CIA Look to Swamp Correa 311


About a month ago I asked a former colleague in the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office what Hague saw as the endgame in the Julian Assange asylum standoff, and where the room for negotiation lay. My friend was dismissive – the policy was simply to wait for the Presidential election in Ecuador in February. The United States and allies were confident that Correa will lose, and my friend and I having both been senior diplomats for many years we understood what the United States would be doing to ensure that result. With Correa replaced by a pro-USA President, Assange’s asylum will be withdrawn, the Metropolitan Police invited in to the Embassy of Ecuador to remove him, and Assange sent immediately to Sweden from where he could be extradited to the United States to face charges of espionage and aiding terrorism.

I have been struck by the naivety of those who ask why the United States could not simply request Assange’s extradition from the United Kingdom. The answer is simple – the coalition government. Extradition agreements are government to government international treaties, and the decision on their implementation is ultimately political and governmental – that is why it was Teresa May and not a judge who took the final and very different political decisions on Babar Ahmad and Gary Mackinnon.

CIA supporters in the UK have argued vociferously that it would be impossible for Sweden to give Assange the assurance he would not be extradited to the United States, with which he would be prepared to return to Sweden to see off the rather pathetic attempted fit-up there. In fact, as extradition agreements are governmental not judicial instruments, it would be perfectly possible for the Swedish government to give that assurance. Those who argue otherwise, like Gavin Essler and Joan Smith here, are not being truthful – I suspect their very vehemence indicates that they know that.

Most Liberal Democrat MPs are happy to endorse the notion that Assange should be returned to Sweden to face sexual accusations. However even the repeatedly humiliated Lib Dem MPs would revolt at the idea that Assange should be sent to face life imprisonment in solitary confinement in the United States for the work of Wikileaks. That is why the United States has held off requesting extradition from the United Kingdom, to avoid the trouble this would cause Cameron. I am not speculating, there have been direct very senior diplomatic exchanges on this point between Washington and London.

There was confidence that the Correa problem would soon pass, but the State Department has since been shocked by the return of Hugo Chavez. Like Correa, senior US diplomats had convinced themselves – and convinced La Clinton – that Chavez was going to lose. The fury at Chavez’s return has led to a diktat that the same mistake must not be made in Ecuador.

CIA operations inside Ecuador are in any case much less disrupted than in Venezuela. I learn that the US budget, using mostly Pentagon funds, devoted to influencing the Ecuadorean election has, since the Venezuelan result, been almost tripled to US $87 million. This will find its way into opposition campaign coffers and be used to fund, bribe or blackmail media and officials. Expect a number of media scandals and corruption stings against Correa’s government in the next few weeks.

I do not have much background on Ecuadorean politics and I really do not know what Correa’s chances of re-election are. Neither do I know if any of the opposition parties are decent and not in the hands of the USA. But I do know that the USA very much want Correa to lose, were very confident that he was going to lose, and now are not. From their point of view, the danger is that in upping the ante, their efforts will become so obvious they will backfire in a nationalist reaction. My US source however is adamant that the Obama adminstration will not actually use the funds to incite another military coup attempt against Correa. That has apparently been ruled out. Assange being expelled into the arms of the CIA by a newly installed military dictatorship might be a difficult sell even for our appalling mainstream media.


311 thoughts on “CIA Look to Swamp Correa

1 7 8 9 10 11
  • Komodo

    …but as you haven’t, pick the bones out of this. Rudling doesn’t like Assange. ( I accept – pity Swedes are often such humourless trolls, but that’s life – that Rudling is critical of the Assangeists’ misinterpretation – as he sees it – of Swedish procedures) But equally, he recognises that Ardin’s evidence is fatally flawed.

    http://www.fsilaw.com/cms/documents/WitnessStatementofGoranRudling.pdf

    Have a nice snark.

    Sweetheart.

  • Anonymouse

    Wow, Komodo, great way to debunk everything I’ve written debunking Murray (I’m sorry, “Braveheart”) without even attempting to counter a single thing I’ve written! Do you have a name for this fascinating new technique? Inquiring minds want to know! Is it the “LA LA LA I CAN’T HEAR YOU LA LA LA!!!” debate technique? Or did you think that there’s actually something in there that counters a single thing that I wrote? Or are you busy trying to counter an argument that I *wasn’t* making? (hint: the name for that is a “straw man”).

