US, UK Betray Basic Values To Get Assange At Any Cost

[Poll_Blind]

[div class="excerpt" style="border: 1px solid #bfbfbf; border-bottom: none; border-radius: 0.3846em 0.3846em 0em 0em; box-shadow: 2px 2px 6px #bfbfbf;"]US, UK Betray Basic Values To Get Assange At Any Cost[div class="excerpt" style="border: 1px solid #bfbfbf; border-top: none; border-radius: 0em 0em 0.3846em 0.3846em; background-color: #f4f4f4; box-shadow: 2px 2px 6px #bfbfbf;"]While I've covered numerous aspects of Wikileaks, I've shied almost entirely away from the arrest of Julian Assange and the extradition fight to have him sent to Sweden, as well as the questions involving asylum in Ecuador. For the most part, I considered those things to be outside the scope of what's normally interesting around here. Whether or not you think the claims of what he did in Sweden were legitimate or trumped up, it was wholly separate from what he did with Wikileaks. That said, with the news today that Ecuador has, in fact, granted asylum to Assange, there are a few tidbits that have made the story extra interesting.

First up, is the absolutely astounding and shocking news -- as released to the public by the Ecuadorian embassy -- that the UK literally threatened to enter the embassy in order to get Assange and ship him to Sweden:

"You need to be aware that there is a legal base in the UK, the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987, that would allow us to take actions in order to arrest Mr Assange in the current premises of the embassy. We sincerely hope that we do not reach that point, but if you are not capable of resolving this matter of Mr Assange's presence in your premises, this is an open option for us."

If you don't follow diplomatic and embassy issues, this might not seem like a big deal, but it's huge. While it's mostly a myth that embassies are considered the sovereign territory of the countries they represent, under the Vienna Convention, the UK has agreed that such premises "shall be inviolable" and that its agents "may not enter them, except with the consent of the head of the mission." The UK's very direct threat here s that it would ignore that international agreement just to get Assange. That the UK would be willing to take such an incredibly drastic step to extradite Assange seems completely disconnected from the nature of the accusations against him. It would also put UK diplomats at risk around the globe, as other countries would note that it did not respect the Vienna Convention, so why should they?

Well worth clicking on the link to read the full article! The article goes into the enormous pressure the US is putting on the UK behind-the-scenes in order to get Assange into a position where they can take custody of him. Leaked StratFor e-mails indicate that the U.S. has a sealed indictment against Assange, something Obama's DoJ refuses to confirm or deny. However, just today a former British ambassador confirmed that the Obama administration is putting immense pressure on the UK to get Assange for them, including his possible seizure from the Ecuadorean Embassy. Once he has been extradited to Sweden, the Swedish government could turn him over to the United States.

Julian Assange and the Ecuadorean government have both offered to allow questioning at the Ecuadorian embassy and Assange also indicated he would be willing to travel to Sweden to answer any questions as long as the Swedish government could assure him they would not extradite him to the United States for a completely unrelated matter to their investigation.

In telling responses, the Swedish government has flatly rejected both options.

The Europen women's organization Women Against Rape said it appeared the zeal with which Assange is being gone after appears more related to executing a political agenda than protecting women't safety.

PB

[sabrina 1]

1. I just watched an excellent summation of this entire case on a non MSM news channel

Michael Moore btw, is calling for all of his supporters in Britain to make their voices heard.

Actually this action by the Brits from what I'm seeing in the foreign press was probably the best thing they could have done for Assange. People are genuinely outraged and even some who in the past thought he was at fault, are focused more on the ramifications of Britain making such a threat against a sovereign government and are now wondering if Assange was not correct all along.

These kind of bullying, high-handed tactics never work the way they are intended to.

Britain now looks desperate to do what the US wants it to do. As they did when Bush said 'jump' for the Iraq War.

[Poll_Blind]

8. Indeed. It doesn't appear that the UK has thought this situation through very thoroughly...

...before escalating it. If anything, it smacks the most of how desperate the United States is to get this man- but not specifically for anything he did- but as a chilling warning to other whistleblowers and journalists.

It's extremely Nixonian. And looking at The Pentagon Papers, historically, I believe President Obama's DoJ is more than on track to eclipse even Nixon's wildest dreams of revenge on Daniel Ellsberg. I say that with absolutely no hyperbole intended. I invite people to do some research and compare the two situations. It's extremely disturbing coming from a Democratic administration.

PB

[riderinthestorm]

2. K&R. Nothing else to add nt

[FunkyLeprechaun]

3. All this Assange stuff aside

I appreciate the work he did in Wikipedia but the fact of the matter is Sweden wants him to answer to the charges against him. I think they might be trumped up charges but the UK is trying to extradite him at Sweden's request.

[sabrina 1]

5. So why won't the talk to him then? He has been available for two years but they refused

to do so? They have done this before, interviewed witnesses, which is all he is right now, outside of Sweden. He's only two hours from the prosecutor's office. Not like he skipped town, he went to Britain and has been there offering to talk to them for two years.

[Poll_Blind]

6. I understand where you're coming from and I just read a great article which will make things a...

...little clearer on that point.

