We all have ups and downs, good days and bad days. Hasty
reactions are a defense mechanism, and usually not the most effective one. If
we’re not on guard, we can act impulsively.
Criticism has a way of getting under our skin and making
us attack the source of the criticism. So before you react, give yourself a
chance to consider the comment, what it really means, and if perhaps there’s
some validity to it. As King Solomon says: “Don’t be quick to respond.”
Similarly, when someone asks you a question, think before
you answer. Don’t be afraid to say “I don’t know.” When asked for your point of
view, learn to say, “I’m not sure,” or “It seems to me…” In the long run,
you’ll gain respect.
When you hear or read something, train yourself to sum up
the central point in a few words. If you don’t take the time to think over what
you’ve learned, you’re viewing the world blindly through someone else’s eyes.
We all want to achieve great things with minimum effort.
A great sage said: “A person wants to become great overnight, and get a good
night’s sleep, too!” Realize that true growth is a long process. That’s why
deliberation is an important tool, because it forces you to slow down, exercise
patience, and stretch the limits of your powers.
When someone hurts or insults you, wait before you react.
You’re naturally on the defensive. Be careful not to say anything you’ll later
regret. Before you start shouting, pause. Catch a hold of yourself and count to
10.
I took this wise long inspirational, motivational lines
from “Rabbi Noah Weinberg” to say that Boobe Youssouf Du’ale has lost all his
credibility by first blindly praising, flattering Sillanyo government first
then after couple of months giving us a conspiratorial stories which raises so
many questions with in the society which is; where was he before? Because we
all know that there were always been corruption and mal-governance which wasn’t
something new.
Which leads to the big question.
Was he right before or wrong right now? In my opinion I
would say it is in our nature as Somalian’s to Praise and Insult at once! Am
not trying to degrade any one’s personality here but as we are all aware off
our politician’s the biggest figures of our country are well known to always
start to criticize as soon as they loose a position which always amazes me
because it shows that if i may say, because I don’t wanna offense any one by
speaking my mind that ” our leaders lack to hold dear, valuable, or
satisfactory, approve of, believe in anything”. And, this leads that we have
the responsibility to say: WE ARE TIRED OF YOUR CRABS! Because you all short
sighted to not even remember were you where standing yesterday so, don’t drag
us into your NONESENSES.
Saacid iyo Faroole oo dib u Bilaabaya Carqaladii maamulka
Punland ku hayay Gooni isu taaga Somaliland
Raysal-wasaaraha Somaliya Cabdi Faarac
Shirdoon
Raysal-wasaaraha Somaliya Cabdi Faarac
Shirdoon, ayaa Sabtidii Doraad soo gaadhay Garoowe, halkaasoo wada hadalo uga
bilaameen Madaxweynaha Maamul Goboleedka Puntland Cabdiraxmaan Faroole, oo tan
iyo markii dawlada Xasan Sh. Maxamuud xilka la wareegtay xidhiidh aan fiicanayn
la lahaa Madaxda Dawlada Somalida.
Weftiga Raysal-wasaare Saacid, ayaa kulan albaabadu u
xidhanyihiin shalay kula yeeshay madaxtooyada Puntland iyo Madaxda Dawlada
Puntland, halkaasoo la sheegay inay kaga wada hadleen sidii ay labada dhinac u
siiamba qaadi lahaayeen Heeshiisyadii
Dawladii Sh. Shariif iyo Faroole ku dhex maray Garoowe iyo Gaalkacayo sanadihii
la soo dhaafay, gaar ahaan Heshiiskii lagu kala saxeexday Magaalada Garoowe
horaantii sanadkii 2012.
Ma jiro war rasmiya oo ka soo baxay waxyaabaha kale ee ay
labada dhinac shirkaasi kaga wada hadleen, balse ilo wareedyo ku dhow dhow
aqalka madaxtooyada Maamulka Puntland, ayaa intaasi ku daray inay wax iska
yidhaahdeen la dagaalanka kooxaha Xag-jirka ee amni darada ka wada Puntland iyo
sidii Maamulka Puntland wada shaqayn ka dhow sida hada ula yeelan lahaa Dawlada
Federaalka Somaliya.
