Incinerating Assange - The Liberal Media Go To Work
Byrnzie
Posts: 21,037
This is well worth a read for anyone interested in seeing just what subservient functionaries the mainstream media - including the liberal media - are:
http://www.medialens.org/index.php?opti ... &Itemid=69
Incinerating Assange - The Liberal Media Go To Work
By: David Edwards
June 27, 2012
On June 19, in a final bid to avoid extradition to Sweden, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange requested asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy in London.
Credible commentators argue that Assange has good reason to fear extradition to the United States from Sweden. Ray McGovern, who was a CIA analyst for 30 years, commented:
‘Not only is Julian Assange within his rights to seek asylum, he is also in his right mind. Consider this: he was about to be sent to faux-neutral Sweden, which has a recent history of bowing to U.S. demands in dealing with those that Washington says are some kind of threat to U.S. security.’
Former US constitutional and civil rights lawyer Glenn Greenwald supplied some detail:
‘The evidence that the US seeks to prosecute and extradite Assange is substantial. There is no question that the Obama justice department has convened an active grand jury to investigate whether WikiLeaks violated the draconian Espionage Act of 1917. Key senators from President Obama's party, including Senate intelligence committee chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, have publicly called for his prosecution under that statute. A leaked email from the security firm Stratfor – hardly a dispositive source, but still probative – indicated that a sealed indictment has already been obtained against him. Prominent American figures in both parties have demanded Assange's lifelong imprisonment, called him a terrorist, and even advocated his assassination.’
Greenwald argued that smaller countries like Sweden are more vulnerable to American manipulation. Moreover, Sweden ‘has a disturbing history of lawlessly handing over suspects to the US. A 2006 UN ruling found Sweden in violation of the global ban on torture for helping the CIA render two suspected terrorists to Egypt, where they were brutally tortured.’
Greenwald concluded that Assange's ‘fear of ending up in the clutches of the US is plainly rational and well-grounded’.
Michael Ratner, president emeritus of the Center for Constitutional Rights and attorney for Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, explained the risks associated with extradition to Sweden:
‘Sweden does not have bail. Now, these are on allegations of sex charges — allegations, no charges — and 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 London - sure, 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 States—we just hold up Bradley Manning as example one of what will happen to Julian Assange: an 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… This is what Julian Assange was facing: never to see the light of day again, in my view, had he gone to Sweden.’
Journalist Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the Pentagon Papers, stated:
‘Political asylum was made for cases like this. Freedom for Julian in Ecuador would serve the cause of freedom of speech and of the press worldwide. It would be good for us all; and it would be cause to honor, respect and thank Ecuador.’
In considering Assange’s plight, it is also worth considering the tremendous good he has done at extreme personal risk. Coleen Rowley, a former FBI Special Agent and Division Counsel, commented:
‘WikiLeaks’ efforts combating undue secrecy, exposing illegal cover-ups and championing transparency in government have already benefited the world. And I’m convinced, more than ever, that if that type of anti-secrecy publication had existed and enabled the proper information sharing in early 2001, it could have not only prevented the 9/11 attacks but it could have exposed the fabricating of intelligence and deceptive propaganda which enabled the Bush Administration to unjustifiably launch war on Iraq.’
Newsweek recently placed Assange first in its list of ‘digital revolutionaries’.
Consideration of the hideous suffering inflicted on Bradley Manning, who is alleged to have leaked information to WikiLeaks, should generate further concern for Assange’s plight. A UN investigation found that Manning’s pre-trial conditions of severe solitary confinement were ‘cruel, inhuman and degrading’.
As a serving US soldier, rather than a journalist, Manning was certainly more vulnerable to this type of punishment. But consider the ferocity with which US elites are pursuing Assange. A leading article in the Washington Post commented of Ecuador’s president Rafael Correa:
‘There is one potential check on Mr. Correa’s ambitions. The U.S. “empire” he professes to despise happens to grant Ecuador (which uses the dollar as its currency) special trade preferences that allow it to export many goods duty-free. A full third of Ecuadoran foreign sales ($10 billion in 2011) go to the United States, supporting some 400,000 jobs in a country of 14 million people. Those preferences come up for renewal by Congress early next year. If Mr. Correa seeks to appoint himself America’s chief Latin American enemy and Julian Assange’s protector between now and then, it’s not hard to imagine the outcome.’
On Fox News, Roger Noriega, US Ambassador to the Organization of American States from 2001-2003 and Assistant Secretary of State from 2003-2005, observed:
‘It remains to be seen whether Correa will grant Assange asylum in Ecuador. If he does, it will put his country on a collision course with Britain, Sweden, and the United States, which has spoken publicly of charging Assange with crimes for publishing classified government documents.’
‘The Most Massive Turd’ Goes To Harrods
The evidence, then, that Assange has plenty to fear is overwhelming. But not for the great and the good of liberal journalism. The Guardian’s Suzanne Moore set the tone on Twitter on June 19:
‘Seems like Assange's supporters did not expect him to skip bail? Really? Who has this guy not let down?’
She added: ‘I bet Assange is stuffing himself full of flattened guinea pigs. He really is the most massive turd.’
Moore later complained that, after writing articles about Assange, she had suffered ‘vile abuse’. We wrote to her:
‘That's a real shame, sorry to hear that. But how would you describe calling someone “the most massive turd”? Vile abuse?’
Moore replied: ‘no I wouldnt call that vile abuse. I mean nasty threats etc.’
She added: ‘also I would advise you to stop sounding so bloody patronising’.
Moore later commented to Deborah Orr of the Guardian and 'Victoria Peckham' (Janice Turner) of The Times: ‘I never met him [Assange]. Did you?’
Journalists found Assange’s predicament endlessly amusing. The Guardian’s Luke Harding commented:
‘Assange's plight seems reminiscent of the scene in Monty Python where the knights think to storm the castle using a giant badger’
Christina Patterson of the Independent wrote:
‘Quite a feat to move from Messiah to Monty Python, but good old Julian Assange seems to have managed it. Next Timbuktu?’
She wrote again: ‘Meanwhile, the latest on Assange: he's hiding up a tree. Or in a ditch. Or in an embassy.’
Twitter quickly filled up with this curiously insipid form of comedic sludge. The Guardian’s Technology editor Charles Arthur tweeted:
‘It is absolutely not true that Julian Assange got twitter to fall over so that he could sneak out of the Ecuadorean embassy for a latte.’
David Aaronovitch of The Times wrote:
‘When the embassy stunt fails expect Assange, slung over the shoulders of muscular friend, to be swung into St Paul’s shouting “thanctuary!”’
