What is everyone's take on the plight of Julian Assange?

Now that he has been granted asylum by Ecuador, British authorities have refused to grant him safe passage out of the country.

And what of the threat to revoke Ecuador's embassy status and storm the embassy which threatens a gross violation of diplomatic practice accepted under international law....all to pursue a man who hasn't yet been charged with a crime.

My take is this is one huge "stitch" to take out Assange.

http://theconversation.edu.au/britain-bungles-assange-asylum-bid-8903

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/16/julian-assange-asylum-ecuador

Poirot, I think a lot of this is grandstanding by the Ecuador Government for home consumption and by Assange to keep the funds flowing in from his followers. The UK did not threaten to storm the Embassy. They pointed out in a letter that the diplomatic status of the Embassy could be revoked under the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987 if the Embassy is being used for other than diplomatic purposes.

Of course the UK will not grant safe passage to Assange. They have an obligation under international law to send him to Sweden to answer charges of criminal conduct. Ecuador giving him political asylum doesn’t change that. The accusations are for criminal, not political, activity.

Agronomist,

..."The accusations are for criminal, not political, activity."

To imagine that the threat to revoke embassy status is not "unusual" in pursuit of a man who has yet to be charged. Obviously it is extremely "political" (unless one wishes to naively follow the official line).

Poirot, you are conflating several things. 1. Embassy premises must be used exclusively for diplomatic purposes. Harbouring a non-resident and non-citizen for whom an arrest warrant for alleged criminal activity is extant would appear to be non-diplomatic activity.

2. The fact that Assange has not been charged is because he is not in Sweden. A European Arrest Warrant is extant and the UK is obliged by international law to deliver him up.

The only political activity appears to be on the part of the Ecuadorean Government.

$10 says America is behind the whole thing and the lap dogs (politicians) in England, Sweden, Australia will bend over backwards to do there bidding. This whole episode in Sweden has CIA honeypot all over it.

I like the cut of his jib. Well, I also think he looks rather weedish and a bit too metro or something. I guarantee he reads GQ.

I hate the name. I don't watch the TV news so I don't think I have the pronunciation down pat. Usarnge is how my brain reads it. Don't correct me as it would create an irritating feeling every time I correct myself. Actually the irritating feeling is already there due to the slight uncertainty.

That's about as important it all is to me though. I just like the spirit of any troublemaker really, and my anti-authoritarian spirit makes me like the embarrassment he causes while not really liking the guy that much.

I hate how the left embraces him so, as some kind of hero, and I think if a rugby league player was charged with similar offences they'd be baying for blood. Women are totally trustworthy when claiming an elite athlete is a rapist, but dodgy as buggery when claiming a mild-mannered ideologue is a rapist.

I imagine it would be nice being him though, with all that attention, and he already has successfully pulled the black-rimmed glasses groupies in Sweden.(What is it about girls of a certain age that are so easily pulled in by the effeminate revolutionary socialist. I suppose it's a stage of life just before they realise they'd rather be shagged by a more masculine man who is really just as intelligent but without the pretentious moralising BS)

What was the topic again?

Go the Ecuadorians!

Sounds like a lot of fun all this wasting court moneys and protests and people taking life way too seriously. I think on the whole governments take themselves way too seriously. What's the difference anyway, we know they are generally pretty corrupt, and motives for things are quite transparent, yet we have all this outrage to stop someone with a penchant for sifting through boring sh1t to prove the obvious.

Agronomist,

From the Guardian article:

"Is their anyone in their right mind who believes that the UK government would make such an unprecedented threat if this were just about an ordinary foreign citizen wanted for questioning - not criminal charges or trial - by a foreign government?"

If it looks like a duck....

Not so Great Britain?
To even consider entering the Embassy is both dangerous and just maybe the repercussions will do great damage.
I too am greatly concerned, do we all know the nature of this sexual assault?
The fact is it was sex without a condom!
Mutually agreed.
Until both women, days after talked about it and ,then said it was sexual assault!
Hardly.
America land of the free, can not be trusted on this issue, it took folk by CIA plane to other country's and tortured them.
I share the view if Assange went to answer this feeble charge he may face life in prison, or given the increasingly frantic nature of some Americans a death sentence.
America, without delay or second thought would take such as weakileaks prints if it was of use to them.

Expert statement by Sven Eric Alhem on the suspect conduct of Sweden's Assange "investigation".

http://www.scribd.com/doc/48396086/Assange-Case-Opinion-Sven-Eric-Alhem

Which, of course, should read Sven-"Erik" Alhem.

(strange how the link still worked)

I think he's nothing but a smarty, with no interest in anything or anyone but himself & a quick quid to be made.

I don't think he is worth the consideration of real people, & definitely not any effort by our government.

He matches Corby, not worth feeding, & not worthy of all the sympathy.

Hasbeen - Have to disagree for toooooo long Governments and organizations have been hiding what they are really doing from the people who elected them. His organization at least started to erode the secrecy of how Governments really operate and they are scared stiff about there dirty secrets coming out. So I for one support him.

Sven-Erik Alhelm’s expert testimony at the Extradition hearing was in large part discounted by the Judge because it relied on the false statement by Assange’s Swedish lawyer Bjorn Hurtig that the prosecutors had not attempted to interview Assange in Sweden. http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/jud-aut-sweden-v-assange-judgment.pdf

His main argument that the EAW was unfair was shot down by Assange’s own lawyer attempting to mislead the court. On the other matters that Assange’s legal team attempted to argue, Alhelm sided with the prosecution in his court testimony. His testimony was that the EAW was valid and had been produced by a valid authority. Alhelm also stated that it was not possible for Assange to be further extradited from Sweden to the US.

Given his expert testimony was tainted by the reliance on Hartig’s false statement, I wouldn’t rely on it too much.

He is an egotistical fool and a coward.
He should have kept his mouth shut and his face out of the media. By whoring himself around with press conferences and public appearances he set himself up as a target and he took the focus off the actual content of what Wikileaks released. Julian Assange became the story not collateral murder or the numerous unsavoury diplomatic cables not to mention the war crimes and atrocities detailed in them. Instead it was all about that blond prat and his conquests.

He is a coward because once the "authorities" had him in their sights he ran like a scared puppy and is now holed up in an embassy in London with no escape. He should have dared the Americans to abduct him and even been prepared to be a martyr. If thats what it took to get the world to listen. If the Americans did "acquire" him I am sure it would spark an outcry around the world and would prove to many that the US really is an evil empire. But no he is going to rot forever in the Ecuadorian embassy in London and just keep on overshadowing anything Wikileaks does. Selfish git.

mikk - Wrong he was a target as soon as the documents etc were released nothing would have changed that fact staying out of the public spotlight would have done nothing as the bulls eye was already on him. The conferences etc at least will give him a degree of public support.
Would you in his place have given up to spend the rest of your life in Guantanamo bay or as some American politicians stated he should just be killed.

Dear Poirot,

One thing's obvious. Assange does have genuine concerns
about being extradited to the US. Both the Prime Minister
and Foreign Minister, Bob Carr haven't quite answered
questions over whether they've asked the US what their plans
are for Mr Assange. The PM skirted around this issue on
Q and A, when Tony Jones tried to get an answer from her.

I find the attitude of the British government quite bizarre
when they threaten to remove accreditation of the Ecquadorian
Embassy in London in order to arrest Assange to send him over
to the Swedes, so that they can ask him questions... How strange
is that.

Why can't the Brits invite the Swedish prosecutors to London
to question Mr Assange? If that's all they want to do.

I'm not as a rule into conspiracy theories. But this entire
sorry saga - smacks of ... the Yanks must really want this
guy badly! I'm truly
amazed that it's come to this. As for waiting for any Australian
government support. Assange shouldn't hold his breath.
He's right to be concerned.

Apparently there are negative consequences and repercussions associated with leaking sensitive information of the world's most powerful nations. A sense of humour isn't their best attribute when it comes to these things.

They'll get him, in the end. He knows it too. We all do.

