Sabrina1 has got to be dumber than Beth. She has a number of the DUmmies convinced that the all powerful, all magnificent Karl Rove is behind the whole thing.
The first thread from earlier today explains the problems with the extradition thing.
Link1 struggle4progress (65,381 posts)
View profile
Why the Ecuadorians are stalling on Assange's asylum request
Last edited Wed Aug 15, 2012, 12:52 PM USA/ET - Edit history (2)
The Ecuadorians' (not always pleasant) experience of US foreign policy naturally leaves them sympathetic to anyone who pokes the US in the eyes, and Assange made a great show of doing exactly that. Accordingly, they might enjoy granting Assange's asylum request, if it smecked the US in the schnozz again. But, all the paranoid histrionics of Assange & Co aside, the actual result of an asylum grant would be much gnarlier than that for Ecuador
According to general Latin American standards, an asylum seeker can flee to a country's embassy; and if that country agrees to offer asylum, then high-level negotiations for the asylee's safe passage to that country will follow. But it is understood this is intended as a mechanism to protect political refugees, not common criminals. However, these general Latin American standards are codified only in regional treaties and are not widely accepted. The idea, that someone in instant danger can appropriately seek temporary refuge in an embassy, is probably widely accepted, but again this view is not intended to shelter common criminals
A first problem for Ecuador, therefore, is simply that Assange is wanted in conjunction with criminal complaints in Sweden and is further subject to arrest in the UK for jumping bail. No evidence has ever been presented that the criminal process in Sweden is politically motivated
A second problem for Ecuador is that there no grounds for thinking Assange is in such instant danger in the UK, or would be in such instant danger in Sweden if extradited there, that Ecuador's prompt intercession is required for humanitarian reasons. Assange moved about freely in Sweden during his stay there. After his arrest in the UK (nearly two years ago now), he was granted bail and was largely free there as well, subject to such minor conditions as wearing a tracking bracelet, contacting the police daily, and spending evening hours at a certain fixed address (which happened to be a very comfortable mansion). Circumstances do not suggest any official efforts in either Sweden or the UK to kill him or to cause him grave bodily or emotional harm. Nor do circumstances otherwise suggest that he is a victim of, or is likely to become a victim of, nefarious official efforts, in Sweden or the UK, to interfere with his natural human rights in any substantial way, except in the normal course of Swedish process for a sexual crimes complaint
A third problem for Ecuador is that the UK does not recognize "diplomatic asylum" and would be extraordinarily unlikely to follow the Latin American model of negotiating safe-passage from the UK to Ecuador, in the event that Ecuador offered Assange "diplomatic asylum" -- first, because the UK will find no reason to disrespect Sweden in such manner; second, because authorities in the UK will not disregard the orders of the UK courts so lightly
A fourth problem for Ecuador is that Sweden, having gone to the trouble of swearing out a warrant for Assange, in order to bring him under the Swedish criminal justice process, and having pursued that warrant, at some length, against Assange’s contest in the UK courts, is unlikely to view favorably any Ecuadorian interference in the process. The conspiracy theories -- advanced by Assange, his lawyers and his supporters, according to which the Swedes have (contrary to Swedish constitution and statute) allowed a foreign power to subvert their criminal justice process, in order to facilitate a subsequent extradition to the US, so that Assange can be tortured or executed -- are just insulting to Sweden as a modern and progressive country, proud of its tolerance and humanitarianism. Granting Assange asylum involves a slander of Sweden, which cannot lubricate Swedish-Ecuadorian relations
A fifth and similar problem for Ecuador is that the UK, having thoroughly digested this topic in its courts, is unlikely to view favorably any Ecuadorian grant of asylum to a common criminal suspect. The upheld warrant for Assange involves an allegation of rape. The UK will find no advantage in allowing Ecuador to set a precedent, of sheltering in its embassy, persons accused of rape. Such a precedent would signal that any person, accused of any common crime, may dependably seek refuge with any diplomat with credentials at the Court of St James, undermining all intents of established international diplomatic understandings. Whether or not it intends to use available remedies, the UK does have options for enforcing a demand to hand over Assange, including expelling the Ecuadorian ambassador or breaking diplomatic relations with Ecuador
There is a related but somewhat more general problem for Ecuador. The Europeans have a carefully-negotiated extradition regime, according to which Assange could not be re-extradicted to the US from Sweden without the permission of the UK. A re-extradition request would be litigable in both Sweden and the UK. The conspiracy theories -- involving subsequent extradition to the US -- are insulting to the entire European community that negotiated the extradition regime, suggesting that Ecuador regards the European treaties as meaningless. As there is no particular upside to the European community, in having their treaties so regarded, an Ecuadorian grant of asylum to Assange will not lubricate European-Ecuadorian relations
Sabrina is NUTS!
