I always thought the values America was founded on
was smacking the Brits upside the head
Julian Assange has revealed himself to the world from the balcony of London's Ecuadorean embassy and made a statement that lays the blame for his predicament on the hypocrisy of the USA. In the statement Assange calls on the USA to “... return to and reaffirm the values it was founded on” and stop pursuing him lest we find …
"was smacking the Brits upside the head"
...What with the help of France, Spain, and the Netherlands you mean?
Amazes me how there's this fallacy about a few American backwoodsmen with squirl rifles fighting off the British Army and Navy, Google the battle of Yorktown and then tell me who supplied the manpower and the navy that defeated the British.
Always strikes me as ungrateful the yanks forget about this when they come up with crap like "Freedom fries" or calling the French cowardly, likelihood was at that time they wouldn't have had self determination in the first place without the help of the French
That the name of one of the generals on the revolutionary side was Gilbert du Motier, marquis de Lafayette is a bit of a give-away.
Being a monarchy, the French were not guided by humanitarian zeal but workign on the principle of "my enemy's enemy is my friend". Bit them on the arse later when the French revolution started.
> "Well it was the also the French who donated the statue of Liberty, innit?"
> To pay for the project, there was fund-raising on both sides of the Atlantic.
The statue was a gift from the French. The Americans had to raise funds for the pedestal to put it on.
And you wonder why the Americans are so fond of their weapons.
It pains me that so many have forgotten their history lessons.
Granted you need to go back to roughly 1750's to start to see the issue, however, if we go back to the last century, we can see that in the 'Great War' the US sent troops and supported the Brits. Then in the second world war, we not only supplied the troops, but also the industrial capacity to bail the Brits out a second time.
Oh and even then during the Falklands... how did the UK's long range bombers get refueled?
The more you know.
Read 'The Nation Takes Shape' to understand a bit more of the 'Amerikan' understanding of our complex relationship.
Oh and the latest UK exports? Posh and Beckham? You can have them back... along with Simon Cowel...
re: Posh, Beckham & Simon :
Well, hot news as released by Wickedleaks : they are likely to be agents working for the Iranian government obtaining key information on how the population and media companies in the US are able to part with their money. Lock them up at Guantánamo indefinitely without trial ; don't send them back to the UK please.
@Ian Michael Gumby
At a cost: The UK have had to pay for the help the US supplied. Not unreasonably, I'd add, but the aid wasn't freely given.
The US were not alone in supporting the UK is fighting the Germans, either. However, it's not a war we fought for personal gain: We fought it to defend our allies (surprisingly, the French!). And since then we've accepted the role of 'speed bump' should the Russians invade (along with the West German army). We'd slow them down so the US can sort itself out and send troops. Why? Because the US has the numbers. However, can you please tell your military to stop shooting our troops? It's bad form, all this blue-on-blue action! And if there is blue-on-blue, don't reward the idiots who shot the British troops, especially when it's proven the shooting was totally uncalled for (known patrol on approved route with correct colours and who call in with correct call signs to request the idiots in the A10's stop shooting at them)...
Oh, and please, don't send those 'celebrities' back. Can't you just... well... send them to Gitmo, please? Call it a celebrity reality show or something! Just... not back here. It took us ages to get rid of them!
First there were the Puritans. (White Trash from Britain who had some strange religious beliefs and were intolerant of others.)
Then you sent your criminals to Australia.
Fast forward to today.. and you dump your has been stars here.
Sorry no, we're not going to take it. You have to take them back.
We already have our quota filled with mindless goobs who make money by being fake reality TV 'stars' .
We would send them to Cuba, however that would be grounds for starting WW III.
There are international laws about dumping toxic trash, and while the US won't enforce them by letting you our great ally, we will not risk war with Cuba.
So please take them back or at least send them to Canada?
Well I see that the UK have banned Snoop Dog and his posse. That's a good first start.
Tell you what. We'll take out Vanilla Ice, if you stop Sasha Baron Cohen from doing his Ali G Character from now on. Also we'll see what we can do about Jamie Kennedy.
See how easy it is to solve a problem once you start to work together?
The more you know...
"Oh and even then during the Falklands... how did the UK's long range bombers get refueled?"
By Victor tankers, which are ours. Launched from Ascension island. Which is also ours. We just rent the runway out to you.
But thanks for the Sidewinders.
Shame it always takes you so long to notice that there's a war on...
"Then in the second world war, we not only supplied the troops, but also the industrial capacity to bail the Brits out a second time".
And made sure you got paid in full, down to the very last penny, the second time. The UK made the final payment about 10 years ago. Incidentally, the USA's insistence on full repayment of WW1 war debts played a possibly decisive part in bringing about WW2. (See, for example, John Maynard Keynes' excellent book "The Economic Consequences of the Peace" http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/15776). Which was also good for America, as with each world war its grip on the world economy grew stronger and its rivals were shattered.
In both WW1 and WW2, the USA followed its own national interests (or rather those of its richest bankers and industrialists) to the exclusion of everything else. The facts are these:
1. The USA remained resolutely neutral for the first 27 months of the war, while Germany conquered Poland, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, The Netherlands, France, Yugoslavia, Greece, and all of the USSR up to the Moscow tramlines. It remained steadfastly neutral through Dunkirk, the Battle of Britain, and the Blitz.
2. The USA never declared war on Germany or Japan until AFTER they had declared war on it. (In other words, the American declaration of war on Germany was a PR stunt, designed so later they could say "when we declared war on Germany...") As we know, Japan declared war shortly after the attack on Pearl Harbor. A week later, Hitler personally declared war on the USA - and that is how it wound up as our ally. Britain declared war on Germany because it invaded Poland. But the USA waited until Germany declared war on it, when it no longer had any choice.
Ironically enough, ever since its failure to tackle Hitler (a very dangerous enemy), the USA has been throwing its weight around, attacking weaker countries that have no chance of defending themselves successfully - usually without a declaration of war, as in the cases of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya.