We humans are indeed different.
We clash verbally on any issue and in my view say things we surely in reality do not think.
I hope hasbeen does not truly think that.
Let us look, in a world that asks us all questions, why so many dead civilians, friendly fellow fighters deaths.
We in my view have a right to know why, Lexi do not write of conspiracy's so quickly.
Is the American pledge of freedom of speech only for some.
Look at the brilliant American now resident here, ex military lawyer who defended Hicks.
He proves the real proud America exists still.
But look too at the British/American/Australian grubs trying to harm this man and his source.
FOR caring about wrong! and our right to know.
M/S Gillard ex far left ex lawyer is a sad shell of what she once was.
If they get him the movement against that action will be bigger than David Hicks one was.

interesting...page froze..first time ever..when i went to post yesterday..[ANYHOW*..i rekon uk should go in..big time
so next time some chinese artist hides from his govt
that govt can ignore diplomatic protocaul too..

uk [and her bedlem mate..;have too much too loose
heck even the natzies had diplomats..immunity..ditto the ruskies
as if the lawyers dont know..so what other issue is this topic hiding

its a red herring..so we gosip about this
not that...that this obvious red herring is hiding

http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/08/16/bank-break-ups-dividends/
Overall, retail investors have been very busy pulling money out of stocks in recent weeks.

The following are the net inflows to equity funds over the past five weeks (in millions of dollars) according to ICI….

7/11/2012: -537

7/18/2012: 637

7/25/2012: -2,999

8/1/2012: -6,866

8/8/2012: -3,684

According to the figures above, more than 10 billion dollars has been pulled out of equity funds over the past two weeks alone.

http://www.blacklistednews.com/Startling_Evidence_That_Central_Banks_And_Wall_Street_Insiders_Are_Rapidly_Preparing_For_Something_BIG/21067/0/38/38/Y/M.html

Or it might be something else.

But the conditions are definitely there for it to happen.

Unfortunately, the American public is never told to prepare because authorities never want “to panic” the general population.

We are always the last to know, and that stinks.

So don’t wait for someone to come on the television and announce that a crisis is happening.

If you wait that long, it will be too late.

Instead, open up your eyes and think for yourself.

We all need to work hard to get prepared for the coming crisis while we still can.

As you can see, Wall Street insiders, the U.S. government and the central banks of the world are busy getting prepared.

Don’t put your head in the sand.

The warning signs are there and time is running out.


So does this mean anything?

Maybe.

Maybe not.

But it is very interesting and it bears watching.

Poirot, I think that he's a drama queen, who loves all the attention and all the easy sex with groupies.

He's upset the diplomatic community around the world with his publications, so of course they will be after him. If he thought that they would just do nothing in response, he really does not understand our world too well.

Yabby,

I'm interested in the Swedish allegations being a stitch. Most posters commenting here see it that way (except Agronomist). Yes, I agree that "they're after him".
There's something putrid and pathetic, however, about the 'land of the brave and free' and its hangers-on putting on this pantomime for the plebs, when it's obvious what's really going on. Why not be up front about it?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19303615

We are wandering far from subject.
May I highlight some thing the thread shows.
We each have opinions, mostly different.
And minor insults to others thoughts some times take place.
We say, thinking we agree, all opinions have value, [but secretly think just not as much as mine]!
Truth is they all have a value.
But how do we reach our views?
Here is how I got mine, I never liked the bloke, bit jealous of blond men .
Women rush to them, looks a bit of a mummy's boy too.
He seems to flaunt himself in front of cameras, but we all do.
All the world is a stage and we just can not help acting!
He released just a bit too much, not the hard stuff, good on him for that.
Should not have put spies lives at risk.
WHY then would I fight for him, even to the death, yes death.
He speaks for me,and you, he reminds us all humanity is no toy America Britain and Australia to us use us endanger us.
He I hope is the first of one hundred thousand who fight to prove we have every right to know.
And to freedom of speech.

Poirot, a snip from your article:

*The South American country has said Mr Assange's human rights could be violated if he is sent to Sweden to be questioned over allegations that he sexually assaulted two ex-Wikileaks volunteers in Stockholm in 2010.*

Ho ho ho, when did a South American country ever worry so much about
a single person's human rights? This is the big boys playing their
international games. But Assange should have known that they won't just do nothing. Unless he is thick and I don't think he is, he is simply an attention seeking drama queen.

Well, yes, Yabby....most people don't do anything about anything - and if someone like Assange hoves into view and stirs the pot, the same people label him an attention-seeking drama queen.

Are you suggesting he should refuse Ecuador's lifeline now it's achieved?

Poirot I'm suggesting that Assange is probably doing what he loves, doing, ie being the centre of media attention, with everyone flocking around him. How many people get that much attention, over their
individual human rights?

So he's playing the game for all that its worth, which he seemingly
enjoys. I certainly don't see him as a victim.

I did read the Guardian link Poirot and found it a succinct description of the the "real world" in reference made to Mikk (whom seems to have developed a personal dislike for someone he has never met).

As well as Assange himself being at the epicentre of all this, is the issue of the sanctity of the free press and the activity of whistle blowers.

Are these things we wish to retain and encourage ?, or, is it better not to know at all how the "real world" operates, and just cop it ?.

If the US is allowed to "render" (and I use this word on purpose), Julian Assange to face espionage charges in that country, from the UK, Sweden or any other country, then the message to the free press and whistle blowers throughout the so called free world, will be clear. Freedom of speech and access to information will be a luxury item for the few, for evermore.

Julian Assange aside , if you can't see this Agro,Has, Mikk and Stg, why, because I am at a loss to understand how such action by the US could be interpreted as anything but political by any reasoned person. Such action would certainly not be born of anything logical, justifiable, morally defensible, socially beneficial, or even sane for that matter.

If we accept this, then where do we go from here?, and could some explain democracy for me again ?.

As for the Assange part, it occurs to me that this is similar to a property dispute in that possession is 9/10ths of the law, whomever is holding Julian Assange controls the game.

The US is already holding the pawn in Bradley Manning; its now aiming trap the champion of the free press/whistle blowers in checkmate. The aim being to have his influence quelled, his notion of a window to reality for all to see, closed, his visage a memory, for once and for all.

If I may say, the stakes are too high here for flippancy.

I like the way speculation becomes fact around here.

1. Currently there is no evidence of US involvement in any of the actions undertaken. It is all supposition. It makes no sense for the US to be trying to get Assange extradited to Sweden. If the US wants Assange it would be far simpler and less risky to apply for extradition from the UK. The Swedish legal expert Assange had at his trial categorically stated that the US would not be able to extradite Assange from Sweden. Presumably that means while the investigation in Sweden is active, but it is not clear. In any case, under European laws a person cannot be extradited to another country for an offence which may involve the death penalty. So all those comments are simply speculation as well.

2. Assange has broken no US law. He has embarrassed the US dramatically; however, this precedent https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/403/713/case.html upheld the 1st Amendment with respect to US military documents. So Assange cannot be charged with publishing the documents.

3. There is a valid European Arrest Warrant for Assange’s arrest and repatriation to Sweden who claim he has a “probable case” to answer. http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/jud-aut-sweden-v-assange-judgment.pdf

4. Ecuador has broken with The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_1_1961.pdf and given asylum to someone who is not eligible under international law http://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10.html How the UK is going to react to this remains to be seen. Storming the Embassy was never an option - despite the grandstanding by the Ecuadorean Foreign Minister.

5. Political asylum in Ecuador is of no value to Assange unless he can get to Ecuador. There are limited ways that Ecuador can legally get Assange out of the UK. About the only way would be to accredit him as a diplomat, but the UK is like to refuse the accreditation. Accreditation to any other country won’t help because the diplomatic immunity only applies in the accredited country. Accreditation to the UN might work, but I suspect the UK will arrest and then let the courts decide rather than let him out.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/us-in-pursuit-of-assange-cables-reveal-20120817-24e8u.html

"The Australian embassy in Washington has been tracking a US espionage investigation targeting the Wikileaks publisher for more than eighteen months....Australia's ambassador to the US, former Labor leader, Kim Beazley, has made high-level representations to the American government, asking for warning on any moves to prosecute Assange..."

