Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, is expected to appear in a UK court tomorrow!

[Magda Hassan]

Maybe he's already gone? But announced as if still in negotiations.

PLEASE send a message to the Embassy of Ecuador and ask them to grant asylum to Julian Assange!
(it's very easy--click on link, add your name & email and a simple message "please grant asylum to Assange")
http://www.ecuadorembassyuk.org.uk/contact

[Peter Lemkin]

The BBC is interviewing experts who state that Assange is safe in the Embassy, but there is legal precedent for not allowing a person to leave such a situation to leave the country. Ecuador has little to bargain with, other than international moral justice arguments - a currency I think the UK and USA don't trade in.

[Peter Lemkin]

The British Police have just issued an arrest warrant for Assange for [as they put it] breaking his bail conditions......this is going to be long and tricky. Assange is far from home-free, at this point! A somewhat similar situation had a man who remained in a foreign embassy for 15 years. Let's hope that is not what happens here...for many reasons, not the least being this is a very small embassy building.

[Albert Doyle]

Where are the crowds around the embassy?

[Peter Lemkin]

NERMEEN SHAIKH: WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has taken refuge in Ecuador's embassy in London and asked for asylum. Assange made the move Tuesday in a last-ditch bid to avoid extradition to Sweden over sex crime accusations. Earlier today, police in London announced Assange is now subject to arrest because his decision to spend the night at the Ecuadorian embassy violated the conditions of his bail.
Assange is seeking asylum because he fears extradition to Sweden may lead to his transfer to the United States, where he could potentially face charges relating to WikiLeaks. In an apparent reference to the United States, an Ecuadorian official said Assange fears being extradited, quote, "to a country where espionage and treason are punished with the death penalty." The Ecuadorian government says Assange can stay at the embassy for now as it reviews his request for asylum.
In a statement, the Ecuadorian embassy said, quote: "As a signatory to the United Nations Universal Declaration for Human Rights, with an obligation to review all applications for asylum, we have immediately passed his application on to the relevant department in Quito."
In 2010, Ecuador invited Assange to seek residency there but quickly backed away from the idea, accusing him of breaking U.S. laws.
AMY GOODMAN: In a moment, we'll be joined by one of Julian Assange's lawyers. But first I want to turn to a recent episode of Julian Assange's TV show, The World Tomorrow, on RT, in which he interviewed Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa.

JULIAN ASSANGE: President Correa, why did you want us to release all the cables?

PRESIDENT RAFAEL CORREA: [translated] Those who don't owe anything have nothing to fear. We have nothing to hide. Your WikiLeaks have made us stronger, as the main accusations made by the American embassy were due to our excessive nationalism and defense of the sovereignty of the Ecuadorian government. Indeed, we are nationalists. Indeed, we do defend the sovereignty of our country. On the other hand, WikiLeaks wrote a lot about the goals that the national media pursue, about the power groups who seek help and report to foreign embassies. We have absolutely nothing to fear. Let them publish everything they have about the Ecuadorian government.

