Ah, diplomacy: the WikiLeaks document leak

[California Tanker]

Originally Posted by Sauron

I don't recall seeing SecDef, Director of CIA, Director of NSA, and various ambassadors, lobbyists and folks like Blackwater on the ballot.

I do, however, recall seeing people who nominate and approve SecDef, DCIA etc on the ballot. Deciding who they are going to appoint to run the country under their guidance is a fairly important part of their job, and one which people should take into consideration when they are considering who to vote for, would you not agree?

That would be actual concrete events and real-world operations - which is what I'm concerned with.

I agree that the 'real world' is what most people should be concerned with. And that includes the fact that people will always work with an eye to bettering their cohorts, be they their friends or their nation, and that mass releases of information do not always better the world at large. Many of these people live in places that full public knowledge of everything is not as good for the denizens of those nations as it may be for us.

I'm not going accept any response that says "work within the system" when the system is broken and govts are still being overthrown and thousands killed and families separated because loved ones are renditioned or disappeared -- all without any accountability because "the system" has been made intentionally too large and cumbersome to provide accountability.

As Churchill said, democracy is the worst possible form of government. Except for all the others which have been tried. Our system as we have it is the best that seems to be available as a practical, functioning option. A 'no secrets' option, a 'damn everyone else, let the chips fall as they may and everyone's on their own' option strikes me as being more of an impediment to the operation of the world than a help.

"Hold us accountable through the same system that we've deliberately gamed and carefully tweaked to grant ourselves authority, provide us plausible deniability and avoid even the *disclosure* of our wrongdoings to the public." Yeah, right. I'll jump right on that.

Why not? This nation has had a track record over the last century of peacefully handing over the reins to whoever gets elected. We're doing much better than some countries like Libya. Last I checked, you could get elected yourself if you like. You're not stamped at birth with a marking saying 'unfit for leadership positions.' If you're already trying, good on you. And good luck.

Try a goddamn real world answer, you smarmy sonofabitch.

Sorry, you're right. Electing just an honest leader isn't going to cut it. Try electing honest and competent leaders. I'm sure such people exist in the world.

The concept of accountability does not rest on the requirement for leaders to be honest; in fact, it assumes that they probably will *not* be. The concept of accountability rests on the requirement of govt actions to be (1) transparent and that there will be a (2) credible set of consequences for criminal behavior.

Agreed to a point. There is an intermediate option you omit, that mechanisms within the government permit an element of self-policing. That comes down to both the larger ethos of the country, and the command climate fostered by the leadership of the various organisations. The US is a country populated as a whole by people who, I submit, have a fairly reasonable view of right and wrong. Just as there are criminals in government, there are also those who object to such behaviour and will take advantage of the systems present to redress it. Maybe it's a soldier reporting on his own initiative the murder of civlians by his colleagues, maybe it's police in Internal Affairs acting on a complaint from the public. The reason we keep such systems around is that more often than not, they work. You need not move straight to 'everyone knows everything' as a first course of action.

Now, I'm not living in a complete dreamworld. I fully accept that such internal mechanisms do not always work, which is why we have that extra line of defence: The freedom of the press. However, only when such systems obviously fail should more extreme measures be taken, and those measures should be tailored to the goal. One of our more recent government scandals is Operation Fast and Furious. Agent Cefalu did not do a complete data dump of all the ATF's files for the last three years. He saw a specific (not general) problem, he saw that the internal system wasn't working, and he made an on-point statement.

Of course, your argument would have some merit if you could point to any high-ranking US official who has ever been held accountable for foreign-policy fiascos, overthrowing governments, renditions, torture, etc. through the election process. You know; a precedent that you could point to, in order to demonstrate that this theoretical accountability you want to peddle has any actual basis in fact.

And high-ranking US officials are being held accountable for these things as a result of Wikileaks? It's not as if we need Wikileaks to tell us that the US has historically gotten involved in revolutions, or screws up foreign policy from time to time. The voting public have already known about such things. We have obviously chosen that in the larger scheme of operations, these are ancillary issues.

1. Better look at the elements of that crime before claiming a basis for prosecuting with it - it isn't as easy as you seem to think.

Engaging in a course of action which knowingly creates risk of harm to another without due authority. Seems simple enough.