The Times' home news reporter, John Simpson, tweeted:
‘There are now signs offering a free #assange at the Ecuadorian embassy. Apparently nobody wants him. #occupyknightsbridge’
Charlie Beckett, Guardian contributor and director of Polis at the London School of Economics, wrote:
‘Fly Me To Cuba! (Or Ecaudaor) [sic] Julian Assange hijacks WikiLeaks’
The Deputy Editor of the Guardian US, Stuart Millar, tittered:
‘I like to think that Assange chose the Ecuadorean embassy because it's so convenient for Harrods bit.ly/LcMsNd’
Millar posted a link to a map showing the proximity of the Ecuadorian embassy to Harrods. Indeed this was a popular theme among senior liberal journalists. The Independent’s Joan Smith wrote a piece under the title: ‘Why do we buy Julian Assange's one-man psychodrama?:
'The news that the increasingly eccentric founder of WikiLeaks had sought political asylum in Knightsbridge, of all places, was greeted with equal measures of disbelief and hilarity. The London embassy of Ecuador is convenient for Harrods, although I don't imagine that was a major consideration when Assange walked into the building on Tuesday afternoon.'
Indeed not - Harrods was, of course, a total irrelevance. But anyway Smith concluded with these words:
'Ladies and gentlemen, I give you this superb vignette: the people's champion, shopping for human rights near Harrods.'
But it wasn’t a ‘superb vignette’; it made no sense at all. Smith also joked on Twitter: ‘Some people will go to any lengths to avoid the Olympics.’
In the Financial Times, Robert Shrimsley wrote a spoof of Assange’s ‘imagined embassy diary’:
‘Hour 1: Have to say Harrods is looking very faded. Not what I expected at all. Have given police the slip and smuggled myself into the store where I intend to hide out in the Food Hall till I can request political asylum from the Qataris.’
In the Guardian, Tim Dowling offered ‘five escape routes from the Ecuadorean embassy’, including:
‘Ascend to embassy roof. Fire cable-loaded crossbow (all embassies have these; ask at reception) across the street to Harrod's roof. Secure and tighten the cable, then slide across, flying-fox style, using your belt as a handle. Make your way to the Harrod's helipad.’
BBC World Affairs correspondent, Caroline Hawley, enjoyed Dowling’s piece, sending the link to her followers on Twitter:
‘Advice for #Assange escape: order a pizza and escape as delivery boy via @guardian guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jun…’
Ian Dunt, Editor of politics.co.uk. wrote:
‘Julian Assange, Chris Brown and Mike Tyson are party of the same depressing tapestry of hatred towards women bit.ly/LjSKZI’
Chris Brown and Mike Tyson have both been convicted of serious crimes against women – assault and rape, respectively. Assange has not been charged with any crime.
Aaronovitch tweeted on the same theme: ‘Don’t you think that many Assange supporters are misogynistic?’
On the Reuters website, John Lloyd, a contributing editor to the Financial Times, took the prize for crazed comparisons:
'When we talk of fallen angels, we invoke the original fallen angel, Satan or Lucifer, once beloved of God, the highest in his closest council, whose pride impelled him to challenge for heaven’s rule – and came before his fall to Hell. Assange was an angel of a sort, at least to many.'
Contributor to the Guardian and Gay Times, Patrick Strudwick, commented: ‘Does anyone think Julian Assange isn't enjoying all this?’
Stephen Glover wrote in the Daily Mail: ‘The story of Julian Assange would be hilarious if he had not caused so much damage.’ Glover added:
‘If Julian Assange comes out, he shouldn’t be given free passage to anywhere. If he stays put, I suggest we happily leave him for 15 or even 30 years in the Ecuadorean embassy, where his hosts can furnish him with a computer so that he can continue to hack away. Female embassy staff, however, should probably tread warily.’
On and on, journalists poured scorn on Assange. The Guardian’s Deborah Orr tweeted: ‘I think we can safely say that Julian Assange's bid to run the world has faltered. A bit.’
Orr added in the Guardian: ‘It's hard to believe that, until fairly recently, Julian Assange was hailed not just as a radical thinker, but as a radical achiever, too.’
The sub-heading above Orr’s article read: 'Of course Assange should face the charges brought against him in Sweden.'
We, and others, asked her: ‘What “charges”?’
Orr replied: ‘I've informed the Guardian's reader's editor of the Assange inaccuracy. They'll follow it up. Thanks to all who pointed it out, and sorry.’
The gaffe, corrected here, but not in the original sub-heading here, was widespread across the media.
The Guardian’s Stuart Millar commented: ‘The serious downside of the #Assange situation is having to watch his risible Russia Today show for research purposes’
The Economist’s International editor Edward Lucas quipped: ‘my short piece on Assange: Leaker unplugged. I wonder if he's really in the embassy at all.’
Lucas's piece was surprisingly balanced and restrained, until the final paragraph:
‘The choice of Ecuador is not as odd as it seems. Mr Assange recently interviewed Ecuador’s president, Rafael Correa, for Russia Today, a Kremlin-backed television channel. The men got on splendidly, sharing splenetic anti-American views. Both also come across as thin-skinned, narcissistic and selective when it comes to media freedom. Mr Assange wanted to censor his own biography. Mr Correa has built up a state media empire while threatening private outlets. Ecuador says it is now weighing the fugitive Australian’s request, though its options seem limited. So do his.’
George Monbiot asked on Twitter:
'Can anyone point me to persuasive piece on why Sweden would be more likely to extradite #Assange to US than UK? Genuine inquiry.'
Monbiot's judgement was duly delivered two hours later:
'OK, having read strongest cases tweeps cld find, not convinced that Sweden more likely to extradite #Assange than UK.'
We tweeted:
'Now that's what I call professional journalism! Research begins (on Twitter!) 4:54 and ends 6:55 - done and dusted!
)'
David Allen Green, legal correspondent for the New Statesman, wrote:
‘Wonder what those well-meaning sorts who stood #Assange bail now think of his latest ploy to evade due process.’
He added:
‘And @Jemima_Khan, on hook for #Assange's bail, *not* told of his flight to Ecuador embassy, see bit.ly/LColT0. Shameful.’
A Guardian piece also focused on Khan, concluding with these words:
‘Jemima Khan, socialite and associate editor at the New Statesman, was a high-profile donor to the fund – to the tune of £20,000 – but has called for Assange to face the allegations made against him in Sweden.
‘"For the record, in response to those asking about Assange and bail money …" she wrote on her Twitter page, "I personally would like to see Assange confront the rape allegations in Sweden and the two women at the centre have a right to a response."’
Rod Liddle made the same point in a Sunday Times article about ‘the WikiLeaks weirdo’. (Liddle, 'Leaking cash, WikiMugs?,' Sunday Times, June 24)
But in fact Jemima Khan had said rather more than these reports suggested. She tweeted:
‘Annoyed by journos quoting only half my tweet about Assange & deliberately ignoring other half.’
And: ‘My tweet misinterpreted. Obvs I'd like Assange to answer allegations & clear his name but I understand why he's taken such drastic action.’
Khan also retweeted a letter signed by Glenn Greenwald, Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore, Oliver Stone and many others calling for Ecuador to grant Assange asylum.
The media response to Assange’s asylum request tells us much about the default brutality and reflexive herdthink of elite corporate journalism. We witnessed a rush to be seen to revile Assange as a ‘turd’, ‘weirdo’, ‘narcissist’ and joke. The crucial importance of his achievements, of his cause, was deemed utterly irrelevant beside his allegedly unbearable personal failings.