Dhinaca kale, wararka ka imanaya Garoowe waxay intaasi ku
darayaan in dawlada Muqdisho doonayso inay xidhiidh fiican la furto Maamulada
hoos yimaada ee ka jira somaliya, ka hor 7 Bisha May shirka Somalida loogu
qabanayo Magaalada London oo ay si weyn u danayso dawlada Somaliya, kaasooay doonayso in la qabto iyadoo maamulada
somaliya gacanta ugu wada jiraan, Somaliland mooyaane.
Waxaana qorshahaasi la hadal hayaa inay sidoo kale uga
danleedahay si ay wada hadalada Somaliland iyo somaliya culays ugaga hesho
Maamulada hoos yimaada, iyadoo ka hortegaysa inay Somaliland marna qiil u hesho
qadiyada madaxbanaanideeda, taasoo hadii ay dhacdo u muuqanaysa arin caqabad u
ah midaynta Maamulada ka jira Somaliya.
Madaxweynaha Maamul Goboleedka Punland ayaa dhawaan laga
soo xigtay hadal u dhadhamaya inay Somaliland iska kaashadaan sidii ay Somaliya
uga wada go’I lahaayeen, hadalkaasoo dadka siyaasadda faaqida ula muuqday
xod-xodasho siyaasadeed oo uu doonayay inuu meel fog uga soo wareego sidii uu
dawlada Xasan Sh. Maxamuudxidhiidh adag
ula samayn lahaa, isla markaana uu door muhiima uga heli lahaa talada wadanka.
Si kastaba ha ahaatee safarka raysal-wasaare Saacid ku
yimi Garoowe oo ilaa shalay isha lagu hayay ujeedada uu daaranyahay marka laga
yimaado masuuliyadda kasaaran xogogaal
u noqoshada xaalada Goboladda dalka, waxa uu ku soo beegmayaa xili dawladiisu
Olole dhaqaale raadis ah iyo mid ay Maamulada ka aragtida fog dagaal
diblomaasiyadeed oo ay ugu quus goynayso ka wado Caalamka , isla markaana mudo
todobaad ah uun ka hor Cuno-qabatayntii hubka laga qaaday.
Taasoo abuuraysa dareen ah inay maamulka Garoowe gacanta
ku dhigto, si ay markaasi meel adag oo halkii hore ka fog uga istaagto qadiyada
gooni-isutaaga Somaliland oo maamulada sidaadag uga soo horjeeda Puntland ka mid ahayd.
Should be monitored.The
government's investigation proposal endangers investigative war and
foreign reporting, writing tryckfirhetsexperten Nils Funcke.Photo: Defense
Should it be prohibited to disclose information about
abuse and mistakes that occur in the context of international military
operations in which Sweden participates? Should it be a crime to publish
information about secret prisons, torture, and the consequences for the
civilian population, for example in Afghanistan?
The questions appear on reading the Espionage and other
illegal intelligence (SOU 2012:95).
Government investigators want to introduce two new
offenses, foreign espionage and aggravated espionage abroad. As the specimen
was Counsellor Ella Nystrom spent the provisions of espionage against Sweden.
The provisions relating to foreign intelligence would be
applicable in international military operations such as ISAF in Afghanistan and
KFOR in Kosovo. It plays unlike spying not matter if we are formally at war or
not.
Just as in the case of espionage directed specifically
against Sweden breaks the constitution regulated protection for whistleblowers
in foreign espionage. But beyond the restriction of informant protection is
also suggested that the so-called crimes directory of TF expression
constitutions and YGL expanded.
It will be a crime to go to a foreign power or
organization, as "warlords in Afghanistan", provided by publishing
information the "revelation" can cause "serious harm" for a
military operation in which Sweden participates. But even in cases where the
purpose is to build opinion against or engage in news reporting about an
operation shall be an offense to publish a statement "concerning any fact
of a secret nature."
Obviously, it means a "serious but" if the
information may risk soldiers' lives are in circulation, such as elective
surgery and armament. Such data deserves strong protection but probably already
covered by a qualified confidentiality.
But the publication of a task "means that the
operation is weakened, for example by a participant ... can only attend to a
lesser degree" is under investigation constitute a serious but. This also
applies to things that are not directly related to the operation, such as
"information of a more general and political nature, such as concerns
national peer relationships or future cooperation." However, it should be
possible to publish information that leads to a "limited undermining"
of the operation. But what is meant by "limited" is not clear.
Inquiry balance between the interest in protecting
military operations and to critically examine the stakes are superficial. Any
discussion of how the proposal would affect the news agency and public opinion are
not made. The investigator is content frankly to explain that the proposal will
have "negative impacts" of expression and freedom of information, but
may be considered acceptable.