"Which was also good for America, as with each world war its grip on the world economy grew stronger and its rivals were shattered."
Sealed at Bretton Woods, :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretton_Woods_system
"Yet, U.S. officials were determined to open their access to the British empire. The combined value of British and U.S. trade was well over half of all the world's trade in goods. For the U.S. to open global markets, it first had to split the British (trade) empire. While Britain had economically dominated the 19th century, U.S. officials intended the second half of the 20th to be under U.S. hegemony.[6]
A Senior Official of the Bank of England commented:
One of the reasons Bretton Woods worked was that the US was clearly the most powerful country at the table and so ultimately was able to impose its will on the others, including an often-dismayed Britain. At the time, one senior official at the Bank of England described the deal reached at Bretton Woods as “the greatest blow to Britain next to the war”, largely because it underlined the way in which financial power had moved from the UK to the US.
A devastated Britain had little choice. Two world wars had destroyed the country's principal industries that paid for the importation of half of the nation's food and nearly all its raw materials except coal. The British had no choice but to ask for aid. Not until the United States signed an agreement on December 6, 1945 to grant Britain aid of $4.4 billion did the British Parliament ratify the Bretton Woods Agreements (which occurred later in December 1945).[8]"
"The USA remained resolutely neutral for the first 27 months of the war"
Whilst this is true, it is also true that FDR could not find a way to go to war without mobilising substantial internal opposition. At the same time the US still regarded the UK as an imperial power (which it was, although limping from WWI), and as such anathema. There is a certain irony in the fact that the US is now a form of imperial power, good or bad. Don't we should not expect better of any state, historical or modern. We are slowly changing things and overturning the madness of history (for example, after WWII we appeared to learn the lesson that Lloyd-George saw the French had not after WWI) and did not inflict penurious reparations on the Germans. Indeed, the Berlin airlift changed their opinions of us.
History is a complex subject for study. I reckon.
Very complex subject history
On one hand the US wanted a post war Germany (part of it) as a buffer against the Soviet horde, and on the other it took any top talent that had been involved in weapons development and shipped it to the States.
The US ended lend-lease suddenly when Britain was still on a war-footing regarding its industry, but was prepared to adavance money to rebuild the european economies on the right side of the line. But that did mean the now free peoples of Europe could buy American supplies.
I think you need to take a look at US History during the 30's and try to understand that there was a large political faction that wanted the US to be isolationists. Let the rest of the world fight it out and we just stay home and bury our head in the dirt.
There were also Nazi sympathizers here too. Being the 'melting pot' has its negatives too.
Some would even postulate that the US knew about Pearl Harbor before the attack and let it happen so that we would have an excuse to enter the war.
There's a lot to the history that people seem to forget.
And of course you seem to also forget things like the Marshal plan and the fact that at Casablanca and later at Potsdam the cold war was set in motion.
But then again, maybe you're right. We're just a bunch of dumb Americans where a percentage of the population think the Holocaust was a lie. ( I don't. My father was 14th Armored, 3rd Army but you get the point)
And Ironically had some of our politicians remembered WW II and early post War Germany, lots of mistakes wouldn't have happened in Iraq.
The question I'd like answered is, as I've raised here before: if the US hadn't entered the war, and we'd been almost-inevitably defeated by Nazi Germany, what was the USA's game plan? Do business with Nazi Europe-Africa-Orient, as it continued murdering the long list of peoples it made such a conscientious start on? And if we consider it likely that having 'won', such a regime would not have called it a day but would have turned it's attention to the Americas and, indeed, the entire world, what would the US have done at that point? Who would have got the Bomb first? Neutral USA or that nation producing ICBMs, cruise missiles, jet fighters and so on, who at that point would be having a much more relaxed time of it, would have had their Norwegian heavy water, along with rather more Uranium, intact infrastructure, riches, and slave labour?
Seems to me there's a case for seeing Britain as having saved the US's bacon by holding out until it got off it's donkey.
> "...we'd been almost-inevitably defeated by Nazi Germany..."
That's far from necessarily true.
The war against the Nazis was quite well advanced for the Allies at the time of the entry of the US. In truth, we were just very lucky. The Germans made some critical mistakes towards the end combined with crucial intelligence at the right time.
Don't forget also that US soldiers were helping the war effort before they entered the war full pelt.
Actually in American schools it is well taught that the French and certain groups of native Americans help. The people that forget this are the same folks that want to take women's rights away. Not all AMericans are that way. Just a certain political party.
"Actually in American schools it is well taught that the French and certain groups of native Americans help. The people that forget this are the same folks that want to take women's rights away. Not all AMericans are that way. Just a certain political party."
That's ok, don't think we consider all Americans to be idiots, we just dislike the "America can do no wrong", "right to bear arms", "we saved your ass in 2 world wars", Fox News loving History Channel watching, American Revolution revisionists types we get on these boards, the kind who believes Stephen Spielberg and John Wayne's version of World War 2 in Europe.
It's nice to meet an American with a balanced view of history, but can you ban the other guys from using the internet?
"Assange: Leave me alone!"
To me it sounded to me more like:
"Hey, look over here, free speech and Wikileaks and err... Merning... yeah him... shit: I mean Manning! We must never forget about him*! Aaaannndddd... shiny things over here, look over here and forget why I'm standing here. (PS: Don't mention rapes or bail jumping)."
It was just diversionary crap. Remind me to talk about war-crimes next time I'm in court for a speeding ticket. I'm sure that'll make everyone forget about what I did, too.
*What was it Wikileaks finally coughed up for his defence fund? $30,000 for the guy who gave them the story. Now ponder how much Assange's lawyers have cost, to date. And how much people have put on the line for him.
Looking at the American election you have to wonder if anyone does value the truth these days. Every time I think Romney/Ryan have reached a limit, they surprise me with some bigger lie, and their campaign hasn't imploded yet...