Almost as disturbing as the tsunami of mindless vitriol is the lack of dissent. US analyst Glenn Greenwald has so far been the sole high-profile political commentator willing to take on the UK’s hard-right ‘liberals’. By contrast, the Guardian and Independent’s dissident figleaves, and the many aspirational leftists who long to join them, have kept their heads down, saying nothing in support of a man who has risked his freedom and life to expose vast crimes of state.
It is yet more evidence, if any were needed, that political ‘convergence’ – the empty ‘choice’ between Old Tories and New Tories – has brought with it a dramatic and dangerous narrowing of 'mainstream' thought and dissent. We seem to be at the dawn of a brave new world: a high-tech Dark Age dominated by a kind of corporate feudalism.
(Special thanks to filmmaker and activist Gabriele Zamparini who posted many of the above tweets and quotes on the Media Lens message board, archived here by the FiveFilters website.
http://www.medialens.org/index.php?opti ... &Itemid=69
Incinerating Assange - The Liberal Media Go To Work
By: David Edwards
June 27, 2012
On June 19, in a final bid to avoid extradition to Sweden, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange requested asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy in London.
Credible commentators argue that Assange has good reason to fear extradition to the United States from Sweden. Ray McGovern, who was a CIA analyst for 30 years, commented:
‘Not only is Julian Assange within his rights to seek asylum, he is also in his right mind. Consider this: he was about to be sent to faux-neutral Sweden, which has a recent history of bowing to U.S. demands in dealing with those that Washington says are some kind of threat to U.S. security.’
Former US constitutional and civil rights lawyer Glenn Greenwald supplied some detail:
‘The evidence that the US seeks to prosecute and extradite Assange is substantial. There is no question that the Obama justice department has convened an active grand jury to investigate whether WikiLeaks violated the draconian Espionage Act of 1917. Key senators from President Obama's party, including Senate intelligence committee chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, have publicly called for his prosecution under that statute. A leaked email from the security firm Stratfor – hardly a dispositive source, but still probative – indicated that a sealed indictment has already been obtained against him. Prominent American figures in both parties have demanded Assange's lifelong imprisonment, called him a terrorist, and even advocated his assassination.’
Greenwald argued that smaller countries like Sweden are more vulnerable to American manipulation. Moreover, Sweden ‘has a disturbing history of lawlessly handing over suspects to the US. A 2006 UN ruling found Sweden in violation of the global ban on torture for helping the CIA render two suspected terrorists to Egypt, where they were brutally tortured.’
Greenwald concluded that Assange's ‘fear of ending up in the clutches of the US is plainly rational and well-grounded’.
Michael Ratner, president emeritus of the Center for Constitutional Rights and attorney for Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, explained the risks associated with extradition to Sweden:
‘Sweden does not have bail. Now, these are on allegations of sex charges — allegations, no charges — and 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 London - sure, 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 States—we just hold up Bradley Manning as example one of what will happen to Julian Assange: an 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… This is what Julian Assange was facing: never to see the light of day again, in my view, had he gone to Sweden.’
Journalist Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the Pentagon Papers, stated:
‘Political asylum was made for cases like this. Freedom for Julian in Ecuador would serve the cause of freedom of speech and of the press worldwide. It would be good for us all; and it would be cause to honor, respect and thank Ecuador.’
In considering Assange’s plight, it is also worth considering the tremendous good he has done at extreme personal risk. Coleen Rowley, a former FBI Special Agent and Division Counsel, commented:
‘WikiLeaks’ efforts combating undue secrecy, exposing illegal cover-ups and championing transparency in government have already benefited the world. And I’m convinced, more than ever, that if that type of anti-secrecy publication had existed and enabled the proper information sharing in early 2001, it could have not only prevented the 9/11 attacks but it could have exposed the fabricating of intelligence and deceptive propaganda which enabled the Bush Administration to unjustifiably launch war on Iraq.’
Newsweek recently placed Assange first in its list of ‘digital revolutionaries’.
Consideration of the hideous suffering inflicted on Bradley Manning, who is alleged to have leaked information to WikiLeaks, should generate further concern for Assange’s plight. A UN investigation found that Manning’s pre-trial conditions of severe solitary confinement were ‘cruel, inhuman and degrading’.
As a serving US soldier, rather than a journalist, Manning was certainly more vulnerable to this type of punishment. But consider the ferocity with which US elites are pursuing Assange. A leading article in the Washington Post commented of Ecuador’s president Rafael Correa:
‘There is one potential check on Mr. Correa’s ambitions. The U.S. “empire” he professes to despise happens to grant Ecuador (which uses the dollar as its currency) special trade preferences that allow it to export many goods duty-free. A full third of Ecuadoran foreign sales ($10 billion in 2011) go to the United States, supporting some 400,000 jobs in a country of 14 million people. Those preferences come up for renewal by Congress early next year. If Mr. Correa seeks to appoint himself America’s chief Latin American enemy and Julian Assange’s protector between now and then, it’s not hard to imagine the outcome.’
On Fox News, Roger Noriega, US Ambassador to the Organization of American States from 2001-2003 and Assistant Secretary of State from 2003-2005, observed:
‘It remains to be seen whether Correa will grant Assange asylum in Ecuador. If he does, it will put his country on a collision course with Britain, Sweden, and the United States, which has spoken publicly of charging Assange with crimes for publishing classified government documents.’
‘The Most Massive Turd’ Goes To Harrods
The evidence, then, that Assange has plenty to fear is overwhelming. But not for the great and the good of liberal journalism. The Guardian’s Suzanne Moore set the tone on Twitter on June 19:
‘Seems like Assange's supporters did not expect him to skip bail? Really? Who has this guy not let down?’
She added: ‘I bet Assange is stuffing himself full of flattened guinea pigs. He really is the most massive turd.’
Moore later complained that, after writing articles about Assange, she had suffered ‘vile abuse’. We wrote to her:
‘That's a real shame, sorry to hear that. But how would you describe calling someone “the most massive turd”? Vile abuse?’
Moore replied: ‘no I wouldnt call that vile abuse. I mean nasty threats etc.’
She added: ‘also I would advise you to stop sounding so bloody patronising’.
Moore later commented to Deborah Orr of the Guardian and 'Victoria Peckham' (Janice Turner) of The Times: ‘I never met him [Assange]. Did you?’
Journalists found Assange’s predicament endlessly amusing. The Guardian’s Luke Harding commented:
‘Assange's plight seems reminiscent of the scene in Monty Python where the knights think to storm the castle using a giant badger’
Christina Patterson of the Independent wrote:
‘Quite a feat to move from Messiah to Monty Python, but good old Julian Assange seems to have managed it. Next Timbuktu?’
She wrote again: ‘Meanwhile, the latest on Assange: he's hiding up a tree. Or in a ditch. Or in an embassy.’
Twitter quickly filled up with this curiously insipid form of comedic sludge. The Guardian’s Technology editor Charles Arthur tweeted:
‘It is absolutely not true that Julian Assange got twitter to fall over so that he could sneak out of the Ecuadorean embassy for a latte.’
David Aaronovitch of The Times wrote:
‘When the embassy stunt fails expect Assange, slung over the shoulders of muscular friend, to be swung into St Paul’s shouting “thanctuary!”’
