Author Topic: Wikileaks - Julian Assange Granted Asylum by Ecuador (Read 32821 times)

wraith808 · « **Reply #25 on:** August 19, 2012, 09:54 AM »

And it's just how the government wants it. They use the expendable character- the elected president that they can claim we're responsible for choosing as the scapegoat for the messes they make, enabling the behind the scenes crews to get away with murder.
-SeraphimLabs (August 19, 2012, 09:21 AM)

Exactly. There's no much power to be had at being behind the scenes... the presidency is a dead end job. Stay an incumbent as a senator and you'll make much more money over the lifetime of your office, and wield much more power- especially if you get a good juicy committee like appropriations. Senators and Representatives need to be similarly time limited to cycle out the old entrenched politicos. And... maybe this is getting to be more basement material, so I'll stop.

Renegade · « **Reply #26 on:** August 19, 2012, 10:58 AM »

"can u say that again without all the big words? " (/satire)
-TaoPhoenix (August 19, 2012, 09:33 AM)

"Ow, My Balls!" is on...

KynloStephen66515 · « **Reply #27 on:** August 19, 2012, 05:53 PM »

Julian Assange Historic speech @ Ecuador Embassy 19/08/2012

tsaint · « **Reply #28 on:** August 20, 2012, 07:07 PM »

Assange in bed with Correa???? A tad hypocritical?

Renegade · « **Reply #29 on:** August 20, 2012, 10:23 PM »

Assange in bed with Correa???? A tad hypocritical?
-tsaint (August 20, 2012, 07:07 PM)

Not sure what you mean there. Then again, I'm not really much of an expert (or even amateur) on Ecuador.

But I know that if I had the world's largest super-power calling for my assassination/indefinite detention/torture/whatever, I'd probably take whatever help I could get~!

tsaint · « **Reply #30 on:** August 21, 2012, 12:25 AM »

if I had the world's largest super-power calling for my assassination/indefinite detention/torture/whatever
-Renegade (August 20, 2012, 10:23 PM)

I only heard the "whatever" bit from news channels... the other bits I've heard claimed by his supporters and/or himself.
Would like a reference to where the USA govt has called for his assassination as you allege though.

What i meant though is that for a guy campaigning for freedom of information, he's sure allied himself with the antithesis of that in such a media repressive leader as Correa

Renegade · « **Reply #31 on:** August 21, 2012, 04:26 AM »

if I had the world's largest super-power calling for my assassination/indefinite detention/torture/whatever
-Renegade (August 20, 2012, 10:23 PM)
I only heard the "whatever" bit from news channels... the other bits I've heard claimed by his supporters and/or himself.
Would like a reference to where the USA govt has called for his assassination as you allege though.
-tsaint (August 21, 2012, 12:25 AM)

http://en.wikipedia....ge.27s_assassination

What i meant though is that for a guy campaigning for freedom of information, he's sure allied himself with the antithesis of that in such a media repressive leader as Correa
-tsaint (August 21, 2012, 12:25 AM)

Your turn to dig up a link!

(Seriously - I know jack about Ecuador there.)

wraith808 · « **Reply #32 on:** August 21, 2012, 06:44 AM »

^ Not taking one side or the other, but that says nothing about the US Govt calling for his assassination. That's... quite the leap in logic.

tsaint · « **Reply #33 on:** August 21, 2012, 06:58 AM »

No problem ...
http://www.abc.net.a...nt/2012/s3569972.htm
http://www.freedomho...ts-are-assassins-ink
http://www.cpj.org/b...ses-free-express.php

I've selected links from different sources.
Interesting to read the source you quoted. Re assassination, I note what was outlined was
1. A FORMER AIDE to the CANADIAN PM calling for Assages death
2. A REPUBLICAN (I'n not au fait with USA politics, but I know the president is a Democrat, and I'd assume a lone republican voice couldn't be called the US govt calling for anything.
3. A FORMER white house staffer who PARTLY supported the republican
4, A FOX NEWS commentator.

There are calls for prosecution for espionage, agreed. That seems odd to me (too). Note tho from your quoted article... "Punishments under the Espionage Act can include the death penalty, although in practice the US has not executed anyone for a crime other than murder since 1962"

I think the link you supplied has nothing to do with the US GOVT calling for Assage's assassination.

tomos · « **Reply #34 on:** August 21, 2012, 08:20 AM »

Re Correa & corruption:
http://en.wikipedia....g/wiki/Rafael_Correa
Paragraph three will give you a summary. (Paragraphs 1 & 2 are interesting from other perspectives.)

OTOH I dont think Assange can be fussy at this stage, what exactly he's facing can be argued, but I certainly wouldnt expect a fair trial (if any).

[Just to put my comment in perspective - I'm not a fan of Wikileaks]

Renegade · « **Reply #35 on:** August 21, 2012, 08:30 AM »

Ok ok ok!

"assassination/indefinite detention/torture/whatever" - How about we focus on the "whatever" part.

FWIW - US policy now allows for the murder/assassination of US citizens (example more). NDAA allows for indefinite detention (1 source of many). The US is well known for supporting and engaging in torture (at Wikipedia, lots of search results). The point being that they will do "whatever" they darn well feel like.