However, assuming that the truth has value and that people want to know it, then I think the strategy of targeting Assange so aggressively may not be a good idea. Yes, they are cowing almost all of the professional journalists, but most of them started as cowards and went downhill from there. Unfortunately, the truth is still out there, and if the professional journalists won't pursue it, that just creates more opportunities for the amateur journalists. The problem for the liars and truth-concealers is that the motivations of the amateurs are much more mixed. If you have a small number of professionals working for money, you can also focus your countermeasures.
In contrast, if you have a LARGE number of amateurs flying off on many dimensions, it's going to make things much messier. One guy might be motivated by fame, another by notoriety, another by his personal position on the issue, another by something that happened to a family member, and on and on. The truth is still there, but the amateurs aren't going to have the same kinds of patterns in how they look for it or even stumble across it...
Insofar as I'm an optimist who thinks that things get better on the long-term average, maybe this prosecution of Assange will work out well enough.
"The simple fact that there are normal people in the world who could vote for them rather than heading for the hills as they approach is, to me, a cause of pessimism."
I went to a surprisingly evangelical CoE service in the UK yesterday for the first time and was more depressed by a) the volume of people there and b) the vehement agreement they had with the sentiment from the priest in that we shouldn't worry about this life as it's all a charade and preparing us for the next life. With that attitude, it rather explains a lot of voter's behaviours.
Except that the New Testament tells them to behave nicely to their neighbours while waiting for the next life (one of the few very clear directives in the Gospels) and Palin, Santorum, Bachmann and co. are not at all in favour of behaving nicely to your neighbours. Quite the reverse. I won't repeat the entire joke I was once told in Kentucky here, but the punchline is "Ten minutes a Republican and already I'm screwing someone."
But then, there was that study in the US which revealed that something like 40% of American Catholics and Protestants interviewed didn't even know the core tenets of their own religions; indeed the atheists scored higher than either of them.
"But then, there was that study in the US which revealed that something like 40% of American Catholics and Protestants interviewed didn't even know the core tenets of their own religions; indeed the atheists scored higher than either of them".
That's why they are atheists.
"...the vehement agreement they had with the sentiment from the priest in that we shouldn't worry about this life as it's all a charade and preparing us for the next life".
A belief that has always been strongly encouraged - in the weak and poor - by the rich and powerful.
Judging by a lot of the comments here, I would say "not so much". Many people apparently prefer to slumber on peacefully, comfortably assuming that "the gummint knows best". If presented with strong evidence that the government is cheating, lying, and committing murder, they shoot the messenger. In this case, Assange.
"I think the strategy of targeting Assange so aggressively may not be a good idea."
Huh? What? Where?
Julian is the one who jumped bail and ran to an embassy. Julian is the guy who had sex with a woman while she was asleep. Julian is the guy who is refusing to even co-operate and answer to the accusations in Sweden. Julian is the guy who says it's all a massive plot to get him (which is no surprise, because he's been paranoid since before the State Department had ever even heard of him).
America has issued no warrants for him. America has not charged him. America has not asked for extradition.
How is that "aggressively targeting Assange?" Can you please explain it, because I'm clearly being a bit slow here.
All I'm seeing is a bail jumping possible-rapist trying to draw our attention away from the fact.
"Except that it was honeytrap setup by the Yanks to get him eventually . Of course they are not gonna publicise this setup beforehand, isnt it?"
Even if it was (and you have no evidence of that, just a keenness for conspiracy. Can I interest you in buying a book about an invisible guy who knows everything? Lack of evidence is not evidence in itself), honey traps aren't traps UNLESS YOU TAKE THE HONEY.
If you set most people up in a sting operation where to act illegally would be taking the bait you don't HAVE to act illegally. You do that to yourself. If you get caught with your hand in the cookie jar, it's not the fault of the person who left the lid off; even if they left the lid off on purpose.
Or in this case DIDDLE the honey.
"Is there actually a market for the truth?"
.
"In Dublin's fair city,
Where the girls are so pretty,
I first set my eyes on sweet Molly Malone,
As she wheeled her wheel-barrow,
Through streets broad and narrow,
Crying, "Cock Ups and Hussles, alive, alive, oh!"
.
Yep, there's a market for the truth. Two for a penny.
And if you want to diddle Molly, well, that's extra.
This post has been deleted by its author
He knows it, why do you think he's resisting so hard. The best thing the US could do is wait until he's in Sweden, and say "Assange who? yawwwn".
Assange isn't a whistleblower, he's a narcissistic self-important tit who thinks that giving away other people's information is clever and makes him special. We should do what we do with any spoilt child, and just ignore him.
Nah - a celebrity has never been a great actor/author - they are famous.
Celebrities are, and have always been, people who are well known for being....well known (And usually spend most of their free time cutting ribbons with oversized scissors). People who are famous are famous FOR something..i.e. you are a famous xxxx.
[although these day the proles of this world are so interested in reading about celebrities that we are starting to get people who are 'famous celebrities'!]
Someone gave away secret information to Churchill before WW2 that demonstrated the Nazis were re-arming. Churchill was not in Government at the time as so had no legal access to the information. As a result we knew what Germany was up to and could prepare for WW2.
Someone sent our MPs expenses to the media and as a result we found out what a bunch of cheating, devious, greedy people we have in our parliament.
So is leaking information always wrong?
"So is leaking information always wrong?"
I'm not sure how you've got to "Assange is an arrogant, rapey twat" (I'm paraphrasing slightly...) to "You're saying leaking any information is wrong."
Wikileaks did some great things. Don't confuse that with avoiding questioning for rape. The two are different issues. It's just that Julian is trying to convince us that they aren't.
I think if you review your history, while Churchill wasn't the PM he was still in politics.
But that's a different issue.
With respect to leaks....
Iraq actually leaked that they did have WMDs. Saddam admitted to it in the time before they strung him up. He did it to keep Iran at bay and didn't think the Americans were to gullible. For those who don't remember, Both Iran and Iraq lost generations in that war.