Some of the DUmmies come out and say that Ass-wipe should face the music, he skipped bond, etc. etc.
and then:
sabrina 1 (28,355 posts)
15. And what are the charges? Two years, a crazy lawyer, Karl Rove behind the scenes, and
View profile
still no charges. Anyone can issue an arrest warrant. After two years of refusing to file charges, that warrant has lost all validity. Sweden has repeatedly refused to talk to Assange. Assange talked to the police in Sweden then asked to talk to them again, but they refused. There is no legal barrier to Swedish prosecutors coming to the UK, they've done it before and have been exposed as lying when they made that claim.
Sweden has lost all credibility regarding its judicial system, which outside the US propaganda machine, has become a laughing stock around the world. A man hunted down across the globe for a 'broken condom'. It really is laughable. Kudos to Karl Rove though, he has connnections.
Assange is actually winning the PR case on this, except with Fox of course, Sarah Palin et al, but the International view of Palin isn't exactly complimentary either. And unfortunately the US loses credibility when it allows Fox and Palin and the like to define who we are by not slapping them down officially ourselves.
Star Member sabrina 1 (28,355 posts)
26. You are incorrect. He did not 'run'. He remained in Sweden after having spoken to the
View profile
police and his attorneys asked if they wanted to speak to him as he would remain in Sweden until he did, if that was necessary. His attorneys were later contacted by the Prosecutors and told that he was 'free to leave', they had no further questions for him.
Typical Rovian trick. Sort of like how they set up Dan Rather. So after hearing from the prosecutor, he finally left. And then 'wham' suddenly there is an arrest warrant.
See my post elsewhere in this thread re Rove.
You have incorrect information. All of this has been verified over and over again. He was told he was not needed, he DID speak to the police, contrary to the wild stories in the US media, and left when he was told they no longer needed him there.
He is not a fool, nor are his attorneys, to 'run' as you say, would have been stupid. And if he was going to 'run' the last place he would have gone to was Britain. What utter nonsense and so contradictory to all the established facts already known about this case.
If he didn't run how did he end up in the UK?
Star Member sabrina 1 (28,355 posts)
39. The Nation has written extensively on Wikileaks
View profile
and like most Human Rights and Freedom of the Press advocates around the world, have consistently supported it.
The platform I am talking about does not include the US MSM where they don't talk about Bush War Crimes or Wall Street Corruption either. Since that is what Wikileaks and Assange are guilty of doing, exposing the Bush war crimes and were close to exposing Wall Street corruption, I think you've answered your own question.
The US has become increasingly isolated from the rest of the world on matters of freedom of the press (now ranking #47 on the World's Press Chart, a shameful position for the media of a democracy to find itself in) Fortunately however the influence of the US MSM has shrunk and the World now relies on more credible unbiased media. Fox is not considered a reliable source anywhere but the US.
From South America to Africa and the ME and most of Europe, people are exposed to actual journalism and as recently as just last week, documentaries on this phony 'case' against Assange were viewed by millions out side the US.
The silence of the US media on this case has indeed been noted and condemned. Why do you think our Media refuses to discuss Bush War Crimes and Wall Street Corruption btw? Why are they afraid to stand up for what this case is about, Freedom of the Press? That silence has been universally condemned specifically wrt to this case.
And while the US Media remains silent, Assange has continued to be awarded prizes for excellence in Jouralism in other parts of the world.
Relying on the MSM here is not advisable if you wish to remain informed and keep up with the rest of the world, which consists of billions of people who do not live in the US most of whom are way better informed than the average American.