The Times' home news reporter, John Simpson, tweeted:
‘There are now signs offering a free #assange at the Ecuadorian embassy. Apparently nobody wants him. #occupyknightsbridge’
Charlie Beckett, Guardian contributor and director of Polis at the London School of Economics, wrote:
‘Fly Me To Cuba! (Or Ecaudaor) [sic] Julian Assange hijacks WikiLeaks’
The Deputy Editor of the Guardian US, Stuart Millar, tittered:
‘I like to think that Assange chose the Ecuadorean embassy because it's so convenient for Harrods bit.ly/LcMsNd’
Millar posted a link to a map showing the proximity of the Ecuadorian embassy to Harrods. Indeed this was a popular theme among senior liberal journalists. The Independent’s Joan Smith wrote a piece under the title: ‘Why do we buy Julian Assange's one-man psychodrama?:
'The news that the increasingly eccentric founder of WikiLeaks had sought political asylum in Knightsbridge, of all places, was greeted with equal measures of disbelief and hilarity. The London embassy of Ecuador is convenient for Harrods, although I don't imagine that was a major consideration when Assange walked into the building on Tuesday afternoon.'
Indeed not - Harrods was, of course, a total irrelevance. But anyway Smith concluded with these words:
'Ladies and gentlemen, I give you this superb vignette: the people's champion, shopping for human rights near Harrods.'
But it wasn’t a ‘superb vignette’; it made no sense at all. Smith also joked on Twitter: ‘Some people will go to any lengths to avoid the Olympics.’
In the Financial Times, Robert Shrimsley wrote a spoof of Assange’s ‘imagined embassy diary’:
‘Hour 1: Have to say Harrods is looking very faded. Not what I expected at all. Have given police the slip and smuggled myself into the store where I intend to hide out in the Food Hall till I can request political asylum from the Qataris.’
In the Guardian, Tim Dowling offered ‘five escape routes from the Ecuadorean embassy’, including:
‘Ascend to embassy roof. Fire cable-loaded crossbow (all embassies have these; ask at reception) across the street to Harrod's roof. Secure and tighten the cable, then slide across, flying-fox style, using your belt as a handle. Make your way to the Harrod's helipad.’
BBC World Affairs correspondent, Caroline Hawley, enjoyed Dowling’s piece, sending the link to her followers on Twitter:
‘Advice for #Assange escape: order a pizza and escape as delivery boy via @guardian guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jun…’
Ian Dunt, Editor of politics.co.uk. wrote:
‘Julian Assange, Chris Brown and Mike Tyson are party of the same depressing tapestry of hatred towards women bit.ly/LjSKZI’
Chris Brown and Mike Tyson have both been convicted of serious crimes against women – assault and rape, respectively. Assange has not been charged with any crime.
Aaronovitch tweeted on the same theme: ‘Don’t you think that many Assange supporters are misogynistic?’
On the Reuters website, John Lloyd, a contributing editor to the Financial Times, took the prize for crazed comparisons:
'When we talk of fallen angels, we invoke the original fallen angel, Satan or Lucifer, once beloved of God, the highest in his closest council, whose pride impelled him to challenge for heaven’s rule – and came before his fall to Hell. Assange was an angel of a sort, at least to many.'
Contributor to the Guardian and Gay Times, Patrick Strudwick, commented: ‘Does anyone think Julian Assange isn't enjoying all this?’
Stephen Glover wrote in the Daily Mail: ‘The story of Julian Assange would be hilarious if he had not caused so much damage.’ Glover added:
‘If Julian Assange comes out, he shouldn’t be given free passage to anywhere. If he stays put, I suggest we happily leave him for 15 or even 30 years in the Ecuadorean embassy, where his hosts can furnish him with a computer so that he can continue to hack away. Female embassy staff, however, should probably tread warily.’
On and on, journalists poured scorn on Assange. The Guardian’s Deborah Orr tweeted: ‘I think we can safely say that Julian Assange's bid to run the world has faltered. A bit.’
Orr added in the Guardian: ‘It's hard to believe that, until fairly recently, Julian Assange was hailed not just as a radical thinker, but as a radical achiever, too.’
The sub-heading above Orr’s article read: 'Of course Assange should face the charges brought against him in Sweden.'
We, and others, asked her: ‘What “charges”?’
Orr replied: ‘I've informed the Guardian's reader's editor of the Assange inaccuracy. They'll follow it up. Thanks to all who pointed it out, and sorry.’
The gaffe, corrected here, but not in the original sub-heading here, was widespread across the media.
The Guardian’s Stuart Millar commented: ‘The serious downside of the #Assange situation is having to watch his risible Russia Today show for research purposes’
The Economist’s International editor Edward Lucas quipped: ‘my short piece on Assange: Leaker unplugged. I wonder if he's really in the embassy at all.’
Lucas's piece was surprisingly balanced and restrained, until the final paragraph:
‘The choice of Ecuador is not as odd as it seems. Mr Assange recently interviewed Ecuador’s president, Rafael Correa, for Russia Today, a Kremlin-backed television channel. The men got on splendidly, sharing splenetic anti-American views. Both also come across as thin-skinned, narcissistic and selective when it comes to media freedom. Mr Assange wanted to censor his own biography. Mr Correa has built up a state media empire while threatening private outlets. Ecuador says it is now weighing the fugitive Australian’s request, though its options seem limited. So do his.’
George Monbiot asked on Twitter:
'Can anyone point me to persuasive piece on why Sweden would be more likely to extradite #Assange to US than UK? Genuine inquiry.'
Monbiot's judgement was duly delivered two hours later:
'OK, having read strongest cases tweeps cld find, not convinced that Sweden more likely to extradite #Assange than UK.'
We tweeted:
'Now that's what I call professional journalism! Research begins (on Twitter!) 4:54 and ends 6:55 - done and dusted!
)'David Allen Green, legal correspondent for the New Statesman, wrote:
‘Wonder what those well-meaning sorts who stood #Assange bail now think of his latest ploy to evade due process.’
He added:
‘And @Jemima_Khan, on hook for #Assange's bail, *not* told of his flight to Ecuador embassy, see bit.ly/LColT0. Shameful.’
A Guardian piece also focused on Khan, concluding with these words:
‘Jemima Khan, socialite and associate editor at the New Statesman, was a high-profile donor to the fund – to the tune of £20,000 – but has called for Assange to face the allegations made against him in Sweden.
‘"For the record, in response to those asking about Assange and bail money …" she wrote on her Twitter page, "I personally would like to see Assange confront the rape allegations in Sweden and the two women at the centre have a right to a response."’
Rod Liddle made the same point in a Sunday Times article about ‘the WikiLeaks weirdo’. (Liddle, 'Leaking cash, WikiMugs?,' Sunday Times, June 24)
But in fact Jemima Khan had said rather more than these reports suggested. She tweeted:
‘Annoyed by journos quoting only half my tweet about Assange & deliberately ignoring other half.’
And: ‘My tweet misinterpreted. Obvs I'd like Assange to answer allegations & clear his name but I understand why he's taken such drastic action.’
Khan also retweeted a letter signed by Glenn Greenwald, Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore, Oliver Stone and many others calling for Ecuador to grant Assange asylum.