The interesting thing about leaks. All political entities leak information. Sometimes intentional. Its what you do with those leaks. In your example, they got to the right hands. BTW... here's a shocker. Everybody knew what was going to happen. They either lacked the proof or the desire to show their own hand. Remember what happened a couple of decades earlier. The leaks provided that proof.
The leaks themselves aren't the issue, its what you do with them and how you get them.
A whistle blower is usually someone who has legitimate access to the material taken. Manning didn't.
And to your point... leaking always wrong? No. Wikileaks? Yes. Which is why his early cohorts left and started their own site.
It shouldn't be too difficult . If this was a spy novel, they'd shove him in a large box labelled 'diplomatic bag' in the back of an Embassy van (with some make-up, dyed hair, and a diplomatic passport in a new name) and go for a nice long drive down the M4 (and possibly switch vans in a dark tunnel somewhere) and then take the ferry from Fishguard to Ireland, then hop on a plane to somewhere where he can get a direct flight to South America.
And if need be send a few empty test vans out with suspicious large boxes first, just to tempt the Theresa May's little helpers into violating diplomatic immunity and searching them.
"And if need be send a few empty test vans out with suspicious large boxes first, just to tempt the Theresa May's little helpers into violating diplomatic immunity and searching them."
They could be fairly legitimately stopped. Diplomatic Bags are for diplomatic *documents*, as stated in Convention.
As for getting Assange out of the country... do you really think he could go that long without having to open his fat gob and whore himself to the media at some point?
I hate to tell you this (no, I don't, I'm delighted to be able to correct you) but one of the core beliefs of the Quakers is "Speak truth to power". Whatever Assange's faults may be, Wikileaks has helped to expose just what an unpleasant country the United States is in its dealings with the rest of the world. I am not saying the UK, France or China (say) are any better, merely pointing out that he has helped to puncture the American hypocrisy balloon. George Fox, the founder of the Society of Friends, would probably approve.
Witch hunts are bad not because there aren't any witches, but because of collateral damage - the assumption of guilt until proven innocent (and often no genuine way of proving innocence).
Hence we use the term for things that really exist.. murderers, rapists, communists, etc. because it's a bad thing.. we have a legal system for these things, and in a civilised society we should be using them so that when the innocent are accused they are protected*
* Not that the system is perfect, but it's a damned sight better than the alternatives.
There's always the possibility that this 18 month old circus is just a highly publicized and very serious digital deterrent, designed to keep other low level government employees from pulling a Manning/Assange.
No, they are not concerned about the 250,000 cables at Wikileaks now. Yes, they are concerned about what's in the pipe line right now. Something top secret and so explosive it could bring down on our heads everything we hold precious about civilization.
I think I know what it is, but it is far too pessimistic to yammer about on a forum. And, believe me, you are much better off not knowing. I've already said too much.
Is this not about the charges for alleged rape? He did that speech yesterday about ending the witch hunt and all this other pap as Wiki-leaks should be kept free when really the only reason Sweden want him is because he is supposed to have had a 'struggle snuggle' with someone over there. It baffles me how people are so fast to either decide its a US conspiracy to get him out so they can arrest him. Or that if he is so innocent he wont just stand in front of a Swedish court with his head high and say prove it. The speech about the witch hunt and free all the other wiki-leaks founders / employees is irrelevant at this stage. He should just grow a pair or stop shoving it in randoms without their permission.
Mr Arseange may well be an encrypted crusader fighting for the truth and downtrodden everywhere, violating the secrecy of evil governments that abuse their citizens and partners; but two downtrodden women in Sweden have the right to know that the law will fight for them and expose the truth of whether they were or were not violated though raped/assault.
Rape ruins the lives of millions of women, and is the most common abuse of power: Mr Arseange should reflect on the damage he does to his mission, and comply with those laws created to protect individuals from abuse by the powerful. We like to say “the innocent have nothing to fear”, but with burden of proof in a just society he might well “get off” even if he’s guilty.
Mr Arseange is right in one respect though, his life (as a convicted rapist) would be ruined.. the truth’s like that.. tough.
Yep, you blow away the smoke, hyperbole, and wingnut theories, and that's what you're left with: a bail-jumping [alledged] sex offender. It's f*cking Sweden, for chrisskes, one of the most socially responsible, democratic and liberal countries in the world.
It's not like he's being extradited to an oppressive regime which crushes dissent on a regular basis. Like, oooh, Ecuador, for example...
Sweden....'one of the most socially responsible, democratic and liberal countries in the world'.
Yep. All of the above. So liberal that they kept steralising mentally ill people (and those with learning disabilities etc.) into the 70s and even early 80s. Don't think Sweden is above criticism.....they're not. They've done some pretty terrible things very recently as the above shows, so they're no better than any other western country.
1. "Very recently". Bollocks, that's thirty years ago. The BBC was still showing the Black and White Minstrel Show until 1978, which gives you an idea of how things have moved on.
2. Reporters Without Borders think Sweden has the 12th most free press in the world. Ecuador is 104th, just below Chad. That's the 2011 list, which does qualify as "very recently". Nice bedfelllows Julian has picked.
@FartingHippo.
"1. "Very recently". Bollocks, that's thirty years ago. The BBC was still showing the Black and White Minstrel Show until 1978, which gives you an idea of how things have moved on.
2. Reporters Without Borders think Sweden has the 12th most free press in the world. Ecuador is 104th, just below Chad. That's the 2011 list, which does qualify as "very recently". Nice bedfelllows Julian has picked."
OK. You think 30 years is a long time. Fair enough. Let's try something right up to date then.....
Sweden currently (as of early 2012) forces anyone transgender to be steralised!! They're just trying to repeal it now. Is that really the type of liberal, blah, blah, blah country we're talking about? Seems rather barbaric to me. Why should transgender people be steralised simply because of what they are? Most other countries (certainly decent ones) have no repealed all such laws, although a few do exist.