    Clearly you’ve now accepted that I’m not Göran. But please go ahead and inform me of my “true identity”, because these conspiracies are always endearing.

    To sum up for those just joining us: I wrote a post showing Craig’s history of literally just making stuff up to try to spread conspiracy theories and ask why he should be trusted. Rather than actually attempting to debunk it, the conversation has largely focused around accusing me of being different people and simply saying “you’re wrong!” without substantive replies except for one (from Arbed), which only was about a small fraction of it and which was thoroughly rebutted (see above).

  • John Goss

    Thanks for the Glenn Greenwald link Komodo. I thought it was going to be as long as the mouse’s tale but it did make sense. So can I spell it out for those without the time to read it.

    Swedish law courts cannot decide to extradite anybody (including Julian Assange). The decision rests with the government. Marianne Ny and Claes Borgstrom just have to get Assange to Sweden then their job is done. At that point the Swedish toads, who suck on the nipples of the Big Bad Witch of the West will do the rest. So please. There never was, is, or shall be, a case of rape against Assange. Sofia Wilen did not want to make a statement. Marianne Ny is up for retirement and the Yanks will make it worth her while and that of Claes Borgstrom. This cartoon tells it how it is.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8wrmtDkoLU

    Watch it Micky Mouse, Minnie Mouse, Anonymouse, Die Fledermaus, летучая мышь, and all you other batty mice who cannot see the corn for the stalks.

  • Anonymouse

    Oh, Komodo and John, are you really that far behind the news? Sorry, but Glenn’s post has already been responded to:

    http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/media/2012/09/legal-mythology-extradition-julian-assange

    August, really? Keep up the pace here!

    “There never was, is, or shall be, a case of rape against Assange. ”

    Interesting! Watch for the stars (***)

    http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/jud-aut-sweden-v-assange-judgment.pdf


    4. On 17th August 2010, in the home of the injured party [name given] in Enkoping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state. It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party’s sexual integrity.

    ***The framework list is ticked for “Rape”.*** This is a reference to an allegation 4. The other three allegations are described in box (e) II using the same wording as set out above.

    Theeen….


    Subject to any matters said by him, which undermine my present view that he should be indicted, an indictment will be launched with the court thereafter. It can therefore be seen that Assange ***is sought for the purpose of conducting criminal proceedings*** and that he is not sought merely to assist with our enquiries.

    Aaaaand….

    http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/Media/The-Assange-Matter/The-Assange-Matter/

    Marianne Ny, Director of Public Prosecution, takes a decision to resume the preliminary investigation concerning the suspected ***rape***. The preliminary investigation on sexual molestation is expanded to cover all the events in the crime reports.

    Theeen….


    18 November 2010
    Marianne Ny orders the arrest of Julian Assange, with probable cause, suspected of ***rape***, three cases of sexual molestation and illegal coercion.

    Theeen….


    24 November 2010
    Svea Court of Appeal refuses the appeal and takes a decision that the arrest warrant is to remain in place, with probable cause, on suspicion of ***rape*** (less serious crime), unlawful coercion and two cases of sexual molestation.

    Theeen….


    2 December 2010
    The Supreme Court takes a decision not to grant Julian Assange leave to appeal. ***The decision of the Svea Court of Appeal stands***.

    Aaaaand….

    http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/Media/News-in-English1/Julian-Assange-has-been-detained-in-his-absence/

    Julian Assange has been detained in his absence suspected of ***rape***, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion.

    Aaaaand….

    http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/Media/News-in-English1/News-1/

    – I request the District Court of Stockholm to detain Mr. Assange in his absence, suspected of ***rape***, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion.

    Aaaaand….

    http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/Media/News-in-English1/News-11/

    At the hearing on the detention issue, the District Court decided to detain Mr Assange in his absence, on probable cause suspected of ***rape***, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion.

    Nope, clearly no rape case here! Clearly this is about jay walking.

    “Sofia Wilen did not want to make a statement”

    If you believe that, then address my rebuttal of this in my blog post. Or do you wish to hold forward with your “LA LA LA I CAN’T HEAR YOU LA LA LA!” argument?

