Owen Jones on Julian Assange

[scottycelt]

That post has been worrying me for the past week, since it does not have a feeling of either a) impartiality or b) likelihood.

So I looked up this "Human RIghts Watch," and sure enough it is a "private American" thing with "head-quarters in New-York city"!

... and I, equally curious in turn, looked up this "Green Left " and sure enough it is "a private Australian thing" with "headquarters in SYDNEY"

It is also an avowedly socialist organ so its partiality is quite open and honest for anyone to see ...

[amateur51]

... and I, equally curious in turn, looked up this "Green Left " and sure enough it is "a private Australian thing" with "headquarters in SYDNEY"

It is also an avowedly socialist organ so its partiality is quite open and honest for anyone to see ...

You'll have realised that Rupert Murdoch started out life as an Australian and is now an American, scotty

[Lateralthinking1]

Did I first see the following clip on this forum? I can't remember, for which apologies. Anyway, it is a discussion between Julian Assange and Rafeal Correa which took place when the former was initially under house arrest.

Not exactly an easy watch. There are some small time gaps and there is not a little strangeness in both "personalities". It is though a fascinating insight into their characters and the nature of their friendship before Ecuador gave JA a home.

I don't fully take to either of them. I think they have flaws but I do find both more likeable than dislikeable in the clip.

I also agree with much of what they say.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvUwC5JTAJY

[handsomefortune]

it was posted on this forum lateralthinking1, a little while back ....i find it rivetingly unreal but nonetheless fascinating. someone said that correa's regime is supported by chinese money? (though i don't know if this is actually true, or not.... )

[Serial_Apologist]

it was posted on this forum lateralthinking1, a little while back ....i find it rivetingly unreal but nonetheless fascinating. someone said that correa's regime is supported by chinese money? (though i don't know if this is actually true, or not.... )

Chinese laundering?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmmVisVAusE

[Sydney Grew]

. . . someone said that correa's regime is . . .

It ain't no "regime"; it's a GOVERNMENT.

(See how useful capital letters can be!)

[french frank]

It ain't no "regime"; it's a GOVERNMENT.

The word 'regime' does not preclude the meaning of 'government:

" Chiefly with negative connotation. A particular ruling group, government, or administration, esp. an authoritarian one." [OED] Therefore you might say, neutrally, 'the Ecuadorean government' but it is perfectly permissible to specify 'the Correa regime', especially if you are intentionally implying a negative or authoritarian aspect.

[Flosshilde]

One person's government is another's regime (as they used to say - posibly still do - about freedom fighters & terrorists)

[Richard Tarleton]

One person's government is another's regime (as they used to say - posibly still do - about freedom fighters & terrorists)

Remember the "Thatcher junta", as John Wells et al used to refer to it......

[Sydney Grew]

In this whole affair I found most astonishing the statement issued on August the twenty-third by Mr. Craig Murray, a former British ambassador and career diplomat, who tells us of "tremendous discomfort" at the Foreign Office at the goings-on:

http://wikileaks.org/Statement-on-U-...tions-and.html

"My name is Craig John Murray. I am a retired British diplomat. I was a member of Her Majesty’s Diplomatic Service for over 20 years, and a member of the Senior Management Structure of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for over six years.

"As anybody who works a long time in any one organisation, I have a great many friends there, some of whom are now very senior officials. And as is natural, they sometimes discuss matters with their old colleague.

"I arrived in the UK from a trip abroad on 15 August 2012 and was immediately contacted by a very senior official within the Foreign and Commonwealth Office who was very concerned. He had knowledge that an attempt by the British authorities to force entry to the Embassy of Ecuador was possibly imminent. I suggested that this must be impossible, and he said that unfortunately it was not. He said that he had been party to formal discussions over a three week period between different British government departments on the legality of such a move. It had concluded that the provisions of the Diplomatic Premises Act of 1987 gave the authorities the domestic power to do this, in spite of the Vienna Convention of 1961.

"My ex-colleague went on to say that he understood the government intended to act quickly to pre-empt any grant of political asylum to Mr Assange by the government of Ecuador. If there were any formal international recognition of Mr Assange as a political refugee, it might complicate matters.

"He also said there was tremendous discomfort at this development within the British diplomatic service because of the potential exposure of British embassies and diplomats abroad to similar action.

