London cops order Julian Assange to turn himself in WikiLeaker-in-chief Julian Assange was served with an extradition notice by the Metropolitan police this morning. Scotland Yard said that the 40-year-old Australian, who holed himself up in the Ecuadorian Embassy's digs in London a week ago in an effort to seek political asylum, was required to "attend a police station at date …
Sod his favour, what about the favour of the alleged rape victims?
The world isn't about Jullian Assange, although he clearly seems to think it is. A journalist* sheltering in the Ecuadorian embassy in London because of fear of ill treatment of him in Sweeden is laughable.
*He flips between journalist and not journalist as it pleases him. Sometimes Wikileaks is a site which just puts up information unedited which it is believed to be in the national/international interest (Not journalism). Other times, they edit that information to suit their own ends and give it emotive names, as in the "collateral murder" video (Journalism.)
Yes, 'alleged'
He's not been charged with anything, even by the Swedes. They say they just want to question him. I believe he's offered to meet their investigating officers and talk for as long as they want - in the UK. On the basis of that the Swedish authorities could then decide whether to press charges. But rather than accept his offer and buy a couple of cheap air tickets to Heathrow, the Swedish authorities decide to go through the whole extradition process just so they can have a chat - with someone who is merely a suspect?
Something suspicious here - the Swedes really, really want him back in Sweden, even before he's been charged with anything. One has to wonder why? Are the Swedish cops so poorly funded they can't afford a couple of air fares and a few nights in a cheap London hotel?
Wrong; they told Assange's legal counsel in Sweden that they wanted to interview him prior to arresting him. Suddenly Assange disappeared. It is neither more nor less suspicious than that, as much as Assange luvvies would have the world believe.
In addition these interviews are always conducted in jurisdiction, not in the jurisdiction of some other country. Further, because Sweden is in the EU it is not an extradition, it is execution of a European Arrest Warrant, it being that, as an EU member, Sweden is deemed to be up to standard in certain areas, including economics, health, human rights, policing and so on.
This is not fantasy land, it is the real world, and the real world is where Assange must face justice.
I have noticed that lately the legal system of most countries have less to do with "Justice" and are more about enforcing some political agenda.
Just look at whats happened to Dotcom, McKinnon and Alfred-Adekeye;
http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/7188234/Dotcom-search-warrants-ruled-illegal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_McKinnon
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/03/cisco_charged_with_duplicity/
And I might be wrong but I seem to remember that the whole idea of extradition was to get people CHARGED with a crime back to where they can face trial. Using it to "ask a few questions" seems a little like using a RPG to swat a fly.
"He's not been charged with anything, even by the Swedes. They say they just want to question him"
This was covered in the Guardians "live blog" on the stand-off at the Ecuadorian embassy. Legal system in Sweden is different to the UK and this question session is a required step before charging him ... and I think the language used in the request for the interview basically implies that he is expected to be charged after questioning.
And if the Swedes had interviewed him in the UK and not like his answers, they'd had to get a warrant for his arrest by which time he could have been anywhere.
Whereas if he happened to be on Swedish soil at the time, then it's a lot easy to bundle him out of the interview room and into a cell.
And not only do they want him really really bad, but it's on suspicion of a complaint which was dropped by the Swedish Public Prosecutors and only reared it's ugly ugly head the week after Cablegate broke and Assange officially became persona non gratia in the States.
Of course I'm not suggesting the Yanks did anything so underhand as to lean on the Swedes to reinstate the charges and at the very least smear his reputation, if not get him locked up, but other suspicious types have have been known to mutter suggestions to such an effect...
If Assange is tried in Sweden, I doubt whether you will be called to testify as to his state of mind about wearing a rain coat.
If you think 'no always means no', you have probably missed out on some outstanding action in your younger days. "The cook doesn't always cry when she chops an onion."
The Kron vs. Assange should be quite a trial. It will be just like a divorce except there won't be any friends of the couple to testify as to their behavior. It will be a "He said (Australian). She said (Swedish)" case to be tried in Sweden.
I don't doubt that the Swedish prosecutors and their American patrons are suborning the perjury of a bunch of witnesses right now. At the trial there should be parade of Svenskers who observed the couples at the meeting, leaving the hall, getting into the car. arriving at the flat and climbing up the stairs. And, mirabile dictu, they'll all testify that Assange was pushy, shovey, loud, arrogant, bitter and not wearing a rain coat, even though there was a light drizzle.
Assange has every reason to believe he will suffer the same fate as Vercingetorix.
" Vercingetorix surrendered to the Romans after being defeated at the Battle of Alesia in 52 BC, after which he was imprisoned for five years. In 46 he was paraded through Rome as part of Caesar's triumph before being executed."
All you gentlemen who stopped if your ladies said "no", will be belatedly rewarded when you go to Washington to see Assange dragged in cage down the Mall to the Lincoln Memorial.
I think you need to reread the complaints against Assange.
In both complaints Assange did not wear protection and both women claim that they indicated that they did not want to have unprotected sex.
So yes, no means no. At the same time the second woman said she was asleep and woke to find Assange attempting to engage in sex. Asleep means that she could not consent to having sex.
Had you also paid attention to the extradition hearing, Assange's laywer pointed out that the charge of rape in Sweden, which Assange is going to be charged with, wouldn't be considered a chargeable offense. Had you also read the prosecutions response, you might have learned that rape is one of the 32 offenses #26 on the list, I think, where you don't have to consider the 'duality' of the charge. This means that all that matters is what Sweden considers rape is all that matters.
It's troubling that you don't seem to get the importance of that when a woman says no to sex that you don't feel that you have to respect their wishes. And no, I didn't miss out on anything in my 'earlier days' , except when I decided not to close the deal. ;-)
You also unfortunately give too much credit to Assange. He's a wuss for running away from the charges. IMHO had he stayed to face the charges, he could have this all behind him by now... The US has time to build their case against Assange. Let's see what happens with Manning first...
"I think you need to reread the complaints against Assange...." Your're both completely correct and completely wasting your time, Gumby. Local Fruitloop doesn't do comprehension, he is another one of the sheeple that wait to be told what to think, they're incapable of logical analysis. Fruitloop would probably believe it if A$$nut said he could walk on water.