AMY GOODMAN: WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange interviewing Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa on his show, The World Tomorrow, on RT.
Well, for more on Julian Assange's decision to seek asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy and in Ecuador, we're joined by Michael Ratner, president emeritus of the Center for Constitutional Rights, lawyer for Julian Assange and WikiLeaks.
Michael, welcome to Democracy Now! Talk about this surprise move of Julian Assange.
MICHAEL RATNER: Well, I was completely surprised by it. In fact, I got a tweet fromor, no, a text message from you, Amy, that said, "Michael, Julian Assange has gone into the Ecuadorian embassy." So that really surprised me.
On the other hand, if you look at what he was facing, I hadI've been really very upset and nervous for, really, since he lost the decision in the High Court of England on the 14th of June, because here's his situation. He's about to be extradited now to Sweden. Sweden does not have bail. Now, these are on allegations of sex chargesallegations, no chargesand they're to interrogate Julian Assange. But despite that, he would have been in prison in Sweden. At that point, our view is that there was a substantial chance that the U.S. would ask for his extradition to the United States. So here you have him walking the streets in Londonsure, under bail conditions; going to a jail in Sweden, where he's in prison, almost an incommunicado prison; U.S. files extradition; he remains in prison; and the next thing that happens is whatever time it takes him to fight the extradition in Sweden, he's taken to the United States. There's no chance then to make political asylum application any longer. In addition, once he comes to the United Stateswe just hold up Bradley Manning as example one of what will happen to Julian Assange: a underground cell, essentially abuse, torture, no ability to communicate with anybody, facing certainly good chance of a life sentence, with a possibility, of course, of one of these charges being a death penalty charge.
So, he was in an impossible situation. And in my view, it was ait is a situation of political persecution of Julian Assange for his political activities. And it does fit within the asylumthe asylum application procedure under the Declaration of Human Rights, which is what President Correa and/or at least what the embassy in London was mentioning. His choices were terriblenot that they're so great right now. I mean, now he's in the embassy in London. He's asked for political asylum. The Ecuadorians will decide whether to give him political asylum or not. Assuming they do, whatever time it takes, what happens then? He gets political asylum, how does he then leave the embassy? And that's a difficult question. He made needthe Ecuadorians could ask the British for a safe passage to get him out of London and into Ecuador. On the other hand, it's conceivable that the English couldthe Britishers, the U.K., could arrest him if he tries to leave the embassy, even if it's in a diplomatic car. And while I think that might be illegal, it's taking a big chance. So now he is in the embassy and having to stay there indefinitely until the situation can resolve.
But let me just say, the other situation was so terrible, in my view, the extradition to Sweden, which was reallyit's not about the charges in Sweden. There's no charges. It's not about the allegations in Sweden or the interrogation. I think if the United States tomorrow said, "We will not be prosecuting WikiLeaks or Julian Assange, there will be no indictment of him, the grand jury is over," etc., etc., I don't think Julian AssangeI haven't spoken to him about thisI don't think he would have any issue about going to Sweden for interrogation on these charges. It's reallywhat this is about is the United States wanting to get their hands on him, put him into an underground cell with no communications, giving him life imprisonment. And, of course, people have already called for his death in the United States. And he was faced with really a terrible situation, consideringconsidering that he is the person who, as a publisher and journalist, has exposed massive U.S. war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan and the WikiLeaks cables.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: His extradition proceedings were supposed to commence next week, June 28th. Do you have any idea how long an application for political asylum, such as the one that he's filed, normally takesI mean, for Ecuador to make a decision?
MICHAEL RATNER: I'm not sure I understood, the extradition proceedings. He was
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Sorry, sending him to Sweden, the decision to
MICHAEL RATNER: Right, the decision to go to Sweden, he would have had to be in Sweden by July 7th. So it's very soon. You canas people in the United States know, if you apply for political asylum, those political asylum applications can take a week, or they can drag on for two, three, four, five, six, seven years. So we don't know what Ecuador will do. We do know that, from what you played on President Correa, that he was sympathetic to WikiLeaks, even thoughit's interestingsome of those cables skewered some of the current government in Ecuador. And in fact, the U.S. ambassador lost his job for calling some part of the Ecuadorian police corrupt. The U.S. ambassador was kicked out. So that even though some of those skewered some part of the Correa government, President Correa was willing to say, "I believe in what WikiLeaks is doing. We need transparency, and WikiLeaks is taking a very positive step."
AMY GOODMAN: For people who aren't following this that closely, you talked about thean indictment againstagainst Assange by the United States, a grand jury, a secret grand jury. What do you understand the U.S. wants with Assange? And why wouldn't they have moved on that while he was in Britain? I mean, he wasn't walking a free man, but he was able to walk around during the day.
MICHAEL RATNER: Right.
AMY GOODMAN: And he was home at night. So they could have gotten him any time.
MICHAEL RATNER: Right. It would havefor the U.S. to move within Britain, of course, it would have complicated matters a great deal, because then he's facing a Swedisha Swedish prosecution, and then the U.S. comes in. So what happens to the U.S.to the U.S. indictment? And then, of course, Julian Assange gets notice that he's been indicted in the United States, and of course it makes his situation more precarious. And in addition, he would have probably been able to remain on the streets in London, whereas the U.S., really, I think, probably understood that as soon as he gets into Sweden, he's in prison, he maythose charges may not amountnot charges, those allegations may not amount to anything once he testifies, once he gives evidence, and then they can keep him in prison with this warrant.
And I also think that, if you look at the situation, Sweden versus the U.K., the U.K. can take years to get someone extradited. I mean, we know of the caseI forgot his name, but the young man who supposedly hacked into the Pentagon computer to find out about UFOsseven, eight years on his extradition. Incredible extradition lawyers in London. It's a big country. Sweden, whatever we think of Sweden, its justice system certainly seems to have some problems, because Julian Assange would be in jail without bail. And also, it's a smaller country and just can be knocked around more by the United States.
AMY GOODMAN: And why the U.S. wants Julian Assange? Why the U.S. would prosecute him over WikiLeaks? This is nothing to do with the sex crimes charges.
MICHAEL RATNER: No, it's nothing, but it's the ultimate issue in this case. The allegations about sex crimes, as I said, I think will be disposed of quickly. I don't think those are the issues underlying. It hasit has really
AMY GOODMAN: And we should sayI shouldn't say "sex crimes charges"
MICHAEL RATNER: Right.
AMY GOODMAN: because he wasn't charged.
MICHAEL RATNER: He wasn't
AMY GOODMAN: Allegations of sex crimes thatwhere he would be questioned in Sweden, and possibly let go.
MICHAEL RATNER: Oh, that's very conceivable. I mean, it's very conceivable. But when you say "possibly let go," it's important to understand, he's in prison while that proceeding is going on. The minutethe minutethere would be someone in courtassuming there's an indictment of Julian Assange, there would be someone in courtwhen they say, "We order you released," they would file the warrant at that moment, and Julian Assange would not be able to leave the court, would be back in prison, and would be in the United States, where only his lawyers will probably be able to communicate with him. And I probably wouldn't be able to say a word about what he ever said to me.
But let's look at what he's facing. The claim would be that he's being investigated for espionage, essentially for transmitting, you know, quote, "secrets" of the U.S. government, that were classified, that could harm the United States in some way. And that's the espionage indictment. That's what Bradley Manning is being looked at for, under military law. And that's what they would want to look at Julian Assange for. And there's a grand jury that's been going on really since at least 2011. We have the Stratfor emails that says thatthat say that there's a sealed indictment against Julian Assange. We have recently two people who have some association with WikiLeaks being questioned again by the FBI byaround whatabout Julian Assange and WikiLeaks.
AMY GOODMAN: Who is that?
MICHAEL RATNER: Zimmerman and McCarthy. One is from France, one is from Iceland. Again, questioned by the FBI about Julian Assange. This is an active investigation. We have, in Bradley Manning's case, what came out at the Article 32
AMY GOODMAN: The young U.S. private who is accused of releasing tens of thousands of documents to WikiLeaks.
MICHAEL RATNER: Right, and Bradley Manning is in a court-martial proceeding going on in Fort Meade. As part of that examination, as part of that court-martial proceeding, an FBI agent was asked about who else is being investigated here, and he said seven other civilians are being investigated with regard towith regard to WikiLeaks. And who are they? He saidhe didn't give the names, but he said these are "Are these people who are managers or founders of WikiLeaks?" And he said, "Yes, they are." So we're talking about an active investigation, most probable an indictment already. This is what Julian Assange was facing: never to see the light of day again, in my view, had he gone to Sweden. And so, he's in not a great situation now, in the sense that, look at, he's sitting in an embassy in London. He has to get political asylum. And then, how does he get out of the embassy?
NERMEEN SHAIKH: But in response to some of these criticism, Swedish authorities have said that the European Court of Human Rights would intervene if Assange was to face the prospect of, quote, "inhuman or degrading treatment or an unfair trial" in the U.S.
MICHAEL RATNER: Wellwell, first of all, wait a second, I'm not sure I understand that at all. The European Court of Human Rights only has jurisdiction over Europe. So, once he's in the United States, there's not much the European Court of Human Rights can do. In addition, the European Court of Human Rights recently came down with a major decision concerning four English Muslim men, and what they said was so negative and so outrageous, in my view, and such a denial of rights, that I would not depend on the European Court of Human Rights. They basically disregarded the fact that people spend years in solitary in the United States, that they get life sentences, that they have no waythat they havethey're in communications managements units where they can't speak to each other. And despite all of that evidence in the European Court of Human Rights, they just approved the extradition of four youngof four people from the United Kingdom. So I would not put anything on the European Court of Human Rights as positive for this case.
AMY GOODMAN: Let's go to Julian Assange in November, after he lost his initial appeal.