We are not the world and we are among the least informed people in the world. We are merely a fraction of the population of the world. And we do not have a free press or any real journalists still employed by our Corporate Owned media.
Star Member sabrina 1 (28,355 posts)
41. Is that what you think?
View profile
I think it's because of the Corporate Owned Media who KNOW that Americans are not stupid, and the only way to stop them from talking about important issues is either to distort the facts themselves, or not cover them at all.
Since many Americans now get their news elsewhere, these tactics are not as successful as the used to be. In RL many Americans are talking about him BECAUSE they have accessed other media.
You did not say 'The American People are not talking about Assange'. You said 'The Media is not talking about Assange'.
For the record, a lot of Americans, including people like John Conyers among others, ARE talking about him and the threat to freedom of the press that his case highlights. But you are correct, the Media is not talking about him, shamefully.
Is Conyers in the broom closet talking about it?
Star Member sabrina 1 (28,355 posts)
45. I'm judging by your posts on this topic. Your insistence that
View profile
Assange has nothing to fear by falling into the trap laid for him by the right wingers in Sweden, demonstrates to me, that wherever you are getting your information, it is devoid of facts.
Assange did talk to the Swedish Police in Sweden.
Assange remained in Sweden for five weeks making himself available to the Swedish prosecutor for questioning.
Assange left after being told he was no longer needed in Sweden.
Assange has consistently made himself available to the Swedish Prosecutor for questioning but has been consistently turned down.
The Swedish Prosecutor's only excuse for refusing to speak to him in Britain, turned out to be a LIE. There are no legal impediments, as they claimed, to doing so. And they have done it before.
Karl Rove behind the scenes, need we say more?
The denial of the women that any rape occurred and proof in writing of that, makes it a little difficult for the Swedish Prosecutors.
The fact that Sweden has a sorry history of 'rendering' Swedish Citizens wanted by the US who were tortured, makes it imperative that Assange stay out of Sweden until the US confirms in writing that they have no intention of prosecuting and extraditing him. This has not occurred.
Finally, after two years of lies and flip flops and prevarications, when asked why they do not simply file charges, the Swedish Prosecutors have no credible answer.
And most important of all, not a single charge has been filed against this man. He is, absent any information to the contrary, and two years is ample time to have provided it, an innocent man.
You called this innocent man 'a rat'. You provided nothing to back up your reasoning for your 'opinion'. You either were not in possession of the facts, and I will give you the benefit of the doubt on that since the alternative is that you don't care about the facts for some inconceivable reason.
Forgive me if I assumed you were not associating yourself with the available facts or with people who were in possession of them or even cared about them. If I am wrong, then your comments were very unclear so I think I can be excused for my conclusions.
hack89 (15,664 posts)
46. You weave a conspiracy theory with Karl Rove at the center
View profile
Last edited Wed Aug 15, 2012, 07:03 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)
and accuse me of avoiding the facts? OK.
Why are you avoiding these facts:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/20110224-Britain-Ruling-Assange-Extradition-to-Sweden.pdf
As pointed out by msanthrope:
he was subject to arrest, confinement, and DNA sample collection. Assange fled Sweden the day before he was supposed to report to the Prosecutor's office. (see pages 7-8)
Ouch!
hack89 (15,664 posts)
53. If Karl Rove can steer a hurricane at New Orleans
View profile
I am sure he can make Assange rape women. He has amazing powers from what I have heard.
Ouch again.
Star Member sabrina 1 (28,355 posts)
19. Being entitled to a fair hearing and getting one are two very different things. So far
View profile
it doesn't look good for the Swedish Judicial system and he most certainly has NOT received a fair hearing. He has been, to put it mildly, railroaded and blatantly so.
Happily the media in other parts of the world have dug deep into this story and what they find, is what those of us who followed it from the start, already knew. This is a clear case of persecution. When the women themselves deny the allegations, and there is evidence of those denials, you simply have no case.
There is no way anyone watching this unfold in real time, or reading or watching the investigative reports done on the case, the most recent one I saw last week, could not be outraged at what is going on here.
you don't seem to be concerned at all with the fact that this an innocent man. He is not 'innocent until proven guilty' as is the case with someone charged with a crime.
