Assange granted asylum by Ecuador after US refused to rule out charges Wikileaker Julian Assange has been granted political asylum by Ecuador. The Australian geeklord, who is sheltering in the South American country’s London embassy, was granted asylum out of concern he’d face persecution in the West, Ecuador’s foreign minister Ricardo Patino said this afternoon. Assange™ faces extradition to …
József Cardinal Mindszenty had to hole up in a US Embassy for 15 years. Wonder if the UK will make Assange wait that long. Maybe after a year or two Assange will get really mad and the Ecuadorian government will be smart enough to make him a citizen of Ecuador and have him research methods of cyberware for them against certain other nations...
Can't help but think that it doesn't matter if he is Australian Citizen or Ecuadorian Citizen he will still be arrested on GB soil.
What has changed is that it will now be more difficult to get an Ecuadorian out of the Ecuadorian Embassy.
"Keep hearing the name Pinochet mentioned...."
I bet you think that all modern Germans are responsible for the behaviour of their forebears too.
Watch out for this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/9480944/Julian-Assange-to-issue-statement-in-front-of-embassy-haven.html
I hope that he remains on embassy property. Not really. I want him to lose his balance and fall on to the land in front of the embassy, presumably that will be the hall outside the flat in which the embassy is located.
Now if only New Zealand would show us another example of how to not fall over yourselves to hand over people who are obviously not terrorists, but people we simply don't like very much. I would be happier thinking my country isn't the overbearing empire the rest of the world says it is. These days it is difficult to think that way without being completely ignorant of world events.
I see what you did there, but maybe you forget the shrugging frog eating/lentil munching boat bombing incident some time back. It kind of depends on the political influence, rather than the rule of law, (which if phrased properly means everyone's guilty of something).
The problem is a bit more complex, because it's not just about the UK. Assange (tm) has managed to create a massive diplomatic incident by basically accusing TWO sovereign states of not following their own laws. If that wasn't enough, the git has now managed to draw Equador into this fight as well.
If I were Assange (tm) I would start keeping away from the windows and check my food very carefully in the dark.
The Wikileaks threat of releasing everything at once when something happens to Assange (tm) will happen at some point anyway, so no government is going to lose much sleep over that. Conclusion: him getting an acute case of lead poisoning or the slower route of polonium enriched meals now appears to be much more on the cards than it was 24h ago.
Making him a martyr is not going to matter much either if we take into account the reduction in popularity he has caused all by himself..
"Making him a martyr is not going to matter much either if we take into account the reduction in popularity he has caused all by himself.."
Except he hasn't really, amongst the masses. Just look at the comments on the BBC story that seem to have completely forgotten that he's accused of a crime and bail-jumping. Just imagine instead for a moment the (lack) of public sympathy if that was a greasy looking nobody from Bognor (no offence, Bognites: I'm sure it's a lovely place). The majority still swallow the "It's all lies and the US will extradite him and hang him" line of crap that he's spewed, sadly (If you don't believe me, just watch the downvotes on this). He's still a hero in the eyes of many.
The truth is that a humiliated Assange is so much better for the US (and indeed the UK) than a dead or extradited to the US one. All the US really has to do is sit back and watch him make a tit of himself, make no move to extradite him or raise a finger against him, and then have all his paranoid media whoring come to nothing, making him look like what he is: A guy trying to escape rape charges by leveraging the media.
The only people who actually want him dead right now are the conspiracy theorists, so they can say "Ooohhh... It was the CIA/Mossad/Illuminanti". The CIA are probably dead happy to have him as "Accused multiple rapist, a fugitive from the authorities in two countries". I know if I were in charge of his case at Langney, I'd be sipping a mojito, cackling and rubbing my hands with glee at the moment.
"Just look at the comments on the BBC story that seem to have completely forgotten that he's accused of a crime and bail-jumping."
This comprehensively deals with the angles from k00ks on Reg forums who've been dribbling rubbish into the story:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19287569
The game is approaching its natural end. Time for Julie to come out and kiss the fat lady as she warbles.
So if Plod is going to arrest him on sight, how to get him out?
Conceal him in one of a number of very large bulky diplomatic packages?
Lead him through the sewerage system to a safe manhole some distance away?
Disguise him as a policeman and let him walk out?
Vaulting horse in the garden - tunnel underneath?
Build a glider in the attic?
I think we could have a reality TV series here...
He could just stay there, get an inside gym and a fitness trainer, eat delicious embassy food, enjoy high ranking ambassadorial parties, play counter strike over the buildings lan, run a few internet businesses.
No need to go anywhere really.
Just chill out until everyone gets bored.
There's open wifi, and you have to click through some sort of yeah-whatever-whatever box before you can get online, but after that it's just a free, unmonitored internet connection. Nobody at all listening to everything you do.
Think their embassy is just a flat somewhere, so not as grand as presumed by some, and they probably only have Ferrero Rocher on Sundays after siesta.
"He could just stay there, get an inside gym and a fitness trainer, eat delicious embassy food, enjoy high ranking ambassadorial parties, play counter strike over the buildings lan, run a few internet businesses."
So (barring the parties; and frankly those are far duller than imagined anyway) a bit like the Swedish prison that he's so keen to avoid.
Except of course he has an indeterminable sentence at present.
Are you suggesting that in any right-minded country, a charge of non-consensual sex is only ever investigated if it is reported straight after the event? What time-limit would you place on the report taking place before treating it seriously enough to speak to the person in question?
None of us here are standing in the light of all of that went on and are therefore unfit to comment on whether a crime was committed. What should be clear is that allegations have been raised and need to be investigated, rather than dismissed out of hand. The UK has simply worked through the legal process of dealing with these matters as I expect it would with anyone.
All of this is now moot however. He has since committed a separate crime in this country and should be arrested for that as soon as he steps onto ground which is outside of a convention that prevents it from being done. It's if he wasn't that I'd lose faith in British justice, not for what has happened up to this point.
"Are you suggesting that in any right-minded country, a charge of non-consensual sex is only ever investigated if it is reported straight after the event?"
IIRC the sex was consensual and the accuser even admitted as much to the Swedish authorities. The allegation he's facing is that it was unprotected when his accuser had asked that he wear protection. Under Swedish law that can constitute sexual assault or rape.
That's a pretty sensible thing really.. Given the amoung of shagging around Lasange had been doing courtesy of his media profile, he'd be a pretty strong candidate as an STD infection vector. If the deal is "OK, but protect me from what you may have picked up", but he refused to do that.. That's putting the other person at risk, thus the interpretation into law.
Maybe not rape in the way we perceive it, but I think sexual assault isn't too far from what a court could judge..
The only thing which bothers me is that neither the UK nor the Swedish government has completely nixed his assertion that the rape charge is a subtext for passing him on to the USA.
I'd urge Sweden to state that after he is acquitted, or after he serves his sentence in Sweden if he's found guilty, then he'll be allowed unconditional free passage to anywhere in the world that will have him. If he won't voluntarily return to Sweden after that assurance, the conclusion is obvious, and Ecuador would be best advised to throw him out of their embassy into the hands of the UK police.
I've heard that such an assurance is already implicit under EU extradition law, but why not make it explicit? I'm no lawyer so I'm somewhat unconvinced by the former, but would be completely happy with an explicit assurance by the Swedish government. Anyway, why not make explicit what they know to be implied?
"All of this is now moot however. He has since committed a separate crime in this country and should be arrested for that as soon as he steps onto ground which is outside of a convention that prevents it from being done."
This. A million times.
Sod what he's done before. He decided that he didn't like what every court in the land told him, so decided to become a fugitive. That's of course after being able to afford a lawyer who replaced a jail cell for a stately home for him. You or I would have rotted in the cells. I don't care if he was snow white before: Right now he's a common criminal who has the benefit of friends in high places.
Short odds though that when the NotW/Brooks trials come up, people will be bitching and whining about "One law for the poor, one for the rich". What do you think is happening here?
Whilst I couldn't care less whether Assange ends up a free man, imprisoned in Sweden or languishing in Gitmo, you do have to wonder why the UK are bothering to threaten to enter the Embassy, unless they've been strongly encouraged to do so by the Yanks. He's not going anywhere, and can be arrested and extradited as soon as he steps outside the Embassy.
Threatening the Ecuadorians forces them to grant him asylum (rather than being seen to capitulate). If he ends up in Ecuador, how long till the CIA pop around to say howdy?
Not very damned long, he'll wind up with two bullets in the head, chest or throat. But you know, drug runners and rebels are pretty endemic to South America. Its all about the Plausible Deniability.
I personally wont shed a tear when it happens, or if his plane disappears over the Atlantic, and I wont shed a tear when we convict his crossdressing stooge Breanna Manning to life in USDB Leavenworth either. But thats just me, Im an American Soldier. Im sure you'd be surprised if I thought otherwise.
Actually he's a lousy soldier, assuming he is one. The US PR campaign about the US military is completely unlike what he posted. If the US managed to get the UK to get el Reg to cough up his real identity, and he was a soldier, I wouldn't be surprised to see him facing a court for conduct unbecoming.
@FrankAlphaXII
American Soldier? So what. Citizens of your county might get all misty eyed and start weeping when 'our boys in the military' are mentioned, not so much over here.
Arming countries in turmoil then blowing the shit out of them a decade later doesn't speak to me of any clear forethought or wisdom.
Not saying those regimes didn't need to go, but take a look at your own now and again. Assange is an asshole granted, but look how easily he's made your paymasters look impotent. I fear that's the reason they want him.
If the fact your in the American military made this decision for you then I'd be amazed to find that you think at all. You might be entirely brainwashed, or too ignorant to understand, but the information shared via wikileaks has benefited the wider world community. The fact that you're happy with the idea that governments can vanish anyone who 'displeases' them says volumes about your wisdom regarding such things.
You might be entirely brainwashed, or too ignorant to understand, but the information shared via wikileaks has benefited the wider world community
If I shoot every 10th person that passes me in the street, statistics say I will have reduced crime and will even have caught the occasional pedo. The problem is that I have done that at huge costs. Although I am all for transparency (especially when it comes to the use of special privileges such as anti-terror measures) I also understand the need for secrecy so the bad guys don't get a leg up.
Wikileaks is a classic example of that weird trend where people aggressively claim their (frequently imagined) rights whilst simultaneously fighting as hard as they can to avoid the obligations that are part of the same parcel. If you disclose confidential information you ARE committing a crime. Simple. That a judge may seek to commute your sentence because you did the world a favour (i.e. classic whistle blowing of a SPECIFIC issue with SPECIFIC information) does not change the fact that you started with a crime. "Because" is of no relevance to the criminality of the act itself.
You might want to learn about groupthink and what that does to your judgement. You are displaying the classic (invalid) excuses (accusing someone to be "too ignorant" or "brainwashed" is a good indicator you lack solid arguments in a discussion).
The impression you give right now is that you have accepted cult thinking - you no longer validate what you have been told with facts. Here is a hint: it is OK to state that you don't know something - don't let the group fill in the gap unless there are hard facts. Good luck.
From what I can make out, the UK reminded Ecuador of the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987. In summary, embassies have their status only while the secretary of state recognises them as such, and diplomatic premises need to be used exclusively for diplomatic purposes. The secretary can unilaterally cease to recognise them as such if he thinks international law would allow, it and is supposed to take some prescribed factors into account, including safety to the public.
The embassy isn't foreign soil or anything like that, regardless of popular opinion.
In this case, based entirely on probably uninformed speculation, I guess the argument goes that the embassy has a man who is wanted for assault and contempt of court and — allowing for the fact that he doesn't have any sort of immunity — is planning surreptitiously to transport him through British territory, itself a crime. So the secretary of state could have grounds to conclude that the Ecuadorian embassy is being used as a property in which to plan the commission of crime rather than for diplomatic purposes and revoke its status. After that the police are obviously free to enter.
"The embassy isn't foreign soil or anything like that, regardless of popular opinion."
The best solution might be to rent all of the accommodation on each side of the embassy and play some discreet but disturbing, irregular sounds at night. Not loud enough to upset the neighbourhood, focused on Julie himself - and T-Ray scanning will locate him nicely if they don't already know his activities - and enough to have the Noriega effect.
" you do have to wonder why the UK are bothering to threaten to enter the Embassy, unless they've been strongly encouraged to do so by the Yanks. He's not going anywhere, and can be arrested and extradited as soon as he steps outside the Embassy."
Like everything this government does, blunder into an embarrassng situation. Don't assume a conspiracy when gross incompetence can so easily be the cause.
The British Government now has a true catch 22 situation here now by going this far and Ecuador calling the bluff. The choice is between setting two legal precedents that they definately do not want either of which to happen.
1), the precedent of someone on the run from the law in both Sweden and the UK and wanted under an EAW to escape justice in this manner.
2) The precedent of revoking immunity and violating the embassy to arresst Assange, something which could then be used against diplomatic posts all over the world, bringing to an end 400 years of the diplomatic immunity tradition.
Good job Hague, Ecuador has now called your bluff. What are you gonna do now?
"What are you gonna do now?"
Summon the ambassador. Point out any and all UK aid and investment in his country and how fragile it is. Hand him a phone and tell him to call the boss. His boss can either say "erm... we recognise that he needs to face charges and so are handing him over, on the promise that he will be shipped to Ecuador afterwards" and have Assange nicely handed over, or the Ambassador can be sent home on the next flight and things can get unpleasant.
It's not really a bluff if the UK holds a good hand. Money talks and Ecuador has less of it.
Good job Hague, Ecuador has now called your bluff. What are you gonna do now?
Nothing in the short term would be a good idea. Personally I'd quietly offer to do nothing for as long as they do nothing in support of the Argies w.r.t. the Falklands ... OK, assume they say no to that by word or deed.
Long-term, he could find another building that's superior to the current Ecuadorian embassy, and tell Ecuador that he requires them to move to the new embassy within (say) a year. During the transition both buildings would have the status of embassies, and all usual privileges will be maintained for diplomats and diplomatic bags. Removal costs would all be footed by the UK government.