" "I think you need to reread the complaints against Assange...." Your're both completely correct and completely wasting your time, Gumby. Local Fruitloop doesn't do comprehension, he is another one of the sheeple that wait to be told what to think, they're incapable of logical analysis. Fruitloop would probably believe it if A$$nut said he could walk on water."
Sadly this analysis is on the mark, as evidenced by the tendency of the fools to mark down posts in which writers articulate the publicly available facts, on the EAW, on Assange's Swedish counsel's behaviour, on the counsel's admission in a UK court that the Swedish police had in fact been trying to contact him about 'interviewing Assange, and so on. Indeed, when this imbroglio started some 2 years ago (is it really that long now?) and I referred to Assange as a convict people denied it, marked me down and 'shouted' at me.
I reposted the conviction data but, even so, the Assange luvvies do not seem to be capable of letting go and of realising that behavioural histories predict future behaviour. So much so that there is much speculation about the alleged victims; that they are whores, loose women, CIA women, women annoyed at the fact that the same man had screwed them in a row, and so on.
It is clear from the publicly available data that Assange likes the opposite sex, and he has demonstrated few if any scruples where breaking existing relationships is concerned. In fact it would seem to me that Assange holds some powerful attraction to the opposite sex, and that might explain why he has a following of so many naive, pulchritudinous women; men who perceive themselves as having power (e.g., and particularly, politicians) appear to become fairly hypersexual and possibly even more attractive. This would make evolutionary sense since, if they indeed occupy a position of power, they would be well placed to exert protective influence over any issue and, moreover, would likely be sufficiently affluent or command sufficient resources to bring them up successfully.
Thus, in the preceding analysis, the incident in which he 'stole' a journalist's girlfriend and adopted a faux pugilist's stance to the jilted journo, the incident would be based on this putative hypersexuality and arousal. There is another, deeper, neuropsychology perspective, but I'll wait and see if he is convicted before adducing that one. I need him first to be convicted again before I'll feel comfortable about it.
Both women are obviously familiar with the sight of the male penis both in its naked and suited up condition. Wasn't it incumbent upon them, seeing Assange's unprotected unit working its way into their genetalia, to act decisively, grab the unwelcome intruder by its balls and thereby halt its progress?
If they had done so and Assange had made them continue, these ladies would have an action of forced rape? And the Swedish authorities would have acted accordingly.
My guess is that the women's better judgement was overruled by their needy clitorises. Assange's lawyers will argue that what's 'flagrante delicto for the gander is flagrante delicto for the goose.' A casual fuckmate, who wants her partner's penis to have a condom on, is just as responsible for the illegal entrance of a non-condomed penis into her vagina as he is. If he forces her, it is rape of a different color.
If he doesn't force it in, she has given her implied consent,
I would be surprised, Gumby, if that isn't your experience as well.
As Assange only recently arrived in Stockholm, he had no flat there. Do you know whether these two volunteers invited him back to their places, hinting sex? Isn't it possible that the first accuser waited a couple of days before reporting it to the police to let the second act occur so that there would be two accusations and not one? Just asking .
Those commenters who were critical of Assange after the Wikileaks dump but before the rape charges, are the ones now who believe everything his accusers say. Those who applauded Wikileaks at the time the documents were leaked are defending Assange now. La plus ca change :)
You're attempting to spin a story that isn't. The facts of the case are that the women alleged unwanted sex and that under Swedish law constitutes rape. Its not what I or anyone here thinks but its what the Swedish prosecutor is willing to consider a case worth pursuing. She's the one who has seen the facts, determine that they are credible and worth pursuing.
Whether or not Assange had prior consensual sex or not is irrelevant. The key is that on this occasion, the sex or attempt of sex was not consensual because he didn't wear a raincoat and that he attempted to have sex with an unconscious participant.
Also what we consider rape isn't at issue. Its what the Swedish law considers rape and if the alleged complaints by the two women meet their standards of rape.
Also note that being charged doesn't mean that he would be found guilty. Just that there is enough credible evidence to pursue a case which the prosecutor thinks she can win.
Either his supporters have difficulty in holding all of the data in perceptual conciousness, or they are deliberately ignoring parts that do not suit them. Either way it does not look good, because the dancing in here is mirrored by the dancing in meat space.
Happy 4th by the by. Next stop the glorious twelfth, and bugger the PC vegetarian mob. :-)
Everything you say may be true.
Yet only the testimony of the women and Assange can establish the action of the couples in bed. As there are two women testifying against him for his criminal behavior on two different occasions, Assange thought his neck was wrung and sought asylum in the Emabassy.
Whether Assange spends the rest of his life in Knightbridge or his permitted to go to Equador, no one can say. But if he feels the deck is stacked against him and doesn't trust Sweden to give him fair trial and is worried that American termination and rendition await him, I say "Godspeed."
These things bother me. (a,The first prosecutor dropping the case, the second one picking it up -- it looks like outside interference. (b, The first victim waiting a few days to report the rape. -- This delays the police from informing Assange of the investigation of rape and thereby prevents the second one from happening. Two Swedish victims are essential to convince a Swedish jury of the frame up by the Swedish Prosecutor of Assange.
I don't trust government to tell the truth any more.
When I first learned of WMD in Iraq I didn't believe it. Then there was Hans Blix's inspection of WMD and his eventual clearing of Saddam. Then the US moved the goalposts and insisted that Blix missed them and invaded anyway. Then the invasion force confirmed Blix's observation, but, hey, we were there, the oil was ours and to err is human.
"I'll have grounds more relative than this—but the trial's not the way,
For it looks like Assange has made good his getaway>"
" Assange has every reason to believe he will suffer the same fate as Vercingetorix.
" Vercingetorix surrendered to the Romans after being defeated at the Battle of Alesia in 52 BC, after which he was imprisoned for five years. In 46 he was paraded through Rome as part of Caesar's triumph before being executed." "
Ah yes, Vercingetorix, and Julie is just like him, isn't he? Which way around would it be though? Hmm, Julie aka Neo leading the vast armies of the rebelling internetties against the vile Obamies?
Naw, I know how it went, though the internet was a different matter in Vercingetorix' days, wasn't it? In his time it was all a matter of pieces of string and tin pots, beaten until they resembled modern tins in their thinness. That way messages would be transmitted over the Rome-net and the only way for Vercingetorix and crew to find out what was going on would be to, quite literally, hack their way into this modern marvel of instant communication! Man in the middle attacks would be facilitated by interposing, at great speed, a tin in the middle of the line of communication, so that Vercingetorix, Asterix and Obelix could find out where the next attack would take place, or where a supply train would be found, by Toutatis!
