the Vienna Convention, the UK has agreed that such premises "shall be inviolable" and that its agents "may not enter them, except with the consent of the head of the mission." The UK's very direct threat here s that it would ignore that international agreement just to get Assange. That the UK would be willing to take such an incredibly drastic step to extradite Assange seems completely disconnected from the nature of the accusations against him. It would also put UK diplomats at risk around the globe, as other countries would note that it did not respect the Vienna Convention, so why should they?
Then there's a deeply disturbing, but quite compelling, argument by Mark Weisbrot at The Guardian, that even if these things seem disconnected, it's pretty clear that the driving force behind all of this is the plan for the US to prosecute Assange under the Espionage Act for his role in Wikileaks -- and this moment is particularly stunning. Historically, those who were being persecuted on human rights issues fled to the United States for asylum. Not the other way around. But here's a case where the exact opposite is true. And while many people have gotten past the point of believing that the US is a beacon of light on human rights issues, the fact that Assange had to take this action, combined with the UK's response, really acts as a distinct (and tremendously embarrassing) marker for a clear point in time in which the US turned from being a protector of human rights, to a persecutor against human rights.
The points raised by Weisbrot include the fact that Assange still hasn't actually been charged in Sweden. He notes that Swedish officials have been offered, multiple times, the opportunity to come to the UK to question him, and they've refused each time, including a recent offer from the Ecuadorian embassy to question him there:
I'm not willing to go quite that far, in that I'll grant the possibility that there is a legitimate reason for Assange to be extradited -- but the failure of the Swedish government to take easy steps to prove those legitimate reasons or to obtain the necessary evidence is concerning.We can infer that the Swedes have no legitimate reason for the extradition, since they were repeatedly offered the opportunity to question him in the UK, but rejected it, and have also refused to even put forth a reason for this refusal. A few weeks ago the Ecuadorian government offered to allow Assange to be questioned in its London embassy, where Assange has been residing since 19 June, but the Swedish government refused – again without offering a reason. This was an act of bad faith in the negotiating process that has taken place between governments to resolve the situation.
Former Stockholm chief district prosecutor Sven-Erik Alhem also made it clear that the Swedish government had no legitimate reason to seek Assange's extradition when he testified that the decision of the Swedish government to extradite Assange is "unreasonable and unprofessional, as well as unfair and disproportionate", because he could be easily questioned in the UK.
And that's where Weisbrot connects the US to the whole thing. While we've talked about UK-US extradition in other contexts, apparently Assange could not be extradited to the US from the UK based on any of the possible charges against him. But that wouldn't be true in Sweden. Which gives rise to plenty of reasons why Sweden and the UK might be under heavy diplomatic pressure to get Assange to Sweden -- even to the point of threatening to enter the embassy to get him. Weisbrot points out that there's plenty of evidence that the US is sitting on an indictment for Assange:
But, most importantly, the government of Ecuador agreed with Assange that he had a reasonable fear of a second extradition to the United States, and persecution here for his activities as a journalist. The evidence for this was strong. Some examples: an ongoing investigation of Assange and WikiLeaks in the US; evidence that an indictment had already been prepared; statements by important public officials such as Democratic senator Diane Feinstein that he should be prosecuted for espionage, which carries a potential death penalty or life imprisonment.This, by itself, is quite troubling, as we've discussed in the past. No matter what you think of Assange (and, personally, I don't think too highly of his methods or his grandstanding), it's a massive stretch to think that he should even be subject to an Espionage Act claim. However, as we've detailed multiple times, the Obama administration has turned the Espionage Act from a law against spying into a law against whistleblowers who embarrass them. The administration has used the Espionage Act twice as many times as all other Presidents combined to go after journalists and whistleblowers. Even if you disagree with Assange's methods, or the way that Wikileaks has operated, this should concern you. What Wikileaks did was not "espionage."
This will have massive ramifications for US foreign policy on human rights issues.
Why is this case so significant? It is probably the first time that a citizen fleeing political persecution by the US has been granted political asylum by a democratic government seeking to uphold international human rights conventions. This is a pretty big deal, because for more than 60 years the US has portrayed itself as a proponent of human rights internationally – especially during the cold war. And many people have sought and received asylum in the US.Yes, others will claim that the US was never the beacon of human rights it set itself out to be. There are numerous examples of where the US has failed to live up to its own stated standards. But this case and all of the details around it seem to take things to a new level, and the idea that someone needs to seek asylum in Ecuador out of fear of being put to death for trying to increase transparency by releasing government records? That's going to wake more people up to these questions.
[...] Today, the US claims the legal right to indefinitely detain its citizens; the president can order the assassination of a citizen without so much as even a hearing; the government can spy on its citizens without a court order; and its officials are immune from prosecution for war crimes. It doesn't help that the US has less than 5% of the world's population but almost a quarter of its prison inmates, many of them victims of a "war on drugs" that is rapidly losing legitimacy in the rest of the world. Assange's successful pursuit of asylum from the US is another blow to Washington's international reputation. At the same time, it shows how important it is to have democratic governments that are independent of the US and – unlike Sweden and the UK – will not collaborate in the persecution of a journalist for the sake of expediency. Hopefully other governments will let the UK know that threats to invade another country's embassy put them outside the bounds of law-abiding nations.
