Skip to main content

Whatever your opinion of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, he was right when he called for an end to the war on whistleblowers in his speech outside the Ecuadorian Embassy in London yesterday:

The U.S. administration's war on whistleblowers must end. Thomas Drake, William Binney, John Kiriakou, and other heroic whistleblowers must be pardoned or compensated for the hardships they have endured as servants of the public record.
While my clients' stories differ greatly from Assange's, the Obama administration has threatened to criminally prosecute all of them with the same draconian Espionage Act, a law meant to go after spies not whistleblowers. And the effect of the Obama administration's policy--if not the goal--is the same for my clients and Assange: to silence dissent.

Despite that Assange is often attacked for only looking out for himself (who could blame him, considering London police were poised to storm the Embassy last week?), he took time in his minutes-long speech to reach out to others who have been (or are) criminal targets and defendants. He also correctly identified the Obama administration's war on whistleblowers as a war on journalists and the media, a connection made by myself, Glenn Greewald, and the U.S. mainstream media itself.

The United States must pledge before the world that it will not pursue journalists for shining a light on the secret crimes of the powerful.There must be no foolish talk about prosecuting any media organisations, be it Wikileaks or the New York Times.

Assange's call for an end to the U.S.'s "witch hunt" against Wikileaks called to mind Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis:

Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and assembly. Men feared witches and burnt women.
Now the government fears truth and prosecutes whistleblowers, including the three clients of mine Assange saw fit to mention yesterday:

--Thomas Drake is the National Security Agency (NSA) whistleblower who became the fourth person in U.S. history charged under the Espionage Act for alleged mishandling of classified information. The government's case against him collapsed in spectacular fashion days before trial in June 2011, and evidence made public since the collapse revealed that the charges were built on sand.

--NSA whistleblower William Binney, with Drake, former NSA officials J. Kirk Wiebe, Edward Loomis, and former congressional staffer Diane Roark, complained through proper internal channels about massive waste, fraud, abuse, and illegality at NSA and was subsequently criminally investigated, threatened with prosecution, and subjected to an armed FBI raid. He eventually obtained a letter of immunity.

--Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) whistleblower John Kiriakou blew the whistle on waterboarding and helped expose the CIA's torture program, which he refused to participate in. Kiriakou was also charged under the Espionage Act, and is set to stand trial in November 2012. To help support Kiriakou go here or "like" the Defend John K Facebook page.

Assange is no doubt a controversial figure, but whatever you think of the messenger, Assange's message deserves attention from anyone valuing the freedoms of speech and the press.

Originally posted to Jesselyn Radack on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 05:32 AM PDT.

Also republished by Anonymous Dkos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (123+ / 0-)

    My book, TRAITOR: THE WHISTLEBLOWER & THE "AMERICAN TALIBAN," is Amazon's #1 Best Seller in Human Rights Books for February 2012.

    by Jesselyn Radack on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 05:32:51 AM PDT

  •  Message and messenger (14+ / 0-)

    I agree, things get muddied when the flaws of the messenger become public. I am sad he could not find a way to settle this matter with his accusers in Sweden, as the contributions Mr. Assange has made to public debate are extremely important.

    Thanks for the post.

    •  Thanks! n/t (7+ / 0-)

      My book, TRAITOR: THE WHISTLEBLOWER & THE "AMERICAN TALIBAN," is Amazon's #1 Best Seller in Human Rights Books for February 2012.

      by Jesselyn Radack on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 06:16:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  His 'accusers' will not settle (9+ / 0-)

      even though he is allegedly only required for interview.

      •  Why the scare quotes? (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Zornorph, Bill W, smartdemmg, Rei

        Is that really necessary?

        So many stupid people in the world, and me with only two fists.

        by phenry on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 07:08:00 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Typical. (8+ / 1-)

          Anyone who files a charge of rape expects to get smeared as "sluts or a set-up trying to ruin an innocent man's life", with the public acting as judge, jury, and executioner.  Which is why so few rape victims ever do.  The only difference here is that it's millions of people perpetuating the travesty instead of the usual number, and that the accused is able to skirt the law altogether because of friends in high places, and get cheered on for doing so.

          •  Yep (7+ / 0-)

            Hilarious that we get this sort of shit on a reclisted diary the same exact time we have outrage about a candidate's rape comments.

            Proud supporter of actually prosecuting rape, even if it requires extradition!

            by zegota on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 07:28:10 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Let's review this for a moment. (15+ / 0-)

            Assange Accuser Worked with US-Funded, CIA-Tied Anti-Castro Group

            I’ve spent much of my professional life as a psychiatrist helping women (and men) who are survivors of sexual violence.  Rape is a hideous crime.  Yet in Assange’s case his alleged victim – the gender equity officer at Uppsala University – chose to throw a party for her alleged assailant – after they’d had the sex that even Swedish prosecutors concede was consensual.  Barrister Caitlin again:

            -cut-

            And now she just happens – after admittedly consensual sex – to have gone to Swedish authorities to report the sex ended without a condom…which just happens to be the pretext for Interpol to issue a “Red Notice” informing the world’s police forces of charges against Julian Assange.

            Having consensual sex without a condom is rape????

            Please don't paint the accuser as a victim just like any other woman who has been actually raped.  It's insulting to me as a child whom was and it's insulting to our intelligence that you are ignoring the facts here.

            Its like some bizarre Orwellian plot twist.  "She's being victimized because she reported it." BULLSHIT.  

            Assange is being attacked because he provided an outlet for whistleblowers to go to.

            Hillary Clinton got one thing right when she said they were losing the information war, they have, thanks to people like Mr. Assange, etc willing to present us the truth.

            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

            by gerrilea on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 08:29:10 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  This is the most absurd, 12-degrees-of-separation (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              phenry, FG, ChurchofBruce

              accusation I've ever witnessed in my life, and it makes me question my trust in humanity that not only one person believes this, but enough to actually circulate it around the net.  To sum it up, as layed out in the original Counterpunch article from where this all came: she once wrote two articles about Cuba for a magazine which was put out by a group that a certain professor says is connected to another group which is connected to a guy that a wordpress article says is a CIA agent; and she traveled to Cuba where she worked with pro-democracy groups, one of whom held a parade in Florida, wherein a guy who is accused of bombing a plane marched next to Mariah Carey.  Therefore, Anna Ardin is a CIA agent!

              Please tell me you don't actually believe that, seriously.

              I'm not even going to comment on the easily-debunkable victim smearing you were kind enough to include.  To sum it up:

              Having consensual sex without a condom is rape????
              No, pinning a person down and trying to pry open their legs to have sex without a condom when she doesn't want to, and then waiting until another girl goes to sleep so you can fuck her in ways she wouldn't let you do when she was awake, is rape, and if you don't think so, I hope you burn in hell.  

              Do I sound mad about that last part?  I better.  Only a court should determine their merit, but the accusations sure as fucking hell are rape, and it's one of the most insulting things you could possibly do to make a joke out of them like that.

              As for your "rape counselor", I agree with every single word written here on the subject of them, in the article titled, "How Must She Behave To Have Been Raped?".  

              I don't know whether the rape charges against Julian Assange are valid. I do know, however, that they are rape charges. It doesn't matter whether a woman consented to have sex with you. If she tells you to stop, and you don't stop, that is still sexual assault. I don't care how frustrating it is or whether you hate her for the rest of your life for it. Sex you have with someone without their permission is rape.

              Let's say that again: Sex you have with someone without their permission is rape.

              One more time just for clarity: Sex you have with someone without their permission is rape.

              Does that tell me whether Assange did what he's accused of doing? Nope. I just don't know. And neither do you.

              There is one more thing I do know, though. This guy shouldn't be allowed near a single traumatized rape victim, much less in a professional capacity, if he believes that the alleged victim's behavior tells us she wasn't raped. Here's his evidence:

              I’ve spent much of my professional life as a psychiatrist helping women (and men) who are survivors of sexual violence. Rape is a hideous crime. Yet in Assange’s case his alleged victim – the gender equity officer at Uppsula University – chose to throw a party for her alleged assailant – after they’d had the sex that even Swedish prosecutors concede was consensual.
              Even ignoring the fact that the way to characterize the sex as consensual is to claim that consent, once given, cannot be revoked for any reason (which I think we've dealt with above; let me know if I need to repeat myself again), this is bullshit and he should know it's bullshit. There isn't one damned thing that all rape victims do or don't do in common. They don't all get scared. They don't all get angry. They don't even all show that they're upset.

              What did I do when I was sexually assaulted? I went on with my plans for the evening, which were to lose my virginity. Yep, that's right. Within hours of being sexually assaulted, I had consensual sex.

              Why? Hell if I know that either. I do know it doesn't make any sense, but that's because I wasn't rational. I'll remind you that I'd just been assaulted (and suffered another type of betrayal right alongside it). I had no idea what to do. I did the easiest thing, which was to go along as though it hadn't happened. Pretending didn't make it go away, but it was so much simpler than figuring out how to behave in a changed world.

              If Assange did rape the alleged victim, why did she behave as she did? Maybe she was in denial. Maybe she wanted to show herself she could be that strong. Maybe she was reasserting her claim to the world they both shared. Maybe she was even pissed that Assange took control from her but not particularly traumatized. I don't know and neither do you.

              Neither does Kirk James Murphy, M.D., but that didn't stop him from weighing in on the matter in a professional capacity (something he really ought to stop to give some serious thought). It didn't stop him from perpetuating rape myths. Hell, it didn't even stop him from writing a post that is one long exercise in "bad girls can't be raped."

              Who is Julian Assange’s chief accuser in Sweden? She’s a gender equity officer at Uppsula University – who chose to associate with a US funded group openly supported by a convicted terrorist and mass murderer. She just happens to have her work published by a very well funded group connected with Union Liberal Cubana – whose leader, Carlos Alberto Montaner, in turn just happened to pop up on right wing Colombian TV a few hours after the right-wing coup in Honduras. Where he joined the leader of the failed coup in Ecuador to savage Correa, the target of the coup. Montnaner also just happened to vociferously support the violent coup in Honduras, and chose to show up to sing the praises of the Honduran junta.
              Well, after all that, I guess the matter's closed. Except I still have one little question. What the fuck has that got to do with anything? Oh, wait. He explains.
              Small world, isn’t it? Julian Assange is the human face of Wikileaks – the organization that’s enabled whistle-blowers to reveal hideous war crimes and expose much of America’s foreign policy to the world.

                  He just happens to meet a Swedish woman who just happens to have been publishing her work in a well-funded anti-Castro group that just happens to have links with a group led by a man at least one journalist describes as an agent of the CIA: the violent secret arm of America’s foreign policy.

                  And she just happens to have been expelled from Cuba, which just happens to be the global symbol of successful defiance of American foreign policy.

                  And – despite her work in Sweden upholding the human right of gender equity – in Cuba she just happens to end up associating with a group openly supported by an admitted CIA agent who himself committed mass murder when he actively participated in the terrorist bombing of a jetliner carrying a Cuban sports team…an act that was of a piece with America’s secret foreign policy of violent attacks against Cuban state interests.

              Yeah...nope. Not even an accusation that a CIA agent put her up to anything--or that they ever met. Or maybe it was supposed to be the terrorists who wanted Assange arrested. Keeping state secrets hidden is right up their alley, right? Or was it supposed to be the feminists? I can't figure out why else her job merits multiple mentions in a smear piece, and that's all this amounts to.

              Call me back when you've got something other than your dislike of this woman's politics or her party planning. In the meantime, I'll be figuring out whether this particular post reaches the level of unprofessionalism that merits lodging complaints with the appropriate oversight board.

              Emphasis mine and theirs.

              Who cares that the claims are not fully in accordance with the witness testimony from the case.  Even if they were, what that person wrote is sick, and they should lose their license.  If they actually even have one.

              •  Pinning a person's arms and forcing legs open (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Sandino, Robobagpiper, chuckvw

                is not the RAPE! you claim it to be.

                Assange pulled her arms over her head... which makes the breasts jut up. For... intended purposes.

                He slid his foot down her legs and spread them.

                All of that is what are called "night moves." Love moves. Whatever.

                That is body language of lovemaking. It is not rape moves.

                What exactly do you think is acceptable sexual conduct? Missionary quickie style? And don't answer that... I don't want to know.

                Just get the fuck over it.

                You are seriously deranged on this subject and you totally do a disservice to actual rape victims.


                In my honor he pulled out old forgotten dignity and walked straight in a crooked world. ~~poetry of young Barack Obama

                by bronte17 on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 09:26:52 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Oh, how romantic! (0+ / 0-)

                  So romantic that...

                •  Arg, accidentally clicked post. (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  phenry, ChurchofBruce

                  How romantic.  So romantic that:

                  Then they lay in the bed. Anna was on her back and Assange was on top of her. Anna thought Assange wanted to immediately put his penis in her vagina which she didn't want as he didn't have a condom on. So she tried to twist her hips to the side and squeeze her legs together to prevent a penetration. Anna tried several times to reach for a condom which Assange stopped her from doing by holding her arms and prying open her legs and trying nevertheless to penetrate her with his penis without a condom. Anna says that in the end she was ready to cry because she was pinned and couldn't reach a condom and thought 'this might not end well'. In answer to a question Anna says Assange must have known she was trying to reach for a condom and he was holding her arms to stop her.
                  Cry tears of joy, I'm sure!

