Of the U.S., especially? What a joker this clown is.

This is a withhunt with the intention of presenting a showtrial.

Robert Novak wasn't "pursued" by the Feds for revealing the name of a covert CIA officer. Yet Assange is to be pursued to stand trial? Why?

I'd be more incline to agree with you if the US had a consistent history of pursuing leakers of sensitive information, not merely the ones who have embarrassed powerful figures.

Besides, Assange's revealings have been a breath of fresh air in a smelly world where governments do the bidding of corporations at the expense of the people...

Check out the human rights records of Sweden vs. Ecuador.

What is wrong with facing those charges in Sweden? Or they aren't even charges, as I've heard. Sweden just gives those damn women too many rights! And Sweden does show trials, really? Even the big mean evil US doesn't do that.

It has been established the UK is more likely to do so.

Why not go home? Is Australia going to turn him over too?

Ecuador could deny his frivolous asylum claim and turn him over too. After all the evil US certainly case force Little Ecuador to do its bidding.

He's crying persecution in order to avoid dealing with his problems.

For example, there is a DUer who admits in his/her blog the following:

I did not understand reconciliation in the Senate at all. Recently I learned a little more about it. . . . . . But am not sure yet how it applies and what it could cover or not.

Same with the filibuster. It is complex to me and I don't fully understand it and don't know enough history. . . . .

I don't really understand the effects of NAFTA and GATT. Those terms get thrown around on DU as the root of all evil, but I refuse to jump on that bandwagon unless I understand it, but don't understand enough to argue with that either. . . . .

I've learned to have no opinion on any court decision until I've looked at it. The news reports and the posts are full of opinions that lack understanding and are designed to just try to get you to be upset on some surface thing that it imperfectly understood. . . . .

It's a wonderful thing to be humble and admit that you don't understand some things. Sometimes a person who knows he doesn't know what he is talking about is very wise to ask those who do. The problem is that ignorant people often do not have the knowledge to discern between an opinion that is well grounded and one that is not.

Education is there to help us learn to understand the things we don't now understand. Law schools give courses on the Constitution and sometimes if you ask you can just sit in on a course -- without credit and without participating, of course. If people don't understand how our government works, it might be a good idea to take some of these courses. If I felt overwhelmed and unable to understand so many things, then I think I would go to a really good university or law school to ask if I could audit a course or two.

why don't you go back to the discussion of whether Sweden has show trials? Maybe there is much you don't understand, and you don't have the wisdom to admit it.

There's no way you understand all of those things, either. There are a lot of complicated questions. People who are ignorant usually think they know it all. People who are smart know how much there is that they don't know.

others pretend to be ignorant. Sometimes trolls feign ignorance just to distract and confuse others. It's kind of interesting to watch how cleverly trolls try to muddy the waters.

The issue here is why Assange is (indirectly and diplomatically) asking Sweden about its extradition plans for him.

I gave my opinion: because he may need to show a country that is willing to give him asylum that he really needs the grant of asylum, and to do that he needs to have some sort of information from Sweden about how much of a threat of extradition they are posing to him. That's it.

Extradition Treaty between Sweden and U.S.

Last edited Mon Jun 25, 2012, 03:33 PM - Edit history (1)

The problem is not only information, it is how people think. They let others frame things for them, even when they do think. Think about that.

Richard Armitage leaked Plame's name to Novak and he reported it in a column. http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-18563_162-1981433.html

...and didn't he report this information through Wikileaks?

How does Novak and Assange differ?

If the US has no plan to extradite Assange, why not state it publicly? Or in writing"

Assange knew that Manning had no right to give him the leaked info. Novak was interviewing the number 2 official in the State Department. He asked an off hand question about the trip to Africa and Armitage gave up Plame in an off hand remark. Novak would not have known he was not supposed to use that info. About half of CIA employees are analysts and they are not covert. Novak would have no way of knowing Plame was covert at the time.

So legally two different cases. Whether the U.S. wants to extradite Assange who knows?

Assange is not a "leaker" either. He was not in any position to obtain the information himself, it had to be given to him by someone who was in such a position. Nor did he have any control over what information was provided to his organization. His position is more akin to a publisher rather than a reporter -- similar to the New York Times and the UK Guardian, who also published the VERY SAME documents in cooperation with WikiLeaks. Yet so far, we have not heard anyone from those organizations referred to as "high-tech terrorists".

Of course, the real problem the U.S. government has with WikiLeaks and Assange, is the clever use of encryption technology to facilitate anonymous leaking of information. It's bad enough that reporters can protect their sources; but when technology gives the reporters the additional cover of not even knowing who their sources are -- and therefore, they can't be coerced into revealing them -- well that is not to be tolerated.