And even if we believe that the US is actually mostly good on human rights issues, these moves all make it significantly harder to have any semblance of a moral high ground in dealing with other nations around the globe. We have failed, quite publicly, to live up to our own set of ideals, and that makes it nearly impossible for our own diplomats to carry out any sort of human rights mission around the globe. It's one thing to be ashamed of specific actions by my own government. That happens. But, what horrifies me about this situation is that we've now built up this perfectly handy tool to make the job of US diplomats focused on human rights issues almost impossible. Any effort to seek better human rights elsewhere will be met with pushback as foreign governments point to the US's own awful track record on these particular items. It's really quite a shame.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: ecuador, embassy, espionage act, julian assange, uk
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The difference now
This is true. There is a difference in kind, however.
In the past, when the US has failed to live up to its own standards, it was a mistake, a failure. Now, the US has altered the standards we hold ourselves to. We are not living up to the standards of the past, true, but we are living up to our current standards.
This is what is making us lose legitimacy around the world, not mistakes. People understand that mistakes happen, and that when nations fail to uphold their own standards, that doesn't make them bad nations. Having unacceptable standards, however, does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The difference now
And therein lies the problem. We, the American people, need to stand up and let our voices be heard this November. Are we content to let this sort of travesty continue happening in our name? How about the Dotcom/Megaupload fiasco, are we proud of that? SOPA/PIPA/the supposed CyberSecurity Act of 2012 (where they tried to take advantage of the Colorado shootings to slip yet more restrictions on the second amendment through)? I, for one, am not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The difference now
"If voting made any difference they wouldn't let us do it." - Mark Twain
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The difference now
And therein lies the problem. We, the American people, need to stand up and let our voices be heard this November. Are we content to let this sort of travesty continue happening in our name? How about the Dotcom/Megaupload fiasco, are we proud of that? SOPA/PIPA/the supposed CyberSecurity Act of 2012 (where they tried to take advantage of the Colorado shootings to slip yet more restrictions on the second amendment through)? I, for one, am not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The difference now
Barack 'The Betrayer' Obama, just like all the other public relations driven asshats that run the US is attacking everyone that have helped to shatter the masquerade of who the US truly is.
A ugly greed driven beast preying upon the world masquerading behind an idiotic worship of celebrities. Welcome to reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The difference now
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As I understand it Assange is an Australian citizen not UK, that he ran Winkileaks from the EU not Australia or the UK, and that he did not invade or have direct contact with a US government computer to get the information.
What I do not understand is what is Australia position in this?
Why he ran the website from Europe?
Why could he have not just grabbed the first flight back to Australia when trouble started?
Or why the UK is rolling over for the US?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Australia
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Assange has broken these by seeking asylum and transport out of the UK via the Ecuadorian embassy. What can now hapen is that the British government can now perfectly legally arrest him for breach of bail (under contempt of court).
However, ethically speaking, this would be...a really unwise thing to do, without considerable gamesmanship of current laws (and even with).
What I would like to see happen is that Assange is jailed for his contempt charge, and the Swedish investigators have the capacity to interview him, pending prosecution, and a guarantee of non-extradition to the US from Sweden, at least until his sentence is served in Sweden.
That, however, is about a likely to happen as the IFPI publishing an honest report into copyright in the musical industries.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The issue of whether these were offences under English law was considered by the High Court (click for judgment). Look at paragraphs 3, 78-91 (91 in particular). It is very clear that the alleged offence is rape under English criminal law. This very clear post by David Allen Green also sets out the situation: "English courts have held – twice – that the relevant allegation would also be an allegation of the offence of rape in English law"
http://pme200.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/assange.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://richardbrenneman.wordpress.com/2012/08/15/brits-threat-to-storm-embassy-to-ge t-assange/
ACoward can you see now how unrealistic it isn't? More like an hypocritical, 'we're not even going to bother to disguise how much we bend over for the US anymore'?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In other words the law the UK is saying gives them the rights to enter the embassy now is a direct result of what happened at the Libyan embassy then. They felt so deeply about what happened then they passed a law to make sure it would not happen again. Using it to try and spin a point is lazy and uninformed rubbish and should be ignored.
Now there are big questions regarding the Act and if it can be used in this situation but there is an argument to be made that it does so the UK is not really throwing out legal president or anything.
What they are doing is using it as a bullying tactic and likely don't intend to actually test the legal or diplomatic issues that would come as a result of doing so. They can simply sit outside and wait for the guy to come out.
The whole thing stinks and it makes me feel sick to be British right now but please do not be misleading about the legalities at play.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I believe that Assange's position (and Ecuador apparently agrees) is that the rape charges are trumped up, and he is really being subject to political persecution.
And, I have to say, it strongly appears to be the case from the outside.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The punishment for Sexual Misconduct? A fine.
The UK is threatening to become an unlawful nation on the grounds that a man may need to pay a small fine in another country.
Nope, couldn't possibly be more at play.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Even then the most he would punished is a FINE for it.
Source: Swedish law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Arrest_Warrant#Minimum_threshold
In other words, the charges had to be doctored up to even allow for the EAW to be processed. Even if the Sexual misconduct allegations aren't trumped up and fake they aren't rape in the slightest in Swedish Law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The thing is, Swedish investigators have had basically an open invitation to interview him and have refused to do so. I don't think Sweden has any interest in actually charging him, they just want to get their hands on him so that they can ship him to the US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What is Australia's position
Australia's record of aiding assisting or in any way protecting it's citizens from the actions of foreign governments is at best abysmal. When it comes to the US it's record is even worse.
When the US says jump Australian governments ask "how high?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It has allowed it's citizens to be extradited to the USA for 'piracy' related matters before.
It has allowed one of it's citizens (David Hicks)to languish in Guantanamo Bay for years without lifting a finger to help him or a voice in protest.
