It is apparent that the nation of Ecuador will now be in the frame for what American foreign policy elites like to call, in their dainty and delicate language, "the path of action." Ecuador granted political asylum to Julian Assange on Thursday for one reason only: the very real possibility that he would be "rendered" to the United States for condign punishment, including the possibility of execution.
None of the freedom-loving democracies involved in the negotiations
over his fate -- Britain, Sweden, and the United States -- could
guarantee that this would not happen ... even though Assange has not been
charged with any crime under U.S. law. [And even though the sexual
misconduct allegations he faces in Sweden would not be crimes
under U.S. or UK law.] Under these circumstances -- and after a sudden,
blustering threat from Britain to violate the Ecuadorean embassy and
seize Assange anyway -- the government of Ecuador felt it had no choice
but to grant his asylum request.
As we all know, some of
America's top political figures have openly called for Assange to be put
to death for the crime of -- well, what was his crime,
exactly, in American eyes? His crime is this: he published information
leaked to him by a whistleblower -- exactly as the New York Times, the
Washington Post, CBS, NBC, Fox News, etc., etc., do on a regular basis.
Some American leaders and media blowhards have demanded he be executed
for "treason," although, as an Australian citizen, he cannot commit
treason against the United States. Others say his leaking of classified
documents (none of them remotely as sensitive as, say, the
much-celebrated Pentagon Papers from the Vietnam Era) has put "American
soldiers in danger" -- even though America's own military and
intelligence officials have repeatedly stated that no one has been
harmed from the publication of documents on Wikileaks.
No one has been physically harmed, that is. Of course, great harm has been done to the pride of the puffed-up poltroons who strut and preen atop the imperial battlements, thinking themselves the lords of all the earth and the apple of every little peon's eye. Their crimes and lies and third-rate minds were exposed -- in their own words -- by Wikileaks: and it is for this that Assange must pay. (And be made an example of to all those who might do likewise.) Our imperial elites (and their innumerable little yapping media sycophants on both sides of the political fence) simply cannot bear to have American power and domination resisted in any way, at any time, for any reason, anywhere, by anyone. It offends their imperial dignity. It undermines their extremely fragile, frightened, frantic egos, which can only be held together by melding themselves to an image of monstrous, implacable, unstoppable power.
It also -- and by no means incidentally -- threatens to put a slight crimp in their bottom line, for the American system is now thoroughly militarized;
the elite depend, absolutely, on war, death, terror and fear to sustain
their economic dominance. As the empire's chief sycophant, Thomas
Friedman, once put it: "The hidden hand of the market will never work
without a hidden fist. McDonald's cannot flourish without McDonnell
Douglas, the designer of the F-15. And the hidden fist that keeps the
world safe for Silicon Valley's technologies to flourish is called the
US Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps." You really can't put it any
plainer than that. The only path to prosperity is through
domination by armed force. Others must die, must suffer, must quake in
fear, to preserve our comfort. This is Modern American Militarism in a
nutshell: the ruling ideology and national religion of American society
today.
Anything or anyone who threatens this dominance -- or just
disagrees with it, or simply wants to be left alone by it -- is
automatically judged an enemy of the imperial state. You must accept the
system. You must get with the program. You cannot question it. The beliefs or religion or ideology of the resister (or perceived resister) do not matter in the slightest. Even the impact (or lack of impact) of the resistance doesn't matter. It is resistance
that it is the crime. It is the refusal to acknowledge the greatness
and goodness of the strutters on the battlements, and the legitimacy of
their armed domination over the earth, and over you.
It is not enough that you obey; you must be seen to obey. You must obey cheerfully, without complaint -- just ask any of thousands and thousands of your fellow citizens who have been tasered or beaten or arrested for failing to show due deference to a police officer or security guard or any of the many other heavily armed figures out there who can stop us, hold us, put us away -- or put us down -- on the merest whim.
Although Britain is acting as the beard in this case, the government of the Nobel Peace Laureate is clearly driving the action. It is simply inconceivable that Washington will not find ways to punish Ecuador for this act of là ¨se-majestà ©. What form it will take remains to be seen (although it could begin with covert backing for Britain's violation of the Ecuadorean embassy in London). But the fragile, frantic strutters will not let this pass.
***
UPDATE: Just to make it clear, sexual assault
is a very serious matter. To say that the accusations now being made
against Assange would not constitute a crime under U.S. or UK law is not
to diminish the right of all women to be free from sexual assault in
any form.
But these concerns have nothing to do with what is
being played out in London right now. Assange has not actually been
criminally charged with sexual assault, although this claim is repeated
unceasingly in stories about the situation. [Including my post above,
when I carelessly wrote "charges" in place of "allegations"; now
corrected.] He is wanted for questioning in a case involving
such allegations; a case which was at first dismissed by a prosecutor
then reopened later by a different prosecutor. This prosecutor did not
charge Assange with a crime, but wanted to question him further in the
process of re-examining whether formal charges are warranted.
Now
here is one of the many bizarre turns in this story. Assange was in the
UK after the case was re-opened. If the prosecutors wanted to question
him, they could have done so at any time, either by coming to London or
interviewing him via video hookup. There are ample precedents in
European and Swedish law for either course. They refused to do so. (They
have also refused Ecuador's offer to have Assange interrogated in their
London embassy.) Assange has also said he would return to Sweden for
questioning if the government there would guarantee he would not be
extradited to the United States. This was also refused.
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.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).