2. Now explain why this applies to Manning instead of the news outlets.

At least the news outlets made an attempt at redaction. Either way, there are plenty other charges for his position. What's he on now, thirty or so?

3. Then connect the dots with WL.

They also put information out without redaction or specificity.

And as we have seen with Guantanamo, the power to detain someone and even try them doesn't have to be based in 'cracking some nut' of the law; it can be based in nothing more than Because USA Says So.

Odd how we didn't need a mass dump on Wikileaks to know about the existance of Guantanamo or what was going on within it, isn't it?

NTM

[chunksmediocrites]

Originally Posted by California Tanker

mass releases of information do not always better the world at large.

Sure. As well, excessive secrecy and little transparency does not always better the world at large. It's a good thing no one was arguing the counter of either point.

Originally Posted by California Tanker

Many of these people live in places that full public knowledge of everything is not as good for the denizens of those nations as it may be for us.

Who is arguing for full public knowledge of everything?

Originally Posted by California Tanker

We're doing much better than some countries like Libya.

WSJ:

The Central Intelligence Agency and Libyan intelligence services developed such a tight relationship during the George W. Bush administration that the U.S. shipped terror suspects to Libya for interrogation and suggested the questions they should be asked, according to documents found in Libya's External Security agency headquarters.

The US is also doing much better than Sierra Leone in regards to infant mortality rates. So no attempt to improve is necessary, amirite?

Originally Posted by California Tanker

I fully accept that such internal mechanisms do not always work, which is why we have that extra line of defence: The freedom of the press. However, only when such systems obviously fail should more extreme measures be taken, and those measures should be tailored to the goal.

How would we know when that system- freedom of the press- fails? Would there be a press release? Would we see a systematic attack on whistleblowers and investigative reporting? Or suppression of accounts that contradict official propaganda?

And while excessive secrecy has been a problem in the U.S. for decades, the Obama administration's unprecedented war on whistleblowers makes it much more odious, since now it is about not only keeping vital information from the public and stifling public debate, but also threatening whistleblowers (and investigative reporters) with prolonged imprisonment.

Originally Posted by California Tanker

And high-ranking US officials are being held accountable for these things as a result of Wikileaks? It's not as if we need Wikileaks to tell us that the US has historically gotten involved in revolutions, or screws up foreign policy from time to time.

How WikiLeaks Enlightened Us in 2010: CBSNews
Woodward and Bernstein's reports on Watergate didn't result in prosecution of Richard Nixon, so of what value was knowing about that? Dana Priest's work also hasn't resulted in accountability for the CIA Black Sites, so therefore of what use was her expose revealing them? Jeremy Scahill's reporting on Blackwater has not resulted in a perfect world, so what a jerk!

Originally Posted by California Tanker

The voting public have already known about such things. We have obviously chosen that in the larger scheme of operations, these are ancillary issues.

Which "we" is the "we" that has chosen which issues are ancillary? Government flaks, PR people, political operatives constructing talking points, and lazy functionary-style journalists, mouthing official views and manufactured controversies, in service to conglomerate media industry profitability?

Originally Posted by California Tanker

Odd how we didn't need a mass dump on Wikileaks to know about the existance of Guantanamo or what was going on within it, isn't it?

You mean when the US government invited news media to film the first War on Terror(TM) prisoners being marched into Guantanamo in January of 2002 (years before WikiLeaks existed), that was because the government is committed to transparency? Because I thought that was a propaganda release. Or is this more dismissing of WikiLeaks because they didn't reveal specific things that had a particular outcome you've chosen, therefore their value is supposedly diminished? You do know much of what was occurring inside Guantanamo, as well as the actual innocence and lack of credible evidence of many of the prisoners was not made public knowledge by the government, but rather by people and organizations investigating practices at Gitmo? You do know that the Bush and Obama administrations routinely invoked secrecy clauses to prevent information about Guantanamo from being confirmed? As well, WikiLeaks did reveal information about Guantanamo, this April.

I haven't seen anyone here applaud un-redacted releases, or the increased risks to individuals. WikiLeaks has culpability in the risks created by this latest un-redacted release. But culpability in the latest release being in this current form should be shared by David Leigh from the Guardian, and Daniel Domscheit-Berg, formerly of WikiLeaks and now of Open Secrets.

