Assange didn't ask for consul meeting - PM

[struggle4progress]

From correspondents in Rio de Janeiro
AAP
June 22, 2012 11:18AM

PRIME Minister Julia Gillard says WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has not sought face-to-face contact from Australian consular officials while his legal case has gone on.

Mr Assange, who is now holed up in the Ecuadorean embassy in London seeking asylum, says he has not had personal contact with the Australian high commission in Britain since late 2010 ...

Ms Gillard said in Rio de Janeiro, where she is attending a UN environment summit, that ... "In the course of these legal proceedings consular officials have been in contact with his legal team and Mr Assange has not requested or sought for those dealings to be directly with him" ...

Mr Assange told the ABC he had mounted his bizarre request for political asylum in Ecuador because his native Australia had made an "effective declaration of abandonment" by refusing to intervene in his planned extradition from Britain to Sweden ...

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/breaking-news/assange-didnt-ask-for-consul-meeting-pm/story-e6freuyi-1226405303428

[clang1]

1. Assange rejects PM's assistance claims

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/wikileaks/assange-rejects-pms-assistance-claims/story-fn775xjq-1226404988085

The Wikileaks founder, who is holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, rejected the Australian government’s claims that he’d received more consular assistance than any other person in similar circumstances.

He said he had not spoken to Australian authorities since December 2010.

Since then, he said the Department of Foreign Affairs had contacted him via SMS asking: “Does Mr Assange require assistance?”

Speaking from the Ecuadorian embassy, Mr Assange said assurances from Julia Gillard and other senior government ministers that they were helping him were "empty words".


--They are fucking with him.

[struggle4progress]

4. Dunno. He's pretty popular in Australia, so there'd be no political upside to jerking him around

[clang1]

28. sure

Whatever you say.

[clang1]

36. and Gillard loves him to huh

[sabrina 1]

2. Poor Gillard, it's tough being a tool of the neo-cons and refusing to represent

your own people. Julian Assange sure has exposed her for what she is and the backlash she has already received for her shameless 'loyalty' to foreign entities over her own citizens, forces her to have to have make excuses all the time. She sounds weaker and weaker each time she opens her mouth.

Glad to see she's under pressure for her shameful, cowardly behavior. Wonder if she called Swedish puppet master, Rove for advice on how to handle her scandalous behavior?

[clang1]

3. The same people

behind that behind that filthy shithole in Cuba called Gitmo also called for Assange's possible execution.

[struggle4progress]

5. Presumably you mean folk like Huckabee and Palin, those sometime noisy nitwits

in the long Republican primary season, whose former bids for national attention now seem to have fallen rather flat

Assange's lawyers must be in a desperate pickle if they are combing through Republican primary utterances, looking for grist to throw into their briefs

[Luminous Animal]

11. Biden call him a terrorist. Feinstein suggested that he be prosecuted under the Espionage Act

which can result in the death penalty.

[struggle4progress]

18. Here's the actual Biden exchange on Meet the Press 19 December 2010:

MR. GREGORY: Should the United States do something to stop Mr. Assange ?

VICE PRES. BIDEN: We're looking into that right now. The Justice Department is taking a look at that, and I'm not going to comment on, on that process.

MR. GREGORY: Do you think he's a criminal?

VICE PRES. BIDEN: If he conspired to get these classified documents with a member of the U.S. military , that's fundamentally different than if somebody drops on your lap, "Here, David , you're a press person, here is classified material."

MR. GREGORY: Mitch McConnell says he's a high tech terrorist, others say this is akin to the Pentagon Papers . Where do you come down?

VICE PRES. BIDEN: I would argue that it's closer to being a high tech terrorist than, than the Pentagon Papers . But look, this guy has, has done things that have damaged and, and put into jeopardy the lives and, and occupations of people in other parts of the world. He's made it more difficult for us to conduct our, our business with our allies and our friends. For example, in my meetings, you know I meet with most of these world leaders , there is a desire now to meet with me alone rather than have staff in the room. It makes things more cumbersome. And so it is, it has done damage.

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/meet-the-press/40739329

Note the actual statement Mitch McConnell says he's a high tech terrorist

[Luminous Animal]

20. Yep. Biden characterized Assange as a terrorist.

[tsuki]

25. I consider that they qualify for

noisy nitwits.

[clang1]

29. Sure

Whatever you say Pffft.

[Luminous Animal]

6. Gillard has been rebuked by the Senate...

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/australian-senate-backs-aid-to-julian-assange/story-fn7x8me2-1226404424251

THE Australian Senate has called on Prime Minister Julia Gillard to ensure Julian Assange is provided with the highest possible level of consular support.

It also called on the Prime Minister to retract "prejudicial statements" that claimed the WikiLeaks founder had broken the law in publishing secret US diplomatic cables.

The motion, proposed by Australian Greens senator Scott Ludlam, passed with coalition backing today.

