Of course this has nothing to do with a case of a couple of women who got their nose out of joint when they discovered Julian was having sex with the other, in Sweden. This was translated a few weeks after these "events" as a "non-consensual sex case" — despite the women having consented... But the Swedish laws are iffy on this subject... But The case WAS DROPPED, then reinstated by a virulent prosecutor who has NO evidence to prove anything...

Thus the real case has to do with Assange being a "threat to the secrecy" of governments' fiddles in the English/American hegemony... NOTHING ELSE. This "threat" is actually a boon for democracy everywhere... Sending the troopers in — or threatening to send the troopers in —  is TOTALLY unacceptable and shows how far the United Kingdom has fallen in the gutter. Its silly bad-will and atrocious ruthless tactics in such a case — that would not even rate in a Merde-och press rags IF IT WAS NOT ASSANGE — shows an extraordinary state of mind that borders on the hysterical and murderous... What else is new...

Time to pull the plug on this charade and let Julian Assange go free — or at a pinch, get the Swedish "prosecutors" do their business via conference call or come on British soil — with no threat of extradition anywhere. 

VIVA WIKILEAKS!!!!

Britain has warned Ecuador that it could raid its London embassy if Quito does not hand over WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who has been taking refuge at the mission since mid-June.

In Quito, the Ecuadorean government said that any such action would be considered a violation of its sovereignty a
"hostile and intolerable act".

"Under British law we can give them a weeks' notice before entering the premises and the embassy will no longer have diplomatic protection," a Foreign Office spokesperson said on Wednesday.

"But that decision has not yet been taken. We are not going to do this overnight. We want to stress that we want a diplomatically agreeable solution."

In Quito, the government was angered at the threat and said it would announce its decision on Assange's asylum request on Thursday at 7am local time (12:00 GMT).

"We want to be very clear, we're not a British colony. The colonial times are over," Ecuadorean Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino said in an angry statement after a meeting with President Rafael Correa.

"The move announced in the official British statement, if it happens, would be interpreted by Ecuador as an unfriendly,
hostile and intolerable act, as well as an attack on our sovereignty, which would force us to respond in the strongest
diplomatic way," Patino told reporters.

Ecuador, whose government is part of a left-leaning bloc of nations in South America, called for meetings of regional
foreign ministers and the hemispheric Organization of American States to rally support in its complaint against Britain.

Tight surveillance

The Australian has been in the embassy for eight weeks since losing a legal battle to avoid extradition to Sweden, where he has been accused of rape and sexual assault by two WikiLeaks supporters.

"The UK has a legal obligation to extradite Assange to Sweden to face questioning over allegations of sexual offences
and we remain determined to fulfill this obligation," a Foreign Office spokesperson said earlier. 

Swedish prosecutors have not yet charged Assange, but they have moved forward with their investigations and they believe they have a case to take to trial.

Assange fears Sweden could send him on to the US, where he believes authorities want to punish him for publishing thousands of secret US diplomatic cables on WikiLeaks in 2010 in a major embarrassment for Washington. 

Even if he were granted asylum, Assange has little chance of leaving the Ecuadorean embassy in London without being arrested.

gun and gumboot diplomacy

On 16/8/2012
05:36 – RT @theCCR: Make some noise and demand UK respects Vienna convention protecting embassies + #Ecuador sovereign right to decide on #Assan ...

05:36 – Coffee would be a godsend for those staying the night outdoors to ensure police don't violate international laws the UK signed up to.

05:30 – @daniellismore Go to the embassy if you can, order pizza for those outside holding a vigil, tweet about this outrage#ProtectAssange

05:26 – Awake? In London? Join Julian and keep him safe from William Hague who's threatening force ahead of asylum decision, only a few hours away.

04:50 – Yesterday was bad: Swedish minister's childish & prejudicial diatribe against#Assange. But today was worse: Hague's gunboat diplomacy.

Ecuador should be applauded for protecting Julian Assange from the forces of repression when no one else will, says barrister Greg Barns.

Ecuador's decision to grant Julian Assange asylum, coming from a country which resents the toxic influence of the United States in Latin America, is no surprise.

But what is utterly bewildering and scandalous is the preparedness of the UK government to arrest Assange and ensure that he is handed over to the spineless Swedes by using a law designed to stop embassies being used to promote terrorist activity.