Keep in mind I think also that the US government has a vested interest in overplaying the "risks created by WikiLeaks" card. Remember when it was announced by the US government that WikiLeaks had "blood on their hands" as a result of releasing information on the war in Afghanistan that included the names of informants working with the US? What has happened since?

the Defense Department said this week that it was not aware of any retribution.

And what did WikiLeaks then do, after it was criticized? Vastly improved its methods and worked to decrease risks to activists, informants, and others.

I still find value in increased transparency, and find overall the contributions of WikiLeaks have outweighed their poor choices.

[Clutch Munny]

Originally Posted by California Tanker

Odd how we didn't need a mass dump on Wikileaks to know about the existance of Guantanamo or what was going on within it, isn't it?

Yes, it's great that we've been apprised of everything that went on in Guantanamo.

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by CT

I do, however, recall seeing people who nominate

As I said, I'm not interested in theoretical structure of power and ultimate responsibility as it theoretically holds presidents and Congressmen accountable via the election process.

The connection between presidents, congressmen, etc. and the functionaries who carry out these atrocities - SecDef, US military chiefs, Director CIA, Director NSA, etc. - is tenuous and strained at best. Unless your ballot actually has these peoples' names on it? Or has these policies on it as ballot initiatives ("Resolved: the US should not carry out rendition")?

No, I didn't think so.

Given the wide number of issues that go into an election, and into a voter's calculus of decision when choosing a candidate, the idea that a *particular* functionary like SecDef would be held accountable for his/her actions via the election process is laughable. Elections rise and fall on dozens of issues, and even then only the principal candidate is actually being judged by the voters. A president can be taken down by a sexual scandal; how does that transmit accountability to SecDef or Director, CIA, for foreign policy fiascoes and human rights atrocities?

As I said: the process is broken. It does not provide transparency or credible consequences. Therefore your claim of accountability through the election process is nonsense.

Alternately, you could find that real-world example of a high-ranking US official who has ever been held accountable for foreign-policy fiascos, overthrowing governments, renditions, torture, etc. through the election process?


I mean, surely to dog you're not just talking about hypothetical niceties here? Surely to dog you can give the actual FIRST NAME and LAST NAME of some of these functionaries who were held accountable via the elections process over these actions?

I agree that the 'real world' is what most people should be concerned with.

Nice dodge. Instead of vague handwaving about possible motives of hypothetical people, care to address the concrete motives of real people, real US govts and corporations, and the real impacts that these decisions have had on real countries and real victims?

I can give you a list of such events, if you like. For your benefit, I'll confine them to the post WW-2 era; that should cut the list down to under 100 events or so.

mass releases of information do not always better the world at large.

As opposed to the US policy, which is to never release information at all? To classify it and keep it out of public view? Are you aware that there are actually seminars given to US govt agencies on how to evade, slow down and foil the Freedom of Information Act?

I would rather have mass releases and deal with the consequences, than to have the current US policy which is to *never* have any releases whatsoever.

And let's cut to the chase here: the real reason the US doesn't want these cables released isn't because of danger to informants; it's because the US doesn't want it broadly known that it screws and double-crosses its allies all the time. The US knows it does that. The ally country almost certainly knows it. But allowing the citizens of the US or the citizens of ally country know that? Well, we can't have that, now can we?

As Churchill said, democracy is the worst possible form of government.

This isn't democracy. It's bread and circuses.

As I said before: the electoral process is distorted and broken beyond repair. Voters are offered two flavors of chocolate and asked to choose which flavor they want. The influence of lobbying, money, corporations, etc. drowns out the individual voter, and any linkage between the ballot box and accountability is wishful thinking.

Why not?

Why not use the electoral process to hold people accountable for committing acts of atrocity? Because it doesn't work. Unless, of course, you have that real-world example that I've been asking for?

This nation has had a track record over the last century of peacefully handing over the reins to whoever gets elected.

Which is not the same as holding people - SecDef, Director NSA, Director CIA, Blackwater, lobbyists, etc. - accountable for their actions. An election can be won or lost on something as trivial as a sex scandal (various) or a offhand remark ("macaca"). In that kind of environment, no direct linkage between action and consequences exists.

Unless, of course, you have that real-world example that I've been asking for?


