Skip to main content

The notoriously conservative Washington Post (WaPo) editorial board published a tacit threat to Ecuador for Ecuador's granting Wikileaks founder Julian Assange asylum:

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.
It is immaterial whether or not the U.S. actually pushed WaPo to publish the potential "consequences" of Ecuador's granting asylum - something Ecuador has the right to do under the International Declaration of Human Rights. WaPo's implied threat demonstrates the all too cozy relationship between the supposedly-independent main stream media and the U.S. government, which the media depends upon for reporting, even to the point of giving the government veto power on certain stories and quotes.

WaPo's threat of "consequences" for Ecuador show that not only are whistleblowers faced with severe retaliation in the form of criminal prosecution under the Espionage Act, but those who protect them are facing retaliation.

WaPo is completely disingenuous in painting Assange as some run-of-the-mill sexual assault suspect. Emphasis on SUSPECT as Assange has not been charged and is simply wanted for questioning.

Since when do run-of-the-mill sexual assault suspects cause the U.K to threaten to storm the Ecuadorian Embassy, and Scotland Yard to spend $80,000 a day guarding the Ecuadorian Embassy?  If that's the case, the U.S should spend a little more money hunting down Roman Polanski, who actually pleaded guilty to sexual assault and then fled the country.

Ecuador granted Assange asylum not to shield him from questioning about the sexual assault allegations, but because of the Espionage Act charges (or worse) Assange is likely to face in the U.S. (Sweden refused offers to question Assange in the U.K and refused to promise that it would not turn Assange over to the U.S.)

It is willful ignorance to pretend that the only reason Assange is being pursued is to answer sexual assault allegations. WaPo says Assange has "imagined" an "international political conspiracy," but completely ignores the nearly overwhelming evidence that the U.S. has empaneled a grand jury and is seeking to indict Assange on Espionage Act charges or worse.

WaPo's circular logic contradicts itself. If Assange is a sexual assault suspect wanted by Sweden for an incident that occurred in Sweden (as WaPo implies), why would the U.S. Congress even consider "diminish[ing Ecuador's] privileged commercial access" over Assange?

It a complete circle of F***ed-upedness, Ecuador is being threatened by the U.S. media with punishment for protecting Assange from the U.S. government.

UPDATE: (Particularly for those who do not believe the U.S. is interested in prosecuting Assange). Today's New York Times published an op-ed from Oscar-winning directors Oliver Stone and Michael Moore, which eloquently summarizes how the U.S.'s pursuit of Assange is both very real and a significant threat to the freedoms of speech and the press.

Taken together, the British and Swedish governments’ actions suggest to us that their real agenda is to get Mr. Assange to Sweden. Because of treaty and other considerations, he probably could be more easily extradited from there to the United States to face charges. Mr. Assange has every reason to fear such an outcome.The Justice Department recently confirmed that it was continuing to investigate WikiLeaks, and just-disclosed Australian government documents from this past February state that “the U.S. investigation into possible criminal conduct by Mr. Assange has been ongoing for more than a year.” WikiLeaks itself has published e-mails from Stratfor, a private intelligence corporation, which state that a grand jury has already returned a sealed indictment of Mr. Assange. . . .

If Mr. Assange is extradited to the United States, the consequences will reverberate for years around the world. Mr. Assange is not an American citizen, and none of his actions have taken place on American soil. If the United States can prosecute a journalist in these circumstances, the governments of Russia or China could, by the same logic, demand that foreign reporters anywhere on earth be extradited for violating their laws. The setting of such a precedent should deeply concern everyone, admirers of WikiLeaks or not.

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 (151+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KVoimakas, Sandino, Dallasdoc, Oye Sancho, One Pissed Off Liberal, ovals49, joanneleon, penguins4peace, psnyder, johnel, Kristina40, Son of a Cat, gerrilea, Hunter Huxley, triv33, CJnyc, Siri, rsie, gooderservice, Nica24, OLinda, zeke7237, gustynpip, JonBarleycorn, rexxnyc, jrooth, El Zmuenga, terabytes, WisePiper, lysias, SpecialKinFlag, Kayakbiker, zerelda, Mentatmark, cordgrass, Involuntary Exile, deben, PhilJD, Deep Harm, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, Hawaiian, bronte17, Floande, quill, Brian B, shaharazade, roses, tommymet, Anthony Page aka SecondComing, adrianrf, salmo, joe shikspack, hubcap, Joieau, northsylvania, ZhenRen, petulans, delver rootnose, codairem, JesseCW, Publius2008, Lost Left Coaster, No one gets out alive, ffour, Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle, TimmyB, Wreck Smurfy, mikeconwell, Debs2, snoopydawg, semiot, walkshills, Trotskyrepublican, susakinovember, fuzzyguy, StrayCat, old wobbly, The Rational Hatter, priceman, Smoh, JVolvo, Anak, TheMomCat, brasilaaron, gloriana, chipmo, quince, rb608, Haningchadus14, elwior, Robynhood too, elengul, cpresley, bnasley, claude, slowbutsure, Hayate Yagami, YucatanMan, Calouste, taonow, berko, Bluesee, pgm 01, vacantlook, wagdog, Woody, brentbent, chuckvw, Simian, immigradvocate, Van Buren, 2020adam, expatjourno, native, aliasalias, pyegar, Lisa Lockwood, martini, 420 forever, shopkeeper, Don midwest, nota bene, splintersawry, deepeco, buckstop, Horsefeathers, Lindy, MsGrin, Odysseus, kbman, redlum jak, uciguy30, john07801, Davui, Dumbo, roystah, sb, ask, la urracca, zerone, VictorLaszlo, DamselleFly, rhutcheson, Dburn, CIndyCasella, NonnyO, retLT, BruceMcF, poligirl, Nada Lemming, Funkygal

    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 Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 05:58:24 AM PDT

  •  Maybe WaPo just hates unsafe sex? (11+ / 0-)

    and countries that offer asylum to those who have it.

  •  The police state is out of control (107+ / 0-)

    First, it's hard to believe Congress would act against Ecuador on trade because of Assange.  The drive to push down American workers' wages is too important to TPTB, and Congress acting might trigger a public discussion of this matter, which I can only assume the jackbooted thugs in charge of this witch hunt would prefer to avoid.  (They might be called to justify their actions.)

    Second, threats like this are only likely to cause Ecuador to dig in its heels.  The WaPo ed board don't seem like the kind of people to acknowledge the consequences of the history of American imperialism in Latin America, or the likely effect of further ham-handedness on the locals.

    Third, WTF has happened to this country?  When will good liberals and Democrats stand up and tell their leaders to back off the thuggery and act like they believe the Declaration of Independence applies to all people?

    For the love of money is the root of all evil; and while some have coveted after it, they have erred from the faith and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. (1 Timothy 6:10)

    by Dallasdoc on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 06:16:00 AM PDT

  •  That has the ring (38+ / 0-)

    of a mob threat.

    Nice family ya got there... be a shame if something happened to them...

    Nice deal ya got there... be a shame if ya lost it...


    "Justice is a commodity"

    by joanneleon on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 06:20:17 AM PDT

  •  If it really were just a rape charge (55+ / 0-)

    why is the US interested at all?  Since when does our government get involved in Swedish misdemeanors?

    This editorial should put the lie to the idea that there is no sub rosa agreement for Sweden to send him here to be disappeared.

    Scisne me e terra ea naso tollere posse?

    by penguins4peace on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 06:23:46 AM PDT

  •  The US is the hostage in US-Ecuador relations (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lysias, chuckvw

    To my knowledge there aren't huge Ecuadorean investments in the United States that could be seized or otherwise effed-up.

    Mitt Romney '12: Berlusconi without the sex and alcohol!

    by Rich in PA on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 06:28:51 AM PDT

  •  Give me a break. An editorial in a rag like the (10+ / 0-)

    WaPo constitutes a threat to Ecquador? I didn't realize opinion writers to the WaPo now made policy.

    "I smoke. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your fuckin' mouth." --- Bill Hicks

    by voroki on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 06:38:48 AM PDT

  •  This (35+ / 0-)
    Since when do run-of-the-mill sexual assault suspects cause the U.K to threaten to storm the Ecuadorian Embassy, and Scotland Yard is to spend $80,000 a day guarding the Ecuadorian Embassy?
    Chris Hayes and company got into this matter a few days ago, but despite heated debate never really directly addressed the sheer absurdity of the pursuit of this man over allegations which, right or wrong, never see international coordination in the absence of other (real or imagined) crimes. The WaPo no-byline piece paints Rafael Correa as "anti-American" and ends with a scaremongering question: "Is Mr. Assange really worth the risk?" What risk? The editorial implies commercial sanctions from the U.S., but then what for? For shielding a sexual assault suspect in a case where the U.S. has no conceivable standing whatsoever? If not that, then the U.S. is simply being punitive in the same heavy-handed, embarrassing manner that the cable leaks themselves repeatedly demonstrate.

    For WaPo to take this tack is not prima facie evidence of governmental collusion, but it certainly is disingenuous and predictable. Should the outcome of the current standoff see Assange deported to the U.S., you can bet this particular piece and its sneering about imagined persecution will vanish into the memory hole. The nice thing about toss-off anonymous editorials like this is that no one need ever claim the ones that were wrong.

  •  This puts the whole diplomatic corp in jeopardy (15+ / 0-)

    and not just those of Britain and USA, what part of this does not the British Foreign office not get.

     

    The 1st Amendment gives you the right to say stupid things, the 1st Amendment doesn't guarantee a paycheck to say stupid things.

    by JML9999 on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 06:57:08 AM PDT

  •  Whatever. Hopefully, Ecuador fully thought out (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    philimus, sviscusi

    the consequences of granting that twit asylum before it did. If it didn't, it now has some things to think about. I don't care how they receive the message...oh, and nice CT there, implying that the government basically dictated a "threat" to the stenographers on the WaPost Editorial Board, as if there couldn't possibly be people in America (some who even work for newspapers!) who believe Ecuador has done the wrong thing here.

    The US shouldn't move heaven and earth to get to that asswipe Assange, but we shouldn't make it easy for him to move beyond our reach either...when and if the time ever comes for us to charge him. Ecuador now has this reminder before them.

  •  Oh, please. (8+ / 0-)

    Newsflash: newspapers don't make foreign policy. No matter how important they may think they are.

    Just thought that should be pointed out.

    Fuck me, it's a leprechaun.

    by MBNYC on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 07:07:29 AM PDT

  •  And he has already been questioned once in (14+ / 0-)

    Sweden in regard to one woman's allegations.

    WaPo is completely disingenuous in painting Assange as some run-of-the-mill sexual assault suspect. Emphasis on SUSPECT as Assange has not been charged and is simply wanted for questioning.
  •  Very, very good question. (21+ / 0-)
    If Assange is a sexual assault suspect wanted by Sweden for an incident that occurred in Sweden (as WaPo implies), why would the U.S. Congress even consider "diminish[ing Ecuador's] privileged commercial access" over Assange?
    And not one we're likely to see Assange critics and supporters of untrammeled US government power answering.

    What it amounts to is an admission that they're playing a rhetorical game.  It's a winking admission that of course we are right about the fear of US government abuse of power.

    “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 Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 07:11:37 AM PDT

    •  You do realize the WaPo is not Congress, yes? (5+ / 0-)

      It is WaPo which speculates on something Congress might do. that does not mean Congress has done that thing.

      why would the U.S. Congress even consider "diminish[ing Ecuador's] privileged commercial access" over Assange?
      Perhaps the people you do not like will not answer it, because it deals with what are to-date only fictional events.
      •  Yes, but (5+ / 0-)

        they do all go out for drinkies together.

        "There's a crack in everything; that's how the light gets in". Leonard Cohen

        by northsylvania on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 08:34:31 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Of course I understand that. (12+ / 0-)

        But this discussion is about a WaPo editorial in which they make the contradictory arguments of calling Mr. Assange's concerns a "fantasy" whilst simultaneously saying Ecuador out to fear severe economic punishment from the US.

        You can't have it both ways.  Yet that's what they attempt with their flawed reasoning.

        “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 Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 08:34:33 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Ironic, isn't it (6+ / 0-)

        that while everyone seems to be the picture of outrage over that Akin schmuck in Missouri for remarks about rape, Saint Julian the Martyr is accused of rape – but he's a different case. Clearly.

        Fuck me, it's a leprechaun.

        by MBNYC on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 08:39:56 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No irony at all. (10+ / 0-)

          I have never asserted that Mr. Assange is a saint.  I have never implied the accusations against him are not serious and should not be addressed through the Swedish legal process.

          What I have said is that the history of our government's behavior over the past decade or more creates a legitimate concern of political persecution for Mr. Assange's journalistic activities and that this concern should no more be dismissed than the accusations of rape should be dismissed.

          Things are not always simple.  Sometimes legitimate concerns compete with each other in ways that require some kind of additional assurance to remove that conflict.  And I am not a rape apologist or rape trivializer for believing that applies in 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 Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 08:54:00 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yeah, sorry, that's BS. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            erush1345

            First of all, what Assange did wasn't journalism. He leaked classified information without even the basic journalistic safeguard of ensuring that said leaks would not place lives of U.S. assets at risk.