HE HAS NEVER BEEN CHARGED WITH A CRIME. I am sorry to yell, but this simple fact seems to be escaping you.
Since he has been pursued for no reason, no arrest warrant is valid and no follow up legal procedures are valid. Sweden's Prosecutors have been unable to explain that arrest warrant when asked in public to do so.
The root of this case is rotten. The rest will one day have to be dismissed.
Is she getting her news from the Iranian new service or RT?
Star Member sabrina 1 (28,355 posts)
17. Yes. The US could extradite him from Britain, however, Sweden had already
View profile
Last edited Tue Aug 14, 2012, 09:22 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)
stepped in and started the hunt so the US has to wait for that situation to be resolved.
It must be remembered that Assange has never been charged by Sweden. That Sweden has consistently refused to accept his offer to speak to them in Britain. Initially Sweden claimed the reason they could not do that was because of 'legal barriers'. That has been thoroughly debunked, considering they've done it before with someone outside the country. There is no legal barrier so why will they not talk to him?
Why have they not filed charges? When asked, it's interesting to see the struggle of Swedish Officials to explain this. When real journalists question them, they become very defensive, but provide no answers.
There is also the Karl Rove involvement in Sweden. Not to mention that the women were extremely upset when they realized their questions re getting a test of Assange for STDs had turned into rape charges. They have denied this vehemently and there are quotes available from one of the women that there was never any rape.
The lawyer who stepped into the case supposedly on their behalf is a wacko political figure in Sweden. One of his far out beliefs is that even if a woman does not believe she was raped, someone can go forward with charges without her consent.
He also believes that all men should be required to pay a 'rape tax'. The reason? They are men, and even if perfectly innocent, they are responsible for their male cohorts who do rape women.
He has been interviewed about this case, he has refused to respond to questions about the many holes in it by getting angry, stating he will not discuss anything with the media and generally becoming antagonistic.
The US refused to confirm or deny they are after Assange, had they done so, he might have succeeded in his plea against extradition. But we know they have a Grand Jury seated trying to find a crime to attach to him.
As of now, he is a completely innocent man free even of any charges whatsoever, yet he has been deprived of his freedom for two years. Not the first journalist to have been persecuted like this in the history of the world, but the first time I've witnessed such a travesty in real time.
Star Member struggle4progress (65,381 posts)
20. Perhaps you believe Rove has magic powers? If memory serves, he was a campaign adviser
View profile
for Bush the Second, and thus became a policy adviser for Bush the Second, under the "perpetual campaign" doctrine
However, again if memory serves, Bush the Second's tenure ended in January 2009, at which time the Republicans lost control of the White House. Thereupon, Rove's national influence in the US diminished somewhat
So it is unclear how Rove's reported travel to Sweden qualifies as evidence that the US has strong-armed Sweden into pursuing criminal sexual allegations against Assange: such a claim, without a more solid factual base, might naturally be described as a paranoid hallucination
Star Member sabrina 1 (28,355 posts)
25. Rove, after quitting his job as 'Bush's Brain' later became Sweden's 'Fredrik Reinfeldt's Brain'.
View profile
We are talking about the position he took as political adviser to Sweden's PM, Fredrik Reinfeldt.
Interestingly, he became a political adviser to Sweden's Prime Minister, Fredrik Reinfeldt, known as 'Sweden's Ronald Reagan' in 2010, coincidentally the year that Assange was smeared, and kept that position for approx. two years. So we don't have to believe in magic, we just have to look at the facts:
http://www.socialdems.com/page.asp?PID=1406
Traditional Swedish politics also are in flux. Brian Palmer is an American, a former Harvard lecturer, who has immigrated to Sweden and become a Swedish citizen. Palmer has penned a biography of Sweden’s prime minister, Fredrik Reinfeldt. Palmer credits Reinfeldt, 43, with leading the shift away from the progressive social policies for which Sweden has become world-famous. He said Reinfeldt, in 1993, “wrote a book, ‘The Sleeping People,’ where he said that the welfare state should only prevent starvation, nothing beyond that. After being elected ... one of his first major visits abroad was to George Bush in the White House.â€
Reinfeldt and his Moderate Party hired Karl Rove as a political consultant to help with the election coming in 2010. Palmer went on: “We have a real kind of silent war on the labor movement. We have a rather dramatic change in the tax system, abolishing the inheritance tax and most property taxes, cutbacks in social-welfare institutions.†This week, a new coalition of center-left political parties formed to challenge this rightward drift.