"I asked how on earth such an illegal decision could have been reached. My ex-colleague said that political pressure exerted by the administration of the United States of America on Mr William Hague and Mr David Cameron had outweighed the views of British diplomats.

"I published a brief account of this conversation on my blog the following morning, in an effort to add to the pressures which might avert the government from such an illegal act."

Thus Mr. Murray. See how easily these British characters - Hague and Cameron - abandon three hundred years of diplomatic tradition when it suits their perfidious - and "illegal" according to Mr. Murray - purposes!

Fortunately Mr. Assange is in his present circumstances garnering more support and respect daily. This week I have been reading his "Unauthorised Autobiography," and he - the mature man - is far more of a philosopher and sage than I had earlier realized. Recommended reading.

[Lateralthinking1]

For what it is worth, I don't agree that it would be an illegal act. It would though be politically disastrous. As a knee-jerk reaction, the threat was very naive. Actually, Dave was on his Spanish holidays. If he was at all involved, so might have been sangria.

As for the US, it sounds as if Obama and Clinton felt that placing British premises in peril across the globe was worth it on the grounds of one individual's alleged sexual assault. Presumably if the allegation had applied to Joe Bloggs of Grimsby and he had been welcomed with open arms by the President of Ecuador, they would still have allegedly told Bill Hague to storm the embassy.

Anyhow, the Foreign Office threat has been withdrawn for now. When I made the point here on 20 August that Assange was a fidgety nomad, the policy changed. At the same time, a friend who asked us to play with the notion that he was with the CIA disappeared. One couldn't ask for greater intrigue if one wanted it but it would be foolish to think it anything but coincidental.

There's now a war of attrition. Our Julian has advised reporters he could be there for six months or even twelve. That's the same as another person's lifetime on the basis of his passport. But I'm not revealing where in "Croydon" that document is kept.

[Pabmusic]

The Foreign Office was very stupid indeed to refer to the Diplomatic Premises Act 1987 in its letter to the Ecuador ambassador. There could never have been a serious thought of using it. It was a hostage to fortune that left the UK with egg on its face. (The 1987 Act was a typically bullish piece of Thatcherite legislation, passed in the wake of the murder of Yvonne Fletcher outside the Libyan Embassy in 1984. But it never meant anything, since no-one could ever see how it could be used without provoking retaliation.)

Having said this, I have to remind people that the USA has had more than 18 months to seek Assange's extradition from the UK, using the infamous 'fast-track' process, yet has not done so.

[aeolium]

I have to remind people that the USA has had more than 18 months to seek Assange's extradition from the UK, using the infamous 'fast-track' process, yet has not done so.

Don't you think there might be political reasons why that has not happened, Pabmusic? Can you imagine the uproar if the US commenced extradition proceedings in such a high-profile case for what is widely perceived as a 'political' crime - quite different from the extradition to Sweden to answer allegations of sexual assault? The Home Secretary would be put in an almost impossible position. There are already serious concerns about the lop-sided extradition treaty with the US (for instance by the Joint Committee on Human Rights) but the political pressure on any government having to respond to a request to extradite Assange to the US would be enormous. And there is the matter of Sweden's arguably prior claim for extradition.

Assange, I'm sure, would be delighted at any US attempt to request extradition here. It would appear to confirm his claims that he faces political persecution, and possibly change media and public perception of him as someone trying to dodge justice in Sweden to the status of being a refugee from that persecution. Presumably there are powerful people in the US who realise this.

[amateur51]

Having said this, I have to remind people that the USA has had more than 18 months to seek Assange's extradition from the UK, using the infamous 'fast-track' process, yet has not done so.

Nothing to do with current events in USA climaxing in November 2012, do you think Pabs?

[Pabmusic]

Don't you think there might be political reasons why that has not happened, Pabmusic? Can you imagine the uproar if the US commenced extradition proceedings in such a high-profile case for what is widely perceived as a 'political' crime'...

Nothing to do with current events in USA climaxing in November 2012, do you think Pabs?

No, this won't do. Of course the matter is now a 'high profile' case, and of course there's a US election coming up; both those things would make it difficult to start proceedings now (not to mention the biggest difficulty of them all - getting hold of Assange). But an extradition request could have been made at any time from late 2010 - in which case the process would have been complete well before it became the high profile case it now is. Any move by the USA now - after all that has happened - would simply confirm the conspiracy theory.