Julian Assange will be granted asylum, says official

reply to post by Xcathdra


So US never prisons someone without a trial/charges? Like they never assasinate their own citizens.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Your professor is wrong.

In your opinion, given that you may not know or have the full picture.

I am not saying I fully believe this by the way, I was just adding that in as a possibility. He will get rather stircrazy locked up in the embassy - but it's for a good cause so methinks he'll find ways to deal with it provided they can't get him out of there.

VIVA EQUADOR!!!

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Thats my point and you seem to be ignoring it. His entire argument is based on what he thinks the US might do. You cannot base your argument of Asylum off of an action that has never occured.

Actions that never occured? Like perhaps sweden insisting detaining him without charges. Refusing to interview him. Refusing to quarantee that he wont be sent to US. Like those actions?

Originally posted by PsykoOps

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Thats my point and you seem to be ignoring it. His entire argument is based on what he thinks the US might do. You cannot base your argument of Asylum off of an action that has never occured.

Actions that never occured? Like perhaps sweden insisting detaining him without charges. Refusing to interview him. Refusing to quarantee that he wont be sent to US. Like those actions?

From what I've been gathering, the United States (I wish I could find the quote) never stated, and categorically denied that Assange could be tried for treason, thereby removing any Death Penalty from the table. He is not a US Citizen and the only country that could try him for treason would be Australia as it is his home nation.

The United States wanted to charge him with lesser included crimes, mostly relating to the dissemination of confidential and classified documents (which is illegal anywhere) and the speech I heard a while back mentioned jail time/fines never once to put him to death. They are more interested in who gave the cables to him then they are about him publishing them, which is as it should be, if people who swore an oath and signed documents attesting to keeping classified material secret, they should be prosecuted, as Assange never made that agreement with the US Govt, they could not under our system of law prosecute him for violating that, but that he should have had the sense not to publish, illegally, documents of questionable secretiveness and thereby risking the lives of a great many people in the process. That's the crux of it, he put others lives in danger for a few minutes of fame, and that is why he's not a hero to me, just as Anonymous aren't heroes when they put the families of Police and Law Enforcement in danger when they release home address of cops.

On a side and personal note, while I applaud Ecuador for standing up to the British and Sweedes, the British have it right, he had his day in court to fight the extradition to Sweden, he is now abusing the asylum system to further his own goals of becoming a martyr, not for any great cause, but to avoid criminal prosecution in Sweden, which even the European Court deemed he should be facing..

Remember if it had been you or me, we'd be on that plane right now for Stockholm, not holed up in some embassy..

Originally posted by Kryties
Yes, it is. And no, beside the point that it may be, he has never said anything about not liking the US. He simply showed the US's corruption and atrocities to the world to make their own judgement. It's Americans who get all patriotic and up in arms and accuse him of 'hating' America.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with Sweden, England or Assange and his recent legal issues.

Originally posted by Kryties
It's this simple - if the intent were not for the US to then charge and request his extradition - why didn't the Swede's just say so when the Ecuadorian govt asked directly about it? Part of the reason the Ecuadorian govt granted asylum was because of this silence and refusal to talk about the issue - strongly suggesting that the plan was to extradite Assange fro Sweden to the US and that the Swedish charges were just to get him there.

Because as sovereign nations they cannot speculate on something from another nation that has not occured. The UK nor Sweden speak for the United States. Secondly getting those nations to make that guarantee actually violates international law including diplomatic protocol since it can undermine the legal system of another country. For an example of that read about the meeting between Sweden and the Ambassador from Ecquador.

The use of Asylum is not valid when the sole purpose is to avoid riminal prosecution. There MUST be a legitmate argument that they would not face a fair trial, which must be based on access to the legal system of the country whose law was violated.

Ecquador granted Asylum based on the US issue, not the legal issue in Sweden. DEmanding a guarantee on a topic that has not occured and from 2 countries who have no authority to make the agreement in the first place makes the actions no better than what they accuse the US of doing, which has never occured.

The extradition request from Sweden revolves around sexual misconduct charges. It has nothing to do with the United States or wikileaks.

Originally posted by Kryties
I'm not ignoring it, I'm pointing out flaws and obvious deception that gives Assange a right to be wary and a right to request asylum.

His asylum request is based on something that is non existent. There is no charges pending against assange in the US. The issues between Assange / wikileaks / US has absolutely nothing to do with Sweden, the sexual claims or Britain.