    In case you lost the URL:

    http://nafnlausar.blogspot.com/2012/10/why-i-am-convinced-that-craig-murray-is.html

  • Anonymouse

    Here, I’ll make it even easier for you. Here’s the relevant section:

    Krans prepares a statement accusing Assange of rape. [SW] refuses to sign it.

    Do you think your readers are stupid, Craig, that they can’t read the protocol for themselves?


    In the course of the interview, [SW] and I were informed that Julian Assange had been arrested in absentia. After that, [SW] had difficulty concentrating, as a result of which I made the judgement that it was best to terminate the interview. But [SW] did mention that Assange was angry at her. There was not enough time to obtain any further information about why he was angry at her or how this was expressed. Nor did we have time to discuss what had happened afterwards. The interview was neither read back to [SW] nor read by her for approval; but [SW] was informed that she could do so at a later date.

    Is that what you call “refusal to sign”? It says nothing of the sort. First off, the standard – which is not even required – is “read and approved”. Secondly, the *officer* decided to terminate the interview. SW never objected to any content. Third, it would be quite difficult to “sign” a report which hadn’t even been typed up yet.

    Oh, well, I’m sure that SW didn’t want to cooperate further, right? Like it’s not like she’d hire an attorney to push the case forward for her, or that she then consented to a forensic medical report, or anything like that, right? Oh wait, yes she did:

    [SW] gives her consent to the acquisition of a forensic medical report.

    and…

    [SW] wishes to be represented by an attorney whom she will name at a later time.

    The women have a legal defender, and his name is Claes Borgström, and he ended up representing both women. He is the man who got the case re-opened (more on that later) and who has relentlessly pushed forward the case ever since. Or are we to assume that the women don’t know what their own representative is doing? Poor damsels!

  • Jose

    Swedish law courts cannot decide to extradite anybody (including Julian Assange). The decision rests with the government.

    Like in most countries, I believe the judiciary can either block an extradition or give a “go ahead”, with the government being able to veto. It’s that way in Ecuador as well. In the UK, the Pinochet extradition was blocked by the Home Secretary after the judiciary ruled to extradite. I believe the McKinnon case also worked out that way. But I don’t think the government can extradite without a court decision, if the country has a concept of due process. Of course, governments can always violate their own laws and international conventions, as was the case when Sweden rendered 2 suspects to the US. Cambodia worked around these hurdles by deporting Gottfrid Svartholm Warg to Sweden instead of extraditing him.

  • Anonymouse

    @Jose: Correct, as documented in the response link to that Greenwald article posted above. The government of Sweden can block it (but only after the courts take up the request), the courts can block it, the UK government can block it, the UK courts can block it, and the ECHR can block it. All five entities are banned from deportation where there’s a risk of death penalty or abuse (abuse even goes so far as to require a pledge of no supermax prison these days). Sweden is additionally banned from extradition for intelligence and military crimes (the very foreign minister Assange rails against now was prime minister when Sweden refused to hand over CIA defector Edward Lee Howard). And the ECHR exists solely to prevent abuse, political prosecutions, and things of that nature. A court that’s often accused of stepping over its authority – they’ve gone so far as to declare it illegal to ban convicted felons from voting or to prevent prisoners from receiving state reproductive healthcare assistance (artificial insemination and the like). Heck, even the UK side, probably the easiest sides to get him from, just blocked the extradition of probably the foremost hacker of US military systems (who the US desparately wanted) on the ground that he “has aspergers” (as though Assange doesn’t?).

    The concept that *all five* would approve an extradition of Assange is so far into fantasyland that parents in Narnia could use it as a bedtime story for their children.

    A couple more specific points on your post:

    Sweden did not render two suspects to the US. There were to asylum-seeking refugees (aka, people with no legal right to be *in* the country, versus Assange who has no legal right to *not* be in the country). They were falsely reported to be convicted terrorists. They were handed over to the US, but not to take to the US – to take to Egypt, back to where they fled from. They were abused in Egyptian custody. When all the details came out, it created a big scandal in Sweden; the two were given residence status in Sweden and a large financial compensation package. A certain leaking website whose name begins with “W” that you might have heard of leaked news that in 2006 that Sweden discontinued all cooperation with America. Not just discontinued, but literally had their military board a US plane to stop them, creating a diplomatic scandal:

    http://www.swedishwire.com/politics/7497-cia-rendition-flights-stopped-by-swedish-military

    No country is perfect. However, the case of the two Egyptians was *11 years ago* and was the biggest legal scandal in Swedish history for at least the past couple decades. Now think of how often those sort of abuses happen in other countries – the US, Russia, even the UK. Heck, even Ecuador, until the Assange issue rose its head, was preparing to deport a whistleblower back to Belarus where he’d most likely be tortured.