"Why should transgender people be steralised simply because of what they are?"
This question, while a complete and utter tangent, intrigues me.
Firstly, I would appreciate a citation of the appropriate legislation rather than a simple assertion.
Secondly, sterilisation is rather part and parcel of the normal treatment of the transgendered. Once a transgendered man has taken enough testosterone to knock their ovaries for six, or a transgendered woman has taken enough oestrogen to have noticeable effects on her body then they're effectively sterile anyway. This is before any surgical intervention, such as hysterectomy or orchidectomy, is taken, after which sterility is pretty much guaranteed. Where does governmental coercion come in?
@Anonymous Coward.
This isn't really at a tangent as people were claiming Sweden was such a liberal etc. country and therefore saying what could anyone have to fear from them.........
However, the citation is below and clearly says that anyone seeking transgender surgery etc. must be sterialised beforehand. There are various other locations as well, just look up sweden, forced and steralisation.
http://feministing.com/2012/01/17/sweden-keeps-forced-sterilization-law-for-trans-people/
"However, the citation is below and clearly says that anyone seeking transgender surgery etc. must be sterialised beforehand. There are various other locations as well, just look up sweden, forced and steralisation.
http://feministing.com/2012/01/17/sweden-keeps-forced-sterilization-law-for-trans-people/"
First of all this is not a citation as is expected in the legal/academic sense. It is a website run by people with issues to exploit.
Second, the crucial paragraph:
"Members of the Swedish government have announced they will not change the current law requesting transgender people to undergo sterilisation."
Request does not equal force so, even using a hooky site, you have failed miserably.
"Sweden currently (as of early 2012) forces anyone transgender to be steralised!!"
Citation? The onus is on you to produce supporting data; as you search for them remember that state treatment of people, including forcible sterilisation, is on the EU no-no list, and causes hissing and spitting matches in the EU.
"Mr Arseange may well be an encrypted crusader fighting for the truth and downtrodden everywhere, violating the secrecy of evil governments..."
If he were, he'd go to Sweden and see if he's extradited; martyring himself to show that there really was a massive conspiracy and showing the US for what they are.
He ain't. That just makes him a snivelling littlw shit, trying to obfuscate the issue and get away with rape and bail jumping.
Re extradition to a third country: Because they can't.
Take a fictitious example: In the future, while Assange is serving time in a Swedish jail for rape, a third comes along with incontrovertible evidence that he murdered somebody while travelling through that place. What then? Giving cast iron guarantees not to extradite people on charges that have not been laid is child's speak.
Re: uphold EU rules? What EU rules? The EU has nothing to do with this.
The European Union has no legal structure that applies. If however, you mean the European Convention on Human Rights, as upheld by the European Court, that's different. The Swedes do not need to make any undertaking as it is enshrined in The ECHR and local laws. He cannot be extradited from any signatory country to the ECHR to any country where capital punishment is a possibility. He lawyers would jump on it like a ton of bricks and would win.....and he knows it. So getting an undertaking means nothing - it's already there, in law.
Understand now?
"He cannot be extradited from any signatory country to the ECHR to any country where capital punishment is a possibility."
So McKinnon can't be extradited to the US then...nice to know.
An if the US say "we won't kill him - just give him 60 years in jail" what then?
"He cannot be extradited from any signatory country to the ECHR to any country where capital punishment is a possibility."
This is totally wrong. All the country has to do is guarantee not to execute the person. So, the fact the country has capital punishment is not relevant. They simply have to agree not to use it against the person. Of course, in practical terms, this is a bit irrelevant. I don't know what the difference is between being executed and jail terms of 50 years upwards. Amounts to the same if you ask me, so the ECHR seems somewhat pointless in this regard. Indeed, some would argue that 50 years in prison is worse than execution.
" "He cannot be extradited from any signatory country to the ECHR to any country where capital punishment is a possibility."
So McKinnon can't be extradited to the US then...nice to know."
McKinnon will not be subject to those rules, which are mostly state rules, and only a few states use judicial murder as a 'punishment'.
"He cannot be extradited from any signatory country to the ECHR to any country where capital punishment is a possibility." -- well, that's half-right. He cannot be legally extradited to any hanging country.
But if he was illegally extradited, he would not be the first or the last .....
Question: Why haven't the US authorities tried to pick him up in the UK? Our government is even more likely than the Swedes to bend over for the Americans.
Question: Why haven't the US authorities tried to pick him up in the UK? Our government is even more likely than the Swedes to bend over for the Americans.
I really wish people would stop pointing this out, since it brings the entire Assange circus crashing to the ground. Can't somebody at least try to pretend the US have asked ?
"Question: Why haven't the US authorities tried to pick him up in the UK? Our government is even more likely than the Swedes to bend over for the Americans."
That would mean we stood up to the USians in the last 72 years, which, clearly, has not yet been the case - Blighty simply is an inflatable sex toy to the US.
Besides, I think since they cannot really trial him in a court in the US as they have absolutely no ground to stand on, they wanna kidnap him Guantanamo-style ...
"That would mean we stood up to the USians in the last 72 years, which, clearly, has not yet been the case - Blighty simply is an inflatable sex toy to the US.".
...and people claim that history is still taught in the UK: Harold Wilson refused to participate in Vietnam to both US and Australian ire. One of the few good things he did, along with announcing the end of (most) rationing, in 1953.
...if Assange really did care about the future of Wikileaks, he could always hand over the reins to someone else and distance himself from the initiative until this whole debacle has been resolved. I have a feeling that his ego might not necessarily allow that to happen. So WL continues to be mired in the murky morass that is Assange's personal life. Personally I would think that if the State (choose whichever one you like best) wanted to tar and feather him they should have just planted some kiddie porn on his machine - this normally ensures enough hysteria to make someone disappear for good (unless that person is Gary Glitter of course).
Always gets me when people group Bradley Manning and Assange.
