Actually I just think the conclusions she draws are very very obviously false
So, can you just say that without doubling down on the mental health shaming slurs? Because, frankly, it's getting as tired as a certain party's gratuitous references to Kim Dotcom's weight and nationality.
At 9.30 am approx. Leighton Smith on Newstalk ZB tells his listeners – ringingly, emphatically – that Glenn Greenwald did not win the Pulitzer Prize. Not as a clumsy aside, but a confident declaration of fact.
His source? WhaleOil.
Which, by the bye, happens to be true if you really want to parse that particular folicle – but I think my “source” trumps Smith’s. (Columbia University maintains a comprehensive and easily accessible website for the Pulitzer Prizes. Ain't Google grand!)
The Public Service Pulitzer isn’t awarded to individuals but for “a distinguished example of meritorious public service by a newspaper or news site through the use of its journalistic resources, including the use of stories, editorials, cartoons, photographs, graphics, videos, databases, multimedia or interactive presentations or other visual material.” So, yeah, Greenwald didn't win that Pulitzer but if he wants to bask in that particular glow I’m not churlish.
Sweden should give him a guarantee that he will not be extradited. Yes, that’s special treatment, but he is a special case – an asylum seeker. The fact that they won’t give that assurance is suggestive of what they plan, IMO.
Or, you know, it's even more suggestive that Sweden 1) is a signatory to international conventions and treaties that says it just can't do that (for very good and pretty obvious reasons) and, 2) Sweden already has arefugee quota that quite frankly puts New Zealand to shame and which shouldn't be used as some bargaining chip to get Assange to answer criminal charges. Still, if he wants to seek political asylum in Sweden I'm sure his application will be duly considered. The problem is that he'd actually need to be in the country, which he's not terribly keen to do and the outstanding warrant wouldn't help either.
OTOH, if those are the ground rules, then I suggest Craig avoids rocking that particular snark.
OK, Andrew, I’ll give you this much: Paranoia is a mental illness, and I shouldn’t throw around a clinical label in a abelist manner because that shit isn’t cool. Full stop and period. I don’t actually know whether Assange is paranoid, but it simply beggars belief that he’s unaware of the nature of extradition law and how the Swedish legal system works for everyone. It’s really not that hard to do the homework.
And as Russell said in the OP, it was disturbing to see Laila Harré ” repeatedly gave the crowd the impression that Assange is ensconced in the Ecuadorian embassy because a US prosecutor wants to get at him, rather than because he refuses to return to Sweden for questioning over two alleged sex offences.” I get that plenty of people around here consider that a “distraction” from “real issues”, but I’d actually like someone who could be leading a party in the next Parliament to think a LOT harder before minimizing rape when the alleged abuser is a political ally.
One other thing: Yes, Sofie, Assange is entitled to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty in a court of law. But the women he allegedly raped have rights too, just as Tania Billingsley had the right NOT to be turned into a grotesque political football.
It’s interesting, Andrew, that you’ve totally ignored my point that the Swedish government can’t give him any “assurance” that the United States wouldn’t seek to extradite him (in which case he has the same legal protections and right to due process as anyone else); and that they can’t move the investigation to Assange’s current Kensington digs either because there's a warrant out for his arrest that can't be executed.
f the Swedish prosecutors simply want to interview him then please tell what’s wrong with any fucking room in London to conduct that interview?.
AndrewH: I really suggest you go do some homework, because that’s a serious misrepresentation of Swedish law and legal procedure. But a misconception Assage is perfectly happy to encourage.
As for your claim of “dubious mechanations within the Swedish legal system"… well, it’s funny how Assange’s repeated attempts to overturn the warrant both in England and Sweden have failed. Please keep trying to paint Assange as the real victim here, but it’s a shame nobody seems willing to point out that his refusal to go to Sweden and face the music actually affects two women whose day in court has been denied.
You know what’s making my bullshit alarm ring, Craig? The dog-whistling that because Assange is accused of a crime, giving him airtime to speak on something totally unrelated is equivalent to endorsing his character. Because it isn’t Craig.
Oh, nonsense. I've said what I have to say on the subject loud, clear and at a frequency non-canines can hear perfectly well and there's no point repeating it. Politicians and political movements tend to get judged by the company they keep, and like Russell I found it rather distubing the way Haare misrepresented Assange's circumstances.
… perhaps the fact that the Swedes would neither accede to Assange’s request for an assurance that should be go to Sweden , he would not be extradited to the US; nor accept his invitation to question him in London instead, be added to the mix? Wouldn’t YOU hear alarm bells?
You know what’s making my bullshit alarm ring here, Seriatim?
The Swedish government quite rightly wouldn’t accede to a request they have precisely no standing under domestic or international law to make, and which wouldn’t be binding on any Swedish court if they did. (The Swedish courts which, by the way, are bound by exactly the same EU laws as the UK not to extradite in circumstances where there is any risk of the death penalty or torture.) And to be perfectly cynical, I think Mr Assange and his lawyers are perfectly well aware of that fact.
I’d also suggest Julian Assange no more gets to dictate the terms on which he is investigated by the Swedish authorities when it comes to incredibly serious allegations of sexual assault, than Muhammed Rizalman does in the Billingsley case here. Assange’s paranoia isn’t the point here.
ETA: One more point, Seriatim. You know who should be really pleased that extradition requests have to be dealt with on their merits and in accordance with the applicable law by jurists rather than governmental "assurances"? Kim Dotcom.
Why don’t you just say “John Key is a Saint and cannot tell a lie, everybody else is just evil” like the MSM has been doing but with a few flouncy words thrown in.
Jesus, Steve, Do we need to have the talk about not putting foreign objects in my mouth without permission? I actually give Dotcom enough credit that I think he knew exactly what he was doing scheduling this five days before the election. Not an awful lot of time to mount an effective response is it? Not exactly a new form of electoral game playing, but a political game is precisely what it is so don't play the outraged naif because you're not that good an actor.
Huh? Most Commonwealth states are republics.
Yeah - and unless I really missed something for years Key has taken pretty much the same wishy-washy right-down-the middle line that he thinks a republic is inevitable but not while he's around and in his view it's not really a big issue. Cunliffe's slightly less tepid, but not by much. Not sure how that qualifies as a stealth republican agenda. :)
Today we will get to see which, if any, of the people claiming to be journalists in NZ are able to tell the real story instead of getting mired in the dross on all sides.
Well, maybe the "real story" could have been better reported if it wasn't told four days before the general election ay? While it makes me gag a little to say this, it's hard to credibly shit on the media for not doing in-depth reporting on a textbook October Surprise. Sorry about that, but this is the game being played.
Er you don't care that Assange is an alleged rapist? I mean, I think Assange's appearance was a pretty classic example of the flawed genius of the event, and I think that inasmuch as this was a party political event put on by people who want to run the country it's pretty relevant to look at the guest list in political terms.
+1. And we shouldn't forget (or forgive) the way Assange's lawyers and his more extreme apologists haven't missed an opportunity to smear and slut-shame the complainants, not least revealing their identites and exposing them to online harassment and intimidation. Not exactly my idea of a poster boy for civil liberties any political party should be associating with.