And, at the end, blind Julie will fly his craft all the way to Washington and take on the vile Obamie army, sparing no Merkin ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkin ) their lives, and bringing peace back to the burned out shell of earth.
Sadly Nnnnnnneeeeeee^ha^haJulie doesn't live according to this plot, does he? He sinks back onto his bed of robots and is borne away, like jesus, having sacrificed himself for all of us, so say we all.
Gee, Scorchio, all I said was:"" Assange has every reason to believe he will suffer the same fate as Vercingetorix," which -- perhaps a soupcon of hyperbole -- is no less true than your birth certificate. So what did you do? You took it as license to blather. For shame. I thought you were cured of that unattractive habit.
Where we disagree is whether or not Rafael Correa is going to grant Assange asylum, n'est pas? And when? What, Scorchio, is the difference between Assange living in the Ecuadorean Embassy under a grant of asylum or waiting for such a grant? If you were Assange you'd find them to be identical.
Shouldn't Correa keep the world on pins and needles awaiting Ecuador's decision? Some wag here recently quoted Oscar Wilde's famous line: "The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about."
Well, I've seen Ecuador's name in the press more since June 19th, than I have in a 100 years. JA has done more for Ecuador than Simon de Bolivar.
Anyway, glad you're back sharing your wisdom with us. :o)
Wrong; he is wanted to fulfill the Swedish procedure, namely interview, then arrest. The EAW was issued for that purpose and, should the US want to extradite him the Swedish authorities will have to ask the UK for their permission. In fleeing to the UK and then fighting to stay there the idiot Assange made his worst decision; he went from a place where extradition is difficult to one where it is easy.
The man should just say yes and take whatever punishment is due. The rest is pure conspiracy phantasm.
Rubbish. Utter tosh.
If the US wanted him, they'd extradite him directly from the UK, as that's much easier than arranging for Sweden to extradite him and then extradite him again from Sweden.
Sweden aren't going to allow an extraordinary rendition either, because it'll go VERY public very quickly - how would that play in the media? Assange extradited and 'vanished' on the way over? Not going to happen.
So, ask yourself - Does it really make any kind of sense to fight two legal battles, one though a puppet and the other in person, to extradite someone instead of just one?
On top of that, the UK has a 'special relationship' with the US, including rather lenient extradition terms for any time the US want somebody. They don't have a similar agreement with Sweden.
If you're looking for a conspiracy theory, this is not one.
But obv OK to leak Mr A's name directly to the Press before any questioning.
Is it not possible that perhaps the lady in question became unhappy after much later hearing he was also banging her younger acquaintance? I mean, hypothetically ;) Plus allegedly some people might think she has scary eyes man. Whoever she is ;)
Which is very interesting to someone who watched the film 'Zeitgeist' a couple of days ago.
Far from being an antihero, Assange is actually a device of the US Government's paymasters to fuel instability in the Middle East, thus perpetuating their agenda of money making.
The uber-rich can only make money by lending it to governments to fight wars, usually on both sides.
There is almost certainly a level of CIA involvement, for whatever reason ^^^
"....he is " the computer hacker" (fucked if I know why)." Saint Jules has a previous conviction for hacking US companys' systems, for which he got a slap on the wrist and has carried a massive chip on his shoulder ever since:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange#Hacking_and_conviction
...is to get a REALLY big diplomatic pouch made up. A sleeping bag would do at a push, I suppose.
Hop in to the pouch/sleeping bag and leave the country unmolested by the Met, as we all know it has immunity from search or seizure. Job's a good 'un.
You reading this Julian? :P
My tip is:
1) Don't use the GCHQ bags, or
2) Make sure you don't let one any of the people who put up your bail money zip you in.
3) Double check that the baggage label doesn't say London to Quito via Washington DC
4) Just because Ecuador expelled its US ambassador doesn't mean they like you.
Not so cozy..... once in Sweden the US will restart proceedings to extradite him to the States where he faces BIG deterrant style jail time.
It's why many people are cynical about the rape charges which should really be taken seriously.
As it stands it is highly convient for the US that the charges in Sweden put him in a country which will be happy to extradite him to the US.... it seems the UK turned them down (genuine suprise there !)
precisely ... US/Sweden extradition arrangements don't include the "we think he's a villain ... send him over to us" that the US/UK one does ... from Sweden, even if was allowed after extradition from UK, the US would have to prove that it was likely that he'd be found guilty in the US and not just that they had a reason to take him to court as they could do in the UK.
I thought the EAW wouldn't let someone be re-extradited *for the same offence*?
If he is extradited to Sweden, I can see the questioning going thusly:
"Oh, we've decided you have no case to answer so there will be no rape charges, you're free to g- *ring ring* Hello Mr US embassy. What's that? You want to extradite Mr Assange on the entirely different charge of <insert>? Why certainly"
Lol Scorchio!! has it wrong again\still, if i could be bothered I would run through all the posts from the last thread on this:
http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/1/2012/06/19/assange_ecuadorian_embassy/
The statement which you keep mentioning: "The Swedes want to question him prior to officially charging him which is their legal procedure. He fled their jurisdiction prior to being brought in for this questioning and eventual arrest."
Re: typical US law extends to everything
Is totally wrong.....
Not sure what you've been smoking but if you do a little bit more research, you would actually find the initial warrant\accusations (not a Euro warrant) of rape was dismissed by Eva Finne which would potentially would have carried a custodial sentence and only the minor "annoyance" accusation remains.
It was then at the beginning of September that a new warrant (again not a euro warrant) was issued for both offenses again during which time assange was also undertaking a hearing for a Swedish work permit and was still in the country.
On Sept 15th he was given permission to leave the country following a 5week stay to answer the allegations made against him (the prosecutions own timeline\evidence supports this)
November 28th Swedish court issued the ECW followed shortly after by an Interpol red flag, these were both issues after he had already left the country and initially answered questions.
Sorry to disappoint... but had you actually read the court documents and transcripts you will see what you claim is what the defense counsel purports to be true. However, when under questioning, Assange wasn't free to leave the country and that the prosecutor was having conversations with Assange's attorney. The attorney was well aware that the investigation was on going.