This is also a problem in the military. Out of all the atrocities committed in Iraq and Afghanistan - the civilians killed, intentionally and accidentally, the torture sessions small and large (Abu Ghraib), the trophy maimings and mutilations - feel free to name one high level military or political figure that has been held accountable and paid the price for these events.

We're doing much better than some countries like Libya.

Because -- and as we all know -- Libya is a peer of the USA, and a model for us to compare our progress against. Right?
And because as long as we can find someone worse than we are, we can feel good about ourselves and our current state of affairs because hey! - we're still better than Country XYZ!
Again: how about some real world answers, you smarmy sonofabitch.

Sorry, you're right. Electing just an honest leader isn't going to cut it. Try electing honest and competent leaders. I'm sure such people exist in the world.

The principle of accountability doesn't require either honesty or competency. It requires only (1) transparency and (2) credible set of consequences.

Try again.

Agreed to a point. There is an intermediate option you omit, that mechanisms within the government permit an element of self-policing.

I already dealt with that item; it's part of the idea of having a credible set of consequences. As I said, however, it does not work. The system has been deliberately optimized to prevent self-policing. "Hold us accountable through the same system that we've deliberately gamed and carefully tweaked to grant ourselves authority, provide us plausible deniability and avoid even the *disclosure* of our wrongdoings to the public."

Engaging in a course of action which knowingly creates risk of harm to another without due authority. Seems simple enough.

Simple enough that you blew it. Try again. Here's a breadcrumb: focus on the mental state of the accused.

At least the news outlets made an attempt at redaction.

But what are the elements of the crime here, CT? Does "attempt at redaction" enter into it?

Either way, there are plenty other charges for his position. What's he on now, thirty or so?

Then why are you finding it hard to list a few of them? Along with the elements, jurisdiction and venue? If this is as open-and-shut as you claim, then why the stalling?

They [Wikileaks] also put information out without redaction or specificity.

Now tie it all back to the elements of the crime, and detail the jurisdiction and venue.

1. Under what framework of laws will he be charged, and what govt is making a credible claim of authority over the person and the crime?

2. In which court of law will WL be charged?

3. What did WL do? What is the crime, and have the elements of the crime been satisfied within the laws of the stated jurisdiction?


Hey; you're the one trying to convince us that this was an obvious and egregious violation. Why are you therefore having such a hard time with the three principal points? (1) jurisdiction (2) venue, and (3) elements of the crime?

Odd how we didn't need a mass dump on Wikileaks to know about the existance of Guantanamo or what was going on within it, isn't it?

Chunks already answered this. All I would add to that is to note that:

(1) Guantanamo is an obvious end-run around the Constitution; pretending that an American naval base in Cuba is somehow not part of American jurisdiction because it's in Cuba - still waiting on that promised accountability that you say comes through the electoral process;

(2) The US govt tried to block all access here for as long as it could, and is still blocking access - so we do not, in fact, know what is going on inside it. All we know is the part that was too difficult, technologically and politically speaking, to hide forever because of its scale and the level of involvement.

[chunksmediocrites]

AP review finds no WikiLeaks sources threatened.

In contacting individuals the State Department claimed were at greatest risk from the unredacted US diplomatic cables, the AP found that most of the individuals do not believe they are at risk.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Federica Ferrari Bravo's story of meeting American diplomats in Rome seven years ago hardly reads like a James Bond spy novel or a Cold War tale of a brave informant sharing secrets to help the United States.

So it came as a something of a surprise to her to hear that in one of the 250,000-odd State Department cables released by the anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks, she was deemed a source so sensitive U.S. officials were advised not to repeat her name.

"I don't think I said anything that would put me at risk," the Italian diplomat said.

There are similar stories involving other foreign lawmakers, diplomats and activists cited in the U.S. cables as sources to "strictly protect."

An Associated Press review of those sources raises doubts about the scope of the danger posed by WikiLeaks' disclosures and the Obama administration's angry claims, going back more than a year, that the revelations are life-threatening. U.S. examples have been strictly theoretical.
...>snip<...

The latest cables were published in full, without names blacked out. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland branded the action "irresponsible, reckless and frankly dangerous," and the U.S. said the release exposed the names of hundreds of sensitive sources.
...>snip<...
But the AP's review of the sources found several of them comfortable with their names in the open and no one fearing death. Others are dead, their names cited as sensitive in the context of long-resolved conflicts or situations. Some have written or testified at hearings about the supposedly confidential information they provided the U.S. government.

