Some of the skeptics I listen to seem to try the arguement were he genuine, he would have not received a "platform".

I think they have confused (or wished to conflate) hearing about Assange with hearing from him.

In fact, without the help of a minority of news outlets like RT, the man's audience would have been effectively reduced to something negligible.

You have to ask yourself whether you can remember voice as easily as his face, or whether you can remember something he said as easily as you can recall something that has been said about him.

In honesty yes; I heard more said about him than from him. And in hindsight, either for or against, everybody seems to have an opinion about him but this only came about AFTER his name started to hit the headlines of the MSM. Prior to that few people knew about Wikileaks and even fewer could recognize the name Assange, myself included. I’ve been aware of wikileaks for years (bit a nightmare to navigate that site) but I had no idea who ran it, I could had checked but I didn‘t deemed it necessary at the time.

What I find interesting is that he’s touted as a “whistleblower” when technically he isn’t. He provided a medium for the real whistleblowers to come forward.

Quite right AJFA, in fact I think a large part of the urgency to get their hands on him, and perhaps part of the reason why he has not been shot is that they wish to question him about the whistleblowers that he was a medium for..

Well, when I say question, I mean "interrogate".

Well "advanced interrogation".

Okay torture.

No doubt they’ll try to get the names out of him, just look what happened to nearly everyone (or was it indeed everyone?) he interviewed on his RT show. Hard to keep a show in the air if the host and guests are locked up...

and Justice for All wrote:
Reading about tha FBI mob landing on them, was another depressing story about how US forces are moving towards a global juristiction. Non American citizens are clearly the Economy Class of the world: as one of the american media types said

"In Assange’s case, he’s not an Amer­ican and so he has no con­sti­tu­tional pro­tec­tion"
And this is echoed in the article you linked
You are all potential terrorists. It matters not that you live in Britain, the United States, Australia or the Middle East. Citizenship is effectively abolished. Turn on your computer and the US Department of Homeland Security's National Operations Center may monitor

The only difference is that unlike the Australian John Pilger, the first guy thinks this is a GOOD thing.

Not that "constitutional protection" would do much good either. Look at Manning (and I’m sure many others not as prominent as him). ...and there are plenty of 'American citizens' locked up in Guantanamo.

and Justice for All wrote:
You are right, of course. To quote your namesake: Liberty and justice for All .....that can afford it..

and Justice for All wrote:
Cheers for that justice.

Regardless of how it made me feel to read it

To those interested, I just found these 2 blogs. Both concentrate on the Wikileaks/Assange case, lots of updates, articles and info:

thisdayinwikileaks.blogspot.co.uk/

ferrada-noli.blogspot.it/

thanks AJFA for the links: brilliant

nice avi btw

Make no mistake, Assange is being used as an example. When all of those politicos are wishing CIA assassination and what have you, and Assange's name appears on extradition and court rulings, it says Assange, but in context it means "all whistleblowers". This is meant to send a strong message to any one who may want to leak info to the public.

Whistleblowers can really throw a cog into certain types of wheels. They are dangerous to certain agendists, but certainly not to the security of the population at large....

Julian Assange seeks asylum in Ecuador embassy
Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is seeking political asylum at Ecuador's London embassy, the country's foreign minister has said.
"Ecuador is studying and analysing the request," Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino told reporters in Quito.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18514726

Bloody good move eh He may well have a chance there anorl though it does seem Ecuador is a tad beholden to the USA and UN.

Though this is from wikishite:
"The United States and Ecuador have maintained close ties based on mutual interests in maintaining democratic institutions; combating cannabis and cocaine; building trade, investment, and financial ties; cooperating in fostering Ecuador's economic development; and participating in inter-American organizations. Ties are further strengthened by the presence of an estimated 150,000-200,000 Ecuadorians living in the United States and by 24,000 U.S. citizens visiting Ecuador annually, and by approximately 15,000 U.S. citizens residing in Ecuador. The United States assists Ecuador's economic development directly through the Agency for International Development (USAID) program in Ecuador and through multilateral organizations such as the Inter-American Development Bank and the World Bank. In addition, the U.S. Peace Corps operates a sizable program in Ecuador. More than 100 U.S. companies are doing business in Ecuador".

Now there's a twist!

oioioi wrote:
I was aware of theis: "In November 2010, Ecuador's deputy foreign minister said the country was offering residency to Assange." but it seemed to me merely a gesture.

Ahhhh I didn't know that mikey. Well said Mrs Mum

Thanks dub!

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18519380

www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jun/20/jul...ecuador-embassy-live

gas is cheap in ecuador, the weathers good, and the food is great.

smart choise

It's natural and obvious that the State would see the flight to the Embassy as a breach of bail conditions. Let's face it, it is

So personally I regard this morning's statement from Scotland Yard as well nothing really. This is now ALL about whether Ecuador is prepared to withstand pressure and IF they see really do see Assange as being politically targeted as far as I can tell.

I'm surprised he didn't end up in Iceland.
I suppose that was just an empty 'promise' too.