The UK government says the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act, passed in 1987, enables its government to declare that the Ecuadorian Embassy is simply UK territory and that its police can enter and arrest Assange, who it says has breached bail. And the foreign secretary William Hague said overnight that the UK government "will not allow Mr Assange safe passage out of the United Kingdom, nor is there any legal basis for us to do so".

Let's look at the 1987 Act first. This law was enacted in an era when the UK had difficulties with countries like Libya using embassies for terrorist activity or acts of violence. The Second Reading Speech on the Bill - which provides the explanation of what the purpose of the law is - was delivered by Baroness Young, the responsible minister on May 14, 1987.

A provision in the bill to allow the government to declare an embassy British territory on the grounds of national security was drafted because, Baroness Young said, "at present we would be unable to remove diplomatic status from premises which were being misused".

"I have in mind here evidence over a long period of time that a mission was being used, for instance, in support of terrorist activity," she added.

How could it be said that Julian Assange, facing breach of bail charges and sexual assault charges in the UK, is a matter of national security?

To send in British police to arrest Assange under the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act shows simply that the UK is prepared to abuse power in the way one might expect from an authoritarian regime. 

It also creates a very dangerous precedent. If the nation that bangs on about how it is the bosom of the rule of law and fairness is able to act so capriciously to suit its friends in Stockholm, Canberra, and Washington, what is to stop other countries from running into embassies whenever someone inconvenient seeks asylum?

As for Mr Hague's statement that there is no legal basis to allow Mr Assange safe passage out of the UK, this is also highly questionable.

While there have been cases where safe passage out of a country has been refused - most famously in the case of the former Hungarian Cardinal Mindszenty, who was holed up in the US embassy in Hungary for 15 years because the latter nation would not let him leave after the 1956 uprising - if there are strong humanitarian grounds for safe passage after a successful asylum claim these should trump state sovereignty.

In Mr Assange's case, it is clear that there is a real risk of torture by the Americans and the chances of a fair trial in Sweden are minimal. On these grounds, Mr Hague can find the legal basis to allow a departure.

read more: http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4205364.html?WT.svl=theDrum

But that does not mean Assange should be immune from very serious allegations in Sweden. Two women have both accused Assange of rape, and there have been repeated attempts by some of his supporters to discredit them. There have been suggestions that they are part of some kind of CIA honeytrap. The campaigning journalist John Pilger has described them as "concocted charges". But Assange's own lawyer, Ben Emmerson, does not dispute the sincerity of the accusers, arguing in court: "Nothing I say should be taken as denigrating the complainant, the genuineness of their feelings of regret, to trivialise their experience or to challenge whether they felt Assange's conduct was disrespectful, discourteous, disturbing or even pushing at the boundaries of what they felt comfortable with."

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/owen-jones-there-should-be-no-immunity-for-assange-from-these-allegations-8053869.html

Dear Owen Jones, You write whatever while understanding zip... Assange would face the prosecutors in England without second thoughts and give his version of the story against the allegations of the swedish women, whatever they are. At present THER IS NO CHARGE against him and there cannot be. But If you don't realise that once in Sweden, Assange is likely to be deported to the US, even before a court proceeding is started, you're more dumb than you look...

"Ecuador's decision to grant Assange asylum appears, on the surface, bizarre or even irrational, given the apparent costs," Max Fisher wrote on the Atlantic magazine blog yesterday. "The small-ish Latin American nation has effectively blown up relations with the much more powerful United Kingdom just over Assange... But it's possible that the diplomatic stand-off itself, and not Assange's freedom, is precisely Ecuador's goal.

"Though we can't know the Ecuadorian government's motivation for sure, engineering a high-profile and possibly protracted confrontation with a Western government would actually be quite consistent with [President Rafael] Correa's practice of using excessively confrontational foreign policy in a way that helps cement his populist credibility at home."
 
Correa is playing a canny game in exploiting Assange, whether or not he believes that there is any real threat of his being passed on from Sweden to face the wrath of the Americans with the very remote possibility of a death penalty for espionage.

There is no doubt that Assange's cramped and tedious living conditions in Knightsbridge would be paradise compared to his fate should he ever find himself under lock and key in the States.
 
Americans acknowledge that the treatment in custody of Private Bradley Manning, who fed Assange his WikiLeaks scoop from classified diplomatic traffic, not only amounted to torture, but torture designed to get him to put Assange in the frame as co-conspirator in the leaking of classified documents, rather than the receiver and publisher of the material. That would make Assange a spy.
 