[struggle4progress]

8. She made those remarks 18 months ago, in early December 2010, and got

well-raked over the coals at the time:

...Ms Gillard said the latest WikiLeaks information dump was based on an illegal act, but Canberra has since insisted that was a reference to the original theft of the material by a junior US serviceman rather than any action by Mr Assange. However, Labor Left MP Maria Vamvakinou from Melbourne yesterday told The Australian the government had read the public mood wrongly on the issue and said she supported the release of the classified material ...
Party revolt growing over Prime Minister Julia Gillard's WikiLeaks stance
By Patricia Karvelas
The Australian
December 14, 2010
http://www.news.com.au/features/wikileaks/party-revolt-at-pms-wiki-stance/story-fn79cf6x-1225970594165

[Luminous Animal]

10. Her admins ongoing tacticts were rebuked today by one branch of government who

apparently, does not believe Gillard's admin has done all that it can do to assist an Australian citizen.

[struggle4progress]

13. It's just politicians, yammering, based on the poll numbers

25 Percent Of Australians Would Vote For Julian Assange If He Ran For Australian Senate
Sanya Khetani | May 18, 2012, 4:10 PM
http://www.businessinsider.com/poll-25-percent-of-australians-would-vote-for-assange-if-he-ran-for-australian-senate-2012-5

[clang1]

30. Sure

Whatever you say snicker snicker

[randome]

12. So has President Obama.

[Luminous Animal]

14. Rebuked from liberals. For some odd reason, I trust liberal's judgment more than conservative's.

[treestar]

7. What a drama king he is

And there are people who are truly persecuted. He is making a mockery of that by making his silly drama into a case of "persecution." Shame on Ecuador for enabling him.

[struggle4progress]

9. +

[Luminous Animal]

15. Was Ellsberg persecuted? Yes he was. And so is Assange and any and all of his supporters

who are being stopped, searched, and interrogated.

[treestar]

16. The UN definition of persecution

Does not even come near Julian's alleged troubles. He is a drama king who pretends to be a victim every chance he gets. Just go to Sweden and face the music. It certainly will not involve death or threats thereof.

[Luminous Animal]

17. Was Ellsberg persecuted?

[treestar]

42. No. Look at the definitions in the law.

Facing any type of charge where you have rights as stated in the Bill of Rights is not "persecution" no matter how much you may think the person innocent.

[Luminous Animal]

19. He already faced the music. He stayed in Sweden, and was questioned.

He was cleared to leave at the end of September, after the "investigation" was reopened. (How odd that they would not only allow a rapist to walk around freely for several weeks but let him leave the country!)
He offered to fly back on the weekend of October 9-10. The prosecution responded, "it's the weekend."
He offered to fly back during the week of October 11, the government said, "too late".

[sabrina 1]

22. He did face the music. But then Karl Rove entered the picture. Remember him? We on the Left

used to despise Karl Rove but things are so upside down these days, I'm not sure whether we still do.

Odd that Rightwingers (and we are talking about Sweden's Ronald Reagan, good friend of Rove here) in Sweden rushed to quickly kill the news reported by Naomi Wolf in a linked article by a Huffpo Columnist, that Karl Rove was the political adviser to Swedish rightwing PM.

They rushed out to stop that news from getting into the Swedish mainstream news.

Why do you think they were afraid of the people learning about their new PM's nefarious associations with the likes of Karl Rove?

And how many people in the US have been told by THEIR media that Karl Rove was an adviser to the Swedish Ronald Reagan for three years, right after Nancy Pelosi decided not to hold him in contempt and have him arrested for ignoring subpoenas from Congress? I would say, very, very few people know this.

But Assange and his attorneys know it. How twisted things have become that we now have democrats on this board, supporting Karl Rove and his close, rightwing allies in Sweden.

Assange DID meet with the Swedish police, he remained in Sweden for weeks in order to be available to answer their questions. All allegations were dropped and he was free to go. The women never accused him of rape, he has never been charged with any crime not even a misdemeanor.

The only people in the world who do not see the writing on the wall here, are Americans and we look so hypocritical, especially Democrats who USED to support the work Wikileaks was doing for years.

Some pretty credible people now believe, after Anonymous hacked those computers and posted the emails on the internet, which revealed that the US DOES have a Grand Jury sitting trying to indict him, A JOURNALIST, for Espionage, that he is in the same danger as any of those the US chooses to kill, who are designated terrorists, or tortured, or locked away with no trial and no charges for years and years. We do now have a shameful record of killing and torture, you know.

No one on the face of this earth wants to be pursued by the US. We are the pariahs of the world. So while you may try to laugh it off, the rest of the world sees grave danger for anyone the US calls a 'terrorist' these days.

No, he isn't a drama queen, he's been on the hit list of other regimes in the past for exposing crimes in their countries. I guess his instincts are what he, a very courageous journalist, has had to survive on for years now. How sad that this country should pursue a man also pursued by some of the worst dictatorial regimes in the world. We sure are in good company these days.

[Luminous Animal]

23. Excellent post. It is amazing that DUers are supporting a politician with whom Rove

is professionally involved.

Perhaps they need a reminder of who Rove is..

Obama's Top Campaign Lawyer, DEMANDS Retraction From KARL ROVE
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002840887

[sabrina 1]

24. Yes but you have to hand it to Rove. He must smile when he reads boards like this

and sees how successful he has been at turning the Left against the Left and watching them supporting HIM and his Right wing buddies in Sweden and here of course. How supremely Machiavellian.