                  Let me guess - Wylén secretly whispered to Assange before she fell asleep, "I've changed my mind - despite me spending all evening trying to stop you from having unprotected sex with me, something I've never done in my life because I'm paranoid about it, even having my last boyfriend get an STD test before we had protected sex for the next 2 1/2 years... screw all that, I want you to wait until I'm asleep and then start having unprotected sex with me.  I really dig that"!

                  Right?  That's how it went down?

                  Tack another rape apologist onto the Akin List.

                •  Yep (6+ / 0-)

                  He was supposedly on top or her holding her arms down and trying to initiate intercourse, but she was squeezing her legs together. She never said anything to him during this, such as, "Hey wait, I'm trying to reach for a condom." Never says a word. So then he asks her what is she doing? Why is she not letting him proceed? Then she says she's trying to get a condom, and he stops and lets her get one, and then they have sex.

                  So later this woman's story becomes that the set of events above is a sex crime. He must have known what she was trying to do and was trying to stop her. So her accusation rests on her mind-reading of him. And his apparent "crime" here is his failure to properly mind-read her for maybe several seconds during sex.

                  And then the next stage of her story is that the end of the condom got ripped at some point during the intercourse (he says there wasn't a ripped condom), and she imagines (mind-reading again) that he must have done this on purpose too. Then days later after the police had initiated prosecution, she happens to have saved the supposed ripped condom, goes and gets it and gives it to the police. But then they test it for DNA and there's nobody's DNA on it.

                  This "evidence" is simply preposterous as a basis for a "crime".

                •  Absolutely disgusting (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Rei
                  Assange pulled her arms over her head... which makes the breasts jut up. For... intended purposes.

                  He slid his foot down her legs and spread them.

                  All of that is what are called "night moves." Love moves. Whatever.

                  That is body language of lovemaking. It is not rape moves.

                  What exactly do you think is acceptable sexual conduct? Missionary quickie style? And don't answer that... I don't want to know.

                  Just get the fuck over it.

                  You are seriously deranged on this subject and you totally do a disservice to actual rape victims.

                  So I assume if someone ties a woman up at gunpoint and forces her legs open it's just the body language of lovemaking, with a little bondage involved.
                  What exactly do you think is acceptable sexual conduct? Missionary quickie style? And don't answer that... I don't want to know.
                  Acceptable sexual conduct is STOPPING WHEN YOUR PARTNER TELLS YOU TO STOP . . . PERIOD.

                  You don't ignore her or wait till she's asleep and take whatever you want.

                  Stuff like this is absolutely disgusting and does a disservice to actual rape victims, since Bronte17 is the ultimate arbiter of whether they've been raped. If they didn't fight enough, or they were drugged or coerced, they need to go ask Bronte17 to find out if they were really asking for it.

                  When we stop putting leaders from the past up on pedestals and ignoring their flaws, we can start seeing our present leaders for what they really are.

                  by PhillyJeff on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 11:36:03 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Not even on the same page Jeff and you know it (6+ / 0-)

                    You engage in the same hyperbole that Rei uses... emotionally-laden lies.

                    Tying hands up with restraints while holding a gun to someone's head is NOT the same thing as caressing hands held together moving over the head.

                    It's not difficult to understand the difference there. If you wanted to understand it, which you don't. You just want the drama.

                    And quelle surprise... Assange didn't have a gun. Nor restraints.

                    And Assange did indeed STOP!  


                    In my honor he pulled out old forgotten dignity and walked straight in a crooked world. ~~poetry of young Barack Obama

                    by bronte17 on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 11:54:08 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  Some of us are just as concerned (11+ / 0-)

                about the raping of human and civil rights as we are about sexual rape.

                The United States has gone far beyond rape, it has used its enormous status as a super power to rape entire countries with war.

                Julian Assange exposed its underbelly of lies.

                The United States has persecuted far too many whistle blowers. This has serious consequences that affect the world internationally.

                Thus, this is no longer a simple rape case between individual victim and aggressor, it is a case of persecution and intimidation of people who speak truth to power.

                What's you position on this? Do you support the Obama administration's persecution of whistle blowers? Do you have any moral issues with this practice?

                "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act". -George Orwell

                by ZhenRen on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 09:35:10 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  In short... (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  ChurchofBruce, FG

                  a person can be a great whistleblower speaking truth to power and a rapist.  The former should not give you a free pass to not have to face trial for the latter.

                  Don't get me wrong - Wikileaks is cool and all.  It's just not "go soft on rape" cool.

                  •  And because of that you feel the need (13+ / 0-)

                    to not discuss wikileaks or whistle blowers at all in any of these diaries?  That's really the problem here, is that these threads turn into a stupid argument about shit that has nothing to do with WikiLeaks or whistle blowers.

                    There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

                    by AoT on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 10:00:23 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  The price you ask is unfair (11+ / 0-)

                    You want Assange to be hauled into court for rape even at the risk of surrendering his civil and human rights.

                    The price of having one's day in court should not include being whisked away to a nation that has become notorious for torture and inhumane treatment of whistle-blowers.

                    If it were a case of Assange going to Sweden and answering the charges, and then possibly being cleared of those charges, and being set free, there would be no controversy here.

                    But when answering those charges requires putting one's civil rights in jeopardy, it is not at all a level laying field.

                    In fact, requiring a person to risk such jeopardy casts a shadow on the entire notion of fair play and justice. One should not have to face persecution in order to clear ones name.

                    This is what you fail to understand. There is nothing fair about demanding he ignore the very real possibility of persecution in order to answer the separate rape charges. Facing the accused in court should not involve willingly surrendering one's civil rights.

                    To place more value on the authority of the state to prosecute crimes than on civil rights is, well, ominously authoritarian of you. When civil rights must be surrendered in the name of justice, there is no real justice.

                    "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act". -George Orwell

                    by ZhenRen on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 10:34:36 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  You're making a mockery of the very concept (6+ / 0-)

                    of "justice."

                    There is no justice when submitting to it requires such potential injustice.

                    "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act". -George Orwell

                    by ZhenRen on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 10:42:24 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  So it doesn't matter if Assange is guilty? (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Rei, FG
                      You're making a mockery of the very concept of "justice."

                      There is no justice when submitting to it requires such potential injustice.

                      Are you seriously saying that even if Assange is guilty of raping these women (forcible, "legitimate rape" or not since apparently progressives are adopting the language of the anti-choice right now), it's totally fine and he should never face justice because US foreign policy is worse?

                      I honestly cannot comprehend this from progressives. We're at the point where people are saying EVEN IF ASSANGE ACTUALLY SEXUALLY ASSAULTED PEOPLE it's ok because women are expendable if it means WikiLeaks can continue.

                      They're just collateral damage. Now ask the same people about drone strikes and . . .

                      When we stop putting leaders from the past up on pedestals and ignoring their flaws, we can start seeing our present leaders for what they really are.

                      by PhillyJeff on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 11:41:42 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  The true timeline of events with Assange... (5+ / 0-)

                    Here is the timeline. Because the PDF is 57 pages this is within fair use limits.
                    Source...

                    Sequence of Events
                    Important events and developments relating to
                    the Swedish prosecutor’s case against Julian Assange

                    13 August 2010
                    Anna Ardin returns a day early to her Stockholm flat, which she has lent to Julian Assange in connection with a seminar. He offers to find other lodgings, but she invites him to stay. That night they engage in a lengthy session of consensual sex, during which she utters not a word of objection or dissatisfaction.

                    14 August 2010
                    Assange is the principal speaker at the seminar; Anna Ardin plays a key supporting role. Assange spends the afternoon with Sofia Wilén, during which they engage in heavy petting and agree to meet again. That evening, Anna Ardin arranges a crayfish party in Assange’s honour and expresses great delight at the company she is keeping.
                    Alternative lodgings are offered to Assange, but Ms. Ardin invites him to continue residing at her flat.

                    15 August 2010
                    At a meeting on the future activities of WikiLeaks in Sweden, Anna Ardin serves as Assange’s press secretary.

                    16 August 2010
                    Assange accompanies Sofia Wilén to her flat in the town of Enköping. He wears a condom during several consensual acts of sexual intercourse. Then he penetrates her once without a condom. She warns that he’d “better not have HIV” but lets him con-
                    tinue without objection. They part on apparently friendly terms and agree to meet again.

                    17-18 August 2010
                    Sofia Wilén becomes increasingly anxious about the risk of infection due to the one act of unprotected intercourse with Assange, but is unable to contact him.

                    19 August 2010
                    Sofia Wilén phones Anna Ardin to seek assistance in contacting Assange. It is not clear what they discussed with each other or with Assange. Ms. Ardin asks Assange to move out of her flat, which he does the following morning.

                    20 August 2010
                    Accompanied by Anna Ardin, Sofia Wilén visits a Stockholm police station — by their own account, for the limited purpose of obtaining assistance in compelling Assange to take an HIV test. Ms. Wilén is interviewed by a police officer who is a friend and political ally of Ms. Ardin. On the basis of very little information, including what appears to be a decisive utterance by Ms. Ardin, prosecutor #1 decides to arrest Assange in absentia on suspicion of rape and other sex crimes. When Ms. Wilén is informed of that decision, she is unable

                    ASSANGE & SWEDEN • SUSPICIOUS BEHAVIOUR

                    to continue the interview and leaves without approving the written account of it. News of the warrant is leaked to a Swedish tabloid and, within hours, global media are full of articles and headlines linking Assange’s name to the word “rape”.

                    21 August 2010
                    Less than one full day after the arrest warrant is issued, it is revoked by prosecutor #2 who finds that there are no grounds for suspicion of rape or any other sex crime. Anna Ardin is interviewed by the police via telephone, and gives an account of her sexual encounter with Assange on 13 August which differs from what she has previ-
                    ously told friends. Now, she says that she was the victim of a sexual assault, during which Assange is said to have destroyed a condom and duped her into having unprotected sex. But the “used” condom she subsequently provides as evidence turns out to be unused, and therefore could not have been destroyed in the manner that she claimed.

                    23 August 2010
                    The police officer who interviewed Sofia Wilén on August 20th is ordered by a superior to alter the protocol (written summary), which has still not been approved by Ms. Wilén.

                    24 August 2010
                    A politician-lawyer named Claes Borgström, who is in the midst of an election campaign and who is struggling to restore a tarnished legal reputation, becomes the publicly financed representative of Anna Ardin and Sofia Wilén. He immediately accuses Assange of sex crimes, cowardice, etc., in a “trial by media” that has continued
                    for 17 months.

                    30 August 2010
                    Julian Assange is finally interviewed for the first time, after a delay of ten days that violates police guidelines which call for rapid investigation. As specified by prosecutor #2, the interview is supposed to concern the one remaining suspected crime of non-sexual molestation. But the police interviewer chooses instead to focus on Assange’s sexual relations with Anna Ardin, especially her story about the broken condom (see 21 August).

                    1 September 2010
                    At the urging of Claes Borgström (see 24 August), the original case is reopened by prosecutor #3, Marianne Ny. Assange is now once again suspected of rape and other sex crimes, the precise details of which are not made known to him until mid-November. In
                    the months to follow, Ms. Ny will violate her own guidelines on the proper investigation of such cases.

                    21 August – 27 September 2010
                    Since first learning of the accusations against him from news media, Assange has voluntarily remained in Sweden and made himself available to the police and prosecutor. Through his attorney, he has made repeated attempts to be interviewed by prosecutor Ny or her agents, but she has rejected all proposals. Finally, after five weeks
                    and having secured Ms. Ny’s consent, Assange departs for Germany and then England. On the same day, Ms. Ny issues a secret warrant for Assange’s arrest.

                    October 2010
                    Assange continues to make himself available for an interview by prosecutor Ny, offering to return to Sweden for that purpose or to be interviewed in England, in person or via video link or other telecommunications. All such proposals are rejected by Ms. Ny.
                    Threats from leading figures in the United States against Assange’s life and freedom escalate in response to the continuing disclosures of WikiLeaks.

                    2

                    ASSANGE & SWEDEN • SUSPICIOUS BEHAVIOUR

                    20 November 2010
                    Prosecutor Ny issues a European Arrest Warrant for Assange and authorizes an Interpol Red Notice concerning him. In doing so, she ignores the less drastic alternative of arranging to interview him via Mutual Legal Assistance, an established mechanism for international co-operation. Ms. Ny states that it is not possible under Swedish law to interview him in England. That is an outright lie; there is no such law.

                    7 December 2010
                    Having announced his intention to resist extradition to Sweden, Assange turns himself into a London police station and for the first time gets to read a detailed description in his native tongue of the accusations against him. They turn out to be false and distorted
                    accounts of his consensual sexual encounters with Anna Ardin and Sofia Wilén. The most serious accusation is that he raped Ms. Wilén by penetrating her while she “due to sleep, was in a helpless state”. In fact, she was sufficiently awake to converse with Assange and indicate her consent (see 16 August). At prosecutor Ny’s request, Assange is jailed pending an extradition hearing. He is placed in solitary confinement with limited access to his lawyers, television, the library, telephones and the Internet.

                    16 December 2010
                    Assange wins an appeal to be released from confinement while waiting for the February hearing. But the conditions imposed are unusually restrictive: Assange must observe a 10:00 p.m. curfew, report to a local police station every day and constantly wear an
                    electronic ankle bracelet.