JULIAN ASSANGE: I have not been charged with any crime in any country. Despite this, the European arrest warrant is so restrictive that it prevents U.K. courts from considering the facts of a case, as judges have made clear here today. We will be considering our next step in the days ahead. The full judgment will be available on swedenversusassange.com. No doubt there will been many attempts made to try and spin these proceedings as they occur today, but they are merely technical. So please go to swedenversusassange.com if you want to know what's really going on in this case. Thank you.

AMY GOODMAN: That was Julian Assange last November. Michael Ratner, your response?
MICHAEL RATNER: Well, he was talking about the restrictions on the arrest warrant and the case that actually he lost in Britain. His argument in Britain was that the Swedish prosecutor had asked for his extradition, and under the European arrest warrant, it needs to be a judge. A prosecutor has a bias, because the prosecutor wants to prosecute. And that had never really been considered by the British courts. It went all the way up to the highest court in Britain, which was a surprise, to begin with. And in the end, the highest court in Britain came down five-to-two against Julian Assange. But I think most people thinkmany of us think that was a political decision. What they didn't want to do was invalidate another European country's process for extraditing people under the European warrant. So he lost that case in what many people would say was a politicala political decision. And that's when he was ordered to surrender and go to Swedennot go, he's picked up by the Swedish in Britain, he's put on an airplane, he's handcuffed, taken into Sweden, goes into a prison in Sweden. U.S. then, at some point, files their extradition warrant, and he, as I said, really never seesnever sees the light of day.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: On his show, The World Tomorrow, Julian Assange asked Rafael Correa, Ecuador's president, about U.S. involvement in Latin America. Let's just go to that clip.

JULIAN ASSANGE: What do Ecuadorian people think about the United States and its involvement in Latin America and in Ecuador?

PRESIDENT RAFAEL CORREA: [translated] Well, as Evo Morales says, the only country that can be sure never to have a coup d'état is the United States, because it hasn't got a U.S. embassy. In any event, I'd like to say that one of the reasons that led to police discontent was the fact that we cut all the funding the U.S. embassy provided to the police. Before and even a year after we took office, we took a while to correct this. Before, there were whole police units, key units, fully funded by the U.S. embassy, whose officers in command were chosen by the U.S. ambassador and paid by the U.S. And so, we have increased considerably the police's pay.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Michael Ratner, your response?
MICHAEL RATNER: Well, first of all, you have to remember, President Correa got rid of the U.S. military base in Ecuador. The WikiLeaks cable talked about the corruption of the police within Ecuador. And what you see President Correa says, well, they were being paid by the U.S. embassy. And, of course, his great line is that the only reason there's not a coup in the United States is there's no U.S. embassy, essentially, to plan it. So you're seeingyou're seeing a good part of this world understand the importance of what Bradley Manning allegedly did and understanding the importance of the publication by WikiLeaks of the diplomatic cables. Obviously not just in Ecuadorthe secret war in Yemen, in cases that my office has been concerned with about prosecution of Rumsfeld and others in Spainwe see the U.S. interference all over. And the positive part, a strong positive of WikiLeaks, is they exposed to the world not just the war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, but incredible hypocrisy in our own State Department.
AMY GOODMAN: Finally, any precedent for people staying in embassies for years?
MICHAEL RATNER: Not such great ones, in the sense that they've been there for a long time. I mean, the one that comes mostly to mindof course, the Chinese guy, he only stayed in the U.S. embassy for a couple of weeks, Chen, because then you had the U.S.every diplomat in the world say, "Well, let's deal with the Chinese and get him out of the embassy and get him into the United States." We should only have that situation where thewhere people are going to the Ecuadorian embassy andor saying to the British, "Let's get him out and get him to Ecuador." I would love that.
But the precedent that I think of, Amy, is Cardinal Mindszenty. Cardinal Mindszentymost people are too young for the Cold Warhe was a Catholic prelate in Poland, opposition to the Polish government, took refuge in the U.S. embassy in Warsaw, spent 13 years in the embassy in Warsaw. So, there's precedent for very long times in the embassy. I don'tlook at, I want to see Julian AssangeI want to see no prosecution in the United States. I want to see him be able to go answer questions in Sweden without having the threat of immediate extradition to the United States, to deal with that and then to walk this world as a free person, having really done an incredible service to the peoples of the world.

[Peter Lemkin]

Tuesday, Jun 19, 2012 09:40 PM +0200
Assange asks Ecuador for asylum
The WikiLeaks founder is motivated by one thing: a desire to avoid extradition to the U.S. Can anyone blame him?
By Glenn Greenwald

(updated below Update II [Wed.] Update III [Wed.] - Update IV [Wed.])

Julian Assange was scheduled within days to turn himself over to British authorities for extradition to Sweden, where he is wanted for questioning in connection with a sexual assault case in which he has never been charged. Instead, Assange earlier today went to the Embassy of Ecuador in London and sought asylum from that country under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Ecuadorian Foreign Minister, Ricardo Patino, issued a statement indicating that his government is "evaluating the request" and that Assange will remain under protection at the Embassy pending a decision.

Ecuador may seem like a random choice but it's actually quite rational. In 2010, a top official from that country offered Assange residency (though the Ecuadorian President backtracked after controversy ensued). Earlier this month, Assange interviewed that nation's left-wing President, Rafael Correa, for his television program on RT. Among other things, Correa praised the transparency brought about by WikiLeaks' release of diplomatic cables as being beneficial for Ecuador ("We have nothing to hide. If anything, the WikiLeaks [releases] have made us stronger"). President Correa also was quite critical of the U.S., explaining the reason he closed the American base in his country this way: "Would you accept a foreign military base in your country? It's so simple, as I said that at the time, there is no problem in having a U.S. military base in Ecuador but ok, perfect - we can give permission for the intelligence base only if they allow us to install an Ecuadorian base in the United States, a military base. That's it, no more problem."

