Assange seeks asylum in Ecuador

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Assange is a shameless self-promoting coward and Correa is not a credit to the Latin American left.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

moderate heroism (translated: vapid liberal moralism) takes the thread

Oh say, I didn't see this, well done and well said.  Really your point is more apropos and certainly pithier than mine above, but I figured since everyone else was just saying 'rapist' and 'jerk' and 'scumbag' and 'leftist idiots', I thought I might express myself a little.

You and Tweed really take these things way too seriously.

Not so much, Gustaf - the point is in order to understand the main character of the story, one has to realize that he, quite naturally, does take it seriously.  No doubt you would as well were you in his shoes.

I understand the main character, I just find him unsympathetic. Perhaps interesting, but not sympathetic. Disappointingly and unevenly written, too.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I understand the main character, I just find him unsympathetic. Perhaps interesting, but not sympathetic. Disappointingly and unevenly written, too.

Really?  He's right up there with Bertie Wooster in my ranking.

Keep in mind that I, conversely, find for instance Makioka Yukiko incredibly sympathetic and fascinating.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Here's a nice video I happened to be watching, which gives an excellent view of what a fine man is Assange.

I saw the title of the video and who else was in it and closed the tab.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

If Assange were sent to the US by Sweden (which is less likely than from the UK), I somehow doubt he'd be executed - a lot of people did even more damage than he did and only got life sentences.

Still, him being thrown in jail for life would be horrible.

Not so much, considering the whole 'fled rape charges' thing.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

That actually is in some ways a quite good thing, but it still pisses me off in this particular case.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Yes, I have.  Ecuador cannot hide behind international agreements in order to shelter a criminal wanted for serious crimes in multiple countries.

But can the US and Britain hide behind similar agreements in order to shelter those accused of treason and subverting the state in countries like, say, Russia, Iran, China, etc?

This is so reminiscent of doublethink, where people are both aware of a lie yet also believe it because it's in the state's interest.

No, the West (TM) cannot with a straight face claim the right to shelter dissidents in the embassies in Russia, China, Iran, or X-istan, and then claim their sovereignty is violated when someone who hasn't even been charged with anything runs into an embassy of a country whose government they don't really like. This is not the 19th century where Britain and the US can openly trample on international laws to fit their selfish interests. The West is no longer dominant.

Get used to it.

Herp because locking people up for subverting the government is okay in a liberal democracy.

If he was right to be so ungodly afraid of extradition to the United States, why on Earth weren't extradition proceedings going on while he was in Britain?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Assange hasn't been charged with any political crimes.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Assange hasn't been charged with any political crimes.

I know, but there's plenty of people who want him to be charged with such "crimes."

And if he genuinely had to be all that worried about extradition he would have been extradited straight from Britain as it is.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The most extreme case I know of was a Catholic priest in Hungary who spoke out against communism during the Cold War, and then ended up hiding out in the US embassy for 15 years(!).

Perfect example, and thank you for educating me.

Cardinal Mindszenty was an interesting guy. Definitely a more worthy cause than that of our present coward, who entirely incidentally I just found out has apparently seen fit to trademark his name at some point.

At the very least, and no matter what people think about the Wikileaks project, Assange in general or how this whole farrago has been handled, can people please desist from trivialising rape in this manner? I realise that this forum (being, as it is, part of the internet) has an extremely strong misogynistic undercurrent and that, as such, this post is a waste of time, but all the same it isn't actually hard to avoid being an absolute [inks] on the subject.

Of course it isn't my place to do so (anymore), but can we agree that what is for you 'trivializing' an issue may be simply a matter of real political disagreement for others?  After all we could throw out the word 'trivializing' about any issue with which we disagreed with others in order to dismiss their position as inappropriate or disallowed.

It's my strongly held political, religious, moral, and personal belief that whether or not rape is to be taken seriously and held in severe disapprobation is not a question that should be opened (or reopened) for political discussion.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Again, I still think than given there is no legal procedures against him in Sweden and than the investigators only want to talk to him, the best idea is to the Sweden investigators to go in London.
That would alleviate the concerns of everyone there.

This is incorrect. He's wanted so he can be indicted for rape.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Again, I still think than given there is no legal procedures against him in Sweden and than the investigators only want to talk to him, the best idea is to the Sweden investigators to go in London.
That would alleviate the concerns of everyone there.

This is incorrect. He's wanted so he can be indicted for rape.

Well, why don't indict him right now? They don't need him on the national territory to indict him.

They need him on national territory to arrest him. They can't have an indictment hearing/arraignment/whatever they're calling it in Sweden without arresting him. Why the British didn't have the authority to pack him back off to Sweden I have no idea.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Again, I still think than given there is no legal procedures against him in Sweden and than the investigators only want to talk to him, the best idea is to the Sweden investigators to go in London.
That would alleviate the concerns of everyone there.

This is incorrect. He's wanted so he can be indicted for rape.

Well, why don't indict him right now? They don't need him on the national territory to indict him.

They need him on national territory to arrest him. They can't have an indictment hearing/arraignment/whatever they're calling it in Sweden without arresting him. Why the British didn't have the authority to pack him back off to Sweden I have no idea.

They had the authority of extrading him, but, he had the right to contest the extradition in front of courts, to delay it.
And, now, he is in an embassy, and entering it would violate international conventions and cause a diplomatic incident.

Well that explains the 'how', certainly.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I don't usually agree with Gustaf, but when I do, it's on issues like this. Quite a few of us here are acting like craven idiots.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Oh, I very strongly want somebody who is less of a sleazebag to take up Assange's mantle and keep on keeping on! It's him specifically where lieth the rot in this case.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Not at all surprised that such Lib Dem partisans as remain in Britain would take a certain tack on this issue.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Also of note, the latest YouGov poll included a couple of Assange related questions. Perhaps unsurprisingly, a large gender gap can be observed.