That's the same with all reporters who repeat classified information that was leaked to them.

If you think otherwise, you'll have to explain why reporters going back to the Pentagon Papers are not currently in jail, and instead are protected by SCOTUS precedents that have been reaffirmed many times.

Manning can and will face trial, as his situation is entirely different - he was the one doing the leaking.

why?

all to avoid some charge of not using a condom? The US has made no effort to "get" him and won't.

this is a misogynist trying to avoid charges in Sweden (a progressive nation) by calling it the Saudi Arabia of Feminism. Those damn women have too many rights in Sweden, apparently.

And there's this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/24/nick-cohen-julian-assange-paranoia?newsfeed=true

That has been used to cover a multitude of crimes across the globe, so people are cynical about the term. When you put a human face on it, such as revealing the names of dissidents, leading to their being harmed, it makes a big difference. Much appreciated to discern why there is so much passion on both sides. I think, however, that Assange, like anyone, is entitled to put up any defense he wants.

Wikileaks did not publish the names of Belarusian dissidents. Someone put this rumor into the world when some cables concerning Belarus were made available to a newspaper in that country. Just like all the other cables were made available to news organizations which Wikileaks entrusted with editing them, if necessary, to protect those who might be put in harm's way by their publication.

It is perhaps no accident that the smear merchant you quote works for the newspaper which published the only cable (to my knowledge) that was specifically cited as having put someone at risk. The cable showed that the Zimbabwean prime minister, Morgan Tsvangirai, had been privately urging the Americans to maintain sanctions against Zimbabwe, while taking the opposite position in public.

When this became public, the Zimbabwean Attorney General did indeed set up a team of lawyers to investigate whether Tsvangirai may be charged with conspiracy or treason. He was never prosecuted, though.

Ironically, the same newspaper that had published this cable later accused WIKILEAKS of putting the prime minister at risk ... although this would have been, of course, their own fault and responsibility.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/help/insideguardian/2011/jan/13/wikileaks-morgan-tsvangirai-inside-guardian
http://wlcentral.org/node/2054

He's not the one with a worldwide system of torture sites, etc. Thats why. Nor is he the one that allows war criminals and torturers to walk on our streets and go on book tours either. That's why. Some people still believe in such quaint things as laws, and human rights that's why. It's all so simple a 5 year old should understand it. Tyranny is what this is. I would bet even a 5 year could understand what tyranny is.

And think it's that easy? And that some leaker who publishes classified documents gets credit for what - ending it all?

The US is not a tyranny. The Bush Administration may have tried to be. But it did not get very far. But to go to these lengths is just sad. And paranoid.

And oversimplified. Your short post contains conclusions that could be argued about for pages. No, 5 year olds do not decide what documents are classified, who should get to leak them anyway (with impunity). And none of this leakage has done a thing to do the exotic things you'd like to see, like Cheney put on trial.

bother with you any further, the issue is about MORALITY! Either you torture, or you don't. PERIOD

Do you get it? Probably not.

provided he can show that it is a last resort.

I find this very ironic.

On the one hand, the Supreme Court issued an order today overturning a Montana law that would limit or bar unlimited political expenditures by corporations.

On the other hand, the US is seeking the extradition of a person who published broadly and not particularly to any readers, not to our enemies or to our friends, but to everyone, truths about our government's horrible conduct that were provided to him by a news source who apparently was not financially or otherwise compensated for the information.

How can our government's two personalities be justified?

-- the one that interprets the First Amendment to permit unlimited expenditures on speech by corporations including those primarily funded by contracts with the very politicians about whom they are exercising their speech

-- and the other one -- the one that orders all kinds of facts to be top secret, published on pain of death, although most of those facts are secret only because they would embarrass an out-of-control, militaristic government?

That split in the personality and identity of our "democratic" government is unsustainable regardless of what happens with Citizens United, with Assange or with the specific individuals in our government today.

Sooner or later, a nation divided falls, and the conduct of our "leaders" with regard to national security and in particular withholding facts from the public coupled with the unfettered, uncontrolled propaganda coming from corporations, especially defense contractors, will destroy us.

Assange cannot harm us. Our national insanity will.

That's just it though....it is NOT insanity.

Do you disagree with me on that or on something else?

Why do you disagree with me? I would like to hear your point of view. Thanks.

Do you think that it is sane to claim to be a "democratic" country -- a status that assumes that voters are well informed enough to know what they are voting for or against -- while suppressing essential information about what the leaders of the country, especially the military leaders have done or do once they are in power?

I think it is like claiming to be a monkey when you are actually a bear, claiming to be kind and gentle when you are actually acting like a monster.