    Sweden’s judicial system is ranked #1 in the world in terms of fundamental rights by the World Justice Project in their scientifically peer-reviewed and published ranking system, making use of at least 17 legal experts on different parts of the Swedish system alone. Sweden’s weakest category? “Effective criminal justice (#7), aka, they let people off too easily.

    http://worldjusticeproject.org/country/sweden

  • John Goss

    Jose, (3.13 pm) I largely agree with that. Perhaps I should have said the ‘final decision’ rests with the government.

    Eponymouse Göran,

    David Allen Green’s response to Glenn Greenwald does not refute what Greenwald said. Legal jiggery-pokery can be blended to suit a point of view and it is a minefield. Green did not have the good grace to apologise for misleading the readership of a once reputable weekly to which I used to subscribe. But for a long time it has been the darling of the neocon right. David Allen Green went to the same university as me. He does not respond to uncomfortable tweets. I can tell you that from personal experience. So it stands to reason he would not apologise. He is like Marianne Ny who has said she would still pursue a charge of rape against Assange even if she was shown to be wrong. What kind of a person is that?

    You should have read the article by Green and Greenwald’s before posting the link. Green, who quotes himself first from his previous article, then calls to his defence two Swedish legal scholars: Mark Klamberg and Pål Wrange. Wrange’s view can be discounted because he just refers to Klamberg’s blog. Green writes:

    “Klamberg’s view is:

    …if there is an extradition treaty the Government is bound by an international obligation to extradite and it is only for legally sound reasons that it may refuse. An extradition treaty limits in a considerable way the discretion of the Government to deviate from the ruling of the Supreme Court.”

    Well this is also what Greenwald said if you read his article, which you clearly haven’t. He quotes Klamberg’s expertise too. He concludes:

    “Speaking for myself, I have always said the same thing about those allegations in Sweden from the moment they emerged: they are serious and deserve legal resolution. It is not Assange or his supporters preventing that resolution, but the Swedish and British governments, which are strangely refusing even to negotiate as to how Assange’s rights against unjust extradition and political persecution can be safeguarded along with the rights of the complainants to have their allegations addressed. Green’s false claim that the Swedish government is unable to act because it has no final authority over extradition has seriously distorted this issue, and it is why it should be promptly and prominently corrected by the New Statesman.”

    That’s the crux of the matter.

  • John Goss

    Why I am convinced Já Þýðir Já and Göran Rudling are one and the same. First of all, as Arbed has pointed out, great chunks of text on the Já Þýðir Já blog are the same as Göran’s. Secondly, there is only this one post (which I signed for him) even though the blog was started in 2005.

    http://nafnlausar.blogspot.co.uk/search?updated-min=2012-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&updated-max=2013-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&max-results=1

    Thirdly there was the apparently intercepted email from Göran threatening to expose Craig Murray as a liar.

  • Mussitate

    I have not read all comments, so sorry if I am a tad off beat.

    The USA is terrorising Julian Assange and Wikileaks with the specific purpose of ensuring that what Assange and Wikileaks does, stops and that no one else will take up the banner to continue this form of media.

    The USA needs to ensure that the American public, the Western World and other countries are unaware of their terrorist acts of war, rape and pillage of other countries, governments, corporations, and individuals, and to do this they need to maintain control of the media. Wikileaks and Julian Assange represent a threat, especially given the current, very precarious nature of the USA’s financial and economic status – caused essentially by gross corporate and elitist greed.