To your point that the charges were 'dropped' by Eva Finne is incorrect. Assange was never charged with the crime in the first place. Eva Finne may have decided not to pursue charges for several reasons which the prosecutor who is pursuing charges doesn't agree with. It doesn't matter.
We can assume under advice of counsel, Assange fled Sweden in an effort to avoid the charges. While this is an assumption, it is based on the fact that his attorney perjured himself in court documents by claiming that he had no communication with the Prosecutor, or her office that they wanted to bring in Assange for questioning and eventual charges were to be filed. He may have dodged the emails, phone calls, etc... but he couldn't dodge those SMS text messages left by the prosecutor.
In short, he lost all credibility in the eyes of the UK court.
How is this for spicy meat balls: http://www.thelocal.se/32354/20110302/
"[...] District Judge Howard Riddle, accused Hurtig of deliberately misleading the court, calling him "unreliable".
[...]
Following the criticism, the Swedish Bar Association has decided to demand Hurtig provide an explanation of his actions.
"We sent Hurtig a letter last week and asked him to explain himself," Bar Association secretary general Anne Ramberg told the TT news agency.
She described Judge Riddle's statements as a "extremely serious critique" of the Swedish lawyer.
"If I'm not satisfied with Hurtig's explanation, I may go to the bar association's governing board, and after that the disciplinary committee, which has the final say on any possible consequences," she said."
Let that be noted by the Assange fan bois and gurlz.
Huh?
Really, I wonder what goes through the minds of some people.
Why would the US want to have Sweden issue another EAW?
Hypothetical situation...
He goes to Sweden. He faces his charges and if/when found guilty, pays the fine, does the potential jail time, whatever... then gets the boot from the country.
Most likely he's put on a plane back to Australia because that's the country on his passport.
There if the US wants him, they can file charges and issue an extradition warrant.
Assume that Assange will try and fight the extradition. (Note: No death penalty issue since Manning the prime conspirator isn't facing the death penalty, so Assange wouldn't either.)
Because of his actions in the UK, there is a strong argument for no bail. (Assange shows he's a runner).
Assange then sits in jail while facing the extradition and eventually he'll lose. If it takes 4 years or longer, he'll sit in an Aussie jail cell. I don't think that time would count as time served so if he faces a trial in the US and is found guilty.... he will still face 10+ years of hard time.
Note this is all hypothetical. The cruelest thing the US Could do is to ignore him and when he pisses off the KGB/FSB, they look the other way.
Scorchio!! has it right.
If the US wants Assange, he's going to be fair game once this whole rape thing goes away.
By the time Assange goes to Sweden and faces the music, Manning's court martial should be winding down. Already at the Article 32 hearing there was evidence presented of Assange communicating w Manning prior, mos the actual theft.
All of this evidence would be admissible, not to mention the possibility of Manning becoming a very cooperating witness against Assange once he is face with a very long jail term.
So its quite possible that when Assange gets the boot from Sweden, he'll be put on a plane out of the country most likely Australia so he can once again be united with his mum. (Read some of the articles in ABC ...)
Why would it be easier for the USA to get him from Sweden?
Nobody ever seems to want to answer that question but its always being touted by Assange's fanbois that it is inevitable for him to go there after Sweden. The UK has the most lax extradition agreement with the USA of anywhere (so much so it was stupid of Assange to come to the UK), so why go to such lengths to get him via Sweden?
I'd even go so far as to say it would be easier for the Americans to take him from Ecuador if he gets granted asylum than from Sweden, given the levels of corruption in Ecuador all they would need to do is hand over enough $$$ to some corrupt cops or officials to have him shipped.
Personally I doubt it will get that far, the UK police will not let him walk out of the embassy on a plane as if his asylum bid is successful, It sets a dangerous precedent that encourages other people wanted under criminal law from running to the nearest embassy to try to escape law enforcement.
The US will get him anyway if they really want him, a lot of this hype is just about buying time and making himself visible so they cant just snatch him off the street.
When you break apart the situation it comes to down to a few simple points, questions and options which are:
A) Assange hasn't done anything wrong at all
B) Assange did rape\molest\abuse (delete appropriately) the two women
C) Assange was setup by the two women because each of them found out about the other
D) Assange was setup by the two women as part of a honeypot trap
As far getting him from Sweden, at the moment the Swedish public aren't in uproar about an already one sided extradition treaty with the US. If the request came into the UK gov most of the public would go ballistic that we cant extradite terrorists because of their human rights etc but the US can have anyone they like from our shores who they think is a terrorist. When you add the fact the US would want to try him for treason which is punishable by death then the Human Rights issues could get bigger.
Same thought occurred to me... then I realised taking refuge in an embassy plays straight into the American's hands. Simply wait until he leaves the embassy (either doing a Lucan, or giving himself up, doesn't matter), grab him, bundle onto a plane to Guantanamo and let everyone *think* "he's done a Lucan". Perfect result for the CIA: Wikileaks figurehead is seen to be a cowardly rapist and is in no position to cause any trouble ever again. Wikileaks falls to pieces. Future CIA operatives get an additional intimidation line, "any more of that and we put you in the cell next to Assange".
No idea if the Swedish case is good, or a honeytrap, but Assange isn't doing his case or his organisation any good now.
Sorry no.
Why would the US screw up a good thing?
First the US has a lousy recent history of wet work for the past 10-15 years.
Second, they will be pissing on a very good ally.
Third there are other options which are just as good and will end up having the same outcome without any risk.
Sorry, but either they[Ecuador] grant him asylum or they turn him out from their embassy.
From a political perspective, Ecuador would be on thin legal grounds to provide him asylum. Assange does not face any charges at home (Australia) or any charges from the US. The only legal issue he faces is the EAW back to Sweden where they will question him and then charge him for rape.
Ecuador would be within their rights to grant asylum, however, there would probably be some repercussions from Sweden since it would be direct interference in their EAW.
IMHO, Assange messed up on this one. I wonder if anyone gave him legal advice about seeking asylum. I think it will only extend the inevitable.
@Ian Michael Gumby...
"Why would the US screw up a good thing?"
Because that's what they usually do? (Sorry, cheap jibe)
"...lousy recent history of wet work..."
Yet they keep repeating their mistakes (Another cheap jibe)
"...pissing on a very good ally"
See first answer.
