What Susie Said…

From her post Extradition:

You may have caught the grand kabuki of Great Britain insisting it is a matter of preserving international law that they extradite Julian Assange for his alleged sexual crimes.

As Ian Welsh reminds us, Chilean dictator Pinochet had women raped with specially trained dogs, and Britain wouldn’t extradite him.

 

 

About these ads

21 Responses

  1. RD, here is a CNBC video that might interest you regarding Hillary and the VP spot for 2012.

    http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000109724&play=1

    • Nope. Not interested in looking at it at all. It’s the top spot or nothing.

      • Me neither. Nobama. No mo’ .

      • That’s too bad because Hillary’s response to Jarret was what I would expect. That was the interesting part of the video.

        • Did you doubt me? For some reason, there is a whole culture out there who have forgotten that women who came of age between 1960 and 1980 did not work hard and get educated and struggle and gain experience just so we could be sidelined when some dude decides he’s entitled to the top spot. Neowwww. We did not.
          I think TPTB would be quite surprised to find out how deep and unforgiving our anger is about the way we’ve been treated lately. She’s fairly diplomatic but I guarantee you that she will leave her mark before her career in the spotlight is over. I don’t know what she is planning but you won’t have heard the last of her.

    • Rightwing claptrap. Obama’s domestic policy is far from leftwing socialism and Hillary would never describe it as such. This is a couple of gossipmongers trying to use Hillary and her high approval ratings to slam Obama.

    • All the annoying “left” and “lefty” barbs notwithstanding, HC explicitly telling Jarrett that she has zero interest in replacing Biden as VP–or words to that effect–is plausible. Forget about an HC for Biden swap. It’s not happening.

      • She’s not stupid. She knows that the right divinely hopes in dreams that will never come true that the Democrats make that stupid move. They think, probably correctly, that the guys in charge of the party would easily sacrifice their best political asset just so a guy can stay at the top of the ticket. And why not? Obama is their creature, a guy’s guy, an old boys’ club member protegee. It is the triumph of the penis, penis years squared. They know they can depend on him. What is Hillary but some power delegating weirdo with lady parts? And she’s from Yale, fergawdssakes. You can’t trust Yalies. They’re a bit too human, if you know what I mean.
        So, if it turns out that they need to make a change, they might shove Biden out for Hillary because as a VP she can’t get into any trouble. They’ll keep a short leash on her. The right would like nothing better.
        Notice how the right never talks about her replacing Obama. That’s because it would be their worst nightmare. Bwahhahahahahahaahhhh!

        • I agree with you 100%.

          Kudlow and Ed Klein are no friends of Hillary and nothing they say is worth paying attention to, but what Klein said seemed credible. Hillary nixed the VP idea when she and Valerie had a meeting at the WH about two weeks ago, for these reasons: 1. Hillary is tired (but not the main reason) 2. If Obama loses, Hillary will be seen as a loser. 3. If Obama wins, Hillary would have to defend his policies. Hillary was clear that she was not interested.

          The idea is appealing to the two parties for different reasons. I think the Republicans see Obama losing in 2012, and if Hillary is part of the losing team, she’d be unlikely to run in 2016. The Democrats see Hillary as a lifesaver for The One. I don’t know why you think I want Hillary as the VP. I wish Obama got a reality check and didn’t run in 2012. But I’m not sure that Hillary will run in 2016. If Mitt wins this year, I think he’ll be reelected in 2016.

          • It would be an opportunity for Democratic Officeholders to lock Romney’s grid. Lock it up good. Lock it down tight. It would be an opportunity for us to see if they do that and to vote against them all if any of them collaborate to advance the R agenda.

          • I didn’t say YOU wanted her as VP. I implied that I was tired of seeing the idea come up. It’s a non-starter. Oh sure, they could probably mount some PR campaign that would make it very difficult for her to say no. But at this point, she’s done enough for the party. It’s time the party did something for her. She has more than enough reasons to turn it down and no one would blame her for it. I don’t buy the tired argument. From all accounts I’ve heard from her travelling companions, she’s indefatigable. I’m sure she could use a decent vacation, or staycation in her case, but she’s not the kind of person who’s going to stay sedentary for very long.
            So, I can only conclude that she doesn’t want the job and made it pretty clear. That could mean only one thing: she still thinks she’s relevant and wants to stay that way.

  2. Regarding the U.K. and their excuse to extradite Assange, you are so right.

  3. I’ve listened to the press conference in Spanish,( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7-ioBlfJh0&feature=youtu.be ) and Patiño makes it clear that all diplomatic effort was made to obtain guarantees from Sweden and the U.K., but both countries refused. A portion of that transcript:

    Furthermore, since Assange applied for asylum in Ecuador, we have maintained high-level diplomatic talks with the United Kingdom, Sweden and the United States.

    In the course of these conversations, our country has sought to obtain strict guarantees from the UK government that Assange would face, without hindrance, an open legal process in Sweden. These safeguards include that after facing his legal responsibilities in Sweden, that he would not be extradited to a third country; that is, ensuring that the Specialty Rule is not waived. Unfortunately, despite repeated exchanges of messages, the UK at no time showed signs of wanting to reach a political compromise, and merely repeated the content of legal texts.

    http://fabiusmaximus.com/2012/08/17/42108/

  4. [...] From The Confluence What Susie Said… [...]

  5. The Rabbit Holers just can’t quit you, RD. ;)

    • Like I care.
      Isn’t it funny how they never get irate over my drug discovery posts.

      • If you don’t care why do you delete my comments?

        • I don’t care. Spammy does. Sometimes he throws them straight to the spam filter without stopping at moderation.
          Sometimes I feel like fishing them out. Othertimes, I just purge the filter without looking.
          C’est la vie.

  6. University of Michigan Professor of Middle Eastern Studies Juan Cole has recently at his blog Informed Comment put up a post about Assange in Ecuador’s Embassy and the British threat to invade the Embassy to capture Assange. Between the post and the 57 comments so far, many aspects of this affair appear to be discussed in fine-grained detail.http://www.juancole.com/2012/08/ayatollah-cameron-threatens-to-invade-ecuador-embassy-re-assange-or-whitewashing-iran-for-the-us-national-security-state.html

  7. The real reason Assange will be sent to US is that his real crime is f&^ing US without consent.

    • Heh. Too true. But Wikileaks doesn’t go after just the US, nor any mere nation. They went after some big banks — and THAT was when the persecution went nuclear. Starting with Paypal and some banks freezing donations and Assange’s legal defense fund.

      I posted a lot of material from media outside the US on the ‘sex offense’ case at my LJ at the time.

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 449 other followers

%d bloggers like this: