Julian Assange still hiding

[Callie Del Noire]

It would look a lot messier if the U.S. (or UK special forces) made a commando raid, went into the Ecuadorean Embassy and extracted him. A legal rendition after he'd been tried in Sweden, the ordinary procedure, would look much cleaner, especially at the time - because neither counbtry would have to admit that he might risk a death sentence - or, let's say, life imprisonment,

As for "too big a loss of face to the US" I've learnt over time that one doesn't have to buy statements from media pundits to the effect that "this simply couldn't be done, it would be far too awkward or difficult to arrange".

But following that logic indicates there is no way to resolve this than to allow him to simply walk away from any charges he might have on him.  I'm sorry you can't have it both ways.. He says he wants to be assured..then says no assurance can be trusted?

Sooner or later to do some sort of human interaction at all.. you have to give some modicum of trust.

[TheGlyphstone]

We're talking about international face, not internal (or both), not simply 'difficult to arrange'. The Obama administration has put a lot of work into repairing the US's international reputation after the Republicans spent 8 years grinding it into the mud...they'd have to be beyond stupid, even by the standards of politicians, to throw all that effort away just to guarantee punishing one guy who doesn't even know anything worth torturing him for.

Both politically, diplomatically, and strategically, nothing is gained by trying Assange on death penalty charges, and there's no way in hell he could be successfully 'disappeared' (if anything, his own blowhard nature would keep media attention on him).

[Callie Del Noire]

We're talking about international face, not internal (or both), not simply 'difficult to arrange'. The Obama administration has put a lot of work into repairing the US's international reputation after the Republicans spent 8 years grinding it into the mud...they'd have to be beyond stupid, even by the standards of politicians, to throw all that effort away just to guarantee punishing one guy who doesn't even know anything worth torturing him for.

Both politically, diplomatically, and strategically, nothing is gained by trying Assange on death penalty charges, and there's no way in hell he could be successfully 'disappeared' (if anything, his own blowhard nature would keep media attention on him).

I agree.. I worry about the 'get out of jail' free card that Assange is fishing for. If the US clearly states that they won't try to extradite him for the leaked cables, or Sweden gives his assurances that they won't allow extradition.. I still don't see him returning to Sweden to face the music.

I'm sorry.. that is way TOO much diplomatic capital invested by the President to lose in pursuing a legally questionable prosecution of the man. I personally think that only if he had done the exchange of the cables inside US territory could we prosecute him for anything under US law.

[gaggedLouise]

But following that logic indicates there is no way to resolve this than to allow him to simply walk away from any charges he might have on him.  I'm sorry you can't have it both ways.. He says he wants to be assured..then says no assurance can be trusted?

Sooner or later to do some sort of human interaction at all.. you have to give some modicum of trust.

He's offered a couple times to let the Swedish prosecutors interrogate him by video link to London, so that the circumstances could be clarified. He hasn't been formally *charged* with rape or sexual assault, in thge sense that he would be called to a trial ready to begin, or beginning very soon after he arrives. When the arrest warrant was lodged it was really to get him in for some questions and giving him the chance to tell his side of the story. I'm not sure precisely how this works in the U.S. but over here a prosecutor cannot sénd a major case to trial if they don't make a sort of audit first, together with the judge and court staff, and it's established that there is now serious evidence, enough of it to give a reasonable chance of a guilty verdict. A prosecutor is not simply allowed to pull in someone in a case they want to publicize in order to appear brave and muscled. The Assange case had not got anywhere near that grade of evidence or even proof of intention of rape. Basically the prosecutor Marianne Ny is just acting on the stories the two women provided, and she wants Assange in, formally, to make him give his side of the story. He could have done that from London long ago, but Ny and other Swedish prosecutors have refused - they want him hauled in and locked up while they work.

And it's a real outlier that someone has an international warrant out for them on these kinds of suspicions. I mentioned the case where a man had been beaten senseless on a cruise ship by a foreigner. The police were able to establish after som time who it must have been, but they couldn't get any info on where the guy was by then - only that he had left Sweden (he was in the passenger list and there were other strong indications). A year later they got word that he was now in jail in Ireland. According to the rulebook the prosecutor should have asked to have him rendered for a trial on counts of grave abuse and robbery in Sweden, leading to a prison term to be added to the one he was serving, but the prosecutor just said it was diddley, "we can't ask for every John Blow to be extradited".