            Second, it's unclear what his prior actions have to do with the case in Sweden. I would assume, arguendo, that you find rape as abhorrent as most people do, and wouldn't normally go out of your way to argue for the protection of an accused rapist.

            But in this case, you do, because you're making a value judgment: that the Wikileaks founder deserves some kind of deference for his brave act (not my view, just trying to approximate) of damaging U.S. national security. Rape charges pale in comparison to that great blow against American imperialism or whatever it's called these days.

            We don't know if Assange is a rapist. And my guess would be that plenty of good liberals would look the other way even if he were tried and convicted.

            Fuck me, it's a leprechaun.

            by MBNYC on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 09:18:48 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  If Assange is a nonjournalist, he seems to have (8+ / 0-)

              accomplished a lot more than just about any journalist in recent years.

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

              by lysias on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 09:24:31 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Yeah, sorry, that's BS. (14+ / 0-)

              What Wikileaks does is journalism.  Your desire to pretend it isn't (because thay're not doing journalism the way you want them to do journalism) doesn't change that.

              Second, I am in no way "go[ing] out of [my] way to argue for the protection of an accused rapist."  I quite explicitly said the opposite in the first paragraph of the post to which you are replying.

              Nor did I say anything about "damaging U.S. national security" or striking a "great blow against American imperialism" having anything to do with my support for the journalism done by Wikileaks.  You are engaged in a dishonest effort when you try to paint my comments in that vein.

              Neither did I suggest that "[r]ape charges pale in comparison" to the concern of political persecution.  I quite explicitly said (again in the very post you replied to) that they are both "legitimate concerns [which] compete with each other in ways that require some kind of additional assurance to remove that conflict."  That is the antithesis of asserting that one concern pales in comparison to the other.

              Your entire reply to me is specious.  If you want to have  a civil and honest discussion, I'm willing.  But if this crap is what you're going to continue spewing then I'm not interested.

              “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 Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 09:33:45 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Okay. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                erush1345

                So now we're arguing about what journalism is. But I still don't know how you arrive at the moral choice you're making: that the rape accusations against Assange are not sufficiently grave to warrant the kind of condemnation, or consequences, we're seeing in Missouri.

                Fuck me, it's a leprechaun.

                by MBNYC on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 09:47:39 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I have already repeatedly said (6+ / 0-)

                  that the accusations of rape are serious and should be addressed through the Swedish legal process.  What more do you require of me?  Do I have to preface every comment about the importance of protecting the kind of journalism done by Wikileaks with a ritual condemnation of rape on the presumption that Mr. Assange is guilty of everything he has been accused of doing?

                  Or am I required to abandon my concerns over the deterioration of our political and legal system in this nation and its implications with regard to Wikileaks/Assange?  Are you not guilty of exactly what you accused me of (arguing that one concern "pales in comparison to" the other) if that's the requirement you would impose?

                  “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 Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 09:58:41 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  That's called et tu quoque... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    BlackSheep1

                    ...and is a basic logical fallacy.

                    Personally, I think Assange should be tried and, if found guilty, convicted. This because rape is, in my considered opinion, a hate crime that ripples far beyond the individual victim. And if you go back through the years, you'll find that I'm perfectly consistent on that.

                    You, on the other hand, believe the political implications of Assange's leaks are of an order that should shield him from even facing a prosecutor.

                    That's more a difference of degree than of kind, but interesting nonetheless.

                    Fuck me, it's a leprechaun.

                    by MBNYC on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 10:27:04 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  why should (4+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      JesseCW, chuckvw, cpresley, shaharazade

                      he face a prosecutor for handling the leaked information?

                      Blake: I am an enemy of the Federation but it is corrupt and oppressive. I will destroy it if I can

                      by GideonAB on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 11:22:02 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  No, it's not. (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      JesseCW, chuckvw, shaharazade

                      You claimed that I am making the moral choice "that the rape accusations against Assange are not sufficiently grave to warrant the kind of condemnation, or consequences, we're seeing in Missouri."  I completely disagree that I have done anything of the sort.  In support of my position, I offered evidence of how I have in fact condemned the acts of which Mr. Assange is accused.  I then asked for an explanation from you why you find the level of condemnation I have expressed falls short and just what more I would need to do to satisfy you in that regard.  That is not the "you too" fallacy, it is a request for clarification.  My "[a]re you not guilty" question was not offered as a refutation of your argument but rather in hopes you would engage in some self-reflection with regard to the (wrong) assertions you have made about me.

                      And one again, I categorically do not "believe the political implications of Assange's leaks are of an order that should shield him from even facing a prosecutor."  I said the exact opposite in the first paragraph of the first post you replied to.  And indeed I have already highlighted that point in a subsequent reply to you.  It seems you are not willing to take to heart my request that you stop engaging in such misrepresentations.

                      To be clear, yet again:  I believe the accusations against Mr. Assange are serious and the Swedish legal process should go forward and he should be prosecuted if the Swedish authorities deem that appropriate.  I also believe, given the recent history of our nation, that his fear of being sent to the United States and being wrongfully persecuted for his journalistic activities is entirely legitimate.  Thus we have two competing legitimate concerns - we are at an impasse.  Furthermore, at this point the sovereign nation of Ecuador has come to the same conclusion I have and has granted him political asylum.  So once again we are at an impasse.

                      My preferred answer to that impasse would be for the Swedish government to provide a guarantee that he will not be detained in Sweden beyond the normal process of Swedish criminal law, that he will not be deported elsewhere, and that whenever the Swedish legal process is complete (either through dismissal of charges, acquittal or completion of sentence) he will be free to leave the country to wherever he chooses.

                      I fail to see what is objectionable about this if the interest is truly only that he face the rape charge.

                      It appears to me that your answer to the impasse is to pretend it doesn't exist and that the legitimate concern of US political persecution expressed by Mr. Assange and validated by Ecuador merely be ignored.  

                      “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 Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 11:25:48 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Indeed, MBNYC: he should face the rape charges (0+ / 0-)

                      that's a separate issue. I agree with you.

                      LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

                      by BlackSheep1 on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 01:03:25 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Assange should indeed face the rape charges... (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        lysias, VictorLaszlo, shaharazade

                        once Sweden makes it crystal clear that under no circumstances will he subsequently be turned over to the US; not to face espionage charges, not to answer informal questions, not for any reason at all.

                        When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

                        by PhilJD on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 01:08:49 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  occurs to me that this reinforces the impression (0+ / 0-)

                          I have that people here are willing to make an exception to "No means NO" for Assange. Do we not trust Sweden's own justice system?

                          LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

                          by BlackSheep1 on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 01:26:19 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  I have guarded trust in the likelihood (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            VictorLaszlo

                            that Assange can receive a fair trial in the Swedish justice system.

                            I have no confidence at all that he will not be rendered by Sweden into US custody, either after a trial or before one even takes place.

                            When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

                            by PhilJD on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 01:43:55 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  so you doubt Sweden's ability (0+ / 0-)

                            to manage its own affairs. Good to know. Doesn't mean Assange should not go to trial.

                            LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

                            by BlackSheep1 on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 04:00:03 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I don't (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Don midwest

                            they are totally untrustworthy even Amnesty and the UN came down on them for renditions. These so called rape charges stink to high heaven. If you read about the lead up to this point in time, it certainly does not inspire trust in Sweden's justice system. I also at this point have no trust in our justice system or Texas's justice system for that matter..

                          •  so the women are lying, then (0+ / 0-)

                            good to know that's the default setting here at DKos too.

                            Pfui.

                            LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

                            by BlackSheep1 on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 09:48:28 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  No. (0+ / 0-)

                            But it would behoove you to read the actual police transcripts, and to know that Rove's friend is the lawyer pushing this.

                            http://rixstep.com/...

                            http://www.democraticunderground.com/...

                          •  it would behoove me to reject (0+ / 0-)

                            the claims of women out of hand? I say again, Pfui.

                            LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

                            by BlackSheep1 on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 04:30:53 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  No, that's not what I meant at all. (0+ / 0-)

                            If you read the transcripts, you will see that they are not behind the new prosectution, didn't sign the statements as created, the statements were 'recreated later', the actual statements do not charge rape, etc.

                            My point is in no way to reject any claims of these women.  I care a great deal about our rights, and about any claim of rape.  

                            But after reading everything I can about this case, I do think there is reason to have suspicion about the entire case being made in Sweden.

                            And I have respect for Naomi Wolf as well, who wrote this piece.

                            http://markcrispinmiller.com/...

            •  Assange didn't leak anything, he published (6+ / 0-)

              documents that the US claimed were classified.  The country he published them in it is not illegal to do so.

              "Value judgment", funny you say that while implying your personal value of what "journalism" is.  If the US didn't want to put "assets" at risk, then maybe they should stop doing the things they are doing...pretty simple, isn't it?

              How did anything he publish hurt "US national security"???

              Oh, wait it didn't:

              Pentagon says WikiLeaks war logs don’t harm national security

              Maybe you should revisit these words spoken by JFK on April 17,1961:

              The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.
              I still believe we have the right to know what our government does in our name.  This meme that it hurts valuable assets or might hurt our men in uniform is a red herring, dammit then bring our men home away from harm.  Don't do things in other countries that incite the people there to attack us, pretty fucking simple.

              -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 Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 11:11:10 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Careful. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MBNYC, ballerina X, erush1345

          If you mention anything about how Assange is hiding from rape accusations, no matter how well you back them up with links to trial rulings, witness statements, etc, they'll shout you down.  Then, if you respond to the posts they wrote about your posts (which accumulate rapidly), they'll start stalking you over posting so often (I even have one person who tracks how many posts on the Assange I make every day and started reading my diaries and posted where I live in order to try to intimidate me into not expressing my opinion).  And of course come the charges of  hidden motives.

          Just a warning.  Daily Kos is officially a "pro-accused-rapist-not-having-to-even-face-charges" echo chamber, mixed in with a nice healthy dose of claims along the lines of "pinning someone down and prying their legs to force unprotected sex while they're resisting is friendly sex play" and "waiting until someone is asleep to fuck her in ways she wouldn't let you do while awake" isn't rape because, hey, they had protected sex before, and because one of the statements on the subject (out of several that simply state "asleep", including Sofia's herself) said that Sofia was "half-asleep" (not mentioning that the statement continues that she "... she woke up to discover Assange was inside her.").

          •  Is Naomi Wolf, who's spent much of her adult life (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            indie17, Anak

            as a passionate advocate for rape victims, also part of the

            "pro-accused-rapist-not-having-to-even-face-charges" echo chamber?
            See here and here for examples of Wolf's take on Assange.

            Wolf, and supporters of Assange on DKos, are fully capable of holding two positions at the same time with no contradiction; namely:

            that the Swedish allegations against Assange are serious and must be answered...

            AND

            that the possibility that Sweden will hand over custody of Assange to the US is all-too-real and must be addressed first.

            To suggest--as you've done repeatedly, in pretty much every pro-Assange diary here--that nuanced support for Assange equates to being "pro-accused-rapist" is a profoundly unfair and distasteful red herring.

            When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

            by PhilJD on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 01:38:57 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You really haven't noticed (0+ / 0-)

              all the flak Wolf has taken over her remarks?  Really?

              that the possibility that Sweden will hand over custody of Assange to the US is all-too-real and must be addressed first.
              Yes, the all-too-real possibility that, on extradition charges that don't exist yet and might never exist, multiple courts in Sweden, the best court system in the world, will all agree that he should be deported and that he would not face torture or mistreatment and that the charges have nothing to do with political or military activity - and that the Swedish government which has the independent right to block the transfer on the same grounds wouldn't - and that multiple courts in the British system would likewise reach the same conclusion, as such is also illegal concerning extraditions in the UK and the UK has to approve reextradition under an EAW - and then the ECHR, which Assange would certainly appeal to, and whose entire purpose is specifically to prevent abuses and politically motivated prosecutions, would rule against him - and then that would be a travesty of justice.

              Right.

              Sure.

        •  Many of us who support asylum for Assange (16+ / 0-)

          have a mantra that we could just repeat over and over and over for the benefit of people like you. Here it is:

          Assange should go to Sweden to face questioning for these alleged crimes, but only under the assurance that he will not be extradited to the USA for WikiLeaks related crimes. Absent that assurance, the most unacceptable outcome would be for Assange to be prosecuted for activities that are clearly protected by freedom of speech by the US government, and thus, he should be given asylum.
          Notice the lack of rape apologia in there? Absolutely none. Assange should face questioning. Sweden should provide assurances that he will not be extradited. Assange said, and Quito said, that under those conditions he would go to Sweden to be questioned. But his safety from the black hole of the US legal system cannot be assured in Sweden, or the UK. So he's going to a nation that can assure him safety from extradition to the US.