The media response to Assange’s asylum request tells us much about the default brutality and reflexive herdthink of elite corporate journalism. We witnessed a rush to be seen to revile Assange as a ‘turd’, ‘weirdo’, ‘narcissist’ and joke. The crucial importance of his achievements, of his cause, was deemed utterly irrelevant beside his allegedly unbearable personal failings.
Almost as disturbing as the tsunami of mindless vitriol is the lack of dissent. US analyst Glenn Greenwald has so far been the sole high-profile political commentator willing to take on the UK’s hard-right ‘liberals’. By contrast, the Guardian and Independent’s dissident figleaves, and the many aspirational leftists who long to join them, have kept their heads down, saying nothing in support of a man who has risked his freedom and life to expose vast crimes of state.
It is yet more evidence, if any were needed, that political ‘convergence’ – the empty ‘choice’ between Old Tories and New Tories – has brought with it a dramatic and dangerous narrowing of 'mainstream' thought and dissent. We seem to be at the dawn of a brave new world: a high-tech Dark Age dominated by a kind of corporate feudalism.
(Special thanks to filmmaker and activist Gabriele Zamparini who posted many of the above tweets and quotes on the Media Lens message board, archived here by the FiveFilters website.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
"There" as in "their"? And what is their plan?
(Yes, I'm an American 4th grader.
I get it. It took me years to stop saying "good" when I meant "well" as in "My blueberry pancakes turned out quite well."
But I'm still curious as to what the "plan" is you were referring to.
I imagine he's referring to the gradual effort by those in power to turn the World into one big police state, where every second of everyone's day is monitored and controlled.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Bingo! Always count on byrnzie to spell it out! Thanks buddy, knew u were smarter than or is it then a 4th grader! Lol
How u doing byrnzie? How's the far east treating u buddy? Hope all is well!
Not bad matey, not bad.
The latest article from Media Lens here for anyoe who wants to read it: http://www.medialens.org/index.php?opti ... 1&Itemid=8
What is Media Lens?
Since 2001, we have been describing how mainstream newspapers and broadcasters operate as a propaganda system for the elite interests that dominate modern society. The costs of their disinformation in terms of human and animal suffering, and environmental breakdown, are incalculable. We show how news and commentary are ‘filtered’ by the media’s profit-orientation, by its dependence on advertisers, parent companies, wealthy owners and official news sources..
We check the media’s version of events against credible facts and opinion provided by journalists, academics and specialist researchers. We then publish both versions, together with our commentary, in free Media Alerts and invite readers to deliver their verdict both to us and to mainstream journalists through the email addresses provided in our ’Suggested Action’ at the end of each alert. We urge correspondents to adopt a polite, rational and respectful tone at all times – we strongly oppose all abuse and personal attack. We also publish Cogitations, exploring related personal and philosophical themes.
In 2007, Media Lens was awarded the Gandhi Foundation International Peace Prize.
John Pilger has commented:
“The creators and editors of Medialens, David Edwards and David Cromwell, have had such influence in a short time that, by holding to account those who, it is said, write history’s draft, they may well have changed the course of modern historiography. They have certainly torn up the ‘ethical blank cheque’, which Richard Drayton referred to, and have exposed as morally corrupt ‘the right to bomb, to maim, to imprison without trial...’. Without Media Lens during the attack on and occupation of Iraq, the full gravity of that debacle might have been consigned to oblivion, and to bad history.” (John Pilger, foreword, David Edwards and David Cromwell, Guardians Of Power - The Myth Of The Liberal Media, Pluto Press, 2006, p.x)
In 2001, the BBC’s then political editor, Andrew Marr, described Media Lens as “pernicious and anti-journalistic”. (Email to Media Lens, October 7, 2001)
Peter Beaumont, foreign affairs editor of the Observer, on Media Lens:
“It is a closed and distorting little world that selects and twists its facts to suit its arguments, a curious willy-waving exercise... Think a train spotters' club run by Uncle Joe Stalin.” (Peter Beaumont, ‘Microscope on Medialens,’ The Observer, June 18, 2006)
We have written two co-authored books:
Guardians Of Power - The Myth of the Liberal Media (Pluto Press, 2006)
Newspeak - In The 21st Century (Pluto Press, 2009)
The rights groups that lost the plot on Ecuador and Julian Assange
Free speech advocates should defend WikiLeaks' founder from US spying charges, not invent a media crackdown in Ecuador
Mark Weisbrot
guardian.co.uk, Saturday 21 July 2012
Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, remains trapped in the Ecuadorean embassy in London since 19 June, as he awaits the government of Ecuador's decision on whether to grant him political asylum. It is interesting, if rather aggravating, to see how people who are supposed to be concerned with human rights and freedom of expression have reacted to this story.
Although Assange has not been charged with any crime, the Swedish government has requested his extradition to Sweden for questioning. For more than 19 months now, the Swedish government has refused to explain why he could not be questioned in the UK. Former Stockholm chief district prosecutor Sven-Erik Alhem testified that the decision of the Swedish government to extradite Assange is "unreasonable and unprofessional, as well as unfair and disproportionate", because he can be easily questioned in the UK.
Of course, it's not hard to figure out why Assange's enemies want him in Sweden: he would be thrown in jail and would have limited access to the media, and judicial proceedings would be conducted in secret. But most importantly, it would be much easier to get him extradited to the United States. Here in the US, there is an ongoing criminal investigation of WikiLeaks; and according to leaked emails from the private intelligence agency Stratfor, a criminal indictment for Assange has already been prepared. Powerful political figures such as Dianne Feinstein, Democratic chair of the US Senate intelligence committee, have called for his prosecution under the Espionage Act, which carries the death penalty.
For these reasons and many more, it is quite likely that the government of Ecuador will decide that Assange has a well-founded fear of political persecution, and grant him political asylum. Yet, surprisingly and shamefully, organizations whose profession it is to defend human rights and press freedoms have not only remained silent on the question of Assange's right to asylum, or Sweden's political persecution of a journalist, but have, instead, attacked Ecuador. For example, José Miguel Vivanco, director the Americas Watch division of Human Rights Watch (HRW), has stated:
"I think this is ironic that you have a journalist, or an activist, seeking political asylum from a government that has – after Cuba – the poorest record of free speech in the region, and the practice of persecuting local journalists when the government is upset by their opinions or their research."
Much of the media ran with this, perhaps not knowing a great deal about the media in Ecuador, and not realizing that any of the other independent democracies in South America would also grant asylum to Assange. When Assange was first arrested in 2010, then President Lula da Silva of Brazil denounced the arrest as "an attack on freedom of expression". And he criticized other governments for not defending Assange. If it was clear to Lula and other independent governments that Assange was politically persecuted then, it is even more obvious now.
The problem is that Sweden does not have an independent foreign policy from the United States, which is why the Swedish government won't accept Assange's offer to come to Sweden if they would promise not to extradite him to the US. Sweden collaborated with the US in turning over two Egyptians to the CIA's "rendition" program, by which they were taken to Egypt and tortured. The UN found Sweden to have violated the global ban on torture for its role in this crime.
