Heartland

So, what's everyone's take on it?

The short version of my perspective is: Sweden MUST guarantee that Assange will not be deported to the US, then Assange MUST be tried on the rape allegations.

yeah, that's about right.

The whole thing smells fishy to me.

Didn't he break his bail terms?
& are the Ecuadoreans now guilty of harbouring a known fugitive?
I think most countries would either impose sanctions or even expel the Ecuadoreans.
They are looking for deals with the EU & to do so would seriously feck that up.

I firmly believe that if he has nothing to worry about regarding the sexual assault allegations, then he should be sent to Sweden to prove his innocence.
But perhaps he's got something on the British government (wouldn't be at all surprised) & that's why they stayed their distance & didn't take him into custody.

But if he's the headache of the Ecuadoreans now, the fuzz that are all over that embassy may as well go back to their doughnut eating & kettling cyclists & save the tax payer a whole bunch of money in doing so.

What do Ecuador stand to gain from this do you think?

Correa just likes ruffling feathers from time to time, I reckon. Chances are they saw a geezer in a tight spot (with the rest of the world) and thought they'd give him a hand. Bless them, it wasn't that long ago since they booted the US military out of their country when the US lease on some airbase or other expired. Not too many presidents have done that.

Pista wrote:I think most countries would either impose sanctions or even expel the Ecuadoreans.
They are looking for deals with the EU & to do so would seriously feck that up.

And the EU countries are desperately looking for export markets to help them drag themselves out of recession. South/Central America is a rapidly growing market for exports. Besides, no one wants to go down that road of escalating problems with diplomatic and trade relations (with Ecuador pulling in support from all the other South/Central American countries) which would damage both sides.

Pista wrote: What do Ecuador stand to gain from this do you think?

Oh, they're just having fun being an annoying irritant to the US (and to a lesser extent, to the UK) because they know the US want Assange extradited to them as soon as he sets foot in Sweden.

Its reached the point where its impossible for me to get my head around it - nobody appears to have any moral high ground at all and there are now so many inter-dependant issues I don't believe much, if any of it, will be resolved.
I see no reason why Assange can't be interviewed by the Swedish authorities in the UK or anywhere else in the world. If I understand it correctly, these interviews need to take place before any possible sex assault charges could be brought against him.
I think the UK extradition agreements are already f**ked enough without extraditing people before they've even been charged.
However you feel about public-interest immunity, it is right that people are held accountable for the Wikileaks revelations, which seem to have been very conveniently swept under the carpet.

Once Ecuador had accepted him into their embassy, I think they had little option but to say no when asked to kick him out.

czuczu wrote:...nobody appears to have any moral high ground at all and there are now so many inter-dependant issues I don't believe much, if any of it, will be resolved.

Completely agree! I want the sleazy bastard Assange tried for rape, I want the US to back the f**k off and release Bradley Manning from illegal imprisonment without trial and start being the land of the free again, and I want the Swedish government to grow a pair and guarantee that they won't use the rape trial to extradite Assange to the US.

czuczu wrote:However you feel about public-interest immunity, it is right that people are held accountable for the Wikileaks revelations

Why?

Someone who reveals criminal wrongdoing (as the Wikileaks revelations did) shouldn't be punished for revealing that criminal wrongdoing.

Surely it's the criminal wrongdoers who have been revealed who should be punished, not the person(s) who revealed it?

(If I'm wrong then I'll never report any crime I witness!)

lazarus corporation wrote:
Surely it's the criminal wrongdoers who have been revealed who should be punished, not the person(s) who revealed it?

(If I'm wrong then I'll never report any crime I witness!)

Nail/head interface

lazarus corporation wrote:

czuczu wrote:However you feel about public-interest immunity, it is right that people are held accountable for the Wikileaks revelations

Why?

Someone who reveals criminal wrongdoing (as the Wikileaks revelations did) shouldn't be punished for revealing that criminal wrongdoing.

That includes both the people who are the subject of the actual leaks or people involved in the aquisition and the actual leaking.
Its not that dissimilar to some of the stuff at the heart of the Leveson inquiry, very few people would say its acceptable for a tabloid to dig up a load of dirt, whether legally or not, and then wash their hands and walk away without taking responsibility for their own reporting and their motivation for that reporting.
Wikileaks didn't innocently witness a crime and report it, they've played a very active part in this.
A part that I'm, for the most part, actually in favour of but they can't just play the 'don't shoot the messenger' card.

lazarus corporation wrote:

Pista wrote:I think most countries would either impose sanctions or even expel the Ecuadoreans.
They are looking for deals with the EU & to do so would seriously feck that up.