Another example. A dozen years ago Courtney Love and Hole did a show at an open-air rock festival in Sweden, drawing a big and very excited audience, mostly teens, some below 15. Both she and many in the crowd were foghorn drunk, and it got very chaotic. At one point she urged the girls in the audience to storm the stage and when some got up, compelled them to show their tits, leading by example herself. Of course it created mayhem, people got into frantic movement and one 19-year old girl was trampled to death. Courtney could well have been charged with responsibility for manslaughter, and she was trashed in the papers around here for her idiotic stunt, but there were no attempts to hold her pending  trial or to get her extradited later - do you expect a local court to pin down a world-famous rock'n'roll star?


So by normal practice it's strange that the Swedish prosecutors have been pressing so hard to get Assange to sit under their table when the case itself is far from solid or half ready for a trial.

[Callie Del Noire]

He's offered a couple times to let the Swedish prosecutors interrogate him by video link to London, o that the circumstances could be clarified. He hasn't been formally *charged* with rape or sexual assault, meaning that he would be called to a trial ready to begin, or beginning very soon after he arrives. When the arrest warrant was lodged it was really to get him in for some questions and giving him the chance to tell his side of the story. I'm not sure precisely how this works in the U.S. but over here a prosecutor cannot sénd a major case to trial if they don't make a sort of audit first, together with the judge and court staff, and it's established that there is now serious evidence, enough of it to give a reasonable chance of a guilty verdict. A prosecutor is not simply allowed to pull in someone in a case they want to puiblicize tpo appear brave and muscled. The Assange case had not got anywhere near that grade of evidence or even proof of intention of rape. basically the prosecutor Marianne Ny is just acting on the stories the two women provided, and she wants Assange in, formally, to make him give his side o the story. he could have done that from London long ago, but Ny and other Swedish prosecutors have refused - they want him hauled in and locked up while they work.

And it's a real outlier that someone has an international warrant out for them on these kinds of suspicions. I mentioned the case where a man had been beaten senseless on a cruise ship by a foreigner. The police were able to establish after som time who it must have been, but they couldn't get any info on where the guy was by then - only that he had left Sweden (he was in the passenger list and there were other strong indicatiosn). A year later they got word he was now in jail in ireland. According to the rulebook the prosecutor shoudl ahve asked to have him rendered for a trail on grave abuse and robbery in Sweden, leading to a prison term to be added to the one he was serving, but the prosecutor just said it was diddley, "we can't ask every John Blow to be extradited".


Another example. A dozen years ago Courtney Love and Hole did a show at an open-air rock festival in Sweden, drawing a big and very excited audience, mostly teens, some below 15. Both she and many in the crowd were foghorn drunk, and it got very chaotic. At one point she urged the girls in the audience to storm the stage and when some got up, compelled them to show their tits, leading by example herself. Of course it created mayhem, people got into frantic movement and one 19-year old girl was trampled to death. Courtney could well have been charged with responsibility for manslaughter, and she was trashed in the papers around here for her idiotic stunt, but there were no attempts to hold her pending  trail or to get her extradited - do you expect a local court to pin down a world-famous rock'n'roll star?


So by normal practice it's strange that the Swedish prosecutors have been pressing so hard to get Assange to sit under their table when the case itself is far from solid or half ready for a trial.

You forget one very important fact. He embarrassed the system in the international media. They played (sorta) fair and he ran..then refused to play by the rules they offered. He's made a mockery of them. That makes for a lot less tolerance and compromise than they would normally have given.

No one likes egg on their face, metaphorical or real. So far he's done that in TWO jurisdictions in this case. Sweden and the UK. I doubt the British will be anyway less forgiving than the Swedes on this. That is the path of his life. He respects no one but himself, but insists on everything goes his way.

Additionally.. given his tech savvy reputation and following, do you honestly think they'd trust him to play fair in any situation online? And I don't think online video conferencing is what the court wants. They want him in court, sworn in and in their jurisdiction. Otherwise it could be argued that anything he said online wouldn't be admissible.