Bradley Manning signed the US equivalent of the official secrets acts and swore an oath to his country. He therefore should be prosecuted if he has revealed state secrets. Having said that, I do believe he has been grossly mis-treated while is custody.
Julian Assange published the stolen documents - he is not a US citizen and has not signed any oath to that country and therefore should not be subject to criminal charges - Bradley Manning committed the crime of stealing the documents. The most he could be pinned with is paying Manning to steal the documents - even then, I don't believe Manning was financially motivated.
Having said all the above - why won't the sniveling, self publicizing weasel have the guts to face up to his crimes. The ECHR prevents Sweden from extraditing him, unless he is to face a fair trial under the US justice system. I don't see the Us shooting themselves in the foot by trying to place him somewhere like Guantanamo (although their ability to harm their own appendages never ceases to amaze me). If they tried, I don't see either the UK or Swedish government allowing extradition - the backlash from their own people would be too strong - quite apart from the kicking from the ECHR.
have just given him a "nudge" off the balcony?
Should work - he's "outside" the UK so no worries about Health & Safety :). The problem is his landing, as he'd return to UK territory at that instant you'll have polluted the environment as he' not reputed to be all that focused on personal hygiene (having said that, I don't know if that is really true or an attempt to "smear" him, if you pardon the unintentional pun).
America was founded on fundamental religion, it's just that the religion in question told them to 'treat their slaves well' - which is implies slavery is A-OK.
If you want to watch somebody squirm - next time you have a pair of bible bashers at the door, ask them to explain Ephesians 6:9 or Colossians 4:1 - especially if either of them are black.
The Puritants (not Quakers) who left England to found colonies in the Americas did so because they wanted the freedom to oppressively force other people to live their lives how they told them to. Is /that/ what Assange is called on the USA to do? Because they seem to be doing quite well on their own without any prompting.
The Quakers who came along to America later were actually hounded out of town by the Puritans, resulting in William Penn obtaining a charter to found Pensylvania, founded on the Quaker principles of letting people live their own lives without forcing your own values on other people.
Correct. And they were more than hounded out of town: some of them were executed for being Quakers.
The United States was, quite simply, founded by, mostly, some pretty ghastly people. Their descendants are still around the place, telling my nephews they will go to Hell for being Jewish, passing laws against the teaching of evolution, shooting staff at abortion clinics and demanding the freedom of speech to preach intolerance and hatred.
The amazing thing is that the sensible Americans are a majority, but never seem able to get their act together and send the present day Pilgrim Fathers off to establish a colony somewhere else - Antarctica?
We were minding our own business bothering nobody, then the Romans, Vikings and Normans totally remade the nation into a world-beater.
So when you really get down to it.... All of this nastiness falls on Italy and Sweden's feet.
Or we could just say that the US and Australia are grown up now and can take responsibilty for themselves :)
Sweden? My ancestors came here from Norway. And I can't answer all the questions in the British Citizenship Test, so all that history and geography at school, not to mention what they tried to teach me at university, was obviously wasted.
I'm just a teensy bit worried I'm going to be sent back where I came from. Probably north of the Arctic Circle.
"Britain heal thy self. ;-)"
Oh but we did! We sent many of our convicts to the US! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_transportation
"Having said that... didn't they dump all of their criminals in Australia too?"
You see? "That's what I'm talkin' about!" ;-)
Hey, about the rent you owe us....... :-)
How will he get to Ecuador? Basically he won't.
Assange doesn't have any real option of escape now.
Diplomatic bag/crate? Just hold it up at some point on its journey without opening it, eventually he will have to leave it to attend his "biological needs".
The Helicopter option you mentioned will pass through UK airspace and could easily be forced to land on UK soil.
Assange is effectively being sought by two different countries:-
Sweden. This is for something they call rape, but which most other countries don't even acknowledge as a crime. However, it is a crime in Sweden, so let's treat it as such. Many on here are saying its a 'serious' offence. Interestingly, in normal circumstances, it's so serious in Sweden that it's normally dealt with as a fine. Now, in Assanges case, it might be more due to the fuss and efforts getting him back etc. However, if you judge it by the normal penalty, it's far from serious. Secondly, there are grave doubts about Sweden following due process (similar to NZ under USA duress) and also about the credability to the victims. However, that's for a court to decide. If extradition is sought, it's normally for serious crimes only, usually resulting in prison time (not normally applicable in this case). So, extradition seems a bit strong.
USA. Depending on who speaks last, he's wanted for just about any crime that fits the general title of 'p**sing off Uncle Sam'. Terrorism, treason, you name it, they've all been thrown around. The fact that he didn't commit the crime (if he's even guilty of one) in the USA is besides the point there. They've even got people trying to find crimes to lay against him, a secret grand jury and even more trying to create laws against him. Interestingly, Britain also has laws protecting whistleblowers. General for cases involving business, but not necessarily. They are supposed to protect people that expose criminal behaviour. So, if his leaks have exposed criminal behaviour (and I think it's fair to say some did), then he should be protected according to British law. If his leaks didn't expose anything criminal (and some say they exposed nothing), then why are the USA trying to get their hands on him so much?
All in all, it doesn't really make much sense. Why are the Swedish trying so hard to get him back on something that is considered a relatively trivial matter? The charge is not going to be rape in the British sense of the word. The victims have changed their story several times and are now suggesting they didn't consent, but not originally. Their credability seems dubious at best. The Swedish authorities actions are also dubious. They haven't followed procedure at times, told him he had nothing to answer and then went after him. Odd to say the least. The USA, well enough said. That is simple persecution. Bradley Manning may have committed a crime of treason in the USA, but Assange has not broken UK or Swedish law with his leaks. So, what's going on there.
If you look at it all, it's beginning to look like everyone is trying too hard to get him and that is effectively persecution. Persecution is treating someone differently and they seem to be treating him differently.
b.t.w.