          And for all the people who do not understand his concern about being extradited to the USA, I have two things to say: 1) he should not face charges for activity that is protected by freedom of speech and freedom of the press, and 2) if you have been paying attention for the last decade or so, you might notice that the USA has tortured and indefinitely imprisoned suspects, repeatedly, as a matter of policy. If you think that this could not happen under an Obama administration, then I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.

          "As the madmen play on words, and make us all dance to their song / to the tune of starving millions, to make a better kind of gun..." -- Iron Maiden

          by Lost Left Coaster on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 09:21:59 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Why exactly is it (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            erush1345

            that Mr. Assange should be given this protection from extradition? What precedent is it that you would cite in support of that proposal?

            And how would you apply the precedent you're creating to other cases, say, a war criminal?

            Fuck me, it's a leprechaun.

            by MBNYC on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 09:44:32 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  He should be given protection (8+ / 0-)

              because the charges he would face in the USA would be a violation of his human rights. WikiLeaks has engaged in activity that is protected by freedom of speech and freedom of the press. With regard to disseminating leaked material, Assange has not done anything that the New York Times hasn't done. It is just that he has been much more effective at it, and he has an anti-authoritarian agenda that threatens established power much more than the pro-corporate NYT.

              I don't know why you brought up extraditing war criminals. That's a red herring. A more apt analogy would be if, say, Beijing demanded that the USA extradite a Chinese national present on US soil in order to face the charge of unlawful anti-government postings on a political blog. Would not the USA be in the right to refuse such an extradition? In fact, Washington probably would refuse. Would that create a precedent that could protect a war criminal? Hardly.

              "As the madmen play on words, and make us all dance to their song / to the tune of starving millions, to make a better kind of gun..." -- Iron Maiden

              by Lost Left Coaster on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 10:09:22 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Too bad there's nobody who could evaluate that. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                sviscusi

                No judicial body in a place which ranks among the best in the world in terms of transparency, human rights, etc.

                Oh wait, there are three such bodies that would be evaluating such an extradition request: that is, the Swedish courts would have to approve it (illegal in Sweden to deport to torture or death penalty), the UK courts would have to approve it in accordance with the EWA (likewise illegal), and Assange would undoubtedly appeal to the European Court of Human Rights (likewise illegal, and in fact, it's their whole purpose).

                And all of that is premised on A) that the US is still even pursuing the grand jury (all that we know is that they were at one point), and B) that the grand jury will convene and indict him.  That all just takes those two things as a given.

                . A more apt analogy would be if, say, Beijing demanded that the USA extradite a Chinese national present on US soil in order to face the charge of unlawful anti-government postings on a political blog
                So rape is equivalent to posting anti-government postings?  Or did you forget what accusations he's actually facing?  The "get deported to the US" is a 5-stages hypothetical.  The very real accusations are that he's a rapist.

                The war criminal analogy (not mine, but apt) was that if a person is facing very real accusations of serious crimes, but they also have someone somewhere in the world who might want to persecute them for things unrelated to said serious crimes, that they shouldn't have to be tried for their crimes unless either the third-party entity pledges never to try to get them or the state trying the crimes promises to break their extradition treaty if they get a legally valid extradition request (thus implicitly stating "we negotiate with criminals" and "our courts can't be relied upon to evaluate the human rights/death penalty clauses we have in our extradition law").  Well, guess what, most war criminals do have such enemies, said enemies will not pledge suchly, and almost no country would to pledge to break a treaty suchly.  So it's an argument that, in general, war criminals shouldn't face trial for war crimes.

                •  Okay (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  cpresley, aliasalias, PhilJD, Anak

                  Let's ignore your final paragraph there, which is nothing if not baffling, and return to reality here, okay? The USA has declared Assange public enemy number one.  A grand jury has been convened, and influential members of Congress (such as Sen. Feinstein) have called for his capture and trial. The Australian Newspaper The Age recently reported that Australian diplomats are convinced that the USA is in pursuit of Assange and wants to extradite him. Commentators more informed on this subject than me have argued that Swedish courts will be more likely to cave to pressure from the USA than British Courts. Sweden did, after all, willingly participate in a CIA rendition operation in the past. The USA is still capable of exerting significant pressure.

                  So yes, you're right, there are some unanswered questions, some steps that would still have to take place, but this is no hypothetical: if Assange does not make it safely to Ecuador, there is a substantial chance that he will be extradited to the USA to face charges related to activities that are political in nature and protected by freedom of speech and freedom of the press. If there had not been this risk, then he could go to Sweden to face questioning on the rape allegations and would have no excuse whatsoever not to do so.

                  "As the madmen play on words, and make us all dance to their song / to the tune of starving millions, to make a better kind of gun..." -- Iron Maiden

                  by Lost Left Coaster on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 11:21:47 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Funny timing for you to make that claim (0+ / 0-)

                    that Australian diplomants are convinced the US is after him when the headline today is, Sweden unlikely to extradite Assange to US: Oz.

                    WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was unlikely to be extradited from Sweden to the United States if there was a risk of the death penalty or a military court, Australia's foreign minister said on Wednesday.

                    ...

                    Foreign Minister Bob Carr said Australia could not get involved in cases outside its jurisdiction but that Stockholm had indicated the former hacker was unlikely to be sent to the United States.

                    "It's not a subject for Australian diplomacy, it's a subject for consular support," he told the Australian Financial Review.

                    "We have sought assurances from Sweden (that) due processes will be accorded.

                    "And the Swedes have said they don't extradite anyone if there's a capital offence or it's a matter to do with military or intelligence."

                    And while you're explicitly deciding to ignore what people are writing but are responding nonetheless, care to officially declare yourself a brick wall in this conversation or should I?
                •  Sweden has knowingly extradited people (6+ / 0-)

                  to be tortured.  They've been condemned by the UN for it.  

                  Get thee to Google.

                  Sweden allows detention for week after week without charge, the victim being held incommunicado the whole time, unable to contact friends or family and offered almost no chance to participate in their own defense.

                  Sweden had to pay restitution to 1,200 people last year because they were held under these conditions and never charged.

                  If that's the best system the world has to offer, the world is fucked.

                  Just like Japan, Sweden wears an unearned halo in the eyes of most of the American Left.  

                  Providing for the material needs of 99% of its citizens is admirable, but it doesn't mean a state is overly concerned with the rights of the accused.

                  Just like Japan, (and your world view) the concept of innocence  unless otherwise proven is an alien one in Swedish jurisprudence.

                  All of that being said, all Sweden has to do is promise not extadite Assange to the US.  

                  That shouldn't be hard if the goal is truly to get him for questioning so a decision as to whether or not to charge him can be made.

                  All Cretans are sockpuppets. -- Epimenides the Cretan

                  by JesseCW on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 11:40:43 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Don't be silly, Jesse. Those weren't actual people (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Anak

                    they were, you know, towelhead Mooslims. The Swedes would never render an Australian.

                    Anyway, Sweden stopped all that in 2001, or anyway, positively for sure we mean it this time, in 2006.

                    Maybe they just got better at doing it secretly.

                    When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

                    by PhilJD on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 02:04:56 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  There were two people... (0+ / 0-)

                    who were in Sweden illegally, who were deported (and later compensated).  Assange had no problem with being in Sweden until he was facing charges for rape, wherein he fled to the UK, the US's biggest partner in the global extradition scheme, which even led its own extrajudicial renditions.

                    If only there was some ranking of global judicial system fairness by some unrelated 3rd party NGO... oh wait, there IS, the World Justice Project.  Hmm, I wonder where this horrid, corrupt, evil Swedish system ranks?

                    Oh yeah, right at the top.  #1 in the world in fundamental rights, open government, and regulatory enforcement.  Their lowest of the 7 rankings was #7 out of 66, and that one?  "Effective criminal justice".  Aka, people are too likely to get off without a conviction.

                    I'm sorry, what were you saying about this horrid evil Swedish system?

                    As for that promise you're wanting...

                    "We have sought assurances from Sweden (that) due processes will be accorded.

                    "And the Swedes have said they don't extradite anyone if there's a capital offence or it's a matter to do with military or intelligence."

                    So unless he also did something like burgle a NYC flat or something... you were saying?
            •  How many extraditions have you heard of (0+ / 0-)

              are for questioning, not answering to charges?

          •  Re: (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            erush1345, MBNYC, sviscusi
            Notice the lack of rape apologia in there? Absolutely none.
            Then you clearly haven't been spending much time on DK, because it's been chock full of "the accusers are lying, they're CIA agents and/or man haters and/or innocent dupes of man haters, and whatever they are, they're out to ruin an innocent man's life, and by the way, pinning a person down and prying their legs open to force unprotected sex is foreplay ("night moves" and "caresses" being my favorite terms used to describe it on DK so far) and waiting until a person is asleep to fuck her to work around their express refusal to have unprotected sex the night before means that it's okay either because she had any form of consensual sex at all the night before, or because one witness said that she was 'half-asleep" (followed by "... she woke up to discover Assange was inside her.") and thus must have decided to ignore her well-documented extreme lifelong opposition to unprotected sex which had been reiterated right before she went to sleep".

            You could fill a book with the posts along these lines filling up this site.

            Secondly: If Assange was truly convinced that he was going to be executed (which, BTW, Sweden has pledged they would not extradite him under any such circumstance; it's in violation of their laws), he would have filed a petition stating such to the European Court of Human Rights.  He didn't even try.  He hightailed it to the Ecuadorian embassy instead.  Which says a lot, as a loss in the EHCR would have undercut his whole argument for being at the embassy, and he had just lost two court cases in a row.

            Third: You want Sweden to declare that it will never extradite him, which means even for cases where the US pledges no torture or death penalty.  Problem is, Sweden, like most countries, has an extradition treaty with the US.  Again, it's that whole pesky "rule of law" thing.  Most people respond to this by saying, for example, "Look at Pinochet!" or "Look at Polanski".  But in whatever case people point out, if you look at them, there were legal reasons.  Pinochet got off on the same reason that the Libyan airplane bomber got out - he was dying.  It's a British law.  Polanski got off on a technicality, that the US didn't supply all of the paperwork with its applications and that they waited too long to file the extradition request. They didn't just say, "Sorry, we're going to ignore the treaty!"

            Now, you can argue quite well in both cases that if the government in said counties were just looking for an excuse not to extradite, and I'd probably agree with it.  But here's the rub: they had a legal reason to do so.  Do you want Sweden to pledge - and be honest about this - "No matter what sort of extradition request we get, we're going to scour it until we can find a loophole not to extradite him, and if we can't find one, we'll make one up?"  Really?   Or should Sweden drop their extradition treaty with the US (and lose reciprocal extradition)?  Just because of Assange?  And if Sweden should do it, shouldn't everyone else?  

            Or should goverments simply pick and choose which of their laws to follow, and choose to ignore the treaty "just this once", right in the public spotlight?  Aren't people here damning the British for threatening to use one of their laws (simply not for the situation it was created in response to) as though that's the worst travesty imaginable, and yet, would said people see as the proper alternative to explicitly break a law, in full public view, without even a smokescreen?  And to pledge to do so in advance?

            The only way I think your demand could be met in any sort of reasonable manner is for the US to give Sweden assurances that it will not put Sweden in this sort of bind, and to have the Justice department drop any movement (if there is any) on a Grand Jury trial, at least until Assange is out of Swedish custody.  But neither Sweden nor the UK can control that, and all else aside, I really doubt the US wants even the prospect of having to publicly give someone accused of a crime any sort of leniency in order to turn themselves in (it's the worst sort of message you can send in terms of law enforcement).

            Lastly, a comment.  People see Ghandi as a hero.  What happened to Ghandi when he "spoke truth to power" and made enemies in high places?  He went to jail.  What happened to Nelson Mandela?  He went to jail.  And on and on.  Not jailed for rape charges, but for charges related to their activities - which for Julian, right now, is purely a hypothetical and would require a whole string of circumstances (the US to actually be presently pushing for an indictment (which we only know was being considered at one point in time), the US courts to actually indict him, Swedish courts to approve the extradition request, British courts to approve the extradition request, and probably the ECHR to likewise approve the extradition request).  What is so heroic about running?  Don't tell me "it's only logical".  It was also logical for Bonnie and Clyde to run.  Assange's run is precisely opposite the cause of whistleblowing right now.  It's taking money from Wikileaks, increasing the controversy of Wikileaks, distracting from the content of the leaks, creating public diplomatic rows that don't help anyone, and he's running to one of the most press-oppressive nations in South America, where the president not long ago even shut down a newspaper and jailed journalists for criticizing him, with the president's own lawyer drafting the legal opinion instead of the judge.

            Yet people here are cheering on the running, and even the most "moderate" of said voices are supporting conditions on him having to face very serious criminal charges, as though if someone powerful doesn't like you, that means you should get a "get out of felonies free" card.  Most of the voices are nowhere near as moderate, and are little more than smearing the accusers and everyone else in the most vile manners possible as well as downplaying rape in a manner I once never thought I'd see on this site.