The New York Times explained: "Since WikiLeaks began making public large caches of classified United States government documents, Justice Department officials have been struggling to come up with a way to charge Mr. Assange with a crime. Among other things, they have studied several statutes that criminalise the dissemination of restricted information under certain circumstances, including the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986.

"But while prosecutors have used such laws to go after leakers and hackers, they have never successfully prosecuted recipients of leaked information for passing it on to others — an activity that can fall under the First Amendment's strong protections of speech and press freedoms.

AUSTRALIAN diplomats have no doubt the United States is intent on pursuing Julian Assange, Foreign Affairs and Trade Department documents obtained by the Herald show.
This is at odds with comments by the Foreign Affairs Minister, Bob Carr, who has dismissed suggestions the US plans to eventually extradite Assange on charges arising from WikiLeaks obtaining leaked US military and diplomatic documents.
The Australian embassy in Washington has been tracking a US espionage investigation targeting the WikiLeaks publisher for more than 18 months.
The declassified diplomatic cables, released under freedom of information legislation, show Australia's ambassador, the former Labor leader Kim Beazley, has made high level representations to the US government asking for advance warning of any moves to prosecute Assange.

Briefings for the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, and Senator Carr also suggest the Australian government has no in-principle objection to extradition.
On Thursday, Ecuador granted Assange political asylum at its London embassy on the grounds that, if extradited to Sweden to be questioned about sexual assault allegations, he would be at risk of further extradition to the US to face espionage or conspiracy charges.
Assange sought refuge at the embassy two months ago following the dismissal of his final legal appeal against extradition to Sweden.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/us-intends-to-chase-assange-cables-show-20120817-24e1l.html#ixzz23qHF0gno

Mr Hague said Mr Assange’s rights were “guaranteed” and this should be enough for Ecuador: “We are committed to work with Ecuador amicably... we cannot give safe passage to somebody in this situation.” He tried to play down Ecuadorian fears that British police plan to forcibly enter the building: “There is no threat here to storm an embassy.”

Julian Assange is expected to make a public statement later on the diplomatic row that has engulfed him since being granted asylum by Ecuador.

Wikileaks says its founder will speak outside the Ecuadorean embassy in London, where he has taken refuge.

He faces extradition to Sweden over sexual assault claims, which he denies.

Ecuador's president has suggested Mr Assange could co-operate with Sweden if assurances are given that there would be no extradition to a third country.

Australian Mr Assange, 41 - whose Wikileaks website has published a mass of leaked diplomatic cables embarrassing countries including the US - first walked into the embassy in Knightsbridge, asking for protection, two months ago.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19310335#

-----------------------

Actually, the first and major problem faced by Assange is that it's most likely he'd be found guilty of whatever sexual perversion in Sweden, whether he is guilty or is not, and jailed for 20 years — which would suit the Americans, so they would not have to deal with him...

Assange also called for the US to "renounced its witch hunt against WikiLeaks" and called for the release of Bradley Manning, a US soldier who is awaiting trial after being charged with aiding the enemy by passing secret files to WikiLeaks.

"If Bradley Manning did as he is accused, he is a hero and an example to all of us and one of the world's foremost political prisoners," he said.

"The US administration's war on whistle-blowers must end."

Sweden allegations

The 41-year-old Australian also highlighted the cases of Bahraini rights activist Nabeel Rajab, who was sentenced last week to three years for participating in "unauthorised" protests as well as Russian punk activist group, Pussy Riot, whose members were given a two year-sentence for on charges "hooliganism motivated by religious hatred".

Assange jumped bail and took sanctuary in the embassy in June after losing appeals in British courts against his extradition to Sweden, where he is wanted for questioning over allegations of sexual offences against two women."There is unity in the oppression," said Assange. "There must be absolute unity and determination in the response."

He fears Sweden can send him on to the US, where he believes authorities want to punish him for publishing thousands of secret US diplomatic cables, many allegedly passed on by Manning, on WikiLeaks in 2010.

The US State Department said the struggle over Assange's status was a matter between Ecuador, Britain and Sweden, and Washington had no plans to interject itself into the dispute.

Assange has not yet been formally charged with any crimes in either Sweden or the US.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2012/08/201281913231872972.html

John Hewson argues the Australian Government is best-placed to broker an agreement between all parties involved in the Julian Assange case.

The only sustainable way out of the Julian Assange impasse is a negotiated agreement between the various parties; the British, Ecuadorians, Swedes and, importantly, Americans.

