So, an Australian journalist, subject to a smear campaign, has just been granted asylum to protect him from a conspiracy by the United States to persecute/imprison/kill him for his publications. This is a freaking huge event. It's just become official that the US, the UK, Sweden and Australia are, within reasonable doubt, working together to fight against Freedom Of Information, Freedom Of Speech and governmental transparency. This is freaking huge... Shit just got real.
Meanwhile, the UK has threatened to violate the Vienna convention in order to counter this grant of asylum, under orders from the US.
How is this being reported in your country? Who is the bad guy, according to your TV?
It's official: western citizen granted asylum from western tyrants
Here in Sweden we're pretty convinced he should be put on trial for rape. He's got nothing to hide... right?
1: - Lets see how much you like if is some one puts YOUR life, and the lives of YOUR family in danger in the name of "freedom of information".
2: - The UK has the right to invade the embassy, under international law, if they harbor known criminals.
3: - The guy is avoiding RAPE CHARGES in another country.
4: - I'm sure international drug cartels, terrorists, and criminals in general would love to know how the government(s) are trying to stop them, and who the informants are.
2: - The UK has the right to invade the embassy, under international law, if they harbor known criminals.
3: - The guy is avoiding RAPE CHARGES in another country.
4: - I'm sure international drug cartels, terrorists, and criminals in general would love to know how the government(s) are trying to stop them, and who the informants are.
There's one thing I'm not getting. Why couldn't he had been extradited from the UK? Surely they have closer ties with the US.
Ok, I take it that means that your media is firmly showing Assange as the bad guy here. What countries are you in patrrr and Shippou?
According to the (non-american-owned) reporting here, he's only wanted for questioning (not trial) over "rape". And that it's not even "rape" as in "forced sex acts", but a weird Swedish law that allows adult consensual-sex to be deemed inappropriate after the fact (such as having sex with a minor - it's not ok even when consensual) -- where the prosecutor has decided that the women's consent at the time was obtained through "inappropriate seduction" and that because it was a short-term relationship, they should have used a condom, therefore it is "rape". Are your papers not reporting this?
Are they also not reporting that Assange did present himself to the Swedish police for questioning, but they told him he could freely leave the country because there was no crime committed, and that the case was reopened after political pressure from Claes Borgström? Or that the two woman were friendly with him after the "rapes", and that they refused to sign a witness statement saying that they had been raped? Or that Swedish police routinely travel overseas to question suspects, but have refused repeated requests to question Assange overseas? Or that they demanded an extemely rare "red notice" interpol warrant, for a 'rape' case (even Muammar Gaddafi only had an "orange notice")?
It's pretty rare to find someone here who believes he's a rapist, or that the "rape" allegations are legit.
2 - No, the Vienna convention protects embassies from any unwanted intrusion by police. When criminals in the Lybian embassy alledgedly assassinated a UK policewoman, the UK surrounded the building, but could not enter. They ended up letting the killers leave the country - as this legal protection also extends to embassy vehicles. Not even countries like China have ever violated this convention. It will be an immensely huge even if the UK does storm the embassy to arrest him, criminal or not. It will be the first time this convention has been broken, and it will put at risk the lives of all UK diplomats/spies overseas!
Is the media that you listen to really reporting that the UK does have this right? Where did you get this idea?
1 - That's why Bradley Manning is being tortured while awaiting trial, right - he's the one that allegedly stole the documents? This is also why Wikileaks asked for the US government's help in redacting the files before publishing them, but had to do it themselves after the US refused to help redact sensitive life-and-death information. The New York times also published Manning's stolen files -- are they being painted as a bad guy by your media? Also, the US government was forced to admit that they haven't yet found a case where these documents have resulted in anyone coming to harm...
As a side note -- when the Bush administration decided to leak life-and-death secrets for political gain, like the names of CIA operatives abroad, there were no serious consequences: the few that were jailed (for contempt, not leaking) had their jail sentences overturned by Bush's executive power.
4 - Sensitive names are redacted in the cables. Go read some yourself. The same cables are published by the New York Times, The Guardian, Wikileaks and others -- if you've got a beef with the cables being made public, that's with Manning, not Assange. Or if it is with Assange, it's also with the Times, et al.
Once he's in Sweden, he doesn't need to be "extradited" to the USA -- they have a law that allows for "prisoner exchanges" that don't count as extraditions. As soon as Sweden puts him on remand awaiting trial, then as long as the USA promises to return him to Sweden after they're done with him then they can take him and he cannot appeal or ask the EU/UN to intervene.
Here in Sweden we're pretty convinced he should be put on trial for rape. He's got nothing to hide... right?He has agreed to go to Sweden, as long as they make a statement saying they will not pass him on to the US, or if the US states that they are not going to try him for espionage. They refused. If they've got nothing to hide (other than rape charges), why not make a statement?
According to the (non-american-owned) reporting here, he's only wanted for questioning (not trial) over "rape". And that it's not even "rape" as in "forced sex acts", but a weird Swedish law that allows adult consensual-sex to be deemed inappropriate after the fact (such as having sex with a minor - it's not ok even when consensual) -- where the prosecutor has decided that the women's consent at the time was obtained through "inappropriate seduction" and that because it was a short-term relationship, they should have used a condom, therefore it is "rape". Are your papers not reporting this?