            •  like you (0+ / 0-)

              Justice is nothing to do with whether the US likes you

              Blake: I am an enemy of the Federation but it is corrupt and oppressive. I will destroy it if I can

              by GideonAB on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 11:26:00 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Every time you unload, it's with the assumption (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              cpresley

              that all accusations are true.

              No one here has any idea if they are or not.

              All Cretans are sockpuppets. -- Epimenides the Cretan

              by JesseCW on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 11:43:38 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Okay (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              jrooth, cpresley, PhilJD, Anak

              I'll have to be brief -- I appreciate your passion for this subject, but I simply don't have the time today to address this much more.

              First, I have seen some of the other comments you refer to, ones that attempt to dismiss the nature of the allegations against Assange, and I neither endorse those comments nor find them to be an acceptable way of discussing sexual assault allegations. So those comments exist, they're bad, but they have nothing to do with me or my argument. Let those people answer for their comments.

              Second, his human rights could be violated in the USA even if he does not face execution. Remember, Bradley Manning has been languishing in pre-trial confinement now for multiple years. That is unconstitutional, but the Obama Administration hasn't exactly turned a corner on the kind of disregard for the Constitution that the Bush Administration advanced so considerably. Assange has plenty of reason to fear such a fate. Also, don't forget that to this day, many foreign nationals are held in indefinite detention without trial by the USA. Obama didn't close Guantanamo or even make a serious effort to do so (the best he proposed was to move the legal black hole of that prison to Illinois, a move that many in Congress opposed because it didn't go far enough in rectifying the unconstitutional nature of that place).

              Third, if Sweden's extradition treaty does not make any provision for declining to extradite a person who is facing political charges, then yes, they need to find any excuse not to extradite Assange, because any charges he faces will be purely political in nature. Again, he published things on the Internet. He is not a US citizen. He cannot possibly be guilty of any crime in relation to what he did in publishing material on the Internet. Publishing material on the Internet that the US government does not want you to publish is protected speech. Sweden should find any excuse possible to prevent someone from facing charges related to protected speech. It is the leaking by a US government operative, not the publishing, that MAY be a crime. That is why I do not demand that Bradley Manning be freed, although I do think that his human rights are being grossly violated and that his sentence (if they ever actually try him and convict him) should be lenient at worst.

              Fourth, Assange is not Gandhi. I really don't think anything else needs to be said about that. If I was comparing him to Gandhi, like you are, then all the anti-Wikileaks people would want me to be fired out of a cannon! But I would make no such comparison. He's not Gandhi.

              Fifth, we're not talking about a get out of jail free card here, because, as I said before, Assange did not commit any kind of crime by publishing materials on the Internet. It is protected speech and journalism. Any US charges would be trumped up at best. Having observed the last decade, and how the US has not respected the rule of law, I (and Assange and his lawyers) can only assume that once he enters the grip of the US government, they will probably never let him go, one way or another. He has plenty to fear.

              "As the madmen play on words, and make us all dance to their song / to the tune of starving millions, to make a better kind of gun..." -- Iron Maiden

              by Lost Left Coaster on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 11:50:15 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Don't have time to respond fully, (0+ / 0-)

                so just in brief.

                1) Both Sweden and the UK (both of whose courts must approve the request, at multiple levels with appeals), have laws preventing extradition to torture as well, plus the Swedish government can overturn it on same grounds, plus the entire purpose of the ECHR is to avoid torture and human rights abuses.  All in all there's something like 8 bodies in the most respected judicial bodies on the planet evaluating that.  And for that, we should give him a pass on serious crimes?

                2) Sweden has also reassured Australia that "they don't extradite anyone if there's a capital offence or it's a matter to do with military or intelligence".

                3) I think you know every well that the "get out of jail card" I was talking about was not about Wikileaks, but about rape charges.  Nobody should get a "get out of jail free card" against serious crimes simply because they've also ticked off someone else, whether rightly or wrongly.  If that was the case, almost every war criminal on the planet could use that excuse.

                We have the rule of law and criminal justice systems for the specific reason of evaluating the merit of claims, and those claims include "I'll be abused or persecuted if extradited".  It's time to end the "get out of having to face rape charges because I think the entire first world judicial system is corrupt and incapable of handling a human rights case" nonsense (and the even more ridiculous, "they're going to 'disappear' one of the most high-profile people on the planet" nonsense) and face the music like everyone accused of rape who isn't Julian Assange.

            •  Rei the Railroader (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              expatjourno

              As usual distorts the facts to paint Assange in the worst possible light.

              "the accusers are lying, they're CIA agents and/or man haters and/or innocent dupes of man haters, and whatever they are, they're out to ruin an innocent man's life, and by the way, pinning a person down and prying their legs open to force unprotected sex is foreplay ("night moves" and "caresses" being my favorite terms used to describe it on DK so far)"

              First, the "accusers" are the Swedish prosecutors. No woman in Sweden or anywhere else in the world has accused Assange of raping them. And there is evidence that one of the two women is lying. Namely, she claims to have saved a ripped condom for several days, which she claims is the one Assange used during sex with her, and believes Assange ripped on purpose (he says there was no ripped condom). She didn't mention having saved this in the first interviews but later said she did when she learned this would be helpful to support her story. So she gave the police a ripped condom. But the police tested it for DNA and nobody's DNA was on it (i.e., it was unused), and the nature of the tear wouldn't really match her story. Sorry Rei, this looks like someone lying.

              Then we get to the spin about the events, carefully leaving in and exaggerating incriminating sounding parts and leaving out exculpatory parts:

              "pinning a person down and prying their legs open to force unprotected sex is foreplay ("night moves" and "caresses" being my favorite terms used to describe it on DK so far)"

              The actual story is that 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.

              One interpretation of this is that he was nefariously planning to "force unprotected sex" on someone he knew was unwilling (the version you'd like, to help you railroad Assange into prison). But another much less strained and paranoid interpretation is that he thought she wanted to have sex with him, was trying to initiate said sex, but not having mind reading powers, didn't know what she was doing or why she wasn't letting him proceed until she actually said something.

              We get more of the same biased spin-job with the next set of events:

              "waiting until a person is asleep to fuck her to work around their express refusal to have unprotected sex the night before means that it's okay either because she had any form of consensual sex at all the night before, or because one witness said that she was 'half-asleep" (followed by "... she woke up to discover Assange was inside her.") and thus must have decided to ignore her well-documented extreme lifelong opposition to unprotected sex which had been reiterated right before she went to sleep"."

              "Waiting until a person is asleep". Classic Rei already. He was secretly "waiting" for her to be asleep so he could launch his nefarious plot. Too bad he didn't have a mustache at the time so he could twirl it while he was "waiting".

              Also, it's not only "one witness" who used the phrase half asleep. It was her too in her own words in text messages ("halvsov", drowsy or half asleep). The "asleep" description is never something the woman (SW) is on record saying herself. The text where this comes from is the police summary of her interview statements, the one she walked out on without hearing it read back or endorsing its contents (because she became so distraught at learning that the police were twisting her statements into a rape charge), and which is not in her own words, but instead a summary written by the police interviewer, in the interviewer’s words. The only known version of SW describing this in her own words are in subsequent text messages, where she uses the term “halvsov”, which means half asleep, half awake, or drowsy. Thus the idea that he initiated intercourse while SW was "asleep" is not even a fact here to begin with. We don’t really know what her state was at the time, and we have even less idea what Assange might have thought her state was at the time (though Rei does. He knew she was "asleep" because he was "waiting" for that to hatch his nefarious scheme!). If we take the only known description in her own words, she was not “asleep”.

              Then we get that Assange "must have decided to ignore her well-documented extreme lifelong opposition to unprotected sex which had been reiterated right before she went to sleep"."  

              But of course, Assange likely had no idea of any "well-documented extreme lifelong opposition" (couldn't you add a few more adjectives Rei?) to unprotected sex. He'd only just met the woman recently. What he would have seemingly known is that she insisted on using condoms during their sex the night before. We also don't know what he knew about any of this - and neither do the Swedish prosecutors - since he was never interviewed about the incident with SW, despite repeated offers to submit to such questioning in Sweden in 2010, in the UK 2011-2012, and now in the Ecuador Embassy, all of which have been turned down by the prosecutors.

              Always spinning and tweaking the facts to railroad this guy into prison. And you wonder why some people worry about accusers who are "out to ruin an innocent man's life".

              Here's a good fact-based corrective to Rei's endless spin, for anyone interested in what the facts actually are here: http://www.nnn.se/...

              •  You should diary this. n/t (0+ / 0-)

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

                by expatjourno on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 10:26:54 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Amazing mind-reading abilities you have. (0+ / 0-)

                My favorite part is where you turned this:

                Sofia and I were notified during the interrogation that Julian Assange had been arrested in absentia. Sofia had difficulty concentrating after that news, whereby I made the judgement it was best to terminate the interrogation. But Sofia had time anyway to explain that Assange was angry with her. I didn't have time to get any further details about why he was angry with her or how this manifested itself. And we didn't have time to get into what else happened afterwards. The interrogation was neither read back to Sofia nor reviewed for approval by her but Sofia was told she had the opportunity to do this later.
                into:
                because she became so distraught at learning that the police were twisting her statements into a rape charge
                Thank you, Amazing Kreshkin!  Could you elaborate more on the fantasy world of yours where you've read the minds of all players and have all of the information about the case, in order to declare yourself Judge and Jury?

                The statement in Sofia's transcript reads:

                They fell asleep and she woke by feeling him penetrate her.
                The "halvsov" part is the basis for the statement of one of her friends (Katarina Svensson), which reads:
                Sofia said that when she was lying half asleep, she woke up to discover Assange was inside her.
                If you have the Swedish original for that one word in the SMS, surely you have the rest of the message, right?  I mean, if not, I'd be tempted to think that you were simply getting your information from people deliberately omitting data to try to spin the case, but definitely that couldn't be the case - you can read minds after all!
                We don’t really know what her state was at the time, and we have even less idea what Assange might have thought her state was at the time
                Yeah, because it's so danged tricky to tell if someone is asleep!  Why must we expect such an impossible discernment from someone like Assange?  Why, just the other day I was having a conversation with someone and wouldn't you know it, halfway in, right when we were discussing the nitty-gritty of the Fermi Paradox, I realized, "my god, this person has been asleep the whole time!"
                But of course, Assange likely had no idea of any "well-documented extreme lifelong opposition"
                Which would be a great response if that statement was made concerning Assange.  It was made concerning the accusation that Sofia decided to sleep with Assange without protection.
                He'd only just met the woman recently. What he would have seemingly known is that she insisted on using condoms during their sex the night before.
                Yeah, and after a night of trying to fuck her without a condom over and over and her refusing (sorry if you don't like that, but that's the accusation, and his defense team has not disputed that course of events, despite disputing other aspects of the accusations, like focusing on the asleep/half-asleep distinction), we're to suddenly believe that he felt she "changed her mind".  While asleep.  Oh, wait, I forgot, Assange can't tell if a person is asleep.
                Always spinning and tweaking the facts to railroad this guy into prison.
                Wanting an accused person to stand trial = railroading into prison.  Got it.  Thanks for clearing these things up for me.
                since he was never interviewed about the incident with SW, despite repeated offers to submit to such questioning in Sweden in 2010
                The UK court revealed this to be a lie on the part of Assange's attorney, who then prevaricated, claimed to have made a mistake and forgotten, etc, and is lucky to have escaped without witness tampering and perjury charges.  Oh, wait, no, you're getting all your information from the Bestest Unbiasedest Sources In The Whoooole World, I forgot, so I'm sure you knew about that.
                •  Rei continues to spin and distort like mad (0+ / 0-)

                  I'm going to pick and choose which parts of this dissembling nonsense to address because most of it is pointless.

                  On the asleep/awake/half asleep issue, you continue to focus on a summary written by the policewoman who interviewed them (a personal friend and political ally of Ardin, already a violation of protocols that taints the case), and which is in the interviewer's words. And you cite a statement from a friend of SW which is self contradictory: she's not asleep, she wakes up. "Waking up" in this comment does not appear to mean what we usually think it means. Here it seems to mean going from some state of partial consciousness or drowsiness to full consciousness. The only known formulation in SW's own words are text messages where she uses the phrase "half asleep", which is not the same thing as "asleep". If it is so danged clear and unambiguous that she was "asleep" why does she and the other witness use a phrase that indicates she was not asleep? Is she not able to tell if she was asleep or not? At best, her state at the time is unclear. But Assange? Oh he knew clearly and without question that she was "asleep". Why? Well, no credible reason, except that pretending this is a fact helps you spin your fantasies and advance your malicious agenda.

                  "since he was never interviewed about the incident with SW, despite repeated offers to submit to such questioning in Sweden in 2010
                  The UK court revealed this to be a lie on the part of Assange's attorney, who then prevaricated, claimed to have made a mistake and forgotten"

                  No court revealed what I said to be a lie. Numerous offers were made by Assange to do a second interview in Sweden in 2010 and were declined or put off. That's true. What you're referring to is that an Assange lawyer received some messages from the prosecutor during late September 2010 about setting up an interview which he says he didn't see at the time. The UK judge interpreted this as misleading the court (while finding no fault with any of the obvious standards violations of the prosecution). This doesn't change the fact that Assange did offer several times to set up an interview to have those declined or put off until later.

