WikiLeaks' Assange in Ecuador embassy London: Seeks political asylum

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

No Fidel, when he's OUTSIDE the embassy, off its grounds, like on an airplane, they could change their mind and then arrest him or whatever. Once he leaves the embassy grounds he's fair game for whoever is pissed or whatever at him. Think about this: how smart is he if he thinks he can trust the nations he’s exposed as deceitful? Not very if you ask me. 

Did we not cover this exact same scenario in the example posted wrt two Egyptians abducted at a Swedish airport by U.S. agents who promptly ferreted them off to some torture gulag? Pay attention.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

As near as I can tell it is, so far, a warning by the Ecuadorean foreign minister who said the U.S. is not their "daddy" coming to punish them.

Thanks, that is very interesting and I agree with your assesment.

Still: Wow, can there possibly be any more speculation and will probably happen but it hasn’t happened yets in this thread?

Bacchus wrote:

For Fidel

Exellent. I forwarded this to several guys at work whom like this stuff.

What a merciless thumping of the US militarist regime.

Of course, their likely response is more violence, more torture, more harassment of those who advocate free speech, and so on. Assange wisely drew attention to the loathsome hypocrisy of a regime that lectures other countries about "freedom", free speech, the right of dissent, against torture, etc. ... while carrying out the most despicable atrocities in its regular business. He paid particular atttention to Bradley Manning and drew little attention to Yanqui threats against him personally.

It's nice to see truth spoken to power so clearly. Assange had a few difficult moments but, overall, he pulled it off quite well. In a completely unnecessary concession, he even suggested that the current placeholder in the White House might have views that contradict the atrocities of his own regime.

How will the US regime respond to this detailed public exposure of their horrific hypocrisy? Who knows? But that more and more and more people should follow in Assange's footsteps goes without saying.

The Emperor has no clothes. And a child could follow the argument.

Bacchus wrote:

For Fidel

It says "I'm bored." That's not right, though, because you are Bacchus.

I may be busier'n a bee in a field o' borage, but I be thinkin o yez jts. Miss trading thoughts and vibes with babblers. Cheers everyone.

Which police? The British Gestapo? lol. The Swedish Yanqui bootlickers? But they've promised nothing. And you think answering hypothetical questions is important. lol.

RT wrote:

On Thursday, the WikiLeaks founder addressed the representatives of the United Nations' member countries, saying that neither the UK nor Sweden had so far guaranteed that he would not be extradited to the US, where both he and WikiLeaks have been officially declared "enemies of the state."

In any case, I don't quite get your question. JA has quite legitimate concerns about being tortured, "shot while attempting to escape" (the favourite Gestapo excuse for the death of a prisoner), "rendered" (as in a piece of meat), thrown in a dark hole and forgotten about, etc, etc.

The official position of the US terror state is that JA is "an enemy of the state". That means that they will do ANY underhanded course of action to harm, murder, poison, etc such a person. They will also kill anyone who HELPS such a person, etc, etc.

Why should he promise anything, other than to stay alive and drive a knife into the heart of that monstrous regime just by being alive? Long live Julian Assange and hobbits like him. lol.

RT wrote:

Fairfax Newspapers: The US military officially designated Julian Assange and WikiLeaks as ‘enemies of the United States’ through declassified US Air Force counterintelligence documents. In light of these reports, do you believe this vindicates your decision to seek asylum in Ecuador, and what do you think this says – the statements made by the Australian and American governments regarding this issue?

Julian Assange: Those documents are now in full on the WikiLeaks website, just released tonight. They formed a part of the submission that we made to Ecuador. We had those documents for some months and of course were very concerned about them, but it was necessary to conduct, because of the sensitivities of some of the people involved in that investigation, to prevent their release until more recently. But yes, I encourage everyone to read those. It is an unusual position that I am in and the organization is in, and yes, it is difficult sometimes.

But it is also completely absurd. I mean, these claims against us are absurd. For example, that the US military should designate me and / or WikiLeaks as ‘the enemy’ in its formal investigation – investigation which carries a death penalty offense – into a person who was alleged to have come to my extradition hearing. And in the same document, it speaks about the victim being that of society, when there is no allegation that any documents have been released or published by us.