They can't see the bigger issue, apparently.  Or perhaps they just don't like him because he is weedy-looking

Or perhaps to them rape charges are a bigger issue than the putative wellbeing of one particular individual who has delusions of grandeur about his having pissed off the US government.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Or perhaps to them rape charges are a bigger issue than the putative wellbeing of one particular individual who has delusions of grandeur about his having pissed off the US government.

Yeah, as I said, different priorities.  They, like you, can't see the bigger picture.

The bigger picture is the fact that we've got people supporting a sleazy sex addict's attempts to flee Swedish justice, of all justices, because they like (their perceptions of) his political beliefs.

Well Julian Assange doesn't imagine the US government doesn't really like him, you know, hardly anything delusional about that.

I would submit that he imagines that they care as exceedingly much about him as he does.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Or perhaps to them rape charges are a bigger issue than the putative wellbeing of one particular individual who has delusions of grandeur about his having pissed off the US government.

Yeah, as I said, different priorities.  They, like you, can't see the bigger picture.

The bigger picture is the fact that we've got people supporting a sleazy sex addict's attempts to flee Swedish justice, of all justices, because they like (their perceptions of) his political beliefs.

I think that's unfair to opebo.  He would probably support Assange's attempts to flee rape charges even if he didn't like his political beliefs.

I don't think even opebo would consider himself, individually, to constitute 'the bigger picture'.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Moreover, Sweden isn't a banana republic. There are good reasons to believe that the Swedish legal system would handle this case in an independent and fair way.

Yeah, it's not like Sweden is Ecuador or something.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Naomi Wolf has been very much an FF on this issue.

Naomi Wolf.

Naomi Wolf.

'Overgeneralization abounds as she attempts to apply the microcosmic events of this mostly white, middle-class, liberal milieu to a whole generation....There is a desperate defensiveness in the tone of this book which diminishes the force of her argument.'--The Library Journal, on Promiscuities.

In an earlier holding-forth on the Assange case Wolf said that it's incumbent upon the woman to explicitly say no and that if she doesn't she's not to be 'treat[ed] as [a] moral adult'. Reading the article in question I see that she's doubled down on having turned rape apologist in the interests of supporting the snivelling narcissism of this Okubata Keisaburo-like figure (a self-described market libertarian, I might point out--among other things). Color me unsurprised.

___________

Okay, I'm just going to say this now, so we're clear: Rape is a bigger problem than anything that Julian Assange, uniquely, could possibly be in any position to fight.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

...we've got people supporting a sleazy sex addict's attempts to flee Swedish justice

Where do you get that sex addict stuff?  You mean because he apparently had sex?

Repeatedly, and with various people, and to the extent that he ended up in this situation, yes. Regardless of whether or not this constitutes an addiction, it's incredibly sleazy.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Where do you get that sex addict stuff?  You mean because he apparently had sex?

Repeatedly, and with various people, and to the extent that he ended up in this situation, yes. Regardless of whether or not this constitutes an addiction, it's incredibly sleazy.

Seriously?  You think that having sex repeatedly in ones life, and with several people over a period of time is 'sleazy'?  You do realize that this is the norm for human beings, right?

It's all relative, but after a certain point, yeah. Keep in mind I'm entirely aware that my thoughts on the subject aren't at all 'normal'.

...the snivelling narcissism of this Okubata Keisaburo-like figure

I'm really intrigued by this Okubata Keisaburo character you have often mentioned, and I would love to know more.  But, alas, he or she is hardly to be found through a google search.  Could you help me?  Perhaps a lengthy and detailed post explaining this reference and/or some links to translatable Japanese sources on the subject?

He's a character in Sasameyuki by Tanizaki Jun'ichirō (Keisaburo should be Keisaburō, sorry). Sasameyuki, which is available in English translation as The Makioka Sisters (でも、日本文学ですから、英語より日本語の方がいいですわ、ねえ、オペボちゃん？), is my favorite novel and I think you'd like parts of it a lot, though for different reasons than why I like it. I'd definitely recommend it to you. Okubata's a secondary character (a boyfriend, of sorts, of one of the main characters, Makioka Taeko) who's chiefly notable for worming his way out of most positions of actual responsibility even though he has at least a high enough opinion of himself not to do anything outright degrading (other than mooching. He does a bit of mooching). I feel that this is relevant to your sensibilities and core values and you might like the character quite a bit even if you don't have strong feelings about my favorites, Makioka Sachiko and Makioka Yukiko.

It would be hard for me to say more about Sasameyuki without you having actually read it, or, failing that, seen the 1983 movie adaptation, which is the most competent treatment on film to date (although given the novel's length I maintain that it would make a better self-contained television series). It's still far preferable to have read the book for an understanding of Okubata's character, as well as that of his more tragic counterpart in Taeko's life, Itakura.

I also think that you might appreciate that Okubata is not in fact the most unsympathetic male character in the novel, that 'honor' instead going to Makioka Tsuruko's profoundly boring, conventional, and at times pointlessly spiteful husband.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Chomsky is flat-out wrong about the way the Swedish justice system works.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Chomsky is flat-out wrong about the way the Swedish justice system works.

You're arguing the letter of the law, Nathan, which really has nothing to do with what everybody's talking about.

I'm trying (to no apparent avail because most people have already made up their minds on whether or not they want to spend their political energies fellating this tiresome person) to explain why the Swedish authorities could not, in fact, have done what people like Chomsky are arguing they ought to have done.