Assange has been fighting extradition to Sweden for a year-and-a-half now, during which time he has been under house arrest. He has never been charged with any crime in Sweden, but a prosecutor from that country is seeking his extradition to question him. After the British High Court ruled against him by a 5-2 vote earlier this month, and then refused to re-hear the case last week, his appeals in Britain contesting the extradition are exhausted.

Assange's resolve to avoid extradition to Sweden has nothing to do with a reluctance to face possible sex assault charges there. His concern all along has been that once he's in Swedish custody, he will far more easily be extradited to the U.S.

In general, small countries are more easily coerced and bullied by the U.S., and Sweden in particular has a demonstrated history of aceeding to U.S. demands when it comes to individuals accused of harming American national security. In December, 2001, Sweden handed over two asylum-seekers to the CIA, which then rendered them to be tortured in Egypt. A ruling from the U.N. Human Rights Committee found Sweden in violation of the global ban on torture for its role in that rendition (the two individuals later received a substantial settlement from the Swedish government). The fact that Sweden has unusually oppressive pre-trial procedures allowing for extreme levels of secrecy in its judicial proceedings only heightens Assange's concern about what will happen to him vis-a-vis the U.S. if he ends up in Swedish custody.

Can anyone claim that Assange's fear of ending up in American custody is anything other than supremely reasonable and rational? Just look at what has happened to people especially foreign nationals over the last decade who have been accused of harming the national security of the United States.

They're imprisoned still without a whiff of due process, and President Obama just last year signed a new indefinite detention bill into law. Moreover, Assange need merely look at what the U.S. has done to Bradley Manning, accused of leaking documents and other materials to WikiLeaks: the Army Private was held for almost a year in solitary confinement conditions which a formal U.N. investigation found were "cruel, inhuman and degrading," and he now faces life in prison, charged with a capital offense of aiding Al Qaeda.

Beyond that, the Obama administration has been uniquely obsessed with punishing whistleblowers and stopping leaks. Worse still, the American federal judiciary has been staggeringly subservient to the U.S. Government when it comes to national security cases, rendering defendants accused of harming national security with almost no chance for acquittal. Would you have any confidence in obtaining justice if you were accused of harming U.S. national security and came into the clutches of the American justice system?

Over the past two years, I've spoken with numerous individuals who were once associated with WikiLeaks or who still are. Of those who no longer are, many have said that they stopped even though they believe as much as ever in WikiLeaks' transparency cause, and did so out of fear: not fear that they would be charged with a crime by their own government (they trust the judicial system of their government and are confident they would not be convicted), but out of fear that they would be turned over to the United States. That's the fear people have: ending up in the warped travesty known as the judicial system of the Land of the Free. That is what has motivated Assange to resist extradition to Sweden, and it's what has undoubtedly motivated him to seek asylum from Ecuador.

UPDATE: Just to address some media chatter I'm seeing around: Assange has not "fled" anything, is not a fugitive, and did not concoct some new and exotic procedure to evade legal process. Everyone knows exactly where he is: at Ecuador's Embassy in London. Seeking asylum based on claims of human rights violations (such as unjust extradition) is a widely recognized and long-standing right, as Foreign Policy documented during the recent Chen Guangcheng drama. It's a right that Assange, like everyone else, is entitled to invoke. If Ecuador refuses his asylum request, then he'll be right back in the hands of British authorities and presumably extradited to Sweden without delay. He has a lot at stake, and like anyone else accused of serious crimes (though he's not been charged with anything) he has every right to invoke all legal procedures available to him.

UPDATE II [Wed.]: This is one of those cases where, unless you include caveats in every other sentence about what you are not arguing, then people feel free to attribute to you arguments you plainly are not making. Here is what I wrote all the way back in December, 2010 about the accusations against Assange in Sweden:

I think it's deeply irresponsible either to assume his guilt or to assume his innocence until the case plays out. I genuinely have no opinion of the validity of those allegations.

Nothing has changed my view of that since then. It's really not that complicated: (1) Assange, like everyone else, is entitled to a presumption of innocence before he's charged, let alone convicted of anything; (2) the accusations against him are serious and they should be accorded a fair resolution within a proper legal framework; and (3) until then, he has every right just like everyone else does to invoke any and all available legal protections and to have their validity decided upon.

UPDATE III [Wed.]: I have an Op-Ed in The Guardian today elaborating on some of these points, adding others, and responding to media discussions of this issue over the past day.

UPDATE IV [Wed.]: Democracy Nows Amy Goodman and Nermeen Shaikh this morning conducted an excellent interview on all of this with Michael Ratner of the Center for Constitutional Rights, who has represented Assange in the U.S. A transcript will be posted here shortly, but it's well worth watching:

[Magda Hassan]

LATEST NEWS
Manuel Beltrán @Beltrandroid
"Assange will stay all the time he wants or needs under the protection of the Ecuatorian Embassy" Words of president Correa! #Wikileaks

[Magda Hassan]

http://justice4assange.com/

Fair Trial in Sweden:
Fair Trial for Julian Assange?:

http://justice4assange.com/Fair-Trial-fo...sange.html

Lay Judges:

http://justice4assange.com/Lay-Judges.html

Political Interference:

http://justice4assange.com/Political-Interference.html

Rule of Law:

http://justice4assange.com/Rule-of-Law.html

Extradition:
Action:

http://justice4assange.com/Action.html

Australia:

http://justice4assange.com/Australia.html

The European Arrest Warrant (EAW):

http://justice4assange.com/The-European-...rrant.html

Timing: EAW & INTERPOL Red Notice:

http://justice4assange.com/Timing-EAW-IN...otice.html

US Extradition:

http://justice4assange.com/US-Extradition.html

As of today, 26 June 2012, Julian Assange has been under house arrest for 567 Days *WITHOUT CHARGE*