It is generally accepted here that when the Government of the time found it was facing electoral defeat it stepped in and 'saved' him and then made much of bringing him home to serve his jail time in Australia during the election campaign.
From the Wikipedia entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hicks
The following month, in accordance with a pre-trial agreement struck with convening authority Judge Susan J. Crawford, Hicks entered an Alford plea to a single newly codified charge of providing material support for terrorism. Hicks's legal team attributed his acceptance of the plea bargain to his "desperation for release from Guantanamo" and duress as "instances of severe beatings, sleep deprivation and other conditions of detention that contravene international human rights norms."
In April 2007, Hicks was returned to Australia to serve the remaining nine months of a suspended seven-year sentence. During this period, Hicks was precluded from all media contact and there was criticism[citation needed] for delaying his release until after the 2007 Australian election. Former Pentagon chief prosecutor Colonel Morris Davis later alleged political interference in the case by the Bush administration in the United States and the Howard government in Australia.[15] He also said that Hicks should not have been prosecuted.[6] Hicks served his term in Adelaide's Yatala Labour Prison and was released under a control order on 29 December 2007. The control order expired in December 2008. Now married, Hicks lives in Sydney and has written an autobiography.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
...
...
...
...
...
How did all of you with your heads in the sand hear my question?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
hint: it's fixing this sort of bullshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
* think of the poor bears , or
* think of lumberjacks in t-shirts with bare arms with the Monty python lumberjack song running through my head.
Yes I know.. nearly three am here.. and enjoying the Insanity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Memories lost in a nation's sleep
In the dreams of contented sheep
Can we ever hope to find solutions
When our country has sold the Constitution
All too wrong to be right
The answer's there, we just lack the sight
Race wars fed by prejudice and fright
The love of a nation for its people
burned through the night
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Yes I know.. nearly three am here.. and enjoying the Insanity"
and when I hit the am instead of a.m. I realized it was meant to be read in Yoda's voice. Well done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
you wont even hear the apache helicopters until they are on top of your position nitwit :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
just ever hopeful that you'll finally clean up your own mess before my own country is next on the list of places your system destroys. we have enough of our Own problems, thank you very much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
drones and smart-bombs you run away or hide from.
or, you know, use something that's Not a Shotgun.
(seriously, you can build a short range cruise missile with off the shelf consumer parts for under $3000. it's been done.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Most people who will vote for Romney either still believe that the Republican Party still represents the Republican Doctrine/Principles upon which it was founded (which they was not) or they simply feel they cannot allow Obama another term in office at any cost.
The majority of the rest of the population, who largely believe the politicians in this country are solely in the pockets of one or more of the major corporations who they feel truly run this country, feel they will be violated regardless of who gets into office. The majority of these people will choose to stay home come election time, as they feel voting means they are giving consent to be sodomized by their government.
That, whether most people choose to consciously voice the sentiments or not, is the state of politics in America today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Now my questions is HOW DO WE CHANGE IT FOR REAL?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The slow way is how the current crop of fascists gained power in the US. We can do the same. Essentially, it's very simple:
Begin putting people who think like you do into office. Not the big, national offices 9at first), but the small, local offices. Commissioner, sheriff, dog catcher, etc. The reality is that in the final analysis these positions collectively wield more power anyway (did you know that the most powerful law enforcement position in the nation is the county sheriff? It's true!) and in the long run, the people in these positions will eventually rise to national offices.
This is how the corporatists did it, it's how the tea party did it, and, in fact, it's how every powerful political force in our nation's history has done it.
It's the only way out. It won't necessarily make things better for you or me, but it will make things better for our children, and the generations a-comin', but there is literally no other realistic option.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As the people that made this country said, sometimes the tree of Liberty needs to be watered by the blood of patriots. Personally, I'm damn tired of things getting worse and worse for you and me, and if having a new Declaration of Independence fixes it so much the better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And a fun fact: I also remember that even few days before the revolution almost nobody believed any revolution would be possible. Things like that can escalate surprisingly quickly.
Although my guess is that in your country things will need to get much worse before regular people start to care. I have not stepped on US soil for almost ten years now but from what I hear it's still too easy to avoid seeing bad things that your government does just by not watching the news.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Reality is that political campaign's are financed by < 1,000 donors. They make sending in $20 or $100 to your favorite politican appear like bugs in the dirt.
The Arab Spring scared the beejezus out of those 1,000 donors because they know very few of their policies are popular with the general public. This is one of the reasons cybersecurity, dcma, MegaUpload, TV Shack, etc. have been hijacked by DOJ and the administration to shut down dissent and make corporations happy.
Obama may be a continuation of Bush policies, but Romney-Rand-Paul are further to the right. They believe "democracy" is for corporations and not people. The US has always been a "representative democracy" in that it's not based on the majority of the popular vote. "WE" as citizens, do not count and never have.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
At the time I lived in Broward County Florida.
With a county that is often referred to as a ward of New York City, a major Jewish population, a Liberal Democrat as Supervisor of Elections, and a general belief that Republicans are enemy I find it hard to believe that there was a conspiracy to place a Republican in the White House. The conspiracy part I have no problem with it is just the objective I have issue with.
My personal belief was that they were follow a plot hatched in the Chicago political rule book.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
A good friend of mine is a historian specializing in ancient military history. Get him talking and he'll expound on this point at length.