I'm beginning to have some grudging respect for him. OrI have to lose all respect for people calling themselves democrats while supporting, however inadvertently, Rove's plot to destroy a News Organization that had the guts to expose his Boss's war crimes. It's so twisted. I guess he counted on the fact that with a Democrat in the WH, now was the time to turn the Left against Assange. The Right already hated Wikileaks.

Another victory for Rove, who btw, is busy working against Obama who should be defending Assange and going after the war criminals exposed by Wikileaks. So much for gratitude for protecting Rove's bosses.

[clang1]

32. +1

Who needs enemies with some of the "friends" we have.

[tsuki]

27. Thank you. It is also strange to

me that Sweden was knowingly, very willingly a participant in rendition and torture. Sweden has no moral authority.

[clang1]

39. No they don't

Sweden Sweden Sweden, what a fucking disappointment you are.

[clang1]

37. We have been a torture state as a matter of practice for some time

now it's just policy. Sick motherfuckers. There is a reason these thugs here don't like the ICC and it has little to do with the UUUUUUUUN as they like to call it.

[Puglover]

53. Great post as usual.

Not quit as pithy as "what a drama king" But I loved it.

And on edit: I am sure that Rafael Correa is just beside himself with shame.

[clang1]

35. Heh heh why don't you poooost that UN definition for us? n/t

[treestar]

43. Sweden the US and Australia, none are countries that persecute for reasons of

The Definition of a Refugee

International legal protection of refugees centres on a person meeting the criteria for refugee status as laid down in the 1951 Refugee Convention. Under Article 1(A)2, the term “refugee” shall apply to any person who:

“...owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.”

Thus, according to this provision, refugees are defined by three basic characteristics:

they are outside their country of origin or outside the country of their former habitual residence;
they are unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted; and
the persecution feared is based on at least one of five grounds: race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion.
It is important to stress that the term “asylum seekers” refers to persons, who have applied for asylum, but whose refugee status has not yet been determined.

Julian's claim is just plain frivolous. An insult to people who have suffered real persecution. He simple doesn't want to have to answer to criminal charges.

[sabrina 1]

59. Except that Sweden rendered innocent citizens of other countries for torture

and are no longer considered 'neutral' as they used to be able to claim to be. You might find it interesting to read what those rendered by Sweden suffered, having made the error of believing they were in a safe place.

Assange knows this history, as does most of the rest of the world, except of course the US where the media controls the message. Fortunately most of us do not rely on the US MSM anymore.

The US made Assange a persecuted person when they illegally interfered with Wikileaks' business and intimidated corporations into ending their business relationship with them. An act condemned, and rightly so around the civilized world. The objective was clear, and so was the message. Expose US War Crimes, or threaten to expose Bank Fraud, and the US Government will shut you down and silence you by any means necessary.

Elected officials in the US have called Assange a terrorist, others have stated that he should be 'put to death', ELECTED OFFICIALS! And because of the Anonymous revelations we know that they mean business.

So long as the US has the death penalty for anyone convicted of Espionage, combined with the threats by Elected officials against Assange, he has every right to fear being kidnapped by the US IN Sweden a country which has already helped kidnap other innocent victims and handed them over to the US.

But keep denying the facts although I cannot see what the point is. Prior to 2008, Wikileaks was hailed as the kind of press the world needs by most Democrats who had experienced eight years of Bush's control of our own media. So this sudden flip -flop on Wikileaks is truly disturbing, although Rove as I said, is not doubt smiling at his success in manipulating not just the Right, but now the Left.

[treestar]

62. race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion,

None of those are persecuted in Sweden or the U.S.

Prosecution for violations of laws that do not impinge on those 5 categories does not constitute persecution.

Persecution is where you are put in jail for not being a Muslim in some countries (religious). Or killed for being in an ethnic group or nationality. Or subjected to difference laws because of your race. If the US were such a place, we could put Mitch McConnell in jail just for being a Republican.

It is not violating laws about wearing condoms or laws regarding publication of classified documents.

[sabrina 1]

63. Persecution is where you are a member of the press and are persecuted in order to silence

you. This is not the first time Assange has had to hide from an oppressive regime. Chinese dissidents, eg, journalists in places like El Salvador or now, Honduras, Cuba and elsewhere would be entitled to asylum based on being persecuted, and many times killed as in Honduras right now, because of refusing to be silenced.

Wikileaks' founding included many Chinese Dissidents who wanted to get around their own government's oppression of the press after Tiananmen Square.

Journalists are always at risk in oppressive states and have many times sought asylum because of the threat to their lives.

I do not know why you are trying to so hard to defend the oppression of a multiple award-winning International News Organization founded BECAUSE of the persecution of the press and whistle-blowers to give them a venue to get the truth out without being identified.

As I said, Wikileaks was revered by the Left from the time of its inception because it was the answer to the suppression of actual news throughout the Bush years when the US Media sunk to third world status on the Free Press chart worldwide.

What happened? Does the 'left' no longer support freedom of the press? What a terrible shame to see this flip flop here in the US ON the left. I used to think that we on the left had real principles and would stick to them no matter what. I learned a lot over the past few years.

[treestar]

68. Of course, journalists in CHINA can claim persecution

If they are persecuted for just reporting something. China does not have a First Amendment. China is the type of place where people are persecuted for expressing their political opinion. The U.S. is not.

If one of us leaked classified documents, we'd be prosecuted for it. Why is it OK with you for a foreigner to do so?

