Julian Assange Seeks Asylum In Ecuador Embassy

http://www.ecuadorembassyuk.org.uk/announcements/statement-on-julian-assange

by damohasi • 14 years ago

84 108 14 years ago

ecuadorembassyuk.org.uk

opminion2• 14 years ago

Assange interviewed the Ecuatorian president for his program at RT: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lE-1-9QXd3Y

The Ecuatorian president is introduced as "populist", yet the interview is non-critical. I thought "populist" was globally pejorative?

Edit: the president himself uses the term in a negative context

sp3327• 14 years ago

Actually Populism is just the opposite of Elitism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism#Latin_America "a process of controlled inclusion of the "masses" into the political system"

ForrestN3• 14 years ago

"Populist" is generally either neutral or positive in American politics. But most often I hear it used to describe a political strategy, going directly for the masses instead of the upper echelons of power.

crazygringo• 14 years ago

I would disagree, and say it's usually negative -- the idea that you win short-term approval for a dubious policy by appealing to the masses who are ignorant of the true consequences, as opposed to appealing to the elites who would presumably understand that the thing's a bad idea.

For example, promising to cut the gasoline tax would be a very populist tactic -- people think "I pay less for gas, that's great!", whereas elites would think, "we'll have less money for infrastructure, leading to decline, or else we'll have to raise taxes elsewhere, making non-drivers subsidize drivers."

And by calling this tactic populist, you would generally be indicating that it appeals to the electorate's ignorance. Most people consider that a bad thing, since it leads to worse outcomes. Hence, populism is a pejorative term. I'm referring to use of the word in the US only.

If you want a positive term, you would describe something as "democratic" instead.

(I'm an American from New York who follows politics a lot.)

dsrguru• 14 years ago

I live in the U.S., and I've never heard "populist" used pejoratively. Where are you from and what does it connote when used pejoratively in your country?

tylee78• 14 years ago

one example: it is used that way in Germany and applied (mostly) to right wing parties

andreasvc• 14 years ago

Here in Europe it's used to refer to politicians who pander to the sentiments of the common people, without having a well thought out long-term strategy; e.g., "I'll lower all taxes AND give free healthcare for all."

opminion2• 14 years ago

Europe. It usually means when one tries to grab votes at the cost of doing what's "correct" from one's point of view. A stereotypical case would be providing "bread and circus" in the short term while the country is sinking in the mid term.

The following headlines are example use of "populist" with negative connotations (they are not the only ones, I just provide anecdotal evidence of the common use of "populist" as a negative trait).

British English:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17837098

http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_lords/newsid... (beware starts parliamentary video automatically)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/23/punitive...

French:

http://www.lemonde.fr/idees/ensemble/2012/02/09/le-populisme...

Spanish:

http://www.abc.es/20120515/opinion/abcp-populista-eres-20120...

Confusion• 14 years ago

In Europe, 'populist' is basically the lowbrow version of 'demagogue'.

Estragon• 14 years ago

If you want to refer to a populist pejoratively, you call them a demagogue.

sp3327• 14 years ago

Why Ecuador, in particular? I just learned that they've adopted the US dollar as their currency, following devaluation of their old currency in 1999.

Edit: I checked, and Ecuador does have extradition treaties with both the UK and the US. I don't know about Sweden though.

Edit2: according to http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/06/19/assange_seeks... Ecuador has a treaty with the EU as well. But moving to Ecuador puts the decision in Ecuadorian hands instead of UK, so maybe he thinks they will stand up for him better.

xefer• 14 years ago

I have a feeling he'll be "couch surfing" from embassy to embassy to delay the extradition as long as possible.

marshray4• 14 years ago

You don't think he'll be arrested the minute he sets foot out of the Ecuadorian?

planetguy3• 14 years ago

I'm confused by the embassy's statement.

Is an embassy really obliged to shelter any foreign national who might show up on the run from the law for a fairly prosaic [ahem alleged] crime? If I knock over a gas station can I show up at the Tanzanian embassy, say "Hi, I'm a political refugee" and hang around for long enough for them to process this claim?

iand3• 14 years ago

He's wanted in Sweden. Is there an extradition treaty between Ecuador and Sweden?

sp3327• 14 years ago

Sweden is part of the EU, so yes.

fleitz• 14 years ago

Yes, but one would assume that this case from Sweden is part of what he's seeking asylum for.

I would imagine that if the Ecuadorian government was to grant asylum that its courts would likely find the extradition request to be political persecution and thus dismiss it for violating his rights under the UNHDR and/or Ecuadorian constitutions.

So, yes while most countries have extradition agreements, some have more respect for the rule of law than others.

He's not trying to avoid extradition so much as seeking a jurisdiction where he believe he'll be tried more fairly with respect to the UNHDR and other inalieable rights endowed by his creator.

meric• 14 years ago

Ecuador offered Assange residency in 2010 (but rescinded later due to diplomatic pressure) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-11874911

Maybe Assange thought it was worth trying a known "friendly" country first. Also the Ecuador government claimed it had nothing to lose from wikileaks' leaks, so if they really didn't maybe they'll be less likely to try to screw him.

pvnick• 14 years ago

How dire is Assange's situation? Is it really possible that the US will try to imprison or even execute him?

Edit: I know were not talking directly about the US here, but the reason I made the jump is that I see Sweden as a lot more likely to allow the US to bully it into giving up Assange

wvenable4• 14 years ago

If he were to ever enter US custody, he's not likely to come away from that for a long time. The question is how interested is the US in getting him into custody and how easy is it for them. I imagine it's not terribly difficult but the US also hasn't done much so far.