                  The Ardin nonsense:

                  "But it's most definitely not "she's trying to get a condom, and he stops and lets her get one, and then they have sex.""

                  Yes, it most definitely is exactly that, until you start doing mind reading and fantasizing.

                  He's on top of her holding her arms and trying to have intercourse. She is saying NOTHING WHATSOEVER in protest but is apparently trying to do something with her held arms and is squeezing her legs together, preventing him from initiating intercourse. This goes on for some unspecified amount of time and he then asks her what is going on, indicating he doesn't know what the problem is - SINCE SHE HASN'T SAID A WORD TO INDICATE WHAT THE PROBLEM IS. Then she tells him what she wants, and he does what she wants and they have sex. Whether or not he somehow showed "unexpressed reluctance" (what the heck is that exactly?) to doing what she asked at that point doesn't matter. He did what she wanted and then they had sex.

                  To see a "crime" here you have to be either a crackpot or a malicious liar trying to railroad someone into prison (I think you're both). It would also be an unprecedented "crime". If not, go ahead and show me any conviction in the UK or US for a "crime" corresponding to this scenario. Or maybe Assange is the first person in legal history to have committed it.

                  "    But the police tested it for DNA and nobody's DNA was on it (i.e., it was unused), and the nature of the tear wouldn't really match her story.

                  Totally fictional.  The police were able to recover mitochondrial DNA but not chromosomal DNA (which degrades much faster)"

                  Nothing "fictional" about it. Ardin claims this is the condom she and Assange used to consummate intercourse. Such a condom would have both of their DNA all over it. This one had none. Then when one of the prosecutors heard the results that there was none he asked for a second test where they found one microscopic spec of mitochondrial DNA, which typically comes from hair, and is simply not consistent with Ardin's story. A condom used in the manner she claims would have both their DNA all over it. Chromosomal DNA may "begin to degrade" but it would not completely vanish without any trace in a matter of two weeks from a condom used in the manner Ardin claims.
                  http://wlcentral.org/...

                  You're defending a liar Rei.

                  And there have been comments on the nature of the tear (and a photo):
                  "There is a large slit at the tip; ... It is also evident that, with such a large break in the material, the condom would almost immediately have bunched up at the base of the penis during intercourse. Yet, according to Ms. Ardin’s testimony, it was otherwise intact and still in place when Assange withdrew from her afterward."
                  http://www.nnn.se/...

                  This next bit is really laughable:
                  "Once again, your imagination is running wild on this.  You're living in this little fantasy world where you're adding all sorts of "facts" into the case that aren't supported by a whit of reality in order to act as Judge and Jury."

                  Talk about projection. That corresponds to exactly nothing I've said on this matter, but is almost the perfect description of your sad little campaign, only it should also mention lying, falsification and dissembling. You repeatedly distort facts in the direction you want, suppress or evade facts that don't suit your agenda, and invent facts and motives based on fantasies and mind reading. It is pathetic and sad. But when someone's life is hanging in the balance, it is also despicable.

              •  Whoops, missed the first part (0+ / 0-)
                First, the "accusers" are the Swedish prosecutors. No woman in Sweden or anywhere else in the world has accused Assange of raping them.
                Right.  That's why the women have retained an attorney (Borgström) who is pursing the charges, right?  I'm suuuuure it's totally without their knowledge.
                Then she says she's trying to get a condom, and he stops and lets her get one, and then they have sex.
                Umm, the actual testimony reads:
                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 (Ed: really, he didn't notice?).  Anna tried several times (Ed: really, he didn't notice?) 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 (Ed: when did she sign up for BDSM and attempt to be penetrated against her resistance?  Sorry, but this in and of itself is illegal without consent - not rape, but he's not charged with rape for this instance). Anna says that in the end she was ready to cry (Ed: really, he didn't notice?) 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.

                Assange asked after a while what Anna was doing and why she was squeezing her legs together. Anna then told him she wanted him to put on a condom before he entered her. Assange released her arms and put on the condom Anna got for him. Anna felt a huge unexpressed reluctance from Assange to using a condom which led to her getting the feeling he didn't put on the condom she'd given him. She therefore reached down with her hand to Assange's penis to check if he'd really put the condom on. She could feel that the edge of the condom was where it should be at the root of Assange's penis. Anna and Assange resumed having sex and Anna says she thought 'hope it's over soon'.

                Yes, part of this is her speculation on her motives.  But it's most definitely not "she's trying to get a condom, and he stops and lets her get one, and then they have sex."  You can say "her recollection is wrong", but what the testimony describes here is a crime.  You can't try to force sex with someone, and only because you later stop trying, say, "See, what I did was all okay!"
                Namely, she claims to have saved a ripped condom for several days, which she claims is the one Assange used during sex with her,
                False.  When asked if she has it, she states that she might, and she can check.  She did not just come out and claim "I saved a ripped condom from the event".

                Hint: where do things like condoms usually go?  If you guessed "trashcan", you're right.  Are trashcans magical portals to another dimension that immediately empty themselves?  Because surely something like that must be the case if the condom should instantly no longer be in her apartment.

                But the police tested it for DNA and nobody's DNA was on it (i.e., it was unused), and the nature of the tear wouldn't really match her story.
                Totally fictional.  The police were able to recover mitochondrial DNA but not chromosomal DNA (which degrades much faster).  Even a quick google search will tell you that chromosomal DNA in a moist environment (hmm, wonder what semen in an impermiable membrane, even if ruptured, would count as...) begins to degrade in a matter of hours, and even when dry eventually degrades.  There have been no comments on the nature of the tear.

                Once again, your imagination is running wild on this.  You're living in this little fantasy world where you're adding all sorts of "facts" into the case that aren't supported by a whit of reality in order to act as Judge and Jury.

                BTW, I know the sites making the DNA claim, so just to correct other false information you may have gotten from there: it's also false, contrary to their claims, that mitochondrial DNA cannot be used to convict someone.  It can and has.  Mitochondrial DNA usually can get you over 99% certainty of a match, and often over 99.99%.

          •  That's absurd (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            sviscusi

            You are saying that you aren't being a rape apologist, you are just setting arbitrary standards that can't possibly be met in order to protect a rapist.

            Yeah, that's credible.

            And for those who seem to completely NOT understand how the legal process works, there is no one who can give any assurance of a lack of extradition, since no request has been filed.  Nor should anyone give any such assurance, since that's the province of the judiciary.

            Second, if his actions are protected by the first amendmnet, or any other grounds, then let him raise that as a defense at trial.  For those of us few who believe in the rule of law, rather than by internet puffery, that is the appropriate venue.  You shouldn't escape punshiment simply by virtue of having an active fandom.

            Courtesy Kos. Trying to call on the better angels of our nature.

            by Mindful Nature on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 11:00:50 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  nope (5+ / 0-)

              Assange should not face trial in the US for something that was not done on US soil

              Blake: I am an enemy of the Federation but it is corrupt and oppressive. I will destroy it if I can

              by GideonAB on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 11:26:53 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Maybe, maybe not (0+ / 0-)

                international law says (possibly) otherwise.  The US assumes jurisdiction over numerous extraterritorial crimes, not least for crimes by US military personnel, for example.  Furthermore, drug traffickers, terrorists, and internet thieves can also be subject to prosecution in the US.  (Perhaps you feel that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other 9-11 plotters should not be tried in US court either, I don't know).  In any event, there's plenty of precedent for it.

                However, if there is no basis for any charges to be brought in the US for actions, them I'm pretty sure that the EU courts can figure that out an apply the law to deny any extradition request, should any ever materialize.  (again, there's never been one)

                Courtesy Kos. Trying to call on the better angels of our nature.

                by Mindful Nature on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 11:32:27 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  KSM should not be tried (0+ / 0-)

                  if he did not commit his acts on US soil.

                  The US does not have a moral right to pass laws that affect the whole world.

                  Blake: I am an enemy of the Federation but it is corrupt and oppressive. I will destroy it if I can

                  by GideonAB on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 11:39:24 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Are you kidding? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  aliasalias

                  The 9/11 plotters attacked the United States. So yes, their crime WAS committed on US soil.

                  US military personnel is a complete non sequitor, because Assange is neither military nor a citizen of the USA.

                  Drug trafficking and terrorism should not be tried in the USA unless it took place on US soil. Otherwise it should be tried in the country where it took place. If Colombian drug traffickers ship cocaine to the USA, then yes, the crime took place on US soil.

                  "As the madmen play on words, and make us all dance to their song / to the tune of starving millions, to make a better kind of gun..." -- Iron Maiden

                  by Lost Left Coaster on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 11:53:23 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  in theory, since their actions were not on US soil (0+ / 0-)

                    the only ones who would be eligible for trial would be those who did things here, but not either OBL or KSM, who never entered the US or took actions here.

                    however, my point behind the examples is purely to show that there are clearly exceptions to the rule that whatever happens abroad cannot be a crime in the US, that's all.  So not a non sequitor, in that sense.

                    However, you seem to be coming to a principle of whether an actor outside the US reached into the US and had effects here.  As it turns out, if Assange is ever tried in the US law, that is likely to be one of the very threshold questions the court will have to consider, and it is extremely likely the court concludes that Assange did not reach into the US and so is not subject to US jurisdiction and throws out any charges precisely on those grounds.  In fact, that'd be my prediction.  Furthermore, I'm guessing it's Eric Holder's guess also, which is why no charges have been issued yet.

                    However, the determination of how the law applies rests in the hands of judges, and not the law public, newspaper editors, bloggers, or attorneys for other clients in other cases (who have their own agendas, one might point out.  I have to wonder what ethical violations Radack is engaged in here.   But that's beside the point).

                    Courtesy Kos. Trying to call on the better angels of our nature.

                    by Mindful Nature on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 12:03:31 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

        •  Well, (0+ / 0-)

          it's not like this is the first time we have seen naked double standards applied.

          Courtesy Kos. Trying to call on the better angels of our nature.

          by Mindful Nature on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 10:55:47 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  I would imagine they would read the contents (21+ / 0-)

    of their own paper.

    WaPo says Assange has "imagined" an "international political conspiracy," but completely ignores the nearly overwhelming evidence that the U.S. has empaneled a grand jury and is seeking to indict Assange on Espionage Act charges or worse.
    From 12-7-2010:
    Coincidentally, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) in today's Wall Street Journal calls for the prosecution of Assange under the Espionage Act. The chairwoman of the Senate Select Committe on Intelligence argues:

        The law Mr. Assange continues to violate is the Espionage Act of 1917. That law makes it a felony for an unauthorized person to possess or transmit "information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation."

        The Espionage Act also makes it a felony to fail to return such materials to the U.S. government. Importantly, the courts have held that "information relating to the national defense" applies to both classified and unclassified material. Each violation is punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/...
  •  There was a similar WaPo editorial making the (4+ / 0-)

    same threat against Ecuador right after Assange fled into the Ecuadorian embassy, if memory serves.

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

    by lysias on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 07:19:05 AM PDT

  •  To paraphrase Stalin about the Pope... (5+ / 0-)

    How many divisions does WAPO have?

    Bet Ecuador can handle them.

    When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

    by PhilJD on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 07:31:25 AM PDT

  •  Tell me about it (20+ / 0-)
    WaPo's threat of "consequences" for Ecuador show that not only are whistleblowers faced with severe retaliation in the form of criminal prosecution under the Espionage Act, but those who protect them are facing retaliation.
    After I blew the whistle on corruption at FEMA and USDA, the agencies retaliated--not only against me, but against witnesses who supported me.  Anyone who simply praised my work was harassed and threatened because that interfered with their efforts to spin a story that I was incompetent or crazy.  

    After talking with other whistleblowers and researching the subject, I learned that this is SOP when organizations encounter a whistleblower in their midst. the WaPo, with decades of whistleblower interviews in its archives, must know that. Yet, it chooses to pretend that it doesn't.

    The lack of integrity and independence at WaPo worries me even more than the corruption in government agencies as a sign that fascism has arrived in "the land of the free." On Labor Day, I suggest that we display our flags at half staff...or upside-down in protest.

    Speak the truth, but ride a fast horse.

    by Deep Harm on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 07:43:02 AM PDT

  •  Why is it that the neocon Washington Post (12+ / 0-)

    is so loudly echoed regarding Assange on "progressive" DKos?

    When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

    by PhilJD on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 07:44:54 AM PDT

    •  There's an election in November, (9+ / 0-)

      for Pete's sake.

      Inquiring minds want to know: What was Ben Lawsky's price for taking a dive?

      by WisePiper on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 07:48:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Because we're obv all conservative plants (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mindful Nature, sviscusi

      and the few of you "real" progressives are the only ones that "really" know what's going on!