And the EU countries are desperately looking for export markets to help them drag themselves out of recession. South/Central America is a rapidly growing market for exports. Besides, no one wants to go down that road of escalating problems with diplomatic and trade relations (with Ecuador pulling in support from all the other South/Central American countries) which would damage both sides.

Pista wrote: What do Ecuador stand to gain from this do you think?

Oh, they're just having fun being an annoying irritant to the US (and to a lesser extent, to the UK) because they know the US want Assange extradited to them as soon as he sets foot in Sweden.

I agree with both your first post in thread and this. South/central America countries now just having fun pissing States.
Mr Assange said nothing special or worth comment.
I still have problem with WikiLeaks, on one way it's fun and good, but on the other not really. I'm talking of course about what ambassadors/ politicians talks behind curtain, it's more case for tabloids. We all know what's going on, that same things happens in normal workplace and not only, but those people have simle job to do, so throwing this it's only puting sticks, it didn't/doesn't help anyone; obviously i have nothing against putting in day light hidden crimes in Afghanistan or Iraq, civilans and, for sure, tabilans there knows what happened, so it's not something that should be hidden, for sake of national/public security, to not irritate, to not provoke attacks, but people here have right to know about that situations.

For me, the most disturbing thing about the whole business is the way the Left is fracturing.

If you are to believe the binary choice presented by the two most vocal groups of left-leaning commentators (on Twitter, blogs, etc) then you can either:

• be against rape (and completely dismiss the real threat of imprisonment without trial or torture), or
• be against imprisonment without trial/torture (and belittle or ignore the crime of rape),

...but you're seemingly not allowed to think that both are vile.

Makes me want to smack peoples heads together.

Bartek wrote: We all know what's going on,

Do we?
I'd say we "think" we know what's going on & that's perhaps the tin foil hat in some of us.
Wikileaks is just the other side of a pretty unpleasant coin really.
The only thing I find bad about it is the fact it could put others in more danger than they already are if unchecked.
I think the point here though isn't so much the leaks, but the extradition of this guy to Sweden to answer charges of sexual assault.
The USA have no interest (I assume) in those charges though.
They just want to jail his erse for painting them out to be bad guys.
Any administration with half a brain would have managed to put a spin on the leaks by now & any administration with integrity would have taken appropriate action on the perpetrators of the illegal acts that were leaked. Including taking Assange to court for fibbing to the world (if that's what he did).
My stance is that any administration that can't even do that (after so long) does not deserve to have him extradited there.

Pista, we all act same in normal/civil life, we smile polite, shake hands like normal, well baheving, cultural people and what we think, is what we think, some of us talk aloud they thoughts/opinions to other about that, if they know this man/woman is not gonna do same what we just did. It 'normal'. And about that i was writing/thinking.

As i said, Assange should defence himself from that allegations. And by defence i mean go to Sweden and let independent court do its job.

And i think that USA has something, not directly, if that allegations will turn out to be true Assange will lose some of his credits. I'm not suggesting any conspiracy theories there.

If the Americans wanted him, why wouldn't they have used the incredibly lopsided extradition treaty they have with the UK, a nation not famed for being a bastion of anti-US opinion? The idea that instead of that, they'd wait for him to be extradited to liberal Sweden, and from there try and extradite him makes no sense. I'm not convinced that anyone apart from a few of the nuttier windbags in the US political scene want him anyway. It's just Assange's excuse for not facing the music in Sweden. I'd hope even the most virulent Assange supporter might be having second thoughts about him now. Brave, he is not..

Bartek wrote:
As i said, Assange should defence himself from that allegations. And by defence i mean go to Sweden and let independent court do its job.

Totally agree.

I think the idea that he might be extradited (I wrote "exported" at first ) from Sweden to the US is just something he's conjured up to avoid facing the rape allegations.

lazarus corporation wrote: Sweden MUST guarantee that Assange will not be deported to the US, then Assange MUST be tried on the rape allegations.

This. Precisely.

PS please don't misgender "Bradley" Manning. She's called Breanna now, IIUC.

lazarus corporation wrote:So, what's everyone's take on it?

The short version of my perspective is: Sweden MUST guarantee that Assange will not be deported to the US, then Assange MUST be tried on the rape allegations.

Exactly.

There's been, btw, a comprehensive article on the allegations in The Guardian.

spam