Human Rights Watch: 'Sweden Violated Torture Ban in CIA Rendition'
Diplomatic Assurances Against Torture Offer No Protection From Abuse

http://www.hrw.org/news/2006/11/09/swede...-rendition

FAIR TRIALS INTERNATIONAL:

Julian Assange and detention before Trial in Sweden:

http://www.fairtrials.net/publications/a...-in-sweden

Pre-Trial Detention:
"Across the EU, people not convicted of any crime are locked up without good reason for months or even years, often in appalling conditions with limited access to a lawyer"

http://www.fairtrials.net/campaigns/pre_trial_detention

'Swedish justice'

http://ggdrafts.blogspot.com.br/2012/06/...stice.html

"Mr. Assange has repeatedly made clear he is willing to answer questions relating to accusations against him, but in the United Kingdom. But the Swedish government insists that he be brought to Sweden for questioning. This by itself, as Swedish legal expert and former Chief District Prosecutor for Stockholm Sven-Erik Alhem testified, is "unreasonable and unprofessional, as well as unfair and disproportionate."
We believe Mr. Assange has good reason to fear extradition to Sweden, as there is a strong likelihood that once in Sweden, he would be imprisoned, and then likely extradited to the United States."

http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/node/1257

Cambridge Law Journal calls Assange UK Supreme Court decision ".. a fundamental mistake in the legal reasoning of the Court."

http://www.cjicl.org.uk/index.php?option...Itemid=102

Group of former CIA/military intelligence analysists request Assange be granted asylum.
'Asylum for Julian Assange -- Former Awardee for Integrity'

http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/Asylu...5-997.html

Read about the US/Sweden extradition treaty:

https://wlgrandjury.wordpress.com/2012/0...agreement/

US/Sweden extradition treaty (PDF):

http://internationalextraditionblog.file...t-2501.pdf

via @WLGrandJury

[Peter Lemkin]

The Anti-Empire Report

July 3rd, 2012
by William Blum
http://www.killinghope.org
Julian Assange

I'm sure most Americans are mighty proud of the fact that Julian Assange is so frightened of falling into the custody of the United States that he had to seek sanctuary in the embassy of Ecuador, a tiny and poor Third World country, without any way of knowing how it would turn out. He might be forced to be there for years. "That'll teach him to mess with the most powerful country in the world! All you other terrorists and anti-Americans out there Take Note! When you fuck around with God's country you pay a price!"

How true. You do pay a price. Ask the people of Cuba, Vietnam, Chile, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Iran, Haiti, etc., etc., etc. And ask the people of Guantánamo, Diego Garcia, Bagram, and a dozen other torture centers to which God's country offers free transportation.

You think with the whole world watching, the United States would not be so obvious as to torture Assange if they got hold of him? Ask Bradley Manning. At a bare minimum, prolonged solitary confinement is torture. Before too long the world may ban it. Not that that would keep God's country and other police states from using it.

You think with the whole world watching, the United States would not be so obvious as to target Assange with a drone? They've done it with American citizens. Assange is a mere Aussie.

And Ecuador and its president, Rafael Correa, will pay a price. You think with the whole world watching, the United States would not intervene in Ecuador? In Latin America, it comes very naturally for Washington. During the Cold War it was said that the United States could cause the downfall of a government south of the border ... with a frown. The dissolution of the Soviet Union didn't bring any change in that because it was never the Soviet Union per se that the United States was fighting. It was the threat of a good example of an alternative to the capitalist model.

For example, on January 21, 2000 in Ecuador, where almost two-thirds live in poverty, a very large number of indigenous peasants rose up in desperation and marched to the capital city of Quito, where they were joined by labor unions and some junior military officers (most members of the army being of indigenous stock). This coalition presented a list of economic demands, seized the Congress and Supreme Court buildings, and forced the president to resign. He was replaced by a junta from the ranks of the new coalition. The Clinton administration was alarmed. Besides North American knee-reflex hostility to anything that look or smells like a leftist revolution, Washington had big plans for a large military base in Manta (later closed by Correa). And Colombia already plagued by leftist movements was next door.

The US quickly stepped in to educate the Ecuadorean coalition leaders as to the facts of Western Hemispheric imperial life. The American embassy in Quito ... Peter Romero, Assistant Secretary of State for Latin America and Western Hemispheric Affairs ... Sandy Berger, National Security Adviser to President Clinton ... Undersecretary of State Thomas Pickering ... all made phone calls to Ecuadorian officials to threaten a cutoff in aid and other support, warning that "Ecuador will find itself isolated", informing them that the United States would never recognize any new government the coalition might set up, there would be no peace in Ecuador unless the military backed the vice president as the new leader, and the vice president must continue to pursue neoliberal "reforms", the kind of IMF structural adjustment policies which had played a major role in inciting the uprising in the first place.

Within hours the heads of the Ecuadorian army, navy and air force declared their support for the vice president. The leaders of the uprising fled into hiding. And that was the end of the Ecuadorian revolution of the year 2000.1

Rafael Correa was first elected in 2006 with a 58% majority, and reelected in 2009 with a 55% majority; his current term runs until August 2013. The American mainstream media has been increasingly critical of him. The following letter sent in January to the Washington Post by the Ecuadoran ambassador to the United States is an attempt to clarify one of the issues.

Letter to the Editor:

We were offended by the Jan. 12 editorial "Ecuador's bully," which focused on a lawsuit brought by our president, Rafael Correa, after a newspaper claimed that he was guilty of ordering troops to fire on innocent citizens during a failed coup in 2010. The president asked the publishers to release their evidence or a retraction. When they refused, he sued, as any citizen should do when recklessly wronged.

No journalist has gone to prison or paid a significant fine in the five years of the Correa presidency. Media criticism fair and unfair, sometimes with malice of the government appears every day. The case involving the newspaper is on appeal. When the judicial process ends, the president has said, he will waive some or all of the penalties provided he gets a retraction. That is a common solution to libel and slander cases in the United States, I believe.