Assange is not an Ecuadorian citizen, let alone a diplomat, so a year later we'd have him without setting a disastrous precedent for diplomats elsewhere. (There surely must be a precedent for an embassy being relocated at the request of the host nation, with reasonable notice? For example, if the building is blocking a major infrastructure development? )
"Nothing in the short term would be a good idea. Personally I'd quietly offer to do nothing for as long as they do nothing in support of the Argies w.r.t. the Falklands ... OK, assume they say no to that by word or deed."
I wouldn't even do that. Ecuador have already showed that they are quite happy to selectively leak diplomatic communication. I'd either say it to the Ambassador's face, or not at all.
"you do have to wonder why the UK are bothering to threaten to enter the Embassy, unless they've been strongly encouraged to do so by the Yanks. He's not going anywhere, and can be arrested and extradited as soon as he steps outside the Embassy."
Because Ecuador are defying the government and undermining the UK diplomatically, on an international scale. It's like taking my car-keys and saying "You can't have them back" in front of all my friends and co-workers. Basically: It would make me look a tit, and unless I applied some pressure on your to return them, I would look like a complete pansy in front of everyone. If you stood there for five weeks saying "ha-ha, you can't reach them" I would indeed probably threaten to kick you in the balls unless you handed them over, because my friends were starting to laugh at me.
I honestly don't understand why this isn't fairly obvious to people.
It makes NO SENSE if you think about it for the US to extradite him. Then the media and public wrath focuses on them, and they make a martyr. It makes all the sense in the world to DO NOTHING and let Assange's "You must protect me because the US are going to extradite me and it's all a fit-up" to come to nothing, and make him look a tit.
You want a conspiracy: That's it. A conspiracy to make Assange make himself look a tit and hoist with his own petard. It doesn't get any more flawless than that. The CIA are watching with popcorn.
> It's like taking my car-keys and saying "You can't have them back" in front of all my friends and co-workers
No it isn't, it's like your car coming to me and saying "You've got to help me, they are going to paint me pink and put giant eye-lashes over my headlights". I can either help (by taking the keys) or not. You can threaten to beat the snot out of me and take your keys back, but there's the danger I'll ask my friends with baseball bats to take you to a dark alley and have a quiet word if you do.
The Ecuadorians didn't kidnap Assange, he went to them for help. He asked for political asylum - if they didn't believe him when he said the extradition was politically motivated, they could have told him to go away.
> It makes NO SENSE if you think about it for the US to extradite him.
They want to make an example of him, teach people not to annoy the US by making them look stupid.
"> It makes NO SENSE if you think about it for the US to extradite him.
They want to make an example of him, teach people not to annoy the US by making them look stupid."
That makes NO SENSE. At all.
They have Manning to put through the grinder first. That verdict will then shift focus to Assange.
Right now, pulling in Assange or offing him is utterly retarded. Let him humiliate himself and be charged for sexual assault and disgrace himself. THAT makes sense.
THEN after that's run it's course they can think about rounding him up.... when there is zero sympathy left for him. and public opinion has turned. Doing it while the spotlight is on him is just plain stupid. And getting him in Ecuador is hell of a lot easier than getting him out either Sweden or the UK.
In fact the best thing that could happen is for him to eventually be found guilty, pay the penalty, slope off to Ecuador and then be found having wanked himself to death with an orange in his mouth, while looking at child porn, in some sleazy hotel. And frankly, that'salso a lot easier to arrange in Ecuador than it is in either the UK or US custody.
"This is disturbingly funny, even though I may not be able to shake that image for quite a while..2
I think that the OP may be half remembering the late Steven Milligan, MP, who killed himself by sexual asphyxiation, with a satsuma in his mouth, thus adding to the prevailing belief that Tory scandals are almost always sexual ones. I actually felt sorry for the poor man.
That's what went through my mind as well, and I actually felt sorry for that MP too. Personally I am of the opinion that what someone does with themselves is none of my business. As long as they don't harm others it's actually better they get that out of their system (so to speak).
However, I have the impression that few will be sorry if something like that happens to Assange. Personally I have given up caring. I think after today I'll see if I can come up with a filter that zaps any mention of Assange or Wikileaks out of my traffic - it's like a bad soap. You know it's crap and totally worthless, yet you keep watching it to see what plot turn the writers cooked up this time to keep it going. But with one actor (who is too winey to attract any audience involvement whatsoever) I'd rather watch Coronation Street. And I *hate* Coronation Street.
"However, I have the impression that few will be sorry if something like that happens to Assange. Personally I have given up caring. I think after today I'll see if I can come up with a filter that zaps any mention of Assange or Wikileaks out of my traffic - it's like a bad soap."
Thank you for that. The whole thing is needlessly messy and fraught with lies which, although I feel they ought to be corrected (valuing the truth above most things), seen to be the property of zitty bois who have no insight into the feeling women experience when unwanted semen is put inside of them by selfish men. That is being polite.
Oh, Coronation St. Ugh Almost as bad as East Enders. Umm, so I occasionally hear. ;->
"I think that the OP may..."
Correct. Him, merged with David Carradine. But seedier. With greyer hair.
I could never understand Michael Hutchinson, though: Died wanking with a belt around his neck in a hotel, while there were doubtless half a dozen groupies on the other damn side of it who'd have willingly saved him the effort of doing his DIY.
No, I don't have to wonder why.
It's because someone charged of criminal offenses and due to attend a court of law absconds and takes refuge in an embassy.
Embassies can take the choice to harbour a criminal (hes absconding breaks his bail conditions, which is a criminal offense) or refuse them access. By granting him access, they've created a diplomatic incident (using diplomatic power to subvert the justice system of the host country). If the UK shrugged it off and said "Whatever, go for it", then its international standing in the diplomatic stakes would be seriously hampered. With precedent set, any country could run black ops inside the UK, then when they're discovered, give them immunity by have them run back to the embassy without any consequence. I guess you can see where that path leads.
Up until the time Lasange chose to run, he still had a chance. Now he's committed a crime in this country too (demonstrably).
Ecuador is pretty silly to make a stand on this, as by international dealing, this is going to reflect VERY badly on them. Deals they may have struck to their advantage will probably not be offered, as people just don't trust them so much.
The threat had to be made. Ecuador know the deal, and they chose to follow this route anyway, which could possibly lead to them losing their embassy in the UK, pretty much over trying to keep someone from attending a trial which would be their main way of proving their innocence.. They know they're on the wrong side of the justice system, they're just hoping media will portray them as heroes.. Taken in the harsh light of day, I'd say they just look silly.
"1200 years ago there wasn't a Britain. Closest you get is Briton or the Latin name for the island Britannia. Which is different.
Mind you, 1200 years ago we were actually here..."
Indeed and, whilst we were colonists elsewhere, we did not colonise on the south American continent or its occupied islands; the Falklands were unoccupied, then settled and twice 'taken' by people descended from Spain whose monarch felt grandiose enough to give them away. Here we are, hundreds of years later, the sophisticated culture of south Amerinds now ground into the dust by catholic murderers who had no respect for it, just as they did not for the people of these islands. Plus ça change (plus c'est la même chose)
Well, obviously someone. You don't cause international incidents and talk about raiding embassies for some minor crime. As far as I can see, the evidence for any major misdemeanor is really rather slight - the assertions we have heard don't seem to be a big deal - so whatever this is about it's NOT about returning a person to Sweden for some light questioning about a bust-up with his girlfriend of that evening...
"Well, obviously someone. You don't cause international incidents and talk about raiding embassies for some minor crime. As far as I can see, the evidence for any major misdemeanor is really rather slight"
His major crime is contempt of court. The evidence of this is overwhleming, since he's sitting in the Ecuadorean embassy and not on a plane to Sweden. So even when he finally is arrested -- and since there is no way out of the embassy, that seems the most likely outcome -- he will likely serve a jail sentence here for contempt first.
His major crime is pissing off corporate and military America.
Contempt of court, as you call it, is just another convenient excuse in a long-running campaign to gag a political dissident.
Asylum is an established diplomatic tradition, and Hague's attempts - and your attempts - to argue otherwise are 100% proof spin and sophistry.
When you consider that not even at the height of the Cold War did the Soviet Union or any of its satellites threaten to storm an embassy to pull out an asylum seeker, you can see how far the US has fallen from any claim to the moral high ground.
"Contempt of court, as you call it, is just another convenient excuse in a long-running campaign to gag a political dissident."
No, mate. Assange did that to himself. You can't paint a conspiracy guilty for him jumping bail and running to the embassy. That was his fault and nobody else's.
"Asylum is an established diplomatic tradition, and Hague's attempts - and your attempts - to argue otherwise are 100% proof spin and sophistry."
Next time you work abroad, have a word with the Ambassador of a nation you've never visited and ask if it would be ok for you to come running and hiding to him if you broke a law in that country. He'll cough up his brandy and tell you to get fucked. Embassies don't like this kind of shit happening and will try to talk you into giving yourself up after assuring you that they'll make sure you get a fair trial and patting you on the back.
That's how it works in the majority of cases in the real world. About a dozen times every day.
What wikipedia tells you about diplomatic asylum is about as far from the reality of the situation as it gets.
"Contempt of court, as you call it, is just another convenient excuse in a long-running campaign to gag a political dissident."
Be bolloxed. He chose the contempt of court route, no one fitted him up, he did it of his own accord. He, the man with an £80,000 salary, a massive advance for the autobiog from which he withdrew, leaving the publisher to recoup the contracted advance by publishing, he smearing them in the way he smears anyone who does not do what he the great turkey feels they ought to; the man who wants a pay wall for 'his property', namely the information stolen from the US, the man who claimed that someone *stole* his property from him, gave it to the Grauniad and others, when all along it was not his at all. The man's hubris will topple him harder than most people think, in the long run.
If Sweden really wanted to question him (and that's all they want to do), then they could have saved everyone lots of time and actually came to the UK. Assange has always stated that he is happy with that. Sweden could also offer assurances that we will not be extradited to the USA. As Sweden has done neither of these things – I think anyone with a bit of common sense can see the real intention
"If Sweden really wanted to question him (and that's all they want to do), then they could have saved everyone lots of time and actually came to the UK...
….Sweden could also offer assurances that we will not be extradited to the USA. As Sweden has done neither of these things "
I believe - and this is based on what someone from Sweden told me - that at this stage of the investigation, the questioning needs to be on Swedish soil, due to a legal requirement. Assange has been interviewed once previously and a second interview is needed in order to formally charge him (assuming that’s what the Swedish authorities wish to do after the interview.)
re: the point of extradition, I believe that once the UK extradites Assange to Sweden, if the USA then applies for him to be extradited to their clutches, then both Sweden and the UK has to agree to it.
Neither Sweden or the UK has said it would refused an extradition request, but until such a request is made, how would it be possible to comment on the strength of such application?
Sweden’s extradition treaty with the US is a lot stricter than the one between the UK and the US. When the UK courts were deciding whether to agree to the Swedish request to extradite Assange, it was widely reported that if they did, then this would complicate attempts to extradite him from Britain to the US.
I suspect Assange has more to fear from Sweden bundling him back to Australia. If there are guarantees that he wouldn’t face the death penalty, I believe it would be easier for America extraditing him from there.
Well done Ecquador, you have done the right thing morally and intellectually.
How sad that after the masterful Olympics filled the whole nation with a sense of national pride that the government has reduced itself to US lapdogs once again and caused us to be collectively embarrassed to call ourselves British.
Trust the tories to be the iceberg in the newly launched ship of renewed national pride.
What exactly has he been charged with?
As far as I'm aware he hasn't been sharged with anything and is simply wanted for questioning over having consensual sex without a condom after the girl or girls decided a few days after the act that maybe that hadn't been such a good idea.
The questioning could be achieved without requiring extradition, so why all the effort to get him to Sweden?
>@Chris W, Why all the effort by him to not face this in Sweden if he's so innocent as you want to claim?
I don't claim him to be innocent but seeing as you mention it unless he's found guilty then he is. He can't be found guilty unless he's charged with something which he hasn't been. Why all the effort to not return to Sweden, it's obvious that the lack of assurances sort by Ecuador that this is not politically motivated and he won't be immediately shipped off to the US means he will be.
> Why all the effort by him to not face this in Sweden if he's so innocent as you want to claim?
Because he believes the extradition to Sweden is just a cover to get him extradited to the US from Sweden.
But if that's the case, why didn't the US just ask the UK to extradite? Going by the O'Dwyer case, we would have bent over backwards to help...
> consensual sex without a condom
The consent was conditional on the condom, once there was no condom there was no consent, which is what makes it an offence under Swedish law.
If Assange wasn't such a self-aggrandising toe-rag he'd have apologised and persuaded the girl to withdraw the charges long ago, but he seems determined to see himself as a martyr.
">The consent was conditional on the condom
I understand that but are you really suggesting that even he is so pig ugly that they had sex in total darkness and the girls didn't know he was bareback?"
In the case of his sexual liaison with one of the women, he used a condom the night before; the next morning she awoke to find Assange copulating and asked him if he was wearing anything, to which he allegedly responded "yes, you".
Exactly. There's no reason the Swedish delegation couldn't request Ecuador to allow the Swedish legal attache to visit the Ecuadorian Embassy to ask questions. There was no reason for extradition.... unless the US has promised some favorable credits, trade allowances, military equipment, whatever, to Sweden to extradite for *questioning* and then flip him to the US.
>As far as I'm aware he hasn't been charged with anything
...because in Sweden he has a right to be heard before he is charged - if he is charged and found guilty he'll be forced to take an STD panel, fined and deported to Australia. Its an amazing bit of spin really.
>The questioning could be achieved without requiring extradition
Not under Swedish law, and anyway he needs to be there as its almost certain he will be charged after interview since it's his words against those of the women who made the allegations.
What exactly has he been charged with?
As far as I'm aware he hasn't been sharged with anything and is simply wanted for questioning over having consensual sex without a condom after the girl or girls decided a few days after the act that maybe that hadn't been such a good idea.
-----
Here's what a UK judge had to say
"... even if the court was constrained to determine whether someone was an accused by solely considering the question of whether the prosecution had commenced, we would not find it difficult to hold that looking at what has taken place in Sweden that the prosecution had commenced. Although it is clear a decision has not been taken to charge him, that is because, under Swedish procedure, that decision is taken at a late stage with the trial following quickly thereafter. In England and Wales, a decision to charge is taken at a very early stage; there can be no doubt that if what Mr Assange had done had been done in England and Wales, he would have been charged and thus criminal proceedings would have been commenced. If the commencement of criminal proceedings were to be viewed in this way, it would be to look at Swedish procedure through the narrowest of eyes. On this basis, criminal proceedings have commenced against Mr Assange." (para 153)
---
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/assange-summary.pdf
---
So although the Swedish system hasn't applied the label "Charged", by the UK definition, he has been charged.