Its nothing more than smoke and mirrors by assange in order to get out of the sexual charge issues.

Originally posted by Kryties
His peers? You are joking right? How are Americans Assange's 'peers' - given that he is Australian?

Since you arent fmailiar with the Americanlegal system I suggest you familairize yourself eith it, including legal terminology. A jury of his peers are people that are selected by the prosecution AND defense. The jurors are asked question prior to being accepted as a juror. The questions asked are designed to ensure the personhas no pre-set mindset on the issue.

A jury of his peers.

Originally posted by Kryties
He will be tried in a foreign country, under foreign laws for a crime that doesn't actually exist - yet if that happened to an American the whole damn country would be up in arms crying foul about it. It's complete hypocrisy.

Thank you for proving my point and undermining your own argument. You are right, assange has not been charged with any crimes in the US nor has any request ever been made by the US to have him sent to the US. In case you forgot he is wanted by Sweden for questioning stemming from a possible violation of Swedens laws dealing with sexual conduct.

You need to get out of your mindset in terms of laws and how they are enforced and actually learn how they work both at the domestic level and how it works at the internationbal level.

Assanges argument to Ecquador and their grnating him political asylum is based on a non existent situation involving the United States. Ecquador has been duped like the majoirty of the people who dont seem to understand the issue and potential law violation is in Sweden and not the US.

Since the legal systems in the UK and Sweden are pretty much the same, and add in the fact they both are EU countries so he has access to that level of the legal system as well, there is absolutely no difference if he were in the UK or Sweden, he is dealing with the same legal system.

Since the US has differing extraditions treaty with the UK than we do Sweden, its easier to get him from the UK than it would be in Sweden. Why does he trust the UK system but not the Swedish when he has the same legal options and then some in both? As you and some others pointed out the US could just as easily kidnap him.. Well if thats your mindset then why does it matter where he is located? Sweden or the UK if we are going to kidnap it makes no difference in terms of legal challenges now does it?

This si nothing more than Assange trying to get out of one issue by constantly lying about an issue that is non existent.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

So US never prisons someone without a trial/charges? Like they never assasinate their own citizens.

People in the domestic legal system have not been jailed without charge.

Manning is not subject to Domestic law, he falls under the UCMJ (which cannot be applied to non military members).

As far as assasination goes learn how a person can loose their citizenship, including actions they can take on their own accord that is taken into account. You can find that info in the Immigration laws as its spelled out in depth.

Now, with that smoke screen aside, what does any of that have to do with Assange, the sex allegations and Sweden?

Originally posted by Kryties

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Your professor is wrong.

In your opinion, given that you may not know or have the full picture.

I am not saying I fully believe this by the way, I was just adding that in as a possibility. He will get rather stircrazy locked up in the embassy - but it's for a good cause so methinks he'll find ways to deal with it provided they can't get him out of there.

The situation Assange is in is because of Assange and no one else. If he had no intentions of going to Sweden then why did he bother going through the extradition fight in the first place? Could it be that he and his lgal team thought they could get a ruling in their favor by constantly saying US / Gitmo / treason / death penalty as many times as possible?

The judges in britain didnt fall for the tactic....

This has nothing to do with the US...
It has everything to do with Sweden, the UK and Assange...

He used the legal system until it made a decision he did not like at which point he ignored it.

Ironic...

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Actions that never occured? Like perhaps sweden insisting detaining him without charges. Refusing to interview him. Refusing to quarantee that he wont be sent to US. Like those actions?

If you did research you would realise that Swedish law is just that. Jut because soemthing does not make sense to you or I when uit comes to how they investigate / interview doesnt mean its invalid.

I find it interesting that you and others, on this topic, have made waves about actions taken by one country that interferes in the internal workings of another. So when it comes to something you actually agree with your ok being hypocritical on that point?

Ecquador cannot ask a nation to violate international laws / treaties involving other nations. Unless of course you are suggesting in this case its ok because you dont agree with the laws of those countries?

Please take the time to read up and learn how international extradition requests work. It has nothing to do with the excuses you guys keep trying to bring up.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Mate, I know how the American legal system works, as it is similar to what we have here and much of the rest of the world. It's a bit hard not to know how the American system works, the world having been bombarded with American law shows for decades now.