The AP survey is selective and incomplete; it focused on those sources the State Department seemed to categorize as most risky.
...>snip<...
Still, the total damage appears limited and the State Department has steadfastly refused to describe any situation in which they've felt a source's life was in danger. They say a handful of people had to be relocated away from danger but won't provide any details on those few cases.

WikiLeaks being condemned in irresponsibly releasing information that could put sources at risk makes total sense. But the claims put forth regarding the actual level of risk appear to be highly contrived and basically propaganda. Again.

[LadyShea]

WikiLeaks publishes leaked intelligence firm emails – USATODAY.com

Anonymous stole them, WikiLeaks published them. It's a private intelligence firm, and their security sucks that bad?

[Watser?]

This thread I guess:

Famous Spanish human rights investigator Baltasar Garzon will lead the legal team representing WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange, the whistleblower website announced on Tuesday.

Assange is currently at the Ecuadoran embassy in London, seeking political asylum in the Latin American country, after losing his legal battle to avoid extradition to face questions over rape and sexual assault claims in Sweden.

Garzon, best known for issuing an international arrest warrant against former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet, recently met with Assange at the embassy to discuss a new legal strategy, according to a statement approved by both men.

According to the release, the aim is to “defend both WikiLeaks and Julian Assange from the existing abuse of process and expose the arbitrary, extrajudicial actions by the international financial system” against the former hacker and his website.

Garzon will also strive to “show how the secret US processes against Julian Assange and WikiLeaks have compromised and contaminated other legal processes, including the extradition process against Mr Assange,” it added.

Celebrated Spanish human rights investigator Baltasar Garzon to head Julian Assange’s legal team | The Raw Story

[California Tanker]

Looks like Her Majesty's Government is planning on putting an end to the silliness soon.

UK announces it may enter the embassy

Bottom line, diplomatic missions exist by mutual consent under the Vienna Convention. The UK simply decides that it no longer needs to have an Ecuadorian embassy in London. Mission staff are still inviolable, as are the various documents, but the grounds revert to British accessibility.

[But]

Even the threat is utterly insane, given the circumstances.

[Watser?]

'An end to the silliness'? No, this is where the silliness gets ramped up to beyond belief. All of course still for the official reason of extraditing Assange to Sweden on some vague charge. Hmmm, I wonder if they pursue all vague foreign charges with such zeal, even if they have to invade a third country's territory to do it?

[Stormlight]

Ecuador grants asylum to WikiLeaks' Assange - CNN.com

Still, you can't help but notice the irony of Assange asking Ecuador for asylum. Ecuador who is not exactly known for being a champion of freedom of speech/information.

[California Tanker]

Hmmm, I wonder if they pursue all vague foreign charges with such zeal, even if they have to invade a third country's territory to do it?

For starters, there is nothing in the Vienna Convention about a change of territory. Embassies remain the territory of the receiving State, contrary to common perception. What the convention does is it makes the premises of the mission inviolable for as long as the mission is accepted, and the personnel and property of the mission inviolable until they leave the country (within a reasonable amount of time) even if the mission itself or its personnel is/are declared non-grata. No invading is required. It's a significant diplomatic step, yes, but not unlawful or an invasion.

Hmmm, I wonder if they pursue all vague foreign charges with such zeal

No idea. How many European extradition warrants have they refused to process simply because they thought the charges vague? Especially if they have a treaty obligation to carry them out.

In any case, the granting of asylum doesn't really do very much. Due to the configuration of the embassy, there is still little practical solution to the problem of getting Assange out. They can't get him into a diplomatic transport.

[Watser?]

In between their busy schedule of threatening to invade embassies to intimidate Assange, the British found time to jump on the Pussy Riot bandwagon and point out how bad the Free Speech situation in Russia is: Britain: Pussy Riot sentencing is a ‘disproportionate response’ | The Raw Story

[Watser?]

After Assange was granted asylum on Thursday, Foreign Secretary William Hague dismissed Ecuadoran claims that they had been threatened with an “attack” on the building in London’s exclusive Knightsbridge district.

“There is no threat here to storm an embassy,” Hague said. “We are talking about an Act of Parliament in this country which stresses that it must be used in full conformity with international law.”