Essentially, nearly every revolution in history happened this way. In retrospect, revolutions seems inevitable and predictable, but when you look at the contemporaneous accounts of them it becomes clear that they took everyone (even the revolutionaries) by surprise. Things go from general discontent to widespread revolt in a matter of days, usually triggered by some event that would otherwise have seemed insignificant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Revolution is much riskier. Historically, revolutions tend to be bad bets. Even when they succeed, they tend to put even more oppressive regimes into power. That the US had a successful one was an unusual result, not the norm.
In my opinion, revolution is what you do when you have literally exhausted all other options. In the US, we're very far from having exhausted all other options. We've barely begun to explore the ones we have.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Even the French revolution - despite guillotines and "regressions" - could be considered great success - it basically laid groundwork for modern democracies - liberté, égalité, fraternité, who could argue wit that, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Unfortunately, the Tea Party, despite it's initially-noble intentions, is now only a sock-puppet for the corpratists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Now my questions is HOW DO WE CHANGE IT FOR REAL?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
As an example, the 1996 US election had only 49.1% turnout. That would mean nobody gets the office they were running for, a new election would be held ad Clinton, Dole and Perot would all be barred from being possible candidates. If 50% of eligible voters can't even be bothered to show up for an election, then you know you have really crappy candidates.
In addition, in the case that 50% of eligible voters do vote, then a candidate needs to get at least 90% of those votes. If 100% of eligible voters show up, they only need greater than 50% of the vote, and there would be some linear scale between that.
Perhaps adding a requirement that any candidate needs to get more than 60% of the vote would go far to making candidates actually likable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Who is the lessee?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Odds are the orders for this come from lower in the chain of command than Obama, probably from a Republican or Republican gadfly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Mitt_Romney#Guantanamo_Bay
Personall y.. I will probably vote third party, but all likelihood points to that being completely in vain and Obama winning anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Those Who Paid for Ameica Will Get Their Money's Worth
1. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both supported TARP.
2. Mitt Romney supported Barack Obama's "economic stimulus" packages.
3. Mitt Romney says that Barack Obama's bailout of the auto industry was actually his idea.
4. Neither candidate supports immediately balancing the federal budget.
5. They both believe in big government and they both have a track record of being big spenders while in office.
6. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both fully support the Federal Reserve.
7. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are both on record as saying that the president should not question the "independence" of the Federal Reserve.
8. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have both said that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke did a good job during the last financial crisis.
9. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both felt that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke deserved to be renominated to a second term.
10. Both candidates oppose a full audit of the Federal Reserve.
11. Both candidates are on record as saying that U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has done a good job.
12. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have both been big promoters of universal health care.
13. Mitt Romney was the one who developed the plan that Obamacare was later based upon.
14. Wall Street absolutely showers both candidates with campaign contributions.
15. Neither candidate wants to eliminate the income tax or the IRS.
16. Both candidates want to keep personal income tax rates at the exact same levels for the vast majority of Americans.
17. Both candidates are "open" to the idea of imposing a Value Added Tax on the American people.
18. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both believe that the TSA is doing a great job.
19. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both supported the NDAA.
20. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both supported the renewal of the Patriot Act.
21. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both believe that the federal government should be able to indefinitely detain American citizens that are considered to be terrorists.
22. Both candidates believe that American citizens suspected of being terrorists can be killed by the president without a trial.
23. Barack Obama has not closed Guantanamo Bay like he promised to do, and Mitt Romney actually wants to double the number of prisoners held there.
24. Both candidates support the practice of "extraordinary rendition".
25. They both support the job-killing "free trade" agenda of the global elite.
26. They both accuse each other of shipping jobs out of the country and both of them are right.
27. Both candidates are extremely soft on illegal immigration.
28. Neither candidate has any military experience. This is the first time that this has happened in a U.S. election since 1944.
29. Both candidates earned a degree from Harvard University.
30. They both believe in the theory of man-made global warming.
31. Mitt Romney has said that he will support a "cap and trade" carbon tax scheme (like the one Barack Obama wants) as long as the entire globe goes along with it.
32. Both candidates have a very long record of supporting strict gun control measures.
33. Both candidates have been pro-abortion most of their careers. Mitt Romney's "conversion" to the pro-life cause has been questioned by many. In fact, Mitt Romney has made millions on Bain Capital's investment in a company called "Stericycle" that incinerates aborted babies collected from family planning clinics.
34. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both believe that the Boy Scout ban on openly gay troop leaders is wrong.
35. They both believe that a "two state solution" will bring lasting peace between the Palestinians and Israel.
36. Both candidates have a history of nominating extremely liberal judges.
37. Like Barack Obama, Mitt Romney also plans to add "signing statements" to bills when he signs them into law.
38. They both have a horrible record when it comes to job creation.
39. Both candidates believe that the president has the power to take the country to war without getting the approval of the U.S. Congress.
40. Both candidates plan to continue running up more government debt even though the U.S. government is already 16 trillion dollars in debt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Those Who Paid for Ameica Will Get Their Money's Worth
HA-HA! Impossible. These judges aren't "liberal", and neither are Romney or Obama: http://politicalcompass.org/charts/us2012.php
Do you believe just because of his healthcare pet project, I would think of Obama less a prohibitionist authoritarian than he is? You right-wing nuts don't even recognize one of your own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Those Who Paid for Ameica Will Get Their Money's Worth
And this is a bad thing how?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
There are some nice tweets of one of the women regarding sex with Assange, and if you read them you'll immediately notice that she didn't feel abused then, quite the contrary..