Are you saying that it's perfectly reasonable for the UK to threaten to invade Ecuadorian embassy space to arrest a man who is merely wanted for "questioning" in regard to the Swedish allegations?

Do you not find that a tad ridiculous?

Agronomist am I stretching things or are you being critical of others rights to opinions other than those you hold?
I have heard of Americans holding pre trial meetings to get the man convicted.
And Manning is not the first to be arrested held on the charge?
Being concerned at his own country's actions.
A victim of caring too much was uncovered after he let evidence of American involvement in Australian politics out.
Wounder if they let him out yet?

Thats all very well Agro but it ignores the fact that many of power and influence in US politics and the military have most publicly expressed their desire and intent to get their hands on Assange.

In addition to this the Fairfax press today ran a story with documentary report that our own foreign affairs department also believe in a possible threat to Assange from the US.

Your case also ignores many unexplained anomalies of this situation. Why don't the Swedes ask their questions in the UK and then charge him if they must, then apply for extradition.
Answer: because it's about having possession of Assange, not for being in possession of a valid reason for detaining or extraditing him.

The un-precendented thuggish behaviour of the British Gov't is another.

The leaked stratfor emails another, providing a clearcut example of evidence of the possibility of threat to either JA's liberty or person. And so on.

Your list of rules would be great if everybody observed them, but in the real world of today thats often not the case, and I suspect as well, that the intent of the US re this matter, is not wholesome, regardless of whether or not you provide a map of whats supposed to happen Agro

cheers T2.

Poirot, you haven’t bothered to carefully read what I wrote. Nowhere did I say that “perfectly reasonable for the UK to threaten to invade Ecuadorian embassy space to arrest a man who is merely wanted for "questioning" in regard to the Swedish allegations” or indeed anything that could be construed that way.

Nowhere has the UK threaten to invade the Embassy. All they did was write a letter to the Ambassador pointing out that if the Embassy is used for non-diplomatic purposes, the UK has the right under law to remove the accreditation of the embassy. Whether the UK would go down this route is unlikely.

Reading judgement of the extradition hearing, which I have linked to would show that Assange is not wanted for ‘questioning’. The Swedish prosecutors consider there is sufficient evidence that charges are probable.

Belly, I am pointing out with links to legal opinions where the evidence sits. There is a lot of nonsense being written. People are entitled to hold whatever opinions they like. They are not entitled to their own set of facts. So where is the evidence that the US have held pre-trial meetings to convict Assange?

The case of Bradley Manning is very different. He stole classified documents to which he had official access and passed them on to another person. That is not covered by the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution.

Thinker 2. Yes many people in America have expressed their thoughts on this. Legally, they have no power to act against Assange yet, so it is simply all posturing. There is a large gulf between what people might like to do and what the law will allow them to do.

It is only prudent for Australian Foreign Affairs examine the prospect of Assange being extradited to the US – after all he is an Australian citizen and they may be called in to offer consular assistance if he is extradited. The US hasn’t made a legal attempt to extradite Assange over the past 2 years, so why would they start now? What new evidence has arisen?

Agronomist,

While I agree that much conjecture abounds, it really does stretch the bounds of reason to ignore the conveniently cooked-up case against Assange in Sweden...just my opinion, of course.

The Ecuadorian Foreign Minister appeared to consider that a threat to arrest Assange inside the embassy had been made.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-19259623

"At a news in Quito on Wednesday, Ecuador's Foreign Minister, Ricardo Patino, said a letter from the UK government had been delivered through a British embassy official.
"Today we received from the United Kingdom an express threat, in writing that they might storm our embassy in London if we don't hand over Julian Assange", he said"

This thread begs the question:

Who would you rather be, Salman Rushdie or Julian Assange.

I go Rushdie because the American administration are terrorists.

Agro, my thanks for that Poirot it is brilliant!
Research you subject, it is no secrete a grand jury has been empaneled.
A pre cursor to charges in America.
It seems only the uninterested can find no reason to fear America, maybe Britain, and my ALP government want to put him on trial.
What is in the public interest? did those who uncovered and wrote about Water Gate commit treason?
The America press who first told us of CIA involvement mass murder in Chile? traitors?
At what point has the citizens of any country got the right to know what its government is doing in their name?
Did we have the right to now what America did in the 1970,s in this country.
NO! I am not anti America!
But this matter until fixed measures that country along side Chine, Russia] Pussy Riot] and the people we claim to be better than.
Is America Democratic? this test may answer that in the next year.

Quote "no secrete a grand jury has been empaneled." If every one knew about it it would not be a secret VERY few would know about it. The world would only find out when he was in a country America could get him from easily.
They denied all the torture in Iraq until the photos were published in the press, they even had the photos but denied it.
America has as much credibility as the labor Government NO carbon tax.

Assange doesn't interest me one iota, but I am amused to see the critisism of the USA.

Bearing in mind that there are some, quite a few actually, that advocate that we become a republic and hold the USA up as a model for us.

As one reader wrote in The Saturday Age, August 18, 2012:

"Australian citizens around the world can now
take heart. Ecuador will protect your rights."

Phillip s well depends, see I read about it in the press.
Still if it suits you to sling off at spelling while showing just maybe you do not know as much as others do?
Banjo! how do you link this with that?
If you can tell me please do.
Carbon tax? thanks to the ALP for leading once again, nothing to do with the subject but one cheap shot deserves another

And that reader of the Age, hits the nail on the head with that comment Lexi.

Belly,
I see our embassy staff in UK have been in touch with Assange recently and he does not want further assistance. I wonder why some people think Assange should get more assistance and/or support than any other citizen who finds himself in trouble in another country.

It also amusses me that with posters here saying that the US administration is so corrupt and untrustworthy and their agencies can act as a law unto themselves, without checks and balances. If this is proven and common knowledge, why would anyone advocate the US as a model should we become a republic. Maybe our governance system is not so bad after all. Must remember this critisism of the US system when next there is discussion about a republic.

Declaration of Abandonment

http://justice4assange.com/Declaration-of-Abandonment.html

There are posters here talking about freedom of speech and human rights.

Where were they when the Queensland Beattie government railroaded Pauline Hanson into prison? Proven to be wrongfully convicted and there never has been any compensation nor costs reimburst.

Yes that happened right here! You don't have to go elsewhere to see political action by courts. Pauline was a political prisoner

What about the current Gillard government proposals to restrict the freedom of the press here and the freedom of speech.

I suggest these items should be of more concern.

How very nice of you Banjo!
Getting it so wrong.
And leaving the door open.
Tony Abbott! heard of him?
He is the undisputed owner of the scalp of Mrs one Nation.
Let us however ALL learn from Banjos posts here,sorry mate.
We are seeing a frantic rush to hurl anything but truth at Assange.
By some who just do not understand what he may face and why.
Who do not understand just how much better we are for knowing what he told us.
And because unaware of all the above they just do not like him.
To my government, the reformist ALP I urge you to look past his persona,past the down on our knees to every thing USA.
And tell me, are we too afraid to be told the truth?

I cant believe nobody has mentioned that Ecuador was a strange place to seek asylum for a free speech advocate.

H true but if your life is at risk?
Why no further comments about Abbott's role in pursuing one nations leaders?

Belly,
You are wrong, it was the Qld Beatie government that persecuted Pauline in the courts, which subsequently was shown to be wrongfull conviction. Then Beatie's refusal to compensate Pauline in any way or reimburse her legal costs, yet at the same time paid compensation to some other person for their experience.

I have no doubt that Abbott was involved with Beatie in this action as both Liberal and Labor conspired to bring about her demise. They colluded to place all One nation candidates last on their HTVs


Political persecution was the motive. This is something one would expect in China, Russia or some banana republic.

Has no-one noticed that its the "hunting season" in the US.
Locked into Americans DNA is a need to pick up a gun and shoot something that can't shoot back. They do it collectively once a year, or more often if they get the chance.
Knowing little about the rest of the world, they believe that they have the right to shoot whomever they please, wherever they are.
Julian has caused them some concern about their task of running the world, so he now is in their sights.
With their version of national pride, they have to keeps stalking their prey, regardless of how much international credibility they may lose in the process.

