Assange to face extradition

[teqniq]

Bob Carr, in full flight from the facts on Assange

Make of this what you will, and it comes complete with handbags (or mice) at fifty paces in the comments below. Somewhat like here in places. If there's one thing you can say about all this, it certainly seems to arouse a lot of ire whichever side of the fence you are sitting on.

 

[Random]

What headline do they suggest, "Assange faces questioning over allegations we aren't going to mention, and seeks something or other in Ecuador"?

The article is nothing about Wikileaks, but based on a report about how women raped in war zones have to prove their rape was "political" before they can get asylum.

 

[danny la rouge]

The article is nothing about Wikileaks, but based on a report about how women raped in war zones have to prove their rape was "political" before they can get asylum.

Sorry, I didn't read the link ( saw the word Twitter and thought it'd have less info than your post); I just assumed they meant stories about Assange shouldn't have those words in their headlines. But - let me get this straight - they're actually saying any stories containing the words "rape" or "asylum" are anti-Assange propaganda?

 

[danny la rouge]

read the article daNNY- IT'S ABOUT AN eTHIOPIAN WOMAN SEEKING ASYLUM IN SWEDEN AFTER (oops, soz) being raped in ethiopia.

Read it now (it's very brief). Bizarre.

 

[Random]

Sorry, I didn't read the link; I just assumed they meant stories about Assange shouldn't have those words in their headlines. But - let me get this straight - they're actually saying any stories containing the words "rape" or "asylum" are anti-Assange propaganda?

I think whoever was in charge of the wikileaks twitter account last night drank too much coffee, saw the headline, saw it was Swedish media and just lurched into an odd paranoid accusation. I think it reflects how embattled and defensive the Wikileaks team are right now.

 

[danny la rouge]

I think whoever was in charge of the wikileaks twitter account last night drank too much coffee, saw the headline, saw it was Swedish media and just lurched into an odd paranoid accusation. I think it reflects how embattled and defensive the Wikileaks team are right now.

And how far removed from reality.

(Bad sentence, but I'm not changing it).

 

[butchersapron]

Bob Carr, in full flight from the facts on Assange

Make of this what you will, and it comes complete with handbags (or mice) at fifty paces in the comments below. Somewhat like here in places. If there's one thing you can say about all this, it certainly seems to arouse a lot of ire whichever side of the fence you are sitting on.

Classic example of Assange supporters bullshit and bluffery here - the article is Richard Farmer calling out some TV bloke for arguing that there are no grounds for assuming it would be easier to extradite Assange from Sweden to the US than from the UK. He bases his rejection of this on the fact that the US and Sweden signed a bilateral trearty that allows for what is called Temporary Surrender outside of normal extradition processes and this would be the mechanism used to get Assange to the US. Only problem with this is that the UK has a temporary surrender in place as well (all EU countries do).

 

[teqniq]

Thankyou for that. It was one of the bits I was wondering about.

 

[Random]

Only problem with this is that the UK has a temporary surrender in place as well (all EU countries do).

When are these surrenders used?

BTW Swedish media had recently the story of a US Airforce deserter who came to Sweden in the 1980s. He's on the US military's list of most wanted deserters, but there's no sign he'll be handed over.

 

[butchersapron]

When are these surrenders used?

BTW Swedish media had recently the story of a US Airforce deserter who came to Sweden in the 1980s. He's on the US military's list of most wanted deserters, but there's no sign he'll be handed over.

You mean on what grounds are they granted? Appears to be where speed is of the essence, potential danger etc (And i can see nothing in them that means that the terms of the arrest warrant are abrogated i.e that the UK effectively gets final say - though lawyers will see room to argue there).

 

[Random]

Thanks

 

[frogwoman]

predators on the "left", who'd have thought eh?

 

[Random]

predators on the "left", who'd have thought eh?

what?

 

[frogwoman]

what?

sorry, im just talking about julian assange and his defenders. it's sick how people on the left could even think to defend this bastard, i mean what the fuck? but sadly there is a precedent for it. im thinking about gerry healy and others.

 

[Random]

sorry, im just talking about julian assange and his defenders. it's sick how people on the left could even think to defend this bastard, i mean what the fuck? but sadly there is a precedent for it. im thinking about gerry healy and others.

I'd rather reserve judgement on whether he did rape or molest anyone. What I do find sickening is those on the left who look at the statemens made by the two women and say "there's no crime in that" http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden basically arguing that anyone who gets into bed is then handing over control of their body for the duration.

The only way Assange could be guilty is for the women to be lying or exaggerating. The lawyer Hurtig rebuts the allegations at the end of that Guardian article and I think that's a possible explanation.

 

[Streathamite]

sorry, im just talking about julian assange and his defenders. it's sick how people on the left could even think to defend this bastard, i mean what the fuck? but sadly there is a precedent for it. im thinking about gerry healy and others.

I'd certainly defend his right to a fair trial, and inncence until guilt is proven; I'd do that for everyone

 

[Citizen66]

I'd certainly defend his right to a fair trial, and inncence until guilt is proven; I'd do that for everyone

Not sure if that stretches to someone who evades the process of it being decided either way.

 

[danny la rouge]

Not sure if that stretches to someone who evades the process of it being decided either way.

Well, he still deserves a fair trial if he ever faces trial. And we should continue to presume innocence. But his actions and words have certainly stretched credulity on that latter score.