So the reason for this trial probably has nothing to do with the USA, but the decision by the Swedish attorney general to take over and to go on with it pretty much happened because of US pressure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If Sweden could just agree not to hear an attempt to extradite him but return him to the UK after questioning him this would be over a long time ago, but they do not want to do that for reasons that seem to be very obvious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Right after Assange became famous those same 'not credible' accusations suddenly became credible enough to warrant an extradition, despite no new evidence in that case surfacing against him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sex Assault
When's the last time you heard of the police taking a charge like that seriously, if no disease was involved?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sex Assault
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If Sweden can't even be bothered to try to make a case to Ecuador as to why Assante should be extradited to face charges, my guess is that the charges themselves are bullshit. But that's just me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yeah, obviously it was so nonconsentual that she got tricked to repeat performances!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Sweden just want him in their country, so they can extradite him to the U.S, so he can face prosecution for whistleblowing and Espionage, which carries with it potential death.
Unless you can provide evidence as to why this is not a logical progression of actions that point to some hefty amount of curious happenings that make no goddamn sense legally and logically, why do you try to defend Sweden and the US on this issue?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Aug 16th, 2012 @ 9:11am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Aug 16th, 2012 @ 9:11am
Emmerson went on to provide accounts of the two encounters in question which granted — at least for the purposes of today’s hearing — the validity of Assange’s accusers’ central claims. He described Assange as penetrating one woman while she slept without a condom, in defiance of her previously expressed wishes, before arguing that because she subsequently “consented to … continuation” of the act of intercourse, the incident as a whole must be taken as consensual.
In the other incident, in which Assange is alleged to have held a woman down against her will during a sexual encounter, Emmerson offered this summary: “[The complainant] was lying on her back and Assange was on top of her … [she] felt that Assange wanted to insert his penis into her vagina directly, which she did not want since he was not wearing a condom … she therefore tried to turn her hips and squeeze her legs together in order to avoid a penetration … [she] tried several times to reach for a condom, which Assange had stopped her from doing by holding her arms and bending her legs open and trying to penetrate her with his penis without using a condom. [She] says that she felt about to cry since she was held down and could not reach a condom and felt this could end badly.”
What if that was your sister. How'd you feel then?
In addition, there is a European arrest warrant for him for sexual battery and rape. Mind you, this is Assange's lawyer's version of the encounters. Needless to say, he's putting the best face on it he can.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Aug 16th, 2012 @ 9:11am
What if that was your sister. How'd you feel then?
Oh nice, trying to appeal to emotion. I'd ask the following question: "Why make it public so long after it happened?". He has a quite central role in how freedom of speech will be from now on. I wouldn't be surprised some1 dug into his life and found out about his sexual partners to then use one or two of them as means of destroying the guy for some money. There are enough ppl out there that would flat out lie for a good amount of money.
So before we judge can we have the source?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ona side note...
Officer: Sir, you are under arrest for raping the girl.
Man: But mr officer, the condom accidentally slipped off, I'm still puzzled on how that happened!
Officer: Did the girl agree with the accidental slip?
Man: Mr Officer, it was an accident. She had to pick it off from inside after we finished.
Officer: Nonetheless she did not give you consent to proceed with the accident. But since it was an accident I will downgrade the accusation to "light rape".
Man: !!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
*cof* lol
"these moves all make it significantly harder to have any semblance of a moral high ground in dealing with other nations around the globe."
I'm laughing so hard.
It hurts.
The last two words being what the funny foreign detainee said during the interrogation, over and over, at least while they had enough air.
"We have failed, quite publicly, to live up to our own set of ideals"
Failure, is when you attempt to achieve something but do not succeed. Setting out to do the opposite thing is not failure, that's success.. but at something else.
"and that makes it nearly impossible for our own diplomats to carry out any sort of human rights mission around the globe."
Yup, it does make it harder to spy on enemies, friends and allies and more importantly makes it harder to destabilise countries from within. Never mind, there's still terrorism to support and terror to inflict. Have some brave men and women fly drones remotely and murder people to take your collective minds off the setbacks.
"It's one thing to be ashamed of specific actions by my own government. That happens."
Yup it does, and it happens to all of us from time to time.
Usually, it's just how our governments treat our own people we have to worry about. When it comes to actively harming others, that's even worse.
"But, what horrifies me about this situation is that we've now built up this perfectly handy tool to make the job of US diplomats focused on human rights issues almost impossible."
Do those actually exist, or do you mean spies and saboteurs?
"Any effort to seek better human rights elsewhere will be met with pushback as foreign governments point to the US's own awful track record on these particular items."
Yes, it becomes more difficult to club enemy nations with accusations of human rights abuses with that background.
Still, being involved in 2 wars didn't stop Obama from being given the Nobel prize for peace because he vaguely said he would end them eventually.
Lehrer would have been correct if he had actually declared satire to be dead when Kissinger of all people was given his in 73 and if there was any doubt about it
Having had a major part in starting two wars of aggression in the middle east didn't stop Tony Blair from being made a middle eastern "peace envoy".
So I doubt it will stop US diplomats from using the human rights cosh on nations it doesn't like while refraining from saying anything for the same things in allies nor will it stop them from desperately trying to bypass them at home.
"It's really quite a shame."
I agree.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ie. Obama got the Peace Prize for race not accomplishment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's fishy?
Evidence for this, please. Heard this claims numerous times, still not seen any evidence that it is correct.
As previously stated, the UK loves to extradite its citizens to the US, and Sweden has (at least initially) stood up to them a few times over the years.
