Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has taken refuge in Ecuador's embassy in London, where according to Ecuadorian authorities he is "under the protection of the Ecuadorian state," as he awaits the government's decision on his application for political asylum. If you have been relying on the mass media for information about why he is there or what he is being protected from, you may have no idea what is going on.
Much of the media has reported or given the impression that Assange is facing "charges" in Sweden and is therefore avoiding extradition from the U.K. to that country. In fact, Julian Assange has not been charged with any crime.
Instead, he is only wanted for questioning by a Swedish prosecutor. Now, why can't he simply be questioned in the U.K., where he is? Try to find the answer to that question in all the "news" reporting on the case. Former Stockholm Chief District prosecutor Sven-Erik Alhem testified that the decision of the Swedish government to extradite Assange is "unreasonable and unprofessional, as well as unfair and disproportionate," because he can be easily questioned in the U.K. These simple facts make it clear that the Swedish attempt to extradite Assange has nothing to do with any criminal investigation.
But it gets worse. Once in Sweden, Assange would be put in prison and have limited access to the media. Pre-trial procedures would be conducted in secret. And perhaps most importantly, he could be more easily extradited to the United States, where there are investigations to see if he can be tried under the Espionage Act. This carries a potential death penalty, and powerful U.S. officials such as Diane Feinstein, Democrat and chair of the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee, have called for his prosecution under that law.
People of conscience in Sweden should oppose their government's policy of collaborating in the persecution of a journalist who is not charged with any crime. This persecution is a threat to freedom of expression and information everywhere.
Wikileaks has helped to disseminate important information about serious crimes committed by the U.S. government, such as the video footage of a 2007 incident in which the U.S. military appears to have deliberately killed civilians from a helicopter. It is for that reason that the U.S. government seeks to punish Assange and others associated with the group.
The role of the international press in these events has been as shameful as that of the Swedish government. The press should be rallying in defense of someone who is facing threats of prison and even death for the "crime" of practicing journalism. Instead they appear more sympathetic to the people who want to imprison and possibly kill Assange.
How fortunate that Ecuador, unlike Sweden, has an independent government that doesn't take directions from the United States.
This is another example of how Latin America's "second independence," led by the left governments that have been elected and re-elected over the past 15 years, has benefitted not only the region but the world.
This was published by Folha de São Paulo (Brazil) on July 13, 2012.
Julie Tomlin: When the 'Good Guys' Rape Too
Nikolas Kozloff: In Extending Protection to WikiLeaks' Assange, Ecuador Risks Pariah Status
Can you offer the least shred of evidence that this is a fact? This assertion is often written, but I've yet to see any writer who shows that Sweden's extradition laws are less stringent than England's.
Say what you will about Sweden, they have far less institutional corruption and a far better human rights record than Ecuador.
It looks to me much more like an overzealous prosecutor, perhaps enjoying the publicity, got up on his high horse and now can't climb down without losing face.
To the extent the prosecutor has been leaned on by the US, it is probably more with the intention of harrassing Assange - similar to how the banks were leaned on to reject credit card donations to Wikileaks. I just don't see why anyone would want to do a double extradition through Sweden, with all the diplomatic problems and popular anger that would entail, when it's much easier to extradite directly from the UK - or to carry out a kidnapping, which as a Bush official once told the astounded British is a perfectly normal way of transferring a wanted person from the UK to the US.
England wants to keep themselves to the watching world as clean and neutral as possible on all this which of course they aren't, so the best thing is to send him to Sweden and then the Swedish after a little of bullcrap will extradite him to the US, only God knows in what hell hole he is going to finish. That is why and were Ecuador fits in here, that was the only left sensible opportunity for him not to be silenced for good.
Please watch the link provided next to find out more on this:
"Four Corners - Sex, Lies And Julian Assange" (ABC- Public Television Australia)
http://www.abc.net.au/iview/#/series/2303988
Thank you.
Granting Assange political asylum only allows him to temporary escape rape allegations against him in Sweden. Now it seems at he will be instantly arrested once he leaves the embassy, which they should. He has broken his bail conditions all on a complex hypothesis that has been repudiated as having inadequate merit.
Assange's concerns about legal problems in America should be take seriously, and that is whether or not American prosecuters have any crimes that they can charge him with. As of now it seems that they don't.
Readers can judge how serious the accusations are.
There are just so many cases of brutal interrogation and execution in the basements of the Stockholm Lubyanka.
Here's a hint: Wikileaks can't magically produce leaks from any country it wishes. What it publishes depends entirely on sources.
What you're suggesting is that Wikileaks has received a cache of documents from Russia or China, but is sitting on them. That's ridiculous on the face of it.