There may be a ruling today on Julian Assange’s proposed extradition to Sweden to face some ridiculously flimsy accusations of “minor rape”. The threat to Assange, that the Swedish authorities will simply hand him over to the United States on espionage charges, is very real. Sweden was one of the tiny minority of 14 – the US and US vassal states – who on Monday voted against Palestinian membership of UNESCO.
Allowed HTML - you can use:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>
Off-thread but urgent: If today’s Guardian is correct, then we’re in the planning stages for an attack on Iran. Blair ignored us over Iraq, so we’ll have to make sure the Coalition — which includes LidDems who were horrified by the destruction of Iraq! — doesn’t help start World War 3. As an aside, I notice that the Russian Northern Fleet is due in the Eastern Med next week…
If we had good government I expect J Assange would be messing about harmlessly with computers somewhere in the outback. I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make.
-Diplomacy requires confidentiality
-When government misbehaves whistleblowers sometimes appear
The solution is to govern well and/or have secure systems in place. The USA failed on both points. I suppose we might still get whistleblowers if we were well-governed, but it doesn’t keep me awake at night.
On what evidence is the claim that the accusations of rape are flimsy based apart from what the accused has said? Have the prosecution made their case public?
Could Craig also explain how he distinguishes between minor and major rapes?
I do love how the response to the Guardian “hatchet job” is a counter hatchet job. Lets embrace anarchism as St Noam Chomsky says.
Thanks for that Mike, what are the Turks doing I wonder. I agree with you that we should now get to the Lib Dems, but have they been scared off by the prospect of loosing it all if they leave the coalition now?
What is Labours stance on a war with Iran, surely they are full and square behind such madness, I have not heard anything to the contrary.
Why are Julian Assange’s accusers, Anna Ardin and Sofia Wilen, represented by the same lawyer? Isn’t that just so convenient? Does it make the complicity a lot easier to co-ordinate?
Mike
The other thing that the Guardian says (with quite a bit of evidence) is that Iran has gone beyond the planning stages for its own nuclear bomb and is pretty well advanced in the development stages.
Does that worry anyone here so much that they might want to start pushing some measures other than military action to make sure that Ahmedjinabad doesn’t get his finger on the nuclear trigger?
Stephen, Iran has made several offers, one even to the US, for other countries to provide it with uranium enriched only to the required level for civil nuclear power – not bombs. Each time its invitation has been rebuffed.
Also, given the agressive US presence on both its western and eastern borders, I wouldn’t blame Iran if it did want to acquire nukes as a means of protection. Let’s remember that Iran has never started an expansionist war, so why would it start now?
The notion that one “crazy” guy has his finger on the trigger, is fatuous.
Afflicthecomfortable
Why are many of the protestors outside St Paul represented by the same lawyer etc. etc.
Perhaps it because they have a common interest, the accused used a common methodology, they want to reduce their costs.
I’m sorry Mike – but the evidence produced by the Guardian and perhaps or more relevance to the IAEA points pretty strongly to Iran going beyond enriching uranium only to the required level for civil nuclear power.
What did Iran say about Russia’s offer to do the enrichment for them??
Agree that there is just one crazy guy with his finger on the trigger – there are also a few fundamemtalist mullahs. There is more than enough about the behaviour of those concerned – especially to their own citizens to make most of us not want to see their finger anywhere near a nuclear trigger. And I suspect the 99% would be with me on this.
Mike
If you think Iran is not beyond interfering in the affairs of other countries you are also very wrong.
Stephen might want to take a look at:
http://www.swedenversusassange.com/Allegations.html
concerning whether the alleged offences would really be offences in English law, for example having sex with an allegedly deliberately broken condom..
See also
http://rixstep.com/1/20110204,04.shtml
http://radsoft.net/news/20101001,01.shtml
To summarise, there is evidence that one of the supposed victims blogged positively about Assange after the supposed rape (and subsequently removed the blog entries) as follows:
‘Julian wants to go to a crayfish party, anyone have a couple of available seats tonight or tomorrow? #fb’
and
‘Sitting outdoors at 02:00 and hardly freezing with the world’s coolest smartest people, it’s amazing! #fb’
Also the supposed victims only complained to the authorities after they discovered that Assange had slept with both of them.
Furthermore, the case was dropped by the authorities and only reopened after political intervention.
Mike, this apparent interest in Irans civil nuclear programme and the accusations that these developments are all to make bombs uis just another pre text for war.
Settlement building accelerated, more sabre rattling from the same Ms Leibovich who already ordered the murder of previous turkish peace activists, you know, the victims of brutality on the high seas Melanie Phillips called terrorists.
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/11/201111335159309793.html
Provocative testing of missiles by Israel is changing the balance of power in Europe and I expect that certain non nuclear countries in Europe might want to aquire such retalitory means. I also expect that some of the force de Frappe missiles will receive a different destination code, because nobody should allow Israel to nuke Iran.
As we expected, no debate in the House, all behind closed doors, lots of planning for it to be seen everywhere. Syria has accepted the Arab league’s compromises, but I don’t think it will save them from attack by the west, these criminals have made their minds up, they are screwing up the future for our children, whether we like it or not.
NOT IN MY NAME!
Ingo
Why were you prepared to listen to what the IAEA said on Iraq – but want to ignore what it looks like they are going to say on Iran per the Guardian report.
If this comes down to an argument about whether it is right or not for Iran to have the bomb it doesn’t take a genius to work out who will win the war for public opinion – perhaps a more sensible course will be to develop some alternative proposals for how Iran can be prevented from having the bomb rather than resorting to same old script.
