Incinerating Assange - The Liberal Media Go To Work

gimmesometruth27

Jason P wrote:

Ecuador has granted political asylum.

:corn:

wow, a smaller country with balls.... who knew?

Jason P

This is a quip from the end of the Yahoo! article:

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."

gimmesometruth27

ecuador just said that local law (london's) does not supercede international law....

its gonna get interesting boys and girls..

Hinn

Tariq Ali's got the best solution to this standoff -

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.

catefrances

....and all the while australia sits on her apron strings eating cupcakes.

Byrnzie

Jason P wrote:

This is a quip from the end of the Yahoo! article:

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."

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.

Byrnzie

Wikileaks has published a translated transcript of the press conference held by Ecuador's foreign minister Ricardo Patino giving Ecuador's reasons for granting asylum:

'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.'

Jason P

Byrnzie wrote:

Jason P wrote:

This is a quip from the end of the Yahoo! article:

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."

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
....

To be fair to the journalist, this was mentioned at the very tail end of a long article. It's not a media crackdown, it's a Jason P crackdown!

Byrnzie

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 61466.html

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.”

gimmesometruth27

^^^

Byrnzie

Julian Assange appears on Ecuadorian embassy balcony 'Full Statement 2012'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nqv1DSTVv4

Byrnzie

A good summary of the situation here.
And I'm surprised - but not really - that there's not more outrage at this blatant attack on the freedom of information. The criminal actions of our governments effect each and every one of us, after all. Though I suppose that won't matter when we're all just fully indoctrinated, submissive minions of an international police state.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... et-assange

Don't lose sight of why the US is out to get Julian Assange

Ecuador is pressing for a deal that offers justice to Assange's accusers – and essential protection for whistleblowers

Seumas Milne
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 21 August 2012


Considering he made his name with the biggest leak of secret government documents in history, you might imagine there would be at least some residual concern for Julian Assange among those trading in the freedom of information business. But the virulence of British media hostility towards the WikiLeaks founder is now unrelenting.

This is a man, after all, who has yet to be charged, let alone convicted, of anything. But as far as the bulk of the press is concerned, Assange is nothing but a "monstrous narcissist", a bail-jumping "sex pest" and an exhibitionist maniac. After Ecuador granted him political asylum and Assange delivered a "tirade" from its London embassy's balcony, fire was turned on the country's progressive president, Rafael Correa, ludicrously branded a corrupt "dictator" with an "iron grip" on a benighted land.

The ostensible reason for this venom is of course Assange's attempt to resist extradition to Sweden (and onward extradition to the US) over sexual assault allegations – including from newspapers whose record on covering rape and violence against women is shaky, to put it politely. But as the row over his embassy refuge has escalated into a major diplomatic stand-off, with the whole of South America piling in behind Ecuador, such posturing looks increasingly specious.

Can anyone seriously believe the dispute would have gone global, or that the British government would have made its asinine threat to suspend the Ecuadorean embassy's diplomatic status and enter it by force, or that scores of police would have surrounded the building, swarming up and down the fire escape and guarding every window, if it was all about one man wanted for questioning over sex crime allegations in Stockholm?

To get a grip on what is actually going on, rewind to WikiLeaks' explosive release of secret US military reports and hundreds of thousands of diplomatic cables two years ago. They disgorged devastating evidence of US war crimes and collusion with death squads in Iraq on an industrial scale, the machinations and lies of America's wars and allies, its illegal US spying on UN officials – as well as a compendium of official corruption and deceit across the world.

WikiLeaks provided fuel for the Arab uprisings. It didn't just deliver information for citizens to hold governments everywhere to account, but crucially opened up the exercise of US global power to democratic scrutiny. Not surprisingly, the US government made clear it regarded WikiLeaks as a serious threat to its interests from the start, denouncing the release of confidential US cables as a "criminal act".

Vice-president Joe Biden has compared Assange to a "hi-tech terrorist". Shock jocks and neocons have called for him to be hunted down and killed. Bradley Manning, the 24-year-old soldier accused of passing the largest trove of US documents to WikiLeaks, who has been held in conditions described as "cruel and inhuman" by the UN special rapporteur on torture, faces up to 52 years in prison.

The US administration yesterday claimed the WikiLeaks founder was trying to deflect attention from his Swedish case by making "wild allegations" about US intentions. But the idea that the threat of US extradition is some paranoid WikiLeaks fantasy is absurd.

