Owen Jones on Julian Assange

[Resurrection Man]

It may broaden the discussuion here too much to include thie, but it's a worrying aspect of the whole Wikileaks project that I'd forgotten:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...ia-scandinavia

Thanks for the link, Jean, but I am not surprised.

Two letters in this morning's Times from two people who are experts in the field of International Law/Diplomatic Relations etc unequivocally state that (a) Ecuador is in clear breach of International Law in allowing Assange to stay in the Embassy and (b) Human Rights Act and International Law are also unequivocal in that Assange must go to Sweden to face the charges. End of.

Some might not agree with either statement but, according to the authors, it is the law.

[JohnSkelton]

It may broaden the discussuion here too much to include thie, but it's a worrying aspect of the whole Wikileaks project that I'd forgotten:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...ia-scandinavia

That's awful (note in the comments below the article the inevitable 'it's another smear against WikiLeaks').

WikiLeaks is an unstable mixture of courageous whistle-blowers whose first hand and gathered evidence shines light into dark corners and an incoherent politics that frequently falls into the terrain of internet conspiracy theory and Grand Conspiratorial Narrative, so it's depressingly unsurprising that support for Palestinians gets tangled up with a reinvention of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

The incoherent opportunism comes out in the response to the allegations against Assange: it's both the fault of mad feminists - he didn't do anything wrong - and a conspiracy - he didn't do anything at all.

This is the sort of thing Julian Assanage had to say about the allegations in Sweden, a subject he nobly avoided mentioning in his appearance on the Ecuador Embassy's balcony yesterday:

"Sweden is the Saudi Arabia of feminism," Julian Assange has said in a recent interview. "I fell into a hornets' nest of revolutionary feminism."



The knee-jerk defense of Assange against sexual assault charges has often hinged on painting Sweden as a haven for feminists gone amok, and now we see Assange himself eagerly seizing on that narrative.

He's also perfectly willing to argue that because they were interested in having sex with him, they had consented to everything. Assange told The Sunday Times Of London that Ms. A let him stay in her apartment for days and hosted a party for him, and Ms. W came to lunch wearing (and this is a newspaper paraphrase) a "revealing pink cashmere sweater, flirted with him, and took him home."

According to the paper — presumably drawing on unpublished portions of the police report — when she woke up to find him penetrating her, she asked him if he was "wearing anything." He allegedly replied, "I am wearing you."

(The Guardian, which first published portions of the police report, left this out; the reporter who did so originally brokered the deal with Wikileaks and has been described as a friend of Assange's, and his own editor said he had "left out a lot of graphic and damaging material in the allegations because he thought it would be too cruel to publish them.")

http://jezebel.com/5718817/assange-sweden-is-the-saudi-arabia-of-feminism

[jean]

You're right, Jean, it's not relevant to this discussion about JA, & I don't see the point in posting it unless you want to smear JA with other 'crimes' & by extension Wikileaks as a whole.

I did think hard before I posted it.

But if JA has associated himself with Israel Shamir he's been guilty of poor judgment to say the least. Is it smearing him to say so?

[ahinton]

Thanks for the link, Jean, but I am not surprised.

Two letters in this morning's Times from two people who are experts in the field of International Law/Diplomatic Relations etc unequivocally state that (a) Ecuador is in clear breach of International Law in allowing Assange to stay in the Embassy and (b) Human Rights Act and International Law are also unequivocal in that Assange must go to Sweden to face the charges. End of.

Some might not agree with either statement but, according to the authors, it is the law.

According to its authors, it may be - and either one or both might be correct (I don't know) - but I don't necessarily see this as being quite as "end of" as you appear to do; for example, does (a) apply without exception? - for example, does it still pertain even if JA formally applies for and is duly granted political asylum in Ecuador? and does (b) necessarily apply to the extent that, even if JS has to face those charges, he must specifically go to Sweden to do so rather than face them where he is now?

Even these bald statements from experts might not be as straightforward and unequivocal as they might at first appear...