The Australian Government is the best-placed party to broker such an agreement. Foreign Minister Bob Carr, with the full authority of the PM and the Cabinet, should lead negotiations.

The essence of the necessary agreement is also fairly straightforward. Assange should be extradited from Britain to Sweden to answer questions, with the assurance that if cleared he would then be free to travel to Australia. From Australia Assange, with the assistance of our Government, would deal with any attempts by the Americans to extradite him.

As to the politics of all this, it should be favourable to Carr and the Gillard Government to be seen to be actually standing up for the rights of an Australian citizen in trouble; not just claiming to do so.

The situation in relation to Julian Assange is in danger of becoming very silly as diplomatic arteries harden and the situation is left to drift.

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4208938.html?WT.svl=theDrum

-------------------------------

As I have said before what Hewson is saying is fine... as long as Assange is not found guilty in Sweden...

It's most likely he would be found guilty despite being not — and jailed for 20 years or so.. removing him from circulation, to the delight of all protagonists involved...

Foreign ministers of South America's 12-nation union have condemned Britain's alleged threat to forcibly enter the Ecuadorean embassy in London and arrest the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.

A brief statement by the ministers did not, however, endorse Ecuador's decision to grant asylum to Assange, who is wanted by Sweden for questioning about allegations of sexual misconduct. The ministers of the Unasur group issued the statement after they met in Guayaquil, Ecuador, at the host nation's request. The group's general secretary, Ali Rodriguez of Venezuela, said the meeting lasted 20 minutes.

The ministers "condemned the threat of the use of force between states" and reiterated "the right of states to concede asylum", the statement said. They also urged the parties to follow the "path of dialogue and direct negotiations" to reach a mutually acceptable solution to the impasse.

Assange has been holed up in Ecuador's embassy for two months and Britain is refusing him safe passage out of the country. The alleged British threat came in a diplomatic letter delivered to Ecuador on Wednesday, a day before it granted Assange asylum.

Britain later said it had no intention of storming the embassy, which would breach the 1961 Vienna convention, which declares foreign embassies inviolate.

Unasur's gathering came a day after the regional Alba group of leftist governments also held a meeting in Guayaquil, at which Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua and Argentina all endorsed Ecuador's asylum decision about Assange.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/aug/20/julian-assange-uk-south-america

--------------------------

One should suggest to the Swedish women involved in the Assage case they should start to "get a life"... That is go beyond the rigmarole of Swedish sexual laws and dismiss the pommy justice systems to find new occupations in their life... Unless, that's what their role is about... annoy the world... Yet they can demand a court hearing in Britain... It is POSSIBLE and the justice thus would be of equal value there, to that of Swedish soil.... The fact that this has been refused by the Swedsih authorities smell of enormousl bad will and/or conspiracy.... Though I have no idea if the women have really been "hurt" by the Assange affair, I feel the Swedes are madly shaking the sauce bottle to get the last drop out of it...

Swedish police travelled abroad to quiz murder suspect - so why can't they see Assange in London?

SPEAKING from the Ecuadorean embassy balcony yesterday, Julian Assange portrayed himself as the victim of a globe-spanning anti-democratic attack by the US. Are his fears legitimate - or just a smokescreen to evade allegations that he committed sexual misdemeanours in Sweden?
 
Support came from Assange's celebrity backers. Academic and journalist Tariq Ali told the crowd in front of the Knightsbridge embassy we should "change our gaze", reports The Guardian, adding that somebody shouted back: "So should you, mate!"
 
Fashion designer Vivienne Westwood sent a message of support, regretting that she could not be there in person. Campaigning documentary-maker John Pilger also regretted his absence but told the BBC News channel that he fully supports his fellow Australian.
 
Talking to BBC News from Washington after the 10-minute speech, US columnist Mark Weisbrot said anybody who believes Sweden really wants Assange to be extradited simply to face questioning over allegations of sexual misconduct is fooling themselves.

Assange faces no charges in Sweden relating to the two women's allegations – and the claims they have made would not stand up even in a US court, he argued.
 
He said the Swedes had turned down repeated offers to interview Assange about the allegations in London. As Weisbrot wrote in The Guardian last week, from this  "we can infer that the Swedes have no legitimate reason for the extradition".
 
Weisbrot also pointed out yesterday that Swedish police recently flew to Serbia to interview a man they want to extradite on suspicion of murder.