You're missing the point though. Americans are not Assanges peers. Aussies are, but definitely not Americans. He will not receive a fair trial in the US by his peers, but rather an unfair one in a country that is not his own by a people directly affected not only by his actions, but by US government and media propaganda also.

It would be like throwing him into a pool full of piranha.

Originally posted by Kryties
Mate, I know how the American legal system works, as it is similar to what we have here and much of the rest of the world. It's a bit hard not to know how the American system works, the world having been bombarded with American law shows for decades now.

If thats the case then I ask what the difference is between the US / UK / Swedish legal systems? Since they are based essentially on the exact same principles where is the issue?

Respectfully, I think when it comes to US law and international law I think you have a basic understanding but I dont think you completely understand all of the legalities involved. I make this comment not to attack you personally but to highlight that there must be more than a passing familiarity with the law if you are going to argue it.

Let me ask you this question -
Say you live in France and one day you find out your sister was found dead in her house. The police are investigating and declare the death a homicide and eventually find a suspect.

The suspect, who holds Argentine citizenship, is located in Bhutan. You come to find out that in addition to your sisters murder, he is wanted in Rusia for violating their laws but nothing has occured / com from the investigation in an offical manner..

France submits an extradition request and the person claims that if they are sent to France, Russia will take him, charge him, hold a show trial then kill him, so he fights extradition. His entire argument is based on actions from Russia that are not valid because Russia has never filed charges or asked for extradition.

Bhutans court reviews it all and after appeals decides to send the person to France. That individual then jumps bail and hides out in the South African Embassy. Do you think its fair for the person to avoid dealing with the charges in France because of something Russia has not done?

It is not fair to Sweden, the Swedish legal system or the people who filed the claims to have their system ignored because of an argument that is based on something that does not exist. The extradition review is based on the requesting countries laws and legal system, to ensure the person can receive a fair trial and will have full access in the same manner that swedish citizens do.

Originally posted by Kryties
You're missing the point though. Americans are not Assanges peers. Aussies are, but definitely not Americans. He will not receive a fair trial in the US by his peers, but rather an unfair one in a country that is not his own by a people directly affected not only by his actions, but by US government and media propaganda also.

No I get what you are stating. What I am telling you is peer in this case is not based on nationality. Peer is a person who does not have preconceived notions about the case or the person in general. They are asked if they can render a decision based on the evidence presented.

As far as nationality goes your argument is without foundation since its an international norm. Just because a person holds difference citizenship does not make that person immune from prosecution. Its based on does the person have the exact same level off access to the legal tht a citizen does. In this case the answer is yes, whether he is in the UK, the US or Sweden.

But, again, since there are no charges pending against him from the US, there is no legal standing to challenge his extradition to Sweden by using the US as an excuse. This is where legal standing comes in and how it affects court decisions.

Originally posted by Kryties
It would be like throwing him into a pool full of piranha.

edit on 16/8/2012 by Kryties because: (no reason given)

Actually it would be like he and his legal team saying he is being thrown into a pool of piranha except the pool has not been built, the water is on backorder and the pirhana are non existent.

Again, it has nothing to do with Sweden, the UK or Assange and the sex claim issue.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

This has nothing to do with the US...
It has everything to do with Sweden, the UK and Assange...

Lol ..this has nothing with US?
If i was on Assange place US is the last place i will go

www.peopleokwithmurderingassange.com...

JOHN HAWKINS

(Far-right blogger)

"Julian Assange is not an American citizen and he has no constitutional rights. So, there's no reason that the CIA can't kill him. Moreover, ask yourself a simple question: If Julian Assange is shot in the head tomorrow or if his car is blown up when he turns the key, what message do you think that would send about releasing sensitive American data?"

JOHN HAWKINS

(Far-right blogger)

"Headline: The CIA Should Kill Julian Assange"

RALPH PETERS

(U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel and author)

"Julian Assange is a cyber terrorist in wartime, he's guilty of sabotage, espionage, crimes against humanity -- he should be killed, but we won't do that."

"I do not believe in leaks. I would execute leakers. They're betraying our country."

STEVE GILL

(Right-wing Nashville radio host)

"Folks like Julian Assange should be targeted as terrorists. They should be captured and kept in Guantanamo Bay, or killed."

RUSH LIMBAUGH

(Right-wing radio talk show host)

"Back in the old days when men were men and countries were countries, this guy would die of lead poisoning from a bullet in the brain."