      BTW I would bet my house that has a couple of bucks worth of equity in it that anyone who listens to Hannity/Levin/Limbaugh would rate the WaPo as a top-5 liberal newspaper in the US today.

      vigilant COYB - Who are ya Van Persie?

      by GoGoGoEverton on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 07:55:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Because there are still progressives (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sviscusi

      who a) believe in the rule of law, rather than trial-by-fanbase and b) take rape charges seriously and don't just limit it to "legitimate" charges.

      Not many of us obviously.

      Courtesy Kos. Trying to call on the better angels of our nature.

      by Mindful Nature on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 11:03:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  law is always right (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JesseCW

        like slavery

        Blake: I am an enemy of the Federation but it is corrupt and oppressive. I will destroy it if I can

        by GideonAB on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 11:29:12 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Mob rule (0+ / 0-)

          doesn't usually cut it.  I don't htink Justin Bieber should be immune to rape charges either just because he has gaggles of fans either.  The analogy to slavery is pretty wildly misplaced.

          Courtesy Kos. Trying to call on the better angels of our nature.

          by Mindful Nature on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 11:33:54 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  your argument was (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JesseCW

            for law.

            I showed that there is a difference between law and justice

            Blake: I am an enemy of the Federation but it is corrupt and oppressive. I will destroy it if I can

            by GideonAB on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 11:37:23 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Fair enough (0+ / 0-)

              The divide here is one really of whether people have faith in the justice system or not.  I see a lot of (to my mind unfounded or poorly founded) assertions that the European and American courts are puppets of Washington.  

              Insofar as I think tht the court systems are still functional, I naturally disagree with most of the conspiracy theories.  I also strongly support democracy, which has two implications:

              1) the laws derived from democratic processes carry substantial legitimacy I am loathe to second guess (though clearly they are far far far from infallible).  Thus, if there are solid arguments that laws have been broken, then a trial needs to happen.  Here, this means that we need a trial to determine whether Assange broke any US laws.  It is not clear though that even the US authorities think there's a strong enough argument to bring a trial.  Clearly, they are far from baying for blood, whatever grandstanding politicians or newspaper editors may say.  It isn't their call.

              2) that when it comes to the necessary secrecy of state, democratically elected officials care overwhelmingly greater legitimacy or authority to make the determination of what is and is not be kept a secret than some random hacker, who is not accountable to any electorate.  

              Others do not support democracy as I do, though.

              Courtesy Kos. Trying to call on the better angels of our nature.

              by Mindful Nature on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 11:57:33 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Biden (0+ / 0-)

                has labelled him a terrorist and this could lead to action by the DOJ.

                I have not followed this issue as closely as some but in terms of care, Assange has been better at exposing corruption than elected officials and has not, to my knowledge, published material that would put people at risk.

                The exposure of corruption could actually help the reform of the US in the longer term as people are less willing to accept corruption.

                Blake: I am an enemy of the Federation but it is corrupt and oppressive. I will destroy it if I can

                by GideonAB on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 12:09:43 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  No (0+ / 0-)

                  what Biden actually said was that Assange's activities could be considered criminal if (and do note that word)it could be established that the WikiLeaks founder had encouraged or helped Bradley Manning, the US intelligence analyst suspected of being behind the leak. Biden claimed this was different from a journalist receiving leaked material.

                  "If he conspired to get these classified documents with a member of the US military that is fundamentally different than if someone drops on your lap … you are a press person, here is classified material."
                  So, yes, if Assange actively conspired to obtain classified information, rather than accepted information given by an insider, then legally that is an entirely different matter, and the key one the legal case would turn on.

                  Courtesy Kos. Trying to call on the better angels of our nature.

                  by Mindful Nature on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 12:16:39 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  link (0+ / 0-)

                    The US vice-president, Joe Biden, today likened the WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, to a "hi-tech terrorist".

                    http://www.guardian.co.uk/...

                    Blake: I am an enemy of the Federation but it is corrupt and oppressive. I will destroy it if I can

                    by GideonAB on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 12:22:50 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  You didn't actually read that (0+ / 0-)

                      did you?

                      Because if you did, you'll notice that this was the article where I got this summary and Biden's quote.  

                      Please focus on paragraph 6:

                      Asked if what Assange had done was criminal, Biden seemed to suggest it would be considered criminal if it could be established that the WikiLeaks founder had encouraged or helped Bradley Manning, the US intelligence analyst suspected of being behind the leak. Biden claimed this was different from a journalist receiving leaked material.

                      Courtesy Kos. Trying to call on the better angels of our nature.

                      by Mindful Nature on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 12:27:34 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  quote (0+ / 0-)

                        This is the bit I would focus on

                        I would argue it is closer to being a hi-tech terrorist than the Pentagon papers. But, look, this guy has done things that have damaged and put in jeopardy the lives and occupations of people in other parts of the world
                        He seems pretty convinced that Assange is close to a terrorist.

                        Having read the wikipedia page on Assange again, I will concede that Assange is not as careful as I thought.

                        He was, however, involved in the exposure of Guantanamo Bay procedures.

                        Blake: I am an enemy of the Federation but it is corrupt and oppressive. I will destroy it if I can

                        by GideonAB on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 12:37:40 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  for the record (0+ / 0-)

                          If he ever does stand trial in the US I'd expect an acquittal.  Still it been close to two years and still no actions.   I think no charges will ever be filed

                          Courtesy Kos. Trying to call on the better angels of our nature.

                          by Mindful Nature on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 12:40:59 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  not everyone (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            jrooth, pgm 01

                            accused of terrorism gets a trial.

                            Some are moved and held indefinitely

                            Blake: I am an enemy of the Federation but it is corrupt and oppressive. I will destroy it if I can

                            by GideonAB on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 12:45:47 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  True (0+ / 0-)

                            except that that's not what he stands accused of.  He stands (informally accused) of espionage.  I am unaware of allegations that Assange has planted bombs or expressed an interest in killing Americans.   I'd be quite amazed if any indictment included terrorism charges.

                            Courtesy Kos. Trying to call on the better angels of our nature.

                            by Mindful Nature on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 12:54:05 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                •  And (0+ / 0-)

                  Assange exposed preciously little, if any, corruption, but what he did do is release a ton of documents that had no bearing on any misdeeds, but did undermine activities of the US and US diplomats.  That's not whistle blowing or journalism, it's mere mischief.

                  As for corruption, did he expose any at all?  Sorry, I mean of US officials.  The UK, Indian, and yes, Ecuadorian issues are not what the US would have grounds to prosecute for.  He did reveal that the US is concerned with corruption in Argentina, IIRC.

                  Courtesy Kos. Trying to call on the better angels of our nature.

                  by Mindful Nature on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 12:19:41 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Wikileaks focus has never solely been on US (4+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    PhilJD, chuckvw, cpresley, Don midwest

                    So it's hardly a criticism to say they exposed corruption in other nations.

                    But there have been a number of important stories about US actions - spying on UN delegations, the "Collateral Murder" video etc. that exposed real US wrongdoing.

                    Furthermore, I think it's fundamentally wrong to think the vast level of secrecy practiced by our government in any way enhances our security or benefits the American people.  One of the most important things revealed by Wikileaks is just how ridiculous and even counterproductive most classification of documents is.  Our government has developed a culture which hides as much as possible from the public by default.  Based on my rather random perusal of the Wikileaks cables my impression is that at best one out of a hundred were properly kept secret.  Probably less than that.

                    And there is a real cost to our society of this culture of secrecy.  To cite just the most egregious example: if the public had even the slightest notion just how crappy the heavily classified evidence regarding Iraq was, we'd never have gone to war there.

                    “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 Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 12:34:35 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  That video (0+ / 0-)

                      wasn't reporting, it was an incredible propaganda piece.  The title, the music, the editing.  There was zero attempt to uncover facts or portray anything objective in it whatsoever.  It purely appealed to those who already "knew" whatever it purported to show. Factually, it exposed precisely nothing on its own face.  Or rather it showed that urban warfare is ugly and prone to a tone of mistaken judgments in which civilians die in large numbers.  But then anyone who doesn't know that already has been under a rock and never looked at what modern warfare entails.  

                      But if you disagree with the judgment of the American people about how the nation handles it's security, then advocate for a different policy and if you succeed elect representative who share that view.  "Based on your random perusal" you are in a position to judge what influences operational issues?  You are in the position to judge just where to draw the line between risk and disclosure? Based on your expert and all-knowing and wise assessment?  Really?

                      Subverting democratic processes just because you feel self-righteous justication also undermines democracy just as surely.  

                      Courtesy Kos. Trying to call on the better angels of our nature.

                      by Mindful Nature on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 12:59:52 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Well if you think the shooting of the people (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        cpresley, Don midwest

                        trying to help the injured man was justified, I don't know what to say.  You and I have dramatically different moral codes.

                        “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 Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 01:20:11 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Um (0+ / 0-)

                          I think the video was absolutely unclear what it showed.  You will notice that I was pretty clear that civlians get killed in wars, which isn't news.  I don't think the fire bombing of Dresden was morally justified either, but you don't seem too concerned with what I did or didn't say.

                          HOwever, if you start putting out videos with inflammatory titles, omninous music, you might be a hollywood producer, you are a propagandist, and you are almost certainly not a journalist.

                          Courtesy Kos. Trying to call on the better angels of our nature.

                          by Mindful Nature on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 02:26:51 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

          •  Should John Yoo be immune to torture charges? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            lysias, aliasalias

            Cheney?

            Bush?

            When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

            by PhilJD on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 11:58:16 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Only if (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              PhilJD

              they've been accused of rape in Sweden.

              No, I think that Yoo, Cheney, Bush and Assange all should be subject to trial for any likely crimes, and acquitted if the evidence doesn't support all the elements of any crime.  (My own bets are that if those trials were held Yoo and Assange would be acquitted and and Bush and Cheney would not be).

              Courtesy Kos. Trying to call on the better angels of our nature.

              by Mindful Nature on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 12:08:55 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Fair enough. Until the torturers ARE tried though, (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                chuckvw, lysias, Don midwest

                concern about the "rule of law," no matter how heartfelt, will always seem selective.

                When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

                by PhilJD on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 12:16:18 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  What makes you think Yoo would be acquitted? (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                PhilJD, Don midwest

                As a lawyer who has studied national security law, I thought Yoo's failure in the torture memos to cite the Steel Seizure Case Youngstown -- even if only to distinguish it somehow -- was a clear case of willful legal malpractice, and, under the circumstances, part of a conspiracy to commit torture, which the federal torture statute clearly and explicitly prohibits.  

                Youngstown was and is the seminal case on executive power.

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

                by lysias on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 01:28:01 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  I, & I daresay many of Assange's supporters here, (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        chuckvw, cpresley, lysias, aliasalias

        would withdraw our opposition to his being interrogated in Sweden...

        as soon as it's made crystal clear that under no circumstances will he be extradited from Sweden to the US; not to face espionage charges, not to answer informal questions, not for any reason at all.

        It gives a whole new meaning to disingenuous to contend that this case is about "sex by surprise" and nothing else; that politics and the American security state doesn't underlie it all.

        And about that whole "rule of law" thing... See: Torture prosecutions, lack of.

        When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

        by PhilJD on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 11:54:37 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  well (0+ / 0-)

          since there is ZERO evidence of any kind that there is ANY involvement from the US, it isn't disingenuous, it is relying on the factual record.  To date no one has pointed to any act or evidence of any act to show otherwise.  The entire case is based on speculation and supposition and nothing more (while the actual record actually suggests that the opposite is true)

          And as has been pointed out repeatedly, since there is virtually no legal authority who could make such a guarantee, it is disingenuos to call for one.  It's like saying you'd support a war crimes trial for Bush as soon as there's proof positive that the mooon is made of green cheese.  Since your condition is impossible, then of course, you aren't "agreeing" to anything at all.

          In fact, if there is compelling evidence of crimes in the US, then theres no reason why such a guarantee should be extended.  Instead, the legal process should be allowed to proceed without the political interference Assange and supporters are seeking to drum up to thwart the judicial process.

          Courtesy Kos. Trying to call on the better angels of our nature.

          by Mindful Nature on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 12:13:12 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  WaPo was elected to any office (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    philimus, MBNYC, Rustbelt Dem, erush1345, wwjjd

    The US media cannot threaten any foreign nation. The media can rail against a foreign government but they cannot threaten them with US retaliation. The WaPo is not an arm of the US government. This diary obscures the point it attempts to make by including this breathless illogic.

  •  Assange Is Accused of Publishing (18+ / 0-)

    Confidential material that was leaked to him by insiders.

    His co-conspirators are some of the world's best known media outlets, including the New York Times.

    The Washington Post has also published secret government documents leaked to them by whistleblowers.

    This seems strange.

    "I'll believe that corporations are people when I see Rick Perry execute one."

    by bink on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 08:03:20 AM PDT

    •  Unfortunately, to few oppose neo-fascists (5+ / 0-)

      The Times and WaPo are defending themselves by saying that were it not for Wikileaks, they would have published less or none of it.  I believe that assertion, and I believe that is the reason Wikileaks is so important, both to the US government and to those who favor truth.  A few entities like Wikileaks stand directly in the path of our elites neo-fascist designs.  In a better world, the overwhelming majority of our elected officials, both Democratic and Republican, would not be part of this.