                    24 February 2011
                    Howard Riddle, a hostile judge, rejects Assange’s appeal against the European Arrest Warrant and extradition to Sweden. It was Judge Riddle who had jailed Assange the previous December.

                    2 November 2011
                    The U.K. High Court rejects Assange’s appeal of Judge Riddle’s ruling, based on a hearing conducted on 12-13 July.

                    16 December 2011
                    The U.K. Supreme Court grants an appeal on one point of law concerning the European Arrest Warrant. The hearing is scheduled for 1-2 February 2012.

                    11 January 2012
                    Assange 400th day of house arrest under the conditions noted above (16 December).

                    1–2 February 2012
                    Supreme Court extradition hearing. The issue to be decided is whether or not a prosecutor may be regarded as an independent and impartial “judicial authority”, and thereby qualified to issue a European Arrest Warrant. Ruling expected within weeks.

                    "We are a Plutocracy, we ought to face it. We need, desperately, to find new ways to hear independent voices & points of view" Ramsey Clark, U.S. Attorney General.

                    by Mr SeeMore on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 11:15:26 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  You do realize that about 3/4ths of that is (0+ / 0-)

                      flatly contradicted by the trial report, right?  Especially egregious is the "never tried to get an interview, Assange was free to go" stuff, for which Assange's lawyer  (Hurtig) is lucky he didn't get slapped with perjury and witness tampering charges on after it was proven that he had known that the claims were false (he got away on an exceedingly dubious "I must have forgotten" claim).

                  •  And Assange is willing to face trial if Sweden (6+ / 0-)

                    guarantees it will not extradite him to the U.S.  Ecuador has also said it is willing to accept that result.

                    It is Sweden that is refusing.

                    The influence of the [executive] has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.

                    by lysias on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 12:13:21 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  So, in the situation where the US asks for Assange (0+ / 0-)

                      to be extradited, and pledges no death penalty... does Sweden break their promise to Assange or do they break their extradition treaty with the US?  And likewise with the UK, since the UK would also have to approve a transfer.  Do both countries break their extradition treaties with the US?  And lose reciprocal extradition from the US to the UK and to Sweden?

                      For Sweden and the UK to guarantee this without being at risk of this (potentially serious) problem, they also need the cooperation of the US.  Maybe they'll get it; we'll see.  Or maybe they're willing to risk being put into that bind in order to close this issue.  But it must be noted that the bind does exist.

                      •  Given the treatment of Manning (7+ / 0-)

                        I think it would be entirely reasonable for Sweden and the UK to say that they won't extradite to to fears of deprivation of human rights.  Of course, the US obviously cares less and less about human rights as the days go on.  At this point you'd think the absurdly high chance of sexual assault in US prisons would be considered cruel and unusual punishment by reasonable countries.

                        And pretty much all of Europe seemed fine with not handing over Roman Polanski, and the US government didn't seem to protest too much when he got let go.  It certainly didn't end our treaty obligations.

                        There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

                        by AoT on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 01:12:10 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  So.. break extradition treaties with the US, then? (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          AoT

                          Should every country go ahead and do that or just those two?  And if just those two, is it simply because of Assange, or in general?

                          I'm not asking that, btw, with any sort of judgement implied - I'm honestly curious as to your opinion on the subject.

                          •  My point was more that an isolated case (6+ / 0-)

                            doesn't seem to break the treaties.  In regards to breaking the treaties in general, I think that on a practical level it's probably a bad idea for European countries, but if they actually stood on their principles then I think they'd be forced to break those agreements or at least seriously modify them.  Our "justice" system is a travesty.  It's racist and incredibly brutal.  I think that further restrictions on extradition might bring that point home.  Although that's probably wishful thinking.

                            There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

                            by AoT on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 01:40:15 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Rejecting an extradition request (4+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            lysias, joanneleon, Sandino, gerrilea

                            in a specific case does not necessarily amount to breaking the treaty.  As AoT pointed out, Switzerland rejected our request for Roman Polanski and it doesn't seem to have destroyed anything else about our relationship.

                            “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

                            by jrooth on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 01:43:07 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Fair enough. But one must note... (0+ / 0-)

                            that Polanski's extradition was not refused on the legal grounds of "Cuz?" or "We're just going to ignore the treaty."  It was based on two legal grounds.  The first was that the US failed to supply part of the necessary paperwork along with their application, to prove that Polanski had not already served his sentence.  The second was that the US waited 25 years before issuing the arrest warrant.

                            Indeed, it was a loophole.  As the linked article quotes the LA district attorney, "The Swiss could not have found a smaller hook on which to hang their hat".  But the key aspect is, what they did was indeed legal and within the treaty.

                            That's great for Assange's sake if the US does ultimately issue a grand jury request and is similarly sloppy.  But what if they're not?

                      •  After the way the U.S. has treated Bradley (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        joanneleon, gerrilea

                        Manning, Sweden would be entirely within her rights in refusing to extradite Assange to the U.S. for related charges.

                        The influence of the [executive] has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.

                        by lysias on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 02:20:45 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

              •  We have conflicting descriptions of what (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                aliasalias, joanneleon, Sandino

                occurred.  Further down is a timeline provided by another user.

                I've been the victim of rape, as you have, these events color our perceptions for a very long time, in fact, may color our abilities to think clearly even today.  Each of us are unique in how we handle and deal with these events, we all don't compartmentalize as you did.  

                I made no smear against the "victim", I asked you is having consensual sex without a condom rape? Something you've twisted, taking the alleged victim's position as valid.  It may be illegal in Sweden to have consensual sex without a condom but does it equal rape?

                The "victim" after the events tweeted how wonderful it all was and that she enjoyed being with all these powerful people, she then tried to delete these postings, after the claims of rape were made.  This is not the behavior of an innocent victim.

                Being accused of something doesn't equal being guilty of it.

                Who's perceptions are still colored? Who's zooming whom here?

                And as mentioned below, Assange is now the subject the world is talking about and not the things that were revealed...perfect propaganda techniques 101.

                -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                by gerrilea on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 12:17:46 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Gerrilea, what you are describing (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  FG

                  does not match at all the accusations, and that is the problem.  At no point is or was the charge "consensual sex without a condom".  The four allegations as in the warrant are:

                  1. On 13th – 14th August 2010, in the home of the injured party [name given] in Stockholm, Assange, by using violence, forced the injured party to endure his restricting her freedom of movement. The violence consisted in a firm hold of the injured party’s arms and a forceful spreading of her legs whilst lying on top of her and with his body weight preventing her from moving or shifting.

                  2. On 13th – 14th August 2010, in the home of the injured party [name given] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity. Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her without her knowledge.

                  3. On 18th August 2010 or on any of the days before or after that date, in the home of the injured party [name given] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity i.e. lying next to her and pressing his naked, erect penis to her body.

                  4. On 17th August 2010, in the home of the injured party [name given] in Enkoping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state. It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party’s sexual integrity.

                  More specifically: In the case of Ardin, the accusations she made are that he pinned her down and tried to pry her legs open to force unprotected sex, to where she was about to cry.  She eventually got him to put a condom on but he resumed pinning her down (what she later described to a friend as the "violent" sex with Julian).  Sex commenced briefly, but he withdrew and she heard a snapping sound while he was out; she could not see his body because she was pinned.  Sex resumed.  Afterwards she realized that the condom was broken.  Her assumption was that he deliberately broke it.  

                  Assange's response was to deny the charge of deliberately breaking the condom.  He did not deny any details of the nature of the sexual experience apart from that.  He did point out that there was (protected) sex with Ardin at one point after that.

                  Ardin did make a tweet that night about the party (which was pre-planned), although she also told a friend that night about the "violent" sex.  A friend made a suggestion about how she'd love to sleep with Assange, and she made a flippant remark back along the lines of "you can have him".  Nonetheless, there are actual complicating factors.  Ardin did move off of her own bed and ultimately even out of her own apartment to get away from him - but not immediately.  It took several days.  She had also seemed attached to him early on.  The overall impression from reading the witness testimony is that what happened bothered her more as time went on.

                  Concerning Wilén, however, it's quite clear-cut, and the charge more serious (as noted in the court documents).  The allegations concerning Wilén are: that he had spent hours trying to have unprotected sex with her, while she only wanted to have protected sex (she was quite up for protected sex, and by all objective standards, it was she who had hut on him).  She was, however, frustrated for much of the evening by his reluctance to use protection.  The scale of her obsession with protection was evidenced by the witness statements of her boyfriend of 2 1/2 years, who said that she insisted that they get STD tested together before having even merely protected sex, and that there was no unprotected sex during their entire relationship; that it was simply "unthinkable" to her.  Next to Assange, she went to sleep, only to wake up with him inside of her, unprotected.  Once she found this out, she said that she felt it was too late and did not fight.  The next morning, she made him breakfast, drove him off, came home, and had a right proper freakout, taking the day off work, getting tests, and calling friends in a panic.

                  Assange has never been interviewed about her.  The only public pushback his defense team has made on this one is to argue that she was only "half-asleep" (as if that's oh-so-f'ing-much better), and to point out that they had had consensual sex the night before (which is just insulting, as if consent to unprotected sex while explicit refusal to consent to unprotected sex means someone gets to fuck you unprotected in your sleep).

                  The witness statements for Wilén are quite consistent and pretty damning.  Some people are making a big deal of what Assange's defense team globbed onto, that one of the witnesses was told that she was "half asleep" instead of "asleep" as Wilén said in her testimony.  But even the half-asleep statement continues, "she woke up to discover Assange was inside her".

                  ----

                  To reiterate: the alleged crimes are not that he "had consensual sex without a condom"!

                  •  Look, we may never know the truth here about (0+ / 0-)

                    these sexual exploits.

                    What I see in your description is an assumption that the version presented by the women is the whole truth and nothing but the truth. You even justify this by stating "He did not deny any details of the nature of the sexual experience"

                    I'm still wondering how this makes him guilty of rape.  The one thing I've learned through the years, never admit nor deny anything to any police officer. The alleged condoms used were saved and then tested for dna and there was none to be found, her's or his.  

                    I find the credibility of the second woman (and her boyfriend of 2 1/2 yrs) to be suspect.  From my perspective, having multiple partners while in a "committed" relationship is okay but the moral line drawn is in the use of protection???  It doesn't make sense.

                    If she truly had this high moral standard when she realized what was going on, through her claimed sleepy haze, she should have stopped it and called the police...this didn't happen.  Meaning her own claimed moral standards are just window dressing that just happens to work out as a rape charge in Sweden against the man blamed for presenting to the world our government's dirty laundry.

                    I still don't buy into your version. This is the classic MO of cointelpro.  Throw a party for intended target, invite loose women there whom may have already been told about his "pet peeves" (not wishing to have protected sex) and then tease him all night long with that "forbidden fruit"...etc, etc, etc...This reads like some freaking novel.

                    I'm not that naive any longer.  And yes the question still stands as valid: Having sex without a condom is rape???

                    If it was any other person on this planet, I might buy into this propaganda, might...

                    The stakes right now is control of information, who controls it? "We The People" or the sycophants running our corrupt governments?

                    They've done a wonderful job in demonizing the messenger here and obfuscating their own crimes and sending the very clear message to anyone else thinking about revealing the truth to us all: "We Will Get You!"

                    -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                    by gerrilea on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 11:04:53 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

            •  Connected to the CIA (0+ / 0-)

              All we have to do is connect the dots and we can find out who's behind this conspiracy.  Let's see.... Anna Ardin is involved in the same political party as politician and actor Gert Fylking... who voiced a vehicle in the Swedish version of the Pixar movie "Cars"... which was written by Dan Fogelman... who also wrote "Crazy, Stupid Love", starring... Kevin Bacon!  My god, Kevin Bacon is behind all this!

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

          •  These rape charges are very suspect (16+ / 0-)

            according to feminist and rape victims rights advocate, Naomi Wolf, who has spent 23 years reporting on global rape law.  She says this:  "this case is not being treated as a normal rape or sexual assault case, and the new details of the police transcript confirm my position further."

            Read what she has to say about the case.

            http://ferrada-noli.blogspot.com/...

            •  Naomi Wolf, who's currently getting attacked (0+ / 0-)

              by like 90% of the feminist blogs on the net over her demonstrably false comments?  

            •  Too late, the subject has already been changed (9+ / 0-)

              The rape charges have been successfully used to shut down any conversation about the issues around whistle blowers and press freedom, etc.

              There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

              by AoT on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 09:19:10 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Why do people respond? (7+ / 0-)

                This is obviously rei's design in any diary regarding Assange and/or wikileaks. Folks always take the bait.

                Another diary successfully hijacked.

                "I don't try to describe the future. I try to prevent it." - Ray Bradbury

                by chuckvw on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 10:45:50 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Because this is about rape charges. The rest is (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                ChurchofBruce, Rei

                smokescreen by Assange.

                •  Sure, this has nothing to do with the attacks on (5+ / 0-)

                  whistle blowers.  Assange just made all that up so he could rape at will.  He actually forced the administration to prosecute whistle blowers so he could get away with rape.  He's so devious.