"This guy Assange could have been stopped, come on, folks. People have been shot for far less than this."

"(laughing) Ah, folks, even Greg Palkot of Fox News interviewed Assange, which means that Roger Ailes knows where he is. Ailes knows where Assange is. Give Ailes the order and there is no Assange, I'll guarantee you, and there will be no fingerprints on it."

WILLIAM KRISTOL

(Editor of the Weekly Standard)

"Why can't we act forcefully against WikiLeaks? Why can't we use our various assets to harass, snatch or neutralize Julian Assange and his collaborators, wherever they are?"

G. GORDON LIDDY

(Former White House Adviser, talk show host)

"This fellow Anwar al-Awlaki – a joint U.S. citizen hiding out in Yemen – is on a 'kill list' [for inciting terrorism against the U.S.]. Mr. Assange should be put on the same list."

DEROY MURDOCK

(Columnist for National Review)

"If convicted, [Bradley Manning] should be placed against a wall and executed by firing squad. (If extradited here, Assange deserves the same sendoff.)"

JOHAN GOLDBERG

(Editor-at-large of National Review Online)

"I’d like to ask a simple question: Why isn’t Julian Assange dead? ...Why wasn’t Assange garroted in his hotel room years ago? It’s a serious question."

DONALD DOUGLAS

(Blogger, Right Wing News)

"I won't think twice if Julian Assange meets the cold blade of an assassin, and apparently a significant number of others don't care for the guy."

SARAH PALIN

(Former US Vice Presidential Candidate)

"Julian Assange should be targeted like the Taliban"

THOMAS FLANAGAN

(former advisor to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper)

"I think Assange should be assassinated, actually. (laughs) I think Obama should put out a contract or use a drone or something…. I wouldn’t feel happy, uh, unhappy, if Assange disappeared."

BOB BECKEL

(FOX News commentator)

"A dead man can't leak stuff...This guy's a traitor, he's treasonous, and he has broken every law of the United States. And I'm not for the death penalty, so...there's only one way to do it: illegally shoot the son of a bitch."

ERIC BOLLING

(FOX News commentator)

"[Assange] should be underground -- six feet underground. ... He should be put in jail or worse, hanged in a public forum."

And the list goes on and on

Originally posted by xavi1000
Lol ..this has nothing with US?
If i was on Assange place US is the last place i will go

No the claims made against Assange come from Sweden and a violation (potential) of their laws. The "crime" supposedly occured within their jurisdiction and Assange was in country at the time of occurence. The extradition request and the possible charges he faces in Sweden have nothing to do with the US, wikileaks or the disclosure of US classified information.

Originally posted by xavi1000
www.peopleokwithmurderingassange.com...

JOHN HAWKINS

(Far-right blogger)

"Julian Assange is not an American citizen and he has no constitutional rights.

Which is wrong / flat out lie. Any person charged under US domestic law has the exact saem access that a US citizen does. Its one of the main reason we as law enforcement, when we make and arrest against a foreign national, must contact their embassy and notify them their national is in custody. The US Supreme Court has applied the constitution to non nations inside our boundaries.

How do we know this?
Lets start with the bill of rights - If you read them you will see the term used is "people" and not citizen.

How can we determine that this is what the founders meant? If you look at the requriements to be President / serve in Congress you will see they specifically used the term US citizen.

The few exceptions revolve around the right to bear arms as a non US citizen and a right to obtain employment with the FEderal government.

Absent those exception a foreign national inside the US is treated no differently than a US citizen. In actuality foreign nationals have greater proitections because of the protocols in place under international law when it comes to arrests / charging / prosecution.

Notification of their embassy / government.
The country the person is a citizen of has a right to see the charges / evidence / reports against their citizen.
The country the person is a citizen of has a right to consular access / consular access to him.
The prosecution of a foreign national can be influeneced through diplomatic relations...

Just as we see with Assange, Sweden and the UK. One would almost think Assange is a British national instead of being Australian.

Originally posted by xavi1000
So, there's no reason that the CIA can't kill him.

The CIA is not a law enforcement agency and is porihibited by charter from working inside the United States. Its an external entity. Assange is not subject to military law.

Originally posted by xavi1000
Moreover, ask yourself a simple question: If Julian Assange is shot in the head tomorrow or if his car is blown up when he turns the key, what message do you think that would send about releasing sensitive American data?"