The investigation took lightly speech interest is also
reflected in several other ways.
According to the report "it is difficult to assess
the practical need" of new press and speech crimes. The need would usually
be given a decisive role in the introduction of rules especially if they affect
fundamental rights. The inquiry has not even made an attempt to estimate
demand.
According to the report, it is "not unlikely that a
foreign power or organization" could use constitutional protection to
overcome the "information covered by the proposed criminalization".
The reasoning is incomprehensible in terms of the introduction of new speech
crimes.
The investigation has not nearly been considering whether
it might be enough to expand and possibly tighten the confidentiality of
certain information in order to achieve the same goals as the introduction of
the crime of international espionage with their penalties.
The study appearing and seeking legitimacy for their
proposals by writing that the "consultation with the Committee of Freedom
of Speech." Any documented consultation in the sense that Freedom
Committee had to give their views on the Committee's proposal has not happened.
The investigation does not affect the expansion of
Sweden's obligation to provide legal assistance to other countries resulting
from the proposal. With the new offenses, other countries have the right to
expect that Swedish authorities including after graduate and holding interviews
with informants in Sweden, which has provided information about the other
country units and soldiers' conduct in an international military intervention.
The question of what impact the proposal will have on the
possibility of using coercive measures, such as phone tapping and covert raid
against editors, are not affected.
The Committee's proposals endanger an Examining war and
foreign reporting. Such journalism requires sometimes that even information
that could constitute "serious harm" for the operation or future
cooperation dragged into the light.
NILS Funcke is a freelance journalist and press freedom expert. He is
a former secretary of Yttrandefrihetskommitén-chief of the Riksdag &
Departement.
WikiLeaks is set to receive major new financial support this week from a new group that funds independent journalism organizations dedicated to transparency and accountability in government.
This comes as Mastercard, Visa, and PayPal continue to refuse to process payments for WikiLeaks, making it difficult to send donations. "We don't just need one WikiLeaks, we need 10 or 100. We have a situation in this country where government secrecy is at an all-time high," says Freedom of the Press Foundation Co-founder and Executive Director Trevor Timm. We are also joined by Guardian columnist Glenn Greenwald, who is a member of the foundation's board.
To watch the entire weekday independent news hour, read the transcript, download the podcast, search our vast archive, or to find more information about Democracy Now! and Amy Goodman, visit http://www.democracynow.org.
TRANSCRIPT !!!!!! TRANSCRIPT !!!!!!!!
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: We’re broadcasting from the Freedom to Connect conference at AFI—that’s the American Film Institute—Silver in Silver Spring, Maryland. Our guest, Glenn Greenwald, constitutional lawyer, blogger, journalist with The Guardian magazine—with The Guardian newspaper in Britain, has been talking and writing extensively about WikiLeaks as well as Bradley Manning, just gave a speech in Brooklyn yesterday and this morning is giving the keynote address here at the Freedom to Connect conference. We’re going to turn right now to our next guest. His name is Trevor Timm. He has just founded a new organization called the Freedom of the Press Foundation.
Welcome to Democracy Now!, Trevor. Talk about the foundation.
TREVOR TIMM: Thanks for having me.
Well, we started the Freedom of the Press Foundation about three months ago, and our goal here is to protect, support and defend organizations like WikiLeaks and a lot of other innovative journalism organizations that push for transparency and accountability in government. You know, a lot of times, as you’ve been talking about on the show, that we have seen an unprecedented attack on whistleblowers and a sort of criminalization of leaks, and yet leaks and whistleblowers and media organizations publishing classified information in the government interest is American as apple pie, and there has been decades and decades with which this type of—this type of activity has been protected by the First Amendment. And since we’ve seen this kind of war on whistleblowers, we wanted to start an organization that could really defend these organizations aggressively and make sure that we didn’t lose that avenue for government transparency.
AMY GOODMAN: Let’s talk about WikiLeaks. First I want to play a clip, 2011, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange receiving the award for the Most Outstanding Contribution to Journalism at the 2011 Walkley Awards. This is a clip from his acceptance speech.
JULIAN ASSANGE: We journalists are at our best when we share with activists and lawyers the goal of exposing illegality and wrongdoing, when we help to hold others to account. This award is a sign of encouragement to our people and other people who labor under difficult conditions in this task.