' Here's what a UK judge had to say
"there can be no doubt that if what Mr Assange had done had been done in England and Wales, he would have been charged" '
So that judge decided that J. Assange was guilty without needing a trial?
My recollection of the contemporaneous reports of the original investigation is that JA was staying in the first woman's flat. After the no-condom incident he continued in her company, and they had gone out for a meal together. It was only after he had left her flat and had consorted with the second woman that a complaint was made to the local police. This complaint was investigated, all the parties involved were questioned, and the authorities decided their was no case to answer. JA was told he was free to travel. This was reported in the Swedish press and translations appeared in the English media. Subsequently a different procurator/politician in another part of Sweden decided to raise new proceedings in a different city with respect to the original case. No new evidence seems to be involved, but an arrest warrant was issued, and then extradition applied for.
This course of action by a politically motivated procurator (not the police in the city where the incident(s) occurred) does not have the hallmarks of a genuine criminal investigation. Together with the refusal to question JA before he is taken into custody in Sweden, plus the refusal to state that there will not be handed to the US strengthens the suspicion that this is intended as a prelude to proceedings in the USA connected to the current secret Grand Jury hearings.
"So that judge decided that J. Assange was guilty without needing a trial?"
What part of "would be charged" are you getting confused with "found guilty"
The judge is simply saying that there is a valid accusation to be answered to in front of a Swedish judge.
Is it really that hard to follow a bit of logic without making vast leaps of conclusion in order to fit your world view?
"What exactly has he been charged with?
As far as I'm aware he hasn't been sharged with anything and is simply wanted for questioning over having consensual sex without a condom after the girl or girls decided a few days after the act that maybe that hadn't been such a good idea.
The questioning could be achieved without requiring extradition, so why all the effort to get him to Sweden?"
The procedure in the Swedish CJS is to interview, arrest and charge; the Swedish police unwisely advised his legal representative that they intended to enact this chain, and the next day he appeared in England. His solicitor denied, in an English court, that the Swedish police had even contacted him but, on inspecting his mobile phone in court, had to retract this claim. His professional association made it clear that they wanted to pursue the matter with him, and another dubious episode in the whole affair has tainted what was presumably a clean record, all because of a man who pays himself £80,000 a year, who took a substantial advance from a publisher on his autobiog and then retracted (keeping the money), who wanted to institute a pay wall for access to what he described (when it was 'stolen' from him by Domscheit-Berg) as "his" property (property of various governments actually), the man who spoke excoriatingly of the Afghan informants whose position he gave away (they knew what they were getting in to and accepted the risk) in front of two journalists (one from the Grauniad IIRC):
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/7917955/Wikileaks-Afghanistan-Taliban-hunting-down-informants.html
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/leaked-details-put-informant-lives-in-danger/story-e6frg6so-1225898206990
The man is a convict ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange#Hacking_and_conviction ) and even hacked the Australian police computers connected with the investigation into his illegal activities, and what we now see is the logical outcome of failing to punish properly a criminal convicted on 25 counts. He was warned that another prosecution would result in incarceration, and seems to have taken this seriously; there appear to be no 'dabs' on the evidence linking Assange with the theft of data, but I am willing to bet there is a trace somewhere.
As to the sex, Scandinavian and Germanic countries have a thing for sexual hygiene that is absent in the UK (perhaps this explains our high teen pregnancy rates and the recent concern over STDs in this country), as is clear in this instance alone: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-10983227
Assange's case merits appropriate examination in the jurisdiction where the alleged offences are said to have occurred.
"Sometimes legally right != morally right."
Is a rape case not being investigated or pursued is morally right? I am sure those women involved will be thrileld to hear that.
If the case doesn't hold water like so many of you beleive then he will be found innocent. I really do not see why he is so worried about this given the EAW and Swedish law will prevent him from being shipped to the USA to face degrading treatment or the death penalty.
Wanting him extradited and in front of a Swedish court is right, threatening to enter the embassy wrong.
The (UK) law that enables this was brought about after the shooting of policewoman outside the Libyan Embassy - we should be reserving the use (or threat of use) of that power to similarly dangerous situations.
"The (UK) law that enables this was brought about after the shooting of policewoman outside the Libyan Embassy - we should be reserving the use (or threat of use) of that power to similarly dangerous situations."
Given how most laws intended for use in such cases have gone I'd not be surprised to see the local council storm the building looking to drag him out for letting his dog shit on the pavement.
"Wanting him extradited and in front of a Swedish court is right, threatening to enter the embassy wrong."
That. Is. Not. What. Is. Happening.
At all. You've just totally swallowed the Guardian's headlines and the Ecuadorian's line on that. Please actually look into it and read what was sent to them.
The UK government reminded Ecuador that they can - if it comes to it, which by the way we really hope it doesn't - legally close the embassy and send everyone home.
And then they can walk into a building that is NOT AN EMBASSY and arrest him.
Simples.
Even Paris reads more than the headline sometimes.
"It is one thing to apply the law, but another to strip the embassy of its immunity so they can storm it."
False reasoning. The British government merely pointed to the law, implying that they can close the embassy and send the staff home. Since putting people in 'diplomatic bags' is illegal, that leaves a number of questions and comparisons; housing a murderer (Libyan embassy) housing a rape suspect (Ecuadorian embassy), both serious crimes, interfering with due process in EU countries or directly committing offences, or even facilitating criminal behaviour (contempt of court in respect of European extradition warrant/EAW in respect of suspect rape charges x 4).
Diplomats and their embassies facilitating crime and giving shelter to criminals? This is the sort of thing that results in closure of embassies, especially when the embassy is of a country with such a dire and reprehensible human rights record:
http://www.hrw.org/world-report-2012/world-report-2012-ecuador
http://www.hrw.org/americas/ecuador
http://www.itv.com/news/update/2012-08-16/ecuadors-record-on-freedom-of-speech-criticised-by-human-rights-groups/
http://beta.humanrightsecuador.org/?p=532
http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/countries/americas/ecuador
With a human rights and right to free speech like the above I'm very surprised that Assange has the barefaced cheek to apply to Ecuador, yet I thought again; he will have known of Ecuador's support for Argentina on the Falkland Is question, and seems to have cultivated this brutal regime well in advance of being subjected to an EAW. OTOH, it is quite clear that there is a benefit for Ecuador, one which goes far beyond the Falkland Is question, because they can say how good they are on press freedoms and human rights; look, we saved the 'journalist' whom you sought to persecute and strip of his human rights... ...over a mere rape charge.
"Maybe the law is wrong - or is being used maliciously - I don't see why Sweden can't question him here in the UK - or agree not to extradite him to the US – I don’t think either of these requests are unreasonable"
I can see now why RSMs despise barrack room lawyers. Here for your delectation is the truth and not some Monday morning quarterback's wild guesstimation (from this link http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/assange-summary.pdf ):
"Ground of appeal 3 - Was Mr Assange accused of an offence in Sweden?
The President of the Queen's Bench Division said:
"In the present case, as is accepted there is nothing on the face of the EAW which states in terms that Mr Assange is accused of the offences. ... The fact that the term “accused of the offence” is not used does not matter if it is clear from the EAW that he was wanted for prosecution and not merely for questioning." (para 148)
He went on to say:
"In our judgment Mr Assange is on the facts before this court “accused” of the four offences. There is a precise description in the EAW of what he is said to have done. The extraneous evidence shows that there has been a detailed investigation. The evidence of the complainants AA and SW is clear as to what he is said to have done as we have set out. On the basis of an intense focus on the facts he is plainly accused. That is ... decisive." (para 151)"
"He added:
"... even if the court was constrained to determine whether someone was an accused by solely considering the question of whether the prosecution had commenced, we would not find it difficult to hold that looking at what has taken place in Sweden that the prosecution had commenced. Although it is clear a decision has not been taken to charge him, that is because, under Swedish procedure, that decision is taken at a late stage with the trial following quickly thereafter. In England and Wales, a decision to charge is taken at a very early stage; there can be no doubt that if what Mr Assange had done had been done in England and Wales, he would have been charged and thus criminal proceedings would have been commenced. If the commencement of criminal proceedings were to be viewed in this way, it would be to look at Swedish procedure through the narrowest of eyes. On this basis, criminal proceedings have commenced against Mr Assange." (para 153)
The Court dismissed this ground of appeal."
"Ground of appeal 4 - Proportionality (paras 155 - 160)
Mr Assange submitted that even if under the EAW he was technically a person accused of offences, it was disproportionate to seek his surrender under the EAW. That was because, as he had to be questioned before a decision was made on prosecution, he had offered to be questioned over a video link. It would therefore have been proportionate to question him in that way and to have reached a decision on whether to charge him before issuing the EAW. (para 155)
The Court dismissed this argument on the facts. The President of the Queen's Bench Division said:
"First, in this case, the challenge to the issue of the warrant for the arrest of Mr Assange failed before the Court of Appeal of Svea. In those circumstances, taking into account the respect this court should accord the decision of the Court of Appeal of Svea in relation to proceedings governed by Swedish procedural law, we do not consider the decision to issue the EAW could be said to be disproportionate.
"Second and in any event, this is self evidently not a case relating to a trivial offence, but to serious sexual offences. Assuming proportionality is a requirement, it is difficult to see what real scope there is for the argument in circumstances where a Swedish Court of Appeal has taken the view, as part of Swedish procedure, that an arrest is necessary." (paras 158 - 159)
He added:
"... The Prosecutor must be entitled to seek to apply the provisions of Swedish law to the procedure once it has been determined that Mr Assange is an accused and is required for the purposes of prosecution. … Those procedural provisions must be respected by us given the mutual recognition and confidence required by the Framework Decision; to do otherwise would be to undermine the effectiveness of the principles on which the Framework Decision is based. In any event, we were far from persuaded that other procedures suggested on behalf of Mr Assange would have proved practicable or would not have been the subject of lengthy dispute." (para 160)
Conclusion (para 161)
The Court dismissed the appeal."
About that fairy story...
Since when did the UK require the services of Interpol merely to nab an alleged rapist?
But most of all, you do realize that one of the reasons Ecuador has granted asylum was that neither Sweden, the UK nor the US would guarantee that Assange wouldn't be extradited? As can be read in this article (nytimes.com link) of the New York times.
It seems to me as if the involved countries do their very best to keep this "fairy tale" alive. I mean; if this was really only about a rape charge, why can't they guarantee that this will remain a (Swedish) nation matter without the US getting involved?
Both Sweden and the UK have pointed out on multiple occasions that they cannot allow Assange to be extradited if he might face capital charges - its the law, the same law that may force them to do something stupid to extradite some twat to Sweden. Point that out, and the mob simply say "ahh, he will be extraordinarily renditioned".
Only two things are certain in all of this - Assange will never willingly go to Sweden - a country he applied for citizenship of - to face his accusers, and Britain will look like a cock. Thanks Julian.
"not charged, only wanted for questioning (AFAIU)."
You understand wrongly; the Swedish police informed his lawyer that they wanted (following the required format in the Swedish CJS) to interview, charge and arrest him for rape. The next day Assange appeared in the UK. Assange's Swedish professional association announced intent to interview their member who at first, in an English court, claimed he'd had no contact from the Swedish police but, on scrutinising his mobile phone record (still in court) had to retract his statement. Shabby lawyer for a shabby man? This is so very unsavoury, tawdry, and matches the charges.
>Well done Ecquador, you have done the right thing morally and intellectually.
Makes a change from the extra-judicial killings and allowing the big US oil co's to poison the water supply of hundreds of thousands of their own people.
Assange choosing Ecuador demonstrates clearly he is just trying to avoid the sexual assault charges - if he gave a fig about HR he wouldn't give them the time of day [its illegal to defame a government official in Ecuador, let alone run a site like Wikileaks.]
....and if he really feared extradition to the US, why flee to a state run by US Oil companies?
Obviously, you have never been to Ecuador. You should be aware that the Chinese are playing a very large part in the exploitation of oil reserves in the Amazonian areas of Ecuador, much to the detriment of local Ecuadorians, including tribal peoples. At least the United States oil companies employed local people, unlike the Chinese who are shippping (or perhaps flying) in their own nationals to do the work.
>You should be aware that the Chinese are playing a very large part in the exploitation of oil reserves in the Amazonian areas of Ecuador, much to the detriment of local Ecuadorians, including tribal peoples.
Its a very positive move actually. I'm sure you're aware of the recent case in which 30,000 Ecuadorians won a class action after years suing Chevron/Texaco - for dumping millions of gallons of crude and billions of gallons of waste water. The scale of destruction, illness and death that resulted from this is probably unprecedented even in the oil industry - and it went on for decades with the approval of the state.
"Well done Ecquador, you have done the right thing morally and intellectually."
The Hispanic colonists of south American territory?
http://www.hrw.org/americas/ecuador
http://www.hrw.org/world-report-2012/world-report-2012-ecuador
These people treat their own citizens in a manner reminiscent of Chavez and other socialist would be/becoming dictators/presidents for life. Why don't you try living there for a while and see if you enjoy their rule of law?
http://en.mercopress.com/2012/05/31/ecuador-calls-for-an-end-to-colonialism-in-malvinas-puerto-rico-and-guantanamo
Oh, colonial rule, what they have in Ecuador. The history of Hispanic colonialism in south America is more brutal than they like to admit or remember.
"How sad that after the masterful Olympics filled the whole nation with a sense of national pride that the government has reduced itself to US lapdogs once again and caused us to be collectively embarrassed to call ourselves British."
If only our courts had said "fuck you and your promises to stay in a nice MANSION during court proceedings, because we can't trust you after you just fled to another country last time the police wanted a word. You can sit in jail for a few weeks like anyone who didn't have your expensive lawyers and media status."
...then none of this would have happened.