I have been a huge supporter of Pussy Riot, but late last week I came to the realisation that we, as westerners, cannot condemn Russia for persecuting the radical arts while our own government is implicit in the unlawful witch hunt for Julian Assange — not unless we analyse both with the same vigour and enthusiasm.

The mainstream media has lapped up the opportunity to paint Russia as evil authoritarians with the assertion that we are free and enlightened. I urge all the well-meaning Pussy Riot supporters that are adopting the fantastic punk feminist aesthetics of the Russian activists to be aware that there will be some that try to manipulate their protests for the purposes of pro-West dogma.

I commented in a few Australian Pussy Riot online forums over the weekend. I felt it necessary to remind people that Julian Assange is Australian, he is a radical artist of the highest order and has been left out to dry by the Australian government. There were lots of people liking and a few negative comments.

On Sunday night, Assange stood on the balcony of the Ecuadorian embassy and echoed my thoughts. He supported Pussy Riot and called for a united stance against global oppression. Assange said:

“There is unity in the oppression, there must be absolute unity and determination in the response.”

This is a worldwide systemic problem that is bought about by the rule of power and men. We need to stand as one social movement to bring in a new way of being. There will always great support for Pussy Riot from Assange fans. I hope there will also be some colourful balaclavas at the next action in support of Julian Assange.

http://www.independentaustralia.net/2012/politics/pussy-riot-and-assange/

At least we know what the Pussies have been sentenced to... a couple of years in the cooler for real bad singing in a church...

But for Assange, the dice is still loaded against him and at best, if he goes to Sweden, he would get 20 years in solitary confinement for an alleged  "offence" that would not register anywhere — not even in America... 

Blah blah blah...

It comes down to justice and accountability. Those are not things that governments can currently be trusted to deliver at an international level, not for women, and not for the victims of war. Julian Assange should be held to account, and the system to do so fairly while protecting the work of WikiLeaks does not exist, and anyone who believes in freedom needs to fight for both.

It is not only possible to defend both women's rights and freedom of speech. It is morally inconsistent to defend one without the other. Cultures of secrecy, covert violence and unaccountability need to be exposed. That's what WikiLeaks is supposed to be about, and it's also what feminism is about, and right now, governments are terrified of both. That, if nothing else, should tell us where the lines of power are really drawn.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/laurie-penny-if-you-really-believe-in-wikileaks-you-must-want-assange-to-face-up-to-justice-8069906.html

---------------------

Sure...  But there is NO worries about getting Assange to answer any questions... As proven by Swedish authorities who went to interview a murder suspect in another country in Europe, they can ASK QUESTIONS  in England — or in Australia for that matter, without Assange having to go to Sweden... END OF STORY.

Assange is willing to answer questions about the "allegations of rape" in whichever manner to the Swedish prosecution AS LONG AS HE IS NOT ON SWEDISH SOIL. Why? Because he knows and any intelligent aware person would have to know that the US and Sweden have a cosy arrangement in regard to "extradition"... And Assange would be on flight to the US, pronto, in shackles, OR FOUND GUILTY VERY QUICKY  despite NO EVIDENCE of any sort, and placed in jail for 20 years... Either of these options are very plausible —  but not acceptable.

Britain has withdrawn a threat to enter Ecuador's embassy in London to arrest WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange who has taken refuge there, President Rafael Correa said on Saturday, taking some of the heat out of the diplomatic standoff.

"We consider this unfortunate incident over, after a grave diplomatic error by the British in which they said they would enter our embassy," Correa said in a weekly media address.

In a statement, Ecuador's government said it had received "a communication from the British Foreign Office which said that there was no threat to enter the embassy".

Ecuador was furious after the British government warned that it might try to seize Assange, who has been holed up in the building for more than two months. The the former computer hacker is trying to avoidextradition to Sweden, where he is wanted for questioning over rape and sexual assault allegations.

Ecuador, which has granted Assange asylum, demanded that Britain's threat be retracted. The latest move should improve relations between Quito and London and allow more talks on Assange's fate to take place.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/26/assange-ecuador-embassy-safe

Given the fact that Swedish prosecutors have repeatedly turned down opportunities to question Assange about the case -- even though they say this is their sole aim -- it is not entirely unreasonable to assume, as Assange has done, that there is some other intention behind the process that has led to the standoff we see today. If the primary concern was justice for the two women involved in the allegations, who have had the case hanging over their heads for almost two years, Assange could have been questioned by Swedish authorities at any time during that period, and the process of resolving the case, one way or another, could have moved forward. But this has not been done.