    The USA are losing world currency status which means that it will have to actually manage its financial affairs because they would not be able to simply print money and have the rest of the world pay for their extravagance. Additionally, because they had world currency status the USA tended to rely totally on the financial sector and cut back on all really productivity (manufacturing). This means that when they lose world currency status, ordinary tax paying Americans will be screwed and the country will go down hard. The wealthy elite (whose greed, corruption, massive government interference and gross mismanagement has caused the problems now faced by the USA), are desperate and ruthless in their endeavours to bring down any government or country that tries to trade in non US dollars and/or has those things it needs, such as oil, gas, gold, passageways, trade routes, etc (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libia, Syria and always Iran).

    So yes, Julian Assange and Wikileaks, are the perfect scrape goats of the wealthy elite, to divert attentions away from the real blame and a vendetta against them fits will into the parcel of a corporatocracy gone mad, that is the USA.

    It is my opinion, that the USA is desperate and therefore exceedingly dangerous. Remember, the USA may lose financial control of the world but it still controls more weapons than all other countries combined.

  • John Goss

    Hello Snap. I agree. Both Green’s articles are cited but not Greenwald’s.

    You can edit Wikipedia entries. I tried once but was not very successful.

  • Jose

    @Anonymouse,

    Sweden did not render two suspects to the US. There were to asylum-seeking refugees (aka, people with no legal right to be *in* the country, versus Assange who has no legal right to *not* be in the country).

    I don’t buy that interpretation. Side-stepping due process in order to hand over suspects to a country that might persecute them is wrong regardless of migratory status. When people are requesting asylum, particularly, they should be given the benefit of the doubt while the application is being considered. If the application is declined, they can be deported to their country of origin, but not pseudo-extradited to any country they please.

    Sweden appears to have some issues in this area, as evidenced by the 2012 UN report on torture.

    Another thing that is worrisome about Sweden is its “temporary surrender” treaty with the US.

    Now, one can quibble about how likely it would be for Sweden and the UK to do this or that, how independent their judiciaries are, come up with all sorts of interpretations of existing law, etc. But the fact remains: Sweden has not provided formal assurances of anything, nor have they been very forthcoming about what they’d be able to guarantee. Who’d be willing to bet their life on these uncertainties?

  • John Goss

    Why I am convinced Göran Rudling and Anonymouse are the same person. First there is a gut feeling and I trust my gut feelings. Secondly, when I baited him with the link between the three personae and who was paying him he came back at me asking how I got the time to write so many posts. He also asked who was paying me. Up to then I had written only three comments on this post. What convinces me most of all, which probably relates to the gut feeling, is the length of some of Anonymouse’s comments and the use of certain terms like “don’t know” and “don’t understand” generally applied superciliously to others who leave comments.

    Then of course Göran Rudling has not been commenting on this subject so close to his heart. Is it unreasonable to ask why not?

    I think Göran has a quaint sense of humour and can be very entertaining. Even these two extra guises of his have been entertaining. Of course there is a slim chance I am wrong. So I ask you to come clean Mr Rudling. Just out of honesty. That’s what justice should be about.

  • John Goss

    Craig Murray wrote “With Correa replaced by a pro-USA President, Assange’s asylum will be withdrawn, the Metropolitan Police invited in to the Embassy of Ecuador to remove him, and Assange sent immediately to Sweden from where he could be extradited to the United States to face charges of espionage and aiding terrorism.”

    It looks like this is already underway.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXk673BPBdc&feature=g-all-u

    Never underestimate the powers of the CIA. They tried to destabilise Angola and Nicaragua, and succeeded in pushing back female education in Afghanistan thirty years.

  • Santiago

    Nothing new, we all know that the US NED (US National Endowment for Democracy) is used to finance struggles and terrorism against leftist governments.

  • Jose

    @Arbed: Yep. To put it in perspective, that (criminal) $1.8 billion award is about the same as Ecuador’s annual education budget. It’s comparable to the cost of Ecuador’s single largest infrastructure project.

    @Santiago: Now that you mention it, the NED is one of the most consistent contributors of Fundamedios, a media NGO that was created shortly after Correa assumed power, and that is always accusing the government (based on grains of truth) about attacks on freedom of the press, and is no doubt the local NGO that serves as a source to international NGOs like Amnesty, CPJ and Reporters Without Borders.

  • JORGE S.

    Seguro que en Febrero 2013 se repite el triunfo de nuestro primer mandatario, porque no estamos ciegos para ignorar las obras y el pago de la deuda social.