[sabrina 1]

71. Julian Assange did not leak classified documents.

He did what good journalists have always done, what the NYT and La Monde and The Guardian did. He received material from a whistle-blower, a source as they are generally called in the world of journalism and together with other news organizations, he published that material which contained evidence of war crimes. That is what journalists do.

You are confusing journalists with whistle-blowers.

Was the NY Times prosecuted for publishing the material whistle-blower Daniel Ellsberg gave them? No, but the Government did try to stop them from publishing the material. Ellsberg had released the material to 17 other news organizations. The case regarding the publishing of those documents, went to court and the SC ruled on the rights of the press:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ellsberg#Fallout

Although the Times eventually won the trial before the Supreme Court, prior to that, an appellate court ordered that the Times temporarily halt further publication. This was the first time the federal government was able to restrain the publication of a major newspaper since the presidency of Abraham Lincoln during the U.S. Civil War. Ellsberg released the Pentagon Papers to seventeen other newspapers in rapid succession.[18] The right of the press to publish the papers was upheld in New York Times Co. v. United States. The Supreme Court ruling has been called one of the "modern pillars" of First Amendment rights with respect to freedom of the press.[19]

'Modern Pillars' of First Amendment rights! We should be proud of that ruling. Julian Assange is in the role of the news media in the Ellsberg case, Bradley Manning is Ellsberg.

But now we are told, you are telling me, that ruling was wrong and that a News Organization should be stopped regardless of the law and the 1st Amendment from publishing documents obtained by a source like Ellsberg or Manning, and the Editor and Publisher should be charged with a crime! What does the oath of office mean then? 'I swear to defend and protect the Constitution of the US of America, against all enemies, both foreign and domestic'?

Do you really mean that this ruling does not apply anymore to freedom of the press?

[warrprayer]

48. speaking of U.N. torture investigations

[treestar]

50. This person was subjected to U.S. law

And able to challenge in court allegations against him.

As would Julian be able to do in the unlikely event he were dragged here just to face charges of violating our security by publishing our classified documents.

[warrprayer]

55. exposing murder

... is not a crime

[randome]

57. Which is probably why he finally admitted he has no knowledge of a 'sealed indictment'...

...as he earlier claimed.

He also has not released his super-duper-secret decryption code to bring the world's governments to their knees.

With all this nonsense he spouts from time to time, why would anyone believe what he says?

Wikileaks is cool. Assange is not.

[Luminous Animal]

70. He admitted to no such thing.

Here is the interview. Please point out to me where Assange admitted that he had no knowledge of a sealed indictment.

http://wlcentral.org/node/2676

[randome]

81. Here it is.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/breaking-news/assange-admits-there-is-no-us-indictment/story-e6freono-1226405036611

[Luminous Animal]

82. I gave you a link to the actual interview that was "interpreted" in your linked article.

Last edited Fri Jun 22, 2012, 11:42 PM - Edit history (1)

If he said, as you and the article claim he said, surely you can find it in the interview. It's not that long... give it a shot.

[sabrina 1]

78. He could hardly have 'admitted' there was no sealed indictment when the

emails released by Anonymous say otherwise. Again I have to ask, where do you get your information?

Nor did he ever claim he would 'bring the world's governments to their knees' with any encryption code. Again, where do you get your information?

He spouted no nonsense, everything released by him and Wikileaks has been the truth. And that is why they are attempting to silence him. Having controlled the MSM, they thought, as Hillary said, they had 'control of the message'. But then along came these people who had the idea that the news should not be anyone's 'message' and they provided a safe way for whistle-blowers to expose crime and corruption in their governments.

Nothing published by Wikileaks has been false, or 'nonsense' as you falsely claim. Refute the war crimes evidence if you can. Deny the killing of innocents and the lies told about those crimes.

It is because he put the truth out there that they are after him.

[randome]

80. I have said nothing about Wikileaks except that I support them.

It's Assange who is the black eye in this whole affair. You keep confusing the two. They are two entirely different matters to me.

Here is a link about the decryption key. I don't see a reference to Assange personally saying anything about it but he was fully aware this was going on and did nothing to refute it so he was not above using this 'threat' as leverage when everyone knows it's bullshit.

http://www.gwern.net/Self-decrypting%20files

I'll do some more research when I get the time.

And here is the link about the absence of a sealed indictment:
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/breaking-news/assange-admits-there-is-no-us-indictment/story-e6freono-1226405036611

And he says he knows there is a 48,000 page file on him. I wonder how he came by this information? Maybe he just pulled it out of his ass?

Here is one link about his so-called 'thermonuclear option'.
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2010/1207/Will-WikiLeaks-Julian-Assange-now-arrested-take-the-nuclear-option

[sabrina 1]

83. Lol, omg, you wonder how he came by that information??

Have you any idea of the material Wikileaks has been provided with? CIA memos, especially ones referring to Assange and Wikileaks, eg. I guess even in the CIA there are Patriots who admire the work of a truly free press.

Assange IS Wikileaks. It was he who was the driving force behind what you claim to admire. It would be hard to admire his creation while at the same time, claiming he is the problem.

That's kind of like saying that if it wasn't for Beethoven, the Fifth Symphony would have no problems. It doesn't, neither does Wikileaks, the problem is the US Government's over-reaction to having their war crimes exposed.