 

[Streathamite]

Not sure if that stretches to someone who evades the process of it being decided either way.

see DLR's comments - spot on. He really has made a mess of things, but everyone deserves fair treatment by the law.

 

[smmudge]

If there's one thing you can say about all this, it certainly seems to arouse a lot of ire whichever side of the fence you are sitting on.

That's what I find most interesting about it, rather than so much the did he didn't he, will they won't they. Every reporter chooses a side, because they have to. Now the Guardian, NY Times and Washington Post have done a complete about face with regards to Assange. Sure they might give a column to a Glenn Greenwald here or there but mostly they attack him and his defenders' arguments as paranoid/fantasy/conspiracy theories; paranoid fantasy conspiracy theories that those papers themselves endorsed only a year ago. And now it's like they never did. It's so 1984.

 

[Citizen66]

That's what I find most interesting about it, rather than so much the did he didn't he, will they won't they. Every reporter chooses a side, because they have to. Now the Guardian, NY Times and Washington Post have done a complete about face with regards to Assange. Sure they might give a column to a Glenn Greenwald here or there but mostly they attack him and his defenders' arguments as paranoid/fantasy/conspiracy theories; paranoid fantasy conspiracy theories that those papers themselves endorsed only a year ago. And now it's like they never did. It's so 1984.

The rape allegations placed everyone in a bit of a quandary. They could only really continue supporting Assange as they had previously if they basically called the women who made the allegations liars. Which would be a controversial enough move for anyone to make but more so for the Guardian which has feminist writers on board. So this distancing witnessed was the result of that. And perhaps Wikileaks is now tarred with the same brush as Assange.

 

[smmudge]

The rape allegations placed everyone in a bit of a quandary. They could only really continue supporting Assange as they had previously if they basically called the women who made the allegations liars. Which would be a controversial enough move for anyone to make but more so for the Guardian which has feminist writers on board. So this distancing witnessed was the result of that. And perhaps Wikileaks is now tarred with the same brush as Assange.

Oh aye that's true to an extent*, although it did take them at least six months from the time the allegations were made to properly turn on him.

*I noticed some writers for the Socialist Worker went through the same quandry and managed to come to the conclusion that it was possible to support Assange without questioning the allegations, hence my to an extent there

 

[Citizen66]

Oh aye that's true to an extent*, although it did take them at least six months from the time the allegations were made to properly turn on him.

*I noticed some writers for the Socialist Worker went through the same quandry and managed to come to the conclusion that it was possible to support Assange without questioning the allegations, hence my to an extent there

Melanie Phillips had a good old gloat about it at the time:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...PHILLIPS-Fancy-The-Left-war-Mr-WikiLeaks.html

 

[danny la rouge]

That's what I find most interesting about it, rather than so much the did he didn't he, will they won't they. Every reporter chooses a side, because they have to. Now the Guardian, NY Times and Washington Post have done a complete about face with regards to Assange. Sure they might give a column to a Glenn Greenwald here or there but mostly they attack him and his defenders' arguments as paranoid/fantasy/conspiracy theories; paranoid fantasy conspiracy theories that those papers themselves endorsed only a year ago. And now it's like they never did. It's so 1984.

The Guardian's problem is the same problem a lot of people have: they have heroes instead of values. This is why Phillips can have a go at the "Left" when talking about Assange, when really it makes no sense at all to call him "Left"; he's a free market "libertarian". Why the hero worship?

 

[Citizen66]

They need a new Jesus.

 

[smmudge]

I think his 'hero' status on the 'left' is more to do with his actions than his economic opinions.

 

[Citizen66]

Besides, the Guardian isn't particularly 'left'. It's more capitalism with a pretend conscience in the libdem tradition.

 

[danny la rouge]

I think his 'hero' status on the 'left' is more to do with his actions than his economic opinions.

What actions would they be?

 

[Citizen66]

What actions would they be?

The exposing America stuff. Which amounted to nothing particularly exciting.

 

[danny la rouge]

The exposing America stuff. Which amounted to nothing particularly exciting.

I've never been able to build up much enthusiasm for Wikileaks, to be honest. At the time of the Afghanistan and Iraq document leaks (when I knew next to nothing about Assange), I thought the information confirmed what we already knew. So it was vaguely interesting, but I'm not sure anyone's mind was changed. I couldn't really see what the fuss was about. The question is: has anything other than minds been changed by the public knowledge of the leaks? Have governments behaved differently because of them? I suppose it's too early to say, although I have my doubts. Perhaps they're more careful to guard their secrets. Has US public opinion changed because of Wikileaks, and has the US government had to change its policy to accommodate that? And if so, in what way? I'm open to evidence-based argument.

I remember reading somewhere (the Guardian probably) that the "Arab Spring" happened because of Wikileaks. This statement was unsupported by any further analysis or evidence. I remember writing it in a notebook at the time (I do that sort of thing). It was just a bald statement, at the end of an article about the no show of the banking expose material (if I remember correctly). I'm willing to be persuaded, but my initial reaction was incredulity. However, let's hear it. Maybe there was an effect.

Frankly, while the information was available, I think it was handy to use it. But does that make Assange's role "heroic"?

(Bradley Manning is a different issue. He deserves all the support we can give him, and I applaud the efforts of Amnesty to improve his conditions and get him out of Quantico).