  • Anonymouse

    “Eponymouse Göran”

    Ooh, I’m back to being Göran’s defective-clone-who-disagrees-with-him again. Yeay! 🙂

    “David Allen Green’s response to Glenn Greenwald does not refute what Greenwald said. Legal jiggery-pokery can be blended to suit a point of view and it is a minefield.”

    Hey, great job disproving something by saying “it’s disproved”. I’m convinced.

    While you’re at it, could you make a bunch of gold appear in my house by saying “there is gold in your house”? I’d much appreciate it.

    “He is like Marianne Ny who has said she would still pursue a charge of rape against Assange even if she was shown to be wrong.”

    Your cite?

    “Wrange’s view can be discounted because he just refers to Klamberg’s blog.”

    Aww, that’s just precious. Because the Associate Professor of Public International Law at Stockholm University says that he agrees with another legal scholar, that means… he doesn’t count, and we should listen to someone who knows nothing of Swedish law instead? I think we can safely file this one under “LA LA LA I CAN’T HEAR YOU LA LA LA!”.

    “Well this is also what Greenwald said if you read his article”

    Oh, so Klamberg agrees with Greenwald! That’s weird, he sure has a funny way of doing so when he says:


    The problem is that Greenwald earlier and later in the same text argues for a sequence that would put the Government before the Supreme Court. In essence he is arguing that the Government should have the first and the last say with the Supreme Court in the middle. That would make the Supreme Court redundant which is contrary to the sequence that is provided for in the Extradition Act which I have tried to describe. It may also violate the principle of separation of powers

    and


    I could stop at this point but I would like to add an additional reason why the Government can not grant an assurance for non-extradiction to the US

    and


    Or is Greenwald arguing that the Swedish Supreme Court should give an advisory opinion in advance of a non-existing request? There is no legal basis for such advisory opinions. The reversed sequence of processing a (non-existing) extradition request that Assange, Ecuador and Greenwald is asking for would be in conflict with the Extradition Act and possibly even with the principle of separation of powers enshrined in the Swedish constitution. My reasoning is similar to professor Ove Bring who has been interviewed by Dagens Nyheter.

    Uh oh – he’s in agreement with another Swedish legal scholar! That means by Crazy Troll Logic that we can ignore him now!

    (Here’s his quite devastating takedown of Greenwald: http://klamberg.blogspot.se/2012/08/sequencing-and-discretion-of-government.html )

    “Why I am convinced Já Þýðir Já and Göran Rudling are one and the same.”

    Oooh, this will be fun (you know, someone really ought to alert Göran to the fact that his evil clone is out here besmirching his good reputation 😉 ).

    “First of all, as Arbed has pointed out, great chunks of text on the Já Þýðir Já blog are the same as Göran’s.”

    You mean “Postscript 2” which reads, “To repost from deep in the comments section of Craig Murray’s blog, this from Göran Rudling”? Sneaky me, trying to work that in there without mentioning his name once, except for the fact that I did, directly before writing it, as a postscript, and set off within a blockquote. Sneaky, sneaky me! I’m so good at hiding my identity!

    “Secondly, there is only this one post (which I signed for him) even though the blog was started in 2005.”

    Have you checked out the other fascinating blog on the account, the original one?

    http://justcreatedfortheaccount.blogspot.com/

    I think there might be some sort of clue as to why the account was created in 2005. Just a tipoff there!

    “Thirdly there was the apparently intercepted email from Göran threatening to expose Craig Murray as a liar.”

    Wow, what a crazy notion, that more than one person would think that a person who has explicitly lied many times and been called on it makes them a liar. You got me! It is I, Evil-Göran-Clone #126! Part of the Evil Göran Plot to take over the world by calling liars on their lies and supporting the rule of law! My great nemesis John Goss: you may have won THIS battle, but the million year war for EVIL has just begun! Unmasking my identity this time will NOT stop our internet army from keeping you pitiful humans enslaved under the yoke of the CIA! Curses and drat! You have obstructed us for now, but your feeble bid to save humanity will fail. Hail Carl Rove!

  • Anonymouse

    “I don’t buy that interpretation. Side-stepping due process in order to hand over suspects to a country that might persecute them is wrong regardless of migratory status.”