One would expect better from a human rights organization that is supposed to be independent of any government's political agenda. But Vivanco's attack on Ecuador is inexcusable. As anyone who is familiar with the Ecuadoran media knows, it is uncensored and more oppositional with respect to the government than the US media is.
The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) has mounted a similar political campaign against Ecuador, falsely charging:
"Correa's administration has led Ecuador into an era of widespread repression by systematically filing defamation lawsuits and smearing critics."
What HRW and CPJ are doing is taking advantage of the fact that few people outside of Ecuador have any idea what goes on there. They then seize upon certain events to convey a completely false impression of the state of press freedom there.
To offer an analogy, it so happens that France and Germany have laws that make it a crime, punishable by fines and imprisonment, to lie about the Holocaust, and have recently prosecuted people under these laws. Personally, I agree with a number of scholars who see these laws as an infringement on freedom of expression and believe they should be repealed. But I would not try to pretend that the people who have been prosecuted under these laws – like the extreme rightwing leader Jean-Marie Le Pen of France – are themselves champions of free speech. Nor would I try to create the impression that such laws, or their enforcement, are part of a generalized "crackdown" on political opposition; or that France and Germany are countries where the freedom of expression is under attack from the government.
If I were stupid enough to do so, nobody would believe me – because France and Germany are big, rich countries that are much better known to the world than Ecuador.
Let's look at one of the major cases that groups like Americas Watch and CPJ have complained most about. Last February, the nation's highest court upheld a criminal libel conviction against the daily El Universo, with three directors and an opinion editor sentenced to three years in prison, and $40m in damages. President Correa announced a pardon for the convictions 13 days later – so no one was punished.
As noted above, I am against criminal libel laws and would agree with criticism advocating the repeal of such laws. But to say that this case represents a "crackdown" on freedom of expression is more than an exaggeration. These people were convicted of libel because they told very big lies in print, falsely accusing Correa of crimes against humanity. Under Ecuadorian law, he can – like any other citizen – sue them for libel, and the court can and did find them guilty. Just as Le Pen in France was found guilty of having "denied a crime against humanity and was complicit in justifying war crimes.''
Groups like Americas Watch and CPJ are seriously misrepresenting what is going on in Ecuador. Rather than being a heroic battle for freedom of expression against a government that is trying to "silence critics", it is a struggle between two political actors. One political actor is the major media, whose unelected owners and their allies use their control of information to advance the interests of the wealth and power that used to rule the country; on the other side is a democratic government that is seeking to carry out its reform program, for which it was elected.
In this context, it is difficult to take seriously these groups' complaints that President Correa's public criticism of the media is a human rights violation.
While I would not defend all of the government's actions in its battle against a hostile, politicized media, I think human rights organizations that grossly exaggerate and misrepresent what is going on in Ecuador undermine their own credibility – even if they can get away with it in the mainstream US media. It is equally disturbing that they cannot find the courage – as more independent human rights defenders, such as the Center for Constitutional Rights, have done – to defend a journalist who is currently being persecuted by the government of the United States and its allies.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/au ... ssy-asylum
Julian Assange can be arrested in Ecuador embassy, UK warns
Ahead of decision on WikiLeaks founder's asylum claim, Quito accuses Britain of threat to trample international law
Damien Pearse
The Guardian, Thursday 16 August 2012
The diplomatic and political minefield that is the fate of Julian Assange is expected to come a step closer to being traversed when Ecuador's president, Rafael Correa, gives his decision on whether his country will grant the WikiLeaks' founder asylum around lunchtime on Thursday.
The decision – if it comes – will mark the end of a turbulent process that on Wednesday night saw Ecuador's foreign minister, Ricardo Patiño, raging against perceived threats from Britain to "storm" the embassy and warning that such a "dangerous precedent" would be met with "appropriate responses in accordance with international law".
The dramatic development came two months after Assange suddenly walked into the embassy in a bid to avoid being extradited to Sweden, where he faces allegations of sexual assault.
At a press conference on Wednesday, Patiño released details of a letter he said was delivered through a British embassy official in Quito, the capital of the South American country.
The letter said: "You need to be aware that there is a legal base in the UK, the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987, that would allow us to take actions in order to arrest Mr Assange in the current premises of the embassy."
It added: "We need to reiterate that we consider the continued use of the diplomatic premises in this way incompatible with the Vienna convention and unsustainable and we have made clear the serious implications that this has for our diplomatic relations."
On Wednesday night appeals were tweeted for Assange supporters to occupy the embassy to prevent British police from arresting him, and while there was a police presence outside the embassy, Scotland Yard insisted that officers were simply there to "police the embassy like any other embassy".
Patiño said he was "deeply shocked" by the diplomatic letter. Speaking to reporters later, he said: "The government of Ecuador is considering a request for asylum and has carried out diplomatic talks with the governments of the United Kingdom and Sweden. However, today we received from the United Kingdom a written threat that they could attack our embassy in London if Ecuador does not give up Julian Assange.
"Ecuador, as a state that respects rights and justice and is a democratic and peaceful nation state, rejects in the strongest possible terms the explicit threat of the British official communication.
"This is unbecoming of a democratic, civilised and law-abiding state. If this conduct persists, Ecuador will take appropriate responses in accordance with international law.
"If the measures announced in the British official communication materialise they will be interpreted by Ecuador as a hostile and intolerable act and also as an attack on our sovereignty, which would require us to respond with greater diplomatic force.
"Such actions would be a blatant disregard of the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations and of the rules of international law of the past four centuries.
"It would be a dangerous precedent because it would open the door to the violation of embassies as a declared sovereign space." Under international law, diplomatic posts are considered the territory of the foreign nation.
The Foreign Office was quick to downplay the drama. A spokesman said Britain had merely sought to "clarify its position", according to international law.
"Throughout this process we have drawn the Ecuadoreans' attention to relevant provisions of our law – for example, the extensive human rights safeguards in our extradition procedures, or the legal status of diplomatic premises in the UK," a spokesman said.
"We are still committed to reaching a mutually acceptable solution."
Ecuador revealed that it would announce its decision regarding Assange's asylum request on Thursday at 1pm.
A Foreign Office spokeswoman said: "We have consistently made our position clear in our discussions with the government of Ecuador. The UK has a legal obligation to extradite Mr Assange to Sweden to face questioning over allegations of sexual offences and we remain determined to fulfil this obligation.
"We have an obligation to extradite Mr Assange and it is only right that we give Ecuador the full picture.
Correa has said Assange could face the death penalty in the US, and for that reason he considers the asylum request a question of political persecution.
Analysts in Ecuador expressed doubts that Britain would raid the embassy.
Professor Julio Echeverria of Quito's Flasco University said Britain "has a long-established tradition in Europe of respecting diplomatic missions", which under international law are considered sovereign territory.
A former Ecuadorean ambassador to London, Mauricio Gandara, told the Associated Press: "I refuse to believe in this threat because if asylum is granted the British government will not grant safe passage and Mr Assange could be in the embassy for a long time."
Assange denies the allegations against him, but fears he will be sent to the United States if he goes to Sweden. An offer to the Swedish authorities by Ecuador for investigators to interview Assange inside the London embassy was rejected.