Since most of the Wikileaks revelations exposed the Bush War Crimes and other corruption of that regime, Rove certainly had an interest in protecting his old boss's legacy.
Bush and Sweden's Frederik Reinhardt
Is Karl Rove Driving the Effort to Prosecute Julian Assange?
Former Bush White House strategist Karl Rove likely is playing a leading role in the effort to prosecute WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, a source with ties to the justice community tells Legal Schnauzer.
Assange was arrested last week in London for alleged sex crimes in Sweden. A lawyer for Assange said Monday that the arrest was a ruse designed to give the United States more time to build a case against Assange on other charges. The lawyer said a grand jury is being prepared in Washington, D.C., to look into WikiLeaks' activities. Meanwhile, Assange has a court date today in the UK, where he is expected to seek a release on bail.
That Assange's legal troubles would originate in Sweden probably is not a coincidence, our source says. Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt has been called "the Ronald Reagan of Europe," and he has a friendship with Rove that dates back at least 10 years, to the George W. Bush campaign for president in 2000. Reinfeldt reportedly asked Rove to help with his 2010 re-election in Sweden.
So no magic required. He was forced from the Bush WH in 2007 because of the US Attorney Firings and under fire for his possible role in the Don Siegelman Witchhunt.
Congress let him off the hook, and now apparently have found a new use for him. It is believed that he worked with the Obama Administration on the Wikileaks case which would explain why Democrats became so quiet about his former crimes and refusals to testify before Congress.
As one observer said, the persecution of Assange has 'Rove written all over it' and considering he was right there at the scene of the crime, there doesn't need to be much stretch of the imagination to come to the conclusion that he was right in the middle of it.
Damn that Rove is magnificent!
Star Member sabrina 1 (28,355 posts)
28. What?? Who said anything about this affecting the Reinfeldt election? Where did you get
View profile
Last edited Wed Aug 15, 2012, 12:12 AM USA/ET - Edit history (2)
that from?
This was in response to your lack of knowledge re where Rove was in 2010 and your assumption that I thought he was still working for Bush in going after Wikileaks.
I realized you knew nothing much about the facts of this case and provided you with information to show it required no magic for Rove to be in Sweden, close to the Right Wing PM and capable of 'helping' to smear Assange.
As for Assange leaving Sweden, there is no doubt that the Prosecutor told him they had no more questions for him and he was free to leave.
Assange changed his mind, rightfully, about returning because of the information re the US planning to indict him. He was absolutely correct to refuse to return.
You are conflating two things here. He was told they had no more questions, he left, THEN they demanded he return.
Why did they not ask him the questions while he was there?
Why did they wait until he left, why tell him to leave, before flip flopping and asking him to return?
He did NOT refuse to talk to them. His lawyers always made him available to the prosecutors.
The prosecutors lied, and were caught in that lie, by claiming they could not come to Britain because of 'legal impediments'. That was a lie. There are no legal impediments to them interviewing him in Britain.
This was a Rove trick. Tell him to go, then demand he come back which he probably won't, then go after him.
Rove shenanigans at their finest.
Why will they not accept his invitation to speak to them in Britain? Why do YOU think they are afraid to do so?
It doesn't take a genius to figure that out. All you have to do is look at the 'evidence' for this 'case' and you know that most of it is exculpatory.
Iow, they have no case. But by dragging this out, they keep him from operating freely.
But where you got that this had anything to do with Reinfeldt's reelection I do not know. That was simply to show you how closely Rove was working with the Swedish Government.
Sweden has a bad rep for working with the US for 'renditioning' two of its own citizens who were tortured at the request of the US.
So Assange is absolutely correct to stay away from them.
Star Member sabrina 1 (28,355 posts)
38. Yes, proving his close relationship, in 2010 with the 'Ronald Reagan' of Sweden.
View profile
2010, the year the smear campaign against Assange began. He had motive, he had access and the smear campaign, the tactics, the involvement of Sweden's Right Wing media eg who view him as a hero, all point to Rove's usual dirty tricks in this case which we are all so familiar with here.