[Pabmusic]

According to its authors, it may be - and either one or both might be correct (I don't know) - but I don't necessarily see this as being quite as "end of" as you appear to do; for example, does (a) apply without exception? - for example, does it still pertain even if JA formally applies for and is duly granted political asylum in Ecuador? and does (b) necessarily apply to the extent that, even if JS has to face those charges, he must specifically go to Sweden to do so rather than face them where he is now?

Even these bald statements from experts might not be as straightforward and unequivocal as they might at first appear...

There's not the slightest doubt that Assange can now be lawfully be extradited to Sweden from the UK. That is what was decided by the Supreme Court in June - a decision that Assange did not challenge in the ECHR. It makes absolutely no difference that he has since been granted asylum by Ecuador. The problem is the practical one of getting hold of him.

As I said before, it's very hard on anyone else who is threatened with extradition, because British courts will now be much more reluctant to grant bail. Well done, Julian.

[Dave2002]

As I said before, it's very hard on anyone else who is threatened with extradition, because British courts will now be much more reluctant to grant bail. Well done, Julian.

It may not be the courts which limit bail, but those putting up money - such as £20k each I believe in this case.

JA does seem to have odd ways of making, and keeping, friends.

[Pabmusic]

It may not be the courts which limit bail, but those putting up money - such as £20k each I believe in this case...

That too (but a court has to grant bail before there's any talk of sureties).

[aeolium]

I think that whatever the justifiability of its use in the Assange case there are definite flaws in the European Arrest Warrant system which have been highlighted in a number of cases by Fair Trials International:

http://www.fairtrials.net/campaigns/the_arrest_warrant

[jean]

Craig Murray today, on today's Guardian editorial (link included):

http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/08/rusbridgers-lies-are-sacred-and-neo-con-comment-is-free/

"The Guardian’s shrill and vitriolic campaign against Assange is extraordinary in its ferocity, persistence and pointless repetition.. The sad truth is that its origins lie in the frustration of the Guardian’s hopes to make a great deal of cash from involvement in Assange’s putative memoirs. That such a once great paper should fall sway to such a mean-minded little neo-con lickspittle as Rusbridger and his Blair supporting coterie is a great tragedy."

(Just trying to be a bit more even-handed in my smearing.)

[JohnSkelton]

Craig Murray is a big fan of rapists:

Equally, it is true that a boy who with his girlfriend moves, without her consent, from frottage to insertion, when he fails to control his passion, has done something very bad. But is it qualitatively every bit as bad as the rapist who with premeditation hides in the bushes to jump out and attack a stranger? No, plainly not.



Rape is much in the news lately, what with this, and the cases of Dominique Strauss Khan and Juilan Assange. The allegations against Assange, even if true, would not amount to rape in this country as they do not seem to involve the use of force or non-consensual sex. They are, frankly, very strange indeed, and given that rape trials in Sweded are held in secret and with no jury, I do not in the least blame him for fighting extradition tooth and nail.

The allegations against Dominique Strauss Kahn are of a different order as they do seem to involve violent assault and non-consensual sex acts. Plainly there is a very serious case to answer, especially given his known highly charged sexual history.

But I have been given pause today by learning that the police have amended their accusation to say that they were one and a half hours mistaken in the time that the rape took place. Given that it was reported pretty well immediately, how can there have been this confusion about when it happened? A ten minute mistake would be natural, but one and a half hours wrong in a period of three hours?

The difference is very significant, because the police were alleging that he raped her, then rushed from the hotel to the airport to flee. They now acknowledge as true the defence statement that he actually went to a lunch engagement quite close to the hotel before going to the airport. Given that his alleged hurried running away was a major factor in not granting him bail, this seems to me inportant [sic]. I repeat – how on earth could an investigation make such a very fundamental mistake?