[gaggedLouise]

Callie, the point is that the evidence (and the way it fits with how the law defines rape or assault) is very thin. Assange said at one point that he isn't going to be at the beck and call of every prosecutor around the world who wants him in his room for a chat, and under the looming threat that he might have to go off to the police jail after some of those chats and spend some time there with very restricted access to newspapers, tv or internet. It was a punchy way of saying it but I think he was dead on target. There's never been a very solid case against him for sexual assault or the like, but what there is can be made to look more solid than it is - and the issues there are now could have been cleared up if he had been heard over a video link.

[Callie Del Noire]

Callie, the point is that the evidence (and the way it fits with how the law defines rape or assault) is very thin. Assange said at one point that he isn't going to be at the beck and call of every prosecutor around the world who wants him in his room for a chat, and under the looming threat that he might have to go off to the police jail after some of those chats and spend some time there with very restricted access to newspapers, tv or internet. It was a punchy way of saying it but I think he was dead on target. There's never been a very solid case against him for sexual assault or the like, but what there is can be made to look more solid than it is - and the issues there are now could have been cleared up if he had been heard over a video link.

Okay.. how about this one.

Flight from prosecution. He was told to STAY till the questioning was done. He fled from a potential prosecution. The courts tried to do a discourse with him initially.. he pushed them off several times before they sought the extradition in the UK.

I'm sorry.. not buying it. I figure that had he stayed in Sweden the charges would have been cleared up by now. While I think he's a vile despicable man who goes through the world thinking everyone else is a cardboard cutout and only exists for his benefit, that it could have easily been cleared up by now and he'd be off (more quietly) pissing off governements.

Personally.. if I was him, I wouldn't worry about the CIA killing him.. I'd worry about one of those corrupt African politicians or the Russians killing him. As far as I can tell... he's never bothered the CIA.. the Department of Defense, the State Department, the President, the FBI, ICE and the Border Patrol..yeah.. the CIA.. not so much.

[Oniya]

Do you know he is considering running for office?

http://www.news.com.au/national/julian-assange-confirms-bid-for-australian-senate/story-fncynjr2-1226535741180

Isn't that rather hard to do when you are 'in hiding'?

[Cyrano Johnson]

you can't say "this guy exposed crimes therefore he should be immune to prosecution"

Immune to prosecution on ludicrously convenient charges trumped up from plaintiffs who've changed their stories multiple times? A prosecution being pressed on clear behalf of at least one of two major parties to the Iraq debacle, whose extreme criminality he had recently exposed through WikiLeaks? If what's happening wasn't a clear abuse of the judiciary I wouldn't care one way or another, but it is rather obvious that the purpose and function of the judiciary is being twisted here. I frankly don't believe there can be that many people who believe that the charges against Assange are entirely on the level -- not even among those who are siding with his accusers because they feel a programmatic responsibility to support rape prosecutions on behalf of female plaintiffs.

Real criminal conspiracies happen in the open all the time. They differ from fantasy conspiracies in that, unlike UFOs and Reptoids, they're often readily detectable with a modicum of common sense, the behaviour of their participants suspicious; all that's missing is the final proof. This was true of the Iraq War, and it's sure as shit true of the Assange prosecution. It is so suspiciously convenient, and the desperation to get at him whatever the cost and damn normal procedure so ludicrously brazen, that anyone who is buying that as a normal attempt at due process seems wilfully blind to me.

[Avis habilis]

Or simply raid the Embassy he is in now and rendition him to points mysterious?

I'm tolerably sure launching a military raid against another country's embassy is causus belli in anybody's books. Not that Ecuador would be much of an opponent, but it would cause enough diplomatic trouble to be worth avoiding.

[Cyrano Johnson]

Flight from prosecution.

Flight from clearly-corrupt prosecution is perfectly moral and sensible.

[gaggedLouise]

Isn't that rather hard to do when you are 'in hiding'?

Well, maybe he is planning a revolution, like Lenin did in his sparsely furnished rented rooms in Zurich? Lenin only had to travel a week by train to get to the centre of events...

[TheGlyphstone]

UK Ecuadorian Embassy to Australia is one hell of a commute, though.