What they should have done was to thank those who exposed them, started an investigation and prosecuted the war criminals. That's what any Democratic government would have done. Instead, they went after the News Organization's Editor and Publisher. And in the process appear to be guilty of even more crimes they are trying to hide. And they appear to be approving those crimes. He is not the problem, he is the genius who invented what has become a problem to governments everywhere who have anything to hide.

I am aware of the encryption story. You must have missed what happened with all of that. A betrayal, theft and someone who denies having been compromised, but who most people believe was.

[randome]

84. Great things are sometimes created by flawed individuals.

Look at Ray Bradbury. Vincent van Gogh.

[sabrina 1]

85. I agree, which is why the personality

of the artist, scientist, musician is not relevant. What is relevant about this story is that a News Organization is under attack for doing its job.

[sabrina 1]

76. No, it's not, but look how the left has changed its views on war crimes, since Bush is no longer

the president. Well, some on the left.

[tsuki]

26. That is why the Aluminatti so

objected to OWS not having a leader. They had no one to attack.

[clang1]

38. and told they will go to jail when they ask about their rights

Thugs all the way.

[sabrina 1]

21. Yes, a drama queen like Daniel Elsberg who fully supports him btw.

[treestar]

44. Did Daniel Ellsburg face the charges?

Yes, in fact he turned himself in. Wiki:

On June 28, 1971, two days before a Supreme Court ruling saying that a federal judge had ruled incorrectly about the right of the New York Times to publish the Pentagon Papers,[6] Ellsberg publicly surrendered to the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts in Boston. In admitting to giving the documents to the press, Ellsberg said:
I felt that as an American citizen, as a responsible citizen, I could no longer cooperate in concealing this information from the American public. I did this clearly at my own jeopardy and I am prepared to answer to all the consequences of this decision.[6]
He and Russo faced charges under the Espionage Act of 1917 and other charges including theft and conspiracy, carrying a total maximum sentence of 115 years. Their trial commenced in Los Angeles on January 3, 1973, presided over by U.S. District Judge William Matthew Byrne, Jr.

[sabrina 1]

51. Was there a foreign Super Power threatening to prosecute him for

espionage, like say, the Soviet Union? Do you think for one minute he would have turned himself in to an ally of the Soviet Union, after being called a terrorist who should be 'put to death' by members of that Government?

If it was Australia, Assange would not have a problem. The people of Australia support him, Gillard is a tool of the neocons but he would be treated fairly there.

The US is now known to disappear innocent people from other countries, to torture them and to put people to death with no charges, no trial and no access to the legal system. Assange is not the only one who would not put themselves in jeopardy of being exposed to such a system.

[treestar]

58. No, it was the U.S.

And he turned himself in, knowing he would take consequences but being willing to do so. Elsberg knew the U.S. had a justice system and that he would have his day in court. Yet he knew he was guilty and full on took the consequences of civil disobedience. Julian is not willing to do this over a condom charge. Let alone the unfilled, phantom charges in the U.S. Which, like Elsberg, he would turn himself in for were he really doing something heroic.

[sabrina 1]

60. He was a citizen of this country, and back then in the old days, the US did not

deny its own Citizens at least, the right to due process. But things have changed and as the world knows, the US no longer provides due process, now even to its own citizens, so long as the word 'terrorist' is invoked. We now have the Patriot Act, the NDAA, Kill Lists and no due process and we actually have Democrats supporting all of this.

You are talking a time when the US was not a lawless country, did not have gulags where kidnapped citizens of other nations were held for years and tortured, some to death, with no charges, no Habeas Corpus. Those days are gone.

'Everything changed after 9/11'. Ellsberg of course, recognizes and opposed the destruction of our justice system in the name of terror and fully supports Julian Assange, and believes he is being persecuted for telling the truth.

Btw, did Assange/Wikileaks publish any material that was not accurate? And what has happened to those exposed as War Criminals? I know the US is pursuing the News Organization that revealed these crimes, but what about the Criminals?

[treestar]

61. The justice system has not been destroyed by 911

And foreigners have equal rights if they are before courts here on any charge or civil case.

If the justice system were destroyed by 911, how would the Supreme Court, as in Padilla and Al Hamdi cases, decided that the Bush administrations actions were unconstitutional?

Ordinary trials follow the same rules.

[sabrina 1]

64. Padilla and Hamdi

were US citizens, and we had not yet taken away the rights of US Citizens as has now happened, in the NDAA at that time.

So the SC had no option because the law was clear on the removal of the right to Habeaus Corpus. Their Habeas rights were removed which was a blatant violation of centuries of law and on which this country based its judicial system.

However, today, the SC Court, thanks to the NDAA revisions, could have ruled against their Habeas rights. Fortunately some private citizens got a ruling that the NDAA amendment destroying those rights, was, as everyone especially Democrats, should have known, unconstitutional.

Foreigners have been given NO rights, shamefully in this country. Have you forgotten the Spanish, British, French, Canadian, Afghan, Pakistani, citizens kidnapped and tortured and held without any judicial rights in Guantanamo Bay for years before their release with no charges having ever been filed against them?