One British official told AFP that Ecuador had “twisted our words”.

Chris Brown, Professor of International Relations at the London School of Economics (LSE), said Britain had been “mind-bogglingly stupid to raise the issue in the first place”, regardless of how it was worded.

“Anyone with Diplomacy 101, as the Americans call it, would know that it (the threat) would backfire,” he told AFP.

“If you asked a room of my first-year students about what Britain has done, I believe that even they would not have made such a fundamental error.”

British threats in WikiLeaks case ‘mind-bogglingly stupid’ – expert | The Raw Story

[California Tanker]

Nice FAQ about the legal issues.

New Statesman - Legal myths about the Assange extradition

[chunksmediocrites]

Justice4Assange.com:

- The UK’s extradition treaty does not have the temporary surrender (’conditional release’) clause. The UK’s judicial review process, while far from perfect, has a number of practical review mechanisms. The nearest equivalent case, of Gary McKinnon - a UK citizen who has been charged for hacking US military systems - has been opposed in the courts for 8 years.

- Public opinion and the media (to a greater extent) are more sympathetic to Julian Assange in the UK than in Sweden. Public pressure could draw out the process of extradition to the United States in the UK. In Sweden the media climate is hostile (see Media climate in Sweden) due to the sex allegations. Public outcry would be significantly weaker and therefore less likely to stand in the way of a strategically convenient extradition.

- In the UK, Julian Assange is better able to defend himself, muster support and understand the legal procedures against him. In Sweden on the other hand, the language barrier prevents him from effectively challenging the actions against.

- The UK is politically better positioned to withstand pressure from the United States than Sweden. Sweden is a small country of nine million people close to Russia. It has grown increasingly dependent on the United States. In recent years Sweden has complied with directives from the United States in a manner that has not been scrutinised by Parliament, as has been revealed by the disclosed diplomatic cables (see Political Interference).

The article you linked regarding FAQs and myths suggests there are greater complications for extradition to the US from Sweden, since the UK would also have to agree; but it ignores the precedents of temporary surrender.

Most of the attention regarding Julian Assange’s possible extradition to the US has focused on the EU agreements that are meant to prevent onward extradition - namely that the UK Home Office would have to consent to his onward extradition. Little or no attention has been given in Europe to the temporary surrender (sometimes called ’conditional release’, see the Panama example below) mechanism that Sweden established bilaterally with the United States in their 1984 treaty (TIAS 10812):

VI. If the extradition request is granted in the case of a person who is being prosecuted or is serving a sentence in the territory of the requested State for a different offense, the requested State may:

b) temporarily surrender the person sought to the requesting State for the purpose of prosecution. The person so surrendered shall be kept in custody while in the requesting State and shall be returned to the requested State after the conclusion of the proceedings against that person in accordance with conditions to be determined by mutual agreement of the Contracting States.

In regards to Sweden's history of bowing to US pressure:
Amnesty International:

The UN Human Rights Committee have confirmed that the Swedish authorities were responsible for violations of the human rights of Mohammed El Zari in connection with his and Ahmed Agiza's summary expulsion from Sweden in December 2001. Following their forcible return to Egypt, Mohammed El Zari and Ahmed Agiza alleged that they were tortured while in custody.

Renditions from Sweden as assistance to the US War on Terror, these men were tortured in Egyptian custody on behalf of the US government.

I am skeptical in regards to the claims of inviolate process, where it would somehow be impossible to interview/ interrogate Assange in London, or via video, or any number of ways; however I understand why the High Court would take the Swedish prosecutor's claims at face value.

Those making the allegations of sexual assault and rape in Sweden deserve to have Assange face inquiry and if evidence is sufficient, indictment and trial. He should absolutely not be able to avoid this without end.

But I also believe the US government has made clear it wants to extradite Assange to the US to stand trial, and that the secret US indictment is entirely politically motivated. I think Assange is right to question the moves made by governments with histories of acceding to US pressure, and to protect himself accordingly.