So I think that goes to the… to really quite sort of absurdist, neo-McCarthyist fervor that exists with some of these government departments in the US. I am hopeful that the White House over time is starting to shed that, but enormous wheels have been set in motion, as I described before, with over a dozen different US intelligence and investigative organizations churning through this, and it’s a very difficult process to stop once it starts. Even once everyone sees that it is completely absurd and counter to the values that the US should be trying to present to the world.

Why not just say that the USA can do whatever it likes, and let words mean whatever they feel like,  like the Cheshire Cat in Alice in Wonderland, and be done with all these pathetic diversions? lol.

His answer was so far they haven't made the offer although they have been asked.  Seems clear too me and the only response I would give in his shoes.  His asking for the guarantee is the the answer to your question.  Tell me why would he ask for a guarantee if he would not agree to return to Sweden when all the good folks in Sweden have to do is say yes and even Ecuador would throw him out the door for refusing a fair offer?

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

So his answer was yes?

 

What's this, the verbal equivalent of water-boarding as an interrogation technique in a social media forum?

Julian Assange does not owe you or me any answer, whatsoever, on some issue involving complaints against him in Sweden. He is in danger of political persecution and worse, and he has sought and won asylum. Progressive people everywhere have a duty to assist him in every way to maintain that refuge - especially in the face of attempts to kidnap and deport him to a country which leaves open the prospect of shipping him to the United States.

It's pretty elementary, in my humble opinion. The rest is smokescreen, of the kind used daily against the fighters against imperialism. We do not side with the fighters against imperialism because of their purity of spirt and virtue in daily life. We learn to make distinctions.

Unionist wrote:

What's this, the verbal equivalent of water-boarding as an interrogation technique in a social media forum?

No. (See how easy that was)

Unionist wrote:

Julian Assange does not owe you or me any answer, whatsoever, on some issue involving complaints against him in Sweden.

I did not ask him the question, a reporter did during a Q&A session after his speech. 

I called it water-boarding, ikosmos, and I'm sticking with my characterization.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

While I don't agree with Bec on this one I wouldn't exactly call it obstructionist.

I never said, or meant, that Bec was being obstructionist. I said, and meant, that he was adopting a cross-examining inquisitorial style bordering on torture. He asked, at least three times: "Was that a yes or a no"? "So that was a yes?" Etc. etc. Whereas Assange, as Bec well knew, had already exercised his right to give an extremely crystal clear answer which was neither "yes" nor "no".

Bec, of course, must know this, because he's not lacking in the capacity to understand. I conclude that he's simply trying to discredit Assange. Nothing wrong with that, of course. Problem is, Bec can't find a shred of evidence to discredit him. So it's back to the inquisition.

There is no positive proof that I will be run over if I try to dash across a freeway, merely a large body of past events that suggest it might not be a great gamble.  What exactly was the point you were trying to make?  What are the odds that the US will not do anything to him if they have an opening present itself to them?  I know I would not be risking my life or liberty or my pursuit of happiness by betting that the US government will be benevolent to me after I had been called an enemy of the state by its elected politicians.

Many questions are not straight forward Yes or No questions and require nuanced responses.  You seem intelligent enough to understand that concept which is why many of us wonder if you are just being disingenuous. 

Smith, now you got me confused LOL, I never said, as far as I recall, he doesn’t deserve protection because he's discredited himself... Where did you get that idea from?

Here’s my whole “thing” with all this stuff: Assange has claimed he’s afraid to go to Sweden because he thinks the USA is going to extradite him once he’s there, (right?) not because he’s hiding from the Swedish police over these charges (right?). He wants everyone to believe what he is really afraid of, and I don’t blame him, is the 1000 pound gorilla called the USA that wants to put him on trial for espionage or whatever and (I know I’m say this twice) he’s afraid if he goes to Sweden he’ll be extradited to the USA (and never be seen again according to some of you).
When Britain decided to extradite him to Sweden, at Sweden’s request, he ran to the Ecuadorian embassy and sought political asylum (fine by me).