If we had a person in our midst who presented himself to our children as a kind, benevolent caretaker and then, in our absence, beat our neighbor's children up, we would want to know about it. That is why we have a child abuse registry. That is why we need freedom of information and a government that does not hide its worst conduct behind a 'top secret' stamp.

Our national policies about state secrets are insane -- and completely incompatible with our claim to be a democratic nation.

insanity that is the cause to all this. Everything has a purpose or a reason. The insanity is the symptom. That is all I am saying.
Thanks

Sweden is.

If the US wanted to extradite Assange, they'd already have done so and the UK would have rubber-stamped the request.

The conspiracy theory that the US is waiting for Sweden to get a hold of Assange makes no sense. There is no upside for the US.

It was in the Stratfor emails that were released. There is a strong likely hood of a sealed extradition order that will be implemented if he goes back to Sweden. Those that think he is naive and foolish here obviously haven't been paying attention to the behavior of the United States since 2001.

If there was an extradition order, why wait to send it to Sweden? The UK would extradite a cucumber sandwich if we asked them to do so. Sweden might actually review the request.

Additionally, Assange can't be charged in the US. Publication of leaked materials is protected by the first amendment. That's why the folks who published the Pentagon Papers aren't in prison. Nor are the people who published the massive flood of other leaks in prison.

Leaking can be prosecuted, which is why Manning is being prosecuted. Publishing the leak can not.

perform live last Saturday. Why, after hearing this beautiful performance, did I come away feeling that we are fighting the same fucking battles over and over and over again?

gets its hands on Assange they'll most likely have him tortured while held incommunicado for several years in military custody (to protect him from himself, of course) until his mind is pretty much gone. Then he'll get a "fair trial", be found guilty and dropped down the memory hole of a federal maximum security prison and forgotten. That seems to be the new MO, and it sends a clear message to anyone who might consider pissing off our national security state.

Last edited Mon Jun 25, 2012, 04:58 PM - Edit history (17)

Drugs, electric shock, isolation, lot's that they'll do. They've done it all before. Recently even, as in less than 10 years time. READ
I am not saying anything new here. It is pure evil he faces here. What is even more obvious to me is that they have already shown their morality by having a certain young man stand at Parade Rest nude with his penis flapping about in the wind. It's fucking sick.

You tell me.


Search, you will find stories of corporal punishment being used, drugs, and more on people. The info's all out there. Just put it together.

What is so hard to see: http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2012/03/20/beatings-sexual-abuse-electric-shock-torture-camps-still-operative-100511/

Beatings, Sexual Abuse, Electric Shock: US Torture Camps ‘Still Operative’

Assange cannot be sent to the US or Sweden. PERIOD

Already it can be difficult to prove torture, even when it is right in front of one's face! The torturers laugh at us all right now.People need to understand that. Some mock us with books tours, some mock us by calling us enemies of our own countries, etc... Usual shit of tyrannical pigs and the tactics of moral cowards.

America has no morality when it comes to Assange. NONE, zero, zilch. In this matter the United States is nothing but a torture state. PERIOD


Would Assange be the first in the world to get Asylum against the American torture state? This is a question to be asked as well. This is both global, and 90 miles off American shores. Coming to mainstreet next, actually it is already here! People are just still asleep to it and there is an entire system in place to keep people asleep. Pay no more heed to that at your own demises.

against the abuse of our First Amendment rights by international corporations -- including those whose primary source of income is the US government -- say military contractors.

and yet some in this thread question why Assange would want to stay out of the US. Really? Where have you been the last 12 years?

Has for several years now. Although I'm sure that doesn't matter to the narrative you want to build. Nor, I'm sure, does the fact that there's no evidence the US wants to do anything at all with Assange. He's being extradited to Sweden for sexual assault, not to the US.

That the US has tortured many people in its custody is a fact. That the practice has ended is predicated on nothing more than an executive order which states:

Effective immediately, an individual in the custody or under the effective control of an officer, employee, or other agent of the United States Government, or detained within a facility owned, operated, or controlled by a department or agency of the United States, in any armed conflict, shall not be subjected to any interrogation technique or approach, or any treatment related to interrogation, that is not authorized by and listed in Army Field Manual 2-22.3 (Manual). Interrogation techniques, approaches, and treatments described in the Manual shall be implemented strictly in accord with the principles, processes, conditions, and limitations the Manual prescribes [emphasis added].

Do you think Julian Assange or Bradley Manning rise to the definition of "enemy combatants?" Do you? And, unless I'm mistaken, our rendition policy is still in place.

--just like Aristide was renditioned (by the U.S.) from Haiti to the Central African Republic:

In 2004, Aristide was whisked away in one of those planes that the US government has used for “extraordinary rendition”, and taken involuntarily to the Central African Republic.

Reference Link:
http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/jean-bertrand+aristide