dagblog - Comments for "America’s Vassal Acts Decisively and Illegally: Former UK Ambassador"

Arta, I have bee on a short

Anonymous — Sun, 26 Aug 2012 15:39:29 +0000

In reply to Lulu, I just don't get why my

Arta, I have bee on a short self-imposed exile from internet land and so this is the first chance to respond.

Your personal opinion is not “so important” to me but, for many reasons, the resolution of the cases of Assange and Manning are very important to me. I linked to what I believe is honest reporting on the subject and also to what seems to me to be fair, honest, and persuasive analysis by persons who believe that Assange is not being treated fairly or honestly. The links you responded with were, IMHO, largely smear pieces completely avoiding the most important issues of the subject by misrepresenting the facts of the sexual misconduct allegations and how the Swedi.sh case relates to the bigger case.

In my case the links I provided do largely reflect the opinions I have come to hold in this particular case. You provided what you termed 'other opinions’ and I gladly grant that they may not necessarily be ones that you share. That said, I expected that you give those opinions, as stated, some credence or you would not have posted them without some further disclaimer. If not, then posting them is about as valuable as a news report that while scientists believe the earth is a sphere, some flat-earthers disagree and so fair minded people should wait until more evidence is presented before they come to lean to far one way or another in judging which side is probably right. I also expect that so much has been revealed about the Assange case that any interested close follower of news should have formed an opinion if not a conclusion.

There will not be a straight line of more and more facts revealed until a final fact is revealed which answers all questions. We will never get all the facts of this or any other such case. I did not take the presentation of those other opinions as a challenge to ‘put up my dukes’ against you personally, I took those opinions by those authors, as stated, to be crap which should be labeled as such. I then asked for a few of your opinions to see if you really thought that what you brought to the conversation, in this case, had any merit.

To the points on which you did decide to offer an opinion. I agree that Information Clearing House has an obvious slant to the news stories and opinions it compiles. Does that distinguish it from or put it in a separate category from any U.S. or international news source that you can name? When I post a link to a piece I originally find there I usually go to the original source if I can find it, especially if I am not somewhat knowlegeable about the author, so as to make a fair judgment of the content a bit easier to come to. I believe that even among a bunch of stories with a particular slant that each story’s value can stand on its own.

You speculate that, based on what I have said and presented, that you care more about Swedish opinion on the matter than I do. That may be fair speculation but it is wrong analogy in that it misses the point by narrowing the question. No single person with any sense has suggested that Assange should not answer to the sexual misconduct charges. You agree with Karin Olsson that it is a very long time since Assange has done anything sensible. Really? Unless you believe that Assange is not in danger from the U.S. then I question whether you think it would be sensible for him to go to Sweden under the current circumstances? Sweden is a country I have long admired but no government anywhere gets my total approval. Sweden has taken verifiable overt actions in concert with the U.S. war on terror that I oppose and which I believe give Assange fair reason to avoid putting himself in their hands without some assurance that it is not a step on the way to an American prison.

“I am still looking for an answer besides "but waaaah, the US is going to try to extradite me if I do" to why he will not take the next step of going to court in Sweden to prove the accusations wrong.”

This has been answered so many times. It is the answer to that question that is at the root of the entire problem. My dukes are down, I am not looking for a fight. I am mixing my opinion with questions. Sweden seems much more intent on getting Assange to Sweden than in resolving the charges which is their legitimate right and duty to deal with. Their handling of the case so far breaks established precedent. IIs it not legitimate to wonder why? Do you honestly think that Assange has no legitimate fear of being extradited from Sweden to the U.S. even if found innocent of sexual misconduct charges there? That is, if charges are ever even brought.

No mention of a sealed

PeraclesPlease — Tue, 21 Aug 2012 06:29:35 +0000

In reply to The transcript for Monday's

No mention of a sealed indictment against Assange.

No mention of helpful comments from US politicians that Assange should be even assassinated.

Of course no talk of inviolability of the Embassy, as in say Tehran 1979.

And we have to just take it on face value that he wouldn't face persecution in the US - that just isn't done.