A former computer hacker, Assange enraged Washington in 2010 when WikiLeaks published secret US diplomatic cables, has been taking refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy since 19 June.
If Ecuador does give Assange asylum, it is difficult to see how the WikiLeaks boss could physically leave the closely watched embassy and head to an airport without being arrested by British police.
An edited extract of the (lengthy) statement reads as follows:
This threat is designed to preempt Ecuador’s imminent decision on whether it will grant Julian Assange political asylum, and to bully Ecuador into a decision that is agreeable to the United Kingdom and its allies.
WikiLeaks condemns in the strongest possible terms the UK’s resort to intimidation.
A threat of this nature is a hostile and extreme act, which is not proportionate to the circumstances, and an unprecedented assault on the rights of asylum seekers worldwide
[...]
We remind the public that these extraordinary actions are being taken to detain a man who has not been charged with any crime in any country.
WikiLeaks joins the Government of Ecuador in urging the UK to resolve this situation according to peaceful norms of conduct.
[...]
We note with interest that this development coincides with the UK Secretary of State William Hague’s assumption of executive responsibilities during the vacation of the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister.
Mr Hague’s department, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, has overseen the negotiations to date with Ecuador in the matter of Mr Assange’s asylum bid.
If Mr Hague has, as would be expected, approved this decision, WikiLeaks calls for his immediate resignation.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... or-embassy
Julian Assange: can Ecuador's embassy be stripped of its diplomatic status?
By law British ministers do have the power to de-recognise Ecuador's embassy, but not without a serious diplomatic fallout
Carl Gardner
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 16 August 2012
The latest twist in the Julian Assange case, as we await Ecuador's decision on granting him asylum (a decision which would not, as I've written before, in itself allow protection from arrest if he steps outside the embassy), is that people are wondering whether the UK can simply strip the embassy of its diplomatic status, so allowing police officers to enter it.
It seems the British embassy in Quito has written to the Ecuadorian government (hat tip to @JasonLeopold) saying:
"You need to be aware that there is a legal base in the UK, the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987, that would allow us to take actions in order to arrest Mr Assange in the current premises of the embassy.
"We sincerely hope that we do not reach that point, but if you are not capable of resolving this matter of Mr Assange's presence in your premises, this is an open option for us."
The 1987 Act does indeed give ministers a power to withdraw recognition from diplomatic premises. Section 1(3) says:
"In no case is land to be regarded as a state's diplomatic or consular premises for the purposes of any enactment or rule of law unless it has been so accepted or the secretary of state has given that state consent under this section in relation to it; and if —
(a) a state ceases to use land for the purposes of its mission or exclusively for the purposes of a consular post; or
(b) the secretary of state withdraws his acceptance or consent in relation to land,
it thereupon ceases to be diplomatic or consular premises for the purposes of all enactments and rules of law."
On the face of it, then, the secretary of state (in practice a foreign office minister) could now simply withdraw consent, and with one bound, police would be free to make an arrest.
But it's not quite as simple as that. You'll note that section 1(4) says
"The secretary of state shall only give or withdraw consent or withdraw acceptance if he is satisfied that to do so is permissible under international law,"
and that according to section 1(5), in deciding whether to withdraw consent, the minister:
" … shall have regard to all material considerations, and in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of this subsection —
(a) to the safety of the public;
(b) to national security; and
(c) to town and country planning."
The "compliance with international law" requirement may present a problem, since article 21 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations requires the UK to facilitate the acquisition by Ecuador of premises necessary for its mission, or assist it in obtaining accommodation. It's not obvious this allows the UK to just de-recognise the current premises without helping arrange something new.
Section 1(5) is interesting because, in spite of the way the drafting clearly intends to preserve ministers' ability to take account of anything they think relevant, I've no doubt lawyers for Ecuador could argue that the list of three particular concerns colours the scope of ministers' considerations, the result being that only some particular difficulty relating to safety or to the premises themselves could justify withdrawal.
More importantly, they could argue that Assange's presence in the embassy and Ecuador's conduct in sheltering him is not a material consideration; and that since that clearly lay behind the withdrawal, ministers would in deciding to withdraw consent, have taken into account an irrelevant factor.
In addition, there'd be a potentially strong argument to be made that ministers had exercised their power for an improper purpose not intended by parliament when it enacted the 1987 legislation – their desire to arrest Julian Assange.
Ecuador could judicially review any proposed withdrawal: I think the effect on Assange means this is the type of case in which, as Lord Sumption explained in a recent speech, the courts would consider intervening in a foreign policy decision. Perhaps Assange could obtain an injunction on judicial review, preventing any arrest pending the outcome of proceedings. Of course, if the government successfully fought off that judicial review, the arrest could go ahead. But I don't think a defence would be easy, and at the very least, a judicial review would create further delay – which probably suits Assange fairly well. I'm not sure giving him a hook to hang one on would be the best tactical move for the government.
The Quito letter from the UK to Ecuador went on apparently to say:
"We need to reiterate that we consider the continued use of the diplomatic premises in this way incompatible with the Vienna Convention and unsustainable and we have made clear the serious implications that this has for our diplomatic relations."
If I were advising the government, I think I'd say that, if ministers are determined to allow the arrest of Assange, it might be better simply to cut off diplomatic relations with Ecuador, send the ambassador home, close the embassy and arrest Assange after that. Ending diplomatic relations is the major sort of foreign affairs decision I doubt the courts would interfere with. But that'd be a major diplomatic call.
that is just crazy...
all of that for one man.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
:corn:
That's Awesome, Britain's talking like there not going to give though.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Ecuador, it's worth noting, has a horrible record on press freedom.
And Correa, in particular, has had a "torrid relationship" with the press, Joel Simon, executive director of the Committee to Protect Journalists, wrote in a recent editorial. "His arsenal of repression includes such tactics as pre-empting private broadcasts to denounce the presenters, bankrupting papers through defamation suits, and publicly shouting down critics who dare question him."
its gonna get interesting boys and girls..
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Ecuador makes him a citizen. President appoints him as a diplomat. Diplomatic immunity, sorted. He gets to Heathrow, flies off to Quito, sorted.
Or, how's this for an idea. Swedes send a guy into the embassy to question him on the allegation. If there's enough there, charge him, giving the no-US extradition guarantee, he goes to Sweden, answers the charge in a court of law, guilty or not guilty, it's done. If guilty, he's given the option of imprisonment in Sweden or in Australia. If not, hey, it's done anyway.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... ot-ecuador
Free speech advocates should defend WikiLeaks' founder from US spying charges, not invent a media crackdown in Ecuador
'...it is quite likely that the government of Ecuador will decide that Assange has a well-founded fear of political persecution, and grant him political asylum. Yet, surprisingly and shamefully, organizations whose profession it is to defend human rights and press freedoms have not only remained silent on the question of Assange's right to asylum, or Sweden's political persecution of a journalist, but have, instead, attacked Ecuador. For example, José Miguel Vivanco, director the Americas Watch division of Human Rights Watch (HRW), has stated:
"I think this is ironic that you have a journalist, or an activist, seeking political asylum from a government that has – after Cuba – the poorest record of free speech in the region, and the practice of persecuting local journalists when the government is upset by their opinions or their research."