                  There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

                  by AoT on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 10:55:14 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Prosecution of whistleblowers is a separate issue. (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    ChurchofBruce, Rei

                    Assange is using it to avoid the rape charges.

                    •  And this diary didn't talk about that at all (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      FG, Sandino, gerrilea

                      It's a diary addressing the prosecution of whistle blowers and yet no one is talking about that.  The idea that the UK actually cares this much about rape is absurd.  He should be held accountable, but threatening to raid an embassy, seriously?

                      There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

                      by AoT on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 12:14:51 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Rape charges are the reason we have this standoff. (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Rei

                        So talking about them is not a distraction. There are certainly legitimate concerns about treatment of whistleblowers but this is not what it is about.

                        •  In other words you aren't going to talk about (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          jrooth, Sandino, gerrilea

                          whistle blowers because there was a rape.  Even though this diary talks about whistle blowers.  I bet every time someone talks about Social Security and how we have to preserve it you bring up FDR and the fact that he put more than a hundred thousand Japanese Americans in internment camps.  I'm sure for every quote from him you read you bring that up, because it's so important.

                          There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

                          by AoT on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 12:35:44 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Yes. No matter how whistleblowers are treated, (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Rei

                            it's not an excuse to avoid prosecution for a crime.

                          •  The point isn't to avoid prosecution (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Sandino, gerrilea

                            It's to avoid being unfairly targeted by the US and charged with bullshit charges.  If rape was really important then Sweden coud issue a statement that they will refuse to extradite or hand Assange over to the US.

                            And you again manage to completely ignore the problem the US has with it's vicious attacks on whistle blowers.

                            And I'm going to bet dollars to donuts that you never bring up the internment of Japanese Americans when a discussion of Social Security comes up.

                            There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

                            by AoT on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 01:23:47 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  They can't issue this statement. Not b/c they (0+ / 0-)

                            don't want to but b/c it would have been illegal for them to do so.  They have a treaty with US on extradition and they are obligated to consider extradition requests. And they can't declare in advance that they will deny the request since the request doesn't exist at this point (and likely will never be filed).

                            And the fact that the majority opinion of this site seems to be that rape is not a crime when the person committing it has the same ideology as the writer tells me a lot about people here.

                            Yes, US should have treated Manning better and is too harsh on whistleblowers. But it has nothing to do with Assange's problems right now.

                          •  Quit with your nonsense accusations (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Sandino, gerrilea

                            about what counts as a crime.  I've said again and again that he needs to be held responsible for his actions.  If you want to present me as a defender of rapists then you honestly deserve an HR.  Certainly, there are some people who have pointed out irregularities in the case, and there might be irregularities but the only irregularity I care about is the fact that there is a serious chance that Assange will be stuck away in prison for life in the US because he embarrassed some powerful people.  You obviously could care less about the potential deprivation of human rights.  

                            And honestly, I don't see you saying anything about rape until it comes to this case, how terribly convenient that someone you don't like is charged with rape and you can jump in with how outraged you are about people "defending" a rapist.  

                            As I've said before on the topic of extradition, it would be a small thing for them to offer these assurances, that Sweden refuses to do so speaks volumes as to how much this case has to do with protecting women from rape.

                            There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

                            by AoT on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 02:30:43 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You, no. But look at any Assange diary and (0+ / 0-)

                            it will be full of comments like this. I never said anything about rape b/c I don't have anything interesting to say about it. I don't care about Assange one way or another. Other than that he shouldn't be running away from these charges. He has lawyers to deal with any irregularities.

                          •  Oops, I replied to my (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            gerrilea

                            comment instead of your.  See below for my response.

                            There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

                            by AoT on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 01:26:59 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  Au contraire ... (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Sandino, gerrilea

                          Treatment of whistleblowers is exactly what this diary is about.  It's pretty much what every diary Ms. Radack writes is about.

                          “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

                          by jrooth on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 12:39:54 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

          •  First, the entire world has NEVER heard (10+ / 0-)

            the other side of this story.

            We have simply been blasted continually about what a vile rapist Julian Assange is and how he is a coward fleeing the righteous punishment of his vicious heinous attacks upon these two sweet sweet women.

            Leave it to Rei to totally derail a diary about WHISTLEBLOWERS by throwing in the flamefest RAPE word and ASSANGE.

            Rei in a nutshell there. Oh... and throw in some hyperbolic language of horrible rapes perpetrated so as to somehow make all sexual incidents equivalent. But, especially slander Julian Assange as the vile rapist that Rei spams in every single Wikileaks or Assange diary.

            Finally, the only people in high places who are skirting the law in the Assange case are the prosecuting attorney, Marianne Ny, and the dramatic circus she has built in a flawed case.

            The original prosecutor and police interview with Assange found no reason to arrest him. And he was free to go.

            And several weeks later, when Marianne Ny interposed herself and reopened the case, she based her INTERPOL arrest warrant on flawed evidence. The police woman who interviewed the two accusers mishandled that evidence (and did not follow proper police protocol) so that evidence is flawed and can never be used as a basis for the case.

            But, this has all been said in the Assange diaries, where it belongs, and not in a diary about whistleblowers.

            But, as usual, Rei derails all diaries all the time if they remotely reference Wikileaks or Assange.


            In my honor he pulled out old forgotten dignity and walked straight in a crooked world. ~~poetry of young Barack Obama

            by bronte17 on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 09:16:53 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I know, right? (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ChurchofBruce, lcj98, Rei, FG

              Just because the guy rapes women now and then, why do people have to go nuts about it? Can't they see that Julian Assange is the awesomest awesome that ever awesomed?

              Maybe you should tell Rei to just lie back and enjoy the discussion.

              So many stupid people in the world, and me with only two fists.

              by phenry on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 10:02:01 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Horrible thing for you to make fun of rape (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                gerrilea

                in such a fashion.


                In my honor he pulled out old forgotten dignity and walked straight in a crooked world. ~~poetry of young Barack Obama

                by bronte17 on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 11:48:03 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Don't you do the same thing? (0+ / 0-)
                  •  No, I do not. And you do not get to lie to my face (0+ / 0-)

                    and everyone else about that. You are engaging in hyperbolic false accusations just like your protégé sidekicks in Sweden.

                    You... and Rei... and all the other proclaimed saviors of all that is holy in women have been manipulated beyond redemption.

                    This case has very weak components at best. And your ilk have refused at every single step to acknowledge that fact. And you refuse to acknowledge that the US intelligence agencies are playing on your outrage meters in order to snare Assange for their own purposes. They do NOT give a damn about rape or those two women's welfare nor what the hell you think about any of it.

                    So, stick your obscene negativity and deliberate ignorance somewhere else other than my face. This is too important and critical for your misbegotten outrage shenanigans to cause such harm.

                    If you think the US is threatening economic sanctions against Ecuador over the sexual molestation of those two women... you need to seek serious help with your bias blinders. You are doing women no favors by engaging in this self-defeating behavior.

                    As we’ve said before, the United States that Mr. Correa so despises allows Ecuador to export many goods duty-free, supports roughly 400,000 jobs in a country of 14 million people and accounts for one-third of Ecuador’s foreign sales. Congress could easily decide to diminish that privileged commercial access early next year.


                    In my honor he pulled out old forgotten dignity and walked straight in a crooked world. ~~poetry of young Barack Obama

                    by bronte17 on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 07:32:04 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

          •  Rubbish (6+ / 0-)

            Nobody has "filed a charge of rape", and no woman in Sweden or anywhere else has ever accused Assange or raping her. The only persons that have accused anyone of "rape" here are the prosecutors in Sweden. When the supposed "rape victim" heard this was what the authorities were going to do with her statements, she said that isn't what she wanted and became so distraught she ended the police interview, never signed the summary of her prior statement, and later said she felt railroaded by the police. This makes sense because she was only there over concerns about STDs and what happened wasn't a rape.

            The other woman (for which the proposed charge is some kind of "molestation" and not rape), however, does seem to be a dishonest crackpot who is trying to ruin an innocent man's life with baseless accusations based entirely on her mind-reading speculations and a supposedly ripped condom which she supposedly saved and happened to have days later when it turned out this might help the prosecution/persecution. But the ripped condom she supplied, claiming it was the one used by her and Assange, turned out to have nobody's DNA anywhere on it (i.e., it was unused).

            The sordid details of this nonsensical "case" are laid out pretty well here: http://www.nnn.se/...

          •  Assange's accusers have changed their story (7+ / 0-)

            considerably since their initial interview with police - where they went in asking merely if they could compel Assange to get an HIV test after consensual but regretted sex; and the one accusing him of raping her in her sleep (who previously indicated that the sex was consensual) went so far as to delete tweets that contradicted her new story.

            Everything about this case is fishy.

            Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

            by Robobagpiper on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 10:29:30 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Actually, that's not fair. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Don midwest, Sandino, gerrilea

              One accuser changed her story substantially.

              Apparently, the other accuser's story was changed substantially, by the police, at the prosecutor's behest, without her permission.

              Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

              by Robobagpiper on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 02:24:01 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Threadjacking. HR. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Sandino, gerrilea

            This diary is about the war on whistleblowers, not about the accusations made by two Swedish women. As such, the entire thread is disruptive and should be hidden from Rei's comment on down.

            If Rei wants to engage in her crusade against Assange, she should do it in her own diary instead of hijacking every single diary written on Assange as a whistleblower.

            The case against Assange debunked: http://www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/suspicious.pdf

            by expatjourno on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 01:58:21 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  For your reading perusal: (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        phenry

        The British lower court ruling.

        Quite clear that the European Arrest Warrant's goal is to prosecute him for rape.  

        •  then why not file formal charges? (7+ / 0-)

          and why not interview him inside the embassy?

          •  If you'd read the actual link... (0+ / 0-)

            you'd learn that he has to be in Swedish custody to get to the stage where formal charges can be filed.

            •  then the Swedes could accept the offer ... (14+ / 0-)

              ... made both by Assange and the Ecuadorans, that Assange will go to Sweden to answer the charges provided that the possibility of extradition to the US on charges related to Wikileaks are taken off the table.

              Ecuador delayed granting asylum to Assange for weeks because they were trying to work out such a deal with the Swedes.

              •  That's not what was asked. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                FG

                Even what's been mentioned in public statements is that he will never, under any circumstance, be extradited to the US (not just concerning Wikileaks), which could be in violation of Sweden's treaty obligations (once again, all those pesky laws...).  Sweden has reiterated that they will not extradite him for anything that could face the death penalty.

                •  No death penalty? (7+ / 0-)

                  Oh, just subject to being treated inhumanely and even tortured, as occurred with Manning. Well, shit, he should surrender immediately, if that's the case!

                  LOL.

                  "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act". -George Orwell

                  by ZhenRen on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 09:25:17 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  He had no issue with being in Sweden (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    FG, ChurchofBruce

                    until he stood to be charged for rape; he was even applying for permanent residency there.  And then suddenly when he was facing rape charges, he fled where?  To the US's biggest partner in the global extradition scheme, the UK, where he put his faith in the UK courts.  The same UK court system that would have to sign off on any extradition from Sweden.  Apparently the UK courts were great for him until they sided against him, twice.  

                    So for him, the Swedish system was safe enough protection against unfair extradition to live there, and then the UK system was safe enough protection against unfair extradition to live there.  And now both would have to sign off on any extradition.

                    To be snarky, "if it's good enough for Assange, it's good enough for me."

                    •  You're making a lot of assumptions... (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Don midwest, lysias, Sandino

                      about his reasons for traveling to the U.K. from Sweden.

                      You're making a lot assumptions about the man's internal thinking processes.

                      And you may not know everything that Assange knew about the background innuendo surrounding this ordeal.

                      For example, you don't know how fast circumstances may have been changing on the ground for Assange. You don't know how fast the decisions, internally in Sweden's government, may have been unfolding, as the U.S. exerted its muscle.

                      It's quite possible that Assange's estimation of the level of danger he was in escalated rapidly.

                      His options may have closed in on him suddenly, changing over a matter of hours. His decisions may have been difficult, of which the outcomes were unclear.

                      The U.S. may have preferred he be convicted for rape first, then tried for "espionage".  They may have wanted him in Sweden, not the U.K. The U.K. may have been complicit in this decision. If he had been convicted of rape, what better way to insure his conviction in the US. of dubious charges of espionage? You're forgetting the massive intelligence capability and strategizing that must have been ongoing in the U.S.
                      intelligence apparatus.

                      You're presuming to have all the answers. And they all conveniently point to affirming your authoritarian view that his rights as a person are not nearly as important as the right of Sweden and the U.S. to exert state power over an individual, in particular an individual who has given a black eye to the most powerful nation-state of the world.

                      "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act". -George Orwell

                      by ZhenRen on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 11:10:38 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  You're making a lot of assumptions also (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        FG

                        What evidence do you have that he's not just fleeing justice?

                        If you were talking about Bradley Manning, you'd have an argument.

                        If he's such a martyr, why doesn't he submit to international justice and plead his case and, if necessary, go to jail unjustly to protest all the evil US imperialism etc that you decry so badly. At least I'd respect him for doing so.

                        When we stop putting leaders from the past up on pedestals and ignoring their flaws, we can start seeing our present leaders for what they really are.

                        by PhillyJeff on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 11:46:52 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Why doesn't he just submit to indefinite (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Sandino

                          detention to prove he's right?  Is that really the standard we're holding people to?