A grand jury in Virginia has been preparing a case against Assange and WikiLeaks for espionage, a leak earlier this year suggested that the US government has already issued a secret sealed indictment against Assange, while Australian diplomats have reported that the WikiLeaks founder is the target of an investigation that is "unprecedented both in its scale and its nature".

The US interest in deterring others from following the WikiLeaks path is obvious. And it would be bizarre to expect a state which over the past decade has kidnapped, tortured and illegally incarcerated its enemies, real or imagined, on a global scale – and continues to do so under President Barack Obama – to walk away from what Hillary Clinton described as an "attack on the international community". In the meantime, the US authorities are presumably banking on seeing Assange further discredited in Sweden.

None of that should detract from the seriousness of the rape allegations made against Assange, for which he should clearly answer and, if charges are brought, stand trial. The question is how to achieve justice for the women involved while protecting Assange (and other whistleblowers) from punitive extradition to a legal system that could potentially land him in a US prison cell for decades.

The politicisation of the Swedish case was clear from the initial leak of the allegations to the prosecutor's decision to seek Assange's extradition for questioning – described by a former Stockholm prosecutor as "unreasonable, unfair and disproportionate" – when the authorities have been happy to interview suspects abroad in more serious cases.

And given the context, it's also hardly surprising that sceptics have raised the links with US-funded anti-Cuban opposition groups of one of those making the accusations – or that campaigners such as the London-based Women Against Rape have expressed scepticism at the "unusual zeal" with which rape allegations were pursued against Assange in a country where rape convictions have fallen. The danger, of course, is that the murk around this case plays into a misogynist culture in which rape victims aren't believed.

But why, Assange's critics charge, would he be more likely to be extradited to the US from Sweden than from Britain, Washington's patsy, notorious for its one-sided extradition arrangements. There are specific risks in Sweden – for example, its fast-track "temporary surrender" extradition agreement it has with the US. But the real point is that Assange is in danger of extradition in both countries – which is why Ecuador was right to offer him protection.

The solution is obvious. It's the one that Ecuador is proposing – and that London and Stockholm are resisting. If the Swedish government pledged to block the extradition of Assange to the US for any WikiLeaks-related offence (which it has the power to do) – and Britain agreed not to sanction extradition to a third country once Swedish proceedings are over – then justice could be served. But with loyalty to the US on the line, Assange shouldn't expect to leave the embassy any time soon.

Byrnzie

John Pilger interviewed today about Julian Assange:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10151232554478465

Byrnzie

Makes me laugh that so many Americans love to spout about 'freedom' at every opportunity, but when this freedom comes under direct attack from those in power, they have nothing at all to say about it.

Not only that, but a large percentage of the populace are actually siding with those in power, and attacking the whistle-blowers instead.

Makes me wonder what certain people here mean by the word 'freedom'. Seems to me like they're referring to a pre-packaged, controlled 'freedom', that tells you how to live, and what to think. And anything that threatens that cozy little arrangement - such as exposing the crimes of your 'superiors' - is regarded as a dangerous threat that should be neutralized, and/or punished.

catefrances

Byrnzie wrote:

Makes me laugh that so many Americans love to spout about 'freedom' at every opportunity, but when this freedom comes under direct attack from those in power, they have nothing at all to say about it.

Not only that, but a large percentage of the populace are actually siding with those in power, and attacking the whistle-blowers instead.

Makes me wonder what certain people here mean by the word 'freedom'. Seems to me like they're referring to a pre-packaged, controlled 'freedom', that tells you how to live, and what to think. And anything that threatens that cozy little arrangement - such as exposing the crimes of your 'superiors' - it's regarded as a dangerous threat that should be neutralized, and/or punished.

yes it would seem those that feel they have an alright living and live in a 'democratic' country and dont have their applecart upset and therefore are happy with their lot arent too defensive of their govt revoking freedoms they think dont affect them directly when in fact they do. theyve got their car , their house,they can basically go wherever they want, theyve got their money to buy what they want, stupid television shows to watch.. they seem to be under the impression their govt is looking after them. so whats the problem? :think:

Byrnzie

Great piece here on the Assange affair. I won't paste all of it as it's quite long. Just a couple of snippets:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... a-contempt

The bizarre, unhealthy, blinding media contempt for Julian Assange

It is possible to protect the rights of the complainants in Sweden and Assange's rights against political persecution, but a vindictive thirst for vengeance is preventing that

Glenn Greenwald
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 22 August 2012


'...There are several obvious reasons why Assange provokes such unhinged media contempt. The most obvious among them is competition: the resentment generated by watching someone outside their profession generate more critical scoops in a year than all other media outlets combined (see this brilliant 2008 post, in the context of the Clintons, about how professional and ego-based competition produces personal hatred like nothing else can).