    The default assumption of someone who is in the country illegally (whether for asylum or some other cause) is that they should be kicked out. The default assumption for someone in prison is that they should *not* be kicked out. Pretending that they’re one and the same is an absurdity

    Nobody is disputing that that one incident *11 years ago* which ultimately led to *Sweden’s military seizing a US aircraft and creating a diplomatic incident* shouldn’t have happened, in many regards. But to use a single incident from 11 years ago to say, “Ah, they’re all evil!” when that sort of nonsense happens orders of magnitude more commonly elsewhere is an absurdity. There are hundreds of thousands of legal cases annually in Sweden.

    “Sweden appears to have some issues in this area, as evidenced by the 2012 UN report on torture.”

    Which report? And if you cite a report for something, I want you to cite, say, Ecuador’s for contrast.

    “Another thing that is worrisome about Sweden is its “temporary surrender” treaty with the US.”

    There’s a lovely rebuttal of that canard here from attorney Greg Callus:

    http://gregcallus.tumblr.com/post/29939891330/assange-sweden-temporary-surrender-eaw

  • Anonymouse

    “Why I am convinced Göran Rudling and Anonymouse are the same person.”

    Oooh, more of this! John, you’re the light of my days 🙂

    “First there is a gut feeling and I trust my gut feelings.”

    Which is why you support Murray’s explicitly and repeatedly proven lies without any serious attempt at rebuttal. Because we all know, truth lies in the gut! It comes from the bacteria there, like Heliobacter truthitus and Staphylococcus factimus. These bacteria pick up cognitive conspiratons radiated from the brains of CIA agents and use them to proliferate, triggering a hormonal response that allows for the divination of truth by special people like you.

    “Secondly, when I baited him with the link between the three personae and who was paying him he came back at me asking how I got the time to write so many posts. He also asked who was paying me. ”

    Mental note for the future: “Back Atcha!” now translates as “I’m An Evil Clone”.

    “is the length of some of Anonymouse’s comments and the use of certain terms like “don’t know” and “don’t understand””

    Oh, John, you have no idea know how much this one made me smile. Hey everyone, guess what? I WRITE WORDS! Like, “I don’t know you” and “languages that they don’t understand”. OH MY GOD, I HAD NO IDEA, I WAS WRITING WORDS!

    Let’s find some more secret Görans on this thread!

    Herbie: “Thing is we don’t know precisely what arrangements” – Secret Göran! Caught you!

    Thatcrab: “that is called if they do not understand democracy.” Oh, wait: “Ben it can be nice not understanding anything” – he’s a DOUBLE SECRET GÖRAN! OMG LOL WTF!!!

    _N: “I don’t know of any parallel.”: Your cover is blown!

    Komodo: “Didn’t know how much was available” – Yours too!

    Jose: “I don’t think you understand what democracy is.”, “don’t know what you’re talking about”: Another double Göran! BUSTED!

    Nuid: “Mary, I don’t know if you posted this earlier,” “something that does not know” and “people do not even know”: TRIPLE GÖRAN! CAUGHT YOU, CLONE!

    Craig Murray: “I really do not know what Correa’s chances of re-election are” and “Neither do I know if any of the opposition parties “: CAUGHT YOU CRAIG! I just knew it! This whole back and forth between you and Göran — all an act! You’re really sock puppets of each other!

    “Then of course Göran Rudling has not been commenting on this subject so close to his heart. Is it unreasonable to ask why not?”

    Too bad there’s no way to, you know, ask someone on the net something.

    “Of course there is a slim chance I am wrong.”

    No, no, please don’t give up! I want to make a collage of your best hits when this is all over. 🙂

  • Anonymouse

    “Thanks for the link. If you want to read more on that $1.8 billion the US tribunal is trying to slap on Ecuador, this ruling makes the machinations of the UK courts in the Assange case almost look like fair play:”

    Because, as we all know, legal judgements never occur on their own, and the CIA runs all of the courts in the world.

    “Truly horrifying. Ecuador has already announced it won’t be paying.”

    And then when they get slapped with sanctions for not paying, you can say THAT’s all about Assange, too! What a wonderful way conspiracies work.

    “and is no doubt the local NGO that serves as a source to international NGOs like Amnesty, CPJ and Reporters Without Borders.”

    Oooh, so now Amnesty, CPJ, and Reporters Without Borders get dragged into the conspiracy!