"If only our courts had said "fuck you and your promises to stay in a nice MANSION during court proceedings, because we can't trust you after you just fled to another country last time the police wanted a word. You can sit in jail for a few weeks like anyone who didn't have your expensive lawyers and media status."
...then none of this would have happened."
Indeed, and the prosecution's original claim that Assange is a likely absconder is no longer a claim; it is a fact.
I doubt even JA was smart enough to plan all this, but the net effect its pretty clear.
The US is putting pressure on Sweden and the UK to get him and they are both bending over and spreading their cheeks as fast as they are able.
The UK is willing to risk an international incident, just to please their American sugar daddy.
I wish I could say at least AUSTRALIA was standing up for one of their own... but they too are laying there, spread cheeked for their US masters.
Maybe we can get him Kiwi citizenship?
Put him up with dotcom ?
Nonsesnse. There is nothing that the US can do to him in Sweden that they can't do here.
Sweden checklist
No extradition for political offences - check
No extraditiOns where the death penalty is in play - check
Even if the swe gvt is enclined to extradite, the uk still has to agree - check.
You would think the US wouldn't be pursuing this so hard unless they had an ace up the sleeve: perhaps some dirty laundry the Swedish government would rather not have known or some other sanction, action, or inaction that would have singularly negative effects. That's the thing with international intrigue: it's sometimes hard to figure out who has the final say.
How do you know? It turns out that Sweden's pre-trial process is secret - http://www.fairtrials.net/publications/article/julian-assange-and-detention-before-trial-in-sweden
Even the US condemned it at some point - http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/2010/eur/154453.htm
The fact it is no one actually knows why there is such pressure to extradite him, but it could very well be because of an extradition agreement reached in secret with Sweden - involving a criminal offense, aka the Espionage Act, with a side guarantee not to seek the death penalty.
But of course, you apparently are much smarter than all the parties involved and there is no way they could have thought all this through...
only there won't actually be an extradition to the US... the current plan is to extradite him to Sweden, but strangely via an out of the way airport where just so coincidently there is a company that operates aircraft with no markings for the CIA. My guess is that the moment he lands on Swedish soil, he will be kidnapped while in transit and extraordinarily rendered back to Gitmo Bay... The yanks are that desperate to get their hands on him and that confident they can bluster out any diplomatic fallout through their massive control of the media that they believe they can do anything and justify it as merely being another episode in the never-ending "war on Terror TM"...
"only there won't actually be an extradition to the US... the current plan is to extradite him to Sweden, but strangely via an out of the way airport where just so coincidently there is a company that operates aircraft with no markings for the CIA. My guess is that the moment he lands on Swedish soil, he will be kidnapped while in transit and extraordinarily rendered back to Gitmo Bay..."
Except that's a stupid plan, especially when he'd be about to ruin his reputation in court and the media are watching, and especially as it would make Sweden look stupid so they wouldn't allow it to happen. If you care to unmask yourself I hereby wager you one hundred pounds and a pint of beer that the scenario you describe will not happen.
Stand by your words if you are convinced.
That you think he is above the law.
He's not special or above British/Swedish/US Law simply because he leaked some very secret docs belonging to a very large super power. Sorry but he brought this situation on himself. The sooner the Swedes get done with him the better. You never know he might walk from those charges and the US may well give him a pass on it all. But alas even if that is so our American cousins tend not to forget with any great ease and will make his life difficult if they cannot find a way to give him a day in court.
Assange is not a Saint nor a pillar of Journalistic integrity.
Mines the one with Diplomatic bag down the side...........
We tend to call "fucking some bird when she didn't give consent" rape, which is a pretty vile and disgusting thing to happen to a woman (or a man), in fact there is probably only 1 or 2 things worse that you could actually do to a woman, so getting over it? I'm sure if the Dominatrix was still around she would ban you from these forums for the rest of your life.
This post has been deleted by its author
Yes, you're a useful idiot. Pretty vile and disgusting if it was what he was being accused of. But it isn't. You see, she did give consent, and then found out that JA is not such a nice bloke...
To compare that to non consensual sex is quite frankly abhorrent to both those who really have been assaulted and those who have been falsely accused (especially in light of the fact there will never be any justice for them, anonymity for life for the liar, no smoke without fire for the innocent).
Sexual assault allegations are the new witch trials, there have been one too many high profile cases where plod has been only too happy to try to prove how much they care about the 'victim' without ensuring that she rot in jail when the truth comes out. This is not helped by idiots like yourself who see 'sex crime' and know right away that means guilty.
That said, avoiding due process of law through hiding in an embassy is not really a good approach for anyone, sets a bad precedent and is more about playing politics than anything else.
You give consent to have sex, it's not rape, you don't give consent, it's rape. You could be in the middle of one of the most amazing sessions in your life ever, but if she says "stop" and you don't, that is rape, there is no middle ground.
One of the girls (there was two, no smoke without fire is one thing, two sources of smoke though?) gave consent for sex with a condom, in other words, without a condom there was no consent and you can guess what that makes right? Yes, no consent and that means...... what exactly?
When it comes to rape there can be no grey areas, it's either rape or not rape, if the woman (or man) does not give or cannot give consent then it is rape, it's as simple as that, and as one of the woman did not give consent to sex without a condom, then it most certainly is rape.
Oh, and I haven't claimed once that he is guilty, it is not my place to suggest he is guilty, nor is it your place to suggest he is innocent, it is up to the courts and due process to decide if he has a case to answer for and if he has a case to answer for if he is guilty or not, he's skipping out on that part.
Unfortunately these things are almost never black and white. We would all be better off if that were the case, but often it hinges on a who said what and when, with 2 different accounts and little in the way of real evidence. You are of course right that if someone changes their mind and says stop then it means stop. They can also change their mind and say no condom? Oh ok let's go anyway. As far as I can see there was no complaint at the time, no attempt to stop things there and then or to call the police. At a later date when there seems to be possible other motives suddenly this comes to light.
The plod, one assumes, have a duty to investigate such a complaint and it seems the prosecutor spoke to JA but then refused all other avenues to ascertain if there was sufficient evidence to proceed or likelihood of getting a conviction. Unless there is something specific we are not being told there doesn't seem to be any realistic chance of a conviction here so not sure why everyone's time is being wasted. A balancing of rights for the accuser and accused might help in making JA (and many others) accused of this sort of crime more likely to go through a process that will, at best, show that there is not enough evidence to make them guilty, rather than showing them to be innocent. Right now even if innocent you're looking at arrest and possible charges creating a permanent record which will affect things like visa applications and jobs requiring any form of clearance. If you're unlucky enough to be found guilty in the popularity parade that such a trial really is then you're in even more trouble. If you're guilty you will get everything you deserve but right now because of the general view on sex crimes we should tread much more carefully around who we accuse and what minimum standard of evidence is required to move forwards with even an arrest.
Either way I think triggering a diplomatic incident is pretty dumb but it would all be for the good if it could be a catalyst for more rational thinking about sex crimes, likelihood of conviction and realistic compensation for the reputational damage done by false accusations. Perhaps some real thinking about how we purge false allegations and investigate/punish those who make them?
FYI, 2 sources of smoke does not a fire make.
"When it comes to rape there can be no grey areas, it's either rape or not rape, if the woman (or man) does not give or cannot give consent then it is rape, it's as simple as that, and as one of the woman did not give consent to sex without a condom, then it most certainly is rape."
'Are you wearing anything [Julian]?' 'Yes, you'; allegedly.
So, if the female partner during sex says stop, then technically the male is now a rapist?
You appear to be constructing a definition of rape specifically designed to allow easy legal entrapment of the male by the female . How idiotic - julian assange isn't important enough to redefine English to get him
allegations of coercion and sexual molestation
Shouldn't that be allegations of sexual assault and rape? He shouldn't have been granted asylum because he faced strict non-political charges, he can't leave the embassy *at all* and not with the "diplomatic bag" as that will be opened if the plod suspect he's in there (if he is in there, it's no longer a diplomatic bag and the plod can open it).
The British government can enter simply by removing the status of embassy from the place which they have the legal powers to do (especially to arrest a wanted criminal - and yes, before you hit that red button with your "no he isn't, he hasn't even been tried" he's broken bail conditions which is... a crime).
Assange is proven to be paranoid, won't there be major egg on the apologists when he gets sent to Sweden, charged, tried, paid the fine and then... released, all without being sent to America and executed.
If the US had wanted him, which country do you think they would have asked to send him over to them, the British who will send over a person with no evidence presented in the courts or the Swedish?
The British government has to take a stance and go and get him, we can't have people who are facing allegations of serious sexual assault just skipping into an embassy and claiming political persecution, especially when it takes years for an extradition to go through appeals, more appeals, even more appeals all the way up to the European Courts where they will say "no, can't extradite him to the US". Hell, we can't even deport a frikken terrorist to Jordan, what on Earth makes you think we'd be able to extradite this wanker to the US?
If the US wants it or not there is the rule of law, you can't just bundle him into a van and send him to the US ignoring EU law, if we could do that we would happily send that bloke to Jordan. No EU country would do that because it removes their stand on Human Rights "if you can break human rights, why can't we?" which is exactly why we can't extradite that terrorist to Jordan and exactly why the UK and Sweden couldn't send Assange to the US.
"you can't just bundle him into a van and send him to the US ignoring EU law"
I don't know about that, don't forget all the extraordinary renditions done by the USA and the facilities made available to assist them by countries in the EU. Poland comes to mind or maybe Romania. So just because Assange is currently in the EU is no guarantee that he won't be disappeared if it suits the powers that be.
Come off it, such a high profile target as him just magically disappearing one night in one country and oh look, he's in the US, you don't think there would be major ramifications for whichever government in the EU decided to do that? You don't think they would get hammered by the press, by their own people, by the EU itself?
There would be a major uproar over it, every other country in the EU would publicly slam whichever country bundled him into a van and sent him on his merry way screaming about the rule of law and human rights and due process.
But lets not forget where Wikileaks is hosted (for protection), and which political party supports it openly (hint, Sweden and the Swedish Pirate Party), so the country which affords Wikileaks such protection, is a country he wants to avoid because it'll..... make him sing Viking songs and slander the Finnish?
The Wikileaks exposure of criminal actions by the US, UK and other governments was not alone. It also showed up various misdeeds of individuals not acting on behalf of the US or its poodles.
The people who are angry about that are either
1. Part of the problems he helped very partially expose
2. Supporters of the perpetrators of them
3. Wannabes or
4. Seriously misinformed.
Whether Assange has or has not had non-consensual sex with others could well never be known even if he flew to Sweden tonight. The case has had so much political interference that a fair trial is unlikely anyway, just as it is questionable if his extradition hearings were free of non-judicial input.
He has upset the rich and powerful. These are the people who have no interest in the truth, just in their continued power. If he has to be "suicided" to discourage future revelations, so be it.
Equador has done a fine thing and we should thank them!
Thing is, what good does it do them? Assange can't leave the grounds on his own, and you would think Scotland Yard will be well aware of a covert exit (including disguises and underground). You can forget an aerial exit as the airspace there is controlled by the British, and a simple stall tactic can only work for so long until the British get fed up and just temporarily revoke the embassy's protection so they can come in regardless. Unless Ecuador can draw support from other nations, I don't think they have enough political pull to put up a credible counter-threat to British interests.
This had nothing to do with wikileaks and everything to do with him being wanted for questioning about rape, why do people seem to forget that? It's alright for a man to go around raping women if he runs a politically motivated website? Why should he be above the law? Why shouldn't he face his accusers in Sweden?
Seriously, do you have an answer about why one man should be allowed to avoid charges of rape simply because he runs a website?
OK. Will you and the current occupant of 10 Downing Street guarantee, with your lives, his healthy return to England and to the Equadorian embassy if he is acquitted on the rape charges? If not, you're just as weak as I am, for not taking any kind of stand in his defense (or against it.)
Have a drink, it will make the rest of your life pass faster.
How can you offer a guarantee not to extradite someone to the US when the US hasn't made an extradition request? Suppose the US prosecutor delivers a request containing apparently unimpeachable evidence of very serious charges.
If we want to live in a state of law then extradition requests are dealt with on the strength of the allegations. Are the Swedes and the UK authorities meant to say a blunt 'no' and ignore the evidence? How does that serve justice?
Uh, throw the word "rape" around and it almost means something.
Why is it those ladies didn't quite report this in a timely manner, but only after conferring between themselves.
How come Sweden couldn't interview Assange in the month he stayed there, but only found they needed him the day he left for Berlin?
And while it's nice for Sweden to be dogmatic and throw its weight around, it wasn't possible for them to interview Assange at the embassy?
Somehow this seems a lot more like extraditing to the US than worrying about the Swedish part of the equation.
(hey didn't Strauss-Kahn go through something similar?)
I'm sure you raise valid points but answer this, why can't Assange face his accusers in the courts of an EU nation that is signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights and would offer him not only appeals against extradition in its own courts but also those of the EU Court of Human Rights etc? I cannot think of anywhere on the planet you could have a more exhaustive appeals process.
Seriously, if he thinks the Swedes will extradite him to the US despite the UK having to agree and EU court appeals having to be fully exhausted in order to do so, how the fuck does he think the US won't get him in Ecuador? A tin-pot South American nation that they can simply have him popped or abducted in without so much as a nod and a wink.
"How come Sweden couldn't interview Assange in the month he stayed there, but only found they needed him the day he left for Berlin?"
After the Swedish police told his Swedish counsel of intent to interview, charge and arrest Assange he disappeared, reappearing in England. In an English court his Swedish counsel at first denied the Swedish police had contacted him, but had to retract, in public, in an impeccable legal forum, Assange's court case in England.
As to Assange's flight from Sweden, I am no longer prepared to suspend my beliefs and disbeliefs; his behaviour has strengthened my opinion (I stress that this is an opinion, and opinions can be freely held without legal comback or hindrance as a entitled in English law) that he is indeed a rapist.
"Brave Sir Julian ran away Bravely ran away, away When danger reared its ugly head He bravely turned his tail and fled Yes, brave Sir Julian turned about And gallantly he chickened out Bravely taking to his feet He beat a very brave retreat Bravest of the brave, Sir Julian!"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/14/julian-assange-asylum-ecuador-wikileaks?CMP=twt_gu
"Why is it those ladies didn't quite report this in a timely manner, but only after conferring between themselves."