The article is titled Shrien Dewani, Julian Assange, and British Justice and it compares the very similar cases of Shrien Dewani and Julian Assange. The last sentence of your post made me flash on the article because at the heart of this, there really is a "Well, look, the British government is just doing what it needs to in order to extradite Assange to Sweden." And that's not an invalid reaction, really. However, the disparity between how the British government handled both cases helps reveal that things are not quite as cut and dried as they seem.

In December 2010, we saw the British justice system take action in two separate events related to crimes against Swedish women. In the first Shrien Dewani, a British citizen of Indian descent, was accused of soliciting, paying for, and coordinating the horrific murder of his Swedish bride of two weeks, Anni Dewani, while on their honeymoon in South Africa this past November. Anni Dewani was kidnapped at gunpoint, and was later found naked, beaten, and dead from a bullet through the neck after a dinner trip to the Gugulethu township in Cape Town. Three men, including the driver of the limo, have been charged. One has already begun long prison terms. One had his sentence reduced after implicating Dewani, a multimillionaire. Detained in England at the request of the South African government, Dewani was released after his family put up £250,000 bail several days later. He was tagged with an electronic ankle bracelet, subjected to curfews, his movements restricted, and required to report to the police daily.

--snip--

It is rather interesting that Assange and Dewani had nearly identical conditions surrounding their detention. Certainly, sexual abuse and murder are each serious charges; neither Dewani nor Assange should be exculpated without a proper judicial process. However, there is a bizarre contrast in the treatment accorded to each when comparing the substance of the crimes in question. Dewani’s appear to be about coordinating and paying for the vicious murder of his own wife; still, he was almost immediately able to qualify for bail. Moreover, despite the vigorous protests of the South African national prosecutors office — an office that has already gained convictions in the case — he was released pending an extradition hearing. In March 2012, despite promises on the part of the South African prosecutor in charge of Dewani’s hearing, he was granted a stay by the London’s High Court. Why? Because “High Court judge Sir John Thomas said it would be unjust and oppressive to send Dewani back to South Africa in his present condition.” That is to say, Dewani was heard telling family that he would kill himself if extradited. As we all know, threats to self-inflicted harm are a fairly popular way to persuade the judge not to send you somewhere you don’t want to go: like to jail, to stand trial, or to be extradited to South Africa.*

As of today, Dewani is still in England, while the one of his accomplices has been tried, convicted, and sentenced to 18 years in prison, and the trials of two other accomplices in South Africa go on.

I am thrilled by the UK’s zeal in wanting to protect the sexual rights of women. Seriously, it is a delight to know that the UK, like the US, and of course like that bastion of women’s rights, Sweden, has the interests of women at heart. But I wish that they could apply consistent, or even proportional standards to suspects like Dewani—as they do to Julian Assange. But as we know, perhaps all isn’t as it seems; this situation reminds me human rights activists like Former First Lady Laura Bush, who pointed out her deep concern for the rights of women in Afghanistan—coincidentally around the same time Hubby Bush’s decision to invade Afghanistan.

It's quite a long article and it goes into more material but hopefully the bolded material will make the disparity clear- especially given that Dewani is facing murder charges and no charges whatsoever have been formally filed against Assange.

PB

[sabrina 1]

4. This is an extremely important part of this case which will now most likely

get more coverage, NOT here in the MSM, but elsewhere.

Julian Assange and the Ecuadorean government have both offered to allow questioning at the Ecuadorian embassy and Assange also indicated he would be willing to travel to Sweden to answer any questions as long as the Swedish government could assure him they would not extradite him to the United States for a completely unrelated matter to their investigation.

Assange was always available for questioning to the Swedish prosecutors. Initially they lied claiming there were 'legal impediments' to interviewing him out of the country. However, those claims were proven to be lies, removing all excuses for their refusal to accept his offers over and over again to be interviewed.

The US refused to give any assurance that they would not try to extradite him from Sweden. He had every right to seek asylum.

Btw, Ecuador has granted him asylum, contrary to the predictions of some nay-sayers here.

[bvar22]

7. Good News.

[font size=3]"The Europen women's organization Women Against Rape said it appeared the zeal with which Assange is being gone after appears more related to executing a political agenda than protecting women't safety. "[/font]

The PTB don't want Transparency and Truth Telling to become popular.
If something like this gets out, no telling WHAT could happen.
Empires could crumble.
The entrenched Social Structures could get all messed up.
The 1% are much better off if the peasants are kept ignorant about what is being with their money
by their governments in their name.





You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their rhetoric, promises, or excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[sabrina 1]

9. Yes, women are not stupid. The truth is if they were interested in

bringing someone who they claim, committed some crimes against women, they would file charges against him, they would accept his offer to speak with them in Britain, where the British police could be prepared to take him into custody if the Swedish government requested it.

But it seems to me they do not want to file charges because their case is weak they have no hope of winning. It's one thing to cobble together a bunch of allegations, anyone can do that. But it's another to back them up with evidence and there is so much exculpatory evidence publicly available, some from the women themselves, they are likely to be exposed as having used their judicial system for political purposes.

However, dragging it out like this, without ever having to prove anything, accomplishes the goal of silencing and smearing him.

Wikileaks published a CIA document just before all of this happened in which agents discussed ways to 'get Assange/Wikileaks'. The conclusion was that the best way to 'get' him would be to start a smear campaign against him. That was months before this all began.