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.

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.  

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

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~!

Quote from: Renegade on August 21, 2012, 03:23 AM

if I had the world's largest super-power calling for my assassination/indefinite detention/torture/whatever

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange#Calls_for_Assange.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

Your turn to dig up a link! (Seriously - I know jack about Ecuador there.)

No problem ...
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2012/s3569972.htm
http://www.freedomhouse.org/blog/assange%E2%80%99s-friend-correa-journalists-are-assassins-ink
http://www.cpj.org/blog/2012/08/as-it-backs-assange-ecuador-represses-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.

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".)

Re Correa & corruption:
http://en.wikipedia.org/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]

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.com/_qUFDMUpk9jE/S0E2grFA-1I/AAAAAAAAcaM/fCd1pcb1ZDk/s1600-h/media-moguls-1200x849.jpg

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

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

Quote from: tomos on August 21, 2012, 01:20 PM

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)

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.

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.

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.

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."  

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

^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?)