  • Jose

    @Anonymouse,

    “Sweden appears to have some issues in this area, as evidenced by the 2012 UN report on torture.”

    Which report? And if you cite a report for something, I want you to cite, say, Ecuador’s for contrast.

    I provided a link. It lists all countries that register incidents in 2012.

    And no, Ecuador (a country with far less resources, more poverty, less access to education than industrialized countries) does not appear in that report. Would that be relevant to whether Assange should be surrendered to Sweden, in any case?

  • Jose

    Anonymouse,

    The default assumption of someone who is in the country illegally (whether for asylum or some other cause) is that they should be kicked out.

    Given that Ecuador is on-topic, let me quote what the Ecuadorian constitution (translated) says on this issue (serves to illustrate the sort of progressive thinking that separates Correa’s movement from anything we’ve had in the past):

    The right to migrate of persons is recognized. No human being shall be identified or considered as illegal because of his/her migratory status.

    Persons requesting asylum or sanctuary shall not be penalized or prosecuted for having entered the country or for remaining in a situation of irregularity.

  • Jose

    Oooh, so now Amnesty, CPJ, and Reporters Without Borders get dragged into the conspiracy!

    No need for explicit conspiracies to explain how a system works. The NED doesn’t contribute to Fundamedios because it likes to throw its money around anywhere it pleases. If Fundamedios were aligned with Correa, they wouldn’t get a cent. If a right-wing candidate wins the next election, I’d bet Fundamedios ceases to exist. Now, Amnesty and CPJ don’t have offices in Ecuador. They get information from sources in the country, namely Fundamedios and other opposition groups.

    In addition to this dubious indirect funding of NGOs that otherwise are pretty good, a bias is apparent. It took Amnesty a while to say something about the possibility that Assange could be persecuted for his journalism. In contrast, they were quick to attack Ecuador with a special op-ed. Plus the way they report incidents is demonstrably biased. What I mean is that if incidents that occur in the US from time to time (e.g. the Anaheim shooting of Manuel Diaz, the arrest of Brandon Raub, the NATO5 prosecutions, the Sikh temple shooting) were to occur in Ecuador, Amnesty would quickly report them as murder by police, suppression of freedom of speech, criminalization of social protest, and social/ethnic cleansing.

  • Anonymouse

    @Jose: Wait, that’s your “still has some issues” report? One paragraph which begins with “The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government of Sweden” and ends with “Accordingly, the Special Rapporteur is satisfied”?

    Since that is such a grossly incomplete report, let’s find a more thorough one. Amnesty International’s 2012 report, perhaps? Let’s sum up the complaints on each:

    Sweden:

    * Sweden does not yet have a specific ban on torture in its national penal code, relying on other statutes, European Law, and International law (Ed: Sweden is currently working to remedy this). They mention the one 11-year-old case.
    * Too many refugees and asylum seekers turned away, often due to categories instead of on a case-to-case basis, and mainly from Serbia.
    * Praise for Sweden for convicting a war criminal

    Ecuador:
    http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/ecuador/report-2012

    * Refusing to grant rights to the native Kichwa people over resource extraction on their own lands
    * Having the military invade a village to put down a protest from thousands of people who were going to lose their homes due to a dam; the military destroyed their land.
    * Indigenous people continue to face face spurious charges of sabotage, terrorism, murder and illegal obstruction of roads for alleged crimes. 12 examples are given, including terrorism charges against the president of the indigenous peoples federation.
    * Human rights defender murdered, no progress made on the case
    * Indigenous leader and former minister and now human rights defender imprisoned for slandering the government
    * “impunity in cases of killings and abuses by police, hired gunmen and rural juntas”
    * “criminal defamation charges against journalists critical of the government or local officials”. The El Universal case is brought up.

    Yeah, Ecuador sounds like a bloody freedom-loving paradise compared to Evil Sweden. Oh, and instead of quoting the constitution, try quoting the actual law on asylum procedures, because Ecuador deports people all the bloody time, and not to mention almost certainly would have deported Barankov back to be tortured in Belarus had the Assange case not come up. He had already lost the hearing on 21 june and spent months in jail, despite having been given that precious “asylum” status.

1 7 8 9 10 11

Comments are closed.