My feelings of unease were then increased by US Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner coming out to lead international demands for DSK’s replacement – as the prosecuting authority, surely it would behove the US government to shut up until he has been found innocent or guilty? Since then I have been listening to Ghanaian radio (I am in Accra) where callers are more or less unanimous that as the woman is from Guinea, in Francophone Africa, the Sarkozy connection is to blame. That fact is certainly a boon for conspiracy theorists.

DSK deserves the benefit of the presumption of innocence for now. We just don’t know what happened yet. The failure to grant him bail appears to me completely unjustifiable – where on earth do they think he will vanish, and how? There seems something peculiarly vindictive in the handling of this – of which his bail appearance without being allowed clean clothes or a shave was a stark symbol. Ed Miliband would doubtless approve. I wonder what populist right wing nonsense he is thinking up for next week.

http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2011/05/rape/

[amateur51]

Thank you for introducing me to Craig Murray, JS and jean.

He has some strange views on rape victims, I agree. I wonder, if the gender of Assange's victims was male, would he feel the same?

[jean]

His career has interesting parallels with Assange's, in its mix of whistleblowing on Western governments' pursuance of or connivance in corruption, and his own dubious sexual behaviour.

[Lateralthinking1]

I don't know much about Murray. It is logical to think that his especial focus on the intricacies of the DSK case are linked to his own rather peculiar experience. Few, if any, have argued on this thread that the whys and wherefores of the Swedish allegations aren't best left to a court. Some of us are simply asking where that should be and in what circumstances.

Has anyone mentioned assassination? In 2010, Mike Huckerbee, the man who would now be the Republican presidential candidate had he stood, called for Assange to be assassinated. The fear about being handed over to the United States - or even perhaps Sweden - is therefore not just about courts and the death penalty.

Assange has said that his own politics are difficult to describe but that there is a strand of American economic liberalism. One might think Ron Paul and he would get on. I don't know whether the latter has commented. Oddly, his supporters are often those who want a liberal transparency but oppose liberal economics - precisely the opposite of what the public is getting.

It is probably worth bearing in mind that Assange is not a settler. I think he moved about 50 times in his childhood and he hasn't lived for any time in one country for years, let alone a specific place. To my mind, Hague has shown with his threat to storm the Embassy that he is just too stupid to be Foreign Secretary. It is inconceivable that he will stay put. He hasn't that ability.

As a counterpoint to his nomadic lifestyle, Assange is one who takes up residence in issues and campaigns. There are several instances in his life when he has doggedly stuck to a cause for many years, particularly when that cause was him and prosecution seemed relatively easy. I feel that when he does leave the Embassy, all of the current matters could run for years too.

On a lighter note - I do not mean to offend anyone here as clearly there are very serious matters involved - it is extremely bizarre to think that this was his father, if not at birth then from the age of one - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5bV3Q-TUt8.

[scottycelt]

Thank you for introducing me to Craig Murray, JS and jean.

He has some strange views on rape victims, I agree. I wonder, if the gender of Assange's victims was male, would he feel the same?

No, his views on rape victims are perfectly reasonable and would have been considered common sense not so long ago but these are wholly irrelevant. It is not up to Craig Murray to decide on the merits or otherwise of Swedish law.

This case is being deliberately (and cleverly) made complicated by Mr Assange himself, with the result that it appears to have split many on the liberal-left who are now bickering between themselves whether feminist dogma or hatred of the US is the No 1 priority.

The only priority should be to get Mr Assange to Sweden to answer to the claims made by the alleged victims.

[amateur51]

No, his views on rape victims are perfectly reasonable and would have been considered common sense not so long ago but these are wholly irrelevant. It is not up to Craig Murray to decide on the merits or otherwise of Swedish law.

This case is being deliberately (and cleverly) made complicated by Mr Assange himself, with the result that it appears to have split many on the liberal-left who are now bickering between themselves whether feminist dogma or hatred of the US is the No 1 priority.

The only priority should be to get Mr Assange to Sweden to answer to the claims made by the alleged victims.

Doubtless ducking ponds were regarded as common sense a wee while back, scotty .. but what's your point