Are they also not reporting that Assange did present himself to the Swedish police for questioning, but they told him he could freely leave the country because there was no crime committed, and that the case was reopened after political pressure from Claes Borgström? Or that the two woman were friendly with him after the "rapes", and that they refused to sign a witness statement saying that they had been raped? Or that Swedish police routinely travel overseas to question suspects, but have refused repeated requests to question Assange overseas? Or that they demanded an extemely rare "red notice" interpol warrant, for a 'rape' case (even Muammar Gaddafi only had an "orange notice")?
It's pretty rare to find someone here who believes he's a rapist, or that the "rape" allegations are legit.
3 - see above, or watch the documentary linked in the OP. He's wanted for questioning over having non-violent, consensual sex without a condom.
1: - Lets see how much you like if is some one puts YOUR life, and the lives of YOUR family in danger all due to your job being secretive.
2: - The UK has the right to invade the embassy, under international law if they harbor known criminals.
3: - The guy is avoiding RAPE CHARGES in another country
4: - I'm sure international drug cartels, terrorists, and criminals in general would love to know how the government(s) are trying to stop them, and who the informants are.
2 - No, the Vienna convention protects embassies from any unwanted intrusion by police. When criminals in the Lybian embassy alledgedly assassinated a UK policewoman, the UK surrounded the building, but could not enter. They ended up letting the killers leave the country - as this legal protection also extends to embassy vehicles. Not even countries like China have ever violated this convention. It will be an immensely huge even if the UK does storm the embassy to arrest him, criminal or not. It will be the first time this convention has been broken, and it will put at risk the lives of all UK diplomats/spies overseas!
Is the media that you listen to really reporting that the UK does have this right? Where did you get this idea?
1 - That's why Bradley Manning is being tortured while awaiting trial, right - he's the one that allegedly stole the documents? This is also why Wikileaks asked for the US government's help in redacting the files before publishing them, but had to do it themselves after the US refused to help redact sensitive life-and-death information. The New York times also published Manning's stolen files -- are they being painted as a bad guy by your media? Also, the US government was forced to admit that they haven't yet found a case where these documents have resulted in anyone coming to harm...
As a side note -- when the Bush administration decided to leak life-and-death secrets for political gain, like the names of CIA operatives abroad, there were no serious consequences: the few that were jailed (for contempt, not leaking) had their jail sentences overturned by Bush's executive power.
4 - Sensitive names are redacted in the cables. Go read some yourself. The same cables are published by the New York Times, The Guardian, Wikileaks and others -- if you've got a beef with the cables being made public, that's with Manning, not Assange. Or if it is with Assange, it's also with the Times, et al.
There's one thing I'm not getting. Why couldn't he had been extradited from the UK? Surely they have closer ties with the US.If he's being extradited for seemingly political reasons, such as publishing US secrets, he can appeal to the European Human Rights court.
Once he's in Sweden, he doesn't need to be "extradited" to the USA -- they have a law that allows for "prisoner exchanges" that don't count as extraditions. As soon as Sweden puts him on remand awaiting trial, then as long as the USA promises to return him to Sweden after they're done with him then they can take him and he cannot appeal or ask the EU/UN to intervene.
Funnily enough, most people I talked to about this had no clue this was happening.
So what I told them is "I'm not telling you what side to be on, but I think its one of those things you should give a damn about and forge yourself an opinion".
Craig Murray makes a compelling argument that the Vienna convention hasn't been breached by any major player even during the direst Crisis. If it should fall, its gonna hurt.
My opnion is this: At this stage, I don't really care about the man, what he did, what he represents, I'm mostly scared/intrigued to see how it plays out and the impact its going to have globally.
So what I told them is "I'm not telling you what side to be on, but I think its one of those things you should give a damn about and forge yourself an opinion".
Craig Murray makes a compelling argument that the Vienna convention hasn't been breached by any major player even during the direst Crisis. If it should fall, its gonna hurt.
My opnion is this: At this stage, I don't really care about the man, what he did, what he represents, I'm mostly scared/intrigued to see how it plays out and the impact its going to have globally.
@ Hodgman
"My Media" .... The US doesn't have 1 or 2 media outlets, so I can literally get any side of the story I wish from thousands of sources ... though I never bother paying attention to political drama any more.
"My Media" .... The US doesn't have 1 or 2 media outlets, so I can literally get any side of the story I wish from thousands of sources ... though I never bother paying attention to political drama any more.
That's funny. I thought we'd gotten the idea that the US had abandoned its high ground a long time ago. Torture, indefinite imprisonment without charges, even kill orders on American citizens without charges... This is sad, but not even the least bit surprising. At least I still feel reasonably safe airing these ideas in public, without any effort to hide my identity. That may not always be the case here in the US.
... though I never bother paying attention to political drama any more.
This is actually kind of a big part of the problem, right here. I don't know the truth regarding Assange one way or the other, but the thing is, from where I sit it seems as if we are letting certain people act with impunity and do whatever the hell they want, simply because we as a nation can't be arsed to pay attention, give issues the proper impartial coverage they require, or hold those certain people accountable for their actions. We, simply, don't give a shit, and giving a shit is the only way that the rules of due process and the preservation of civil rights and liberties will be fairly observed by those in power.
Please, people, start giving a shit.
Well I have noticed that this man and his wikileaks often leak US/western secrets but not Russian/eastern knowledge/secrects. How come? I mean why not treat all nations like this and leak all of it? Also I really think he should go to court if he is innoncent and get his name cleared. Sweden is not famous for being unfair when it comes to court and justice. It should be save.
Just my two cents... However, I do find this accussation rather convenient for govs who would like to punish him for hurting their diplomacy.
Just my two cents... However, I do find this accussation rather convenient for govs who would like to punish him for hurting their diplomacy.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