I agree with you, Ecuador is unlikely to grant him asylum, so will he turn himself in or do a runner? You're right again, he messed up, maybe he'll come to his senses and turn himself in. My only difference is suggesting the US has an option of Guantanamo bay, and they might still be arrogant enough to believe they can do it with no-one noticing.
Yep, the cloak, the dagger and the suspicious black hat.
Not sure why you got down voted... At least you were honest about the cheap shots... :-)
But there is one other reason why you won't see anything happening over the short time...
This is an election year. Assanage while a prat, embarrassed the current administration. So the wont do anything until after the election. Also note that they are under attack over the fast and furious gun sting that went horribly awry. You can bet that Assange will see the shit fly after the election and after the conclusion to Manning's court martial. You can expect the book to be thrown at him and he will become someone's prison be-itch. (but I think he may actually like that based on statements from his defense team)
They won't put Assange in G Bay. They should be in a process of shutting it down, Most likely a high security Fed Prison.
Of course I'm predicting he will be charged, found guilty and sentenced to 20 + years ... It's a safe bet unless Assange pisses off his Russian handlers or the Russian mob. They don't fool around.
Sorry but no.
Assange gets the boot from the embassy, he goes directly to jail until its time to board a plane to Sweden.
After Sweden, he gets the boot back to Australia.
In Australia, he could end up losing his passport. (There was an article on this...)
He could also be denied a Visa or entry in to countries.
He could theoretically could be denied entry in to the UK.
I should think a quick letter handed in at the door was enough - it's not like he can claim he didn't hear about it from somewhere.
It would be a spiteful thing to suggest that all Assange has to do all day is flick through the news channels on the TV to see if he's still being talked about, so I won't.
Well. There are a couple of ways it could have been done...
I believe they could have served his lawyers with the papers, it would be legal in the US until the lawyers are removed from the case they are his legal representatives.
They could have arranged a meeting though diplomatic channels and had a face to face meeting with Assange. They just couldn't arrest him.
They could have served the papers to the embassy staff which would be under obligation to present them to Assange.
"He started to and then he noticed a huge butterfly net behind the back of the officer serving the summons. Remember he's neither the fool that Scorchio thinks he is or that Scorchio himself is."
Piss poor, piss poor; my point is that Assange cannot escape his fate unless he dematerialises himself en route to his escape vehicle, or adopts the previously noted escape method of using a diplomatic 'bag'. As I previously noted, having supplied a blanket/massive police 'escort', it will not be very difficult to manufacture a reason to halt the diplomatic bag's progress toward its chosen transport. The UK authorities can invoke a bogus accident or a terrorist incident and shut down a convenient area until the available supply of patience or air inside of the bag is exhausted.
The rat is in a trap, and nary an Asterix or an Obelix to save it from the jaws. I don't care how the message was delivered; that is not even a side salad, and the main course is indeed Assange, his apprehension and his delivery to the appropriate jurisdiction to face trial.
"Assange's bizarre plea for shelter from being extradited to Sweden to face allegations of coercion, sexual molestation and rape"
Except these charges are most probably the results of a honey pot operation by the US intelligence services. I figure his best bet is to start digging a tunnel :)
but MINTRUTH is in full swing when the US department of attack (DoD) and the US Department of (overthrowing) State(s) are busy changing regimes left right and centre. We're even unbelievably starting to hear mintruth 'chatter' about weapons of mass destruction again, 2 articles this week alone on WMD. Try and search outside the seemingly corrupted bubble of the news media for who is reporting, say, on the allegedly fake news being made on film sets in Qatar. "Oh, this week its Syria lets change the Libya backdrop and film another atrocity" or read occasional snippets that just hint at the shovelfuls of propaganda being thrown around e.g. Channel 4's news Blog (here for more Assangeness copied from 'The Australian') http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/syria-rebels-led-journalist-into-death-trap/story-fn3dxity-1226389675683
Having spent quite a few years working in the Middle East I would never consider Syria as a nice or happy place. I sensibly avoided it like the plague, but the mass mind warp thats seems to be going on now is amazing. I don't trust the followers of Muhammad Bin Abdul Wahab to have a post-overthrow plan for the next few domino states either...
Assange (TM) is a talented hacker who was able to run a ToR exit server and start to annoy the plans of the big boys, unravelling a teaspoon of some old secrets... He now has the inevitable and eventually painful problem that he didn't read his rights properly, remember: "You have the right to free speech as long as you're not dumb enough to actually try it"
(I like the A$$nut invent, tho you forgot the (TM); the movie, after all, is inevitable).
Free Speech isn't just an american constitutional affair drafted by your national transitional council in 1787; the UN finally got round to declaring it for the rest of the world in Dec 1966 with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
article 19 of which claims " shall have the right to hold opinions without interference," "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice".
As for stealing 'secrets' ,look at the unravelling KimDotNut affair and ask who has stolen 25 petabytes of world citizens' secrets? I'll give you a clue, it wasn't A$$nut this time. having internally archived that mountain of data, some percent of which is admittedly freetard related, you then wanted to delete it all!
"....the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights...." That article does not say it is legal to steal secrets from another country and then sell those secrets to others even if you do pretend it was all about free speech.
"....look at the unravelling KimDotNut affair...." Que? That has nothing to do with A$$nut. It's like saying the Iraqis shouldn't have put Saddam Hussein on trial because Pol Pot killed more people. If someone ends up being charged with a crime over the KimDotNut business then that's totally separate to A$$nut's little escapade.
You don't know what you are talking about.
The US constitution is very specific about which rights apply to citizens and which apply to all people that are under the US's jurisdiction - the Bill of Rights applies to all people, and all people are constitutionally entitled to 'equitable treatment under the law'. If the US did apply to extradite Assange, then they are claiming that the acts he performed fall under their jurisdiction, hence those acts are protected by the parts of the constitution that apply to non-citizens.
However in reality, constitutions aren't worth the paper they are printed on and the US' is no different: publishing military secrets is not protected by free speech in the US (for citizens or anyone else). But that is just one of the many things you do not know.
".....If the US did apply to extradite Assange...." Which they haven't done (yet), so your nonpoint is completely moot. And, if they do charge him with something under the Espionage Act (likely) then he will be tried as a "foreign party" AKA a spy - new rules apply! But he still gets his due process, he won't just be chucked into a pit and forgotten about, so plenty of time for all you sheeple to whine and gnash your teeth during the trial.