My first question would be has an investigation been done to determine what occured.
My next question would be if evidence is recovered of an unlawful act there better be legal action taken.

I would not just point a finger until there is evidence to support the pointing.

Originally posted by xavi1000

JOHN HAWKINS

(Far-right blogger)

"Headline: The CIA Should Kill Julian Assange"

RALPH PETERS

(U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel and author)

"Julian Assange is a cyber terrorist in wartime, he's guilty of sabotage, espionage, crimes against humanity -- he should be killed, but we won't do that."

"I do not believe in leaks. I would execute leakers. They're betraying our country."

STEVE GILL

(Right-wing Nashville radio host)

"Folks like Julian Assange should be targeted as terrorists. They should be captured and kept in Guantanamo Bay, or killed."

RUSH LIMBAUGH

(Right-wing radio talk show host)

"Back in the old days when men were men and countries were countries, this guy would die of lead poisoning from a bullet in the brain."

"This guy Assange could have been stopped, come on, folks. People have been shot for far less than this."

"(laughing) Ah, folks, even Greg Palkot of Fox News interviewed Assange, which means that Roger Ailes knows where he is. Ailes knows where Assange is. Give Ailes the order and there is no Assange, I'll guarantee you, and there will be no fingerprints on it."

WILLIAM KRISTOL

(Editor of the Weekly Standard)

"Why can't we act forcefully against WikiLeaks? Why can't we use our various assets to harass, snatch or neutralize Julian Assange and his collaborators, wherever they are?"

G. GORDON LIDDY

(Former White House Adviser, talk show host)

"This fellow Anwar al-Awlaki – a joint U.S. citizen hiding out in Yemen – is on a 'kill list' [for inciting terrorism against the U.S.]. Mr. Assange should be put on the same list."

DEROY MURDOCK

(Columnist for National Review)

"If convicted, [Bradley Manning] should be placed against a wall and executed by firing squad. (If extradited here, Assange deserves the same sendoff.)"

JOHAN GOLDBERG

(Editor-at-large of National Review Online)

"I’d like to ask a simple question: Why isn’t Julian Assange dead? ...Why wasn’t Assange garroted in his hotel room years ago? It’s a serious question."

DONALD DOUGLAS

(Blogger, Right Wing News)

"I won't think twice if Julian Assange meets the cold blade of an assassin, and apparently a significant number of others don't care for the guy."

SARAH PALIN

(Former US Vice Presidential Candidate)

"Julian Assange should be targeted like the Taliban"

THOMAS FLANAGAN

(former advisor to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper)

"I think Assange should be assassinated, actually. (laughs) I think Obama should put out a contract or use a drone or something…. I wouldn’t feel happy, uh, unhappy, if Assange disappeared."

BOB BECKEL

(FOX News commentator)

"A dead man can't leak stuff...This guy's a traitor, he's treasonous, and he has broken every law of the United States. And I'm not for the death penalty, so...there's only one way to do it: illegally shoot the son of a bitch."

ERIC BOLLING

(FOX News commentator)

"[Assange] should be underground -- six feet underground. ... He should be put in jail or worse, hanged in a public forum."

And the list goes on and on

No kidding.. On the off chance you forgot the US has freedom of speech. That doesnt change simply because the person they are talking about is a hero of some kind to certain people.

However if you wish to use that argument then there is a valid argument against Assange for his exercise of speech, namely publishing classified information.

Or does your mindset only apply to the US?

The people above have absolutely nothing to do with the legal system, the prosecution of his case, the colection of evidence tc etc etc.

The issue is Assange, Swedenm, their laws and the UK. Nothing you pointed out has anything to do with Assange's situation.

reply to post by xavi1000



Julian Assange Quotes

In my role as Wikileaks editor, I've been involved in fighting off many legal attacks. To do that, and keep our sources safe, we have had to spread assets, encrypt everything, and move telecommunications and people around the world to activate protective laws in different national jurisdictions.

In the above it appears Assange is aware that in some of the countries they are in their actions violate domestic laws.

Intelligence agencies keep things secret because they often violate the rule of law or of good behavior.

With absolutely no proof and with the assumption it occurs all the time. Speaking of rush to judgment and unfair "persecution".

Stopping leaks is a new form of censorship.