Your writer uses obnoxious phrases such as "banana republic," but here is the reality of today's Ecuador: a highly popular, stable and progressive democracy for the first time in decades.

Nathalie Cely, Washington
No shelter from the drones of infinite justice or the bacteria of enduring freedom

Afghanistan president Hamid Karzai said recently that he had had an argument with Gen. John Allen, the top US commander in Afghanistan, about the issue of American drone attacks in Afghanistan, following yet another deadly airstrike that killed a number of civilians. Karzai asked Allen an eminently reasonable question: "Do you do this in the United States?" The Afghan president added: "There is police action every day in the United States in various localities. They don't call an airplane to bomb the place."2

Karzai's question to Allen was rhetorical of course, for can it be imagined that American officials would bomb a house in an American city because they suspected that certain bad guys were present there? Well, the answer to that question is that it can be imagined because they've already done it.

In Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. On May 13, 1985, a bomb dropped by a police helicopter burned down an entire block, some 60 homes destroyed, 11 dead, including several small children. The police, the mayor's office, and the FBI were all involved in this effort to evict an organization called MOVE from the house they lived in.

The victims were all black of course. So let's rephrase our question. Can it be imagined that American officials would bomb a house in Beverly Hills or the upper east side of Manhattan? Stay tuned.

And what else can we imagine about a society that's been super militarized, that's at war with much of the world, and is convinced that it's on the side of the angels and history? Well, the Boston transit system, MBTA, recently announced that in conjunction with Homeland Security they plan to release dead bacteria at three stations during off-hours this summer in order to test sensors that detect biological agents, which terrorists could release into subway systems. The bacterium, bacillus subtilis, is not infectious even in its live form, according to the government.3

However, this too has a precedent. During five days in June, 1966 the Army conducted a test called "A Study of the Vulnerability of Subway Passengers in New York City to Covert Attack with Biological Agents". Trillions of bacillus subtilis variant niger were released into the subway system during rush hours, producing aerosol clouds. The report on the test noted that "When the cloud engulfed people, they brushed their clothing, looked up at the grate [at street level] and walked on."4 The wind of passing trains spread the bacteria along the tracks; in the time it took for two trains to pass, the bacteria were spread from 15th Street to 58th Street.5 It is not known how many people later became ill from being unsuspecting guinea pigs because the United States Army, as far as is known, exhibited no interest in this question.

For the planned Boston test the public has not been informed of the exact days; nor is it known how long the bacteria might linger in the stations or what the possible danger might be to riders whose immune system has been weakened for any reason.

It should be noted that the New York subway experiment was only one of many such experiments. The Army has acknowledged that between 1949 and 1969, 239 populated areas from coast to coast as well as US overseas territories were blanketed with various organisms during tests designed to measure patterns of dissemination in the air, weather effects, dosages, optimum placement of the source, and other factors. Such testing was supposedly suspended after 1969.6

Government officials have consistently denied that the biological agents used could be harmful despite an abundance of expert and objective scientific evidence that exposure to heavy concentrations of even apparently innocuous organisms can cause illness, at a minimum to the most vulnerable segments of the population the elderly, children, and those suffering from a variety of ailments. "There is no such thing as a microorganism that cannot cause trouble," George Connell, assistant to the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, testified before the Senate in 1977. "If you get the right concentration at the right place, at the right time, and in the right person, something is going to happen."7

The United States has used biological weapons abroad as well, repeatedly, not for testing purposes but for hostile purposes.8 So what will the land which has the highest (double) standards say when such weapons are used against it? Or when foreign drones hit American cities? Or when American hi-tech equipment is sabotaged by a cyber attack as the US has now admitted doing to Iran? A year ago the Pentagon declared that "computer sabotage coming from another country can constitute an act of war. ... If you shut down our power grid, maybe we will put a missile down one of your smokestacks," said a US military official.9

"The true hypocrite is the one who ceases to perceive his deception, the one who lies with sincerity." André Gide
Barack Obama, his mother, and the CIA

In his autobiography, Dreams From My Fathers, Barack Obama writes of taking a job at some point after graduating from Columbia University in 1983. He describes his employer as "a consulting house to multinational corporations" in New York City, and his functions as a "research assistant" and "financial writer".

Oddly, Obama doesn't mention the name of his employer. However, a New York Times story of October 30, 2007 identifies the company as Business International Corporation. Equally odd is that the Times did not remind its readers that the newspaper itself had disclosed in 1977 that Business International had provided cover for four CIA employees in various countries between 1955 and 1960.10

The British journal, Lobster which, despite its incongruous name, is a venerable international publication on intelligence matters has reported that Business International was active in the 1980s promoting the candidacy of Washington-favored candidates in Australia and Fiji.11 In 1987, the CIA overthrew the Fiji government after but one month in office because of its policy of maintaining the island as a nuclear-free zone, meaning that American nuclear-powered or nuclear-weapons-carrying ships could not make port calls.12 After the Fiji coup, the candidate supported by Business International, who was much more amenable to Washington's nuclear desires, was reinstated to power R.S.K. Mara was Prime Minister or President of Fiji from 1970 to 2000, except for the one-month break in 1987.

In his book, not only doesn't Obama mention his employer's name; he fails to say exactly when he worked there, or why he left the job. There may well be no significance to these omissions, but inasmuch as Business International has a long association with the world of intelligence, covert actions, and attempts to penetrate the radical left including Students for a Democratic Society (SDS)13 it's reasonable to wonder if the inscrutable Mr. Obama is concealing something about his own association with this world.

Adding to the wonder is the fact that his mother, Ann Dunham, had been associated during the 1970s and 80s as employee, consultant, grantee, or student with at least five organizations with intimate CIA connections during the Cold War: The Ford Foundation, Agency for International Development (AID), the Asia Foundation, Development Alternatives, Inc., and the East-West Center of Hawaii.14 Much of this time she worked as an anthropologist in Indonesia and Hawaii, being in good position to gather intelligence about local communities.