Anyone in Julian Assange's position that didn't dirty their pants in fear would be a complete fool.

I was originally trying to make the point that in his position, it would be a good idea to take any help you can get! (I should have left out "calling for".)

tsaint · « **Reply #36 on:** August 21, 2012, 08:39 AM »

OTOH I dont think Assange can be fussy at this stage, what exactly he's facing can be argued, but I certainly wouldnt expect a fair trial (if any)
-tomos (August 21, 2012, 08:20 AM)

But what fair trial are you referring to? The ONLY trial we can say with certainty that he's facing is the Swedish one. So projecting to a USA trial at this stage is fantasy.

Renegade · « **Reply #37 on:** August 21, 2012, 08:40 AM »

Re Correa & corruption:
http://en.wikipedia....g/wiki/Rafael_Correa
Paragraph three will give you a summary. (Paragraphs 1 & 2 are interesting from other perspectives.)

OTOH I dont think Assange can be fussy at this stage, what exactly he's facing can be argued, but I certainly wouldnt expect a fair trial (if any).

[Just to put my comment in perspective - I'm not a fan of Wikileaks]
-tomos (August 21, 2012, 08:20 AM)

I really don't know enough to comment, but I do wonder who those media organizations are owned/operated by. e.g. http://2.bp.blogspot...-moguls-1200x849.jpg

(I have less than zero sympathy for big media. But the "why" there belongs in the Basement.

)

Renegade · « **Reply #38 on:** August 21, 2012, 08:42 AM »

OTOH I dont think Assange can be fussy at this stage, what exactly he's facing can be argued, but I certainly wouldnt expect a fair trial (if any)
-tomos (August 21, 2012, 08:20 AM)

But what fair trial are you referring to? The ONLY trial we can say with certainty that he's facing is the Swedish one. So projecting to a USA trial at this stage is fantasy.
-tsaint (August 21, 2012, 08:39 AM)

+1 Julian Assange would have no hope of a trial as instead of the clang of a gavel, he'd hear the clang of a cell door in Gitmo. Trial for JA? Yep. Total fantasy~!

tsaint · « **Reply #39 on:** August 21, 2012, 08:48 AM »

I guess Renegade, that the reason I spoke up - not a smart move - is that the Assange debate seems to run precisely along the lines of claims of "assassination/indefinite detention/torture/whatever" which suggests the extreme possibilities whilst only factually based on the "whatever" possibility. ie the debate is not centred on fact but emotive claims and innuendo. Thus whipping up outrage and condemnation for no rational reason.
This is not to suggest the USA shouldn't be yelled at for other things. In my youth I found it quite fun, but then I aged and got too lazy to yell at anyone
Disclosure: I hate all self appointed, evangelical, holier than thou proselytizers like Assange. Give me Elmer gantry any day

Renegade · « **Reply #40 on:** August 21, 2012, 08:53 AM »

I guess Renegade, that the reason I spoke up - not a smart move - is that the Assange debate seems to run precisely along the lines of claims of "assassination/indefinite detention/torture/whatever" which suggests the extreme possibilities whilst only factually based on the "whatever" possibility. ie the debate is not centred on fact but emotive claims and innuendo. Thus whipping up outrage and condemnation for no rational reason.
This is not to suggest the USA shouldn't be yelled at for other things. In my youth I found it quite fun, but then I aged and got too lazy to yell at anyone
Disclosure: I hate all self appointed, evangelical, holier than thou proselytizers like Assange. Give me Elmer gantry any day
-tsaint (August 21, 2012, 08:48 AM)

He's certainly abrasive at times.

I probably shouldn't have posted that above. I just meant it in fun. I just couldn't resist the whole "trial" and "fantasy" thing. It was begging for a smartass comment~!

tomos · « **Reply #41 on:** August 21, 2012, 08:56 AM »

OTOH I dont think Assange can be fussy at this stage, what exactly he's facing can be argued, but I certainly wouldnt expect a fair trial (if any)
-tomos (August 21, 2012, 08:20 AM)

But what fair trial are you referring to? The ONLY trial we can say with certainty that he's facing is the Swedish one. So projecting to a USA trial at this stage is fantasy.
-tsaint (August 21, 2012, 08:39 AM)

I'm no expert here, but everything I've heard/read seems to indicate that the first goal is to get him to Sweeden - the US & Sweden have a sweet (from USA's point of view) extradition arrangement which would then kick in. I'd say at this stage that it's fantasy to believe that he will simply face a trial in Sweeden with no US interference.

Have you read iphigenie's post:

I wish the UK and EU countries were always so eager to interrogate and prosecute allegations of rape. They are usually pretty quick to sweep them under the carpet, especially between people who have first had consensual sex (which was the case here).

Now I find it quite possible that Assange has a certain arrogance and lack of attention and that he might miss messages that say "not again" or "not in this way", and that starting again would not be a crime, but refusing to stop would be. But even as a stringent feminist I find it hard to believe that this is all about this.