Sweden has the extradition agreement with the rest of Europe (EAW) and an extradition agreement with the USA. Neither has priority over the other. So, they can get someone using an EAW and then send them to the USA under the other WITHOUT asking for the UKs permission. The only repercussion will be countries thinking twice about extraditing to them under EAW as they have broken it once. Whilst the EAW REQUIRES them to seek the UKs permission, that doesn't mean they will. Also, who's to say the UK won't say yes?
Anonymous Coward 101.
""Sweden. This is for something they call rape, but which most other countries don't even acknowledge as a crime."
10 million words, and totally wrong from the outset."
Most countries (I believe nobody else does) don't have the equivalent crime. The Swedes sort of call it rape, but given that it doesn't exist elsewhere, it's a bit difficult to translate directly.
Rather than just insult, why don't you say what's wrong with the comment. That's the basis of discussion.
"Sweden. This is for something they call rape, but which most other countries don't even acknowledge as a crime. However, it is a crime in Sweden, so let's treat it as such."
No, no. Let's see what the UK courts have said on the matter ( http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/assange-summary.pdf ), rather than attaching any value to your views:
"The Court considered the issue of dual criminality in relation to Offences 1 - 3 and ruled that dual criminality was satisfied in each. (paras 70 - 103)
The Court rejected Mr Assange’s contention that under the law of England and Wales consent to sexual intercourse on condition a condom was used was remained consent to sexual intercourse even if a condom was not used or removed. (paras 86-91)
The Court considered the issue of Offence 4 and ruled that the conduct described in the EAW was fairly and accurately reported. The President of the Queen's Bench Division concluded:
"It is quite clear that the gravamen of the offence described is that Mr Assange had sexual intercourse with her without a condom and that she had only been prepared to consent to sexual intercourse with a condom. The description of the conduct makes clear that he consummated sexual intercourse when she was asleep and that she had insisted upon him wearing a condom. ...... it is difficult to see how a person could reasonably have believed in consent if the complaint alleges a state of sleep or half sleep, and secondly it avers that consent would not have been given without a condom. There is nothing in the statement from which it could be inferred that he reasonably expected that she would have consented to sex without a condom." (para 124)
The court went on to say:
"It is clear that the allegation is that he had sexual intercourse with her when she was not in a position to consent and so he could not have had any reasonable belief that she did." (para 126)
The Court ruled that Mr Assange's objections raised in relation to Offence 4 fail. (paras 104 - 127)"
"Sweden. This is for something they call rape, "
I stopped reading about here. The rest might even have been valid. Who knows.
Just because you don't agree with another country's laws, it doesn't mean that they don't count.
Especially when a guest in that country.
You also missed 3) UK: For bail jumping. I don't think we can argue about his innocence there. Yay: We agree!
from the site : http://www.thelocal.se/search.php?keywordSearch=assange
"Swedish police reports filled with graphic details of the allegations leaked onto the Internet last week.
The police documents, viewed by AFP, contain the statement of the alleged rape victim alleging that Assange forced himself on her, without wearing a condom, while she was asleep.
The woman, identified only as Miss W, said she had had consensual sex with Assange earlier in the evening and had then fallen asleep with him, only "to wake up because he has forced himself inside of her," the report said.
"'She asked immediately: are you wearing anything?' and he answered 'you'," it added. "She told him 'You better not have HIV,' and he answered 'Of course not.'"
After that, Miss W. [b]allowed the intercourse to continue.[/b]
The faxed documents also include a forensic report on the condom used during a sexual encounter with Assange's other alleged victim, Miss A, who [b]accused him of having deliberately broken the prophylactic.[b]
The report says the [b]condom had not been cut with scissors or a knife.[/b]"
Neither of these women sound like they have been raped by any meaningful definition. In fact, people continuing to use the word are doing a dis-service to real rape victims everywhere.
The info above is from the police report remember.
@Sir Runcible Spoon
Indeed so. If you read the various police reports, both women effectively accept the sex was consensual, they never told him to stop or anything. One accuses him of deliberately breaking a condom, although isn't specific as to how, but as you say, no cutting implements etc. were involved according to forensics. The other continues with sex after he says he hasn't got HIV.
As I've stated earlier, this doesn't seem to constitute rape anywhere and I suspect the issue is more around how the press have attempted to explain the Swedish crime in countries where such a crime doesn't exist. They've gone for something near, but far worse, rather than something near and a little less serious. In other words, as journalists do, they've hyped the charge up for better reading. However, if you were the accused with a persecution complex, wouldn't you find that somewhat worrying? Maybe the press using sensational reporting is one of the reasons he doesn't want to go back?
He is accused of having sex with a woman while she was asleep, knowing she would not have consented had she been awake. That is considered rape in the UK. The point was addressed when the validity of the extradition request was challenged, and the British judge confirmed it. To claim otherwise is ignorance of the facts.
Personally I doubt he'll be convicted, but he still needs to return to Sweden to be exonerated.
@Brangdon.
But the police records say she did consent when awake!! Whether she would have consented when aware of not and what his belief on the status of her consent was, is irrelevant. In the UK, you have to effectively get consent before starting. This might be verbal, but could also be other things. If the person is asleep, they cannot give any consent due to being asleep and incapable of giving you a sign.
However, this is not the Swedish case. The Swedish case is that she accepted the sex was consensual until he refused to have a test after not using a condom, which she was aware of when having the sex. So, it's not really the same thing.
"Neither of these women sound like they have been raped by any meaningful definition. In fact, people continuing to use the word are doing a dis-service to real rape victims everywhere."
Sounds reasonable to me. Now it's so cut and dried, Assange will love to have his hour in court to clear his name...
Many people seem not to be aware of how the U.S. has been (re)defining terrorism over the last decade. It now includes all "acts dangerous to human life" and not just "acts" of "threads" of violence. (sources: USA PATRIOT Act and Title 18 of the United States Code).