That's for a court to hear and decide. I don't know if it's true or not. It's rather besides the point now he's broken UK law, though.
But still... it's not uncommon for rape victims to not come forward until a while afterwards, and some only come forwards when they understand that it's not just them, or "their fault" and that other women have been and might in the future be affected.
Many are so shamed that they never come forwards.
I'm actually shocked you got a down vote there.
Part of what pisses me off about this whole saga is the trivialisation of rape. Plenty has been made of the fact that the girls have withdrawn their complaint - that too is symptomatic and does not mean nothing happened.
The whole idea of hauling Assange back by his ears to Sweden is to establish the facts - was this rape or not? I don't have an opinion either way (I wasn't there), but I trust the Swedish judiciary to know the one from the other, and that's why Assange must go back there.
As for the argument that it can all happen in the UK, people seem to forget that there are effectively THREE people to be interviewed, not just Assange. That it is inconvenient for Assange is immaterial - he should have thought of that before he ran away.
Rape is a crime, and properly so. If Assange's behaviour is not rape, the only place where this can be established is exactly where he doesn't want to go. That seems to suggest Assange isn't afraid of the US, but of the facts in Sweden itself.
"I'm actually shocked you got a down vote there."
I was pretty appalled, too. Clearly, every woman who is raped should have to come forward and face public shame and her accusers within three hours flat, or is making it up, or something; according to some minds. Seriously: WTF?!
Sometimes the up/downvote leaves more questions than it answers. You think "What *possible* chain of logic was deployed to this person to agree/disagree with that, and how on Earth would they ever justify it in writing?"
" "I'm actually shocked you got a down vote there."
I was pretty appalled, too."
This and another theme have upset me also. There seems to be a callous attitude to sex and the use of protection against STDs. I frequently refer to the obverse case of Nadia Benaissa ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11097934 or http://www.bbc.co.uk/search/news/nadja_benaissa ) in the hope that some flicker of empathy might possibly emerge, but it seems not. These women were worried at the possibility of HIV infection, and it would seem that Julie was similarly scathing in that context:
"Q: That leaves us with the fact, because you accept this, that one of those women at least did make a complaint against you.
JA: Not even a complaint. It appears, from the records that we do have, the suggestion is that they went to the police for advice and they did not want to make a complaint. What they say is that they found out that they were mutual lovers of mine and they had undertaken sex and they got into a tizzy about whether there was a possibility of sexually transmitted diseases. They went to the police to…
Q: They wanted you to have a test as well.
JA: …to have a test.
Q: Did you have a test?
JA: Ridiculous thing to go to the police about. "
( http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9309000/9309320.stm )
In the UK national consciousness of the dangers of unprotected sex seem to have been forgotten, and with this an odious form of arrogance occasionally emerges, and the current imbroglio epitomises this, complete with background chanting by Julie's boiz.
There seems to be no connection here with the Scandinavian/Nordic/Germanic conceptions of sexual health. None at all.
Uh, throw the word "rape" around and it almost means something.
It is the correct legal term for what the offence has progressed to because Assange decided not to bother with doing the right thing. If he had had the decency to have himself tested after failing to use a condom despite being asked (which a decent person would do) it would have never escalated to this. This was 100% under Assange's control, like his compliance with UK law - fleeing to the Embassy ensured he now committed a criminal offence in the UK. Also note: he is at present still wanted for questioning, but there is indeed chance it could result in a formal charge.
Why is it those ladies didn't quite report this in a timely manner, but only after conferring between themselves.
Sigh. Another one who thinks that rape should be reported the moment it happens. Secondly, the girls did not go to the police for rape, they sought their help to ask Assange to get himself tested. When Assange bolted and subsequently failed to collaborate it automatically escalated under Swedish law and became a criminal investigation.
How come Sweden couldn't interview Assange in the month he stayed there, but only found they needed him the day he left for Berlin?
Nice attempt to revise history.. Assaneg bolted exactly BECAUSE he knew the police wanted a word with him, which suggests a guilty conscience.
And while it's nice for Sweden to be dogmatic and throw its weight around, it wasn't possible for them to interview Assange at the embassy?
Not under Swedish law (actually, AFAIK the UK would require the same, as most other countries), and it's also not the fault of the Swedish that Assange decided to flee the country. This is a simple matter of jurisdiction, and Assange is not so special that he warrants an exception to the law. In addition, this is how extradition processes work - you ship the person, not the investigation.
Somehow this seems a lot more like extraditing to the US than worrying about the Swedish part of the equation.
Well, in the paranoid delusional mind of Assange & co, sure. Feels more like a very guilty conscience to me.
It has been shown again and again and again how extradition to the US would violate far too many EU laws for it to be realistic, not to mention the fact that the US would have to start with an extradition request. They are investigating him, sure, but there is no request. As a matter of fact, if he's smart he gets himself in a Swedish jail ASAP because it's actually the safest place for him to be right now. It would currently need both Sweden and the UK to agree to extradition. Anywhere else (and certainly in any banana republic) and I don't see him survive very long. He doesn't need some black ops team, his arrogance and egoism alone suffice to sharply reduce his lifespan..
(hey didn't Strauss-Kahn go through something similar?)
Not quite. Strauss-Kahn didn't use every excuse known to man to avoid detention, including getting money from well meaning celebrities when he was planning to abscond his bail anyway. And Strauss-Khan WAS wanted by US authorities, whereas Assange is not. This could change, but if he's then already in a Swedish cell there is not much the US can do (AFAIK, IANAL).
The events in Sweden are pretty well documented. Unfortunately for Assange, because his version didn't quite agree with the documents which leaked. That shouldn't have happened, but the irony was profound - and it exposed his version for the fairy tale it was.
"It's alright for a man to go around raping women if he runs a politically motivated website?"
Please, he has not been convicted of any crime either here, in Sweden or the United States, so stop judging him. You are not the court or the jury. Of course if he is convicted he deserves whatever sentence is handed down, but until he is, he is considered to be *innocent* and should be treated as such, inconvenient as that might be.
>Seriously, do you have an answer about why one man should be allowed to avoid charges of rape simply because he runs a website?
>@nematoad - I'm not judging him, I'm asking a perfectly legitimate question.
He hasn't been charged is the simple answer. As others have pointed out he could just as easily answer any questions that might determine whether he will be charged or not without having to be extradited to Sweden.
"Please, he has not been convicted of any crime either here, in Sweden or the United States"
Ok... it's alright for a man to run out of appeals despite having a pricey lawyer, and then try to cheese it overseas while on bail if he runs a politically motivated website?
Can I judge him for that? Please?
Yeah, well.
But I believe we can all agree that anyone accused of a crime can rightly be expected, and - if necessary - coerced to face a trial under due process of law. That that law doesn't necessarily have to be US or UK law might come as a surprise to some here, but is simply a fact of life.
Swedish law outlaws behaviour that isn't a criminal offence in the UK or US? If you have a problem with that you might not want to travel to Sweden...
He was in Sweden at the time of his alleged offences, so Swedish law is the relevant one.
Nothing new here.
The whole 'contempt of court/jumping bail thing is another can of worms.
I have no idea whether the original accusations against him have any merit, but there's only one way to find out. The charges the UK is bringing forward have rather a bit of merit, no matter what.
>There law saw it has to be done in Sweden.
Yes and that is a rather silly law. The UK police positively look forward to a suspect fleeing the country so they can have a good old jolly at the tax payers expense. Or even something as flimsy as investigating the death of a British subject on foreign soil.
I wonder if they'd be so insistent on applying the law if he'd fled to Barbados?
"What about the Ecuadorians' offer for Swedish investigators to come over to London and talk to Assange (TM)?
Turned down.
Apparently the Swedes aren't even interested in getting their charge sheet right...
Regardless of what he may have done, this reeks to me."
There is of course the reasonable position of why the fuck Sweden should listen to any offer from a third party about their own law? This is between Sweden and Assange, and Ecuador has nothing to do with it.
Separately, I also bet both London and Quito were swearing in their respective languages when he turned up at the embassy, because it's a headache both could do without.
Seriously, one self-aggrandising twat, not even British or Ecuadorean, can cause a diplomatic incident?
The interview he's wanted for isnt just tea and bickies, They turned it down in order to get the "charge sheet" right. The Swedish definition of charged requires him to be so immediately after an interview. The charge cannot be levied in The uk as Sweden has no authority here. They want to interview him with a view to placing a charge, even if they did interview here, they'd still be needing him, for interview, in Sweden.
By the English legal definition, a court has determined (in the Uk) that he is charged already as we define it. Comes down to a difference in systems and where the label is applied.
The campaign against Assange (paint him as a sleazy rapist, instead of someone who published a lot of embarrassing stuff) is a good example of rule number 5 of disinformation.
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
Painting Manning as a cross dresser etc, falls into the same category.
Regardless, Mr. Assange has now had his life irreparably f*ked up for pissing off the wrong people. Despite the frailty of the rape charge, it has now become a diplomatic incident. His only real hope now is to attract as much international attention to his plight as possible.
Conspiracy theories aside, I honestly have trouble imagining any other explanation that make sense. It would help if the Swedes would come clean and guarantee he will not be extradited and that this is not politically motivated. If they do he should then go and face the music under the world's scrutiny. But, that will probably not happen. A more likely outcome is he will rot in the Ecuadorian embassy for a very long time, where he has essentially been rendered impotent and disgraced.
Assange's opponents 1 Assange 0
For a better understanding of such tactics, I recommended reading:
http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html
It's a real shame Ecuador isn't so concerned about the rights of its own citizens (http://www.hrw.org/americas/ecuador):
'Corruption, inefficiency, and political influence have plagued the Ecuadorian judiciary for many years. In a referendum held in 2011, President Rafael Correa obtained a popular mandate for constitutional reforms that could significantly increase government powers to constrain media and influence the appointment and dismissal of judges.
'Ecuador’s laws restrict freedom of expression, and government officials, including Correa, use these laws against his critics. Those involved in protests marred by violence may be prosecuted on inflated and inappropriate ‘terrorism’ charges.
'Impunity for police abuses is widespread and perpetrators of murders often attributed to a “settling of accounts” between criminal gangs are rarely prosecuted and convicted. '
I wonder how long Assange would have lasted were he unlucky enough to be an Ecuadoran? Or indeed, following his lucrative stint with RT, an opponent of Vladimir Putin?
"If no one can guarantee he won't be sent off to a country with a poor record on corruption and human rights then they did the right thing."
Amazingly this is just what Julie wants:
http://www.hrw.org/world-report-2012/world-report-2012-ecuador
http://www.hrw.org/americas/ecuador
Want to see some more puppies?
States have laws to protect their secrets. Breaking those laws is usually considered a major crime. Whatever we may think of the country, whatever we may think of its ethics, however much we may think that some of those secrets should be made public... that law is an absolute fact. Since when was Assange immune?
Anyway, he swans around the world while the man who made it all possible for him "enjoys" US Military prison hospitality. In my personal rule book, I'd imprison him just for that.
Did you just say that the U.S. is at war with Julian? or Australia or Equador? Otherwise, the acts of a non-U.S.citizen while residing in a country other than the U.S. cannot be subject to U.S. laws. If you're saying that he is subject to U.N. resolutions(whatever) or treaties, then shouldn't the CIA/MI-x/MOSSAD/etc be subject to the same?
"States have laws to protect their secrets." - it is one thing to hide secrets. It is quite another to stamp National Security on cock-ups that are hoped to be swept under the carpet. That was sort of the original charter of Wikileaks, to expose the degree of corruption being hidden away from sight. This becomes a matter when large terrorist acts occur and everybody in the victim country freaks out, unaware that this may in fact be a retaliation for something the populace knew nothing about. And if the populace didn't know, there's nobody to stand up and say "hey, WTF?". Such actions go unchecked and... really... why am I explaining this to you?
Every government has secrets. It is a necessity. However the government needs to act in the best interests of the country and its citizens, not the best interests of itself.
Or maybe you would prefer to bury your head in the sand and believe your government always does what is right and best? Really, if this was true there would be little for Wikileaks to publish.
" it is one thing to hide secrets. It is quite another to stamp National Security on cock-ups that are hoped to be swept under the carpet. That was sort of the original charter of Wikileaks, to expose the degree of corruption being hidden away from sight. "
The release of the vast swathe of diplomatic cables far exceeded that remit, though. It wasn't just cock-ups and corruption that was revealed, but *everything*. And for what purpose was all the misc data released in real terms?
The fact that Assange released data *some* of the data he did is certainly a good thing. But that doesn't make it any more legal in the US than me beating a paedo to death. Courts do not and cannot have "but it was for a good cause" get-out clauses when applying the law. Granted, they can apply a modifier to sentencing for that reason, but not the question of guilt itself. Whether it was morally right or not, what Assange did was illegal.
Let's ponder: If Assange had been emailed the details of the next stealth fighter or piece of uber-tech, would he have posted it? If so, that goes way beyond the remit of whistle-blowing and into the verge of simply exposing state secrets for the hell of it. And that then very much becomes an issue for governments.
"Since when was Assange immune? Anyway, he swans around the world while the man who made it all possible for him "enjoys" US Military prison hospitality. In my personal rule book, I'd imprison him just for that."
I'm gonna downvote you like those other guys because I think he deserves to be an exception to the laws of three nations and be allowed to swan around the globe freely, sipping cocktails while Manning rots forgotten in jail.
And because I disagree that nations should have any secrets and not expect anything and everything to be leaked to the entire world, and should be perfectly OK with that.
Just like those other people did. That's what we're downvoting for, right?
Now where are they and their photos either? Surely they ought to have kicked up a huge storm by now? Giving interviews, writing books and raking it in? Confronting Assange in London and getting all the media attention!
It now appears more plausible that all this was a honeytrap set up by the Yanks to get him.
And Sweden is not known to be super prudish when it comes to casual sex!
There's only one problem with this honey-trap conspiracy theory - there's was never any need for anyone to do it. If you the US wanted him, they could have just had him extradited anyway. Why would they have to go the indirect route through Sweden especially, as some people have noted, considering the highly advantageous extradition treaty they have with the UK? Still, we never let logic get in the way of a good conspiracy theory, do we?