Our lives have been threatened. Attempts have been made to censor us. Banks have attempted to shut off our financial lifeline. An unprecedented banking blockade has shown us that Visa, MasterCard, PayPal, the Bank of America and Western Union are mere instruments of Washington foreign policy. Censorship has, in this manner, been privatized.
Powerful enemies are testing the waters to see how much they can get away with, seeing how they can abuse the system that they are integrated with to prevent scrutiny. Well, the answer is, they can get away with too much. I expected the hate speech on Fox News, but not the calls by U.S. senators for the extrajudicial assassination of myself and my staff. Neither did I expect that the United States would aggressively undermine its own Constitution to persecute me and my organization. But I can understand the Washington elite’s reaction. Washington is waging a war against the truth. It was, after all, the truth about Washington and their friends that we revealed.
AMY GOODMAN: Julian Assange accepting the award for Most Outstanding Contribution to Journalism at the 2011 Walkley Awards in Brisbane, Australia. He sent a video. He was under house arrest in Britain. Assange currently remains holed up in the Ecuadorean embassy in London, fighting extradition to Sweden, even as WikiLeaks continues to receive recognition for its work. In fact, this week it’s set to receive major new funding from the Freedom of Press Foundation, the group that funds independent journalism organizations dedicated to transparency and accountability in government. Trevor, talk about what is happening, what your organization, the Freedom of Press Foundation, is planning to do.
TREVOR TIMM: Sure. So, a major part of our mission is to crowdsource funding for organizations like WikiLeaks who are under attack, who may have gotten cut off from payment processors like Visa, MasterCard and PayPal. So, for two years now, they’ve barely been able to get any donations. And when we launched in December, we started taking donations in a tax-deductible way so U.S.—people in the U.S. could safely and relatively anonymously donate to WikiLeaks. But they can also donate to other journalism organizations that do similar work, so groups like the National Security Archives, which has the largest library of declassified material in the country, or new organizations like MuckRock, which do Freedom of Information Act work where they allow citizens to file their own requests. And so, we set this up to, you know, help organizations like WikiLeaks, but we also want to bring attention to other groups that are doing really innovative work in trying to bring transparency to government.
AMY GOODMAN: So, how are you going to get this money to WikiLeaks? Have you spoken, for example, to PayPal, Visa, MasterCard?
TREVOR TIMM: Well, you know, we’re fairly confident that they’re not going to cut us off at this point. I think the level of hysteria has died down from late 2010. And, you know, companies have had a chance to do legal research and realize that nothing that WikiLeaks is doing by publishing this information is against the law. Obviously, every day or every week newspapers around the country, like The New York Times, The Washington Post or The Wall Street Journal, publish classified information, a lot of times at a higher level of secrecy than WikiLeaks did. And, you know, if these companies were to cut us off, they wouldn’t just be cutting off WikiLeaks. It’s important to emphasize that we’re completely an independent organization from WikiLeaks, and we take donations to a variety of journalism organizations and do different types of freedom of information advocacy work. And so, they wouldn’t be cutting off WikiLeaks; they’d be cutting off the freedom of the press.
AMY GOODMAN: Glenn Greenwald, you’re on the board of this organization. Why do you feel this is so critical right now?
GLENN GREENWALD: I think the campaign to—the extrajudicial campaign to essentially punish WikiLeaks for a crime with which it had never been charged and with which it could never have been charged, to impose punishment on it, was incredibly dangerous. I mean, if the government can influence private corporations to cut off funding to media outlets that it dislikes, without having to charge them with a crime, it can shut down any form of journalism that it feels is threatening. And so, what we really wanted to do was create a network to prevent the government from ever doing this again, so if it cuts off funding to other journalism outlets, and we wanted to have an answer to what it did to WikiLeaks, as well, which is to say, we’re gone to circumvent your blockade in a permanent way so that you can never do this to any other journalistic outlet again.
AMY GOODMAN: Trevor Timm, you said in your speech yesterday here at the Freedom to Connect conference, that you want to support other WikiLeaks.