"[...] plenty of time for all you sheeple to whine and gnash your teeth during the trial."
Not me! I'll set my PVR to record every last second of the trial that is available on air over here. Then I'll master it onto Blue Ray as a keepsake for life. I'll buy a couple of very expensive bottles of French red, lots of fine food, and cook the most marvellous feast and invite my friends around, so that we can watch the conviction. Sentenced to be Bubba's biotch for the rest of his natural life. Oh bliss. Mind you, he'll have to either be acquitted or serve out a sentence in Sweden first, after which they'll have to expel him. Either way. Ain't no way he can hide after that.
First, any crime against the US regardless of where the crime took place will be prosecuted.
Lets also be clear that the publishing of the documents may have some potential legal coverage based on a journalist covering the VIet Nam war back in '71 and the US Supreme Court ruled giving some protection to the press.
What is causing Assange some royal pain is that there was evidence of his assisting Manning in the theft of the documents. This was presented at Manning's Article 32 hearing. Its this overt act of assisting in the theft that is so worrisome for Assange. If a grand jury finds the evidence credible, they could decide to charge Assange.
To your point about Assange not being an American citizen and the crime didn't take place on American soil... it doesn't matter.
Assange if charged will have the same rights as a US Citizen. Again this has nothing to do with the First Amendment. If anything he could be charged on the theft.
Assange is suspected of a serious offence and the Swedish justice system has a perfectly respectable record. There is no reason to believe he will not have a fair trial and extradition from Sweden would not be any easier than extradition from the UK.
Assange is a dick. Fortunately for him, being a dick isn't against the law however, having a dick and sticking it in someone without their consent is against the law and is an extremely serious offence and one that merits proper investigation.
The longer this goes on, the more this just looks like a rapist trying to avoid his just desserts.
No, actually, he is not.
The fact that most UK journalists do not read Swedish, nor understand Swedish law, pretty much guarantees that and form of sexual misconduct will be labelled as "rape", if only for the "headline value". This, despite the fact that very few of the sexual transgressions possible in Sweden (including that for which Assange is currently accused) would actually be considered "rape" in the UK or pretty much any civilized country*
Read the first line again. Assange is not suspected of a serious crime.
* I do not wish to portray Sverige as uncivilized, but the laws of Sweden with respect to sexual transgressions are, to put it mildly, so far out in left field that it is mind boggling for the anglo-saxon mind.
Clearly you haven't read the extradition court documents...
I pointed this out in a different thread but I will add more details here.
Under the EAW treaty, there are 32 crimes which do not require that there be a 'duality standard'. I put this in quotes because I'm going from memory and I'm not sure of the correct legal term. The point is that these specific 32 criminal charges are valid based on the jurisdiction of where the crime took place. I believe rape is #26 on the list, however again I'm going from memory... That is to say that it only matters what the Swedes define as rape for the EAW to be valid.
While you may not consider this to be rape, the Swedes do and have in court documents defined the charges Assange faces to be rape. Not Swedish courts, but at the appeal hearings in the UK.
And guess what... The UK courts agreed with them.
I personally don't understand why Assange can't be charged in abstensia ?sp? But that's Swedish Law for you. Much more civilized, don't you think?
You can bet Assange ran because he figured that the Swedes would waste the time and money on an EAW, or the court fight of an appealed extradition hearing. I wonder what happened to his Swedish lawyer. Was he censured for his actions?
So is perjury, also known as forswearing. It is the willful act of swearing a false oath or affirmation to tell the truth, whether spoken or in writing, concerning matters material to a judicial proceeding. That is, the witness falsely promises to tell the truth about matters which affect the outcome of the case. Perjury is considered a serious offense as it can be used to usurp the power of the courts, resulting in miscarriages of justice.
Whether or not these women or Assange are telling the truth will not be determined in this forum.
If you are angry JA published the documents, you believe the women. If you are glad he published them, you probably don't believe them.
I think we can all understand that.
"Whether or not these women or Assange are telling the truth will not be determined in this forum."
Quite so, quite so; the matter will be settled in the appropriate jurisdiction, once the Swedish police have followed the procedure of their local jurisdiction (which Assange interrupted by flight) namely a) interview b) charge and arrest.
He will be going. Make no mistake.
You may be right and Assange may be going to face the music in Stockholm. I prefer to wait to see some polls of the Ecuadorean Street about the popularity of Correa's decision to let him stay in the Ecuadorian and perhaps grant him asylum there. (You give the impression, Scorchio, that if you were he, you'd gladly go to Gitmo for some occasional extraordinary rendition.)
But I find it preposterous that Assange's charge of releasing all those secret documents now revolves around Swedish law, a broken, perhaps leaking, condom and Assange's 'morning wood'.
"How weary, stale, flat and unprofitable,
Seem to me all the uses of this world!
Fie on't! ah fie! 'tis an unweeded garden,
That grows to seed; things rank and gross in nature
Possess it merely. That it should come to this! "
Of course, present company excluded.
"I prefer to wait to see some polls of the Ecuadorean Street about the popularity of Correa's decision to let him stay in the Ecuadorian and perhaps grant him asylum there."
The argumentum ad populum has no epistemological soundness. Were it so then certain events between, say, 1938 and 1945 would have been justified in a certain country. Similarly, burning witches, communism witch hunts, paedophile witch hunts such as the McMartin fiasco (in which people who as children gave false evidence 'confessed' that the police and social workers steered them, see also Broxtowe, in which Xtian social workers exerted influence that suited the popular press and barking mad Xtian followers), the so-called Wenatchee sex ring (for which Det Perez will never be forgiven), the Salem trial, McCarthyism, blah, blah, blah.
[I will at this point note that Ecuador has an abominable human rights record ( http://www.hrw.org/americas/ecuador ), and that the press there have been muzzled, which is consistent with the first point; Julie seems untroubled by that, as apparently are you.]
"You give the impression, Scorchio, that if you were he, you'd gladly go to Gitmo for some occasional extraordinary rendition."
You give the impression of one who would put words in the mouths of your interlocutors, as a sly form of argumentum ad hominem, aka smearing. You also give me the impression of not being vebby bwight.