                          If the UK and Sweden were actually concerned about rape then they'd offer assurances that he won't be given to the US.  That's what Ecuador asked both of them for before they gave him asylum.  It doesn't seem like much to ask if they aren't going to hand him over to the US.

                          There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

                          by AoT on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 12:17:40 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  My god... (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          AoT, aliasalias, Sandino

                          Naivete'.

                          Submit to an international court? The U.S. has officials who have been on record for signing on to torture who haven't been called to justice before such courts. There is no functioning, reliable "international justice."

                          Its not easy for any sort of international tribunal to stand up to the power of the United States.

                          If he voluntarily went to jail, as you suggest, he probably would not see the light of day for months. It's pretty hard to protest injustice when you're suffering from inhumane, debilitating treatment.

                          As to "fleeing justice," you've once again ignored that he is fleeing the injustice of the American security culture. He's already been declared guilty here by some officials.

                          And one need only look at the treatment of Manning to know what's in store for Assange.

                          But you want him to risk suffering all that in the name of "justice"? Have you considered that he may be innocent? And if he is, should he risk enduring what is a virtual certainly if he is extradited just to prove his innocence? Ruin his whole life? Really?

                          THAT is not justice, and it does not serve justice. Your sophistry doesn't make it okay.

                          My god...  

                          "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act". -George Orwell

                          by ZhenRen on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 12:17:48 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                •  Your link goes to a mobile site... (0+ / 0-)

                  Can't read it on my laptop.

                  "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act". -George Orwell

                  by ZhenRen on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 09:40:23 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Now, I will say... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                AoT

                that after the PR disaster that was the British memo to Ecuador, I think things will calm down and go back to negotiation, at least for several weeks.  And I think it's quite possible that something might be struck out such that the US will agree not to hold any grand jury trial that could lead to an extradition request while Assange is in Swedish custody (keeping Sweden and the UK out of the awkward position of having to choose between breaking a promise or breaking an extradition treaty - remember, the UK also has to approve any extradition request from Sweden, under the terms of the EAW) in exchange for Assange going willingly.  If he actually would, I don't know.

    •  Assange said he would (26+ / 0-)

      go to Sweden and face the allegations if the United States government announced that it would stop persecuting him.

      I'd say there's too much attention on Assange the person's "flaws" and far too little on the government crimes and corruption Assange the journalist has exposed.

      •  Since when does the accused (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ChurchofBruce, Rei, FG

        get to personally set the standards and boundaries for their prosecution--by the way, not "persecution", as you suggest.

        Assange's statement goes straight to the egocentricity that alienates many of us who respect his goals but cringe at his behavior.

        Romney-Ryan, Unhinged 2012

        by smartdemmg on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 08:28:01 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  he is not yet even accused (12+ / 0-)

          He is officially only wanted for questioning. He has offered to go to Sweden to answer the charges. What he is refusing is the possibility of being transferred to the US and subjected to the same kind of  treatment Bradley Manning was subjected to, treatment that has been officially ruled as cruel, inhuman, degrading, and borderline torture by the UN special rapporteur on torture.

          •  He had no problem being in Sweden (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            smartdemmg

            when he was applying to live there until he faced arrest for rape.  He had no problem with the UK court system (which would have to second any extradition to the US if he were in Sweden) until they ruled against him.  Why should we expect Assange's attitude to be any different this time?

            Another question for you: If he was so confident that he was a political refugee fleeing a legitimate fear of persecution instead of simply fleeing prosecution, why didn't he even bother to appeal his case to the European Court of Human Rights?  

            FYI: the EAW makes it quite clear (as has been pointed out elsewhere) that he's wanted for questioning with intent to prosecute, as formal charges cannot be filed until he's in Swedish custody.  So continually saying "There's no charges against him" is circular logic.

            •  I'm still seeking a legal cite (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Don midwest, chuckvw, priceman

              for this claim:

              FYI: the EAW makes it quite clear (as has been pointed out elsewhere) that he's wanted for questioning with intent to prosecute, as formal charges cannot be filed until he's in Swedish custody.  So continually saying "There's no charges against him" is circular logic.
              I've been seeking it for months now without success.  All I've found are assertions that this is so.

              The nearest I've seen is from the UK court ruling which said that he must be interviewed before being charged (page 19 of the ruling.)  It gave no cite for that claim nor did it explain why such interview could not be conducted outside Sweden, nor did it explain the discrepancy between the claim that "no interrogation has taken place" and the statement that "Mr Assange had been interviewed about the sexual assault allegations before Ms Ny took over
              the case." and why that interview does not fulfill the Swedish requirement for an interview before charging.

              “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

              by jrooth on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 10:18:28 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  The UK court ruling isn't good enough for you? (0+ / 0-)

                How about Fair Trials International?

                If not, geez, what more do you want?

                As for your comments about the ruling, it's discussed all over the place, not just page 19.  For example, it's directly in the Swedish prosecutor's sworn statement on page 16, section 7 and page 17, section 10; there's more in the first fact finding section, page 9, fact 1, for example.

                Did you merely do a keyword search or something?  I have trouble imagining that you read the ruling and somehow missed all that.

                •  It would be good enough for me (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Robobagpiper, Don midwest, priceman

                  if it actually said that.  It's possible I missed where it does say that, if so I'd be most appreciative if you could point it out to me.  I actually did go to the trouble of at least a quick read through it with the express purpose of finding that cite (since you said elsewhere that is was there.)  

                  The Fair Trials International Q&A does make that assertion, but it doesn't give any legal cite (which is what I asked for).  I did email them to ask for the cite but did not receive a reply.

                  I'm sorry, but I'm not going to be badgered into accepting assertions of fact without backup.

                  “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

                  by jrooth on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 10:42:09 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  And again, the things you point to (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Robobagpiper, Don midwest, priceman

                  don't say what you claim the say.  For instance, page 16 paragraph 7 of Ms. Ny's sworn statement:

                  According to Swedish law, a formal decision to indict may not be taken at the stage that the
                  criminal process is currently at
                  .  Julian Assange’s case is currently at the stage of “preliminary
                  investigation”.  It will only be concluded when Julian Assange is surrendered to Sweden and
                  has been interrogated.
                  Nowhere does it say a charge may not be laid in absentia.  She says a charge may not be laid when the criminal process is still in "preliminary investigation."

                  Yes, it says "It will only be concluded when Julian Assange is surrendered to Sweden and
                  has been interrogated." but that could as well be read as her statement about what she intends with regard to the investigation, rather than a statement that Swedish law forbids in absentia charging.

                  I have attempted to search Lagrummet for the relevant statute, but I'm afraid my Swedish is nowhere near good enough to wade through that much legalese.

                  “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

                  by jrooth on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 10:51:39 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  Since another sovereign country (10+ / 0-)

          has decided that his fears of political persecution are credible and therefore granted him asylum.

          “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

          by jrooth on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 09:08:12 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Wow, just wow! (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Kickemout, ChurchofBruce, lcj98, Rei, FG

        ... I never thought I'd see people here so quick to dismiss serious accusations of sexually assaulting women just because the alleged assailant happens to do something else most of us agree with.

        At least Bradley Manning has the courage to face his accusers and make a case for his actions. As for the assertion that Swedish authorities are only trying to do the dirty work of the U.S. government in their investigation of Assange, well, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and I've yet to see any proof of such a diplomatic deal driving the legal process.

        I will admit, however, seeing Assange issue his pathetic demands was good for a laugh. Right now he's in no position to demand anything.

        •  Maybe because they are not serious? (9+ / 0-)

          Maybe since he had sex with the woman the night before and it was consensual and had sex with her the next morning (since they were sleeping together). And then, much later, allegations of a torn condom and rape since the lady was asleep the next morning, to those of us who understand that this is a piss poor attempt (although it has done quite well amongst folks that don't like their world view shaken) to smear Assange.

          Now here is the rub: Assange has been viewed as enemy number one by the US. They haven't appreciated his collection of CYA papers that he has worked with other papers to publish. They haven't appreciated looking bad in any way shape or form. And strange to tell, they don't even want to talk about the stuff. The worse stuff was the shooting of the journalist and even later shooting the fellow who had kids in the car and tried to rescue the journalist. That was US doing the shooting. Hard to win over hearts and minds doing that sort of thing. The rest, as far as I can determine were cables that tended to make everybody look like asses.

          The US has a huge amount of influence due to the money we splash around to all comers. And also due to the military hardware we have all over the world with the troopers to man them.

          You may feel vindicated in hanging on to illusions by the rape charge. I haven't seen anything that remotely looks like rape. But we are all allowed to think what we want.

          American Television is a vast sea of stupid. -xxdr zombiexx

          by glitterscale on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 08:53:31 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  So rape can never happen in a relationship? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Rei
            Maybe since he had sex with the woman the night before and it was consensual and had sex with her the next morning (since they were sleeping together).
            Are you honestly saying that because they had consensual sex before, he has the right to take it whenever he wants it.

            I really shudder to think about your opinion on marital rape, or even date rape for that matter.

            What if she just gave him a seductive look or was wearing a short skirt?

            When we stop putting leaders from the past up on pedestals and ignoring their flaws, we can start seeing our present leaders for what they really are.

            by PhillyJeff on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 11:51:30 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  In a relationship most anything can happen (0+ / 0-)

              But don't give me that crap that this IS the real deal. There are just too many things surrounding the charges that make it rather gamey.

              When something is a smelly as this, it might be possible that it is fishy. So what will happen when the British police storm the embassy thereby tossing up international laws up to the heavens. And Assange is dutifully carted out and handed over. Then we will probably find that the US will whip out that indictment the government has been keeping secret and Assange will find himself in Gitmo. Because we now CAN do that without any charges at all actually, but it is nice to have something to get the Swedes to cough him up.

              Will you give a damn? Or will you just chuff and say "not my problem!"

              American Television is a vast sea of stupid. -xxdr zombiexx

              by glitterscale on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 01:56:38 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  The evidence for the extraordinary claim .. (10+ / 0-)

          ... is that Sweden has rejected the offer of both Assange and the Ecuadoran government, both of whom have offered to turn Assange over to Sweden to face any possible rape charges (charges not yet filed) in exchange for a guarantee that Sweden promise not to extradite him to the US.

          Given that the US does not meet the minimum EU standards for the treatment of prisoners in these kinds of cases (see: Bradley Manning) it would be easy for the Swedes to come up with legal justification for making such a promise.  Yet they refuse.

          I do think that Assange should face sexual misconduct charges, if there are any (no charges have been filed yet). But as for Wikileaks, it is journalism, and it's not the job of non-Americans to keep American secrets.

        •  Who is dismissing them? (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Don midwest, Robobagpiper, chuckvw

          To the extent anyone is doing that, I'll join you in condemning it.

          There are two separate and competing concerns here.  It seems to me it's as wrong to dismiss either one of them.  That's what I see most everyone who is expressing support for Assange/Wikileaks with regard to the threat of US government action against them saying.  That's not dismissing sexual assault.

          “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

          by jrooth on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 09:14:30 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I didn't dismiss the (13+ / 0-)

          accusations. I said nothing about the accusations. I said that Assange has said he would agree to go to Sweden absent the threat of continued persecution from the United States. If you care about the women making the accusations, you should join us in calling on the U.S. to stop persecuting Assange.  

      •  There is little doubt in my mind that the US is (15+ / 0-)

        prepared to charge and extradite Assange.

        AUSTRALIAN diplomats have no doubt the United States is still gunning for Julian Assange, according to Foreign Affairs Department documents obtained by The Saturday Age.

        The Australian embassy in Washington has been tracking a US espionage investigation targeting the WikiLeaks publisher for more than 18 months.
        WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.

        The declassified diplomatic cables, released under freedom of information laws, show Australia's diplomatic service takes seriously the likelihood that Assange will eventually be extradited to the US on charges arising from WikiLeaks obtaining leaked US military and diplomatic documents.

        Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/...
        Mark Weisbrot noted in his Guardian article yesterday former Stockholm chief district prosecutor Sven-Erik Alhem “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.”
        Julians fears of being extradited from Sweden to the US to face charges for Espionage in the US are what prompted his appeal to the Ecuadorian embassy for asylum.
        The Saturday Age, based in Australia, has published a report that features some critical details on the United States government’s plans for Assange. It describes Australian Foreign Affairs Department documents that were obtained under freedom of information laws and show the Australian diplomatic service “takes seriously the likelihood that Assange will eventually be extradited to the US on charges arising from WikiLeaks obtaining leaked US military and diplomatic documents.” Australia’s ambassador to the US Kim Beazley sought “high-level US advice on ‘the direction and likely outcome of the investigation’ and “reiterated’ an Australian government request for “early advice of any decision to indict or seek extradition” of Assange.

        The diplomatic cables identify “a wide range of criminal charges the US could bring against Assange, including espionage, conspiracy, unlawful access to classified information and computer fraud.” They indicate “Australian diplomats expect that any charges against Assange would be carefully drawn in an effort to avoid conflict with the First Amendment free speech provisions of the US constitution.”

        Additionally, Australian diplomats have apparently been informed of “several connections between Manning and WikiLeaks,” which prosecutors have uncovered that would form the “basis of a conspiracy charge.” The diplomats have found any investigation would “target” the “founders, owners or managers of WikiLeaks” for espionage.


