[QUOTE=ewmayer;515327]"The investigation ... was later dropped because he had evaded the arrest warrant" is your spin [/QUOTE]Just to be clear -- I question your assertion that the statement is "spin" at all. It seems to me that this would entail one of the following.

1) The statement by the Swedish prosecutors is fabricated.

2) The statement was made, but was untruthful.

3) The statement was made, and is factually correct, but is misleading.

I don't know which (if any) you subscribe to, or whether your definition of "spin" is something else entirely, like "differs from the Communist party line." :grin:

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;515401][i]My[/i] spin? Seriously? The passage was copy-pasted from the April 12 news article I linked to in my previous post. That article is [url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47891737]here[/url]. Since when am I running the BBC?

[b]EDIT:[/b] The article also mentions[/QUOTE]

I saw you quoting from one of your previous posts, and being busy, did not follow the entire link chain. Fine, it's Beeb's spin, quoted by you. I say spin because there are other possible reasons the Swedes dropped the case, like, say, the prosecution failing to pursue it with any vigor, for instance by interviewing Assange in the Ecuadorean embassy. Such an interview was in fact arranged but fell apart at last minute, with conflicting he-said/she-said claims as to why. (Wikipedia: "Assange says that his Swedish lawyer was not actually permitted to be present during the interview, among many other complaints concerning the length and irregularities of the process and events leading up to it.") Such notable lapses of prosecutorial zeal pervade the case, e.g. "On 20 November 2014, the Swedish Court of Appeal refused Assange's appeal, upholding the 2010 detention order, though at the same time issuing a statement criticising the prosecution for not having done more to advance the case by proceeding with an interrogation of Assange."

Now I prefer to return to the big picture:

[url=https://consortiumnews.com/2019/04/30/vips-extradition-of-julian-assange-threatens-us-all/]VIPS: Extradition of Julian Assange Threatens Us All[/url] | Consortium News

And w.r.to the latest "failed coup in Venezuela" (it was really more of a clown-car stunt, in which Greedo and a handful of idiots dumb enough to follow him briefly occupied a small stretch of a highway bridge near an air base):

[url=www.unz.com/tsaker/behold-the-breathtaking-weakness-of-the-empire/]Behold the Breathtaking Weakness of the Empire![/url] | The Unz Review

Accurate translation between 2 languages is hard enough;
translation between 2 legal systems is even harder as the concepts used can differ in subtle ways.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;515570]<snip>
Such notable lapses of prosecutorial zeal pervade the case, e.g. "On 20 November 2014, the Swedish Court of Appeal refused Assange's appeal, upholding the 2010 detention order, though at the same time issuing a statement criticising the prosecution for not having done more to advance the case by proceeding with an interrogation of Assange."
[/QUOTE]Alas, "lapses of prosecutorial zeal" in sexual assault cases -- all the way down to police, and sometimes underscored by judges sentencing convicted rapists -- is an oft-told tale here in the good ol' USA. I suspect this phenomenon transcends the particulars of any specific country's legal procedures.

I have noted the failure of Guaido to inspire a wider revolt in the Venezuelan military. I had previously noted that [i]Il Duce[/i] presuming to "order" the Venezuelan military to overthrow Maduro made it practically impossible for them to do so, even if they wanted to.

The fizzling of the "revolt" conjured a mental image of John Bolton and/or Elliot Abrams sitting in stunned bemusement, saying something like, "But-but-but -- this [i]should[/i] have worked. It [i]did[/i] work in Guatemala!"

That was in 1954. Times have changed. The failure of the Bay of Pigs invasion, and of the Contras to overthrow Noriega, should have given these guys a clue to this.

Reports of Mike Pompeo "ordering" the Russians to get out of the way of "restoration of democracy" have me shaking my head. It's really pathetic. The Admin is huffing and puffing, but is being ignored.

When the magnitude of the debacle becomes so clear that even [i]Il Duce[/i] becomes aware, he may fire Pompeo, Abrams, and others. If his head doesn't explode first.

