“Brave and Principled Ecuador”

I think not.

Reporters without Borders
http://en.rsf.org/ecuador-weekly-unable-to-publish-after-06-08-2012,43167.html
http://en.rsf.org/ecuador-presidential-attacks-on-17-07-2012,43046.html
http://en.rsf.org/equateur-four-radio-broadcasters-and-two-tv-13-06-2012,42788.html

Human Rights Watch
http://www.hrw.org/americas/ecuador

Why did Assange pick Ecuador, the antithesis for which he claims to stand?

Lukashenko Barankov, a young whistleblower from Belarus, set up a blog denouncing abuses and corruption under the repressive regime of Belarus dictator, Aleksandr Lukashenko

Branankov visited Ecuador in June, was immediately arrested, imprisoned in Quito, and is facing extradition. On being sent home he faces torture and the death penalty.

Even Luke Harding, an Assange supporter, states that “it would be nice to think that Assange will speak up for Barankov during his next balcony speech.”

Luke Harding, senior international correspondent for the Guardian, writing for the New Statesman http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/politics/2012/08/lets-not-confuse-activities-wikileaks-those-assange

Increasingly Assange's strongest supporters, those principled and with conscience, are increasingly finding Assange has feet of clay, and perhaps not what he promotes himself to be.

Notwithstanding that it's difficult for some people not to blithely fall into line with prescribed media-think on Assange, this article lays the pros and cons out fairly well.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/22/julian-assange-media-contempt

and this on the US army's perceived threat from Wikileaks
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/18/us/18wiki.html?_r=1

Danielle,

While you're exposing the wrongs in Ecuador, perhaps you'd like to extend your research talents to enlightening us on the atrocities exposed by Wikileaks concerning the US and its conduct in Iraq.

G'day Poirot,

No, it is possible to have contempt for a scumbag show-pony like Assange without being in the pocket of Wall Street.

Thanks for that Guardian URL, by the way: it had this article -

"Galloway wades into Assange row -

Respect MP criticised by anti-rape campaigners after claiming having sex with a woman when she is asleep is not rape .... "

Would you be prepared to support Galloway, and indirectly, allegedly, Assange ?

Perhaps Galloway and that Tea Party nut-case could get together - with Assange - and declare that not only women like being r00ted while they are sleeping but they can't get pregnant from it either.

Back when you were a feminist, what would have been your position on this sort of garbage ?

Christ, how far the pseudo-Left have fallen. No wonder Galloway sucks up to Muslim extremists: all male chauvinists together.

Or is male chauvinism progressive these days ? Gosh, I'm so old-fashioned, I just can't keep up :(

Or maybe it just shows how far we still have to go for that frail orphan, abandoned by Left and right: genuine gender equality.

Cheers,

Joe

:)

Dear Poirot,

"...perhaps you'd like to extend your research talents to enlightening us on the atrocities exposed by Wikileaks concerning the US and its conduct in Iraq."

I was not surprised at any of the revelations from Wikileaks. I found nothing earth-shatteringly unexpected.

Many were outraged at the sight of a group of men, one of whom was carrying a weapon, being shot down. Am I right?

If there had been someone on the ground immediately afterwards, who unequivocally identified these men as insurgents, would there have have been such an outcry?

During the Malay Emergency the British would have done the same. A person carrying a weapon in company of a group of other men would have been seen to be possible terrorists.

In combat zones such groups are highly suspicious (correctly so) and there is invariably no second-guessing.

Traditionally, all combatants wore uniforms to distinguish themselves from civilians. Not today. This creates a different mind set ...

Incidentally, during the Emergency, suspected terrorist nests were bombed/attacked. Were terrorists killed ...? But certainly innocent civilians would have been.

It seems to be more palatable to see carnage hidden under bricks and mortar than human beings killed in the open. But ultimately it is the same.

None deny that war is bloody awful

loudmouth,

If the British and Swedish authorities really wanted to get to the bottom of the allegations, and "question" Assange, it is in their power to do so. The Swedish authorities could take up Assange's repeated offer to question him in London - or they could give him an iron-clad guarantee that he will not be extradited to the US.

And you're not interested in getting to the bottom of it anymore than they appear to be. It's clear you much prefer to persist with your pipsqueakery and cutting-edge commentary - an attempt to see how many times you can insert the terms "r00ted" or "r00ting" into one thread?

(I don't find your creative rhetoric all that clever, which is a shame because you obviously put a lot of effort into it)

Cheers

Danielle,

http://www.salon.com/2010/12/24/wikileaks_23/