That guy is a naive fool at best for thinking he can do what he did and just walk away, no-one plays games with international governments like that and think they can win? At worst, he's a publicity seeking, self centred, egotistical jerk who thrives on being in the media, with a new escapade each time we forget about him and his washed out sorry arse I hope he ends his days stuck in the embassy knocking up panama hats until he realises the stupidity of his actions And anyone who thinks that all governments are clean and honest players, abiding by some code of decency, is as self-deluding as him. They all do it
I am mystified why you suppose Assange "thinks that all governments are clean and honest players, abiding by some code of decency" when he has famously gone to great lengths to reveal governments as deceitful, self-serving, and manipulative. Assange may well be a fool in your view for placing his principles above his personal convenience, liberty and safety; and I agree he seems to be self-centred and egotistical - so what? It looks to me as if he is also enormously brave, and that he knew perfectly well the risks he took. Why on earth do you assert he was "naive", Umbra? Do you think all brave people who take personal risks for their principles are fools?
I agree with all that. Their immigration officials are notoriously horrible, their police seem trigger happy. They have a plethora of shadowy intelligence agencies involved in the most undemocratic dirty tricks. They also have an unhealthy appetite for guns and violence and their inner cities are no-go areas. I wouldn't mind so much if they didn't think it was such a brilliant plan to export their dystopia to the rest of the world.
Check out his interview on TED.com. It makes him seem a lot more human and wry than the general media portrayal of him.
If Sweden is wants to interview Assange all they would have to do is give a guarantee that he would not be extradited to the states or any other country then the reason for his present position would be removed.
That's true. Or they could take the Ecuadorean embassy up on their offer to make him available within the embassy for interview. It will be very interesting to see how this one plays out.
I see that George Galloway has weighed in, and expressed the view that the Swedish rape allegations are a set up. Unfortunately Galloway has spoken in his usual clumsy, oafish way and has had to retract ill-advised comments about rape generally. With friends like Galloway, Assange doesn't need any enemies. The President of Ecuador has predictably pointed out that if UK violates the Ecuadorean embassy in London, British embassies around the world will become fair game. And all the countries of South America seem to agree with him. Essentially our British authorities have needlessly placed us in a foolish and unsustainable position - piggy in the middle between Sweden and Ecuador.
That is so true. In fact, Britain has now dug itself a huge hole and jumped in. There is no way that they can justify the song and dance about Assange on the simple grounds of a tenuous rape case in Sweden. It just wouldn't happen. There are all sorts of people in the UK who don't show up for their trials, or who should leave the country and don't. Nothing is ever done about it. By threatening a country (Ecuador) and making such a fuss about Assange, the Gov't might as well admit that it's all about Wikileaks and not about rape cases. It's all so blindingly obvious that Hague just looks like a fool trying to make us think that Wikileaks has nothing to do with it. As everyone and their cat has pointed out (and it surely isn't even necessary to do so), if you invade someone's embassy, someone (everyone) is going to invade yours. So you can't. And indeed, you would even contemplate doing so just so the Swedes could recover a suspect in a dubious rape case. So what's going to happen now? Well, whatever happens now, Hague and the Govt get egg on their faces: (1) they continue to persecute Assange and the whole posture of democracy and free speech looks pretty thin. It's not as if Assange has stolen any secrets. (2) They invade an embassy or use some other heavy-handed tactics and look like a dictatorship (3) They just clear off home and let him go and they are looking weak, spineless and incompetent. So they appear to be shafted. Best thing now is they suggest behind the scenes to the Ecuadoreans that they smuggle out Assange in a diplomatic bag and he leaves Britain. They can claim there was nothing they could do about it - but the problem has gone away and if the Americans want to do anything about it, let them get on with it.
Ultimately, Britain is the piggy between the US and, oh, the rest of the planet. Didn't politicians used to pick their battles better in the past, or am I mis-remembering? Still, Galloway could learn a thing or two about fuckbucketry from that Missouri Congressman ass-clown.
This article pretty much says it all. It's a shame that everybody in the country can't read this and make up their own mind. Don't lose sight of why the US is out to get Julian Assange | Seumas Milne | Comment is free | The Guardian
And then there was the CIA paying the Maltese shop keeper in the case of the Lockerbie bombing and Thatcher blocking the fact that Pan Am had a break in at their Heathrow baggage area the night before the flight.
Here's a great investigation program from Aus, really worth watching if you have any opinions (or even if you don't!) on the subject. Sex, Lies and Julian Assange - Four Corners