Assange will go to Sweden; when he does the Swedes cannot allow extradition to the US without first asking the UK and, bear in mind also, the Swedes have stricter extradition criteria than the UK, notwithstanding the terms of the EAW which, as has been pointed out numerously to people like you with pointy heads, requires the EAW arresting state to ask the state from which the suspect was originally transported if they approve of such a transfer to another jurisdiction. This is precisely in anticipation of 'smart moves' by outside international actors, who may think that playing EAW to an 'easy lay' will enable them to extradite a suspect under more favourable terms.
You're welcome.
You keep saying that, but you refuse to tell us why Correa will not grant JA asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy. If he does, all your extradition theories are moot. And if you are as "vebby bwight" as you say you are, then you must know there is a least a 50% chance that JA will be bunking in Knightsbridge for the foreseeable future. Of course, if that happens, when the Merry Pranksters play the Palladium next, there's a good chance the Ecuadorian Embassy will burn down.
I refuse to google a single word about extradition until Assange is refused asylum. I'll google that bridge when I get to it.
I appreciate your patience as always.
Oh sure, he can live there for as long as, for as long as they and or he can tolerate it no more. Perhaps. Perhaps he thinks that the system will forget him, wander away feeling perhaps that he is never going to leave the building. Or perhaps he fancies staying the rest of his life there; no more 16 year old brides to inseminate, eh? If you think that Assange has the patience to remain there for any significantly extended period of time, then you are dreaming more than thinking. Currently he and the system to which he has attached his parasitic body are trying to come up with solutions, for extricating this supposed 'journalist' to a land where free journalism has been squashed like a bug, an ironic something to which I notice that you and your kind choose to not pay attention and avoid when it is raised.
Fail to say why Correa will not grant asylum? My dear bullshitter, no one has asked me the question and, in any case, I make no claim to read minds. If Correa does grant asylum it will be limited to a few square feet of diplomatic 'territory' from which there is no escape, and he'll look silly as will Julie.
In the long run he'll go to Sweden unless the British take their eye off the embassy doors and windows. As to patience, mine is unimportant, Assange's is, and that of the Ecuadorian diplomatic system; tick, tock, tick, tock. Assange's more especially because he'll probably try to smuggle himself out in a box, only to find himself held up and running out of patience and air.
Finally, it's interesting to see how, with each swat at the BS you emit, you retreat to the next level of fluffy thinking. Gone is the US conspiracy theory; gone is the Gitmo BS, and the hyperinflated BS about Vercingetorix? Well, that appears to have vanished up your fundament, or into whatever other place you store your stock phrases. Oh how the silliness has faded. Bye for now, Asterix. Or whatever else you imagine yourself to be, by Grabthar's hammer/Toutatis.
("Assange takes refuge in Ecuadorian embassy" Posted Wednesday 20th June 2012 01:37 GMT)
It's no surprise the anti-Assange coven (who expected a decision last Friday) knows nothing about foreign relations and how the diplomatic gobbledygook of the moment works. Do you suppose Quito gives a rat's ass if Assange has refuge in its London Embassy without the approval of the Ecuadorean government for a couple more weeks before they give him its blessing? And while the whole world hangs on Correa's lips?
I said it before. I'll say it again to you Assange haters: Read your Machiavelli. Or go back to commenting on soccer.
"In the King's name," cried the voices without; and the hoarse cry arose again, but louder...."
"Then, came a loud knocking at the door, and then a hoarse murmur from such a multitude of angry voices as would have made the boldest quail...."
"I will give fifty pounds," cried an old gentleman from the same quarter, "to the man who takes him alive...
"The old chimney quivered with the shock, but stood it bravely. The murderer swung lifeless against the wall; and the boy, thrusting aside the dangling body which obscured his view, called to the people to come and take him out, for God's sake."
What a story!!!!!!!
Yup. Worse for him he cannot de-materialise between the embassy front door and whatever his destination is, in the same way that women who've had sex with a man who's not used a condom cannot be a little bit pregnant, or a little bit HIV infected. Somewhere in between the embassy and his way out he is corporeal, visible and nickable. Hmm. I wonder, would it make any difference if he wore a giant condom? Would the police not try to arrest him due to 'immunity'?
Oh, Scorchio. Let Julian Assange borrow your Mary Poppins umbrella so that he may float away to the Big Rock Candy Mountain and not have to worry about bending over for the soap under your watchful eye.
You used to be Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious. You can be it again. :)
"Oh, Scorchio. Let Julian Assange borrow your Mary Poppins umbrella so that he may float away to the Big Rock Candy Mountain and not have to worry about bending over for the soap under your watchful eye.
You used to be Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious. You can be it again. :)"
That's the spirit; now your behaviour is commensurate with the stupidity of the situation in which the convict, Assange, has put itself, one that you evidently supported with magic thinking, though it has to be said that the Mary Poppins umbrella is all thine and Julie's. I look forward to you maturing alongside your increasingly mature apperception of reality. Perhaps you will start to recommend a course of condign punishment for Julie, starting with a spoonful of sugar to help it 'go down'.
If you are referencing Assange's 25 charges of hacking, he plead guilty to them and was fined A$2100. He served no time. Only in the imagination of your vocabulary is he a convict.
You suffer from the internet analog of road rage. Instead commenting on the internet, you should be looking there for a cure for your disability.
He was convicted, and I'm beginning to see that you are trolling. You've been told many, many times that the Swedes cannot extradite Assange to the US without UK approval (terms of the EAW), that it would be easier to extradite him from the UK, and yet you keep raising the Sweden matter as if it were a US gambit to have him extradited therefrom to the USA: no, and it was in anticipation of such manoeuvres that the terms of the EAW were constructed.
However, and because I see what you are doing, I'll let you fester in your own oil. HTH. HAND.
<<"Persons convicted and sentenced to non-custodial sentences often are not termed "convicts".>> Whenever you can use the prejudicial, quarrelsome word to provoke an argument, we can count on you to do so.
I haven't read the English High Court's ruling on Assange. Please point out to me, in that judgement, where the English Court prohibits Sweden from extraditing Assange to America? And how can you be so sure England will not extradite him here? Has the government accept that? How has that been established ? The U.S. hasn't even charged Assange yet. Have you intelligence that they won't? And if they do and then seek extradition from England, that England will deny them?
Your mind is a quicksand of fact and truth. And a wasteland of everything noble and good.
I guess to spinmeisters like you and Rush, he's a convict. According to modern English usage, because of his age and how long ago he plead guilty, he would not not be.
