LONDON -- On Friday, I visited Ecuador's embassy here in the capital of the former British empire and saw a building surrounded by a phalanx of cops, with several of them at the front door. The embassy is in an upscale neighborhood near Harrod's department store. The intimidating police presence was ordered by a Conservative government that waxes eloquent about the need to respect (British) embassies overseas.
The intensified police deployment is only part of Britain's response to Ecuador's decision -- after a long review -- to grant political asylum on human rights grounds to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who took refuge in the embassy two months ago. The British government has made it clear that it will not allow Ecuador to provide safe passage and asylum to an individual who -- for the "crime" of publishing -- has heard powerful U.S. voices in politics and media call for his murder.
At the door of the rather small embassy, I was met by cops who interrogated me about who I was and why I sought entry. I had to wonder if the embassy was under siege by Britain on behalf of Washington, which reportedly stands ready to prosecute the WikiLeaks founder. Again, that's for the "crime" of publishing -- not sexual assault.
Besides all the mainstream journalists, cameras and satellite trucks across the street from Ecuador's embassy, I was heartened to see British citizens protesting their government's actions -- and also standing up for Bradley Manning, the young U.S. Army private who faces life in prison as the accused WikiLeaks leaker of documents showing military and diplomatic crimes by the U.S. government. Among the placards I saw: "Exposing War Crimes Is Not a Crime -- Free Assange, Free Manning" and "Protect Freedom to Publish." and "If Wars Can Be Started by Lies, They Can Be Stopped By Truth."
It's important to know that Britain's Foreign Office recently threatened Ecuador in a letter -- claiming a legal basis to go ahead and arrest Assange from the embassy after revoking the building's diplomatic status. On Thursday, a prominent Conservative member of Parliament tweeted that Britain should break off diplomatic relations with Ecuador and then invade the "former embassy" to seize the WikiLeaks founder.
A U.S. group I co-founded, RootsAction.org, is circulating a short online petition thanking Ecuador and protesting Britain's threats against the embassy and refusal to uphold the right of asylum.
As the father of two daughters (who are with me in London), I take sexual assault allegations seriously (Assange has never been charged). But standing outside this embassy surrounded by British police, it looked to me like a classic case of powerful Western states uniting to intimidate a less powerful country on behalf of their prerogatives toward domination and war. It had nothing to do with "the rule of law." And it had nothing to do with women's rights.
Follow Jeff Cohen on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jeffcot
Something that seems also to have escaped notice is that should Sweden be served with an extradition request from the USA - there are a lot more folks in Sweden who would be a little upset. Sweden's reputation and standing as a neutral country would be lost. Hardly something likely to happen.
Assange has really made himself look bad by not confronting the issue of whether or not he is guilty of the charges. This does sound like a standard deflection charade that rapists tend to use - IE deflect the charge and disparage the victims. But that is my personal opinion.
I hope that the UK is successful in dealing with the case according to British Law. The fundamental human right of refuge for innocents should be sacrosanct. Let's try and keep it that way.
Cheers
Try this for starters:-
http://notesonwikileaks.tumblr.com/post/15251907983/assange-extradition-fact-sheet
These facts are not disputed....
So these "facts" can easily be disputed.
I want to be clear that I actually think that Assange did a good (if potentially illegal) thing with Wikileaks. But my point is that at the moment Assange is charged with crimes in 2 countries. By breaking the terms of his bail on the extradition charge he must accept the consequences. As a former British national - I can assure you that the law is not quite as much of an ass in the UK as it is in the US. I would hazard that I have read a little about this case and further - I believe my reasoning and interpretation of the evidence is sound.
Thanks
Fact - Assange has been legally charged in Sweden for a crime. Unless there is a valid reason for extradition on a specific charge of crimes committed within the USA the case for extradition is very hard to make to a third party country (USA).
Sweden is a liberal country that has an excellent legal system that will look to rehabilitate the type of crime that Assange has been charged with.
There is an absurd set of assumptions that is based on ZERO evidence.
1. That there is a secret charge against Assange in the USA.
2. That the charge of rape has been manufactured
3. That Assange is above the law of the land in all cases.
So far it appears that he has violated laws in the UK and in Sweden. The former for failing to meet the terms of his bail. The latter for the 2 initial rape charges. Rape is a hard charge to prove and success in Rape cases is not great. If the Swedish Government wanted to throw the book at Assange then surely there would be a better charge than Rape?
As such Assange - must as a law abiding citizen - not just selectively the laws he chooses - must face the music. If he doesnt then he forfeits his rights to protection anywhere. Sweden would be hard pressed to accede to US extradition for a crime that could be considered political... MORE
Notice I did not say convicted. The charge is suitable for the behaviour - however labeled. Assange could (have) presented the material in UK court that would provide enough to stay the extradition. He chose to run. Thus the second set of charges.
I stand by my earlier statement of facts. If you choose to ignore the facts then that is your free choice. Just like Assange's choice to run.
Cheers
There is however criminal behaviour on the part of the US and UK governments and fortunately the Conservatives in the UK will soon be out on their ears, not to mention that several prominent UK politicians will be ending up in jail in the next few months. The British people by and large have seen through this farce and the self serving corruption and nepotism, as well as the bankrupt economic policies of the Conservatives and, with a campaign of both civil disobedience and direct action in the streets, they have no chance of staying in power.
Part 2
Bottom line- Assange fled Sweden when his lawyer was told Assange's arrest was imminent. Why didn't he flee to Equador then? Or Australia? Oh, that's right- the latter won't have anything to do with him.
Why come to the UK? Because he knew full well he would get the best deal under British due process. And when he had exhausted all his appeal options- he runs, despite swearing that he wouldn't.
The Military knew that their folks were misbehaving, killing people needlessly, they chose to "cover it up", just like the folks at Penn state covered up for Jerry Sandusky. Julian Assange exposed wrong doing on the part of the American military. Yet in this case, there are countless people in government (and here!) saying that the cover up is good, while exposing wrongdoing is bad.
The people who are screaming for Assange's head for "reporting wrongdoing" are exactly morally the same as the folks at Penn State who kept their secrets about Jerry Sandusky.
But it doesn't matter what the US law is regarding innocence, because the US has no right to try Assange in the first place. He is not a US citizen. He is not a war criminal nor are any potential crimes that could be asserted against him crimes against humanity. He did not act on US soil or in any territory over which the US has jurisdiction. The US has no legal standing to try this man.
So, I ask you, please explain just where the trial will occur that you say he "must stand" for the charges the US has made against him and to which he has "admitted guilt."
To label him a terrorist or traitor (he's not an American!) is absurd on the face of it, and frightening when you think about it- we are rolling very fast towards 1984, and this under Barak Obama, a Democrat and constitutional law professor.
Imagine how much worse it will be under the Repubs.
Cameron's government is just Holder's poodle. What with face recognition software all over London, and spreading over US cities, plus cell phone tracking and interception and storage of all electronic communications, they can follow anyone who shows up at the embassy.
If someone starts causing too much trouble for them, it's then a simple matter to build a fake case for sex or whatever (notice that it's always sex?) against this "enemy", thus taking them out of action. Of course as explained in "Inside Job", the cocaine and high priced hooker use rampant on Wall Street somehow never leads to prosecutions...
Welcome to the future...
The full video of Assange's talk is linked to on Juan Cole's page, and the text is on Firedoglake.com.
That's the moral limb your grasping.
(BTW, we were not at war, Bush never declared war, so your "war" point is baseless)