I'd assume he'd be in a worse fix in the UK than in Sweden if the US wanted him, especially because apparently the UK would need to approve any further extradition to the USA from Sweden, because of the way extradition law works.
So... What's the evidence that Sweden is a worse place for Assange than the UK, other than that he's been accused of a crime in Sweden?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What's fishy?
Somebody presented me with a very nefarious (admittedly conjectural) possibility. This assumes that the UK will not extradite unless Assange is charged with a crime in the US; if someone can verify, that would be great. If a federal (civilian)grand jury indicted Assange for conspiracy or the violation of the act itself, it would then have to try him in the federal court system. If Sweden allows extradtion without charge (it certainly requests it), then Assange could be sent to the US and indefinitely detained under NDAA (which the administration has declined to state does not extend to journalists). Assange would not need to be indicted or enter the federal civilian criminal justice system. All conjecture. Very scary. I hope my goverment would not pursue such a course of action against a journalist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What's fishy?
The government seems to have an exceptionally narrow definition of journalist, however.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What's fishy?
In addition, the supplementary extradition agreement with Sweden includes a "temporary surrender" clause that would allow Sweden to transfer custody to the US before they've concluded their own cases against him. In essence, the US can very easily get their hands on him from Sweden but it may be near impossible (based on the probable charges) to do so from the UK.
For reference, both the original treaty and the supplement can be found below.
http://internationalextraditionblog.com/2010/12/08/julian-assange-sweden-and-u-s-extraditi on-treaty/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
UK government in a tight spot
It sounds like what they would be doing (potentially legal under international and domestic law) would be to withdraw permission for the embassy on the grounds that it was being (ab)used to harbour a fugitive (Assange having finally broken English law when he broke his bail conditions), and then they could legally go in and arrest him (but not any Ecuadorian diplomats).
Unfortunately, the UK government is in a rather awkward position whereby it *has* to take all legal steps it can to hand over Assange (due to legal obligations under UK and EU law), and that includes both making this threat, and trying to carry it out. It's a real mess.
On a couple of other points, the Swedish authorities have turned down offers to question him in the UK, the Ecuador embassy or via video-link, but there isn't anything improper about this, and it may be because they want to actually arrest, charge and try him for (fairly serious crimes), something it seems that they cannot do without him.
As to refusals to give assurances about not handing him over to the US, this also sounds a lot more damaging than it may be; from a constitutional point of view, while Sweden will have laws (not least via the EU or ECHR) preventing it from extraditing people in certain circumstances (i.e. where they could face the death penalty, inhumane or degrading treatment, or an unfair trial), and so any attempt to extradite Assange to the US could be challenged under those laws, it would be inappropriate, if not unlawful, for them to pre-empt such a decision by offering assurances now.
At least, that's my ... what's the going rate for 2 cents in GBP or SKR?
More details on revoking diplomatic status here: http://www.headoflegal.com/2012/08/15/julian-assange-can-the-uk-withdraw-diplomatic-status-from-the- ecuadorian-embassy/
A good summary of some common myths/background facts to the situation here: http://pme200.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/assange.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mr. Dotcom
Here is hoping someone leaks the diplomatic cables from the US trying to orchestrate this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mr. Dotcom
Assange put out classified information. And before you say no one was hurt, just embarrassed, I know people who would argue with you. They dug up some of the bodies.
These same people were also waiting for the order to terminate Assange. They were disappointed that it wasn't given.
I'm sure I will be corrected, but I believe the owner of techdirt is also a lawyer or at least trained in the law.
Assange has no protections under US law. He can be considered an enemy agent and killed on sight. He gave intelligence information to those actively in battle with the United States.
As was mentioned before in the comments, he has never been in the US, his servers are not in the US and he is not a US citizen or legal resident alien. He has zero rights under American law.
And no, I am not a lawyer, but I do know someone who is both retired military and a retired lawyer. He has said that we can kill Assange any time we want over this UNLESS Assange were to surrender himself to US authorities. Then he would have the right to a trial.
However, as far as In know we aren't actively looking for him. He's using the US as a way to get out from under a couple of rape charges. Nothing more.
As to the British forcing their way into the consulate? I agree that this is a bad idea. There are other ways to pressure Ecuador that won't give the appearance of violating international laws.
1) evacuate the British embassy in Ecuador.
2) Cut all power and water to the consulate.
3) wait them out.
Frankly, the safest place Assange can be is trapped in that embassy or in a prison somewhere. He's ticked off other countries that will hunt him down and put two in his hat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Mr. Dotcom
Right! Except for the part where he was not either accused of nor charged with rape. Or charged with ANYTHING for that matter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Mr. Dotcom
He hasn't been charged with rape for the simple reason that (from my limited understanding of the Swedish criminal justice system) you can't really be charged with anything without being there.
He has, however, breached is bail conditions in the UK, and it will probably be rather hard for him to get out of that one (legally).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Mr. Dotcom
He is accused of rape like this:
On 17 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [SW] in Enkoping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mr. Dotcom
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What? your annoyed at me for stating this opinion?
you deny that you haven't? you can prove that?
you mean I have only made a wild accusation since you (as far as I know) have never been charged nor found guitly in a court of that offence?
damn hey...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Clearly it did not work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
He is, however, accused in Sweden of rape (along with two counts of sexual molestation and one of unlawful coercion - conduct which could amount to two or three counts of rape and one of sexual assault in England), and one assumes will be charged with that if/when the Swedish authorities are in a position to do so.