And of course the reason Ecuador is giving him refuge is because of fears he'll be extradited unfairly to the US - but of course the US won't talk about that to Ecuador.

It's only about "justice" in Sweden and those pesky Latinamericans, trying to "gin up" trouble.

Trust us. Next question?

The transcript for Monday's

artappraiser — Tue, 21 Aug 2012 06:03:35 +0000

In reply to Related in the State Dept

The transcript for Monday's State Dept. press briefing is now up, here is the relevant excerpt::

[....]

QUESTION: Different topic?

MS. NULAND: Yeah. Yeah, sorry, there was --

QUESTION: Sure.

MS. NULAND: Go ahead, Shaun.

QUESTION: WikiLeaks.

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: Of course there is – you spoke about this a little bit last week. Over the weekend, Julian Assange has made a somewhat public appearance. WikiLeaks has been calling for the U.S. to make assurances that he wouldn’t be extradited or prosecuted here. I know you spoke a little bit to that last week, but is there something clearer? Is there something more that the U.S. can say about the possibility of prosecution of Julian Assange here?

MS. NULAND: Well, let me start with the fact that he is making all kinds of wild assertions about us, when, in fact, his issue with the Government of the United Kingdom has to do with whether he’s going to go stand – face justice in Sweden for something that has nothing to do with WikiLeaks. It has to do with charges of sexual misconduct. So he is clearly trying to deflect attention away from the real issue, which is whether he’s going to face justice in Sweden, which is the immediate issue. So that case has nothing to do with us. It’s a matter between the U.K., Sweden, and now Ecuador has inserted itself.

With regard to where we are in our own judicial issues following the WikiLeaks incident, I’m going to send you to the Department of Justice. I don’t have anything new to add from here.

QUESTION: Can I just – you’re – you want to go back and qualify something, I think, because otherwise the WikiLeaks people are going to come down on you like a pound of – many pounds of bricks.

MS. NULAND: Well, thank you for protecting me, Matt. I depend on that.

QUESTION: Yeah. Which is that you said that he faces charges in Sweden, when he hasn’t been charged.

MS. NULAND: Well, he’s being investigated in Sweden. Right.

QUESTION: Right. So, I mean, the issue is not whether he is going to go to face charges in Sweden. The issue is whether he’s going to be extradited for questioning, at the moment, correct?

MS. NULAND: Excellent. Thank you, Matt. Yes.

QUESTION: And now, have you had any – considering you think that his claim of fear – the claim that he fears persecution in the U.S. is completely bogus, have you had any conversations with the Ecuadorians about this?

MS. NULAND: To my knowledge, we have not, beyond what we’ve said at the OAS, which is that we don’t think that this is an appropriate issue for the OAS to be taking up. But I don’t think we’ve been trying to negotiate this with them bilaterally, because there’s really nothing to say.

QUESTION: No, I know. But, I mean, have you gone into them and said, “Hey, listen, this is ridiculous. He’s not going to be persecuted. People aren’t persecuted in the United States in perhaps the same way that they might be in a country like Ecuador or Venezuela”?

MS. NULAND: Well, I certainly said that he didn’t face any persecution here, thanks to your question on Thursday. But to my knowledge, we’ve not had bilateral consultations. But we have said at the OAS, where Ecuador is trying to gin up trouble, that we don’t think that’s an appropriate forum.

QUESTION: Well, in fact, what was going on at the OAS wasn’t really trying to – I don’t – not sure it was trying to gin up trouble. It really didn’t have anything to do with the particulars of the Assange case. It had to do with the threat that was made – the apparent threat that was made about revoking the diplomatic status of the Ecuadorian Embassy in London and for – and entering it. You don’t think that the OAS – that a multilateral diplomatic body is the appropriate place to bring up a question that deals intrinsically with diplomatic status and diplomatic immunity?

MS. NULAND: We’ve said consistently this is a matter for Ecuador and the UK to talk to each other about. That’s what the U.K. Government is also saying. And we have said regularly at the OAS that we don’t see any role for the OAS in this.