[Oniya]

UK Ecuadorian Embassy to Australia is one hell of a commute, though.

And you can't open the windows.

[Callie Del Noire]

Flight from clearly-corrupt prosecution is perfectly moral and sensible.

Funny.. last I heard Sweden wasn't a puppet state to anyone. The worse I've heard is that they are 'soft' to US requests. I admit I find the charges a bit.. weak on the face of thing.. but had he stayed and faced them it would have long been over by now. At most he'd be in a Swedish prison serving time.

The US wasn't going to extradite him.. honestly we don't have a case to speak on.

Or is it that he doesn't see that he might have done something wrong?

No offense.. there is no gain to be had in pulling him into our jurisdiction and prosecuting him. Period. The only people who believe otherwise are the crazy ultra-conservative fringe like Sarah Palin.

Which brings me back to what I put in my original post. What would it hurt for the Swedish judiciary/state department/executive branch/whoever else to state they WON'T honor any US requests to extradite him on the cablegate charges? Like I said, I've read his writings (he's got a very interesting outlook on privacy in his writings.) He supports full disclosure of everyone else but himself in things. For example, his adminstration of Wikileaks is confidential as is the debates between him and the other administrators.

If he did get those concessions and returned to Sweden.. according to your outlook, the case would fall apart. I bet that he'd still find a reason to hide in the embassy.

[Callie Del Noire]

Let me sum it up this way... Why can I respect people like Daniel Ellsberg and not Julian Assange? Ellsberg blew the whistle to bring to light a criminal conspiracy that hid among other things, the true cost in lives the War in Vietnam. He knew he could got to prison for doing so but still released the papers after failing to get folks like George Wallace, who as a senator was immune from such consequences, reused to. He acted on conscience.

Assange on the other hand pushed his leaks to clearly promote his site and agenda. Witness his clashes with The New York Times AND The Guardian over their reluctance to link their online copy to Wikileaks for fear of tying their articles to his unredacted copies of the reports that he was putting up on the site. His 'insurance policy' of stolen emails from a BoA executive. And the way he refuses to impose the same transparency on the administration of Wikileaks that he demands from every corporate and governmental entity on the planet.

[Cyrano Johnson]

Yes, I totally get that you don't like Assange, Callie. However, not liking him and buying into a pretty open attempt to corrupt the Swedish and international judiciaries in the process of going after and attempting to silence him are two very different things. That's true even if you're correct that Assange was reckless and irresponsible in his actions; if he really has blood on his hands, if there really is a compelling argument to protect the kinds of secrecy he breached -- in the diplomatic cables case, at least, I could see an argument to be made -- then that's what they should be going after him for. This underhanded and cowardly mockery of due process isn't serving anyone at this point.

Ultimately, however, Assange's case is -- and is pretty clearly meant to be -- a distraction. I'd be a lot more interested in talking about the kinds of things that WikiLeaks revealed, which after all are the ultimate point. There are large questions there that are hugely important to answer and craft responses to: like, why has the American military establishment repeatedly gotten mixed up in large, strategically nonviable conflicts about whose purposes and conduct it had to lie (on a massive scale) to the public? That's a more interesting question to me than whether Daniel Ellsberg is a more stand-up dude than Julian Assange. (It's also not every day I get to discuss it on a forum with someone who apparently once had high-level security clearance, which is pretty interesting.)

[Chris Brady]

Ultimately, however, Assange's case is -- and is pretty clearly meant to be -- a distraction. I'd be a lot more interested in talking about the kinds of things that WikiLeaks revealed,

Why?

You honestly think that a site devoted to divulging privileged information which you and I have no right to, and that can get people killed, people who are trying to help stabilize (as well as those who destabilize) the world?

I remember one of the first incidents reported, an internal E-mail between a couple of diplomats (this wasn't as Tweet, but something sent among colleagues) where one complained about another country's diplomat and how they hated to work with that person.  Typical Watercooler stuff, right?  Remember the fall out?  The slighted diplomat complaining about it?

Doesn't really seem like much, does it?

But how much damage do you think that did to relations between the U.S. and the (I think) Koreans?  How much damage is it STILL doing?  How much harder is it for the U.S. to sell it's products overseas now?