BTW: Regarding [quote]Now I prefer to return to the big picture:[/quote]I've heard the line "You've got to look at the big picture" in any number of movies and TV dramas. Also in real life. It is [i]never[/i] spoken by one of the good guys.

[url=https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/05/deploying-bombers-middle-east-warning-iran-190506011851708.html]Bolton: US deploying bombers to Middle East in warning to Iran[/url] | Al Jazeera -- "Surrender your sovereignty or else", par for the course for the Bomb Walrus's kind of 'diplomacy'. It seems Bolton convinced Trump to include a similar ultimatum to Kim Jong-Un in the latest US/NK summit, causing said summit to fail, predictably.

[url=https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/05/05/despite-international-law-which-would-make-it-illegal-pompeo-claims-us-attack]Despite International Law Which Would Make It Illegal, Pompeo Claims US Attack on Venezuela “Would Be Lawful”[/url] | Common Dreams -- The whole "Rule of Law" thing only applies to the sh*thole countries.

[url=https://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2019/05/boys-go-to-baghdad-men-go-to-tehran.html]Boys Go to Baghdad. Men Go to Tehran[/url] | DownWithTyranny
[quote]The Trump administration is the latest to ride that train. It’s now the stated policy of the United States to aggressively reduce all Iranian exports “to zero”:
“President Donald J. Trump has decided not to reissue Significant Reduction Exceptions (SREs) when they expire in early May,” the White House said in a statement. “This decision is intended to bring Iran’s oil exports to zero, denying the regime its principal source of revenue.”

Strong words indeed.

Yet it’s one thing to declare a sanctions regime that tries to prevent all Iranian oil from reaching the market; Iran has dealt with sanctions before and survived. It’s another to classify all oil owned by the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC), an affiliate of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, as the property of a terrorist organization, as the U.S. has in effect done — and then declare an international sanctions regime against that oil, with no waivers, sanctions that affect China, India, Turkey, Japan and South Korea.

Those sanctions started May 1. If no one backs down, this path leads to war.[/quote]
Follows with an analysis by former UN weapos inspector Scott Ritter:
[quote]By linking the bulk of Iran’s oil exporting capacity to the IRGC, the United States has opened the door to means other than economic sanctions when it comes to enforcing its “zero” ban on Iranian oil sales. Any Iranian oil in transit would be classified as the property of a terrorist organization, as would any Iranian vessel carrying oil.

Likewise, any vessel from any nation that carried Iranian oil would be classified as providing material support to a terrorist organization, and thereby subject to interdiction, confiscation, and/or destruction. This is the distinction the world is missing when assessing Iran’s current threats to close the Strait of Hormuz. It’s one thing to sanction Iranian entities, including the IRGC—Iran has historically found enough work-arounds to defeat such efforts. It is an altogether different situation if the Unite[d] States opts to physically impede Iran’s ability to ship oil. This would be a red line for Iran, and a trigger for it to shut down all shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.[/quote]

PEPE ESCOBAR: The Eagle, the Bear and the Dragon
 

[URL]https://consortiumnews.com/2019/05/06/pepe-escobar-the-eagle-the-bear-and-the-dragon/[/URL]
"Pepe Escobar, a veteran Brazilian journalist, is the correspondent-at-large for Hong Kong-based Asia Times. His latest book is “2030.”"
[QUOTE]Once upon a time, deep into the night in selected campfires across the deserts of Southwest Asia, I used to tell a fable about the eagle, the bear and the dragon – much to the amusement of my Arab and Persian interlocutors.

It was about how, in the young 21stcentury, the eagle, the bear and the dragon had taken their (furry) gloves off and engaged in what turned out to be Cold War 2.0.

As we approach the end of the second decade of this already incandescent century, perhaps it’s fruitful to upgrade the fable. With all due respect to Jean de la Fontaine, excuse me while I kiss the (desert) sky again.

Long gone are the days when a frustrated bear repeatedly offered to cooperate with the eagle and its minions on a burning question: nuclear missiles.