        "When the powerless are shut out of the media, we will make the media irrelevant" ~♥~ Anonymous ~♥~

        by Lisa Lockwood on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 09:04:41 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Sweden refused to promise (12+ / 0-)

        it would not extradite Assange to the U.S. Since when do individuals wanted for questioning in sexual assault cases cause major international incidents like the U.K. threatening to storm the Ecuadorian embassy? The evidence points to more at play here than simply extraditing Assange for questioning for the sexual assault charges.  

        My book, TRAITOR: THE WHISTLEBLOWER & THE "AMERICAN TALIBAN," is Amazon's #1 Best Seller in Human Rights Books for February 2012.

        by Jesselyn Radack on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 10:04:55 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Assange said a whole lot of good things there.... (22+ / 0-)

    You can easily recognize people who oppose but don't dare to attack his message when they try to turn the debate on the Swedish accusations. Assange himself didn't even mention them.

    he called for the US to stop its witchunt on Wikileaks, disband the FBI / DHS unit about it.  

    he's SO right.

  •  It's a common tactic (31+ / 0-)

    of propaganda to emphasize the messenger in order to distract from the message.
       Even MLK and Ghandi weren't perfect. I bet I could find lots of anti-Ghandi material from British sources.

    ¡Cállate o despertarás la izquierda! - protest sign in Spain

    by gjohnsit on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 05:54:43 AM PDT

  •  Naomi Wolfe - attack on journalists (40+ / 0-)

    Do Americans realize that the attack on whistle blowers  along with extensive surveillance techniques is an attack on journalism?

    RT:Recently, US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced an order to Pentagon officials to begin monitoring major news stations in the US to see if any media outlets are disclosing classified information. As a journalist and an American, what is your take?
    Naomi Wolf: My immediate take is a profound feeling of nausea and a sense that somehow, the United States has collapsed into the Soviet Union circa the mid-1930s. This was horribly foreseeable, but I can’t believe it’s come to this. The Bush administration began its trajectory several years ago by saying that they were going to start to reactivate the Espionage Act, and they threatened to go after The New York Times when they broke the SWIFT banking story about how the government was monitoring people's financial transactions. But a journalist’s job is to publish classified information. First of all, these two White Houses, Obama’s and Bush’s, have been systematically over-classifying everything, especially wrong-doing – anything related to what whistleblowers want to release, torture they’ve engaged in, the methods of torture, fraud, corruption – they’re classifying it all. I’ve had conversations with legal representatives of people at Guantanamo who tell me that they can’t tell me how their clients have been tortured because it’s classified and they would get in trouble because of the way government is over-classifying information. It’s not national security information, it’s the government classification as a way of protecting its own corruption and fraud.
    But what’s so scary about this is that anyone who’s a journalist, who tells the truth – and there’s nothing wrong with this – it’s journalists doing their job, I will say, and I said this when Julian Assange was arrested – that up and down the eastern seaboard in dinner parties, in cocktail parties in the elite media stream, all we do is talk about classified information and trade classified information, share classified information, and show off when we have classified information, because it means that we are being effective at our jobs. That’s not the same as leaking it. I do agree that someone who actually leaks classified information knows that they’re breaking the law. I’m not saying there’s no reason not to have classification in a working democracy, but the job of journalists is to publish classified information that is brought to them that’s in the public interest. And so now, it’s like mafia tactics; the government is saying to journalists everywhere in America, we’re going to intimidate you. And we’re threatening you with serious legal penalties like prison time if you do your job. That’s what they do in China. I can’t believe it’s come to this. Obviously journalists publish classified information because that’s how we know that we’re living in a democracy
    http://rt.com/...
  •  War on Whistleblowers (59+ / 0-)

    This Administration's war on whistleblowers and truth-tellers is also a less than thinly veiled direct assault on the 1st Amendment.

    I was prosecuted and indicted for simply telling truth to power and the only one to date prosecuted and indicted as a result of the massive national security investigation launched by the Department of Justice seeking the sources for the blockbuster New York Times article published in December 2005 revealing the secret surveillance program that included warrantless wiretapping.

    I was not and never became a source for that article.

    Government has simply and willfully chosen to criminalize protected speech and political opinion when it does not suit their self-interest or reveals fraud, waste, abuse, wrongdoing, embarrassment or illegalities.

    I became a national Enemy of the State in the eyes of my own government and was charged under the Espionage Act.

    That same government now views Assange and Wikileaks as international Enemies of the State.

    Power knows the truth and in our post 9-11 security world this secret, unaccountable power seeks to hide the truth behind a smokescreen of lies, misrepresentations, falsification and cover stories while targeting and prosecuting the whistleblowers and truth-tellers for holding up the mirror and calling power to account.

    Truth is transparency and in the empire of lies, truth is the most feared foe, indeed.

    "Truth is treason in the empire of lies." - George Orwell

    by Thomas Drake on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 05:59:43 AM PDT

    •  Yoo and Bybee aren't even referred to state bars (39+ / 0-)

      for investigation after writing torture memos.  You were prosecuted on Espionage Act charges for reasons that still escape me.  The only thing worse than the "look forwards not backwards" approach it the selective application of that approach.

      The double standards of this DOJ are frightening.  I'm sure that there are differences between the Mukasey DOJ and the Holder DOJ.  If the current DOJ constitutes "Change," however, then Paul Ryan is a social justice advocate.

      Some men see things as they are and ask why. I dream of things that never were and ask why not?

      by RFK Lives on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 06:14:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It is a travesty that the only (35+ / 0-)

        people prosecuted in connection with the warrantless wiretapping and torture scandals are the whistleblowers: Thomas Drake and John Kiriakou (respectively).

        My book, TRAITOR: THE WHISTLEBLOWER & THE "AMERICAN TALIBAN," is Amazon's #1 Best Seller in Human Rights Books for February 2012.

        by Jesselyn Radack on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 06:19:10 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Mukasey may not be as bad a Holder. (10+ / 0-)

        Mukasey was the least bad of W's triumvirate of legally challenged AG's, but at least as far as I know he never defended corporations hiring right wing death squads to assassinate labor organizers.

        I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever. ~Thomas Jefferson

        by bobdevo on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 06:19:57 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Rule of law (23+ / 0-)

        is being undermined every day.  

        I like Greenwald's argument about the rule of law, saying primarily it means applying the rule of law evenly -- "we are all equally bound to a common set of rules" -- and that there is a broad consensus on the meaning of the term "rule of law".


        "Justice is a commodity"

        by joanneleon on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 06:21:13 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Glenn wrote the Foreword to my book (19+ / 0-)

          about the war on whistleblowers, and I agree with him completely.

          My book, TRAITOR: THE WHISTLEBLOWER & THE "AMERICAN TALIBAN," is Amazon's #1 Best Seller in Human Rights Books for February 2012.

          by Jesselyn Radack on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 06:40:45 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  MLK defined a just law as sameness made legal (14+ / 0-)

          and an unjust law as difference made legal.  Difference made legal has become a virtual norm in recent memory.

          Something as relatively minor as the "Lexus lanes" one now sees in most major metro areas is a tangible example of the problem.   Our tax laws are another.  The simultaneous lifiting of restrictions on corporations buying elections and the imposition of restrictions on citizens actually voting in elections is the most worrisome example of all.

          We are treading on dangerous ground as a society.

          Some men see things as they are and ask why. I dream of things that never were and ask why not?

          by RFK Lives on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 06:41:34 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  This and constant wars and rumors of war (4+ / 0-)

            (I would not be surprised if we are embroiled in another war by October) are the stock in trade of plutocracy rampant...

            I count Assange and Manning lucky to still walk among the living. I am not being ironic. If they had been born brown in the right region of the world, they'd have met with accidents long ago.

            "I don't try to describe the future. I try to prevent it." - Ray Bradbury

            by chuckvw on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 11:02:23 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  I hope... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          phenry

          given that you just wrote... "Rule of law is being undermined every day" that you're not supporting Assange's current actions, given that the entire reason this whole crisis exists is because he's been trying to avoid having to stand trial in Sweden.  Every second he's not on his way to Sweden is undermining the rule of law.  He's in violation of four legally valid arrest warrants, three of which are in force in the UK, and one of which, for all their willingness to skirt it, is valid in Ecuador.  Two British courts, including the British high court, have evaluated his case and ruled against him.

          If you honestly support the rule of law, you'd support Assange standing trial versus the accusations against him.

          •  The issue isn't whether he'd face Swedish charges (21+ / 0-)

            The issue is the near certainty that he'd face US Espionage charges once he was extradited to Sweden.  Ecuador didn't grant Assange asylum b/c of Sweden, they granted it to poke a stick in Uncle Sam's eye.  As per FDL:

            Now why would Ecuador want to poke the US in the eye over Swedish sexual misconduct accusations if all this is about are those accusations and nothing more? The answer, of course, is that this isn’t just about the accusations, as the only reason Ecuador would want to defy the US over them would be if these Swedish accusations are part of a larger game, one being controlled by the US, to get Julian Assange within US borders.

            So much for the pretense that this is just about trying to get Assange to answer questions about the accusations leveled at him. If that’s what this was all about, the Swedes would have done what they do routinely in similar cases involving persons not named Julian Assange: Interview him via videoconferencing or by sending investigators to talk with him in person.

            We are talking about behavior on the Swedes’ part that even Sven-Erik Alhem, former Stockholm chief prosecutor and not a man noted for his bleeding-heart sensibilities, has condemned. Alhem showed 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

            Some men see things as they are and ask why. I dream of things that never were and ask why not?

            by RFK Lives on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 08:28:17 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  watch out for Rei - 56 posts on this and counting (16+ / 0-)

              This was said for an update on a diary with 561 comments:

              6:32 AM PT: People please. This Diary is specifically NOT about any criminal charges that Assange may be facing. It is about the news, and the statements of both the UK and Ecuador, which encompasses the US.

              If you are unable to behave like an adult in the comment thread, then please refrain from commenting. Thank you.

              Rei had 25 comments on that diary. People tried to point out what was going on. But she came back again and again.

              This was posted a few times:

              This background makes it necessary to publicize the weird aberrations in the police’s and prosecutors’ handling of these complaints, which are obvious to anyone who has worked supporting women who have been raped or sexually assaulted and gone through the police process.
              x
              Based  on my 23 years of reporting on global rape law and my five years of supporting women at rape crisis centers and battered women's shelters through the legal system in the US and in Europe, this case is not being treated as a normal rape or sexual assault case, and the new details of the police transcript confirm my position further. Assange’s lawyers, and the UK court hearing the extradition issue today, is unlikely to be familiar with the normal standards for rape and sexual assault complaints. The Assange transcript is not a transcript of reports of sexual assault like the transcripts of assaults of the dozens of victims whom I have supported in my years working with victims of sex crimes. Here is why.
              From Naomi Wolf at http://ferrada-noli.blogspot.com/...

              Follow up that article to see how Karl Rove was involved in this rape acquisition. Is Rei working for Obama or for the Republicans? Or is she doing what several have pointed out that rape is being used as a wedge issue to get to Assange. If she is authentically concerned about rape, she had had way more responses than the 56 comments she has had so far.

              Then on the morning blog, What's Happening, she had another 25 comments.

              You can follow the responses to here there.

              http://www.dailykos.com/...

              •  Lovely, isn't it? (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                phenry, ChurchofBruce, FG

                Because I think an accused rapist should have to stand trial for rape and am willing to post on the subject, I get stalked.

                Is this what Daily Kos has turned into?  Really?

                (concerning Naomi Wolf...), who's managed to tick off 90% of the feminist blogosphere with her comments...

                •  Thanks for your concern (0+ / 0-)

                  are you really being stalked?

                  •  Yeah, this is Don Midwest's second comment (0+ / 0-)

                    about how he's been tracking my comments.  He started out the last time talking about "I followed her around and around.", noting that I moved to Iceland (so he took the time to read my diaries, not just my comments on Assange), etc.  I'm actually wondering whether I should take my diaries down lest people try to figure out my address or other contact info somehow...

                    •  I'd say noticing your comments is unavoidable (8+ / 0-)

                      given how you publish dozens of them in every Assange-related diary, and how most of your comments misrepresent what's going in (both the facts of the case and the motives of anyone who dares disagree with you).

                      Silvio Levy

                      •  Kindly back up your post. (0+ / 0-)

                        Show me where I've ever misrepresented the facts of the case, like continually happens with the "he's accused of sex without a condom", "the sex was consentual", "they only want to question him", etc posts that keep popping up.

                        And please explain to me why I should not have the right, or even more, not be expected, to respond to responses to my posts (which is what the overwhelming majority of my posts are), on an issue that I care about.

                        •  Here is an example. You wrote (4+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Don midwest, lysias, aliasalias, chuckvw
                          It's all the more egregious because he waited until she was asleep to work around her express wishes to not have unprotected sex
                          Here's what actually happened, giving every benefit of the doubt to the ACCUSER (i.e., taking at face value Ms. Wilén’s own account in her police interview):

                          [After already had consensual intercourse that night:] They dozed off and she awoke  to feel him entering her. She immediately asked, “Are you wearing anything?”, to which he replied, “You”. She said, “You better don’t have HIV”, and he replied, “Of course not”. She felt that it was too late. He was already inside her and she let him continue.