No one seems to actually be considering the consequences.  Instead we (the public) are just using it as yet another gossip source, instead of celebrities, we're talking about behind the scenes politicking which would do well not to be known.

Imagine that you're father, mother, significant other, sibling, family, is one of those people who was outed by Private Manning.  Imagine the fear that you now have to live with, knowing that they are in danger, because some jackass put that sensitive and classified information out on the internet were terrorists can get access to.

Assange seems to have some clearly psychopathic mannerisms, and claiming that his 'WikiLeaks' is a good thing is both blind and foolish.

[Cyrano Johnson]

Why?

Because when you find out that your government is party to war crimes, that's kind of important, and attempts to bluster about how that information should have been kept secret from all of us are uninteresting. (I notice you avoid that uncomfortable stuff to bluster about diplomatic cables instead, but the cables disclosures also revealed some rather festering secrets that quite probably should not have remained secrets -- like systematized human rights abuses being kept under the rug in regions as diverse as Eritrea and the Punjab for the sake of diplomatic protocol. The argument that we needed all this secrecy or the world would end is a lot harder to sustain now, and certainly not possible to sustain without actually grappling with the meat of the disclosures.)

[Callie Del Noire]

Yes, I totally get that you don't like Assange, Callie. However, not liking him and buying into a pretty open attempt to corrupt the Swedish and international judiciaries in the process of going after and attempting to silence him are two very different things. That's true even if you're correct that Assange was reckless and irresponsible in his actions; if he really has blood on his hands, if there really is a compelling argument to protect the kinds of secrecy he breached -- in the diplomatic cables case, at least, I could see an argument to be made -- then that's what they should be going after him for. This underhanded and cowardly mockery of due process isn't serving anyone at this point.

Ultimately, however, Assange's case is -- and is pretty clearly meant to be -- a distraction. I'd be a lot more interested in talking about the kinds of things that WikiLeaks revealed, which after all are the ultimate point. There are large questions there that are hugely important to answer and craft responses to: like, why has the American military establishment repeatedly gotten mixed up in large, strategically nonviable conflicts about whose purposes and conduct it had to lie (on a massive scale) to the public? That's a more interesting question to me than whether Daniel Ellsberg is a more stand-up dude than Julian Assange. (It's also not every day I get to discuss it on a forum with someone who apparently once had high-level security clearance, which is pretty interesting.)

Let's see.. right off the bat.. let me sum up the difference..

"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." -Daniel Ellsberg.

That was what he said when he turned himself in to the US Attorney's office in 1971. He said what had to be said.. he faced the consequences of it.. he acknowledged that there were consequences to his actions. And faced them.

What does Assange do when he released his 'findings'? He pimped his site for better hits and more donations. What did he say when he was asked about the implications of releasing after action reports that could lead the Taliban back to the cooperating villagers? "Not possible." or. "Not my responsibility."

Ellsberg moved forward to point out to end the death of a war. Assange is looking for points.. and doesn't care how he gets them.

Because when you find out that your government is party to war crimes, that's kind of important, and attempts to bluster about how that information should have been kept secret from all of us are uninteresting. (I notice you avoid that uncomfortable stuff to bluster about diplomatic cables instead, but the cables disclosures also revealed some rather festering secrets that quite probably should not have remained secrets -- like systematized human rights abuses being kept under the rug in regions as diverse as Eritrea and the Punjab for the sake of diplomatic protocol. The argument that we needed all this secrecy or the world would end is a lot harder to sustain now, and certainly not possible to sustain without actually grappling with the meat of the disclosures.)

If he's going on about attrocities.. why not cover the events of Mymar.. or more recently the ones of the more recent events in Moli.. oh wait! He doesnt' have an axe to grind with them.

I'm not saying the US is lilly white. And yes, I have issues with the 'War on Terror'. I spoke out against the Patriot act when it wasn't popular. I dislike some of the 'extraordinary' methods of interrogation and I definitely think Iraq was a mistake. Saddam was a brigand.. but he wasn't one of the masterminds of 9/11. We wasted lives, money and time that could have been better spent on the Taliban/Al Queda. I dislike the President's actions in the use of CIA controlled drones, his very unamerican outlook on detainment of Americans. I shudder to think what would have happened if Romney was moving into the White House next month.