I do not believe you said that the laws of this country have not been literally destroyed since 9/11. The whole world is horrified by this so-called Democracy's treatment of detainees and even of its own citizens.

We are now the country no one wants to be 'rendered' to where it is widely viewed abroad, as a country that will throw people into Gulags like Gitmo and torture and even kill them, as has happened over the past decade. They have seen the evidence, they have also seen that no one has been held accountable and that in fact, rather than rescinding those Constitution destroying policies of Bush this administration has not only extended them, but 'improved' them to include US citizens.

Julian Assange is in grave danger of being kidnapped, as other Australian citizens have been, and ending up in Guantanamo in this country today, until we manage to restore the rule of law, some day.

[treestar]

67. There is no difference in U.S. courts on U.S. charges

if the defendant is in the U.S. and not a citizen. Even illegal aliens, if charged with robbery, battery or any other crime, have the same rights in the courts as long as they are in the US

The point about Padilla was that if the system were so messed up, then the courts would not have functioned to stop Bush and hold his actions unconstitutional.

No one is going to kidnap this drama king and put him in Gitmo. Please. There are not charges pending in the US and nothing to say the US wants him here to be tried.

He admittedly and for which his fans admire him, screwed with our classified documents. That would get one of us into a trial. Why should some foreigner get to mess with our stuff and get away with it? And claim to be our victim?

[sabrina 1]

69. How sad that you consider what happened to Padilla to be 'justice'.

The courts did not 'stop Bush', sadly, in fact, they facilitated him.

The tragic and criminal story of Jose Padilla is proof positive of the destruction of our judicial system over the past decade and his story alone, and his is just one of many, is the reason why no sane person in this world, wants to be rendered to the US for any reason.

Because, as you point out, he is one of the lucky ones:

http://truth-out.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=3705:it-could-be-you-the-sad-story-of-jose-padilla-tortured-and-denied-justice|

The Sad Story of Jose Padilla, Tortured and Denied Justice

For nine and a half years - almost as long as the "war on terror" has been providing an excuse for paranoia about Muslims in general - the case of US citizen Jose Padilla has demonstrated, to those willing to pay attention, that something has gone horribly wrong in the United States of America.

A former gang member and a convert to Islam, Padilla was arrested at Chicago's O'Hare Airport, in connection with an alleged "dirty bomb plot" that never existed, on May 8, 2002, as he returned from Pakistan. Held for a month as a material witness, he was then designated an "enemy combatant" by President George W. Bush and held in complete isolation in a military brig for the next three and half years - a process that also involved prolonged sensory deprivation. According to the psychiatrist Dr. Angela Hegarty, who spent 22 hours with Padilla in 2006, "What happened at the brig was essentially the destruction of a human being’s mind."


In November 2005, fearing that Padilla might successfully challenge the government's argument that it had the right to hold a US citizen indefinitely without charge or trial on the US. mainland and subject him to torture, the Bush administration suddenly indicted Padilla on charges of conspiracy "to murder, kidnap and maim people overseas," and transferred him out of the brig. However, the injustice did not come to an end as the courts took over.

Bush beat Padilla to an appeal to the SC by giving him 'access' to our 'judicial system'.

For details of what was done to Padilla, aside from the false charges, you can find the horrific reports online. By the time he finally went to trial, his mind was so destroyed by torture, it's doubtful he even understood the proceedings.

I'm sure he too once thought that what happened to him could never happen to anyone in the Land of the Free and unfortunately, or maybe fortunately, he is most unlikely at this point, to be able to understand it at all.

And his is only of hundreds of cases many of whom are trying to get some justice at least in civil courts around the world today. The stories they have told could have come from some medieval horror show, but the evidence shows that sadly, they were all too real.

I said he was one of the 'lucky ones' because he did gain access to our wonderful 'judicial system'. His 'trial' is a disgrace, it would be a disgrace even if it was in a third world country and we would be the first to condemn it.

While Americans appear to be so propagandized that they either do not know of these abuses, or are turning a blind eye, you can be sure that the rest of the world are acutely aware of America's policies and what has happened to its judicial system.

George Bush used the powers he gave himself to designate Padilla an 'enemy combatant' without review, without oversight. Those powers have only been strengthened now and yes, Julian Assange and people all over the world who have followed Wikileaks, know the danger he is in. Both the VP and Joe Lieberman have publicly called him a 'terrorist'. That was enough for any sane person to make sure they never fall into the hands of the US judicial system.

I don't know why you are defending these Bush policies, maybe you were not aware of how they have been implemented. All I know is that when Padilla was first captured, even Right Wingers who had assured people like me it would never happen to a US Citizen, were forced to acknowledge the danger to our democracy.

If this is what you are using to assure Julian Assange he has nothing to worry about then all I can say is, your definition of justice and mine are so vastly different there really is no way to find common ground.

[clang1]

34. The only drama I see here is your mockery and distortion

It seems rather petulent in fact. Heh heh there is a lot of dirty water in this thread.

[treestar]

45. Distortion is claiming Julian has been persecuted.

Many people have been. Julian only has to face charges for alleged criminal acts.

This is insulting to everyone who has truly been persecuted.

[ljm2002]

46. So you're on a first-name basis with Assange?

Do tell.

In the meantime, please explain to us all how "Julian" is simply paranoid to think that the US is out to get him.