                          "Let him continue?"

                          Further, prior to the interview, she had confided to her friend Katarina Svensson that she was only “half asleep” at the time of penetration; why would this vital evidence, known to the prosecutor who issued the European Arrest Warrant, be ignored?

                          See police interview protocols at
                          www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/docs/memoria.htm (original Swedish) and
                          www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/docs/protocol.htm (English)

                          •  What part of (0+ / 0-)

                            "she felt it was too late" confused you?  "She"?  "Felt"?  "It"?  "Was"?  "Too"?  "Late?"  I can help you with the definitions of those words if you need it.

                            Really, you're going to mention that they had consentual intercourse and not mention that he had been trying all night to have unprotected sex, and she had spent all night stopping him from doing so, and that when he started fucking her in her sleep, it was unprotected?   That really makes no difference to you?

                            As for Sofia, the full witness statement from Katarina is:

                            Sofia said that when she was lying half asleep, she woke up to discover Assange was inside her. Sofia then asked him what he was wearing and Assange was to have replied 'I am wearing you'. D said Sofia didn't notice he entered her but it was when he was already inside she woke up. The witness said that Sofia didn't resist because she thought it was too late. Sofia also said she doesn't have sex with Assange but rather Assange had sex with her.
                            Really?  That's what you're defending as consent?  Really?
                          •  That's what you call lack of consent? Really? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Don midwest

                            She wouldn't even get up or otherwise terminate the intercourse?  Instead she goes to the police much later --  to demand that Assange get checked for HIV,  NOT to report rape as you claim?

                            This wasn't some armed assailant, or some jock who roofied a girl at a party.  It's ridiculous to claim that this woman had no control over her body.  And this by her own account.

                            And how many episodes do you know of countries threatening to invade an embassy to apprehend someone accused even of far more serious offenses?

                    •  33 comments (0+ / 0-)

                      in this diary alone.

                      Just to set the record straight, nobody followed you into this diary.  In fact, it appears that the opposite is true.  Your first comment here was an instigating comment in response to my comment that did not even mention Assange.  This is after you trolled a community diary of mine last week and would not stop with your comments insulting and fighting with people (dozens of them, many of them spam copy/paste) after multiple people asked you to stop and you refused to respect that and just continued for hours on end until everybody ignored you for long enough that you finally went away.  

                      I make this comment just to set the record straight, not to continue any kind of conversation.  I have no desire to have any conversation with you, in fact the opposite is true.  Rational conversation with you on this topic is impossible, imho.


                      "Justice is a commodity"

                      by joanneleon on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 05:13:50 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

      •  The double standards of this DOJ (7+ / 0-)
        The double standards of this DOJ are frightening.

        If the current DOJ constitutes "Change," however, then Paul Ryan is a social justice advocate.

        So agree, RFK

        "Who are these men who really run this land? And why do they run it with such a thoughtless hand? David Crosby.

        by allenjo on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 07:20:25 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Mr. Drake, (11+ / 0-)

      someone brought you up right,  in my opinion.  Thanks to your parents or to whomever it might have been.

      Sunday mornings are more beautiful without Meet the Press.

      by deben on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 06:17:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Absolutely an assault on 1st Amendment. (16+ / 0-)

      If Obama had been president during the Pentagon Papers case, it all likelihood he would have ordered Holder to secretly indict the Gray Lady.

      I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever. ~Thomas Jefferson

      by bobdevo on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 06:18:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Courage to be a whistle blower - Prof. Maquire (15+ / 0-)

      I was at Chautauqua Institute a couple of weeks ago.

      One of the speakers was Professor Daniel Maquire. The title of his talk was Truth Tellers.

      Truth tellers have been killed: Issah, Jesus, John the Baptist, Martin Luther King, Ghandi, etc.

      In scriptures the truth tellers are prophets.

      I asked a question to the audience where the talk was given in the Hall of Philosophy. I noted that a truth teller, Thomas Drake, was prosecuted under the Espionage Act for exposing fraud, waste and abuse in the NSA. And that Obama has set records for prosecuting whistle blowers.

      He pointed out that it takes courage to be a profit. The image of the modern American is a toad, hiding out in a hole.

      Given that now almost all of our institutions are corrupt, now more than ever, whistle blowers are needed to expose the secrets of the powerful.

    •  Back in 2007, during the Bush (15+ / 0-)

      pRedsidency, I wrote a diary here about the Bush administration's war on whistleblowers, and how there might just be hope for those who feared retribution for exposing unethical or criminal behavior, in the form of a safe new anonymous repository of data and information. I never dreaming that my diary would end up permanently posted on Wikileaks own website:

      "Listen Up, Whistleblowers" which they saw fit to post at Wikileaks, on their media page.

      The other thing I never dreamed of was that we'd still be having this discussion AFTER Bush was gone and a Democrat was in the White House.


      "When the powerless are shut out of the media, we will make the media irrelevant" ~♥~ Anonymous ~♥~

      by Lisa Lockwood on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 06:28:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  so many things I never dreamed possible became (9+ / 0-)

        nightmares, post January 2009, Lisa......

        The other thing I never dreamed of was that we'd still be having this discussion AFTER Bush was gone and a Democrat was in the White House.

        "Who are these men who really run this land? And why do they run it with such a thoughtless hand? David Crosby.

        by allenjo on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 07:34:06 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  This is the thing that hurts my heart (9+ / 0-)

        we elected a man thinking that he would right the ship. Instead he just asked for full speed ahead even as we keep taking on water.

        American Television is a vast sea of stupid. -xxdr zombiexx

        by glitterscale on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 09:01:45 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It is this which makes me wary of this election (5+ / 0-)

          ... yet again ... these cold-water splashes in the face of reality:

          ... the Obama administration has threatened to criminally prosecute all of them with the same draconian Espionage Act, a law meant to go after spies not whistleblowers. And the effect of the Obama administration's policy--if not the goal--is the same for my clients and Assange: to silence dissent.

          He also correctly identified the Obama administration's war on whistleblowers as a war on journalists and the media, a connection made by myself, Glenn Greewald, and the U.S. mainstream media itself.

          Of course I will support Obama, and think a Romney/Ryan win would be an outright nightmare for the country ... but reminders like this make me fear that, just as with his first campaign, we are being played by the Obama team yet again.  

          When I see so many apparently being enthused taking his campaign statements at face value, and getting caught up in the excitement of the horse race, I remember the crushing disappointment so many of us have felt by the Obama administration's actions after his being elected last time (and I mean the things that had nothing to do with dealing with an obstructionist Republican party):  the filling of his team with Wall Street insiders;  the failure to investigate even one Wall Street banker;   the crackdown on whistleblowers;  the lack of transparency and actual making worse of Bush policies regarding spying on Americans ...

          I fear that after his re-election (I'm being optimistic ) we're heading for the same pattern yet again.

  •  That a Romney administration would be worse, (9+ / 0-)

    you forgot to shoe-horn into this diary ; )

    The frog jumped/ into the old pond/ plop! (Basho)

    by Wolf10 on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 06:22:31 AM PDT

    •  worse? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Don midwest, aliasalias, chuckvw

      worse? this is the metric now? not that a thing is wrong, but we'll put up with it only remember: the other guy is worse. i've heard it before......

      and this isn't just whistleblowers, but citizens who take to the streets to protest (OWS for example) and the concerted effort to present a paramilitary police response.

      Obama needs to be accountable for the shrinking of our civil liberties and it will be worse under a Romney because Obama endorsed BushCo.

      let's not forget that.

  •  I agree wholeheartedly. (11+ / 0-)

    But I think we should go further and find a way to reward whistle-blowers.  It's a shame what befalls them and their courage should be compensated.

    Be the change you want to see in the world. -Gandhi

    by DRo on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 06:27:43 AM PDT

  •  I hope he makes it to Ecuador (13+ / 0-)

    It's a nice place where thousands of Americans retire every year and all South America has decided to stand with Ecuador on this one;

    Julian Assange row: Ecuador backed by South America

    A document agreed at the Union of South American Nations meeting said it supported the country "in the face of the threat" to its London embassy.

    After Ecuador's Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino finished reading the final declaration from the Union of South American Nations (Unasur) summit, he joined hands with his fellow foreign ministers from across South America and raised them aloft.

    Mr Assange called for the US government to "renounce its witch-hunt against Wikileaks"
    The BBC's Will Grant said it was a symbolic but important show of unity in a region which considers the UK government's approach over Mr Assange to have been colonialist and threatening.

    Daily Kos an oasis of truth. Truth that leads to action.

    by Shockwave on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 06:52:39 AM PDT

    •  Really? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      phenry, Zornorph

      Ecuador?   The country ranked right after Mongolia, Gabon, North Cyprus, and Chad in terms of press freedom by Reporters Without Borders?  With http://en.rsf.org/...this kind of nation summary?

      Please tell me how you manage to overlook Ecuador's abysmal record, because I'm really curious.

      •  You are looking at one aspect only (8+ / 0-)

        By the way we don't do very well on press freedom in Reporters Without Borders.

        Ecuador has issues, oil which corrupts, native population issues, drug traffic routes, affinity for Chavez in Venezuela, etc.  

        But it is a nice place and it is getting better.

        Abysmal record?  A bit hyperbolic I think.

        Daily Kos an oasis of truth. Truth that leads to action.

        by Shockwave on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 07:16:58 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Just as some are looking at one aspect only ... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Sandino, phenry

          ... of Assange.

          "The fears of one class of men are not the measure of the rights of another." ~ George Bancroft (1800-1891)

          by JBL55 on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 07:47:40 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Certainly we are all aware of the accusations... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JBL55, Sandino

            ...in Sweden and we have read about them.

            Is that what you mean?

            Daily Kos an oasis of truth. Truth that leads to action.

            by Shockwave on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 07:59:56 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yes. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Shockwave, Don midwest

              It is troubling when one act perceived as noble is used to obscure far less noble acts.

              He may have done a great thing, but he should still be held accountable for the rape charges.

              And if a person violates the law for the sake of a higher purpose, s/he should still be tried in a court of law.  The rule of law is the cornerstone of our democratic republic.

              "The fears of one class of men are not the measure of the rights of another." ~ George Bancroft (1800-1891)

              by JBL55 on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 08:47:31 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I don't think he has been charged (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                JBL55, Don midwest, chuckvw, AoT

                Swedish law is different.

                What the Assange case reveals about rape in America

                The allegations against Assange are rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion. He's accused of pinning one woman's arms and using his body weight to hold her down during one alleged assault, and of raping a woman while she was sleeping. In both cases, according to the allegations, Assange did not use a condom. But the controversy seems to center on the fact that both encounters started off consensually. One of his accusers was quoted by the Guardian newspaper in August as saying, "What started out as voluntary sex subsequently developed into an assault." Whether consent was withdrawn because of the lack of a condom is unclear, but also beside the point. In Sweden, it's a crime to continue to have sex after your partner withdraws consent.

                In the United States, withdrawing consent is not so clear-cut. In September, for example, prosecutors in North Carolina dropped rape and sexual battery charges against a high school football player because sexual contact with the alleged victim began consensually. The dismissal documents cited a 1979 North Carolina Supreme Court ruling, State v. Way, which says that if intercourse starts consensually, "no rape has occurred though the victim later withdraws consent during the same act of intercourse."

                I wish the Swedish authorities just traveled to London to question him.  Heck! I'd pay for the travel expenses.

                Daily Kos an oasis of truth. Truth that leads to action.

                by Shockwave on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 09:00:33 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  Hyperbolic? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          phenry, AoT

          How is imprisoning journalists who criticize you for "insulting" you and doing stuff like shutting down an opposing paper with your own lawyer writing the verdict instead of the judge - "hyperbolic"?  As faulty as the US is, comparing that sort of stuff to the US is just absurd.  And it's clear that the judge agrees.

          Some sample scores (low = good):
           * Finland, Norway (best in the world): 10,0
           * Sweden: -5,50
           * United Kingdom: 2,00
           * United States: 14,00 (was 6,75 last year, but took a drop due to the handling of Occupy Wall Street)
           * Ecuador: 38,00 (down from 27,50 in 2010 and 20,00 in 2009 when Correa took office - yes, their ranking for press oppression is now double what it was when he took office).

  •  Just a reminder: A person can be a great... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Zornorph, phenry, JBL55, Woodrow Stool

    whistleblower, exposing the world's dirty laundry, and a creepy rape-y perp at the same time.  Just pointing this out.  Just because someone does something good doesn't mean that they can do no wrong.

    •  Though you have to admit that the Swedish (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sandino, chuckvw

      charges came at a convenient time. And that rape laws in Sweden are much different than the laws in the US.

      And the US doesn't usually get that excited about accused rapists. Whistleblowers are a different story, as is this diary.

      Tracy B Ann - technically that is my signature.

      by ZenTrainer on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 07:53:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Is this an esoteric discussion? Or one that (8+ / 0-)

      we base on facts?

      Anything can happen, doesn't mean it did.

      The blurring of the lines and the facts is how to manipulate public opinion against people that the powers that be don't want around, sending a clear message, we'll get you if you tell the truth.