We are in DIRE need of reform. We need to roll back the fearmongering and influence brokering. We need men like Ellsberg to show us what is wrong.. not a man who is set on stirring the pot for his own self-promoting agenda.

[Cyrano Johnson]

Going back a bit -- to a longer post from Callie much of which is agreeable -- I find this still sticks in my craw:

As for 'Collateral Murder'. I find it interesting that the entire MISSION tape was cut down to a 30 and 17 minute videos.

What is supposed to be "interesting" about this? This seems to me like saying that it's suspect to think a lynching photo proves anything if we didn't diarize the full days of each participant. What broader context are you thinking would have made the actions caught in those videos anything but war crimes?

[Cyrano Johnson]

Let's see.. right off the bat.. let me sum up the difference..

I think I just finished telling you I don't really care about the supposed differences between Ellsberg and Assange. (Although I think it's fallacious to pretend they were facing American judicial establishments that were very similar.)

If he's going on about attrocities.. why not cover the events of Mymar..

WikiLeaks has actually publicized atrocities related to all sorts of regimes in all parts of the world, incidentally. (Recently, for instance, the Syria files, which are quite fascinating.) Your "axe to grind with America" theory seems flawed to me.

[Callie Del Noire]

Going back a bit -- to a longer post from Callie much of which is agreeable -- I find this still sticks in my craw:

What is supposed to be "interesting" about this? This seems to me like saying that it's suspect to think a lynching photo proves anything if we didn't diarize the full days of each participant. What broader context are you thinking would have made the actions caught in those videos anything but war crimes?

Have you ever viewed a mission flight video? It's can be up to about seven hours long. I have. It's boring, time consuming and without the entire battle sequence you miss things. Like the fact that the MEN with the cameras.. were moving in the same routines/paths as men with GUNS. The gun camera also doesn't show the WHOLE scene.

Cut out segments to high-light.. YOUR message.. and you leave out things like return fire and other groups that might have shaped a less severe reaction in your audience.

'Collateral Murder' was shaped to push one point of view.. from the name all the way through to the selective editing of BOTH versions. Why is it okay for  this to be done in this case.. but folks scream when their favorites are quoted out of context? Was the death of the Reuter's crew and bystanders a terrible tragedy.. yes. What about the attacks in the area on the days before this event? What sort of events/enviroment were the crew used to dealing with? How often had they or their squadronmates been attacked in the same area?

I notice damn little commentary on the impact the insurgents had on their own people. Or rather.. the ones who weren't of the right ethnic group/sect of Islam.

[Cyrano Johnson]

Cut out segments to high-light.. YOUR message.. and you leave out things like return fire and other groups that might have shaped a less severe reaction in your audience.

So to be clear, you are claiming that the camera crew that was shot to pieces in that video were firing on the helicopter and this was edited out? What are you basing that on? (There's ongoing radio communication in both the long and short versions of the video -- all of it reflecting an apparent rationalization that they were supposedly firing on insurgents, none of it mentioning "return fire" that I can recall. Wouldn't that be pretty hard to edit around?)  And why exactly would seven hours of boredom or the fact that men with guns might take routes also used by civilians excuse firing on civilians?

[Callie Del Noire]

So to be clear, you are claiming that the camera crew that was shot to pieces in that video were firing on the helicopter and this was edited out? What are you basing that on? (There's ongoing radio communication in both the long and short versions of the video -- all of it reflecting an apparent rationalization that they were supposedly firing on insurgents, none of it mentioning "return fire" that I can recall.)  And why exactly would seven hours of boredom or the fact that men with guns might take routes also used by civilians excuse firing on civilians?

No I'm simply stating a 17 or 31 minute segment doesn't show the whole story.

I think working in a state of hyperawarness/vigalance over several days/weeks in an ill considered combat action might shape perceptions a bit. You start to see shapes/postions rather than LOOKING for specifics.. because those seconds could mean the difference between life and death. You see a guy in a zone that you KNOW is full of RPG users.. will you look at someone with something on his shoulder to clarify between a High-def camera and a RPG?

I'm not justifying it.. I'm pointing out it wasn't as callous and premeditated as it was presented.