As Assange's lawyer, Per Samuelson, notes:

In August 2010, Assange was interviewed by the police for the first time, then released. A month later, the prosecutor requested an additional police interrogation be held, insisting this time that it be done with Assange behind bars. She called for Assange's arrest, issued a European arrest warrant and ordered that he be deported from the UK. Stockholm district court and the Svea court of appeal upheld her request and arrested Assange in absentia.

Neither Assange nor I can understand the motivation. Why couldn't the second police interview be conducted with Assange at liberty? Assange is not a Swedish citizen. He does not reside in Sweden. His work has worldwide impact and he must be able to travel freely to accomplish this. He would happily have presented himself for interrogation and, had the case gone to trial, willingly returned to Sweden to face charges. All this could have been done while he remained at liberty. Had Sweden handled the case in this way, the issue would have been resolved a long time ago.

Instead, Sweden insists on Assange's forcible removal to Sweden. Once there, he will immediately be seized by police and put in jail. He will be taken to the detention hearing in handcuffs, and will almost certainly be detained. He will remain in custody for the duration of the proceedings. This is unnecessary. The prosecutor is at liberty to withdraw the arrest warrant and lift the detention order, and a hearing in Sweden could be arranged very quickly. The prosecutor could also arrange a hearing in the UK or at the Swedish embassy in London.

Again, it seems evident that the Swedish authorities did not want to pursue any of these options, but have instead sought relentlessly to put Assange in a Swedish jail and keep him there. Whatever their motives for this heavy-handed course of action, concern for victims of sexual assault does not seem to be among them.

But what about Sweden's role in this sordid affair? Most obviously, Sweden has had the opportunity to interview Assange in the UK, but has repeatedly refused to do so. The Swedish government also refused Ecuador's offer to interview Assange at its London embassy. As in the past, no justification was offered. 

The Swedish government also refused to negotiate with Ecuador for an extradition under which Assange would go to Sweden but not be subject to extradition to the US. This would be very easy for Sweden (or the UK, for that matter) to arrange. Once again, the Swedish government offered no reason for its refusal to consider this obvious solution to the diplomatic impasse. 

Contrary to much press commentary, there is no need for conspiracy theories here to draw the logical conclusion. If the Swedish government really wanted to pursue the investigation of sexual offence allegations against Assange, they could do so. But instead, they are deliberately abandoning the criminal investigation - which is getting older and more difficult to pursue - for other reasons. 

This includes the lawyer representing the plaintiffs, Claes Borgstrom, who was reportedly instrumental in getting the third prosecutor (Marianne Ny) to go after Assange. (The previous prosecutor assigned to the case had dropped it because the evidence is so weak). Borgstrom has been in the media defending the United States and its allies, rather than his clients, asserting that Assange "must know" that the case "has nothing to do with WikiLeaks". This also casts serious doubt on all the people who have opposed Assange's asylum on the grounds that they care about the two women who have accused Assange. (It is worth noting that neither of the two women accused Assange of rape, although that is one of the allegations that has been spread throughout the media and the world). Anyone who was really concerned about pursuing this case would aim their fire at the Swedish prosecutor, and at least ask her why she has abandoned the investigation. 

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/09/20129674125619411.html

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange will make a speech to the United Nations today on the eve of the 100th day since he sought political asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy in London.

Mr Assange will speak to a UN meeting in New York over a satellite link.

He arrived at the embassy on June 19 as part of his bid to avoid extradition to Sweden where he faces sex allegations.

Mr Assange fears he will be extradited to the United States over the activities of the whistle-blowing website if he travels to Sweden.

He was granted political asylum by the government of Ecuador last month and has remained in the embassy ever since.