      Again, if you had consensual sex with someone, could you legitimately claim afterwards that it was rape because he didn't put a condom on?  Did you ask him, did he refuse, did he actually force himself upon you? Did he do it while you were drunk and passed out? Were you 8 yrs old and didn't understand what was happening? Did he do any of these things? NO.

      Just a reminder: I have an innate disdain for propaganda nicely wrapped in a faux claim of "just pointing this out."

      -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

      by gerrilea on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 08:42:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I don't see anyone claiming this. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Don midwest, aliasalias, joanneleon
      Just because someone does something good doesn't mean that they can do no wrong.
      Why refute it when no one is saying it?
  •  A travesty of justice. (8+ / 0-)

    How anyone can excuse, much less defend, this behavior is well beyond me.

    This administration has institutionalized right-wing approaches to justice that were once universally reviled by members of the Democratic Party.

    That a Democratic Constitutional scholar would adopt and expand the tactics of the Bush DOJ is one of the supreme betrayals that makes this election cycle so trying, so disappointingly, thoroughly dependent upon the lesser of two evils argument. Still evil, I think. But Mitt...!

    Purging predominantly minority voters and requiring them to present IDs to vote in the face of VIRTUALLY NON-EXISTENT VOTER FRAUD is RACISM! I hereby declare all consenting Republicans RACISTS until they stand up and object to these practices!

    by Words In Action on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 07:05:44 AM PDT

  •  40 percent of the defense budget is secret (10+ / 0-)

    Actual quote: A staggering 40 percent of the defense budget is secret.

    No one knows the special ops going on throughout the world.

    Wikileaks is a threat to a huge, gigantic collection of power.

    Chris Hedges today talks about The War in The Shadows.

    http://www.commondreams.org/...

    •  from the link... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jrooth, chuckvw, joanneleon
      Since the attacks of 9/11 the U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM)—which includes the Green Berets, the Army Rangers and the Navy SEALs—has seen its budget quadrupled. There are now some 60,000 USSOCOM operatives, whom the president can dispatch to kill without seeking congressional approval or informing the public. Add to this the growth of intelligence operatives. As Dana Priest and William M. Arkin  reported in The Washington Post, “Twenty-four [new intelligence] organizations were created by the end of 2001, including the Office of Homeland Security and the Foreign Terrorist Asset Tracking Task Force. In 2002, 37 more were created to track weapons of mass destruction, collect threat tips, and coordinate the new focus on counterterrorism. That was followed the next year by 36 new organizations; and 26 after that; and 31 more; and 32 more; and 20 or more each in 2007, 2008, and 2009. In all, at least 263 organizations have been created or reorganized as a response to 9/11.
      There are now many thousands of clandestine operatives, nearly all of them armed and equipped with a license to kidnap, torture and kill, working overseas or domestically with little or no oversight and virtually no transparency. We have created a state within a state. A staggering 40 percent of the defense budget is secret, as is the budget of every intelligence agency.
      (emphasis mine)

      without the ants the rainforest dies

      by aliasalias on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 11:54:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  If you could get the whistleblowers to commit (5+ / 0-)

    crimes against humanity, wouldn't that give them all the protection they need?

    Certainly it's worked for many in public office, including G.W. Bush.


    The Internet is just the tail of the Corporate Media dog.

    by Jim P on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 08:53:56 AM PDT

  •  when a countries government (4+ / 0-)

    fears truth, transparency, honesty, and openness, its not a government of the people, by the people, for the people.

    Bad is never good until worse happens

    by dark daze on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 09:13:05 AM PDT

  •  You are one of my heroes (7+ / 0-)

    Thank you for continuing to shed light on all of this.

    "When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace." ~Jimi Hendrix

    by Damnit Janet on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 09:23:26 AM PDT

  •  Assange had several important points (9+ / 0-)

    beyond this and way beyond him:

    1.  The concept of the "servant of the public record."

    2.  "As WikiLeaks stands under threat, so does the freedom of expression and the health of our societies.  We must use this moment to articulate the choice that is before the government of the United States of America.  Will it return to and reaffirm the values it was founded on?  Or will it lurch off the precipice dragging us all into a dangerous and oppressive world in which journalists fall silent under the fear of prosecution and citizens must whisper in the dark?"

    3.  We are seeing universal oppression of free speech.  "There is unity in the oppression.  There must be absolute unity and determination in the response."

    BTW, the Brandeis quotation is brilliant.

    "Ryan claims that he likes Rage's sound, but not the lyrics. Well, I don't care for Paul Ryan's sound or his lyrics." Tom Morello

    by Publius2008 on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 10:08:08 AM PDT

    •  Would you, JR, or someone else explain (0+ / 0-)

      how "free speech" is an issue, here?

      I don't see it. It's established information being repeated; it's not "speech" like "I dislike the Obama administration." It's actual information, records, etc being revealed from restricted access.

      You might mean "free information", "transparency", etc but those are not the same thing.

      •  How does it become something other than speech (5+ / 0-)

        when information is involved?  Wouldn't that mean that the government is restricting the speech of people based on the content of that speech, something that cuts to the heart of free speech rights.

        Also, there has definitely been an attack on reporters, specifically in the case of Assange where the government is looking at espionage charges for reporting information that was passed to him.

        There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

        by AoT on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 10:47:24 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  On reporters is freedom of press. (0+ / 0-)

          And we know you can't just enunciate something and it's auto-protected by the first, right? I can't give the same speech that Clinton did and not have to credit him, for instance.

          •  Actually, you can give the same speech he (0+ / 0-)

            gave and not credit him, at least legally.  There would be other issues obviously.  And once money came into it then there might be copyright issues.  But if you mean this is about freedom of the press more than freedom of speech then I would agree, but the two aren't especially distinct when you start talking about the content of speech.

            There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

            by AoT on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 08:22:13 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Huh? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        chuckvw, Don midwest, aliasalias

        Repeating facts one is in possession of is not speech?  Really?

        “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

        by jrooth on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 11:01:49 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  IMHO, Assange has taken the cat out of the bag (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      chuckvw, Don midwest

      people can say "government" and "business", but in the end these organizations are being run by people.  When they don't act in the interests of people and the greater good they are going to be vulnerable.  The US survived McCarthyism.  I am hopeful a public for a similar downfall of bankers and government officials pushing nationalism and unchecked power.

  •  The USA is a bully. I am actually fearful that I (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    chuckvw, Don midwest, lysias

    will now have a folder on file, aka J. Edgar Hoover, as to what I have just put into print for all the world to see with this comment.

     As is apparent as the nose on my face there is, truly, no free speech in the USA, anymore.  I am old and do not give a shit, as the Authoritarian rightwingers that guide policy have taken what was once a great country and turned it inside out because of their fantasies, delusions and paranoia.

    Indeed, to call out, with proof, something that the Government/Corporation is doing illegally is to put yourself into perpetual danger of persecution and ruin.

    "We are a Plutocracy, we ought to face it. We need, desperately, to find new ways to hear independent voices & points of view" Ramsey Clark, U.S. Attorney General.

    by Mr SeeMore on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 11:03:26 AM PDT

  •  i know we're supposed to think there's a huge (4+ / 0-)

    difference between the current presidential candidates but they're both leading us further and further down the road to authoritarian fascism, the only difference being one road has rest stops for choice, gay marriage, status quo on some social progarms & an admission there might be something to all that global warming data.

    Dear Noah, The flyer said THURSDAY!!!! Seriously, WTF?!?!? jerk. sincerely, unicorns

    by bnasley on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 11:18:01 AM PDT

  •  Some of the responses here disturb me (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Woodrow Stool, ChurchofBruce, Rei

    Are these charges a CIA plot? I have no idea. You guys don't know either.

    Honestly though, ask yourself. If instead of Assange this was a Republican fundraiser we were talking about who was accused of having sex without a condom against the will of several women, would you respond the same way?

    It disturbs me that otherwise self proclaimed progressives are getting very close to saying (no one's gone THAT far yet, but IMO you can read between the lines that it's getting there) that "they didn't fight enough so they must have been ok with it" or "she wasn't traumatized enough so it must not have been sexual assault."

    Nothing has been proven yet, but if the guy did what he's accused of there's no excuse. None. Zero. Zip.

    When we stop putting leaders from the past up on pedestals and ignoring their flaws, we can start seeing our present leaders for what they really are.

    by PhillyJeff on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 11:33:02 AM PDT

    •  It depends. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      aliasalias, chuckvw, joanneleon

      Is that Republican fundraiser the subject of a secret Grand Jury investigation?  Are there multiple senior members of the US government calling him a "terrorist" and "traitor" and calling for his summary imprisonment or execution?  Is the reason for all of that the fact that this Republican fundraiser had engaged in journalism?

      If so then yes, I would be reacting just as I do to this case.

      “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

      by jrooth on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 11:41:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The issue for me is not what you're bringing up (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      chuckvw, lysias

      Because I agree that he needs to stand trial and be held responsible for his actions.  The problem is that there are political aspects to this.  If Sweden and the UK really cared about the victims and rape then they could offer assurances that he won't be handed over to the US.  That's why Ecuador offered him asylum, because the UK and Sweden refused to do that.

      There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

      by AoT on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 12:23:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  we always hear 'if you have nothing to hide (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AoT, chuckvw, joanneleon, Don midwest

    what are you worried about' when it comes to the government spying on our lives, but they don't want that rule turned around on them and seem to be very worried about the people spying on their actions.
    So if they have nothing to hide (and I don't mean critical info) what have they got to fear?

    Stop the war on whistle blowers.

    without the ants the rainforest dies

    by aliasalias on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 12:03:56 PM PDT

  •  Rei sets new record! 30 comments (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lysias, priceman, joanneleon

    I guess this is a meta comment. A comment on the comments.

    She had 25 comments on one diary

    25 comments on the next

    in a comment above I gave the links to those diaries.

    her count hovered around 24 on this diary, so I thought that maybe she had a quota of 25

    but now she made it up to 30 comments on this diary!!

    That is a total of 80 comments on Assange in three diaries.

    She said that I may be stalking her. No way. I just counted the number of comments. This is mostly a report of some numbers. You can check my math if you like.

    And I clicked on her name to get to her page and found diaries of her move to Iceland. Thre have been cases of stalking with things like notes on cars and threats. I am doing what any DK member can do who can count or follow links.

    All I am doing is arithmetic on the number of comments she has made. People have tried over and over again to explain things to her, but her message is generally one of the following:

    Assange is a rapist

    Assange must be sent to Sweden

    Sweden will not send him to the USA

    How can you people support a rapist?

    Question for the reader:

    Guess which American administration is after him?  

    There is something called hijacking a diary. On one of the Penn State Paterno diaries I made a comment up toward the front to a comment about how a cover up makes the crime worse. Like Nixon in watergate. I was reading those comments and made a comment that there is cover up in the prosecution of whistle blowers. Or something like that.

    I made a comment much farther down the thread earlier which didn't get HR. I tried to defend myself. I pleaded for people to uprate my comment. I ended up with 22 HR for what I did. They said my crime was attempting to hijack.

    True, up toward the front, I brought in parallels with what the administration is doing. But I think I only had 4 maybe 5 comments on the whole diary. That taught me a lesson about the thought police here on DK.

claude, Doug in SF, cslewis, Marek, Odysseus, jotter, melo, deben, El Zmuenga, glitterscale, TechBob, Shockwave, LuvSet, lysias, waytac, recentdemocrat, RFK Lives, gjohnsit, expatjourno, hubcap, bronte17, susakinovember, whenwego, chuckvw, roses, taonow, ctsteve, Dallasdoc, CitizenOfEarth, superscalar, roseeriter, gerrilea, Damnit Janet, hoplite9, Calidrissp, jcrit, Emmy, hissyspit, rapala, nailbender, joanneleon, kbman, bobdevo, marina, jrooth, UFOH1, truong son traveler, ratzo, owlbear1, Annalize5, cris0000, Sandino, techno, coolbreeze, Lisa Lockwood, snoopydawg, Brian B, Alan Arizona, Jim R, CJnyc, Jim P, berko, Sanuk, tarheelblue, Kingsmeg, ukit, BlueInARedState, Yellow Canary, AoT, KenBee, triv33, gooderservice, OMwordTHRUdaFOG, BlueMississippi, democracy is coming, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, blueoregon, shaharazade, bstotts, Temmoku, ZenTrainer, One Pissed Off Liberal, bluicebank, pfiore8, Haningchadus14, Jarrayy, SpecialKinFlag, david mizner, aliasalias, bnasley, artisan, bobswern, Don midwest, Mr SeeMore, spacejam, zerone, poligirl, elwior, treesrock, Ocelopotamus, codairem, petulans, dan667, BYw, priceman, Guadalupe59, Robobagpiper, DavidW, ZhenRen, LaFeminista, banjolele, dark daze, maryabein, shopkeeper, petral, sanglug, strangedemocracy, Words In Action, sneakers563, ffour, Funkygal, Publius2008, elengul, USHomeopath, Shelleyw, redlum jak, allenjo, Lost Left Coaster, Wolf10, KVoimakas, MRA NY, DRo, Kathleen McClellan, Mentatmark, quill, WhistleblowerAdvocate, just want to comment, Joieau, 420 forever, 2thanks, Darryl House, George3, fauve, AZ Sphinx Moth, Robynhood too, madcitysailor, DamselleFly, Thomas Drake, SC Lib

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site