TREVOR TIMM: Absolutely. I mean, we don’t need just one WikiLeaks; we need 10 WikiLeaks or a hundred. You know, we have a situation in this country where government secrecy is at an all-time high. I mean, last year they classified 92 million documents. At this point, basically everything in the foreign policy and national security realm is considered classified, and the government thinks that it can dole out this information as it sees fit and can use secrecy to hide all sorts of potential illegality and unconstitutional behavior, like, for example, the CIA drone program and the NSA warrantless wiretapping program. And we want to be a—we want to encourage other organizations to blossom that can function like WikiLeaks, where there is an anonymous submission system, where whistleblowers can go and safely upload material to get it to the public, because right now that’s sorely lacking in this country.
AMY GOODMAN: You addressed the Freedom to Connect conference and talked about the drone program.
TREVOR TIMM: Yeah, so, you know, there are literally hundreds of times where the government officials, whether anonymous or otherwise, have talked about the drone program to journalists, and it’s been on the front pages of the nation’s newspapers for the last three or four years. Yet in court documents just two weeks ago, the government refused to even confirm or deny that the program itself exists. And, you know, given that there is also a legal rationale that has leaked that the Obama administration uses to target American citizens abroad, it is in the public’s interest to know this information, and the government should be compelled to release it. But if they’re not, we should be able to find out about it other ways, and that is through leaks.
AMY GOODMAN: Glenn Greenwald, we were just talking about Bradley Manning and the journalists who aren’t there. There’s been a lot of brouhaha over comments of Bob Woodward. Talk about the controversy around Bob Woodward, why you think that’s important. Ron Fournier, also you’ve written about, of the Associated Press. But also, where are these reporters when it comes to covering Bradley Manning?
GLENN GREENWALD: That was what was so bizarre about this whole episode, what really triggered the acrimony, the open acrimony between the White House or D.C. press corps and the White House. And you like to see acrimony. It’s very rare that you see acrimony. There should be acrimony: They’re supposed to be adversarial. But it was an extremely trivial, though revealing, episode where the president played golf with Tiger Woods. The reporters who cover the president were blocked from getting pictures of Tiger and seeing the golf game and being able to ask who won the game and what their scores were. And so they began, for the first time under President Obama, complaining about transparency. So here you have this administration that has been waging war on transparency in very damaging ways that they’ve essentially ignored, and it was sort of this that triggered it.
And then Bob Woodward was sort of criticizing the White House for not breaking the law by indicating that it would adhere to the sequestration and budget—and military cuts mandated by it and withdrawing aircraft carriers, essentially demanding that the president break the law and be more militaristic. And so you see that the press corps not only is neutral on these questions; they ignore, because they endorse, the kind of secrecy that we’re discussing on these substantive issues and want transparency only on the kind of trivial issues that they cover. And that, of course, is the principal problem.
AMY GOODMAN: You accused Woodward of being Nixonian.
GLENN GREENWALD: Yeah, I mean, he essentially was angry that President Obama’s pretense for removing that aircraft carrier from the Persian Gulf was that the law mandates military cuts. He was essentially saying George Bush would never have allowed a piece of paper to get in the way, or Ronald Reagan would never have allowed a piece of paper. And what he meant by "a piece of paper" was the law. And it was just ironic that Bob Woodward, who is—the lore was that he brought down the Nixon administration for being lawless—was essentially embracing the core Nixonian statement that if the president does it, by definition it’s not illegal. It’s sort of a—Bob Woodward is kind of the real symbol of what has happened to the U.S. media in this country from going 40 years ago to being adversarial to the government to being the ultimate insider endorsing and serving it.
AMY GOODMAN: Trevor Timm, you’re also with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, EFF. Where does that fit into all of this?
TREVOR TIMM: Well, with the Freedom of the Press Foundation, EFF is our legal counsel. And when we go back to how this organization first started, a bunch of us at EFF were talking about what we could do to solve this financial blockade problem, because we saw it as this, you know, real injustice where there was no real legal solution because these organizations like PayPal and Visa and MasterCard have terms of service where they can basically cut off organizations for anything they like. They’re written broadly so they can do that. And, of course, the pressure on these companies from the government officials was unofficial, so there was no real First Amendment lawsuit to bring. But what ended up coming out of that is we started talking to a lot of other people, and—like Glenn and like Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg and filmmaker Laura Poitras and activist and actor and director John Cusack. And so, eventually we all got together, and we wanted to start this broader organization.
AMY GOODMAN: And why is the actor John Cusack interested in this?