QUESTION: But you don’t think that standing up for a fellow member of the OAS, who’s a country – that their diplomatic property may be compromised, that that’s not something – that that is appropriate for the OAS to stick up for?

MS. NULAND: Again, we have --

QUESTION: I mean, I remember you guys were all in favor of the OAS sticking up for you during the Cuban missile crisis.

MS. NULAND: Again, we --

QUESTION: Why is not the appropriate forum to say, no, it’s wrong for a country to threaten to raid a diplomatic property?

MS. NULAND: Again, I would call you to more recent statements from the U.K. Government with regard to its stand with regard to the mission in Ecuador. And again, we’re not going to have an – we don’t see a role for the OAS in a hypothetical situation that doesn’t appear to be imminent anyway.

QUESTION: Okay. So your understanding right now is that there is no threat to raid the Ecuadorian Embassy?

MS. NULAND: Again, I’m going to refer you to what the UK has said in the last couple of days.

QUESTION: So are you not concerned that the Assange issue may be a polarizing issue between countries that are otherwise allies?

MS. NULAND: We have very important business that we do in the OAS that has to do with the strength and health and democracy in the region, and this is, frankly, a sideshow.

Okay. Please, can I get your colleague in the back? Please.

QUESTION: North Korea [....]

And as none of us know

PeraclesPlease — Tue, 21 Aug 2012 05:43:43 +0000

In reply to Well, that seals it for me,

And as none of us know anything about Ecuador, here's one take on the situation there - sorry, banana republic jokes are oh-so-1950's.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/jan/08/ecuador-press-freedom-media

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/21/rights-groups-lost-plot-ecuador

Your sarcasm is

PeraclesPlease — Tue, 21 Aug 2012 04:52:04 +0000

In reply to Well, that seals it for me,

Your sarcasm is unappreciated.

You threw a bunch of links to show the "other side" and when a load of links and explanation are presented to show why that's bollocks, you toss back some banal Obama-Hillary-hate stuff and then slide over to Ecuador's human rights and how must Sweden feel.

How about just admit that the whole Assange inquiry looks fishy, and from what we know of our own government and others, especially in the last decade, that this could easily be a setup? That your attempt at fairness rather ran aground?

Of course you managed to trash Assange with "waaaaah" based on your "gut opinion" when "not all the facts are in", but as those facts come in you just shift plot.

If the Swedish court system and media and social internet (including scary tilted social media control in background) are complicit in doing the CIA's illegal bidding and starting an international fervor over an overeager prosecutor after a rape charge has been dismissed, yes, they should get judged poorly in regards to Ecuador. Poor them.

Remember, the main point of questioning (he has never been charged, and woman #2's claims are no longer being investigated) is whether Assange tore his condom on purpose with woman #1. How bizarre is that accusation? How likely is that to make a criminal case? (they seem to have the broken condom but with no DNA?) And this questioning is the basis for an international arrest warrant? That Assange should take at face value and return to Sweden for?

I didn't think your comment

ocean-kat — Tue, 21 Aug 2012 03:00:54 +0000

In reply to my reference to muddy waters

I didn't think your comment implied any side. I haven't seen any post by you on this issue given my year of isolation in the wilderness but I'd have guessed from what I've read of your posts in previous years that you'd be supportive of wikileaks and Assuage's work.

I don't think there's anything inappropriate in getting into a detailed discussion of the allegations, as pericles seems to be into. I'd rather stay out of that and let the chips fall where they may if the investigation finds sufficient evidence and the case goes to trial. I'm sure that part will be carefully watched, by me and many others. All I'm interested in doing is, as simply as possible, to attempt to make the case that Assuage has a reasonable claim to fears he may face a second extradition to the US if he returns to answer the rape allegations. He should not have to risk surrender to the US to answer rape allegations. Sweden's complete rejection of all means to deal with the rape allegations separate from that reasonable fear seems outrageous to me.