The bear repeatedly argued that the deployment of interceptor missiles and radars in that land of the blind leading the blind – Europe – was a threat. The eagle repeatedly argued that this is to protect us from those rogue Persians.

Now the eagle – claiming the dragon is getting an easy ride – has torn down every treaty in sight and is bent on deploying nuclear missiles in selected eastern parts of the land of the blind leading the blind, essentially targeting the bear.[/QUOTE]

Which New War Next: Iran or Venezuela? By Jacob G. Hornberger
 

[URL]http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/51576.htm[/URL]
[QUOTE]Pity President Donald “America First” Trump, Secretary of State (and former CIA Director) Mike Pompeo, National-Security Advisor (and Cold War fanatic) John Bolton, and Special U.S. Representative to Venezuela (and Cold War fanatic) Eliott Abrams. Knowing that the American people have grown weary with their forever wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Yemen, these four interventionists can’t decide whether to initiate a new war against Venezuela or against Iran or against both. They just know that they want a new war, an exciting war, a winnable war against a poor Third World country, a war that will cause Americans to forget about the ongoing fiascoes in the Middle East and Afghanistan and that will hopefully restore America to greatness through “mission-accomplished” conquest, bombing, death, destruction, and regime-change. One can easily imagine the arguments that must be taking place in the White House: “Iran! They ousted our Shah from power!” “No, Venezuela! It’s part of the worldwide communist conspiracy to take over America!”

Ideally from their standpoint, the choice will be made easier for them if either Iran or Venezuela strikes first. After all, let’s not forget that the Constitution, which is supposedly the law of the land, requires a congressional declaration of war before the president and his army can wage war. Moreover, after World War II, the Nuremberg War Crimes declared it to be a war crime for one nation to initiate an attack on another nation.

Not that any president concerns himself with the Constitution and with Nuremberg principles. .....[/QUOTE]

o [url=https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2019/05/why-everyone-in-the-u-s-who-counts-wants-julian-assange-dead.html]Why Everyone in the U.S. Who Counts Wants Julian Assange Dead[/url] | naked capitalism -- Guest post by Thomas Neuberger of [i]Down With Tyranny[/i]

o [url=https://truthout.org/articles/us-illegally-evicts-protectors-from-venezuelan-embassy/]U.S. Illegally Evicts Protectors From Venezuelan Embassy[/url] -- Like I keep saying, "International law" only applies to sh*thole countries.
Related:
[url=https://consortiumnews.com/2019/05/09/turnkey-tyranny-on-the-streets-of-washington/]"Turnkey Tyranny" on the Streets of Washington[/url] | Consortium News

o [url=https://www.ft.com/content/1e59341a-77fa-11e9-be7d-6d846537acab]Donald Trump says he hopes US can avoid war with Iran[/url] FT -- Wanna avoid war with Iran? Hmm, maybe stop trying to foment it? Firing that mad bomber John Bolton would be a great first step in that regard.

o [url=https://theintercept.com/2019/04/26/in-case-brought-by-school-speech-pathologist-texas-federal-court-becomes-the-third-to-strike-down-pro-israel-oath-as-unconstitutional/]In Case Brought by School Speech Pathologist, Texas Federal Court Becomes the Third to Strike Down Pro-Israel Oath as Unconstitutional[/url] | Glenn Greenwald | The Intercept
[quote]Such laws are indisputably designed to outlaw and punish political activism that lies at the heart of the First Amendment’s free speech guarantee. As the court adeptly described the targeted political activism: “The BDS movement—referring to boycotts, divestment, and sanctions—arose in response to Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory and its treatment of Palestinian citizens and refugees.” It is “[m]odeled after the South African anti-apartheid movement” and “seeks to pressure the Israeli government to end its occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, and Golan Heights, end discrimination against Arab/Palestinian citizens of Israel, permit Palestinian refugees to return to their homes, and otherwise comply with international law.”