[Of course "charge" is an English word, not a Swedish word, and given that it is being used in a legally-technical sense, and is a legally-technical word, it might not translate properly; see, for example, Assange's Supreme Court appeal which hinged on different translations and definitions of a "judicial authority".]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Emmerson went on to provide accounts of the two encounters in question which granted — at least for the purposes of today’s hearing — the validity of Assange’s accusers’ central claims. He described Assange as penetrating one woman while she slept without a condom, in defiance of her previously expressed wishes, before arguing that because she subsequently “consented to … continuation” of the act of intercourse, the incident as a whole must be taken as consensual.
In the other incident, in which Assange is alleged to have held a woman down against her will during a sexual encounter, Emmerson offered this summary: “[The complainant] was lying on her back and Assange was on top of her … [she] felt that Assange wanted to insert his penis into her vagina directly, which she did not want since he was not wearing a condom … she therefore tried to turn her hips and squeeze her legs together in order to avoid a penetration … [she] tried several times to reach for a condom, which Assange had stopped her from doing by holding her arms and bending her legs open and trying to penetrate her with his penis without using a condom. [She] says that she felt about to cry since she was held down and could not reach a condom and felt this could end badly.”
What if that was your sister. How'd you feel then?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Rape"
The "Internet" is concerned with Assange being extradited to the US and facing a possible death sentence for publishing (not stealing) information.
The alleged rape is not the point. Would it be proven in court? Probably not, Assange would likely be extradited to the US immediately and never go to court in Sweden.
For you to claim that the only reason people defend Assange is because he is accused of rape shows that you are incredibly stupid, a troll or your purpose is to shift the discussion away from the real, very important factors of all this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Right! Except for the part where the sex was completely consensual. 'Cause, you know, consensual rape is wrong. Or something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rape???
If the average Jane Roe tried to turn that into a rape charge against John Doe, it would be laughed out of the police station, it would not even make it to court. Consent usually implies that you consented; no take-backs a week later.
Concerns about STD's, as long as it's not willful knowing infliction of HIV, does not qualify as a crime; regardless, it's not rape. It's been well over a year and no indication that there is any disease involved.
I would think if a country wanted to extradite someone, they would at least provide details to show a crime had been committed. Still nothing...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: zegota on Aug 16th, 2012 @ 9:44am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Response to: zegota on Aug 16th, 2012 @ 9:44am
Seems like the women, through their lawyer are demanding he be brought to justice for this so-called "consensual sex".
"Assange remains holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, where he fled to avoid extradition charges to Sweden. He is wanted there to face allegations of rape, but he fears that he will be swiftly transferred to the United States, where he says he could be prosecuted for leaking classified material through WikiLeaks.
Sweden has denied that it has any such intentions. A lawyer for the women who have accused Assange of sexually assaulting them told Reuters that the idea was "absurd," and that Assange needed to be "brought to justice.""
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Response to: zegota on Aug 16th, 2012 @ 9:44am
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden
"We understand that both complainants admit to having initiated consensual sexual relations with Mr Assange. They do not complain of any physical injury. The first complainant did not make a complaint for six days (in which she hosted the respondent in her flat [actually her bed] and spoke in the warmest terms about him to her friends) until she discovered he had spent the night with the other complainant.
"The second complainant, too, failed to complain for several days until she found out about the first complainant: she claimed that after several acts of consensual sexual intercourse, she fell half asleep and thinks that he ejaculated without using a condom – a possibility about which she says they joked afterwards.
"Both complainants say they did not report him to the police for prosecution but only to require him to have an STD test. However, his Swedish lawyer has been shown evidence of their text messages which indicate that they were concerned to obtain money by going to a tabloid newspaper and were motivated by other matters including a desire for revenge."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Response to: zegota on Aug 16th, 2012 @ 9:44am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: no
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not Rape
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
UK and US
The UK fell off the credibility bandwagon when Tony Blair agreed to be Bush's lapdog in the Iraq war. Funny thing, usually the owner is smarter than the pet. What happened?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...beacon of light on human rights issues...
Giant, bright red light writing "STAY AWAY" all over the sky.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's what happens when you have a president who thinks he's a king.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gore for pres.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We have an incident where an alleged murder (Crime happened in UK) was allowed to leave the embassy and return to their country. But we have an alleged sexual assaulter (Crime happened in another country) that they are risking to storm an embassy over?
So, to me that looks like sexual assault in a foreign country is important enough to warrant a huge diplomatic incident, where the death of a local police officer and injury to other citizens does not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If I'm Ecuador, I start making the UK Embassy in their country very uncomfortable.
The war for truth is on. What side are you taking?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A) being pressured
B) trying to get some browny points
C) or misusing their position in order to showoff
D) really beleives this is right
-----------------------
A) Possible leniency if they help expose the "nature" of the pressure
B) Fired and fined considerably
C) Fired and Life, behind bars
D) Slapped, and THEN fired
Get back to me when politicians start thinking along those lines
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On the Bright side...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Claims about supposed deaths relating to the publication of information relating to crimes the US has perpetrated is enough to put the blame for deaths onto wikileaks and Assange.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://pme200.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/assange.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not true
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not true
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not true
As for the rape allegations the case is very weak and smells of political pressure again precisely why Ecuador gave him asylum. I'm fairly sure Ecuador will extradite him to Sweden if Assange is proven guilty of sexual assault.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not true
Diplomatic, not political asylum. There's a big difference. And violating the terms of his bail was a separate crime. Ecuador knew that harboring him constituted a new crime in a new jurisdiction and did it anyway. So no, it is not right.