Anyone else seen his latest bit of posing? Drama queen for sure, but with a very good eye for pulling in the money, & the lefties, who hate the US.

I would like to see, & have, his Swiss numbered account.

I wouldn't feed the smarty. He'd be a used car salesman, particularly selling to the ladies, if he was not onto a better score where he is.

I don't doubt the sex was consensual, but I'll bet he had each lady thinking she was something special. When they found they had been had, they bitched.

This is something that happens all the time, & the lefties, particularly the ladies are right on side with the complaining ladies.

Could it be this one is at least a pretend lefty, & very pretty too?

OH so lefty get more sex?
And ok for blokes but the girls are bad, got a little black book for me mate?
Sex without a condom, just think life in prison or even death because those Nice Americans do deals with the weird Nordics!
OH hang on!
America sell that country condoms?

On the contrary Hasbeen, I think one problem that Julian Assange has, is that he is not a natural (even comfortable) public speaker, and rather than posing as you suggest, I think was trying to keep it as simple as possible.

References to JA's sexual prowess or engaging in other vexatious speculation don't actually have any bearing on the argument anyway.

For example, Assange's concept media provider Wikileaks revealed the existence of the facial recognition technology known as trapwire, existing in the US and purportedly now here. (The subject of enquiries made by the Greens in Parlt this week.) Surely knowing about things like this carry far more gravitas for us all, than whether we like JA or not.

I can't see the comparison between Pauline Hanson and this situation at all. Pauline's mission, had nothing at all to do with Global freedom. And whilst on the subject of Qld, I don't remember Joh Bjelke ever properly facing justice, or paying for the his part in a corrupt regime, but what does that have to do with this post.

Here is more proof of the value of Wikileaks - "Journalists and media that publish leaked information from parliamentary committees could be banned from federal parliament and face charges of contempt" Politicians trying to cover there mistakes and corruption.
Also "Federal Labor backbencher Steve Gibbons has called for fines for journalists who publish misleading or incorrect stories" It is okay for politicians to lie but no one else can NO CARBON TAX

Phillip S only too glad to help we have and always will a carbon tax.
Your comparison is feeble too.
Saw Assange mum giving it to one of a few on yesterdays ABC news 24!
Proud of her what a great mum!
And she got it right that self indulgent lass she gave it to was trying it on.
Standard stuff ask silly unrelated question to get a result, boy she got one!
Good onya mum!

Wishful thinking is self delusion, & self delusion is always the most convincing lie.

Belly - It is not a comparison it is pointing out that politicians are trying to muzzle the press and it is not for the public good it is to protect themselves. That is why wikileaks and other such organizations are important.

"...self delusion is always the most convincing lie."

Well you should know.

I put up this link in the articles section, but it might be informative here also. Sweden in cahoots with the US (and Egypt)

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/EUR42/001/2006/en/97edf527-d3d2-11dd-8743-d305bea2b2c7/eur420012006en.pdf

Thinker,
Posters here are mentioned human rights, persecution and so on.

My point of raising the persecution of Pauline Hanson, by the Qld Labor government, was to point out that using the courts for political advantage has been used here. There may well be other examples, but Pauline was a political prisoner.

A disgracefull episode in our history.

Banjo the simple truth that Tony Abbott then in the service of John Howard pursued the then leaders of one nation.
To kill off an opponent is the shame, show me how, his constructed charges could not appear in a states courts?
Hasbeen what Poirot said.
Phillips s?

No Belly, the simple truth is that it was the Qld labor government that prosecuted Pauline and railroaded her into jail.

Now that may not line up with your idealistic view of your beloved labor party but that is the truth of the matter and it is on record to prove it.

The magistrate was a 'close friend' of Beatties and convicted her on very dubious evidence. The appeal subsequently aquitted both Pauline and Ettridge.

I would not doubt that Abbott and Beattie worked together on this, as both major parties were out to get Pauline.

But Qld Labor was the prosecutor and did it for political reasons. Then denied her any compensation or costs.

This cannot be passed off by blaming somebody else. It is a shamefull episode and I doubt if Chifley or Curtin would have a bar of it.

Not the Labor I grew up with. You just have to accept the truth.

Banjo,

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/08/22/1061529330032.html

Thanks for the link piorot.
I am having trouble with my browser.
Dropping out and locking up, now using fire fox but in trouble with spell check so returning to Micro soft and locking up.
Banjo, not being big headed, but if I was not so amused and had less problems with pc this thread would have a hundred links to prove you wrong.
In fact Liberal and Labor, at first, feared the loss to her, even I knew she spoke for many.
Remember! in politics 80% think alike on most issues.
A stand out lesson exists here, truth out weights our opinions.
Maybe your thoughts on Assange are wrong too.

Say no more Poirot, and you have let your link do the talking.

Pauline Hansen aside can we get back to importance of defending democracy and help by extension Julian Assange, by telling your local member how you feel about the sovereignty of Australian citizenship, is it time we remind our leadership that we still have a voice.

Imagine if you will, that Sweden was trying to extradite Assange from Australia not the UK and the our Govt (of any persuasion) was still sitting on it's hands, still sitting pat and not saying what they think about the issue of Australian citizenship and how it relates to this matter.

Imagine if you will this scenario; Indonesia wants to extradite a senior australian politician to face questioning over a unsubstantiated allegation made in that country. What do we do say?, that we have an obligation to comply and send him/her with a note attached saying don't forget to give him back when your finished with him/her. Or would we offer them an opportunity to conduct their investigation here. (question the accused here.)

I don't believe we would capitulate and allow extradition for questioning, nor should we be allowing countries to hand our citizen Julian Assange around amongst each other to gain brownie points from the US, whom obviously have plans for his future.

Are we to except the new re-jigged US version of democracy, shrouded in secrecy and achieved by stealth, surveillance, media control and drone.

Or does the fair dinkum Aussie model, still have a chance to breathe in our country ?.
Knowing where they (our pollies) stand on Assange and his situation, encapsulates this, you should want answers from them.

If the US were to extradite Assange (an australian) to face a grand jury, where does your local member stand on this ?. Ask them.

A link to make it easier http://www.aph.gov.au/ to locate your local members email address.

Tell them it matters, I believe this is about all a citizen can do these days.

Belly,
As I said earlier i don't have one iota of interest in Assange. He just should get the same level of support that any Aus citizen gets when they fall foul of the law in other countries. No more no less.

In relation to my using Pauline Hanson as an example of political persecution here.

Pauline was our first political prisoner,enabled by a Qld Labor government, no doubt about that.

The Qld government prosecuted her wrongly for fraud.

If anyone disputes that, show evidence of an apology and compensation after aquital.

Show evidence of her being awarded costs.

Show where the false witness was brought to book.

Show where the $500,000 that Pauline paid back to the Qld Electoral Commission was returned to her. It was not, and aquital meant she was entitled to those funds.

Banjo do you re links related to claims?
Are you keeping up with every day news.
After Abbott,s rather dirty hunting her down, what court could charge her other than that one.
It is an undisputed fact Abbott has the dirty hands here.
IF Britain ever enters another country,s Embassy it will kill Diplomatic immunity.

Banjo, in his post of Tuesday, 21 August 2012 at 11:16:07 AM, makes the point that the persecution of Pauline Hanson was:

"A disgraceful episode in our history."

He is absolutely correct about that.

Banjo is absolutely wrong, IMO (although ably abetted by the opening poster herself, with her admirable link to Margot Kingston's article, in diverting the discussion from Assange) to think that he ought not "have one iota of interest in Assange". Before I try to continue, let me make it clear that this post is not an attack upon Banjo, nor, by inference Hasbeen. I say 'try' because my online experience of recent days has been (no pun intended) one of what I think to be targetted disruption because of my interest in Assange, and my attempts at posting may be delayed from time to time. Poirot, or anyone else familiar with Twitter, will be able to see what I mean with but a few Twitter searches of my various timelines. I tweet as @ForrestGumpp .