  •  So tell me again what makes Assange (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    erush1345, sviscusi

    different from / better than any other rapist, or even any other pro-rape legislator like Todd Akin?

    LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

    by BlackSheep1 on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 08:08:47 AM PDT

    •  So tell me again what makes Assange (13+ / 0-)

      a rapist?

      Inquiring minds want to know: What was Ben Lawsky's price for taking a dive?

      by WisePiper on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 08:21:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  "NO means NO" doesn't work for you? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        erush1345

        Assange continued with sex despite the woman saying no.

        LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

        by BlackSheep1 on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 08:24:54 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  "Innocent until proven guilty" (12+ / 0-)

          doesn't work for you?

          “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 Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 09:01:59 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Remind me again in what sort of body... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            erush1345, Blicero

            someone's guilt gets determined?  What's that called again?  And in what country that usually ranks near the best in NGO rankings of human rights, transparency, press freedom, and fighting corruption might Assange possibly find one?  I think it begins with an S...

            Also, remind me again to where he might want to go if he didn't want to have his guilt determined in such a body?  Perhaps a country somewhere in South America that's abysmally down said NGO rankings and which is as we speak deporting a whistleblower back to a dictatorship where he may well face the death penalty?

          •  Assange has the option of facing his accuser (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Blicero

            and standing trial, does he not?

            I'm reading and hearing that a lot of Kossacks are subscribing to an abhorrent, to me, double-standard on this particular case. He's some kind of hero, so it can't be rape.

            For those who want to say one woman is lying about this hero -- there's more than one incident of nonconsensual sex at issue here. and more than one woman making the accusation.

            I'm one of the people who thinks that despicable "artist," Roman Polanski, is just another rapist, too. Like the rich guy who raped the hotel maid, only it turns out that, wow, she's an undocumented immigrant, so he must've just not paid the hooker enough to keep her mouth shut.

            Right boys?

            The whole double-standard thing makes me want to vomit, and I cut no slack for "Democrats" or "liberals" or "heroes" of any stripe who mistreat women or children. Polanski is no less evil than Warren Jeffs. Assange should stand trial, and so should Strass-Kahn.

            Rape culture's rape culture, regardless of who's taking advantage of it.

            LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

            by BlackSheep1 on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 10:37:29 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  This is why I hate cause celebres cases (0+ / 0-)

              No real moral issue is at stake in the debate.

              It's total moral and ideological confusion, hence not really a fruitful topic for discussion.

              I find belligerent foreign policy abohorrent. Let's discuss that, not some 4th degree epiphenomenon related to the central issue.

            •  show me (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              JesseCW, aliasalias

              the comments in this thread where someone said "he is a hero so it cannot be rape"

              Blake: I am an enemy of the Federation but it is corrupt and oppressive. I will destroy it if I can

              by GideonAB on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 11:32:22 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Rather than repeat myself (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              JesseCW

              I will simply refer you to my comment here.

              “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 Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 11:39:55 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Rape culture, my ass. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              aliasalias, PhilJD, shaharazade

              It has been reported that the charge Assange is possibly facing in Sweden carries a maximum sentence of four years.

              Assange has stated in the past that he's willing to return to Sweden for questioning in their investigation, provided Sweden grants assurance they won't turn around and extradite him to the U.S.

              Ecuador has stated recently they will extradite him to Sweden, provided Sweden grants that assurance.

              So far, Sweden is unwilling to do so.

              Assange has a reasonable fear that, if not charged in Sweden, or if charged, tried and exonerated, the U.S. will issue an indictment on espionage charges and Sweden will comply with a U.S. extradition request.

              Don't throw around incendiary accusations of "rape culture." None of us in this thread have downplayed the seriousness of the sexual offense Assange might be charged with. But most of us are smart enough to connect the fucking dots and see there's a lot more at stake here than Assange's possible jailing in Sweden.

              Inquiring minds want to know: What was Ben Lawsky's price for taking a dive?

              by WisePiper on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 01:49:40 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  I seriously wish it was that simple, having (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          indie17, shaharazade

          discussed this yesterday in another of Jesselyn's diaries, which got threadjacked because of the discussion, all is not as it appears.

          This side story (of the alleged rape) reads like some Tom Clancy cointelpro novel.

          Her moral objection wasn't that she had multiple partners while in a "committed relationship of 2 1/2 yrs, it's all about her fake moral standard of him not using protection which was thrown aside when, through her alleged sleepy haze, she realized it was too late, so she decided to layback and enjoy the ride. Absolutely sick...right then and there she should have called the damn police.

          It sickens me that this woman is degrading the term rape to such bizarre arbitrary and inconsistent standards. And I don't say this lightly, having once been a helpless child forced into situations that I had no understanding of.

          Enough said on this...

          -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 Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 09:38:26 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  First off... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            BlackSheep1

            it's Assange's defense that's pushing the "half asleep" argument, using her statement to one witness as their basis and ignoring that the statement didn't immediately continue saying that she "woke up" to find Assange inside her.  Wilén's statement was that she was, simply, asleep.  So by saying "alleged sleepy haze", you're going even further than Assange's defense team, and saying everyone is lying.

            I'm in shock that you actually used the words "lay back and enjoy the ride".  I just can't believe you went there.  Just ignoring that you're charging that a person who says they were raped can't have a different view on you (one, which I might add, is actually supported by science) about whether you can get STDs or pregnant before the guy finishes inside you, and your ability to mind read about her mental state while that was going on is truly incredible.  And I love how rape victims are supposed to immediately not be in shock, to have come to grips with what just happened to them, immediately come to terms with the fact that the person who they had thought was a good person just did something that they didn't want them to instead of spending days on end asking themselves, "Why...?", and instead, to immediately be able to say "I was just raped, my life just changed, let's go start preparing for a criminal trial."

            Her moral objection wasn't that she had multiple partners while in a "committed relationship of 2 1/2 yrs
            Not only are you smearing someone who says they were raped, but you're totally mixing up the details in the process.  It was an ex boyfriend of 2 1/2 years that was interviewed.  Not present.  She hadn't even talked to him in several months.
            •  Rei, how about writing a diary on this? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              aliasalias

              I promise to discuss it further if you do...yesterday we threadjacked Jesselyn's diary and let's not do it again today.

              There are bigger things that need to be addressed here.

              -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 Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 11:34:26 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  The problem is... (0+ / 0-)

                I did once already....

                Maybe I will again, with the most recent information and developments...

                •  It might help your cause if you present (0+ / 0-)

                  a more thorough presentation.  Adrin did publish a how to get even list.

                  http://progressivealaska.blogspot.com/...

                  Step #3:

                  For example if you want revenge on someone who cheated or who dumped you, you should use a punishment with dating/sex/fidelity involved.

                  It does go to motive here that is being exploited by TPTB to discredit Wikileaks.

                  The collusion prior to going to the Swedish authorities cannot be ignored (between Adrin & Welin).

                  Try to be objective, despite your personal experiences, we all have crosses to bear.

                  -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 Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 08:25:51 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  First off... (0+ / 0-)

                    1) Steps 1 is basically, "don't"

                    2) All of the examples basically amount to, "break up your ex boyfriend and his new girlfriend" and have nothing to do with the legal system.

                    3) Do you really think that you've never ever in your entire life written anything on the internet that several million people looking to discredit you could dig up?  Really?  What happens if we apply the standard in reverse?  Just a quick search on Assange I see where he calls himself dangerous, says that female mathematicians will never accomplish anything because their brains are wired wrong (but that he hopes some day a neuroscientist will create a new kind of math for them), and literally calls himself a god to women:

                    One of the devout was the lovely daughter of a New Castle minister. At some point in my unintended wooing of her, she looked up, fluttered her eyelids and said 'Oh, you know so much! I hardly know anything!'. 'That is why you believe in God," I explained.  This conversational brutality took her breath away and she swooned. I was exactly what she secretly longed for; a man willing to openly disagree with her father. All along she had needed a man to devote herself to. All along she had failed to find a man worthy of being called a man, failed to find a man who would not bow to gods, so she had chosen a god unworthy of being called a god, but who would not bow to a man.
                    Do you really want use the "what's ever been written on the internet" standard?
                    The collusion prior to going to the Swedish authorities cannot be ignored (between Adrin & Welin).  ...  Try to be objective, despite your personal experiences
                    You're right that our personal experiences color our views on things.  But they also give us data.  My datapoints being, of course, that it took me a long time to accept what happened, and that I didn't go to the police.  I couldn't imagine going through that, facing him, dealing the smears and everything, how I must just be some slut out to ruin an innocent guy's life, etc - even though he was a person who was basically a nobody (at least as far as I know).  I can't even imagine versus someone like Assange who has millions of followers.  But if I had found out shortly thereafter that the guy had done the same sort of stuff to someone else?  I can't say exactly how I would have reacted, but I can tell you it sure as heck would have changed the picture.  It can be a lot easier to stand up for someone else than for yourself.

                    So yes, our experiences in life do affect how we view the world.  But I hardly think having "information on how rape victims behave" that I lacked prior is detrimental to understanding whether something is normal behavior in a rape case.  Quite to the contrary.

                    •  Seriously are you trying to threadjack again? (0+ / 0-)

                      Your anger is showing. You're anger for your self and for the perpetrator that attacked you.

                      Is this about the allegations against Assange or your personal experiences?

                      It can be a lot easier to stand up for someone else than for yourself.
                      How about sending me an email through DK?

                      We could flesh this out, all of it or again, write a diary.

                      I've always believed that we help ourselves by helping others, a win-win.  Is this crusade you are on helping these women in any way shape or form? You wish to argue their legal case for them because you never had the opportunity to argue your own case.  This doesn't help any of us, even you. You cannot be an impartial judge here.

                      It's a distraction from the facts presented, if they are accurate, we don't know and may never know.

                      Good luck.

                      -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 Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 11:38:55 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  We may well know. (0+ / 0-)

                        That's what courts are for.  To decide these things.

                        An email about what, out of curiosity?  What remains unsaid?

                        •  About what? Are you just pulling our legs here??? (0+ / 0-)

                          You've repeated your smears against Assange and accepted what these women said as gospel and then you throw in tidbits of your personal life to imply "you know because you've been there" and you seriously now state that courts should decide these things after you've personally tried and convicted the man while stating helping others is easier than helping yourself???

                          Are your diatribes just propaganda & manipulation, as I'm now suspecting?

                          For a brief moment I actually bought into your bullshit and thought you might need someone to talk to who has had similar life experiences.  How much of this was actually real, any of it?

                          Forget it, don't answer that, your answer above IS the answer for me...

                          Good day, please do not respond to my comments again.

                          -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 Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 10:36:50 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

          •  She also continued (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Don midwest, gerrilea, indie17

            after the alleged 'rape' to allow him to stay at her place. The next night she helped throw him a party. Is this the behavior of a rape victim? I don't think he is charged with rape as defined by our laws. There is also the fact that once he goes to Sweden to answer questions he will be jailed until charges are made. hummm.. There is also some real dicey stuff going on with the 2nd prosecutor and even Rove's ugly prints are on this debacle. Looks like a political hit to me.  

    •  It's not relevant. nt (0+ / 0-)

      vigilant COYB - Who are ya Van Persie?

      by GoGoGoEverton on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 08:28:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Why the hell would the US Congress care (15+ / 0-)

    about whether Ecuador hands a fugitive to the UK for extradition to Sweden to answer questions about accusations of rape so as to decide if there is enough evidence for a trial?

    I mean, this isn't about anything else, is it?

    All Cretans are sockpuppets. -- Epimenides the Cretan

    by JesseCW on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 08:41:26 AM PDT

  •  Let's face it, the Post's editorials always suck. (4+ / 0-)

    ... From what I've seen, they don't need any government encouragement to push the idea that the authorities are always right and dissent is always wrong. Remember the Savana Redding case, where The Washington Boast editorial board actually defended school officials for strip-searching a teenage girl despite the lack of probable cause and without even notifying the girl's parents or the police? Geez, even the conservative Supreme Court ruled 8-1 against the position the Boast took.  Only Clarence Thomas disagreed (as you might expect). While I wouldn't rule out the possibility that someone at the White House asked Fred Hiatt to publish that garbage, I also wouldn't be at all surprised if he and his boot-licking control freaks came up with it all on their own.

  •  It' shocking (4+ / 0-)

    that a supposed newspaper, the very one that broke the Watergate story and which was one of two majors to print the Pentagon Papers, has fallen so far away from the founding principles of the country that it supports the persecution of someone for revealing government secrets.
      WaPo should close it's doors, or maybe become a regional edition of Pravda.

  •  Offbase (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Inland

    There doesn't seem to be much evidence if any that the US is currently seeking extradition of Assange.  However, Sweden is seeking his extradition in order to arrest and try him.  Look at section 140 of extradition approval, it's clear that Sweden is seeking Assange's arrest for trial.  Assange hasn't been charged yet because he needs to be arrested first under the Swedish legal system (see 142-144 in the decision).