Well, he just might have -

PeraclesPlease — Mon, 20 Aug 2012 20:58:19 +0000

In reply to Well, that seals it for me,

Well, he just might have - Obama had no problem being personally involved with Awlaki and bin Laden, (and EmptyWheel notes some suspicion Awlaki might have been our spy, or maybe flipped to be a double agent...)

But I doubt it - probably taken care of elsewhere - but most importantly it seems like some kind of setup to take down Wikileaks.

They've been pretty damaged from all of this, and I don't think Assange resigning would help - they've been cutting Wikileaks' access to cash and internet resources already, and Assange just makes that effort more visible.

Well, that seals it for me,

artappraiser — Mon, 20 Aug 2012 20:04:53 +0000

In reply to Here's Rolling Stone on

Well, that seals it for me, you've really convinced me, I'm damn sure now that Obama himself hired the two Swedish girls. With Hillary as a significant advisor, no doubt--what wouldn't that woman do to avenge?

As to the Swedish population, I am now convinced that they must just love that their country is being dissed in favor of Ecuador, because like everyone else in the western world, they hate their country and its justice system, and think Latin America needs nurturing on their international inferiority complex.

Related in the State Dept

artappraiser — Mon, 20 Aug 2012 19:37:32 +0000

In reply to America’s Vassal Acts Decisively and Illegally: Former UK Ambassador

Victoria Nuland
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
August 16, 2012

TRANSCRIPT:

12:44 p.m. EDT

MS. NULAND: Happy Thursday, everybody. Let’s start with whatever’s on your minds.

QUESTION: Do you have any thoughts at all on the decision by Ecuador to grant diplomatic asylum to Mr. Assange?

MS. NULAND: This is an issue between the Ecuadorans, the Brits, the Swedes. I don’t have anything particular to add.

QUESTION: You don’t have any interest at all in this case other than as of a completely neutral, independent observer of it?

MS. NULAND: Well, certainly with regard to this particular issue, it is an issue among the countries involved, and we are not planning to interject ourselves.

QUESTION: But Assange (inaudible).

QUESTION: Have you not interjected yourselves at all?

MS. NULAND: Not with regard to the issue of his current location or where he may end up going, no.

QUESTION: Well, there has been some suggestion that the U.S. is pushing the Brits to go into the Ecuadorian Embassy and remove him.

MS. NULAND: I have no information to indicate that there is any truth to that at all.

QUESTION: Does – and the Brits – Foreign Secretary Hague said that the Brits do not recognize diplomatic asylum. I’m wondering if the United States recognizes diplomatic asylum given that it is a signatory to this 1954 OAS treaty which grants or which recognizes diplomatic asylum, but only presumably within the membership of the OAS. But more broadly, does the U.S. recognize diplomatic asylum as a legal thing under international law?

MS. NULAND: Well, if you’re asking me for a global legal answer to the question, I’ll have to take it and consult 4,000 lawyers, but --

QUESTION: Contrasting it with political asylum, this is different – diplomatic asylum.

MS. NULAND: With regard to the decision that the Brits are making or the statement that they made, our understanding was that they were leaning on British law in the assertions that they made with regard to future plans, not on international law. But if you’re asking me to check what our legal position is on this term of art, I’ll have to take it, Matt, and get back to you.

QUESTION: Yeah, just whether you recognize it outside of the confines of the OAS and those signatories. And then when you said that you don’t have any information to suggest that you have weighed in with the Brits about whether to have Mr. Assange removed from the Embassy, does that mean that there hasn’t been any, or just that you’re not aware of it?

MS. NULAND: My information is that we have not involved ourselves in this. If that is not correct, we’ll get back to you.

Is that it? Hey, have a weekend? No. Jill. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: No, not so fast.

MS. NULAND: No? Okay.

QUESTION: Could I change the subject to Syria?

MS. NULAND: You can.

[....]

my reference to muddy waters

jollyroger — Mon, 20 Aug 2012 19:19:48 +0000

In reply to Actually this was a perhaps

my reference to muddy waters was global, not meant as a comment on your post. I hope it is evident that I am on Julian ' s side.