As one example of the CIA connections of these organizations, consider the disclosure by John Gilligan, Director of AID during the Carter administration (1977-81). "At one time, many AID field offices were infiltrated from top to bottom with CIA people. The idea was to plant operatives in every kind of activity we had overseas, government, volunteer, religious, every kind."15 And Development Alternatives, Inc. is the organization for whom Alan Gross was working when arrested in Cuba and charged with being part of the ongoing American operation to destabilize the Cuban government.
How the owners of a society play with their property

The Supreme Court of the United States has just upheld the constitutionality of President Obama's health care law, the Affordable Care Act. Liberals as well as many progressives are very pleased, regarding this as a victory for the left.

Under the new law, people can benefit in one way or another depending on the following factors:

Their age; whether their income is at or below 133 percent of the federal poverty level; whether their parents have a health plan; whether they use tobacco; what state they live in; whether they have a pre-existing medical condition; whether they qualify to buy health insurance through newly-created market places known as "exchanges"; and numerous other criteria ... They can obtain medical insurance in a "competitive insurance market" (emphasis on the "competitive"); they can perhaps qualify for various other kinds of credits and tax relief if they meet certain criteria ... The authors of the Act state that it will save thousands of dollars in drug costs for Medicare beneficiaries by closing a coverage gap called the "donut hole" ... They tell us that "It keeps insurance companies honest by setting clear rules that rein in the worst insurance industry abuses."

That's a sample of how health care looks in the United States of America in the 21st century, with a complexity that will keep a small army of lawyers busy for years to come. Ninety miles away, in the Republic of Cuba, it looks a bit different. If you feel sick you go to a doctor. You're automatically qualified to receive any medical care that's available and thought to be suitable. The doctor treats you to the best of his or her ability. The insurance companies play no role. There are no insurance companies. You don't pay anything. You go home.

The Affordable Care Act will undoubtedly serve as a disincentive to the movement for single-payer national health insurance, setting the movement back for years. The Affordable Care Act was undoubtedly designed for that purpose.
Notes
Washington Post, January 23, 2000, p.1; "The coup in Ecuador: a grim warning", World Socialist Web Site, February 2, 2000; Z Magazine (Massachusetts), February 2001, pp.36-7 ↩
Washington Post, June 12, 2012 ↩
Beacon Hill Patch (Boston), "MBTA to Spread Dead Bacteria on Red Line in Bio-Terror Test", May 18, 2012 ↩
Leonard Cole, Clouds of Secrecy: The Army's Germ Warfare Tests over Populated Areas (1990), pp.65-9↩
New York Times, September 19, 1975, p.14 ↩
"Biological Testing Involving Human Subjects by the Department of Defense", 1977, Hearings before the Subcommittee on Health and Scientific Research of the Committee on Human Resources, US Senate, March 8 and May 23, 1977; see also William Blum, Rogue State, chapter 15) ↩
Senate Hearings, op. cit., p.270 ↩
Rogue State, op. cit., chapter 14 ↩
Wall Street Journal, May 30, 2011 ↩
New York Times, December 27, 1977, p.40 ↩
Lobster Magazine, Hull, UK, #14, November 1987 ↩
Rogue State, op. cit., pp.199-200 ↩
Carl Oglesby, Ravens in the Storm: A Personal History of the 1960s Antiwar Movement (2008), passim ↩
Wikipedia entry for Ann Dunham ↩
George Cotter, "Spies, strings and missionaries", The Christian Century (Chicago), March 25, 1981, p.321

[Magda Hassan]

Gillard Govt coup: timelines & cables reveal why Assange has to be removed'.