Of the but two Wikileaked US diplomatic cables with which I have any direct familiarity, my familiarity has been derived through one article, and one General discussion topic, here on OLO. The one arising out of the OLO topic 'Sanctuary' is of cable STOCKHOLM 748 dated 2008, and provides background information, once understood in context, as to at least one reason why Assange is being so relentlessly pursued. The other is the cable that revealed former Senator Mark Arbib's 'protected informant' status within what has, courtesy of Wikileaks, been shown to have been the extraordinarily 'globalised' insecurety of the US endigitized diplomatic information record system.

The Arbib revelations, as they bear upon the background to the 'coup' that removed Rudd from the primeministership in 2010, also provide, to those who recognise the significance of the endigitization that commenced in the 80's of the Australian electoral rolls, and of Rudd's 'control freaking' intrusion into electoral matters with the DPMC-managed Electoral Reform Green Paper of 2009, an indirect link to the persecution of Pauline Hanson.

Hopefully TBC

Continued

Here's a link to a post of mine made in November 2009, from which viewers can scroll and perhaps get a bit of an insight into what Kevin Rudd's Electoral Reform Green Paper was about: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3212#76257
Its arcane and dry-as-dust stuff, but there as a matter of record.

Now the thing was, IMO, that Kevvie's little DPMC foray into electoral reform, and specifically that part of it that may have foreshadowed 'automatic enrollment' of electors to be effected by the Australian Electoral Commission, as opposed to enrollment effected of an elector's own motion, may have been seen in some quarters (perhaps quarters outside of Australia, even) as threatening a 'good thing' already clandestinely in place that already did this 'job'.

The threat may have been seen as a soon-to-take-place design and emplacement of an official, transparent, and auditable system of automatic electoral enrollment (and transfer of enrollment) resulting in the throwing up of evidence as to the existence and extent of the putative clandestine system doing the same thing, to the eventual end of manipulating RIGHT ACROSS THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM Australian electoral outcomes.

So, even though he may not have realized specifically what it was that brought it upon him, it looks like a decision was made, somewhere, that Kevvie had to go.

Courtesy of Wikileaks, Assange, and the cable dumps, we see Arbib and others enjoying some form of 'protected' status seemingly REPORTING BACK during 2009 as to progress in this replacing of Rudd!

It is also a curious thing that the electoral enrollment statistics showing enrollments as a percentage (92%, from memory) of the theoretically maximum possible supplied by the AEC to DPMC only commenced in the 90's. A study submitted to the Inquiry into the conduct of the 2004 Federal elections claimed 100% (or greater) enrollment as at 1987.

Amazingly, to my knowledge, no auditable continuing statistics comparing electoral enrollments with population statistics as to persons qualified to enroll, have ever been published by the ABS.

Hopefully TBC

Glad to see you back Forrest and very interested in your thoughts.
I increasingly,question why so many stand against us being told the truth,even when it is uncomfortable to hear it.
Assange has never faced the charge of telling lies.
Those against him are so because in their view he told too much truth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Abbott
Worth a look Banjo.
Any one using fire fox who can tell me how to use the spell checker?
Any help would be good.
Not able to fix highlighted wrong spelling.

Belly,
Yep, had a look. In particular about his role in dirt gathering on One Nation.

I believe Abbotts approach to the Qld Electoral Commission was rejected because they had already investigated One Nation's registration and found it complied.

I think Abbott was instrumental in getting the false witness to give evidence. However it was the Beattie Labor government that instigated the criminal action against Hanson and Ettridge. That Labor juristiction found her guilty on very dubious evidence and jailed her. Even The lefty, Margo Kinston, agrees it was a political jailing.

I am not a fan of Abbott and his involvement does not absolve the Beatie Labor government from its instigation of the unwarranted and wrongfull court action, as the appeal finally showed.

So, after aquital, where is the compensation and the awarding of costs? Where is the repayment of the funds Pauline repaid to the QEC?

Sorry to burst your bubble regarding your opinion of the ALP but Labor was directly responsible for our first jailing of a political opponant, without just cause. Hope all labor supporters are proud of that.

This disgracefull episode is partly why i am cynical of both major parties. They both have no integrity or morals.

Like Richardson said 'whatever it takes' One does not have to look outside Aus to see political persecution

I would never claim our hands are clean.
But you stretch it in down playing Abbott,s roll.
He lead the chase.
Never forget the Lady came from within the Liberal party.
And as strange as you may find it, she won support from both sides.
Her views, some, are held today, by some, on all sides.
Abbott, the real Tony Abbott, can be seen from those events.
I will until death, believe the ALP in failing to confront the bloke, with a leader capable of beating him, is betraying its foundations.
But lets remember, Assange like or loath, is charged with?
Being a messenger of truth!
Last word on your Lady friend, with hindsight she was a one issue person who has let her self down time and again.
That talking via her nose has warn thin.

Continued

A hint as to the existence of some sort of already-existing 'automatic enrollment' system emerged in the lead-up to the 2010 Federal elections. I drew attention to it in this post: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10712#178530 . The punchline of that post was the heavily understated 'question':

"On the face of it, it seems unlikely that 47,579
persons out of the 30 June 2010 total of 59,831
provisional electors would be turning 18 between
30 June and 22 July 2010."

At the Federal level, automatic electoral enrollment had not at that time been legislated. In fact, I think such legislation may only now be being put before the Parliament in Canberra. The maximum number of 17-year-olds, if every single eligible one of them in Australia had been already provisionally enrolled by 30 June 2010, that could have been expected to have turned 18 during that 22-day interval would only have been around 14,000! Had somebody discovered the Elixir of Youth, fed it to many of the 17-year-olds, and caused them to turn 16?

We have Julian Assange and Wikileaks to thank for what may prove to be relevant revelations with respect to the operation of automatic enrollment systems, clandestine or otherwise. Here is a tweet about reports of Trapwire and related corporate developments like TartanMetrics online persona (not a typo) management disappearing from Australian media: https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/235544495721152513

The articles are pulled just as the Parliament may be considering automatic enrollment-related legislation!

Think automated sockpuppetry as it might be related to electoral rolls, and, via such rolls at election times, to the influencing of electoral outcomes, here in Australia.

But hey, don't let me distract everybody from the Perils of Pauline in yesteryear. They all went for her throat because the upstart One Nation party, with every primary vote they gained, took some of THEIR, the sacred (and embedded?) major parties', public funding!

Much easier to control a nation's policies with only a few major parties within which to control the groupthink! Re groupthink: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14015

Worth a read: http://m.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/22/julian-assange-media-contempt?cat=commentisfree&type=article

the following link may be of interest:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/opinion/interview-Assange-deserves-applause/articleshow/15621507.cms

The second of the two wikileaked cables with which I have any familiarity was that identified as STOCKHOLM 748 from 2008. A link to it (one that no longer works, unsurprisingly) was posted on the OLO General Discussion thread 'Sanctuary' in December 2010, from which I made a transcription of parts of its content that are still accessible on OLO in several posts to that thread. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4159#104863

The major part of the cable dump took place on 10 December 2010, and came about not through Assange's direct action, but as a result of some claimed screw-up between the MSM interests, interests then purporting to be working with Assange to responsibly progressively publish the cables, that resulted in the publishing on the internet of a password that gave access to ALL the cables. The point is, that though blamed for the entirety of the cable dump because the digital records were in his possession, Assange may well have had no control over the timing of this claimed 'stuff-up'. Remember that.

On 11 December 2010 the first-ever terrorist attack on Swedish soil took place. A bomb exploded on that Saturday afternoon in the Stockholm CBD, with the only casualty being the alleged 'terrorist' suspect.

I have speculated elsewhere on OLO that on the balance of probabilities this bomb blast is more likely to have been the result of an 'agent provocateur' scenario in which a Swedish citizen of Iraqi origin who had been a long-term resident in the UK up until just before that blast, one alleged to have been a 'radicalised Islamic', may have been the victim of an extra-judicial killing at Swedish, British, or American hands, or some combination thereof, in the orchestration of that blast.

