What comes of opening mouth before brain is engaged.

If it were Bin Ladin in the Ecuador Embassy in London, he'd have to be left alone there.

The Organization of American State's is about to meet to consider the actions of the UK.. The meeting will not consider Assange's fate but UK's actions regarding lack of respect for the independence of embassies.. The UK better watch its back in places like Pakistan and Yemen .

united against this kind of breach of diplomacy.

Correa reminded Britain that none of these countries are colonies of the British Empire, they are sovereign countries, this is the 21st Century. I doubt the implication of his remarks was lost on Latin American countries.

They are planning on a conference of the relatively new organization of Latin American states to discuss what can be done to prevent this kind of violation from occurring again.

Hague should be fired. That might appease the rest of the world, because it isn't just Ecuador that felt threatened, every country in the world wondered what would happen if they exercised their right to grant asylum to someone some day and the old Colonialists were not happy about it.

I think they will have to ask him to step down.

The South American countries are opposed to Britain anyway due to the Falkland Islands.

that pursuing extradition on a rape charge -- especially based on the facts claimed against Assange -- hardly warrants storming the embassy of a foreign country thereby challenging the understandings that have enabled peaceful international relations for more than half a century?

That Hague reacted with such outrage supports the theory that the real purpose of the extradition from the UK and perhaps even of the rape charge is to bring Assange to the US.

Assange is no longer working with Wikileaks as I understand it. And let's hope that our intelligence has figured out a way to prevent leaks of the kind that benefited Assange -- and leave it at that.

All this attention to Assange's case is not helping the US or the UK it seems to me.

on another thread.

Link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1155091

IMO this answers the question I've been asking around here as to why the US seems obsessed with getting their hands on Assange. (That the Obama administration is really the driving force in all this nonsense goes without saying, as far as I'm concerned.)

I couldn't figure out why the release of a trove of diplomatic cables could still be an issue, especially since it's old news and over and done with. But it does make sense that Assange got in trouble with those who REALLY run things, i.e. the bankers.

That said, I disagree with your hope that our intelligence agencies will find better ways to prevent leaks.

When the US ceases being a sponsor of state terrorism around the world and those monsters Cheney/Bush, Rummy etc. are serving life in prison for their crimes against humanity, then I'll talk about less transparency. Not until.

There was no force and, although the "victim" of "sex by surprise" said she woke up to find him having sex with her, apparently she left a record of tweets that suggests she either was not asleep just prior or she tweets in her sleep. Her subsequent behavior also suggests there was no coercion or force.

The real complaint was by 2 women who discovered he was dating them at the same time and were pissed off. They went to the police looking to have him get an AIDS test; not to get him charged with a crime.

The info has already been leaked so shouldnt the concern be more on
#1 Preventing future leaks
#2 Making sure what they mark has secret isnt being done to cover up for mistakes and or crimes so as to assist in preventing #1 from happening.

IMO of course. But makes more sense than anything else. You don't mess with these guys.

consider exposing our bad behavior. They want potential leakers to understand that they will always, relentlessly, come after them.

And by machine I mean primarily the military. That appears to have been the straw that broke this camel's back.
These guys are so upset they're willing to turn the planet into mayhem to get at the guy who broke into their secret world.


Assange is one hell of a bright guy.

PB

1. The two women who accused Assange have said he didn't rape them, he is not violent and they do not fear him and they never intended that he be prosecuted. This is a government-driven case. The first Swedish prosecutor dropped the case as flimsy. A second prosecutor was then brought in to revive the charges but HAS FILED NO CHARGES. Assange is merely wanted for questioning.

2. Assange made himself available for questioning in Sweden and again in London, and the Ecuadoran Embassy recently told the Swedish prosecutor he can come into the embassy without impediments and question Assange. The Swedish prosecutor has refused to question Assange in every instance! Why haven't they questioned Assange, when they've had several opportunities to do so, including a current, open invitation?

3. The Ecuadoran Embassy has offered two resolutions to this (in my opinion U.K./Sweden/U.S. faked) crisis: To Sweden, question Assange in the Embassy, or promise NOT to extradite Assange to the U.S. if he goes to Sweden. The Swedish government has refused both. What does that tell us about what they really want Assange for? They haven't charged him with anything; they want him for questioning but they won't question him when given the chance. And they won't promise not to extradite to a country with the death penalty and a recent history of torturing prisoners.

4. China recently gave safe passage to a Chinese dissident who had entered the U.S. embassy in China and asked for political asylum, during Hillary Clinton's recent visit. Asylum was granted and safe passage was arranged between the two governments and the dissident was flown to the U.S. This is the common understanding and protocol among nations. Political asylum is sacrosanct. It is a sovereign power, and respecting it is part of every human rights convention. Without it, there could be no political asylum. Ecuador has exercised this sovereign power on human rights grounds. They believe that Assange will be extradited to the U.S., cannot get a fair trial in the U.S. and will certainly be silenced and in danger of torture and execution. The U.K.--in addition to its bullying threat to invade the embassy--is violating human rights conventions by not granting Assange safe passage to Ecuador.

Clearly, the Swedish government doesn't give a crap about their fake "rape" case. (That was probably Karl Rove's contribution--smear the guy.) They never wanted to question Assange. They wanted to take custody of Assange. Why? He is not even charged with a crime. Why did they let him leave the country (the first prosecutor told him he could go) and then seek his extradition? Because an extradition warrant guarantees them custody! What jerks they are, to let Assange think that he was cleared and then to go after him in a way that justifies treating him like a criminal, and involves Interpol and the U.K. government and its benighted court system (which is as compromised as our own)! The court looks at the warrant and says, "Take the guy."

He is not charged with any crime. The case against him is flimsy and absurd. He has offered to answer questions and they won't question him. But they "got him"--for avoiding a trumped warrant on a trumped up case. And, as anyone who is not stupid, or playing stupid, should know by now: The point of this entrapment was to get Julian Assange into custody for the crime of journalism!

-------

As for poor Mr. William Hague--he is suffering the fate of "Scooter Libby" apparently. ('Here, let us help you with your sword, sir!') A foreign minister threatens to invade another country's embassy, in writing, without direct orders from the Prime Minister? Come on!