Ecuador's foreign minister Ricardo Pantino will address the United Nations today on the subject of political asylum, referring specifically to the Assange case.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/julian-assange-to-address-united-nations-8179639.html

Gaga, who popped in for dinner after a perfume launch across the road from the embassy at high-end retailer Harrods, has attracted her own unsavoury publicity in recent days after vomiting on stage during a live show in Spain.
The 26-year-old, known for her outlandish outfits and controversial song lyrics, entered the embassy about 7pm (local time) on Monday and did not emerge until after midnight.
She later posted a photo of herself with Assange on social networking sites.
While it may seem like an odd pairing, Gaga and Assange do have a connection.
According to US news website The Atlantic, Bradley Manning used Gaga's music to help him download hundreds of thousands of classified documents from US Army servers, before passing them to WikiLeaks.
One of Manning's chat logs read:
"I would come in with music on a CD-RW labelled with something like Lady Gaga erase the music then write a compressed split file. No one suspected a thing ... [I] listened and lip-synched to Lady Gaga's Telephone while exfiltrating possibly the largest data spillage in American history."
There has been no word on what was on the dinner or discussion menu for Assange and Gaga
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/celebrity/date-night-gaga-and-assange-dine-in-london-20121010-27c32.html#ixzz28t30UXeq

Military commanders at the marine base in Quantico in Virginia kept Bradley Manning, the WikiLeaks suspect, on extreme suicide-prevention measures because he engaged in "erratic dancing" and played peek-a-boo, the soldier's court martial has been told. The measures were likened by the UN to torture.

Daniel Choike, who was commander of the Quantico marine base between 29 July 2010 and 20 April 2011, when Manning was held there, said he had agreed to keep the soldier on a restrictive "prevention of injury" (PoI) order because of his "erratic behaviour, poor judgment in the past and poor family relationships".

The PoI order involved Manning being held in his cell for 23 hours a day in solitary confinement, having all his possessions withheld, being checked every five minutes, held overnight with the light on, and at times stripped of all his clothes.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/28/bradley-manning-treatment-custody-wikileaks

--------------------

It is quite extraordinary that "military commanders" are not happy about Bradley manning being "playful"... 

Humans are a useless funny lot. 

We spend more time entertaining ourselves than doing useful survival, such as fossicking for food and building shelters. When food and shelter is supplied or acquired, we've got even more time in our hands to do whatever... Doing nothing at all can be an option, but soon the mind sinks into depression through lack of activity. 

In most situation we would indulge in "entertainment" — either we provide it our self or we watch others "entertaining us"... It's part of the human condition: TV, theatre, movies, music, poetry, books, relationships... 

In prison, routine can become part of the entertaining occupation, but in the case of isolation, subjects need to do something else than washing their teeth every five minutes. Then we'd label them "compulsive" when we are the conpulsive jailers...

It is cruel not to let people have access to "entertainment" or deprive them from entertaining themselves... or stop them having access to education, including scientific education unless this is judged too "dangerous'... since knowledge can be a weapon...

Meanwhile, as I attack the mass media from providing us mostly with 'entertainment", I refer here to the fact, the media organisations provide less than basic information wrapped in ringing bells, whistles and useless comments... There is time for this, but not all the majority of the time.

Meanwhile Julian Assange warns us about the dangers of the internet... Nothing new,,, It's only a medium that can be used by our masters to spy on us... Thus the need for anonymity and bullshit amongst the roses?....

from Elizabeth Farrelly
Petersson was right about one thing. I know little of the Swedish legal system. (I do know educated Swedish-Australians, like retired medic Martin Gerin, who reinforce my impression that it is convoluted - some say ''mediaeval'' - and, with its politically appointed lay judges, heavily politicised. They also say Petersson is an embarrassment who should be sent home.)
Assange has been effectively detained for two years without charge. His only sin was having unprotected sex (which, even my 13-year old knows, would render him as vulnerable to STDs as the women).
He has won a Walkley, the Sydney Peace Foundation Gold Medal, and the Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism. He came second in the Huffington Post's next head of the BBC poll (after Jeremy Paxman) and is regarded by many as the century's greatest journalist, with supporters including Mary Kostakidis, Julian Burnside, Geoffrey Robertson and Jemima Khan.
But even if Assange were, as some say, a zionist, cultist, narcissist, misogynist or Marxist - even all of these - he'd still be entitled to a fair and open trial.There are genuine doubts as to whether this can happen in Sweden, and worse about the US trial. (With the imminent and sinister Trans-Pacific Trade Agreement, its contents so secret they can't be disclosed for four years, we'll never exert pressure on the US.)
Australia must therefore demand a Swedish guarantee that Assange will not be sent to America. Otherwise he, and our own rights to truth, may end up naked in a cell like poor, sweet Bradley Manning.
The Assange vigil will be held tonight at 7pm on the Parliament House lawns, Canberra.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/ambassadors-rage-doesnt-dispel-facts-20121128-2ae99.html#ixzz2DYAf1mb7

From John Pilger

Last December I stood with supporters of WikiLeaks and Julian Assange outside the Ecuadorean embassy. Young and old, they were there to demonstrate their solidarity with someone whose guts they admired. They were in no doubt about Assange's achievements and the dangers he faced. Absent entirely were the lies, spite, jealousy, opportunism and pathetic animus of those dominating coverage of Assange.