If it was your ass on the line, would you be so eager to simply turn yourself in the the US authorities, given what we know about how the US treats prisoners these days -- particularly prisoners it considers to be enemies of the state?

If it was me, I'd be doing everything in my power to stay out of the clutches of the US authorities.

There are powerful interests involved here -- the most powerful interests on the planet, in fact, and Assange took them on. He stirred up a shitstorm, and they want him to pay the price. I support his efforts and I agree with the term "persecution" in relation to his case. He has not been charged with any crime, he was allowed to leave Sweden after talking with authorities, he agreed to return to Sweden to speak with them but was rejected, he has been kept under house arrest for over a year, he was placed as a high level criminal on the Interpol list (for what would be a misdemeanor crime in Sweden), it goes on and on. But to you, this is not "persecution", he's just a grandstander.

Whatever.

[treestar]

49. I can call a public figure anything I want

Julian is not worthy of the gravitas one gets by being referred to only by last name.

Yes, he can even come to the U.S. He will not be persecuted, only face charges, have the right to counsel. Persecution is being jailed for race, religion, political opinion, and that doesn't occur in the United States, except to tin foil hat conspiracists. Julian has gotten enough fame and attention that he can't just be disappeared without it being noticed.

Ecuador is more likely to have a bad system than the U.S. I don't subscribe to hair-on-fire theories that the U.S. is a totalitarian dictatorship. Julian would get his fair shake, even if it were true that he'd be facing charges here.

[ljm2002]

52. Of course you can...

...and I can call you out on it for the implied familiarity.

No, the U.S. is not a totalitarian dictatorship, nor do I know anyone who asserts that it is.

Assange would not get a fair shake -- in fact he has already not gotten a fair shake. A fair shake would have been Sweden accepting one of his offers to return for questioning, and then at worst a misdemeanor charge and possible conviction. Instead, his offers were rejected and he was placed under house arrest in the UK after being put on Interpol's red list (for a possible misdemeanor offense, one that has still to this date not been charged). Anyone who does not believe the US had a hand in all this, is dreaming.

What a sham.

[treestar]

66. A fair shake is not the same thing as exactly what Julian wants

Doing things his way is not the way that societies like Sweden and the U.S. have developed over centuries.

I really don't understand his fans. Why is he so special? He may have violated a Swedish law but it does not sound serious. He may have violated a U.S. law, but the U.K. would have extradited him here before Sweden would.

This making him out to be some sort of heroic victim is pathetic. Save it for a real hero. And this guy would sell your safety and security out to get attention. He messed with your country's classified documents, and he's not even an American. Why people worship him is a mystery to me.

[ljm2002]

72. Worship has nothing to do with it...

...and the fact that you feel the need to use that language merely betrays your own emotional involvement and an inability to address the issues logically.

Daniel Ellsberg messed with my country's classified documents, and I was glad when he did so. I did not worship him for it. Bradley Manning (may have) messed with my country's classified documents, and I was glad when he did so. I did not worship him for it. Wikileaks published my country's classified documents, after they were given to them anonymously. Wikileaks supplied them to other news organizations, like the Guardian (UK), and the New York Times. They also published my country's classified documents, and I was glad they all did so. I did not worship any of them for these actions; rather I considered it to be the essence of what real journalists do. "Comfort the afflicted, and afflict the comfortable".

Now it seems that people want to make Julian Assange out to be a traitor for his actions. Although how he is a traitor when he did not steal the documents, and is not a citizen of the country whose secrets were revealed, is yet to be explained.

I do not in any way subscribe to the attitude "My country, right or wrong." At least one of those videos showed obvious war crimes. Even if you don't think the young men involved understood the extent of their own criminality, that in itself is an indictment of our military.

Many of the secrets that were revealed were classified not due to state security reasons, but because revealing those secrets would be embarrassing to the U.S., or worse, would show criminal behavior. By the way: it is illegal to classify information to cover up criminality. Yet I don't hear any hue and cry to go after the people who did that.

Pretending that Julian Assange is under no threat from the powerful forces that he has tangled with, is naive at best. Personally I think it's just some weird punitive attitude, based on his breaking the unwritten rules that the U.S. is good by definition, we can do no wrong, we have the right to keep information secret just because it is embarrassing or it reveals criminality on our part. i.e., "Waahh! He told on us!! WAAHH!" That's what I think.

[randome]

73. Or it could be something simpler.

Maybe he's afraid the allegations of sexual misconduct will lead to formal charges and imprisonment.

For there to be a conspiracy, the following players need to be in synch:
U.K. government
Australian government
Swedish government
Swedish judiciary
U.S. government
The 2 Swedish women who made the allegations.

Assange has admitted that he knows of no indictment against him, unlike what he claimed previously.
He has promised to release a decryption code that will bring the world's governments to their collective knees and has failed to do that.

What is more likely: a conspiracy with all these players or the possibility that Assange is running from the sexual misconduct allegations?

From what I hope is a completely objective viewpoint, I hold the latter to be more likely.

[ljm2002]

74. Well let's see now...

...two years under house arrest in the U.K. so far...