Other causes are more subtle though substantive. Many journalists (and liberals) like to wear the costume of outsider-insurgent, but are, at their core, devoted institutionalists, faithful believers in the goodness of their society's power centers, and thus resent those (like Assange) who actually and deliberately place themselves outside of it. By putting his own liberty and security at risk to oppose the world's most powerful factions, Assange has clearly demonstrated what happens to real adversarial dissidents and insurgents – they're persecuted, demonized, and threatened, not befriended by and invited to parties within the halls of imperial power – and he thus causes many journalists to stand revealed as posers, servants to power, and courtiers.

Then there's the ideological cause. As one long-time British journalist told me this week when discussing the vitriol of the British press toward Assange: "Nothing delights British former lefties more than an opportunity to defend power while pretending it is a brave stance in defence of a left liberal principle." That's the warped mindset that led to so many of these self-styled liberal journalists to support the attack on Iraq and other acts of Western aggression in the name of liberal values. And it's why nothing triggers their rage like fundamental critiques of, and especially meaningful opposition to, the institutions of power to which they are unfailingly loyal.

* * * * *

In their New York Times op-ed this week, Michael Moore and Oliver Stone correctly argue that it is "the British and Swedish governments that stand in the way of [the sex assault] investigation, not Mr Assange." That's because, they note, Assange has repeatedly offered to be questioned by Swedish authorities in London, or to travel today to Sweden to face those allegations if he could be assured that his doing so would not result in his extradition to the US to face espionage charges.

Time and again, "Correa said Ecuador never intended to stop Assange from facing justice in Sweden. 'What we've asked for is guarantees that he won't be extradited to a third country,' he said." Both Britain and Sweden have steadfastly refused even to discuss any agreement that could safeguard both the rights of the complainants and Assange's rights not to be imprisoned for basic journalism.

These facts – and they are facts – pose a lethal threat to the key false narrative that Assange and his defenders are motivated by a desire to evade his facing the sex assault allegations in Sweden.

pjl44

Byrnzie wrote:

Makes me laugh that so many Americans love to spout about 'freedom' at every opportunity, but when this freedom comes under direct attack from those in power, they have nothing at all to say about it.

Not only that, but a large percentage of the populace are actually siding with those in power, and attacking the whistle-blowers instead.

Makes me wonder what certain people here mean by the word 'freedom'. Seems to me like they're referring to a pre-packaged, controlled 'freedom', that tells you how to live, and what to think. And anything that threatens that cozy little arrangement - such as exposing the crimes of your 'superiors' - is regarded as a dangerous threat that should be neutralized, and/or punished.

Yup...freedom until they can be appropriately frightened. Good stuff in this thread, Byrnzie.

pjl44

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

^^^

Keep in mind it's this administration that you fall all over yourself to defend that is detaining Manning and vigorously pursuing Assange.

Jason P

Byrnzie wrote:

Makes me laugh that so many Americans love to spout about 'freedom' at every opportunity, but when this freedom comes under direct attack from those in power, they have nothing at all to say about it.

Not only that, but a large percentage of the populace are actually siding with those in power, and attacking the whistle-blowers instead.

Makes me wonder what certain people here mean by the word 'freedom'. Seems to me like they're referring to a pre-packaged, controlled 'freedom', that tells you how to live, and what to think. And anything that threatens that cozy little arrangement - such as exposing the crimes of your 'superiors' - is regarded as a dangerous threat that should be neutralized, and/or punished.

Them's the rules.

Ironically, you lose a lot of your freedoms when you sign an agreement with the US military to protect freedom.

Byrnzie

Those that bleat the loudest about their supposed freedoms are those that should be making the most noise now with regard to Julian Assange and Wikileaks coming under attack from the U.S government.

Instead, they're totally silent.

I think these people need to start replacing the word 'freedom' in their mouths with 'convenience'.