Like Jemima Khan, the film director Ken Loach lost bail money in standing up for Assange. "The US is out to crush someone who has revealed its dirty secrets," Loach wrote. "Extradition via Sweden is more than likely … is it difficult to choose whom to support?"

No, it is not difficult.

In the New Statesman last week, Jemima Khan ended her support for an epic struggle for justice, truth and freedom with a j'accuse that the Guardian also published. To Khan, the Loaches and countless others have all been duped. We are all "blinkered". We are all mindlessly "devoted". We are all cultists. Khan describes Assange as "an Australian L Ron Hubbard". She must have known that such specious abuse would make a snappy headline – as it did across the press in Australia.

One of Khan's complaints is that Assange refused to appear in a film about WikiLeaks by the American director Alex Gibney, which she "executive-produced". Assange knew that a film featuring axe grinders and turncoats would be neither "nuanced" nor "represent the truth", as Khan wrote, and that its very title – WikiLeaks, We Steal Secrets – was a gift to the fabricators of a bogus criminal indictment that could doom him to one of America's hellholes.

The sum of Khan's attack is that Ecuador granted Assange asylum without evidence. The evidence is voluminous. Assange has been declared an official "enemy" of a torturing, assassinating, rapacious state. This is clear in official files obtained under freedom of information, which betray Washington's "unprecedented" pursuit of him, together with the Australian government's abandonment of its citizen: a legal basis for granting asylum.

What is striking about Assange's haters is that they exhibit the very symptoms of arrested development they now attribute to a man whose resilience and humour under extreme pressure are evident to those he trusts. Khan refers to a "long list" of Assange's "alienated and disaffected allies". Almost none was ever an ally. Khan makes no mention of the damning, irrefutable evidence that Gareth Peirce, Britain's leading human rights lawyer, presented to the Australian government, warning that the US deliberately "synchronised" its extradition demands with pending cases, and that Assange faced a shocking miscarriage of justice and danger.

read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/14/assange-hate-is-real-cult

THE cost of keeping police round the clock outside the Ecuadoran embassy in London in case Julian Assange emerges has hit $4.37 million, British police said.

Officers have been stationed outside ever since the Australian-born WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange jumped bail and fled there on June 19 after losing his battle in the British courts against extradition to Sweden, where he faces questioning over allegations of rape and sexual assault. Ecuador has granted Julian Assange political asylum.

Scotland Yard police headquarters estimated the total cost to the end of January in salary and for the officers stationed on duty and the rest in overtime payments.

Julian Assange's Australian electoral roll application for Senate bidl

The embassy is a flat in a mansion block in west London's plush Knightsbridge district. It is across the street from the back of Harrods department store.

http://www.news.com.au/world/million-cost-to-police-over-wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-at-ecuadoran-embassy/story-fndir2ev-1226579327514

--------------------------------

As well, one has to consider that Jemina Khan is financing in part an "unauthorised" movie on the life of Julian... Do I smell a way to recoup the 30,000 quids she put up against julian's bail?... Who knows... One could suspect there would be a bit of self-interest and self-promotion in this, is there?...

The top Swedish prosecutor pursuing sexual assault charges against Julian Assange has abruptly left the case and one of Mr Assange's accusers has sacked her lawyer.

The turmoil in the Swedish Prosecution Authority's effort to extradite Mr Assange comes as another leading Swedish judge prepares to deliver an unprecedented public lecture in Australia next week on the WikiLeaks publisher's case.

The Swedish Prosecution Authority want to extradite Mr Assange to have him questioned in Stockholm in relation to sexual assault allegations by two women.

Fairfax Media has obtained Swedish court documents that reveal high-profile Swedish prosecutor Marianne Nye has unexpectedly left the handling Mr Assange's case, effective from Wednesday, and has been replaced by a more junior prosecutor, Ingrid Isgren. The reasons for the change have not yet been disclosed.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/assange-prosecutor-quits-while-accuser-sacks-lawyer-20130328-2gwjk.html#ixzz2Ooewa6q0