What is the maximum time he would get in a Swedish prison for the accusations, should he have been convicted (assuming that charges are ever actually filed)? Your theory is he's afraid of spending time in a Swedish jail? If he had been tried and convicted of the initial accusations -- which were at the misdemeanor level -- he'd already have been in and out of prison in Sweden. Yet he chose to stay in the U.K. and endure house arrest for 2 years instead.

Logically, there are three choices here: (1) - he's afraid of being convicted and being sentenced to a short time in a Swedish prison; (2) - he's grandstanding; or (3) - he's afraid that if he is extradited to Sweden, they will in turn extradite him to the U.S. to face charges in relation to the Wikileaks publication of U.S. state secrets.

If (1) were true, then once he was nabbed by the Brits he might as well have just gone and faced the Swedish authorities rather than spend a prolonged time in British custody. (2) doesn't make a lot of sense to me, since he would have a bigger megaphone on the outside than he does under his restricted circumstances in the U.K. My money is on option (3): I'm pretty sure he is indeed afraid of being extradited to the U.S., and I can't say I blame him.

[randome]

75. Those are all possibilities.

However, the U.K. could just as easily extradite him as could Sweden.

If they are part of the conspiracy, then they helped Assange delay things for 2 years, which doesn't make sense.

If they are not part of the conspiracy, then they must believe the extradition order is valid.

Assange is the one who delayed things for 2 years, not the U.K. That's why I believe the extradition order is valid and he is simply stalling for time.

I can support Wikileaks but not Assange. He comes across to me as narcissistic, with all his talk about sealed indictments (that he now says don't exist) and super-duper-secret decryption codes and such.

Just my opinion.

[ljm2002]

77. Well, there is no criminal indictment...

...from Sweden either, and yet the U.K. has been willing to hold him for 2 years so far, even though no formal charge has been made.

I don't understand all the legal ins and outs, but I do trust that Assange has got competent legal assistance and has reasons for the choices he has made.

To believe this is all just about a misdemeanor sex charge, sorry, that does not pass the smell test for me.

[sabrina 1]

79. What I don't understand are people who are supporting Right Wing governments and Karl Rove

and why anyone on the Left, where News Organizations like Wikileaks were welcomed, have suddenly shifted to the right. Can you explain this? Speaking of 'fans', I thought people now attacking Democratic news organizations, disliked being called 'fans'. Wasn't there a discussion on DU about the use of that word?

Personally I do not have any opinion of Assange as an individual, I don't care if he's a narcissistic ass, or a loving, warm generous creature. What I care about is what he represents, what he always represented before Democrats won in 2008, and the Left fully supported the very welcome 'new media' after years of our press being manipulated.

But now, I am seeing such a total flip flop it must make Rove's heart sing. He finally got to the 'left'. He and his Right Wing buddy in Sweden.

Just so he knows, in case he follows his handiwork on Democratic blogs re Assange, hey Karl, you haven't fooled most of us!

[sabrina 1]

65. Assange has been threatened with death by US Elected officials.

There are no charges against him as far as anyone knows. But when members of a Super Power's Government threaten you with death, and then documents surface which state there is a GJ deciding on charges against you, because you are a journalist who simply published facts (have any of those facts been refuted, or even discussed?) you are being seriously persecuted.

[clang1]

40. Amnesty International hails WikiLeaks and Guardian as Arab spring 'catalysts'

I am sure Assange knows this, I wonder if Manning knows.

The human rights group predicts a serious fightback from the forces of repression as it releases its annual report

The world faces a watershed moment in human rights with tyrants and despots coming under increasing pressure from the internet, social networking sites and the activities of WikiLeaks, Amnesty International says in its annual roundup.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/13/amnesty-international-wikileaks-arab-spring


We need to start taking on our own tyrants is what we need to do. Right here is good a place to start.

[struggle4progress]

41. ... two consular officials have been present at each of Mr Assange's court appearances in London ...

~snip~
MEREDITH GRIFFITHS: ... Foreign Minister, Bob Carr, says he's proud of the support extended to Julian Assange.
BOB CARR: As far as I can tell there's been no Australian who's received more consular support in a comparable period than Mr Assange. Since he was arrested in the UK in December 2010 he has been visited by consular officials, they have in turn facilitated a visit for family members, two consular officials have been present at each of Mr Assange's court appearances in London ...
~snip~
Fed Govt defends its consular assistance to Assange
Meredith Griffiths reported this story on Thursday, May 31, 2012 18:51:00
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2012/s3515562.htm

[sabrina 1]

54. They were shamed in to the little assistance they gave him. Now because of the backlash

in their own country they are making excuses, but fooling no one. Their PM came out in support of those who were after him from the beginning. She was forced to back track because of the huge outrage her comments caused.

So please, they have done nothing because their PM is a neocon, trying to help her neocon buddies who helped her get elected, to hide the War Crimes Wikileaks exposed.

A few visits from the Consulate does not transfer into protecting one of their citizens. But I'm glad to see them shamed into trying to prove they were not traitors to one of their own innocent citizens being framed by Rove and his foreign minions, because he too is hoping to protect his war criminal bosses from exposure.

I hope Rove is reading these boards so he knows, not all of us on the Left can be so easily manipulated.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

47. "..who is now holed up.." No bias there. Nope.

Just like the Chinese dissident who was "holed up" in the U.S. embassy.

[librechik]

56. so fucking what? you can talk to his lawyers

that is nothing but bitchery.