That Stockholm blast could have been seen as a 'hurry-up' directed at the Swedish government emphasising a US interest in having Assange 'temporarily surrendered' by Sweden under the already existing extradition agreement and BEFORE any rape trial took place.

Absolutely fascinating, in the light of hindsight, how the attempt to shut down OLO by attacking the site's revenue, allegedly over the publication of the Muehlenberg article on 25 November 2010, occured in virtual lockstep with discussions and events relating to the Assange issue at that time. See this post for a partial chronology in that respect: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4263#108680

This post by Geoff of Perth on 9 December 2010 to the comments thread to the OLO article 'The arrest of Julian Assange - a reality check', by Marion Dalton, published that same day, is what set alarm bells ringing in my head as to Assange being likely 'set up' with respect to allegations of sexual improprieties committed in Sweden: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11353#192294

Was discussion on OLO getting so close to the bone with respect to Assange as to move certain interests to attempt to shut down the whole site, rather than requesting/requiring of OLO the taking down of certain posts, the doing of which may have been thought to have pointed too specifically to areas of sensitivity or exposure in relation to the Assange matter? It should not be forgotten that Internet Advertising Sales House (IASH) was a player in the OLO revenue scene, a player of seemingly quasi-US-governmental status, and that it was IASH's own 'hate speech and advertising code' that was the basis upon which advertising upon OLO was at that time withdrawn. See each of these two posts in GrahamY's 'Wanted - new financial backers' comments thread: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11583#198065 and http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11583#197848

Perhaps posts like this one to the 'Sanctuary' General Discussion thread started on Wednesday, 8 December 2010, were causing some angst: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4159#104883

Interesting that I ran into some of these while accessing my user history for this post: http://twitpic.com/ao5g2f

im sure its only coincidence forrest
but i cut your last 6 posts out,..to join them into one topic at my other forum...lol behold i was logged out of my forum..and cant get back in..

so went my other forum..
http://whatreallyhappened.com/

just to see if its systematic..like radio silencing chatter before the ballon goes up..anyhow its a lead ballon for me

THOUGHT FOR THE DAY!

"If you program a computer to solve the square root of two, it will keep working at the problem it until it runs out of resources and crashes.

The smartest computer in the world is not intelligent enough to recognize futility; that some problems cannot be solved and that the best thing to do is quit before you destroy yourself.

Americans have been given a problem with no final solution; to repay the debt of a financial system that by design creates more debt than money.

We can either keep working at that problem as commanded by our rulers until we run out of resources and crash, or we can exercise our intelligence, recognize the futility, and quit trying to complete a task which is by design impossible to complete."

-- Michael Rivero

while ronpaul supporters are watching him..there are some nations recognising iran

http://mycatbirdseat.com/2012/08/inventing-an-iranian-threat/
http://www.veteransnewsnow.com/2012/08/26/plot-to-provoke-war-with-iran-thwarted-by-navy-analyst/

but i rekon its about ol mitt
being a criminal..you know FOREIGN donations=treason..foa a pres of ol us/of a..high court has ruled it OUT*

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/09/supreme-court-retains-ban-on-foreign-campaign-donations/

Foreign nationals, other than lawful permanent residents, are completely banned from donating to candidates or parties, or making independent expenditures in federal, state or local elections.


Mitt Romney's advisers (the same3 one who thought it was safe for him to make jokes about the birth certificate) may have assumed that the Citizens United decision granting First Amendment rights to corporations meant all corporations could donate to Romney, including corporations in Israel. But we all know what 'assume' means. This article confirms that the United States Supreme Court has already ruled that Citizen's United does NOT extend to foreign corporations. So Romney has committed multiple felony violations of US campaign finance laws. FELONY! Men who commit felonies are not allowed by US law to be the President!

Perhaps not so amazingly, the TV network news show have yet to mention this story at all.

So, here is a call to Rivero's Rangers. Do not wait for orders but grab thy keyboards and blog towards the sound of corruption!

Grab these stories about Romney's Israeli fundraising and start flooding the social media, the websites of the corporate news, anywhere Romney's drones like to hang out and masturbate to Mitt's pictures; get this message out!

The GOP's favored candidate has already broken major laws before he is even officially nominated! The GOP leadership and trying to get you to help them put a criminal into the White House!

red flag or musical chairs
http://www.smoking-mirrors.com/2012/08/musical-chairs-in-red-flag-county.html

who really cares

i note the new discussion thread for assange..actually a few
this indicates a red herring..under it all..but im over speculating

still cant log into my other site
but can read..this one is the same thing ..as belly went through
[for egsample

http://public.worldfreemansociety.org/index.php/forum/116-news-articles/107949-story-needs-exposure

anyhow im pretty much over the whole blooging thing
so thanks for the fish

There is a tendency to reduce this story to personality. Julian Assange may be an awkward eccentric, but he strikes me as being more reticent in public, particularly in the beginning of the Wikileaks experience. He seemed to gather a little more confidence later with growing media interest.

People cast Assange as either hero or villain. I have found many in the latter group light on facts, also having never read Wikileaks releases nor information now published through freedom of information. I guess I am biased in the other direction although 'hero' is not a term that I would use.

He has managed to unite Left and Right on issues of transparency and corruption, albeit the Right support coming more from the libertarian than Conservative ranks.

It is no secret why Assange would seek asylum from Ecuador having forged a bond with Correa during his World Tomorrow series interview; and both sharing similar views about US interference. Ecuador may not be the paragon of media freedom or freedom of speech but many a strange bedfellow has been forged in unusual and desperate circumstances.

There are so many inconsistencies in the US position not least the recent revelations gleaned from documents about extradition to the US and Grand Jury meeting with possible sealed indictment, despite continuing protestations from the US. No-one yet has disputed this meeting. Then there is refusal of Swedish authorities to interview Assange in London. Why? There is certainly precedent. Assange has not been charged he is wanted for questioning. The Swedes behaviour on this certainly warrants questions. It is also unfair on the women whose interest would be better served by getting on with the process.

The hysteria whipped up in the US calling for assassination, trials and death penalties would be enough to motivate me to seek asylum from any far flung country that would have me, especially in view of the lack of any real support from the Australian Government.

We've missed your level-headed analysis, Pelly....good to see you back : )

Thanks Poirot. I see you are still encouraging people to push those boundaries and look beyond. :)

It is just too co-incidental that my post on, of all days, Remembrance Day, 11 November 2009, to Brian Howes' OLO Discussion 'How secure is your internet from eaves dropping?' ( http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3156#76032 ) outlining the difficulty I was having with 'Server errors' in attempting to establish the topic 'An Apology to Klaas Woldring' on OLO, was in relation to the 2009 Electoral Reform Green Paper.

I these days consider Rudd's promotion of that issue under the auspices of the Department of Prime Minister & Cabinet was seen by some interests as threatening an already-operating clandestine system of 'automatic electoral enrollment and transfer of enrollment' in Australia. I think it was his perhaps unwitting threatened trespass into matters of electoral legislation and reform that was the underlying reason Rudd was seen by some as having to go.

We have Assange and Cablegate to thank for the revelations as to the reporting back to US diplomatic staff that was being done by some Australian politicians at around that time as to a perceived need and plan to replace Rudd, as subsequently happened, much to the surprise of the Australian public, on 24 June 2010.

It is interesting to see the knowledge displayed in 2009 by Brian Howes as to the extent of monitoring of internet traffic possible: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3156#74671 . This would seem to be along the lines of Assange's subsequent revelations as to Trapwire, and things like TartanMetrics persona management software.

A Google search revealed this information as to Brian Howes current situation: http://www.justice.gov/dea/pubs/states/newsrel/2012/phnx071912.html . It seems he is due to go on trial in Arizona on 5 September 2012. How he could possibly receive a fair trial, in the light of the 2007 publication relating to 'Operation Red Dragon' in the 'Arizona Narcotic Officer' magazine, I am at a loss to understand.

Perhaps OLO viewers would do well to read Brian Howes' entire thread in the light of Assange's subsequent revelations.

