Sweden and the United Kingdom Should Be Embarrassed — the Julian Assange BS

14 August 2015

The Julian Assange BS

The themes here will be:

Sometimes, autocratic government’s contrivances box us into Idiocy’s Corner.

Freedom’s nurture requires anti-authoritarians.

For a reminder about the inescapable presence of evils-concealing bullshit, see here.

Should we be amused?

For nearly five years, Sweden has maintained that WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, may have done bad things to women.

But, for the last three or so years, the Swedish prosecution has declined to come to London’s Ecuadorian embassy to interview the political asylum-seeking Mr. Assange — as Swedish law reportedly requires it do, before formal charges can be brought.

As a result of this delay, Sweden’s statute of limitations has wiped out 3 of the 4 allegations of sexual illegality on Assange’s part. Yet, Sweden still sits on its blondly butter-filled behind.

Assange’s attorney, Carey Shenkman, summarized that:

Today's development does not mean that Assange can leave the embassy. The next step is that the whole case in Sweden needs to go away once and for all.

It's completely outrageous at this point, because the Swedish courts have already said that this is a closed case.

Nearly nine months ago the Swedish court of appeals criticized the prosecutor for failing to move the case forward. In May the Supreme Court, in a split decision, urged the prosecutor to advance the case. And here we are months later, and the prosecutor has still not come to London to question Assange.

The “duh” factor

If one cannot criminally charge someone for something in Sweden, until they are interviewed, how does government deal with folks who stay out of sight or clam up?

If Julian Assange’s purported refusal to be “conveniently” interviewed is really what brought Sweden’s sexual assault allegations against him to an impasse — change the law.

This is not rational prosecutorial behavior — something else is going on

The United Kingdom’s complicity in these autocratic shenanigans gives us a clue.

The Brits, for their America-toadying part, have been maintaining a cordon around the Ecuadorian embassy, so that the trapped there Mr. Assange cannot act upon Ecuador’s offer of refuge in South America.

Our English buddies, it seems — like Sweden — are acting at the very expensively indulged behest of the United States. The Obama Administration, it is rumored, wants to run Assange through its whistleblowing and national security meat grinder in loosely comparable — meaning “you ain’t go no rights at all” — Guantanamo fashion.

Attorney Shenkman continued:

[W]hen we talk about the asylum that Assange enjoys in London, we're not talking about asylum from Sweden.

We're talking about asylum from the United States.

Ecuador found that Assange has a well-founded fear of persecution should he ever risk extradition to the United States.

[T]he U.S. federal court confirmed in March that there's an active and ongoing national security case against Assange.

And just this past year over 50 free speech groups criticized the U.S. Justice Department for continuing this investigation because of the effects it could have for freedom of the press and the newsgathering process.

Just yesterday we had a major development. Chelsea Manning [see here], the alleged WikiLeaks source, was threatened with indefinite solitary confinement. Manning is currently serving a 35-year-sentence after being court martialed for allegedly disclosing documents to WikiLeaks.

[W]e learned that the army actually wants to charge her . . . for having expired toothpaste, for asking to see a lawyer, and for having a copy of Vanity Fair with Caitlyn Jenner on the cover. [See, for apparent corroboration, here — which includes links to 3 pages of charging documents.]

For these trivial things she's threatened with indefinite solitary confinement, which the United Nations and an international consensus agree is a form of torture.

Assange has every right to fear extradition to the United States, where he will seriously risk similar, likely worse, treatment.

Incredibly, the United Kingdom is blaming Ecuador for the mess

It’s all Ecuador’s fault:

The Wikileaks co-founder sought asylum at London's Ecuadorean embassy in 2012 to avoid extradition to Sweden.

UK officials said the bill for policing the embassy, which stands at £12m ($18.8m; €16.8m), was "unacceptable".

Mr Assange still faces the more serious accusation of rape, which he also denies.

"Ecuador must recognise that its decision to harbour Mr Assange more than three years ago has prevented the proper course of justice... It is completely unacceptable that the British taxpayer has had to foot the bill for this abuse of diplomatic relations," said Foreign Office minister Hugo Swire.

Mr Swire said the UK "continues to have a legal obligation" to extradite Mr Assange over the rape allegation.

"I have instructed our ambassador in Quito to reiterate to Ecuador that the continuing failure... to bring this situation to an end, is being seen as a growing stain on the country's reputation," he added.

Notice the disingenuous dishonesty in British reasoning

Assange has not been charged. He has no ethical obligation to voluntarily go to Sweden.

And Ecuador gave Assange asylum because it agreed with Assange that, if extradited from the United Kingdom or Sweden to the United States, he would be persecuted.

Consequently, Ecuador is not messing with women, the United Kingdom, or Sweden. It is making a stand against its perception of American totalitarianism.

The fact that British pretend not to see this indicates only how much an American puppet they have become.

The moral? — Due process and ethics-based fair mindedness — what are those?

Taxes fund those who rule us. The money enables them to hide from (and oppress) us under the cover of secrecy.

Our willingness to let them do this encourages me to conclude that Liberty is wasted on the free. Witless complacence pee-dribbles freedoms away, without our notice.

In Freedom’s ecology, whistleblowers like Assange, Chelsea Manning, and Edward Snowden are necessary. Extinguish them, and the diversely swirling environment that nurtures us becomes the single-minded autocracy that squashes our souls.

In light of this — Swedish, British and American governmental behavior in the Assange instance become not only expensively silly, but indicatively hypocritical.

Of course, the Brits tell us that it is all Ecuador’s fault. Who am I (you may wonder) to quarrel with their authority?

PeteFree.com

Sweden and the United Kingdom Should Be Embarrassed — the Julian Assange BS