TREVOR TIMM: Well, he’s actually had a longtime interest in all of these issues, from free speech to whistleblowers to just accountability in government. And he is friends with a few of our board members, I think including Glenn. And when he heard about what we were doing, he was really excited, and he asked us what he could do to help. And so far, you know, he’s been hugely helpful in this area. He’s actually to start off the second bundle, where we’re supporting not just WikiLeaks, but Bureau of Investigative Journalism, Center for Public Integrity and Truthout. He actually gave a $10,000 matching donation to encourage other people to donate to these transparency organizations, so he’s been a huge help.
Jennifer Robinson, a member of Julian Assange's legal team. Photo: Supplied
JENNIFER Robinson was talented enough to become one of the lawyers
representing Julian Assange. But she may have to shine even brighter if
she ever wants to jettison the tag of ''Assange's lawyer''.
The globe-trotting human rights advocate was named joint
winner of Australian National University's young alumnus of the year
with Sebastian Robertson, founder of Batyr, a non-profit organisation
addressing mental health challenges among young people.
Ms Robinson has carved out an extensive career, away from the high-profile Assange case.
Sebastian Robertson.
She has represented exiled West Papuan leader Benny Wenda
and has been named a ''pro-bono hero'' by the British government for her
voluntary legal work.
''At the ANU I had looked up to lawyers like Geoffrey
Robertson, so it was satisfying that some years later I had the opportunity to
work alongside him on major free speech and international human rights cases,''
she said.
''Canberra is often given a hard time but I really
enjoyed my time at university there.
''I cannot emphasise how much my time in Indonesia
through my ANU program and, in particular, working with a small human rights
organisation in West Papua shaped my thinking and my career choices. The double
degree program makes for a much more well-rounded, interesting and engaging
experience that I think better equips graduates to find their niche, as I think
I have.''
Many of Assange's colleagues and supporters have fallen
out with him: British socialite Jemima Khan was the latest to publicly
criticise him by saying he could become Australia's L. Ron Hubbard.
Ms Robinson said she remained a member of his legal team
because free-speech principles were at stake.
I happen to like him - he is incredibly intelligent and
brave - and I enjoy working with him. But whether you like him or not, it is
the principles involved and the importance of WikiLeaks' work that merit
support. I also feel strongly that, as an Australian, he deserves support from
Australians - support that certainly has not come from our government."
Treasury Secretary Martin Parkinson and another human
rights lawyer, Anne Gallagher, were jointly named alumnus of the year on
Saturday night.
Even though his department was being downsized by 20 per
cent to 25 per cent, Dr Parkinson, a pragmatic economist aged 54, said he had
the best job in the country.
He will meet 37 university graduates on Tuesday, fewer
than the 50 or 60 inducted in past years.
Dr Parkinson said graduates taken at Treasury these days
tended to forego a master's degree in economics in favour of study in other
areas.
It meant they had greater breadth of knowledge and also
the need to increase their depth of economics skills.
''We tell them 'aim to change the world but have the
humility to know you don't have all the answers','' he said.
Bob Carr, the
Australian senator and foreign minister
Australia’s foreign
minister has said that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is safer in the Swedish
capital than London, despite his efforts to avoid extradition.
The 41-year-old Australian
has been granted refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy in the UK capital since June
while fighting extradition to Sweden amid sexual assault accusations. Assange
and his supporters claim he has done nothing wrong and that the charges are
part of a plot to send him to Washington to face charges for the release of
classified cables via his whistleblowing website WikiLeaks.
Now, Bob Carr, the
Australian senator and foreign minister, has said that the belief that
Washington is looking to extradite the controversial figure is “ludicrous” and
that Assange is actually safer in Stockholm than in Britain.
The comments came during
an interview with Australia’s ABC news agency, in which he said, “There is the
sense that the United States are pursuing Julian Assange. Julian Assange was in
London living freely for two years. If the United States had wanted to
extradite him they could have done so.”
“The Swedes have won in
the UK courts. It’s nothing to do with WikiLeaks. It’s about a criminal
allegation made in Sweden and that’s why he’s in the Ecuadorian Embassy,” he
said.
Carr went on to add, “If
the Swedes had him in Stockholm he’d been even more…harder for the US to
extradite, if that’s what they wanted to do then he’s been for the last two
years in the United Kingdom.”
Mr Carr’s comments come
despite Ecuadorian foreign minister Ricardo Patiño saying last year that
Assange was given asylum because there was “strong evidence” that he is likely
to face retaliation from the US and other countries that had produced the
classified information released on WikiLeaks.