Also: http://noplaceforsheep.com/2012/07/24/leadership-chatter-assanges-passport-blonde-girls-in-short-shorts/#comment-45104

It is an opportune time to perhaps shed some light upon the now well known claim made by Swedish authorities that they haven't charged Assange with anything, they simply wish to question him further in relation to what they say are the allegations of sexual improprieties they have in hand.

This link to an article in Legal Week, 'The Assange case: defining rape and consent', by Felicity Gerry, contains an interesting admission that can only have come from the Swedish authorities: http://www.legalweek.com/legal-week/blog-post/2201955/the-assange-case-defining-rape-and-consent

Felicity Gerry quotes from the Queen’s Bench Division (Julian Assange v Sweden [2011] EWHC 2849 (Admin)) report, after having explained that had Assange proceeded with partner ‘AA’ [Anna Ardin] without using a condom that such may have been within the technical definition of rape, puts before us the admission that:

"… AA told him she wanted him to put on a condom
before he entered her. Mr Assange let go of AA’s
arms and put on a condom which AA found for him.”

If the claim made in the recent 4 Corners program 'Sex, Lies, and Julian Assange' as to the other alleged complainant, Sophia Wilen, having refused to sign or continue with any complaint is correct, then by the provision of this admission by Ardin those Swedish authorities have admitted they have no case to question Assange any further about.

One could only conclude that they would be wishing to question Assange in the hope that in any answers he gave he would incriminate himself! That sort of explains why those Swedish authorities would not want to have recorded the questions they might like to ask anywhere but on Swedish soil where they could suppress the record. By reflected light of such hoped-for self-incrimination, the tacitly recognised US government intention to have Assange 'temporarily surrendered' for extradition could be seen as one of utter contempt for the letter and spirit of the Fifth Amendment of its own Constitution.

That is if the Swedes even bothered with 'questioning' before handing him over.

Posted by Belly, on Tuesday, 21 August 2012 at 5:59:18 PM:

"I am having trouble with my browser.
Dropping out and locking up, ......."

You have not been alone, Belly.

Belly, re your post of Wednesday, 22 August 2012 at 4:54:51 PM and your spell-checker problem, one way around it could be to first compile your posts within a text editor application (such as, under Windows, 'Write', or 'Word') that has a functioning spell-checker, then, after you have fixed any errors, copy and paste the post into the OLO posting pane. (Under Ubuntu Linux I use the text editor 'Gedit'.)

Doing that will also protect you from the risk of losing the post through taking too long in compiling it in the OLO posting pane direct, should you be working that way.

I had quite forgotten that I had run into a batch of server errors when attempting to start the 'An apology to Klaas Woldring' topic back in 2009. True it is that the OLO server hiccups every now and again at random, as GrahamY himself admits. Indeed, it would desirably need to do so, should any unidentified third party from time to time see reason to disrupt, via any 'back door' to the software, the conversation occurring on Australia's pre-eminent journal of social and political debate.

True it also was that some small alterations to my opening post had to be made so as to avoid running foul of the anti-spamming software at that time, but that was a well-understood separate issue to the server errors. In the light of hindsight, I think my online activity may have been being monitored back then because of the interest I had taken in the Brian Howes extradition. In which case the monitors may have not been so much Julia's Australian minders as they may have been offshore observers having the capacity to degrade individual poster's online experience.

What is right now befalling Brian Howes, a virtual nobody, unchallenged, foreshadows everybody's future. Assange has blown the whistle on it.

This is a screenshot of the first page of a Google search result: http://twitpic.com/ar5krq

The viewer will note how Google records and displays the fact that I have visited the first two websites on three occasions in each case, with the most recent visits being on 3 September 2012. The viewer will also note that the third website in the search result shows no record of me having visited it, which is a bit of a funny thing, given that the link text is displaying in the mauve colour that indicates one has visited that web page.

Perhaps there is some arcane technical explanation that can satisfactorily explain away this, to me, disturbing apparent selectiveness on the part of the Google search engine. Corobberation of the fact that I did in fact visit this page exists in the fact that there is a link I posted to it earlier in this thread.

What disturbs me is what if the inverse of this phenomenon can occur and Google can be made to show apparent visits to web pages that have NOT in fact been visited by me? It strikes me that that, if it were to be possible, might be a way of planting 'evidence' as to some conspiracy, for example, upon a computer user that was in fact party to no conspiracy at all!

Isn't conspiracy between Assange and Manning something the US administration is trying to prove in relation to the Wikileaks disclosures in order to deflect public attention from its own extraordinary failure to ensure the security of sensitive diplomatic and other information?

Looks like old CJMorgan was right about Brian Howes being a sex pervert, doesn't it! http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/4428737/Drug-rap-pervert-sets-fire-to-cell.html . I mean a newspaper says so! But hang about, why didn't that feature in the extradition request?

Could it be that the only perversions involved have been those of the course of justice, and of the anti-terrorism purposes supposedly behind the extraordinarily lax UK Extradition Act 2003?

Viewers of this thread should note that a link I posted in my post of Sunday, 2 September 2012 at 2:38:25 PM now yields a '404' notice. It was this link:

http://www.justice.gov/dea/pubs/states/newsrel/2012/phnx071912.html

As shown in this screenshot, http://twitpic.com/ar5krq/full , it looks like the web page in question displayed from 19 July 2012 until at least 2 September 2012 on the web, and in particular within and throughout the State of Arizona in the US. This is significant because the page as it displayed showed a thoroughgoing presumtion as to the guilt of the person that had been subject to the extradition in question, Brian Howes.

Right now it is around 3:00PM Australian Eastern Standard Time on Wednesday 5 September 2012. In the US it is presently the night of 4/5 September. The trial of Brian Howes is due to commence in coming hours in Phoenix, Arizona, on Wednesday 5 September.

Some of the arrogant presumptuousness I saw on that page on the part of various officials as to the foregone conclusion as to Howes' guilt would, to my mind, have put paid to any chance of him receiving an unprejudiced hearing. For one thing, Howes was being described as an IMPORTER of precursor chemicals for methamphetamine production into the US. NO HE WASN'T! He was EXPORTING chemicals in which it was quite lawful for him to deal from his base in the UK, to, among other places, the US.

It would be good if someone like OLO userID 'Geoff of Perth', who knows how to access cached Google pages could bring this one up. It would be even better if someone in the US could see that the content that was on display is brought to the attention of the judge hearing the case. You never know, that judge might be like the commendable judge in Alabama who threw the disgraceful and insulting-to-Australia attempt at double-jeopardy in the case of Gabe Watson out of court.

Sextradition - what a disgrace!

Just a little update for viewers of this thread: I was able to find, via a Google search, what from memory of my own reading of it when I first posted a link to it on 2 September, is a copy of the content of the USDOJ web page that has been recently taken down spoken of in my previous post. That copy can be viewed on this forum if you scroll down a little. See: http://shirleymckie.wonko.myfastforum.org/index.php?component=content&postid=15093 . Item headed 'Howes Appeal to Supreme Court Refused', the last entry on the page.

Viewers will note the URL that commences the forum post is identical with my original posted link here on OLO, and likewise yields a '404' notice.

In that now-taken-down USDOJ page U.S. Marshal David Gonzales stated, "The extradition of Brian Howes closes a case that was inundated with years of legal wrangling in Howes’ effort to avoid prosecution. The coordination between the U.S. Government and our Scottish counterparts was second to none." Sounds like with 'closes a case' they have him already convicted before trial. As to the coordination spoken of, that would have been with the same Scottish government as freed the Lockerbie bomber, Al Megrahi, would it? I wonder whether Cablegate shed any light upon that matter?

Any reader of the forum upon which I found the text of the taken-down USDOJ page will see the effect of the pedophilia allegations made against Howes upon public opinion. The point is that whether there was basis in fact to them or not, such allegations never were the basis on which his extradition was sought. Notwithstanding that, we have a UK judge pronouncing as to there being substance to claims that Howes committed such offences in the US without there having been any charge made that would stick within US jurisdiction, let alone any conviction!

Given that ongoing USDEA surveillance of Howes' legally operated UK chemical supply business was instrumental in netting so many meth lab operators in the US, what was the sense in shutting him down?