No country threatens to storm an embassy for a rape, and nobody talks of sending death squads and it being terrorist activity on the topic of condoms.
-iphigenie (August 17, 2012, 08:05 AM)

f0dder · « **Reply #42 on:** August 21, 2012, 09:22 AM »

I'm no expert here, but everything I've heard/read seems to indicate that the first goal is to get him to Sweeden - the US & Sweden have a sweet (from USA's point of view) extradition arrangement which would then kick in. I'd say at this stage that it's fantasy to believe that he will simply face a trial in Sweeden with no US interference.
-tomos (August 21, 2012, 08:56 AM)

Also, keep in mind that Sweden's government is heavily in bed with USA. People who don't believe so might want to do a bit of digging into leaked diplomatic cables wrt. the whole The Pirate Bay thing. One place to start is Cable Reveals Extent Of Lapdoggery From Swedish Govt.

There's also some other interesting things to look at, like Diplomatic Cables Reveal Australia Expects U.S. To Charge Julian Assange.

But what fair trial are you referring to? The ONLY trial we can say with certainty that he's facing is the Swedish one. So projecting to a USA trial at this stage is fantasy.
-tsaint (August 21, 2012, 08:39 AM)

I'm afraid it's fantasy that Assange is not going to be extradited to the USA, should he reach Sweden. Everything points in that direction. Just look at what they're willing to do to their own citizens who have been far less a thorn in the eye of the military and big corporations...

40hz · « **Reply #43 on:** August 21, 2012, 11:26 AM »

If anyone doesn't believe getting Assange extradited to Sweden isn't the first step in his ultimate extradition to the US...well...I have a bridge in NYC I'd like to sell you.

Unfortunately, not being Russia or China, Ecuador will only be a temporary asylum at best. The US claims jurisdiction anyplace and everyplace on planet earth. So this is far from over for Assange and Wikileaks. Ecuador isn't important or valuable enough to the US that I'd rule out it sending in some mil-ninja types to "extract" him if the usual ~~bullying~~ diplomatic negotiations and ~~bribes~~ trade concessions don't sway the Ecuadorian government should Assange ever find himself on their soil.

nosh · « **Reply #44 on:** August 21, 2012, 11:33 AM »

Making a virtual prisoner out of him serves as a message in itself. Why (openly) bend the law when you have enough leverage to make someone's life hell?

Edit: I realize the last statement sounds extremely naive - this is the US we're talking about, after all. My point is - I don't expect ninja assassins to go after the guy but then 40 is a far wiser man than me.

40hz · « **Reply #45 on:** August 21, 2012, 12:09 PM »

I wasn't talking about assassination. Last thing you want to do is create a martyr for the history books. I was thinking more along the lines of Noreiga. Nice little "fair trial" followed by 60 years in an 8x10 super-max cell - and with no visitors allowed because what he knows is a "threat to national security."

After a few years of that, most people just go quietly out of their minds. No need to kill the body. Just destroy the person.

Now that's what those in power might call "sending a message." $:-\$

nosh · « **Reply #46 on:** August 21, 2012, 12:15 PM »

My bad. I read 'ninja' and... *fzzzt*

Yup, that sounds only too realistic.

tsaint · « **Reply #47 on:** August 21, 2012, 05:15 PM »

I'm afraid it's fantasy that Assange is not going to be extradited to the USA, should he reach Sweden. Everything points in that direction
You say as FACT what at this stage is conjecture. "everything points in that direction" is hardly as basis for an assertion of fact. Everything has pointed to my football team winning the premiership each year for the last 20 years or so by now. They won it about 4 of those 20 times.
You make be right in your PREDICTION, you may not.

I wonder what would be the story if the alleged crime was, say, child molestation, and the central figure wasn't a darling of the media.
Would the idea of such a person refusing to go to Sweden to face molestation charges because the possibility of then maybe being somehow shipped to the USA be embraced? Or would the 2 issues be separated?

Whatever, to me it seems a bit like mob hysteria with all sorts of wild, fanciful claims springing up. Most of them based on half truths or rumour or someone is reported as having said instead of actual facts. With our favourite govt to hate being the witch.
Disclaimer 2. I'm Australian, not USA-an. And I hate the way USA culture has swamped Australian culture. (If I had the power I'd ban ALL tv and USA movies from being shown here) So I'm not a rusted on pro or anti USA person

tsaint · « **Reply #48 on:** August 21, 2012, 05:19 PM »

I'm talking too much, but can't resist one last thought. Then I'll defer.
I seem to recall how everything pointed to Saddam having WMD. How ironic.

40hz · « **Reply #49 on:** August 21, 2012, 05:48 PM »

^USA media culture isn't swamping anything IMO. It just caters to the lowest common denominator. And theres a lot of people like that in the world. Which is why it is so popular. Perhaps some places (the USA included) that complain about it the most may want to ask themselves why a "higher" form of "culture" isn't more popular. (Perhaps higher cultures aren't really as universally embraced as they might because the appetite for "crap entertainment" seems to be fairly universal? We see a lot of that in the USA too. People demand "quality." But what they actually watch is mostly garbage - even when alternatives are available. Looks like that old monkey brain is still firmly in charge of our behaviors. Depressing isn't it?)