Since the US Government has repeatedly claimed that Wikileaks publications are a major thread to not only security but also human life, it means that anti-terror regulation will be definitely in full swing by now but not telling you that is is (source: State Department legal letter to Wikileaks lawyer at November 27, 2010 : "place at risk the lives of countless innocent individuals" , "place at risk on-going military operations," and "place at risk on-going cooperation between countries.")
Since Wikileaks according to US definitions can be treated as terrorist organization all actions by the government, all possible indictments, agreements, or international requests will be covert and sealed. Imprisoning and questioning of Assange will be outside normal juridical scope, like the case of Manning (not just because he was in the military). A few years ago they might have picked him up from the streets of Sweden or England but since most of those rendition secrets have leaked or are in the process of leaking that trick has been suspended for now because of potential political damages.
Assange is smart in terms of self-preservation to do whatever it takes to avoid extradition or even any remote chance to be extradited in the near future. He could not take the risk to go to Sweden over a minor offense, if it happened or not. His only protection is his celebrity status and developing further his conceptual battle against bloated government secrecy, the war on terror, and the principle of preemptive acts of aggression (the latter two being steeped in secrecy to work as well).
From his speech: "On Wednesday night, after a threat was sent to this embassy and the police descended on the building, you came out in the middle of the night to watch over it and you brought the world's eyes with you. Inside the embassy, after dark, I could hear teams of police swarming up into the building through the internal fire escape. But I knew that there would be witnesses. And that is because of you. If the UK did not throw away the Vienna Convention the other night that is because the world was watching. And the world was watching because you were watching."
If he truly believes that (a) the UK was about to raid the embassy; and (b) that we only stopped because there were more witnesses than usual: he is out of touch with reality. And if he said that without believing it, then (by definition) he's lying.
I wonder what Ecuador hopes to achieve by supporting him? They are using him to wind up the Americans, and now us. I guess it makes them look good in their local South American politics.
I suppose you live just opposite the embassy and could clearly see no police entering the building from any side at that very moment ... Ecuador have a lot to win, they are, like other American states, oppressed politically and economically from the crazy USians, who usually take the decision on who is allowed to govern which country through petro-dollars or CIA intervention.
As for the poor Swedish woman, has she taken an HIV test? Is it negative? If the answer to both questions is yes, what is all this fuss about?
By principle, you usually do not extradite people for minor offenses (especially if it is just for a fine - you send the bloke the fine, period) and you certainly do not do it if the other state is demanding extradition on a basis that does not constitute an offense in the state he is in. That the judge took a tangent and apparently re-interpreted the extradition request without taking the local Swedish case into account strikes me somewhat - IANAL, my wife is ... ;-)
I mean the Swedish chicks who happily invited Assange for a romp and then decided to "get him" upon US pressure?
No photos, interviews, Media exposure of their suffering, needing prozac to banish their nightmares?
Cant they just come forward and meet up with Julian in London?
Stinks of a setup.
"Stinks of a setup."
Yeah... totally... If I'd been raped and humiliated, I'd just be loving every column inch, photo opportunity and chance to meet my molester that I could get.
You don't think that perhaps Occam's Razor dictates that if it WERE a set-up that they'd likewise be manipulating the media in the manner you dictate because it would turn public opinion, and because they wouldn't be emotionally upset by it.
The point you are trying to illustrate by all sensible analysis results in the opposite conclusion.
The 'Ecuadorian Embassy' is allegedly a 3 bedroom flat within the building. The rest is British territory. With Assange's, also alleged, reluctance to wash and use deodorant, it must be getting a bit steamy in there. I wonder whether he realised this before he chose to hide in the embassy of this model democracy?
This whole story is pretty simple, his case was dropped & closed, then few weeks later the case was re-opened.
What is wrong with you ? Can't you smell fishy cases or what ?
Besides, the fact he engaged in sexual intercourse with a woman while she was sleeping is not the problem, the problem was, apparently, that he was not wearing a condom. One female Swedish judge dropped the case - in 99.9% of cases this means you can leave and are free - however, for some 'unknown' reason, another Swedish judge re-opened the case and wanted him for hearing. Him being Assange and all makes me paranoid.
When it comes to WikiLeaks - we elect our governments to act in OUR interests, however, a lot of information is withheld from us "for security reasons", which simply SHOULD NOT BE. Anytime they want to fuck us, they claim it on security reasons ... like H2O, nail-clippers, phones etc in planes. If you believe that shit, I invite you to leave our gene pool. Humankind will appreciate!
What is wrong with you ? Can't you smell fishy cases or what ? no, actually no.
If we (ordinary folk) go to Sweden and get carried away with a childhood fantasy about Swedish au-pair, there’s a good chance we’ll just get kicked out because “consent” pretty much puts the burden of proof on the woman (unless she’s also been beaten-up).. rape conviction rates are woeful the world-over.
Judges/prosecutors like to make examples of the rich/powerful/famous, because “doing” rich/powerful/famous people sends a deterrent message that nobody is above the law… Mr Arseange is powerful/famous and fits the profile.
"When it comes to WikiLeaks - we elect our governments to act in OUR interests, however, a lot of information is withheld from us "for security reasons", which simply SHOULD NOT BE."
Are you for real? Some information must be protected as its release can endanger lives, especially for those working in espionage, military, police, etc.
Cast your minds back to the Wikileaks release of the Afghan war logs. Afghan informants were named in the files which puts them and their families at risk of reprisals.
Some information needs to be restricted especially during war which is always won or lost on being better informed than your enemy.
gotta love the assaungites reference to it as 'not really rape! the condom just happened to break!' - thats only 1 of his alleged crimes, the more significant (to my mind, though i'm not one of his victims...) is the having sex with someone who's asleep. just because they woke up and didnt stop him (and who's to say why not? maybe they were too scared at that stage? maybe she thought she was dreaming? maybe she thought he was someone else entirely?) doesnt magically mean it isnt rape.
if i try and take someones car keys off them, and they go 'oh my god, please just take them, but dont hurt me!' it doesnt mean they've given me permission and therefore it isnt theft...