POSTED BY ANONYMOUS â‹… JULY 11, 2012 â‹… LEAVE A COMMENT
FILED UNDER ASSANGE, AUSTRALIA, GILLARD

Crucial to the US war against Wikileaks is the support of a compliant Australian Government. The United States Government decided that Julia Gillard was the right person to lead Australia (at least in terms of their interests) and so, like a game of chess, pieces had to be moved into place.The following timeline is adapted from the Jararparilla website (see link at end of this posting) and includes additional links via Darker Net searches to cables and other files that show a synergy between moves by the US to outlaw Wikileaks and political manoeuvres in Canberra.So, no wonder Julia Gillard and her ministers are not providing assistance to Assange in his fight against onward extradition to the USA. It is a political not a legal decision and has nothing to do with ignorance of the facts surrounding the case, or apathy, but because the very survival of the Gillard Government depends on Assange's removal from circulation (if not worse) and the destruction of Wikileaks.Timeline of events surrounding Gillard coup24 November 2007 Rudd wins election after a campaign in which he called climate change "the greatest moral, economic and social challenge of our time". He promptly signs the Kyoto Protocol, leaving the USA isolated. Australia withdraws remaining "combat troops" from Iraq.29 November 2007 Rudd directly chooses his frontbench, breaking with more than a century of Labor tradition whereby the frontbench was elected by the Labor caucus, with the leader then given the right to allocate portfolios.13 June 2008 US Canberrra Embassy cable titled "Deputy PM Julia Gillard Star In Rudd Government" notes: "At this point, Gillard would have to be considered the front-runner to succeed Kevin Rudd as Prime Minister, which would make her Australia's first female Prime Minister. Several contacts caution, however, that Rudd is ambivalent about Gillard, who is not from Labor's Right Wing like he is, and he will avoid creating a potential rival. By the time Labor is thinking beyond Rudd, Gillard may well face more serious competition…. Many key ALP insiders have told pol offs that Gillard, who joined the ALP as a member of the Victorian branch's Socialist Left faction, is at heart a pragmatist. New South Wales Right powerbroker Mark Arbib (protect) described her as one of the most pragmatic politicians in the ALP. Michael Cooney (protect), from the ALP Right and a former senior adviser to ALP leaders Mark Latham and Kim Beazley, said she has been very impressive as a minister: knowledgeable on the issues, listens to advice from subordinates and civil servants and is not afraid to delegate responsibility. When we reminded Paul Howes (protect), head of the right-wing Australian Workers Union, that ALP Qof the right-wing Australian Workers Union, that ALP politicians from the Left, no matter how capable, do not become party leader, he said immediately: "but she votes with the Right." … Although long appearing ambivalent about the Australia-US Alliance, Gillard's actions since she became the Labor Party number two indicate an understanding of its importance… Although warm and engaging in her dealings with American diplomats, it's unclear whether this change in attitude reflects a mellowing of her views or an understanding of what she needs to do to become leader of the ALP. It is likely a combination of the two. Labor Party officials have told us that one lesson Gillard took from the 2004 elections was that Australians will not elect a PM who is perceived to be anti-American."10 November 2008 Rudd votes against Israel on two UN resolutions, ending Howard government's unswerving alignment with the United States.11 Feb 2009 US Canberrra Embassy cable notes: "Rudd, who likes to centralize decision-making in any event, undoubtedly believes that with his intellect, his six years as a diplomat in the 1980s and his five years as shadow foreign minister, he has the background and the ability to direct Australia's foreign policy. His performance so far, however, demonstrates that he does not have the staff or the experience to do the job properly… In October, Rudd's self-serving and inaccurate leaking of details of a phone call between President Bush and him cast further doubt on his foreign policy judgment… In January, after the press published a story that the U.S. had asked Australia to accept some Guantanamo detainees, the Government responded to the story by issuing a statement publicly acknowledging our confidential request and stating that they were not likely to accept the detainees."4 May 2009 Rudd delays implementing an emissions trading scheme until 2011, defers Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme legislation until 2013.June 10 2009 US Canberra Embassy cable titled "Gillard: on Track To Become Australia's Next Prime Minister" notes: "Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard who visits Washington later this month has positioned herself as the heir apparent to Prime Minister Kevin Rudd as ALP leader… Gillard, a product of the ALP Left in the state of Victoria, has shifted towards the political center since Rudd became ALP leader and is now a strong supporter of the Australia-US Alliance and Israel. Although she is still seen as a leftist by key right-wing union powerbrokers, that is not likely to stop her from succeeding Rudd as the next leader of the ALP… Gillard recognizes that to become Prime Minister, she must move to the Center, and show her support for the Alliance with the United States… Don Farrell, the right-wing union powerbroker from South Australia told us Gillard is "campaigning for the leadership" and at this point is the front-runner to succeed Rudd, conceding that the Right did not yet have an alternative. Agriculture Minister Tony Burke, one of the early NSW Right backers of the Rudd-Gillard team, confided that Gillard is the clear front runner to succeed Rudd and in the end, the ALP caucus will follow the opinion polls if she is the one the public wants… At present, the question of a successor to Rudd is probably two elections away. Several Rudd confidantes have told us that Rudd appreciates Gillard and sees her as a possible PM, but that he wants to avoid anointing her to head off a possible leadership challenge when his poll numbers inevitably sag. The PM's brother Greg told us in April that Rudd wants to ensure that there are viable alternatives to Gillard within the Labor Party to forestall a challenge. Mark Arbib once told us a similar story, though he stressed that Rudd appreciates Gillard's strengths. However, another Rudd advisor told us that while the PM respects Gillard, his reluctance to share power will eventually lead to a falling out, while Gillard will not want to acquiesce in creating potential rivals. In the meantime, Gillard has proven her value to the Prime Minister and we expect her to remain the most important member of the Rudd Government, after the Prime Minister himself."July 2009 Wikileaks releases report of serious nuclear accident at Iran's Natanz nuclear facility (related to later Stuxnet virus).July 20 2009 US Canberra Embassy cable titled "Mark Arbib: Clout-wielding Ascending Leader" notes: Arbib is a close adviser to Rudd and is his key conduit to the ALP factions… We have found that Arbib is an astute observer and able conversant in the nuts and bolts of U.S. politics. He understands the importance of supporting a vibrant relationship with the U.S. while not being too deferential. We have found him personable, confident and articulate. A strong supporter of the alliance, he has met with us repeatedly throughout his political rise."4 August 2009 US Canberra Embassy cable on ALP Forum: "Rudd, to the bewilderment of many observers, remains highly popular with voters across the political spectrum. This is the bedrock of Rudd's unchallenged authority over the party."October 2009 WikiLeaks publishes Joint Services Protocol 440, a British document advising security services on how to avoid documents being leaked.Dec 23 2009 US Canberra Embassy cable discusses Rudd's reshuffled cabinet: "Foreign Minister Smith stepped out of Rudd's shadow and the resignation of Joel Fitzgibbon as Defense Minister proved to be a blessing for the government. Support for the U.S. Alliance, and the mission in Afghanistan, remained strong…. Labor Right factional powerbroker Mark Arbib close to the Prime Minister was rewarded with a ministry despite his inexperience… [Gillard] remains Rudd's clear heir apparent. Colleagues continue to be in awe of her mastery of detail and confident performances…Rudd has unprecedented power for a Labor leader; one MP told us he had never seen a Labor Caucus as subservient to its leader, noting Rudd's control over promotions. Another told us she was surprised at marginal seat holders' acquiescence on the ETS. However, powerbrokers confide the factions will assert themselves when Rudd's popularity wanes."18 February 2010 WikiLeaks publishes REYKJAVIK13 cable, dated 13 January 2010. This is the first published Cablegate file.April 2010 Polling shows Rudd government was highly popular until this month.April 2010 WikiLeaks publishes Collateral Murder video.May 2010 Bradley Manning is arrested after online chats with Adrian Lamo. US State Dept goes into damage control over release of cables. Australian Mining industry launches media "ad war" against Rudd's Minerals Resource Rent Tax.10 June 2010 (approx) Australia's US ambassador and former Labor leader Kim Beazley meets US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to provide a briefing on the coming leadership change.23 June 2010 Gillard announces leadership bid for next day.24 June 2010 Rudd steps down, becoming the only Australian Prime Minister to be removed from office by his own party during his first term.October 2010 WikiLeaks release Iraq War Logs. See also here.December 2010 Fairfax journalist Phillip Dorling publishes WikiLeaks cables (quoted above) showing Australian ALP politicians were in regular contact with the US Embassy.To see the original of the above timeline with an introduction but minus links and cables, click here.
To see the Wikileaks Australian files', via the Sydney Morning Herald website.

http://darkernet.wordpress.com/2012/07/1...#more-4107