'WikiLeaks reveals Britain pressured to release Lockerbie bomber' was a story reported by Michael Edwards on Wednesday, December 8, 2010. See: http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2010/s3088324.htm

In the story, Donald Rothwell, from the Australian National University, speaking with respect to the Assange extradition, said:

"International extradition law requires the
existence of what's called double criminality;
that is that the criminal offence upon which
extradition is sought is also recognised as a
criminal offence in the country in which
extradition is being sought from."

Whilst in all of the learned argument that has taken place with respect to establishing the 'double criminality' of the alleged sexual improprieties alleged to apply in the Assange case, together with the seeming overlooking of an admission by the Swedish authorities that demolishes their very own case, the prospect seems to have gone un-noticed that perhaps US interests have been attempting to establish precedents that may overthrow this legal doctrine.

The extradition of the relative nobody, Brian Howes, from the UK to Phoenix, Arizona, in the US, would seem to have been effected in flagrant disregard as to the legal doctrine of double criminality. Could this be an explanation for the (deliberate?) mis-description of Howes as an 'importer' of precursor chemicals in the now-taken-down USDOJ web page that announced his extradition on 19 July 2012, when in reality he was an EXPORTER, by way of legal trade, under UK law?

Interestingly, on the Shirley McKie website where I found what I believe to be a copy of the aforesaid USDOJ notice, I noticed a comment to the effect that there was a seeming darkness at the heart of the administration of justice in Scotland. Could it be that the seeming modus operandi of the use of the smear of allegation of sexual impropriety was resorted to in order to drive Howes from England into Scottish jurisdiction, from whence, for exactly this reason, it was felt it would be easier to obtain his extradition divorced from any public sympathy?

Wikileaks threatening too many corporate psychopaths in or near government?

On Twitter, user '@SandraEckersly in a Twitter conversation with GrahamY on 9 September posts in this tweet, https://twitter.com/SandraEckersley/status/244580594946809856 , annotated "Where Four Corners got it SO wrong", this link, http://www.wikiwatch.org.uk/

The 'Wikiwatch' critique begins with the disclaimer "Though we have not used the names of the women involved in the case, some of the linked sources do.". The program 'Sex, lies, and Julian Assange' purportedly critiqued certainly did, whilst in the UK where the names were required to be suppressed, court documents used the identifiers 'AA' and 'SW' to distinguish the two alleged complainants.

This refusal to use the names used in the program is an important feature of this document because it permits a (deliberate?) misunderstanding to be floated. Under the heading '10:07 [minutes into the program] The question of consent' it is important to note that the woman the subject of this question is Sophia Wilen, NOT Anna Ardin. The reference to 'being asleep' makes this clear if one is already familiar with the background to the 4 Corners program. Sophia Wilen is the woman who, according to 4 Corners, refused to sign what she saw as being a 'railroading' complaint, as the program made clear. Half of Sweden's case gone in one fell stroke.

The other half of Sweden's case, Ardin's alleged complaint, in which 'being asleep' did not feature, is demolished by the admission (in which she was identified as 'AA') put before the UK court [Queen’s Bench Division (Julian Assange v Sweden [2011] EWHC 2849 (Admin)) report] by the Swedish authorities, more fully explained in this earlier post to this thread: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5317#145180

Twitter is an extremely limited platform upon which to discuss a case such as this. Following a Twitter conversation of my own with Sandra Eckersly and her referred authority '@Objectiviser' in which my links (to OLO posts) had been claimed to have been read but were dismissed as containing errors of fact, a challenge I issued for them to be specifically pointed out resulted in the admission that there were none.

I have invited Sandra to discuss more fully here.

This is what the US government now thinks about Assange:

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/us-calls-assange-enemy-of-state-20120927-26m7s.html

I'm posting this just to keep the topic open for posting, as it is at this point within a day or two of being closed to further posting on OLO. I see a number of extradition-related strands worthy of further discussion, especially in the light of some tweets by US Senator John McCain about the recent death of the US Ambassador to Libya in an attack upon the US Consulate at Benghazi. See: https://twitter.com/ForrestGumpp/status/250381868267081728

Now here is an interesting heads-up for the Washington Post editoriate from US Senator for Arizona, John McCain: https://twitter.com/SenJohnMcCain/status/254998491233914882 . The link in the tweet ( http://bit.ly/WDDWbH ) is to an item in the Washington Post of 5 October 2012.

The essence of that article by Patrick B. Pexton, the Washington Post Ombudsman, can be encapsulated by his introduction quoting one "John Curtin, a Fairfax reader", a week after the attack, to wit:

“Why has the Post let Fox News lead on the issue
of the murder of our Libyan ambassador and other
Americans? For the Post to survive it needs to
swallow its tendency to look the other way when it
comes to Obama and not surrender what we rely on it
for — expertise in foreign and military journalism.
That it took so long to ‘discover’ that the murders
were calculated, and that warnings were ignored, is
an embarrassment for the Post. Never sacrifice your
credibility; it’s all you have.”

and his concluding paragraph:

"The Post needs to keep digging. That gap in the middle
enraged many readers and reinforced their false suspicions
that The Post is trying to cover for Obama, and it can’t
let that happen."

Of necessity, the attack in Libya must be set against the backdrop of 'Cablegate', and the attempts to extradite Julian Assange to Sweden as a tacitly accepted stepping-stone to his removal to the US. Whilst it might not be unreasonable to point out that that attack, and its consequences, may have constituted a case of 'chickens coming home to roost' as a result of the pressures believed to have been put upon the UK Foreign & Commonwealth Secretary that culminated in threats to storm the Ecuadorian Embassy in London in order to effect the extradition of Assange to Sweden, there could be an even darker aspect to it. There is a report as to Stevens having attended a conference in Stockholm in the weeks before his death. Could he have learned, or revealed, something there that made him a 'problem' to unidentified others perhaps already 'communicating with the enemy'?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5317#144774

I guess its just one of those coincidences of life that the Washington Post Ombudsman's correspondent, John Curtin, who provoked Patrick Pexton's article to which US Senator John McCain referred 71 full years after the swearing-in of Australian Prime Minister John Curtin on 7 October 1941, happens to reside in a place called Fairfax (be it VA or DC), and that in Australia Fairfax is a national newspaper publisher. Spooky, perhaps, to an Australian eye, what with Assange being an Aussie and all.

Speaking of spooks, it is interesting to note another tweet by Senator McCain, https://twitter.com/SenJohnMcCain/status/256136728883113985 , in which, with respect to the attack upon the US Consulate in Benghazi, he asks the question: "Now who in intel community was responsible for reporting "spontaneous" demonstration?", and posts this link: http://t.co/9Xa5oh5H . Well might that question be asked, given that there may exist some question as to whether there had been any security breach as to knowledge of Ambassador Stevens' presence in the Consulate in the time before the attack was mounted, and especially so if it was the ambassador, rather than the consulate as such, that may have been the target.

It is doubly interesting to note the recent contact, on 12 October, between Senator McCain and UK Foreign Secretary Hague ( https://twitter.com/SenJohnMcCain/status/256451493954195459 ), followed as it has been by the announcement by UK Home Secretary Teresa May of the blocking of the extradition to the US of Gary McKinnon, on 16 October. See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9611784/Gary-McKinnon-saved-from-extradition-to-US-on-hacking-charges.html

It is also spooky, given that one of the grounds upon which McKinnon's extradition was blocked was that as to there being a perceived likelihood of his committing suicide if extradited, and that John McCain is a Senator for Arizona, that Brian Howes, finally extradited to Phoenix, Arizona, in July 2012, very nearly perished in the same manner as Ambassador Stevens, from smoke inhalation when he set fire to his cell in a last attempt to avoid that extradition. http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/4428737/Drug-rap-pervert-sets-fire-to-cell.html

Brian Howes does not show up on the USDOJ BOP Inmate Locator. http://twitpic.com/b4t89y . Un desparacedo? Sextradited as proposed for Assange?

https://twitter.com/Ausflatfish/status/265707817804107776