...One would expect better from a human rights organization that is supposed to be independent of any government's political agenda. But Vivanco's attack on Ecuador is inexcusable. As anyone who is familiar with the Ecuadoran media knows, it is uncensored and more oppositional with respect to the government than the US media is.
The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) has mounted a similar political campaign against Ecuador, falsely charging:
"Correa's administration has led Ecuador into an era of widespread repression by systematically filing defamation lawsuits and smearing critics."
What HRW and CPJ are doing is taking advantage of the fact that few people outside of Ecuador have any idea what goes on there. They then seize upon certain events to convey a completely false impression of the state of press freedom there.
To offer an analogy, it so happens that France and Germany have laws that make it a crime, punishable by fines and imprisonment, to lie about the Holocaust, and have recently prosecuted people under these laws. Personally, I agree with a number of scholars who see these laws as an infringement on freedom of expression and believe they should be repealed. But I would not try to pretend that the people who have been prosecuted under these laws – like the extreme rightwing leader Jean-Marie Le Pen of France – are themselves champions of free speech. Nor would I try to create the impression that such laws, or their enforcement, are part of a generalized "crackdown" on political opposition; or that France and Germany are countries where the freedom of expression is under attack from the government.
If I were stupid enough to do so, nobody would believe me – because France and Germany are big, rich countries that are much better known to the world than Ecuador.
Let's look at one of the major cases that groups like Americas Watch and CPJ have complained most about. Last February, the nation's highest court upheld a criminal libel conviction against the daily El Universo, with three directors and an opinion editor sentenced to three years in prison, and $40m in damages. President Correa announced a pardon for the convictions 13 days later – so no one was punished.
As noted above, I am against criminal libel laws and would agree with criticism advocating the repeal of such laws. But to say that this case represents a "crackdown" on freedom of expression is more than an exaggeration. These people were convicted of libel because they told very big lies in print, falsely accusing Correa of crimes against humanity. Under Ecuadorian law, he can – like any other citizen – sue them for libel, and the court can and did find them guilty. Just as Le Pen in France was found guilty of having "denied a crime against humanity and was complicit in justifying war crimes.''
Groups like Americas Watch and CPJ are seriously misrepresenting what is going on in Ecuador. Rather than being a heroic battle for freedom of expression against a government that is trying to "silence critics", it is a struggle between two political actors. One political actor is the major media, whose unelected owners and their allies use their control of information to advance the interests of the wealth and power that used to rule the country; on the other side is a democratic government that is seeking to carry out its reform program, for which it was elected.
In this context, it is difficult to take seriously these groups' complaints that President Correa's public criticism of the media is a human rights violation.
While I would not defend all of the government's actions in its battle against a hostile, politicized media, I think human rights organizations that grossly exaggerate and misrepresent what is going on in Ecuador undermine their own credibility – even if they can get away with it in the mainstream US media. It is equally disturbing that they cannot find the courage – as more independent human rights defenders, such as the Center for Constitutional Rights, have done – to defend a journalist who is currently being persecuted by the government of the United States and its allies.
'The government of Ecuador believes that these arguments lend support to the fears of Julian Assange, and it believes that he may become a victim of political persecution, as a result of his dedicated defense of freedom of expression and freedom of press as well as his repudiation of the abuses of power in certain countries, and that these facts suggest that Mr. Assange could at any moment find himself in a situation likely to endanger life, safety or personal integrity.'
Full transcript of Julian Assange's speech outside Ecuador's London embassy
“Can you hear me?
“I am here today because I cannot be there with you today. But thank you for coming. Thank you for your resolve and your generosity of spirit.
“On Wednesday night, after a threat was sent to this embassy and the police descended on this building, you came out in the middle of the night to watch over it and you brought the world’s eyes with you.
“Inside this embassy, after dark, I could hear teams of police swarming up into the building through its internal fire escape. But I knew there would be witnesses. And that is because of you.
“If the UK did not throw away the Vienna conventions the other night, it is because the world was watching. And the world was watching because you were watching.
“So, the next time somebody tells you that it is pointless to defend those rights that we hold dear, remind them of your vigil in the dark before the Embassy of Ecuador.
“Remind them how, in the morning, the sun came up on a different world and a courageous Latin America nation took a stand for justice.
And so, to those brave people. I thank President Correa for the courage he has shown in considering and in granting me political asylum.
“And I also thank the government, and in particular Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino, who upheld the Ecuadorian constitution and its notion of universal rights in their consideration of my asylum. And to the Ecuadorian people for supporting and defending this constitution.
“And I also have a debt of gratitude to the staff of this embassy, whose families live in London and who have shown me the hospitality and kindness despite the threats we all received.
“This Friday, there will be an emergency meeting of the foreign ministers of Latin America in Washington DC to address this very situation.
“And so, I am grateful to those people and governments of Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Columbia, El Salvador, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Argentina, Peru, Venezuela, and to all other Latin American countries who have come out to defend the right to asylum.
“And to the people of the United States, United Kingdom, Sweden and Australia who have supported me in strength, even when their governments have not. And to those wiser heads in government who are still fighting for justice. Your day will come.
“To the staff, supporters and sources of Wikileaks, whose courage and commitment and loyalty has seen no equal.
“To my family and to my children who have been denied their father. Forgive me, we will be reunited soon.
“As Wikileaks stands under threat, so does the freedom of expression and the health of all our societies. We must use this moment to articulate the choice that is before the government of the United States of America.
“Will it return to and reaffirm the values, the revolutionary values it was founded on, or will it lurch off the precipice dragging us all into a dangerous and oppressive world, in which journalists fall silent under the fear of prosecution and citizens must whisper in the dark?
“I say it must turn back. I ask President Obama to do the right thing. The United States must renounce its witch-hunts against Wikileaks. The United States must dissolve its FBI investigation.
“The United States must vow that it will not seek to prosecute our staff or our supporters. The United States must pledge before the world that it will not pursue journalists for shining a light on the secret crimes of the powerful.
“There must be no more foolish talk about prosecuting any media organisation; be it Wikileaks, or be it the New York Times.
“The US administration’s war on whistleblowers must end.
“Thomas Drake, William Binney and John Kirakou and the other heroic whistleblowers must – they must – be pardoned or compensated for the hardships they have endured as servants of the public record.
“And to the Army Private who remains in a military prison in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, who was found by the United Nations to have endured months of torturous detention in Quantico, Virginia and who has yet – after two years in prison – to see a trial: he must be released.
“Bradley Manning must be released.
“And if Bradley Manning did as he is accused, he is a hero and an example to us all and one of the world’s foremost political prisoners.
“Bradley Manning must be released.
“On Wednesday, Bradley Manning spent his 815th day of detention without trial. The legal maximum is 120 days.
“On Thursday, my friend Nabeel Rajab, President of the Bahrain Human Rights Centre, was sentenced to three years in prison for a tweet. On Friday, a Russian band were sentenced to two years in jail for a political performance.
“There is unity in the oppression. There must be absolute unity and determination in the response.
“Thank you.”
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."