As for the rape allegations the case is very weak and smells of political pressure again precisely why Ecuador gave him asylum. I'm fairly sure Ecuador will extradite him to Sweden if Assange is proven guilty of sexual assault.
How is he going to be "proven guilty of sexual assault" if there's no trial. Are you really suggestion that Sweden can try him in absentia and then ask that he be returned? God, are you thick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not true
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Governments vs. Reality
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Act of war?
At best, I'd expect a state that behaved in such a manner to wind up a pariah state like North Korea or Iran, one lacking diplomatic relations with pretty much anybody and regularly slapped with economic sanctions. At worst, I'd expect it to end up on the losing end of an actual shooting war.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Act of war?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Act of war?
But not respecting the sanctity of an embassy is pretty serious shit. The US would probably have to publicly distance itself from anything of the sort, and that might leave the UK in a very cold place, internationally speaking.
For this, and other, reasons, the threat was most likely a bluff, and may even have been blurted out by someone in the UK Foreign Office "out of turn". It's a stance they'd be wise to back away from. You don't break long-standing and nearly-universal treaties like the Vienna Convention lightly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The longer he resists, the more chances the US have to screw up, the longer the story stays in the headlines and the more people see/hear/talk about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why would Obama start respecting people now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why would Obama start respecting people now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why would Obama start respecting people now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why would Obama start respecting people now?
You're against abortions in cases of rape and/or incest?
Interesting, boy.
Sad, but interesting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I take great issue with the fact that the United Kingdom is threatening to invade the embassy in order to get Assange. The minute they invade the embassy, they will have, in effect, invaded the sovereign territory of another country and that will signal an all out assault on every American, Sweden and United Kingdom diplomat that is serving in any function in any country.
This will set a very dangerous precedent and I hope that these countries have the life insurance for their diplomatic envoys paid up because this will open a Pandora's Box of problems with all three countries.
Ecuador simply requested from Sweden and asked them to assure that Assange wouldn't be extradited to the United States. I find it extremely odd that Sweden wouldn't grant that special request. Since they couldn't agree to that, it sounds like the United Kingdom and Sweden are trying to pull as fast one and that they always intended to extradite the man to the U.S.
It's going to be open season on any diplomat in the service of the United States, the United Kingdom and Sweden. Look forward to seeing those diplomats arrested and/or assaulted in Ecuador and worldwide if the Ecuador embassy is assaulted by force. It's been a given that an embassy is considered sovereign property and that nobody can enter their premises under any reason. It's sovereign territory.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The buddy list on the side of US has become quite small.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about Sweden?
Or are you saying that Sweden has no Basic Values to betray?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
link
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: link
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sweden is an odd country, in that Swedish politicians only have indirect control over the administration. They make laws and rules, but are forbidden to interfere with individual cases.
In this case, it means they have set laws about rape and extradition, but they have no power over what actually happens to Assange.
On one hand, this means they can not give any assurances to the outcome of any extradition requests from the US, as they are not allowed to influence court decisions. On the other, it also means that it is 100% useless for any government to pressure Sweden into anything. (Except changes to the law, which will not apply retroactively.) He will be tried by the same rules as anyone else.
This is, by the way, why the Pirate Bay was able to give insolent answers to the US for years without fear of a "Kim Dotcom"-style raid. The only thing the politicians could do was the change the law, which they eventually did.
...not that anyone will read this, 150 comments down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Funny how technology moves forwards, but politics really never 'improves' much - well, maybe a bell curve with the peak being around 1776.
Wouldn't it be nice to have leaders that actually progressed like technology does?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Correction
Henri
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lola P Gaston
BYU Football
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lola P Gaston
BYU Football
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On the other hand, if he manages to go to Ecuador he'll be able to resume his activities there and will be fairly safe (he can still be murdered by the secret service), Ecuador will be seen as one of the new bastions of freedom (huge diplomatic win) and the UK/ US and possibly Sweden will still have a lot to explain.
I'm not sure if that's what he intended but in the end it's simple a win/epic-win situation for both human rights and freedom. From my view, while I do not wish any ill to Mr Assange (I particularly think he's quite the genius on how he's conducting this), I think the UK could throw shit in the fan and invade the Ecuadorian embassy. It'll cause some large collateral damage that could speed up a lot of things. But as I'm still a human being, for the good of Mr Assange, I hope he gets political asylum.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I suspect these tyrants would blow up the world to make themselves look good. Problem is - a tyrant can never, ever look 'good' or be 'safe'.
That's the funny thing about it - those in supposed 'power' - the tyrants of the world... for all their 'power' they still must cower behind guards, bullet proof glass, and in bunkers. Wow, impressive 'power' - indeed!
If that's "Power" - I'd prefer to be a piss-ant.. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spelling
You spelt persecute wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In the other incident, in which Assange is alleged to have held a woman down against her will during a sexual encounter, Emmerson offered this summary: “[The complainant] was lying on her back and Assange was on top of her … [she] felt that Assange wanted to insert his penis into her vagina directly, which she did not want since he was not wearing a condom … she therefore tried to turn her hips and squeeze her legs together in order to avoid a penetration … [she] tried several times to reach for a condom, which Assange had stopped her from doing by holding her arms and bending her legs open and trying to penetrate her with his penis without using a condom. [She] says that she felt about to cry since she was held down and could not reach a condom and felt this could end badly.”
And that's Assange's lawyer's version which is probably the best face that could be put on the circumstances.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
_______________________
anuncios gratis
anuncios gratuitos
[ link to this | view in chronology ]