[ceptimus]

George Galloway in his podcast which you can see

here

(starts at 21:40) alleges:

• Both women have dubious political connections
• 1st woman claims she had consensual sex with Assagne then fell asleep and woke up to find him having sex with her for a second time
• 2nd woman says she was having consensual sex with Assange, but he did not stop when the condom they were using ripped
• Neither of these reported events constitute 'rape' in Galloway's view
• He has seen texts from both women to Assange from long after the alleged 'rapes' occur
• He doesn't actually believe either of the women's stories, but says even if they are 100% true and were recorded by video cameras in the room, then Assange couldn't be successfully prosecuted for 'rape'

[The Man]

Greenwald takes on the hypocrisy of people who denounce the abuses of countries like Russia and Ecuador (he focuses particularly on Pussy Riot and Wikileaks) without denouncing the abuses of the U.S. and other similar countries. As expected, it's a good read.

[chunksmediocrites]

I was puzzling over this and will have to research, but why hasn't Assange simply been tried in absentia in Sweden? Why does the forward motion of this case depend entirely on questioning Assange?

ETA: NYT Op-ed by Michael Moore and Oliver Stone

[chunksmediocrites]

Originally Posted by California Tanker

Nice FAQ about the legal issues.

New Statesman - Legal myths about the Assange extradition

Point-by-point rebuttal here.

Broader rebuttal here by Glenn Greenwald at the Guardian.

Earlier this week, British lawyer and legal correspondent for the New Statesman David Allen Green generated a fair amount of attention by announcing that he would use his objective legal expertise to bust what he called "legal myths about the Assange extradition." These myths, he said, are being irresponsibly spread by Assange defenders and "are like 'zombie facts' which stagger on even when shot down."

In addition to his other credentials, Green – like virtually the entire British press – is a long-time and deeply devoted Assange-basher, and his purported myth-busting was predictably regurgitated by those who reflexively grasp onto anything that reflects poorly on western establishmentarians' public enemy No1. It's really worth examining what Green argued to understand the behavior in which Assange detractors engage to advance this collective vendetta, and also to see how frequently blatant ideological agendas masquerade as high-minded, objective legal expertise.

And this highlight:

Then there's the very strange argument Green makes about why extradition to the US would be more easily accomplished if he's in Britain rather than Sweden. I've previously set out the reasons and supporting evidence showing the reverse is true and won't repeat those here, but let's look at what Green says to support his claim:

The US has been seeking McKinnon's extradition from Britain for a full seven years and counting; O'Dwyer also remains in England and is the subject of a popular campaign to block his shipment to the U.S.; the NatWest Three were able to resist extradition to the US for four full years. These cases disprove, rather than prove, that an extradition demand from the US would be "swiftly complied with" in Britain. In contrast to the secretive Swedish judicial system, there is substantial public debate along with transparent (and protracted) judicial proceedings in Britain over extradition.

[California Tanker]

I can't get to the first link, my Kapersky anti-virus doesn't like it very much. Is it repeated anywhere?

[chunksmediocrites]

Originally Posted by California Tanker

I can't get to the first link, my Kapersky anti-virus doesn't like it very much. Is it repeated anywhere?

Looks like David Allen Green reprints the rebuttal on his own site, Jack of Kent. If your anti-virus doesn't like that, try a search engine with the phrase below.

David Allen Green is but one lawyer, and as we all know, the legal profession exists to have internal disagreements.

ETA: Greenwald refutes the specific claim by Mr. Green that the Swedish courts would be the final or key arbiter on extradition from Sweden, rather than the Swedish government.

[chunksmediocrites]

This seems pretty reasonable to me, or at least a step in the right direction.
UKPA, September 22:

Officials in Ecuador say they will consider asking Britain to authorise the transfer of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to its embassy in Sweden so he can respond to sex crimes allegations there.

Foreign minister Ricardo Patino said there are several possibilities for resolving the stand-off with Britain over Assange, including "that his statement be taken in our embassy in London or that Ecuador get authorisation to transfer him, if necessary, to our embassy in Sweden so that the case can proceed there with the protection of Ecuador and meeting the needs of Swedish justice".

[LadyShea]

Foreign minister Ricardo Patino said there are several possibilities for resolving the stand-off with Britain over Assange, including "that his statement be taken in our embassy in London or that Ecuador get authorisation to transfer him, if necessary, to our embassy in Sweden so that the case can proceed there with the protection of Ecuador and meeting the needs of Swedish justice".

If it is not a ruse to get him in the position to be extradited to the US, then there can really be no legitimate complaint against that proposal.

So, we'll see what happens now.