Assange turned UK sentiment against any form of extradition because he played the capital punishment card (because his releases under US law could constitute espionage, which DOES have a potential death penalty as that was the charge that did in the Rosenbergs). He's claiming the US has either a blackmail or a secret deal with Sweden (Swedish legal system is less transparent) that would basically force him to be sent to the us, EU laws be damned, if he even ended up there.
"Giving interviews, writing books and raking it in? Confronting Assange in London and getting all the media attention!"
Are you for real?
Does it not occur to you that someone who feels they were sexually violated might not want to hold a press conference and go into detail about it in front of cameras?
"And Sweden is not known to be super prudish when it comes to casual sex!"
Oh, and a bit of racism thrown in there for good measure. Nice.
And, on the other hand, they might just be normal people with actual lives, families and friends, to whom having their private lives dragged all through the international press isn't a dream come true but something from a veritable nightmare...
But I might very well be overrating some commenters' connection with reality here...
This post has been deleted by its author
What JA is accused of...
'Unlawful coercion' against Miss A - pinning her down
'Sexual molestation' by refusing to wear a condom with Miss A
'Deliberate molestation' of Miss A
'Rape' of Miss W: had sex with her while she was sleeping and without a condom
So was it consensual sex that become "rape" cos he refused to wear a condom? And unlawful coercion can involve emotional pressure as well, though in this case, he's been accused of pinning her down and not applying just emotional pressure.
Can you give consent when you are asleep?
This website gives an answer...
I was unconscious or asleep when the rape occurred.
If you are asleep or unconscious, then you cannot give your consent to sexual intercourse. Without your consent to intercourse, a crime occurred and it's called rape.
In law school there was something called 'implied consent.'
If a guy was dragged by the short hairs to some woman's flat, who fell asleep or went unconscious on him from all the drinks and drugs she had consumed, it was implied that she consented to be shagged for as long as guy could get it up. She usually wanted to go to dinner with him the next night.
Two cases, that is, of having sex with a woman without her permission. That fits the usual definition of rape fairly well in both cases and especially well in the second, which fails to remotely approach consensual sex. Away with him.
If the Swedish legal system finds otherwise and releases him, Ecuador probably has an embassy there if the U. S. wants to extradite. I rather doubt that the US has much interest in Julian Assange, as most of any damage already is done - there is no such thing as an unleak - and most of what I saw in the New York Times amounted to diplomatic gossip about people who mostly knew what the U. S. thought of them but might have preferred that it not be published. There's been a great deal of noise about the U. S. being upset, but there likely are many others, some with fewer scruples.
Not at all a bad observation, although I think it might be difficult to prosecute Mr. Assange, an Australian citizen, for publishing materials he "found" in Iceland or Sweden (or someplace else not the U. S). On the other hand, taking him down would not likely discourage Wikileaks from publishing additional information they might "find" in the future - Wikileaks, whether you like it or not, is more than, and probably not dependent on, Julian Assange. He may now, in fact, be a liability for Wikileaks. And these materials would not have been "found" but for unauthorized actions of somebody like PFC Bradley Manning who, if convicted of the charges he faces, will provide a far better example to discourage others.
If the police and Governemnt are putting so much effort into this pillock, you might get the idea I'm not his greatest fan, then that's the only conclusion I can come to. That, and that all the known illegal immigrants and foreign terrorists and murderers have been shipped out of the country making England a veritable utopia free of rape, muggings and other such unpleasantries.
... this is such a stupid own goal by the government.
There was obviously an internal conflict in the Ecuadorian government as to whether or not to grant asylum. UK threatening so send in the Plods was all that was needed for Ecuador to come together and decide.
"Such a stupid own goal by the [British] government"
Possibly, or a devious ploy intended precisely to persuade them to give him asylum as they appeared to be wavering.
I'm not usually a one for conspiracy theories so on the balance I still subscribe to this being a complete cock-up, but it's of such monstrous proportions that it's stretching credulity.
Well, it's forced the ecudorians to commit to a course of activity and as they now can't throw him out without loss of face, they are responsible to feed/water him for the forseeable future.
A Google search shows htere is an extradition treaty between ecudor and USA - so might not be totally safe even if when attention is directed elsewhere (such as the para-olympics) he manages to somehow "escape" from the UK, I've seen news items suggesting there are negotiations with the EU on trade treaties - being in dispute might influence this. Likewise there are supposed to be negotiations on favoured nation status between ecudor and USA due Jan 2013 - this might be a good reason for them to fail, or prhaps provide a sacrifice? assuming the US are really intersted in hiom in the first place
Likewise if nothing is done and he has got to ecudor then he is in an intersting prision as he can;t risk taking any transport that might end up in the USA - or perhaps there might be an unfortunate incident with a robbery going wrong ?
Rape, no rape, extradition from here to here. Who knows. What I do know is that this is about much more than we are all probably aware or will likely ever find out. People get arrested and charged on simply an allegation these days, and we're looking to storm an embassy so JA can go an answer a few simple questions. Pick up the phone perhaps? I mean really.
I also don't believe that the UK foreign office would expose itself to such obvious bad-form just to keep our 'special friends' happy. Whatever the cause of this, the UK must have a pretty major security interest in arresting this man - can anyone remember in our recent history a story even remotely obsure and unsettling as this? No; this is something quite different...
outcome for Julian is not being kidnapped from the embassy , and bundled onto a Sweden bound aircraft thats diverted to the USA
The worst case outcome for him is being extradited to Sweden, being interviewed there, and the the police going "Its ok sir, no charges to answer , now get lost"... followed by the US saying "we're not interested in the stupid little prick either"
I doubt the Brits were serious when they said they would enter the embassy. Probably hyperbole. There is also no gurantee that Sweden would extradite. Why wouldn't Assange want to face the charges against him in Sweden? It would be a large event covered by the press where he could prove his innocence on the global stage, obviously this assumes hes innocent. Perhaps he promised to provide all data he had to Ecuador and not release any of their sensitive data in exchange for asylum? I dont think anyone involved is completely innocent here.
No state could give such a guarantee. If a third party country with whom relevant treaties exist can produce sufficient evidence to warrant extradition (and guarantee there is no possibility of the death penalty being applied), countries are not free to say 'well, we promised we wouldn't - so you can't have him'. There isn't (despite all the paranoid conspiracy theories being promoted by Assange's media poodles) any evidence that such an application is plausible. Or that, if it were, it would be more likely to succeed in Sweden than in the UK.
Whatever reasons are behind Assange's reluctance to go to Sweden, they can have nothing to do with a reasonable fear of extradition to the US.
"I doubt the Brits were serious when they said they would enter the embassy."
That's because *it was never said*
The leaked letter pretty much said "By the way, we hope it doesn't come to this, and we'd like a nice outcome, but just in case you forgot, we have a law that says we can close your embassy. And then it won't be an embassy any more. And then we can wander in, if we wanted to... but we hope we won't."
What riles me is the fact that everybody and their brother is discussing Assange and his circumstances, and three different countries are out to get his ass, while of the many serious crimes described in the (in)famous 'Cablegate' files no one -AFAIK- has been prosecuted or even investigated yet, and those files surfaced almost two years ago.
And regarding his crimes in Sweden, the plaintiff wrote a document on getting revenge on men by accusing them of sexual crimes. Any judge in his sane mind would laugh her out of the courtroom.
And then, we should ask ourselves why is the Swedish Judiciary wasting so many resources in this farce. And why did Assange choose this quite extraordinary course of action, i.e. asking for asylum in an embassy.
I reckon that Assange is far better informed and better advised than most people think, and he considers being extradited to Sweden a serious risk for his life and/or freedom. Seriously, that is the only hypothesis that makes any sense in this clusterfuck.
"I reckon that Assange is far better informed and better advised than most people think, and he considers being extradited to Sweden a serious risk for his life and/or freedom. Seriously, that is the only hypothesis that makes any sense in this clusterfuck."
No, another hypothesis that makes sense is that Assange is both paranoid and full of himself and his delusion is that being extradited to Sweden would be a serious risk for his life and/or freedom.
OR --
He knows that he, in fact DID do what he's accused of in Sweden and knows that his freedom is at risk there, AND --
He knows that DID skip bail in Britain and is afraid that after serving his sentence in Sweden he'd be sent back to the UK to be tried and serve time for THAT.
AND --
Having shown that he is a flight risk, he could count on spending time before the respective trials wearing an unflattering orange jumpsuit (or local equivalent) and associating with a less elevated class of individuals, rather than lounging around country houses and luxury apartments.
See...? There are PLENTY of other explanations that make sense.
So tell me this: What prevents the Ecuadorians from putting Assange on a helicopter and drop him on a boat in international waters? All they have to do is file a flight plan, not say who's on board, right? If gov.uk finds out while the helicopter is still in the air, would they send jets to down it? What? They'd have no mandate to shoot to kill. All they could do is actually escort said helicopter to international waters, where he'd be put on a Learjet to Ecuador. Who says they didn't do this already? :)
So tell me this: What prevents the Ecuadorians from putting Assange on a helicopter and drop him on a boat in international waters?
The fact that that area of London is a no-fly zone that can only be entered with permission. Guess what they won't get?
Having said that, I don't know the Ecuadorian embassy - not sure there is even a place to land safely. Winching Assange into a hovering heli will provoke what I'd call the David Blaine effect: the irresistible urge to pelt dangling idiots that are not Boris Johnson with whatever comes handy. Which may or may not include him being used for target practice in the process.
Nice idea, fails on practical grounds.
What stops them is the fact that he cannot leave that ground floor apartment without being arrested. The rest of the block is not part of the embassy. Any air traffic around that area will be watched closely. But he would never make it to a helicopter before being arrested. Oh and where out in the middle of International waters would you propose that Learjet lands? Last time I checked LJ do not make seaplanes.
Look the fact is the Swedish police wish to question him. He had more than a fair hearing in many differing courts of the UK Justice system and they have ruled that he must be sent to Sweden to face up to the legal process there. He's trying to dodge that by breaking his UK bail conditions...he's made himself a criminal here. His work with wiki-leaks does not auto magically make him exempt from legal process of Sovereign states.
It's funny hearing that Tinpot central American leader start banging the colonial drums in regards to the UK. Maybe he's forgotten that the US, Spain and the Porta-Gease where the main players in his shit strip of the world! Funny that as he also does not mind selling them cheap oil for trade favours & a blind eye to his crimes ;-) Mean while all Julians fans are crying about us threatening their Sovereignty to recover someone who has broken UK law. Protip: Asylum is not their to provide a get out of jail free card
The nature of Swedish due process requires him to be within Swedish borders so they cannot and will not interview him in the UK. The Swedes also cannot promise he won't be extradited as they cannot be sure the US won't present clear evidence that would lead to him being put on trial at some point in the future & such a promise would fly of face of good Diplomacy.
Face it. His numbers up either way. He has to go to Sweden to get that matter resolved come good or bad result for him. The US are still investigating Wiki leaks at this point in regards to who played what role with manning etc. If Julian thinks being granted protection by a small nation state will stop the US if they do find evidence to charge him with then he is dreaming that he did not in fact paint the target on his own back.
Big brother cos there is a lack of Monopoly based Icons
"got that?"
Get this:
Like WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, Alexander Barankov has worked to expose government misconduct via the Internet. Both men have received refuge on Ecuadorian territory. But while the South American country made world headlines granting Assange diplomatic asylum on Thursday morning, Barankov faces imminent extradition from Ecuador to its new ally Belarus, described by most observers as “Europe’s last dictatorship.”
http://world.time.com/2012/08/16/assanges-special-asylum-why-ecuador-isnt-nice-to-anyone-else/?iid=ent-category-mostpop2
This looks like two repressive regimes shuffling the deck to suit themselves.
Looks like we are in for a cat and mouse game with Assange finding a way out of the Embassy with a following car chase through London towards an, as yet, unidentified airfield. The chase will have the obvious flashing blue lights and unmarked vans all shadowed by the US G men, who have their own agenda, probably in helicopters disguised as News Crew.
Ultimately Assange will get to a plane which will take off - Britain will claim it did everything it could to arrest him and Ecuador will be doing some grandstanding.
Then the plot goes two ways;
a) The plane is intercepted in international airspace by a F1-11 which "escorts' it to a rendition friendly nation or;
b) Assange arrives in Ecuador to a hero's welcome but 6 months later Ecuador suddenly finds it'self in receipt of a dollop of US aid. Assange then mysteriously looses his Diplomatic status "new evidence of his serious crimes has been brought to the attention of the Ecuadorian Government" and a midnight flight lands on US soil with one passenger escorted by 20 marines. Ecuador and the US become the best of friends and Sweden bows out on the basis of "his crimes in the US are more serious (sic) than those he is only accused of in Sweden"
Whichever way the plot goes Assange is going to end up in US hands.
Justice will not have been done and I will forever think Sweden could have done it differently.
Assange is going to end up in US hands.
The US is laughing its head off, because they have done exactly ZERO. Assange is doing all the scaremongering to prevent having to account for what he did in Sweden and now breaking his bail conditions. I find it spectacularly ironic that it is exactly Assange (tm) who knows full well he is bullshitting..
Frankly, I think someone is going to get so fed up with the diplomatic problems the tw*t has created that they maybe just take him out with a sniper. One small bullet for man, one massive relief for mankind sort of thing, or maybe he gets an accident. How many stairs does that embassy have? How well do they cook their chickens? Does Assange have any unfortunate allergies other than for the decency to stand up for what he did?
"The US is laughing its head off, because they have done exactly ZERO. Assange is doing all the scaremongering to prevent having to account for what he did in Sweden and now breaking his bail conditions. I find it spectacularly ironic that it is exactly Assange (tm) who knows full well he is bullshitting.."
...and the moral of the story is, always knock before entering and always dress for wet weather. Better still don't have sex with women in strange countries whose laws you do not know.
Here is a Russian folk tale version of the moral; a forester is walking home one moonlit night, and sees a blackbird fluttering helplessly on the frosty ground. He picks it up, opens his jacket and puts it next to his chest, for warmth. On returning to his hut he notices the muck pile is still steaming, opens up a small cavity and puts the bird in up to its neck. Time passes... ...the bird awakens and, feeling better, starts to sing... ...a passing fox notices and decides "I'll have some of that" and eats it. The moral of the story is that it is not always your enemies who get you in it, it is not always your friends who pull you out of it, and there is absolutely no sense in singing about it when you are up to your neck in it.