His major motive being to silence Wikileaks from revealing the dirty secrets and war crimes of the Bush years, which is mostly what the War Logs did. His goal, to deflect from any discussion of the real crimes, and keep up the pretense that Assange is wanted for a crime that never existed. He's good, so long as people remain as gullible as they were here when they fell for the lies about the Iraq War.
Those supporting the silencing of Wikileaks are either deliberately or inadvertently helping Rove cover for the Bush administration's war crimes and lies.
Btw, do you have anything to say about the real crimes exposed in the War Logs eg? How do you feel about the torture of human beings? You have not said a word about those massive Human Rights abuses, but seem more concerned about the case of a broken condom.
Quite frankly I am shocked that at least Democrats have allowed themselves to be distracted from the massive, brutal war crimes revealed by those leaks. Priorities I guess. So sad.
In
Link 2 Mark Krispin Miller finds a way to milk the Rove connection.
KoKo (65,903 posts)
View profile
8 Big Problems with Sweden's "Case" Against Assange--(for those interested)
Something Rotten in the State of Sweden: 8 Big Problems with the ‘Case’ Against Assange
by Naomi Wolf
Now that Andrew Kreig, of the Justice Integrity Project, has confirmed Karl Rove’s role as an advisor to the Swedish government in its prosecution of Julian Assange on sexual misconduct charges, it is important that we note the many glaring aberrations in the handling of Assange’s case by the authorities in Sweden.
Dr. Brian Palmer, a social anthropologist at Uppsala University, explained on Kreig’s radio show last month that Karl Rove has been working directly as an advisor to the governing Moderate Party. Kreig also reported, in Connecticut Watchdog, that the Assange accusers’ lawyer is a partner in the law firm Borgström and Bodström, whose other name partner, Thomas Bodström, is a former Swedish Minister of Justice. In that office, Bodström helped approve a 2001 CIA rendition request to Sweden, to allow the CIA to fly two asylum-seekers from Sweden to Egypt, where they were tortured. This background compels us to review the case against Assange with extreme care.
Based on my 23 years of reporting on global rape law, and my five years of supporting women at rape crisis centers and battered women’s shelters, I can say with certainty that this case is not being treated as a normal rape or sexual assault case. New details from the Swedish police make this quite clear. Their transcript of the complaints against Assange is strikingly unlike the dozens of such transcripts that I have read throughout the years as an advocate for victims of sex crimes.
Specifically, there are eight ways in which this transcript is unusual:
1) Police never pursue complaints in which there is no indication of lack of consent.
2) Police do not let two women report an accusation about one man together.
3) Police never take testimony from former boyfriends.
4) Prosecutors never let two alleged victims have the same lawyer.
5) A lawyer never typically takes on two alleged rape victims as clients.
6) A rape victim never uses a corporate attorney.
7) A rape victim is never encouraged to make any kind of contact with her assailant and she may never use police to compel her alleged assailant to take medical tests.
8) Police and prosecutors never leak police transcripts during an active investigation because they face punishment for doing so.
More of the explanation of the "8" at:
http://markcrispinmiller.com/2011/02/eight-big-problems-with-the-case-against-assange-must-read-by-naomi-wolf/
44
Star Member BlueMTexpat (2,179 posts)
49. So long as KKKarl Rove has ANY part in this, that's enough for me.
View profile
Name just one thing that Rove has been involved with that has boded well for other people's freedoms.
Just. One.
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to BlueMTexpat (Reply #49)
Thu Aug 16, 2012, 04:29 PM
Star Member struggle4progress (65,379 posts)
53. There's not the slightest evidence Rove has anything to do with this matter
Star Member panader0 (8,983 posts)
5. Karl Rove??
View profile
When was he ever interested in justice?
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to KoKo (Original post)
Thu Aug 16, 2012, 02:21 PM
Star Member hifiguy (9,397 posts)
7. Naomi Wolf has far more credibility with me
View profile
than any of the DUers attacking Assange. I know who presents the more persuasive case. The involvement of KKKarl in this pretty much seals the deal that this is a witch hunt.