As The Intercept has often documented, the attempt to criminalize or otherwise outlaw activism against the Israeli government is easily one of the greatest threats to free speech both in the U.S. and the West generally, if not the single greatest threat. The anti-BDS laws in particular have been rapidly proliferating in the U.S., directly threatening core free speech rights of American citizens in the name of protecting a foreign country.

As this map, previously published by The Intercept and prepared by Palestine Legal, illustrates, and as the court correctly observed, “twenty-five states have enacted legislation or issued executive orders restricting boycotts of Israel,” and “in every state to consider such legislation, the proposed measures have passed by considerable margins.”[/quote]
And lest one be led to think that this is a peculiar form of Christian-religious red state nuttiness:
[quote]Leading politicians continue to support such laws. One of the most vocal proponents is the Democratic Governor of New York Andrew Cuomo, who boasted in a tweet: “If you boycott Israel, New York State will boycott you.” That tweet touted a Washington Post Op-Ed written by the governor justifying his executive order to boycott any companies that boycott Israel – even though Cuomo himself had ordered a boycott of [i]two American states[/i] (Indiana and North Carolina) to protest their anti-LGBT laws. And as The Intercept reported in January, the [i]very first bill[/i] the new Chuck-Schumer-led U.S. Senate considered was one to bolster and endorse these state laws.[/quote]
But, 2 steps forward, 3 steps back: [url=https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20190517-germany-votes-to-define-bds-as-anti-semitic/]Germany votes to define BDS as anti-Semitic[/url] | Middle East Monitor

[QUOTE=ewmayer;517109]
But, 2 steps forward, 3 steps back: [URL="https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20190517-germany-votes-to-define-bds-as-anti-semitic/"]Germany votes to define BDS as anti-Semitic[/URL] | Middle East Monitor[/QUOTE]


These retarded suckers... Sorry from Germany.

Germany, from its past, is quite sensitive to these things... We work in German companies in Asia from.. last century, longer than 20 years and had a lot of (wonderful) German colleagues (beside of others, not so wonderful, like everywhere in the world). Sometimes we (like in collective we) talk about these things, and we (like in royal we) have to tendency to make racist jokes (mostly related to gypsies, etc but we take the fun part of it, there is nothing "racist" there, otoh, we personally know and have gypsy friends who we won't exchange for 20 other people each). We always get little apostrophes from our German colleagues, or strange looks, following such jokes.

But yes, that vote is a bad move... :sad:

[QUOTE=LaurV;517218]Germany, from its past, is quite sensitive to these things... We work in German companies in Asia from.. last century, longer than 20 years and had a lot of (wonderful) German colleagues (beside of others, not so wonderful, like everywhere in the world). Sometimes we (like in collective we) talk about these things, and we (like in royal we) have to tendency to make racist jokes (mostly related to gypsies, etc but we take the fun part of it, there is nothing "racist" there, otoh, we personally know and have gypsy friends who we won't exchange for 20 other people each). We always get little apostrophes from our German colleagues, or strange looks, following such jokes.
[/QUOTE]


I agree that history has had its impact on the things germans may be joking about.
Here is satire video illustrating the dilemma (in german):
[URL="https://deref-web-02.de/mail/client/aL0v_Nr8-6I/dereferrer/?redirectUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fyoutu.be%2FCdBQ1mh8kFo"]https://youtu.be/CdBQ1mh8k[/URL]


[QUOTE=LaurV;517218]
But yes, that vote is a bad move... :sad:

[/QUOTE]


Most perplexingly, I do not see why they should have taken a position at all, given that the discussion seems to be far from settled among jews/Israelis:
[URL="https://deref-web-02.de/mail/client/biBxDIuhGp4/dereferrer/?redirectUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fbds-kampagne.de%2F2019%2F05%2F15%2Fein-aufruf-an-die-deutschen-parteien-bds-nicht-mit-antisemitismus-gleichzusetzen%2F"]http://bds-kampagne.de/2019/05/15/ein-aufruf-an-die-deutschen-parteien-bds-nicht-mit-antisemitismus-gleichzusetzen/[/URL]