HTH Julie, HTH, and have a nice trip.
So, when a psychopathic representative of a corrupt and tyrannical foreign regime leans out a window and machine-guns one of our coppers, we can't enter the embassy and have to grant them safe passage out of the country because of diplomatic protocols, but when it's just someone who's humiliated the American government, all of a sudden we don't give a shit about those same protocols and we're willing to threaten to storm their embassy and/or seize him out of their protection on his way to the airport? Fuck you, Hague, you pathetic lickspittle for a foreign power.
An Act of Parliament (Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987) was passed after the Yvonne Fletcher murder. That is the difference. If the same thing were to happen today, the Met would happily go door-kicking.
But don't let the facts get in the way of a good session of mouth-foaming.
Charles Crawford is a former diplomat, and he has just blogged his own views on some of the questions you have been asking.
See http://www.charlescrawford.biz/blog/diplomatic-bags-assange-
Having gone through a full cheery diplomatic career without having read the Vienna Convention, I thought that I would see if J Assange might be popp'd in an Ecuadoran Diplomatic Bag and removed from the UK that way.
In other words, can he be 'smuggled' out in broad sight or secretly, the Ecuadoreans claiming that their diplomatic bags are immune from search?
Sorry. No.
Here is some handy guidance from (of all people) HM Customs and Revenue sharing with us a Note from FCO Protocol Directorate:
Missions are further reminded that in deciding whether particular articles may be carried in a diplomatic bag they are required to observe the requirements not only of Article 27.4 (“only diplomatic documents or articles intended for official use”) but also of Article 41.1 (“laws and regulations of the receiving state”).
It is particularly stressed in this context that the regulations governing the import and possession of firearms in the UK are among those which must be observed, regardless of any claim that any firearms may be intended for official use.
In other words, if a man-shaped diplomatic bag is seen emerging from the Ecuadorean Embassy and we prod it with a pitchfork to confirm that it contains only diplomatic items, a squeak of 'Ouch!" would give us all the legal options we need to ask the Ecuador Embassy politely to undo it and show us what or who is therein.
QED.
So lets 'wildly' assume there is a victim. That maybe women aren't just CIA sex traps. I feel for the victim. Around the world, women are subjected to rape, abuse without the protection of the law. Cultural practises demoting women to second - class, rightless citizens.
Sweden being very much more progress in such matters. Offers the protection of the law. Now all you students of freedom and what - not, know that one of the tenants of freedom is the protection of people's rights; you know protection of liberty enshrined in law. That everyone is accountable to the law; governments, people etc.
But not Mr. Assange, he's the gingerbread man. He skips the country... With his important and well heeled friends, he just jumps on the next plane. Wearing his shield of truth, and wrapped in the flag of freedom. He's such a hero, why he doesn't even need to go for an interview. Victim? What victim ? Her voice, unimportant. My mission is so important. Goverments are evil grr.... It doesn't matter how many people I step on to bring them down.
Now 'wildly' assume there are no victims only two women who just happened to 'volunteer' to help him. Both of whom who made sure they met him after the meeting and both of whom who took him to their beds. Then both these volunteers'' claimed "Swedish" rape (that's when the condom is either too lose or too tight but not just right). They went to the police together -- the first one 3 days after she got boffed. Then these two lovely 'volunteers' cried havoc and let slip the dogs of war.
Say, I have a bridge for sale. It's 1 million dollars. You interested?
Now he will face trial or mysteriously be found dead"
"Mysteriously found dead?"
"That sounds medieval. Something out of an old melodrama," to quote Eve Harrington.
And you, so outraged by Assange not facing up to allegations of rape, are the picture of insouciance when it comes to some UK or US agent slipping Bolognium into his Lapsang souchong.
When educated, intellectual commentors like you have a harsh set of standards for the heinous behavior of those you detest and milder, gentler standards for the same or worse heinous behavior of the government of the country you live in and its allies, then surely pigs will soon be seen flying over Westminster Abbey and the end the World will just be a matter of time.
"Mysteriously found dead?"
A bit like David Kelly.
Come to think of it, maybe Hague will decide it's best to just snipe Assange through the window, sort of a reverse Yvonne Fletcher. And of course, it wasn't us, we don't do that in our civilised country - but we're not going to try too hard to find the sniper.
"Now he will face trial or mysteriously be found dead"
"Mysteriously found dead?"
"That sounds medieval. Something out of an old melodrama," to quote Eve Harrington."
Probably he wouldn't be found for a decade or two. Unless of course he mysteriously develops a virulent strain of HIV, or Ebola. (Wait, eBola, or was that iBOLA?) To borrow a line from the Godfather; "Oh, Julie, won't see him no more".
The Russians would have done the job irrespective of sensitivities, in full public glare they'd have poured the polonium into Julie's ears. This is what happens when most of the state duma are former KGB and FSB placemen, including the prez.
Scorchio Isn't this more like Verdi's "Don Carlos" than Coppola's "Godfather"? You remember Frederich's Schiller's play, "Don Carlos, Infant von Spanien"
You've got the US of A as Phillip II. You've got Prince Julien as the trouble making Infant, Carlos. You've got Elizabeth of Valois and Princess Eboli(!) played by the two Swedish Innocents. You've got an auto-de-fe in the third act (how yummy is that?)
You can be the Grand Inquisitor and in the last act, I'll be the voice of Charles V.
Very dramatic: "Carlos, calling on God, draws his sword to defend himself against the Inquisitor's guards, when suddenly, the Monk emerges from the tomb of Charles V. He grabs Carlos by the shoulder, and loudly proclaims that the turbulence of the world persists even in the Church; we cannot rest except in Heaven. Philip and the Inquisitor recognize the Monk's voice as that of the King's father, former-Emperor Carlo V ("Carlo Quinto") himself. Everyone screams in shock and terror, and the Monk/former-Emperor drags Carlos forcibly into the tomb and closes the entrance. The curtain falls." (summary by Wikipedia)
If you know Hague, you can suggest an auto-de-fe in Trafalgar Square when the UK finally gets Assange.
And tell Hague to burn down the Ecuadorian Embassy and stop pussy footing around. Jeez.
"Scorchio Isn't this more like Verdi's "Don Carlos" than Coppola's "Godfather"? You remember Frederich's Schiller's play, "Don Carlos, Infant von Spanien""
I usually don't pay much attention to your meandering BS. When I'm certain the content is meaningless drivel I disregard it, as I have in this case.
Perhaps you'd have more luck if you sought one of the more eccentric Usenet news conspiracy groups you'd have more fun, and you don't even have to know how to set up a News client because Google will fix you up with an account, and the signing up process is easy.
HTH. HAVND.
There's not a subject that you don't know more about than anyone else, and drivel tops your list. Not because you recognize it in others, but because it goes unrecognized in yourself.
I enjoy pulling your chain and have every intention of sticking around as long as you dangle it with that je ne sais quoi of yours.. (You can always re-handle yourself and stop using the 'fail' icon, but that wouldn't fool anyone.)
Having said that, I still like you a lot and, as Rick says at the end of the movie, "Louie, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship."
"There's not a subject that you don't know more about than anyone else"
Thank you for the compliment. It is the case that a lot of hard living, hard studying and hard working have contributed to the state to which you refer. I have a lot of letters after my name, and I earned them every one. Thus, when I hear the sound of jealousy emanating from a poster whose witterings make me consider the possibility that it is an acid casualty, or perhaps a doper, I am completely unperturbed and am, if anything, amused.
The celluloid reference has I regret to say gone over my head, and I am not going to search it out. I'm fairly choosy you see.
Do HAVND, and go easy on the chemicals. Tara for now, and enjoy the fail icon.
Now that we understand each other, I'll try to explain why Assange was absolutely correct to skip to England and then into the Ecuadorian embassy after all his appeals were exhausted there. "He should have gone back to Sweden," you said. I don't think so. And I doubt you'd have done it, had your positions been transposed.
Why? When you discover the cards are stacked against you, you always run. It's as simple as that. You don't run or stay for anybody else. Not for your wife and children. You run for yourself. You run to show the world what the people who are chasing you are like and how they're handling people interfering with them.
You fire a warning flare as high into the sky as you can to light up this fact for as long as possible. "The Red Coats are coming. The Red Coats are coming." Or words to that affect. Ironically, the 18th century Americans who heard those words begot the 21st century Americans who are now the monsters themselves.
Nietzsche: "Thus do I counsel you, my friends: distrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful!"
The Israelis, the American's, the Chinese. All peas from the same pod.
Admit it, Scorchio, you have no more knowledge than I do about the Swedish sexual scenes that Assange participated in.
You don't know how long their bout lasted, you don't know what positions they struck, whether it was just genital or, if there was oral and anal sex, and if there were oral and anal sex, when during the act it occured.
More to the point, Scorchio, you have no idea whether or not a condom was used. YOU HAVE NO IDEA IF SHE ASKED HIM TO USE ONE.
Scorchio's Swedish Meatballs
They're not the kind you eat, but the kind that eat you. They gnaw on your bone and lick your platter clean, then they go down to the police station and whine and moan how some cheap Australian condom ended up in her hair. One of the Meatballs, as part of the sting operation claims her pj's were clearly marked "Do not enter when sleeping or unconscious".
The statement that Meatball One waited a couple of days to go to the police after comparing notes with Meatball Two probably would have acquitted Assange. Had she gone or even called the police hours after it happened, there would be no Meatball Two.
Then there would be only one accuser in the court room.
There would be no phoney pattern of condom abuse.
It would simply be his word against hers and not his word against both of theirs.
Assange's Swedish lawyer did not want to see his client corruptly charged and wrongly convicted by a malevolent government and told him to get the fuck out of Sweden.
Would you rather be jailed in a foreign country where they spoke a different language, never knowing what to expect, what your jailers had up their sleeve or would you take asylum in a friendly, foreign embassy; yes, confined, but obviously not in as depressing a situation as being penned up.
You are an excitable child today, aren't you?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/9487686/Julian-Assange-threatens-to-make-the-EU-look-good.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVDCe0Y0Tq4
Your verbosity is most amusing, as is your weak attempt to mount an ad hominem assault, although I didn't read beyond the first sentence; seeing you had dedicated a subject line to my nick, followed by a leap into garrulous reality challenged frothing about the prophet, Assange, I knew that I'd be wasting my time reading your attempts to turn a convict into a saint, almost channelling the Jesus water into wine party trick.
That'll be all for now. Meanwhile do continue with your foaming session, craft more attention grabbing headlines, and foam, foam, foam. I'll order up some diazemuls and clopixol acuphase if you wish little boi.
I know you're busy getting ready to go back to school. I forget. What is it now, Upper Sixth? You can see the golden domes of Oxbridge from there. I'm crossing my fingers for you.
Did your mum take you to Abercrombie and Fitch for your back to school stuff? Don't be wearing the naughty stuff to class; save it for the girls. Your teachers will want you to come over for sherry (hic) and show you some old soccer moves. Save the moves for the playing fields. Keep a kondom in your wallet at all times. Better make it two in case you meet the Swedish Bobbsey twins.
DON'T BE DIPPING YOUR WICK IN A HONEY TRAP (it can be very expensive. google Assange, Julian, if you don't believe me)
Thanks for the link. Here's one for you.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/21/human-rights-critics-russia-ecuador
Toodles.
"DON'T BE DIPPING YOUR WICK IN A HONEY TRAP (it can be very expensive. google Assange, Julian, if you don't believe me)"
Oh dear, more immature schoolboy insults. Why not read this ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9309000/9309320.stm ) if you believe that Julian was caught with his fingers in a honey pot:
__________________________________________________________________________________
Q: This is now public. So I'm asking you the question. Did you have sex with those women?
JA: It's a matter of public record as far as the courts are concerned but I am not going to be exposing other people's private lives or my own more than is absolutely necessary. That is not what a gentleman does, that why I have also never criticised these women. We don't know precisely what pressures they have been under, exactly. There are powerful interests that have incentives to promote these smears. That doesn't mean that they got in there in the very beginning and fabricated them.
Q: So you're not suggesting that this was a honey-trap? That you were somehow set up by the Americans, by the CIA? You don't buy into that idea because your lawyer's suggested that that's the case.
JA: He says that he was misquoted. I have never said that this is a honey-trap.
Q: You don't believe it?
JA: I have never said that this is not a honey-trap. I'm not accusing anyone until I have proof.
Q: Do you believe it is possible?
JA: That's not how I operate as a journalist because almost everything is possible. I talk about what is probable.
Q: All right, what do you think is probable here?
JA: What is probable? It is less probable that there was that type of involvement at the very beginning. That kind of classic Russian-Moscow thing. That is not probable.
__________________________________________________________________________________
So there we are; St Julie appears to have backed off the honey pot theory, though not his camp followers.
As to the upper case, the insults and what have you; I've been online for about 20 years and I've seen quite a lot of exchanges like this; I've seen modetorial interventions, people being booted, and I've seen escalations into law. You'll be carrying on without me when it comes to childish insults. You may not realise how silly it makes you look, and how much it damages the points you wish to put forward, not that Assange's case has any substance, or he'd address the matter of alleged rape rather than claim he's in the embassy to avoid US extradition and (gasp) capital punishment.
HTH.
If the object of your post was to demonstrate either Assange's or his Swedish lawyer's fumbling, I'm afraid you failed. Assange neither admits or denies the important stuff. The courtroom stuff.
Assange never tells us his state of mind. His lawyer is the one who puts "honey trap' into the record. "Q.You don't buy into that idea because your lawyer's suggested that that's the case."
"JA: He says that he was misquoted. I have never said that this is a honey-trap."
This interview gives nothing away except John Humphrys' partisanship.
Assange says "I have never said this is a honey-trap" and a few minutes later "I have never said this is not a honey-trap." Assange is saving his testimony for the courtroom, not for the prosecution lawyers learn in advance. Let them come to London. There's a time to ignore procedure. And there's no difference between giving a statement in Stockholm and giving one in Knightsbridge.
But there's a difference between answering questions asked by John Humphrys of the BBC and giving a statement to the Stockholm police, which would be part of the trial record.
