"If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier." ~ GW Bush"

Barack Obama has come under pressure to explain American attempts to extradite a British student accused of breaking US copyright law, after a web campaign to raise awareness of the case propelled it to the top of a presidential question-and-answer session.

A query about Richard O'Dwyer, a 23-year-old Sheffield Hallam undergraduate who faces jail if sent for trial and convicted in the US, was the most asked of more than 133,000 questions submitted to a live online Google+ "hangout" with the president broadcast on Monday.

  UK Guardian

I guess the administration has teased out the one place Americans will take a stand ... their internet.

O'Dwyer was told by Westminster magistrates court last month he was eligible to face trial in the US. He was arrested at his home in Yorkshire by British and American police in November 2010, but does not face criminal charges in the UK.

[...]

"Why are you personally supporting the extradition of British citizen Richard O'Dwyer for solely linking to copyright-infringing works using an extradition treaty designed to combat terrorism and to bring terrorists to judgement in the USA?" [Michael] Mozart asked.

The president replied: "I'm not personally doing anything; I want to make sure everybody understands. One of the ways our system works is that the president doesn't get involved with prosecution decisions or extradition decisions and this has been a decision by the justice department."

Quick, pass that buck.

I guess the killings of Osama bin Laden and Anwar al Awlaki were made at Justice, huh?

And what about Justice? The following snips are taken from an article by Jennifer Robinson who met Eric Holder at the Sundance Film Festival showing of “Slavery by Another Name” in which Holder’s wife is one of several descendants of blacks who were essentially sold into slavery after the Civil War had supposedly freed them.

Between the Emancipation Proclamation and the beginning of World War II, tens of thousands of African-Americans were arrested on phony charges, slapped with massive fines they could not pay, and then sold into labor to some of the biggest industries in the country to work off their debt.

[...]

I began to think about Eric Holder’s legacy — and the irony of his support for a film about the need to look back in order to look forward. After all, the film laments government inaction on slavery at the turn of the century. Today we lament Holder’s inaction on torture.

Holder insists on looking “forward, not back” when it comes to accountability for torture, dropping all cases of alleged illegal treatment of post-9/11 detainees by the CIA and its contractors. (Interesting that Holder, the same man advocating a forward-looking approach, said in 2010 that if the Justice Department could not identify a law under which to prosecute Assange, they would create one.)

While CIA torturers receive immunity from prosecution, Holder just announced that the Justice Department has charged a former CIA agent, John Kiriakou, for allegedly disclosing information to journalists about a CIA agent who engaged in waterboarding during interrogations.

While CIA torturers receive immunity from prosecution, Holder just announced that the Justice Department has charged a former CIA agent, John Kiriakou, for allegedly disclosing information to journalists about a CIA agent who engaged in waterboarding during interrogations.

Holder does not prosecute U.S. torturers; he prosecutes those who speak out about U.S. torture. Will Julian Assange be next?

[...]

Then I took the opportunity to ask the attorney general a few questions.

“Mr. Holder, I just wanted to say how powerful I thought your wife’s contribution was to the film and how great it is to see you here, as attorney general, supporting it.” My praise was genuine.

“Thank you, I am a very lucky man,” he responded, warmly and sincerely. I agreed.

[...]

”I am a lawyer for WikiLeaks and Julian Assange.” Slightly taken aback, a flicker of recognition crossed his face. “How do you think history will reflect upon your treatment of WikiLeaks and Assange?”

[...]

“The release of confidential information is a very serious matter, and we have to draw the line somewhere.” [he replied]

[...]

Holder continued to emphasize the grave harm he believes the leaked cables caused to U.S. national interests and “even to countries that [Assange] would likely support,” but that he “cannot get into the detail of the harm caused.” These blanket but unspecified allegations about harm allegedly caused by WikiLeaks’ publications (and those by the New York Times, the Guardian, Der Spiegel, Le Monde, El Pais and numerous other newspapers worldwide) have been common in U.S. government statements.

“Then will the Department of Justice state publicly whether or not you intend to prosecute Julian?” I asked.

Holder’s answer was short as he walked away: “We will see.”

  Salon

Damn! A man can’t even go to the movies without being asked to explain himself by some liberal activist.

And here's a clue to the immaturity of the brains of the prosecutors of American style justice:  “even to countries that [Assange] would likely support.”

Us vs. Them.  Good Countries vs.  Bad Countries.  They can't evolve or mature to the point where you can support a country but be against some of that country's policies.

And beyond even that, Julian Assange is essentially a reporter, and a true reporter doesn't report what's favorable or not to any particular entity - he reports what's happening, so what or who he supports shouldn't even be a question.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.