    Frankly it seems odd that people are saying that Assange is being sent to Sweden so that he can be extradited to the USA.  He can still appeal to the European Court of Human Rights in both the UK and Sweden as the ultimate authority and honestly, the UK seems like a better place for the US to ask for an extradition.  After all, the UK has been fine with extraditing people to the US over copyright violations and running websites that linked to pirated show and movies (see Richard O'Dwyer).  


     
    •  Sweden has a history of extraditing people (7+ / 0-)

      to be tortured at the request of the US.

      It was kind of a scandal, noticed by the tiny minority of people who actually give a flying fuck about whether or not their fellow human beings get tortured.

      All Cretans are sockpuppets. -- Epimenides the Cretan

      by JesseCW on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 11:53:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Then why won't Sweden pledge not to... (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      chuckvw, lysias, pgm 01, aliasalias, PhilJD

      extradite Mr Assange? Our government has empaneled a Grand Jury to quietly bring charges against him. It hardly seems crazy that a smaller country with less diplomatic clout would be the ideal place from which to extradite him.

    •  All the CT falls apart on fact UK would (0+ / 0-)

      extradite Assange to the US if he were indicted.  

      Given that, Assange didn't flee to the UK to escape the US.
      He fled there to escape Sweden.

      Sweden won't promise not to extradite him, but neither did the UK.

      "My taxes are of the legally correct height, and the core reason for my campaign is to make them a different, lower height, and it is none of your business what precisely either of those heights might be." Mitt, as channelled by Hunter.

      by Inland on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 02:10:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That seems to be the new talking point. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PhilJD, shaharazade, Don midwest

        Gary McKinnon has successfully resisted extradition from the UK to the U.S. for some 10 years now in the UK courts.

        Extradition of Assange from the UK to the U.S. might be possible, but it could only occur after a long drawn-out struggle in the UK courts, with massive publicity in the UK media.  The McKinnon case suggests that it could only occur after at least one general UK election, where Assange might well be an issue.

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

        by lysias on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 03:47:04 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  If Assange feared extradition to the US (0+ / 0-)

          he would have gone somewhere he wouldn't be extradited to the US at all. Whatever his calculation was, it wasnt to avoid the US reach.

          "My taxes are of the legally correct height, and the core reason for my campaign is to make them a different, lower height, and it is none of your business what precisely either of those heights might be." Mitt, as channelled by Hunter.

          by Inland on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 05:46:56 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Regarding the update (6+ / 0-)

    The editorial makes a very important point.  However, the obsession to control leaks (and pretty much everything else) appears to be fogging official judgement.

    Still, to those who are still able to be objective, I leave you this ancient advice:

    "When you leave on a journey of revenge, first dig two graves. One of them is yours."

    Speak the truth, but ride a fast horse.

    by Deep Harm on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 11:38:01 AM PDT

  •  I don't fully understand the push against Assange. (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cpresley, Don midwest, lysias, chuckvw, pgm 01

    Why isn't the Justice Department prosecuting Wall Street executives whose actions were a much greater threat to this country, our economy and our security?  Shame on the Obama Administration for giving these guys a disgusting pass.

    •  Entirely the President's own choice. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Don midwest, lysias, chuckvw, aliasalias

      He personally has an obsession with attacking whistleblowers and those groups that publish classified information. He's the one who chose folks like Tim Geithner and Larry Summers, both known for their excessive coziness with the financial industry.

    •  The lack of prosecutions against Wall Street (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jrooth, chuckvw, PhilJD, 2020adam

      is actually very easy to understand.  It would reveal that the entire system is completely and irreparably broken.  Too many secrets would be revealed that would lead to companies being hit with investors wanting their money back. There is so much corruption and so much illegal activity that the act of exposing it would crater the world's economy.  

      Assange is wanted for the worst offense imaginable, publishing the truth.  The truth hurts, it endangers the powerful and wealthy and threatens to undermine the system they have worked so hard to create.  The myth of the United States needs to be maintained at all costs, including taking actions that undermine the very values it was founded on.

  •  Here's a documentary (9+ / 0-)

    called Sex, Lies and Julian Assange. It from a Australian current event TV show called Four Corners. It is 45 minutes but well worth the time. I'm posting it from youtube and posting a link to the original on Four Corners as youtube removed the first version that I tried to embed. It gives a pretty clear time line of this debacle. It doesn't seem to me that there is any doubt that he qualifies for political asylum. He is not running from the sexual charges or questioning.    

    Sex, Lies and Julian Assange
    By Andrew Fowler and Wayne Harley
     http://www.abc.net.au/...

    There was also a joint op-ed from Michael Moore and Oliver Stone published yesterday.

    Wikileaks and Free Speech
    Michael Moore and Oliver Stone
    http://www.nytimes.com/...

    Taken together, the British and Swedish governments’ actions suggest to us that their real agenda is to get Mr. Assange to Sweden. Because of treaty and other considerations, he probably could be more easily extradited from there to the United States to face charges. Mr. Assange has every reason to fear such an outcome.The Justice Department recently confirmed that it was continuing to investigate WikiLeaks, and just-disclosed Australian government documents from this past February state that “the U.S. investigation into possible criminal conduct by Mr. Assange has been ongoing for more than a year.” WikiLeaks itself has published e-mails from Stratfor, a private intelligence corporation, which state that a grand jury has already returned a sealed indictment of Mr. Assange. And history indicates Sweden would buckle to any pressure from the United States to hand over Mr. Assange. In 2001 the Swedish government delivered two Egyptians seeking asylum to the C.I.A., which rendered them to the Mubarak regime, which tortured them

    •  Yes, I strongly recommend this documentary (5+ / 0-)

      But I'm afraid it won't even slightly diminish the inexplicable (on this site) animus toward toward Assange, Manning, and wikileaks.

      Some here - who now deride Assange and we who support him as "delusional" and "paranoid" - would cheer his prosecution if he were extradited or kidnapped and brought here for trial... which is still a possibility.

      At least with the focus on Assange we aren't seeing as many comments - similarly snide and hostile - defending the government's treatment of Manning.

      These allegations were cooked up. The whole case reeks of superpower bigfooting, which apparently smells like roses when practiced by Democrats.

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

      by chuckvw on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 01:12:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Jesslyn, thanks for all of your recent good work (7+ / 0-)

    It was also great seeing you on the Daily Show.

  •  Awwww.... (0+ / 0-)

    WaPo actually thinks Ecuador gives a rat's ass about them.  How quaint!

    Keep the faith and walk the path.

    by TheStormofWar on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 11:52:45 AM PDT

  •  To clarify, he wins. (0+ / 0-)

    More or less, the US Congress won't do jack about this, simply because it's not worth the time nor the effort.  Assange knew exactly what he was doing and he played the game well.  For the US (or the UK) to move brazenly against him or Ecuador simply feeds into the perception that Assange wants painted, and runs the risk of damage to national prestige on multiple fronts. Basically, he just trolled multiple governments and got away with it.

    Dude's not the first, nor will he be the last "leaker" on the face of the planet. He's also won't be the last student of the game.   If he committed those crimes in Sweden, then it sucks and he should have his balls chopped off.  But the long story short is Assange is publicly untouchable.  

    He won, end of story.

    Keep the faith and walk the path.

    by TheStormofWar on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 12:05:43 PM PDT

  •  I just love when Jesselyn pushes people's... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Don midwest, PhilJD, aliasalias

    buttons here. Every once in a while, she raises the ire of the right people and gets the standing on the rec list that she deserves.

  •  Very salient point! (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    chuckvw, cpresley, Don midwest, aliasalias
    WaPo's circular logic contradicts itself. If Assange is a sexual assault suspect wanted by Sweden for an incident that occurred in Sweden (as WaPo implies), why would the U.S. Congress even consider "diminish[ing Ecuador's] privileged commercial access" over Assange?
    Indeed.  They should answer that!

    People, not corporations. Democracy, not totalitarian capitalism. gottavote.org

    by democracy is coming on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 12:21:48 PM PDT

  •  Because there are individuals (or at least one) (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Don midwest, PhilJD

    who comment furiously about the sex history in Assange's case on every article about Assange, I want to post this.

    These are the actual leaked police transcipts, translated.  

    The links to the info are in the middle of this page, entitled:  Assange in Sweden: The Police Protocol (Translated)

    http://rixstep.com/...

  •  WaPo threat getting a lot of coverage in Spanish- (0+ / 0-)

    language press.  Do a Google search in google.es Noticias (news) for "Washington Post" and you get umpteen hits.

    Search.  2388 hits on WaPo/s threatening editorial!

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

    by lysias on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 01:53:19 PM PDT

  •  Glenn Greenwald from his new digs at Guardian (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    aliasalias, 2020adam

    Human rights critics of Russia and Ecuador parade their own hypocrisy:  
    The media's new converts to civic freedom over the Pussy Riot and Assange asylum affairs show a jingoism blind to US abuses

    This about sums up what is going on. Rape! Rape! Rape! they say. Get the bad guy.

    How about Hypocrisy! Hypocrisy! Hypocrisy!  

    People refuse to look at what the US has done and attack a truth teller.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/...?

  •  I diaried on an overlapping topic yesterday. (0+ / 0-)

    Here.

    I concur that the extraordinary measures against Assange have nothing to do with the sex charges.

    But I also think that the leaker (whoever it was) and Assange did wrong by releasing the cables. They should have stuck with the copter video, which was legitimate whistle blowing. Dumping state secrets in public just because you can is grossly irresponsible and cannot be tolerated by any nation.

    Have a flagon and discuss the news of the day at the sign of the Green Dragon

    by Dracowyrm on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 02:25:23 PM PDT

  •  Glenn Greenwald today answers a lot of (0+ / 0-)

    arguments by those opposing Assange, in particular, the argument that the Swedish government is not in a position to offer Assange guarantees that he will not be extradited to the U.S.

    Glenn Greenwald: The bizarre, unhealthy, blinding media contempt for Julian Assange: It is possible to protect the rights of the complainants in Sweden and Assange's rights against political persecution, but a vindictive thirst for vengeance is preventing that.

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

    by lysias on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 07:33:41 AM PDT

claude, bink, cslewis, nota bene, northsylvania, RF, Odysseus, deben, El Zmuenga, native, MouseThatRoared, OLinda, lysias, Woody, expatjourno, hubcap, zeitshabba, Dumbo, TheMomCat, bronte17, susakinovember, whenwego, ask, chuckvw, roses, taonow, ovals49, retLT, Nate Roberts, psnyder, Dallasdoc, gerrilea, betson08, walkshills, Emmy, vacantlook, sb, kbman, Bluesee, Simian, jrooth, LakeSuperior, grimjc, dances with beagles, YucatanMan, Kayakbiker, Sandino, rb608, WisePiper, Lisa Lockwood, snoopydawg, Brian B, Lindy, mrchips46, mightymouse, Alan Arizona, Oye Sancho, CJnyc, berko, martini, tommymet, Kingsmeg, VictorLaszlo, arlene, Son of a Cat, triv33, StrayCat, gooderservice, JVolvo, joe shikspack, el cid, democracy is coming, zeke7237, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, Cassiodorus, shaharazade, bstotts, NonnyO, cpresley, One Pissed Off Liberal, old wobbly, pgm 01, john07801, Haningchadus14, Loudoun County Dem, SpecialKinFlag, Debs2, gloriana, BruceMcF, yoduuuh do or do not, Van Buren, la urracca, david mizner, gustynpip, Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle, dclawyer06, deepeco, aliasalias, bnasley, bobswern, Wreck Smurfy, uciguy30, JML9999, Don midwest, South Park Democrat, GideonAB, adrianrf, fuzzyguy, zerone, poligirl, Involuntary Exile, elwior, mikeconwell, Deep Harm, brasilaaron, codairem, Horsefeathers, petulans, priceman, Nica24, 6079SmithW, rhutcheson, CIndyCasella, ZhenRen, Rhysling, Calouste, Norm in Chicago, Zotz, shopkeeper, JesseCW, petral, dskoe, Keith Pickering, Hunter Huxley, brentbent, pyegar, fidellio, Anak, TimmyB, renzo capetti, cordgrass, Kristina40, 2020adam, ffour, Funkygal, Johnny Q, Publius2008, roystah, DrTerwilliker, elengul, MsGrin, Floande, USHomeopath, Nada Lemming, Shelleyw, redlum jak, Lost Left Coaster, slowbutsure, YuccaPete, KVoimakas, PhilJD, Hayate Yagami, Kathleen McClellan, Mentatmark, No one gets out alive, quill, WhistleblowerAdvocate, Orla, Siri, Joieau, 420 forever, Trotskyrepublican, chipmo, Syoho, splintersawry, Robynhood too, CalBearMom, DamselleFly, TheMeansAreTheEnd, Sarah Damian, quince, Smoh, Thomas Drake

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site