Except when it comes to anything that deals with Julian Assange. He was pissed that details of the Swedish case were leaked. He got pissed and threatened legal action against a British newspaper when they received a second submission of all of the wikileak files. Assange stated it was his material and if they publish it he would sue for financial loss.

That's a problem. I mean, like any sort of growing startup organization, we are sort of overwhelmed by our growth. And that means we're getting enormous quantity of whistleblower disclosures of a very high caliber, but don't have enough people to actually process and vet this information.

And when it got to much and his donations dropepd off because of it, he opted to just skip this step. Again demonstrating that he knew the info released in unredacted form could cause major problems.

The supply of leaks is very large. It's helpful for us to have more people in this industry. It's protective to us.

Which means he would like to see the legal challenegs spread around instead of it just coming back to him and his organization.

True information does good.

Again except when it deals with Assange in which case anyone who speaks against him is lying.

I can keep going but there is no point in doing so and let me explain why.

They have nothing to do with Sweden, the sexual misconduct claims or his extradition coupled with his subsequent violation of British law by ignoring the law the moment it ruled against him.

Again Assange apparently is above the law, something he accuses others of doing.

reply to post by Xcathdra


I get your point ..but mark my words ..if Assange ever steps on US soil he will die there ...in custody, in jail, "suicide".. etc etc

In my last post to you I added info the the second section (portion where the blogger stated foreign nationals have no protections under the US constitution). I dont think it changes your response but just so you are aware I made some additions after you responded.

Originally posted by xavi1000
I get your point

..but mark my words ..if Assange ever steps on US soil he will die there ...

From what?

Think that through to the end. If the US were going to kill Assange why do you think it would occur on US property? People make the argument that the US will just kidnap him so why would they wait for him to be on US soil to do anything that rediculous? Why would they care about extradition nrequests?

This is one of my pet peeves.. How is making that type of claim no different / hypocritical to people stating the charges in sweden are trumped up?

Unless you are one of the parties who knows, its nothing but speculation based on unfounded information. What would he die from and why? Do you not think that if Assange is killed there would be no investigation to find out why and by whom? Its like me stating if Assange goes to Sweden he will be found guilty and killed.

Originally posted by xavi1000
in custody, in jail, "suicide".. etc etc

Speculation based on facts that are not in evidence / present.

If you think its appropriate to use speculation / personal opinion to make your case then why should that not be a 2 way street with Assange?

You guys demand 100% proof of charges against assange yet you have no issues ignoring that same standard when it comes to groups you dont agree with / like / support / etc what have you. The Us has not filed charges nor have they put in an extradition request yet you guys seem to know the outcome and how it occurs.

reply to post by Xcathdra


You do realize that there is nothing in laws in uk or sweden to have done the interviews they want? In fact there is precendence in swedish law for doing exactly that. Not to mention the international agreements like mutual legal assitance that can be used in cases like this.

Xcathdra believes he lives in a world where all these rules and laws are completely followed 100% by the nations that harbor them. What he doesn't seem to - or refuses to - understand, is that these laws were only created to give people like himself a false sense of security, that there is justice in the world and that all will be well... because we have rules to follow and surely everyone must follow them!

The reality? These laws can be twisted and shaped, rewritten or trashed. Using the power of the media, evidence can be fabricated, facts can be manifested all into the eyes of the beholder. Reality cannot always be proven by facts, sometimes we just have to look to our common senses and go on a hunch.

reply to post by Navieko


Good point being the NDAA thing. I'm not an expert on it or anything but I see it popping up everywhere. If they can detain US citizens without a trial then why not foreign nationals?

reply to post by Xcathdra


Stop it with gibberish, at least admit the fact that US has a dark history, like the Mafia, people are scared of US. We saw what happened to Anwar al-Awlaki, we saw what happened to Iranian scientists, to innocent people around the world who were kidnapped etc.

All of these actions are terrorism, no one trusts a terrorist nation, and European nations are known to bow down to US will. I'm sure that's why Assange chose a country other than Europe to seek Asylum.

We know what happens to people who irritates US, so it is fair and sensible for Asasnge to seek asylum.

US and Israel both have a dark history, people fear them both, for example the individual who reported on Israeli nuclear weapons was imprisoned for 18 years, most of which he spent on solitary confinement, imagine that. The man was drugged and abducted in Italy by Mossad, brought to Israel, then locked up for 18 years. Surely, people should still be talking about this.