Stephen, I wondered when we were going to see the phrase “fundamentalist mullahs” trotted out. Iran’s political structure is very complicated and Ahmedinijad actually has quite limited powers and a modest power base — he certainly can’t “push the button” even if he wanted to!
Doubtless the Beeb will oblige with footage of columns of marching men and those “mad mullahs” every time the subject of Iran arises. It’s a none-too-subtle way of programming us to associate Iran with threatening imagery. Helps dehumanise the target. We did the same during World War 1.
Iran is no threat to regional stability — but Israel, the US and the UK certainly are, unless you discount 1 million dead Iraqis as a mere detail.
Most of what we have been given as justification for bombing bits of the Middle East previously has turned out to be unmitigated pish. spun to achieve a long planned and devious objective for other reasons than those supplied to the public.
.
The IAEA report is “expected” to confirm that Iran has being making, or is about to make, weapons-grade uranium. The IAEA is still able to report on Iran, albeit with very limited access. In Israel, it isn’t.
Indeed, there is absolutely no scrutiny of the Israeli nuclear programme by anyone. Israel (unlike Iran) did not sign the NNPT, and Israel’s acquisition of anything between 200 and 400 warheads has been “justified” by the threat that a (still) non-nuclear Iran is alleged to pose to it. Notwithstanding that Israel is currently developing a nuclear reach far beyond Iran. It is Israel which has escalated the hostility nonstop over the last ten years, and capped its efforts with the Stuxnet virus; which well qualifies as an act of war in itself.
.
We should take no part in this. We can’t afford it politically, and we certainly can’t afford the money. Time for a “Clean Break” (link here-
.
http://www.iasps.org/strat1.htm )
.
of our own.
Hear hear Komodo. If Iran had hit Israel with Stuxnet our media would be crowing about an “act of war” and Israel’s US-funded F16 would be heading east en masse. Also worth pointing out that enriching uranium does not break the NNPT.
Much more relaxed analysis here, despite the lurid title; Karon makes some good points well.
http://globalspin.blogs.time.com/2011/11/02/you-say-you-wanna-bomb-iran-take-a-number-and-stand-in-line/
Komodo
Perhaps arguments for restraint on Israels development as a nuclear power would carry rather more weight if steps were being taken to prevent Iran joining them.
Mike
Just because Israel, the US and the UK are a threat to regional stability (or more correctly likely causes of even more regional instability) it doesn’t follow that Iran isn’t also a member of the same club.
That’s not really a good enough reason to start World War 3, Stephen.
I remain impressed by the immortal words of General Moshe Dayan:
“‘Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother.”
Q.(1) How far do you trust a state whose watchword is so expressed?
Q (2) On what basis do you judge the unacceptability of other states whose policy is similar?
Q (3) Why is it any of Britain’s business anyway?
Q (4) Who’s paying for all this? Will (eg) China lend us the cash?
Mike
It isn’t a reason for anything – just a statement of the current fact that all the countries listed are threats to regional stability.
Perhaps you should just turn your thinking as to how to introduce a little stability into the region if you really want to avoid a war – I just don’t think let Iran have the bomb anyway because Israel is upgrading its nuclear deterrent falls into the category. Neither will ritual denunciations of the imperialist USUKIsNATO alliance.
Just imagine that you were given the role of peacemaker what would you do to improve matters between the various parties? I have asked this question many times in differernt forms but I have yet to hear anything constructive in response – just lots of blame/accusing, but that is perhaps how disputes are resolved in teh circles in which you move?
Stephen
Do try to keep up. It’s Swedish law that distinguishes between major and minor rape, not Craig.
.
On another point, why shouldn’t Iran have nukes? If there’s a rash of burglaries in my neighbourhood, it’s understandable if I want a baseball bat under my bed.
Can’t we send them Jools Holland instead?
Ron
Baseball bats may be understandable – a loaded sub machine gun wouldn’t
The fuss over Assange’s extradition is largely because of the belief that it is a pretext for Sweden to hand him over to the Americans, in other words, that the Americans have engineered the whole thing, in order to punish someone for leaking classified documents. I find this conspiracy theory far-fetched.
This is an accusation of a serious sexual assault, and in my view a person accused of a crime like that, in a civilised country like Sweden, where there is no reason to doubt that he will be given fair due process, should answer for it. It might be different if an undemocratic country made such an request for extradition.
However I am certainly against agreements which allow the extradition of citizens without proper evidence being required to be presented to a judge, whom should be satisfied that there is a case to answer.
I would suggest that bombing the shit out of a country is not a good way to resolve differences. But, then again, that seems to be the preferred method for the ailing G7 hegemony.
“Can’t we send them Jools Holland instead?”
Only if we send them Robert Peston too.
“Ingo
.
Why were you prepared to listen to what the IAEA said on Iraq – but want to ignore what it looks like they are going to say on Iran per the Guardian report.”
because under baradei it was not wholly subservient to the whims of the UK and US .. as with ban ki moon – the new head is merely a puppet doing his masters bidding.
Stephen
What non-nuclear weapon could stop NATO?
why would uk govt want to openly declare its hand now .. and inform the iranians of the strike plan … militarily doesnt make sense ..
.
the bbc has been running a dishonest campaign against pak and there is a US – Nato build up on its northern borders ..
.
and yet no one in the msm is questioning the validity and authority of the allegations against iran .. whilst presstv is still under the threat of closure via ofcom ..