The question was, and I realize it was hypothetical, if Sweden agrees (with Him) NOT TO extradite him to the USA if he goes to Sweden (remember that’s the whole reason he’s hiding in the embassy right now, he’s hiding from the USA not Sweden) would he be willing to go to Sweden to face the police. At least that’s my take on the question, yours may differ. If there’s no chance he’d be extradited to the USA he shouldn’t be afraid of the Swedish police and  should have said, be it in along winded statement, yes.

But he didn’t and I’m willing to bet it’s because he’s also afraid of the Swedish police. Of course that is all explained and justified by conspiracy and plots and all that other speculation. He’s killing two birds with one stone by playing the USA card on everyone and it seems to be working, at least here on babble anyways.

I'm also still trying to figure out how "world events" is going to free him up from all this.

Correct, and I understand that. My point is in the scenario brought up in the question by that reporter Sweden HAD assured him they would not extradite him to the USA. The reporter basically asked him if he were safe from going to the USA would he go to Sweden at the request of the police there… he didn’t really say yes he would. Why is that? I see no reason for him to have said he'd not go if that were the case aside from the fact he's hiding from something other than the USA. What could that be?

Oh and will someone put another quarter in the merry-go-round ride we're on... it's about to run out of time. 

And what would the negative consequences be for him if he answered yes?

Does that embassy have a fireplace and chimney? Maybe he can slip out with Santa Claus disguised as an elf come Christmas eve.

Dreamworks new (leaked) film script "The Fifth Estate" smears Wikileaks--but also fans the flames for Iran war: 

Quote:

...In a telephone interview late Friday, Assange said that the film's plot revolves around a fictional mole in Iran's nuclear program who discovers that the country has nearly finished building an atom bomb and will soon be in a position to load it onto ballistic missiles. The film has the informant fleeing to Iraq when WikiLeaks publishes his name among its massive trove of classified material.

Assange says the whole story is "a lie built on a lie," claiming that the U.S. intelligence community generally believes that Iran stopped comprehensive secret work on developing nuclear arms in 2003, and that, in any case, the world had yet to see evidence of a case in which WikiLeaks had exposed a CIA informant...

http://www.sfgate.com/entertainment/article/Assange-WikiLeaks-film-scrip...

Yet the propaganda never sleeps : note the story here says that it is merely Assange "claiming" US intellegence believes Iran stopped its bomb research in 2003.

How difficult would it have been for them to verify that that assessment is actually made by US intellegence?

From Reuters:

Quote:

Reuters has learned that in late 2006 or early 2007, U.S. intelligence intercepted telephone and email communications in which Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, a leading figure in Iran's nuclear program, and other scientists complained that the weaponization program had been stopped.

That led to a bombshell conclusion in a controversial 2007 National Intelligence Estimate: American spy agencies had "high confidence" that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in the fall of 2003....

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/23/us-iran-usa-nuclear-idUSBRE82M...

Yet another article on Babble smearing supporters of justice for Assange:

Quote:

No exception for Assange: Rape apologetics and the left
By matt fodor Michael Laxer
| February 13, 2013

Nevertheless, it's quite informative.

Apparently, Noam Chomsky is a "conspiracy theorist" since he has: "taken up Assange's cause and repeated the "arguments" of his sycophants, even though these are often demonstrably false."

Exhibit A:  Chomsky's "idiotic and facile claims about Sweden's alleged lack of sovereignty."

Who but a conspiracy theorist could suggest such a thing about Sweden, I'm sure the Government's advisor , Karl Rove, could correct that misapprehension.
--though renditioned whiners such as Ahmed Agiza and Muhammad al-Zery might moan:

Quote:

...Egyptian asylum-seekers who were deported to Egypt from Sweden on December 18, 2001, apparently following a request from the United States Central Intelligence Agency.[1] The forced repatriation was criticised because of the danger of torture and ill treatment, and because the deportation decision was executed the same day without notifying the lawyers of the asylum seekers. The deportation was carried out by American and Egyptian personnel on Swedish ground, with Swedish servicemen apparently as passive onlookers....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_and_Muhammad_al...

I broke my own rule and posted my comment after the article, rather than here on babble, given the extensive amount of commentary that's already there.

Summary: I found the article disappointing.