"A convict is "a person found guilty of a crime and sentenced by a court" or "a person serving a sentence in prison",[1] sometimes referred to in slang as simply a "con".[2] Convicts are often called prisoners or inmates. Persons convicted and sentenced to non-custodial sentences often are not termed "convicts"
Except, of course, when MB is trying to enlist other prejudiced and faux-reasonable half-wits that MB is so fond of calling his equal.
Ahhhhhh, poor ickle Local Fruitloop is so desperate he's trying to split hairs over dictionary defintions now. You're really not going to like the next little story I have to tell, then!
I asked a mate who's a copper if A$$nut could have been charged with rape in the UK and he said it depends, but probably yes. As he explained, UK law got a shake up with the The Sexual Offences Act 2003 when it came into force on the 1 May 2004. n To quote the Act itself:
"Under section 1(1) SOA 2003 a defendant, A, is guilty of rape if A intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of B (the complainant) with his penis; B does not consent to the penetration; and, A does not reasonably believe that B consents."
A$$nut's only defence would be that he thought she didn't mean no, probably because he has such an enourmous ego he seriously believes no woman can resist his charms. Fact is, if you try to have unprotected sex with a woman and she says no, just even once, and you carry on, that is statutory rape here in the UK too. The woman doesn't have to resist, she doesn't have to say no repeatedly, she just has to say it once.
So A$$nut is not only a convict he's also a rapist. Enjoy!
A$$nut will get his political asylum granted from Ecuador. He will spend the rest of his short life jumping between Ecuador, Bolivia, Venezuela and every other leftie-run, South American "democracy", making regular and riotously silly comments about "the Evil Merkins stealing your freedom/cocaine/coffee". Those comments will grow sillier as he tries to top Chavez for the title of Chief Bolivarian Paranoid Frutiloop (expect him to throw in the odd remark about Argentina being the "rightful owners" of the Falklands because the UK courts didn't recognise his holiness). Eventually, after years of unprotected sex with the local groupies, he'll drop dead from AIDS. His blindly loyal supporters will immediately insist that he was poisoned with Polonium. By Mossad. Or MI6. Or Mossad, MI6 and Ronald McDonald, all acting together.
"A$$nut will get his political asylum granted from Ecuador."
As one of the nyms pointed out, Ecuador has an extradition treaty with the USA. Perhaps Jules isn't vebby bwight either. For sure he will need to beam himself up and then down again to avoid the land in between the embassy and, hmm, well, whatever protected territory is nearest and will get him to journalistic heaven ( http://www.hrw.org/americas/ecuador ).
Chavez might be pleased to house him, only he like his Ecuadorian friends believes in muzzling 'journalists' (if Julie still believes that he is one). Julie would have a lot to report about in South America. It will make his nipples hard with frenzied excitement, and he will find out how lucky he has been so far. Farking eejit that he is.
"....Ecuador has an extradition treaty with the USA...." I'm guessing but I bet that treaty doesn't cover "political" crimes. A$$nut is not completely stupid, and the lawyers advising him would probably have been quick to check the smallprint. And even if it went to court in Ecuador, if it looked like he was going to lose he could do a runner to Bolivia, rinse, repeat, until he runs out of options on mainland Latin America. After that, Cuba would be a safe bet.
Close, Matt, but no cigar.
"Extradition treaties often provide exceptions under which a nation can refuse to surrender a fugitive sought by another nation. Many nations will not extradite persons charged with certain political offenses, such as Treason, Sedition,.and Espionage. Refusal to extradite under such circumstances is based on the policy that a nation that disagrees with or disapproves of another nation's political system will be reluctant to return for prosecution a dissident who likewise has been critical of the other nation. But, of course, not every criminal act will necessarily be protected. For example, some treaties provide that certain crimes, such as the assassination of a head of a foreign government, do not constitute political offenses that are exempt from extradition. The rise in airplane Hijacking, Terrorism, and hostage taking in the late twentieth century led many nations to enter into multilateral conventions in which the signing countries mutually agreed to extradite individuals who committed such crimes."
Sweden has no extradition treaty with Ecuador. And as you can see above, "Many nations will not extradite persons charged with certain political offenses, such as Treason, Sedition,.and Espionage."
England will not make him stay in the Embassy long, lest they begin to look like communist Hungry and make Assange look like Cardinal Mindszenty.
I don't think South America is as bad as you say. Martin Borman and Josef Mengele enjoyed themselves immensely on the extended stay plan. :(
"Don Rothwell, professor of international law at Australian National University, said Assange could avoid the legal proceedings in Sweden and any potential charges in the United States if Ecuador granted him asylum. He said an extradition treaty between Ecuador and the US did not cover political charges. "The treaty provisions may not be broad enough to encompass US criminal charges on matters related to Assange's WikiLeaks activities and the publication of classified US government documents," Rothwell said to The New York Times."
Sorry. Can't find the original citation.
If Ecuador grants asylum to Assange, while they have an extradition treaty with Sweden, you know they're not going to extradite him there.
http://www.theweek.co.uk/law/assange-extradition/47523/can-julian-assanges-ecuador-embassy-gambit-succeed
I believe that if his asylum is granted he is treated as if he were a member of the embassy delegation for his journey to Ecuador. He can't leave the embassy for any other reason, but the travel bit probably wouldn't be interfered with by the British Police as we have a habit of playing by the rules when it comes to the diplomatic games (at least when they're being played in public).
"Just to point out he could leave the embassy as a diplomatic package [be it wrapped in brown paper or not] and transend to the nearest local international airport for transport to a country of his choice."
This has already been discussed, extensively. If a large package leaves the embassy it will probably find its progress halted in the Knightsbridge area (which is very busy anyhow) for a significantly long period of time; probably a 'terrorist' incident or a very, very serious accident. The area will be locked down and the 'package' will run short of both air and patience. The package will have no alternative but to unwrap and will be welcomed into the ever loving arms of HM Constabulary.
If there is an unattributed reduction of one heat source in the embassy this will be all the more certain.
Especially a large package with white hair.
Remember how Cleopatra was in trouble with her brother and has herself rolled into a carpet and then unrolled at the feet of Caesar? In a gender reverse, Assange could do the same thing at the feet of Queen Elizabeth. It's worth a try.
Apparently, it's a great ice breaker. I wonder if it would work with you and "melt your cold, cold heart?"
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