Sweden wants to interview Assange in Stockholm because he will be more intimidated there. More frightened. More apt to give a convicting answer. Didn't you know that?
If and when Assange eventually stands trial in Stockholm, his lawyer, like Rumpole of the Bailey, will have dug up whatever evidence about the two women, and the Swedish prosecutors. he could find since December 2010. Did you expect he was going to tell you what he's found?
So why don't they go to Sweden with it now? Because it's evident a trap has been set and not yet sprung.
Assange: "Most of what we know is, in fact, from the newspapers because somehow the Swedish prosecution has been, deliberately and illegally, selectively taking bits of its material and giving them to newspapers". And why would the Swedish prosecution do that?
Is something rotten in Sweden, too.
"If the object of your post was to demonstrate either Assange's or his Swedish lawyer's fumbling, I'm afraid you failed."
It wasn't and you know it. You raised the question of a honey pot, and now you have devoted hundreds of words to denying it. You are typical of Julie's followers, FoS.
HAND.
If the burden of proof in a rape case in Sweden is 'beyond a reasonable doubt:
The first complainant.
The first complainant sought JA out at a lecture with her friend, the second complainant. She invited him back to her apartment for consensual sex. After a kerfuffle about broken and missing condoms, the complainant permitted him to stay overnight with her and did not ask him to leave her apartment or her bed.. Neither did she inform him as they lay naked together in the complainant's bed, that he was only entitled to one bite of the apple, so to speak.
The accused.
The accused is a famous whistle blower, which is why the first and second complainant volunteered to 'work' for him. He was on the run in Sweden because he published 250,000 cables embarrassing the US government. The complainants sought him out for sex and then said he raped them.
Assange's lawyer.
He knows that his client will prevail in the court room. But he has advised Assange not to return to Sweden (i.e. leave the Ecuadorian Embassy) without guarantees. From the US, the UK, and a speedy trial in Sweden.
The trial in Stockholm is a slam dunk for Assange. It's the Mossad-like machinations before or after it that have us Julie-followers in a tizzy.
As for the honey pot, I only pointed out that Julie said "I have never said this is a honey-trap" and a few minutes later "I have never said this is not a honey-trap." The interviewer asked: "Q.You don't buy into that idea (honey pot) because your lawyer's suggested that that's the case." Assange replies, "He says that he was misquoted."
What a lawyer says outside the courtroom is as meaningless as your acronyms. His paralegals are still running down tips about the complainants behavior before they were complainants. You should have studied criminal law and not patent law, if you studied law at all.
"And you, so outraged by Assange not facing up to allegations of rape, are the picture of insouciance when it comes to some UK or US agent slipping Bolognium into his Lapsang souchong."
And you, so outraged by them, are happy with the probably dead (at the hands of the Taliban) Afghan informants ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/7917955/Wikileaks-Afghanistan-Taliban-hunting-down-informants.html ) that you can sneer over your cup of mocha with Ratafia biscuits and make points of social style. Perhaps you think that war is a question of smart weapons and ice cool nerves, where heroic troops supply aid in one hand, and with the other snipe the pistol out of the terrorist's hand, all the while under a safe curtain of air support, equipped with smart guns, rockets and bombs, such that only the bad guys are KIA, oh yes.
The world glugged down Gerry Adams' (leader of Sinn Fein) claims that there was a shoot to kill policy, never mind the fact that accuracy is the domain of snipers, with the average soldier shooting at the abdomen... ...whilst terrorists lay culvert bombs/IEDs, and are forgiven. Even when they massacre children. That said, and a defence of bomb happy troops is a part of this, I would like ToniBliar et al. in the Hague, yes; he committed soldiers to a lie, and for that he must pay.
The world is a cold hard place. It always will be. Not only will nations make war, but people will raise private armies, drug barons, terrorist barons, and fight the states that protect their citizens. Meanwhile, people like Julie Asshat will expect the highest of standards from others, while putting substantial numbers of people at risk. War and preparedness for war requires secrecy. Give away your orbat and you are dead.
Si vis pacem, para bellum. Indeed, if you want it you have to fight for it. My reminders will fall on deaf ears because since WWII relatively few have an experience of war and can understand the point. Before you ask, yes I do have that experience.
I hope that I didn't cause you to stamp your feet and smash your mocha cup on my mess tin.
I'm in a different, more modern war, and Assange is one of the symptoms.
People like Assange have no idea what they are doing, just like most of his supporters. The only way these idiots get a taste of the world out there is if they are shipped off to all the places where there is real danger, and then their names revealed. I'd like to see them run for their lives, knowing that that what will happen to them when they get caught is not going to comply much with the Geneva convention - just what happened to those they revealed with their stupid "look how clever we are" uncontrolled release of information.
Yes, governments need to be held to account for abuse of power, but that is something journalists can do and have done for ages. If they can be supported by hacking, OK, but nobody has the right to become judge, jury and executioner - that's how dictatorships work. Those nice places I'd like him and his cronies to reside for a while.
Ironically, Assange is relying heavily on the system he and his cronies are fighting to stay out of jail.
"People like Assange have no idea what they are doing, just like most of his supporters."
Indeed. To them this is merely a matter of bits and bytes, but when you apply dressings to wounds it is altogether different.
As to Assange's reliance on those whom he attacks, well yes. I won't miss him if he has an accident.
To be serious for a minute (not my natural state), I agree with most everything you say, except, 'if you want peace you have to fight for it.' You fight, you buy a few years or decades and then the children's children of the men who fought to win the peace take over and fuck everything up. It's chronicled in the Bible 5000 years ago.
You've heard this one: Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Isn't fighting to win peace the perfect example of that?
Whatever. I decided to opt out.
I imagine you are no less offended by the deaths of innocent Vietnamese and Iraqis than I am. But while it made me angry, you felt something good was going to follow those wars. I still don't see that anything good resulted. Only that 5 years after the war in Iraq was concluded, scores of people every week are still dying from explosions that weren't happening under Saddam.
I don't know. You sound like you're British and that you served your country and that you brought back your experience to this forum. But I must tell you what Hamlet told his friend in the first act of the play, "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Yep, just when you think your philosophy's complete, bingo, there's more.
In a pinch...... Two heavy weights breathing down your neck and wanting blood....... Like parents trying to figure out what to do with your A€$...... send him to the pen or to boarding school? Well at least he didn't sell the cables to a know terrorist group, although I'm pretty sure he feels like he's being held hostage by terrorist. But how will this effect shared information on the web? If information is on the web somebody will eventually get their hands on it, I've came across plenty of info I should have shared, but whistle blowing isn't my thing, but I get it.....but I'm a creative........ I sometimes see myself as Galileo...... Battling with the chuch about all that I believe to be true through my discoveries....... I seek and they destroy, it's on going, the inquisition. But it can be done to the likes of all, if we just loosen up a bit, on both sides...... These are dangerous times, and people want to know what's going on in the world, and enemies of the states do to as well. You gotta sit down and hash it out....... I'm pretty sure Europe and America would hate to be toppled by a leak thet led to it's demise, by protest, riots, facebook posts and tweets like in Egypt and others places as we seen it could happen, but let's not try and find out......... peace out! VP is freshp2
"The Organisation of American States called a special meeting at its Washington headquarters on Thursday to discuss the Ecuador-UK relationship, specifically Ecuador's diplomatic premises in the UK."
Yet some still believe this is just about a consensual sex/rape thing and just sweden. Denying the US government angle on this whole affair is for the blind.
Err, the OAS is a regional trade and security body for North and South America. Given that the UK seemingly threatened to breach diplomatic norms with one of their members, it is only right they should meet.
That the OAS meeting doesn't mean there is any US involvement in this situation at all - in the same way it doesn't mean Chile, Cuba or even El Salvador is involved.
(no pun intended) it was a blinding move to dive into the nearest diplomatic Tesco and ask for asylum. Bet Gary McKinnon's mum wishes she'd thought of that one. I wonder how long it'll be before the embassy will "catch fire" forcing everyone to be evacuated?
Assange has been fitted up by the men in black so once he's in Sweden, they can lift him out of there to the 'States and he can have some fun with a bit of snow boarding. Well the snow may have melted so it's going to be water, but hey, what's in a word...
Isn't it odd that this Swedish "crime" came to light just after Wikileaks released the Cables?
One would have thought that Sweden would have told the US where to go in the light of what GM did to SAAB!
"Isn't it odd that this Swedish "crime" came to light just after Wikileaks released the Cables?"
Not when the alleged crimes happened during a visit he made to Sweden AFTER the cables were released when he was seeking residency there to benefit from Sweden's whistleblowing laws.
yes it is possible there is a genuine case against him you know, and multiple courts in the UK have agreed. Do you seriously think multiple courts and judges in Sweden and the UK are all being paid off by uncle sam?
I have no opinion on whether JA did or didn't do anything to anyone at any time. All I know is that, judging by the way that this situation has polarised opinion, the UK seems to have been dragged into this and that the international image of the UK the would have been far better off if he'd decided to go to Belgium or somewhere other than the UK.
I expect that half of the population (or perhaps more) will consider me to be a heartless bastard for selfishly preferring that the UK isn't used as a stage upon which to play out a situation that will end up with no winners and plenty of losers. I know there will be a fair number of folks who think that as a civilised nation it's our duty to involve ourselves and ensure that justice is done but they're never going to actually agree with one another as to what justice actually IS in this case...
I see no good outcome to this.
As far as I can see, the Ego Formerly Known As Assange (EFKAA) is desperately, *desperately* afraid of no longer receiving media attention. Why, he might even have to find a job and have to (shock, horror) WORK for a living (I'd say obey the law, but I think that's unlikely).
Hence, his deepest fear must be to be dragged to Sweden, receive a minuscule fine and sent packing. No black helicopters, no snipers and worse, no press waiting outside to take statements.
Hence the desperate move to an embassy. If he had remained where he was, the above scenario would have played out already. Now he gets to bleat some more before some people realise he's now just a common criminal who is a tad more creative in avoiding accounting for his actions.
Worse, I fear this has now become his habit. God help us if he ever gets a parking fine.
Let's establish some legal facts here, not speculation or conspiracies.
JA had a perfectly valid EAW served upon him. He chose to challenge that through the courts and lost. It doesn't matter whether the EAW relates to allegations of rape or shoplifting, it is valid and has been proven to be so in a court of law. He doesn't like it, but not liking it does not make it less valid.
Both Sweden and the UK are signatories to the EU Human Right acts, which forbid cruel and unusual punnisment and expressly forbid extradition to countries where an individual my be threatened with Capital Punishment. JA and his lawyers would challenge any attempt to extradite him from Sweden or the UK to the US if there was any hint of capital punishment and they would win. JA knows this, so why is he acting like a twat? Becuse he feeds of media attention and wants to goad the UK.
The crimes which he is alleged to have committed in Sweden are serious, but not as serious as we in the UK might understand an allegation of rape. If charged and found guilty he would not face a long jail term.
Ecuador is a fine upstanding member of the international community with an excellent track record on human rights - NOT. JA knows this too, so why chose Ecuador? Because Ecuador are firmly anti western powers - note the comments from Ecuador on not being a colony. Who brought up colonialism? The UK simply stated that ultimately under UK law, we could rescind the diplomatic status of the mission and enter without violating the Vienna Convention. Ecuador risk this action by harboring a criminal (yes his is a criminal i the UK having broken his bail condition), which is expressly against the Vienna Convention which forbids meddling in the host nations legal affairs. So why do Ecuador continue down this track? Becasue they want to be shown as the little guy taking on the big guy. They are making a power play back home and want to be seen to be a hero in Latin America. They want to challenge the might of Argentina in the anti-western stakes and wind more influence in their own back yard.
JA needs to be careful. Once his usefulness to Ecuador runs out, or he becomes too much of a liability, he will be dropped like a stone.
No tin hats, no conspiracy, no extradition to US, just simple statements of the real world position.
"Both Sweden and the UK are signatories to the EU Human Right acts"
Please excuse me for correcting you; the human rights act is the domain of the European Court of Human Rights ( http://www.echr.coe.int/ECHR/homepage_en ), which has nothing to do with the EU. It's ironic that Churchill had much to do with setting up what has become a hot bed of political correctness, and sad.
No need to apologise: happy that you can add extra clarity.
Under the protection of the ECHR, there is no way on this earth that he would be extradited to the US from the UK or Sweden if there was even the slightest hint of capital punishment on the table. I would bet my house on it.
Everything else is noise.
In 2010, Assange went to Sweden because of their strong laws protecting "whistleblowers." While there, he encountered two women with whom he reportedly had sexual relations. But according to the BBC, quote, "Both women reportedly say that what started as consensual sex became non-consensual."
In short, both women voluntarily had sex with Assange. But, at some point, they "claim" it became non-consensual. Sounds pretty fishy to me. Makes me wonder if the sex became non-consensual sex after they were offered money by the U.K and/or U.S. to just "say so."
In the end, however, I think this situation is much ado about nothing. Even if Assange managed to get himself to Ecuador, how long do you think it would be before the U.S. launched a "covert" attempt to grab him? Bottom line? Assange rattled the tiger's cage ... big time. And sooner or later, the tiger is going to get him.
"As a fellow psychobiologist once put it to me, pinch a rat's tail and expect it to bite, hard."
But to take the analogy a step further, what if you pinch the rat's tail with a gauntlet-clad fist? The rat may turn to bite, but it's not like it's going to get anything out of the deal.
The Assyrian came down like the wolf on the fold,
And his cohorts were gleaming in purple and gold;
(blah blah blah just poetic filler)
And the might of the Gentile, unsmote by the sword,
Hath melted like snow in the glance of the Lord!
Repent now, Scorch, the End is Nigh.
...that he is not a complete retard, then he had in his mind what action he would take when the judge gave the overwhelmingly likely decision that he did.
Why then, did he seek asylum in a building that he KNEW could never be left without arrest?
We've also heard a statement from him explicitly saying that he would not remove his electronic tag because he doesn't want to be guilty of criminal damage, despite apparently being happy to break about a dozen other laws in the UK and elsewhere. Why did he say this without being asked such a question.
Do we ACTUALLY know he is in there?
This post has been deleted by its author
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