But if I were him, I'm not sure I'd be willing to take any chances. The consequences are just too great.

iamdave2• 14 years ago

I severely doubt it'd go so far as execution, sudden disappearance into a political black hole never to be heard from again? More likely.

johnny22• 14 years ago

then what exactly are they waiting for. He's not likely to get any lower profile until past the time anybody cares (including the government)

wilfra2• 14 years ago

The US has nothing to do with this. Sweden is trying to have him extradited from the UK for a sexual assault charge.

simfoo• 14 years ago

Nope, there is no charge, they just want to question him.

sp3327• 14 years ago

He's not charged with sexual assault (not yet, anyway). The warrant is to return him for questioning.

mcantelon• 14 years ago

He's not even charged in Sweden. It's fairly obvious the Swedish angle is being used to get him in a country from which he can be extradicted to the US.

objclxt5• 14 years ago

Exactly. This is all about Assange not wanting to be questioned about sexual assault.

All this posturing about how the US wants him is a smoke screen - Ecuador has an extradition treaty with the US. Assange may be completely innocent: trying to desperately avoid being questioned about the alleged offences doesn't paint a great picture.

Tycho• 14 years ago

Not only is it pretty suspicious that this rape charge should pop up at exactly the time of Assange's ascendency into persona non Guantanamo status, but it gets even fishier when you consider the nature of the accusation. The allegation is that his condom burst during intercourse and he did not stop - in other words it's one of the few crimes for which he cannot possibly have an alibi or a supporting witness or even physical evidence (ie. lack of physical harm).

Anyone who doesn't think the US government is behind this is living in cloud cuckoo land.

hack_edu• 14 years ago

US imprisonment has very little to do with this. The man faces rape and sexual assault charges, one of the most serious offenses a person can commit.

Though I back his politics 100% and consider him a hero to be remembered, he has every responsibility to face his accusers in a fair trial. Shame on Sweden if they hand him over to the Americans after his trial has concluded.

Muzza2• 14 years ago

> Though I back his politics 100%, he has every responsibility to face his accusers in a fair trial.

With Sweden's looney toons laws, I strongly disagree.

AngrySkillzz• 14 years ago

The reason the US is commonly brought into this is because of misunderstanding of the circumstances and general suspicion.

First off, sexual assault and rape laws are very different in Sweden, and the crimes he has allegedly committed wouldn't be translated as assault or rape in most countries. Though that doesn't necessarily mean he didn't do something bad to someone that requires legal recourse; what currently stands are accusations of crime under Sweden's legal code.

More importantly, suspicion arises because the Swedish prosecutor's office initially withdrew the rape charge and warrant for Assange's arrest, and weeks later the charge was brought back. Some time after that, a European arrest warrant was issued. Some are suspicious that this was due to pressure from the US government, as they would like to see Assange in prison, but I'm not going to give my opinion.

Also, Assange has yet to be charged. I'm not sure how this works in Sweden, but it seems in this case that they don't want to charge Assange until after a second round of questioning. That is what the extradition is for.

tptacek3• 14 years ago

Really? You back his politics one hundred percent?

"Julian was very reluctant to delete those names, to redact them." David Leigh of the Guardian newspaper tells FRONTLINE of meetings he attended with Assange in the run-up to publication of the war logs. "And we said: 'Julian, we've got to do something about these redactions. We really have got to.' And he said: 'These people were collaborators, informants. They deserve to die.' And a silence fell around the table."

This is David Leigh, an fairly reputable guy who runs investigative reporting for _The Guardian_, not exactly an institution known for cowtowing to the military industrial complex of the US. Do you think he made this up? I don't.

drcube2• 14 years ago

I thought the UK decided to extradite him to Sweden for rape charges?

While Wikileaks is certainly a motivating factor, and I'm sure it's why this story gets as much press as it does, I don't think it's where his legal problems stem from. As far as I know, the US has nothing to do with it.

sp3327• 14 years ago

He has not (yet) been charged. It says this in the article.

Mz• 14 years ago

The US has a long history of doing things like going to full fledged war over dropping a few bombs or planes on our soil. If I had run Wikileaks, I wouldn't want to be extradited to the US either. However, the statement on the page references the UK and Sweden, not the US. So that may not really be a factor.

roguecoder3• 14 years ago

He is accused of sexual misconduct, some of which does carry possible jail times similar to, say, shoplifting. His continued refusal to stand trial is unlikely to play well to the court, but had he simply faced trial he would probably be out already even if he had been convicted.

chj• 14 years ago

wishful thinking is dangerous in politics. you die without knowing how.

mc322• 14 years ago

Why not Argentina? He could take advantage of their antipathy toward the UK. Too transparent?

objclxt5• 14 years ago

It's not the UK that wants him - it's Sweden.

mc322• 14 years ago

I understand, but it's the UK who are allowing the extradition, which, he, Assange, clearly disagrees with.

cmdkeen2• 14 years ago

He's also been bailed by the British courts for the purposes of the extradition process. So he may be committing offences in terms of that. Concrete offences that a normal extradition treaty might cover but that the Swedish "we want to question" warrant may not outside the EU.

cmdkeen2• 14 years ago

Female Catholic President. Bit of a risk that she doesn't like people who have (admitted in court in the UK) some pretty dubious sexual acts. Acts which the UK court have said would constitute offences in the UK.

nirvana• 14 years ago

Julian's situation seems very weird to me, given the stories about how secretive he was, how he kept in hiding, etc. At the same time, he was very clearly and publicly the face of wikileaks.

Why did he not simply remain anonymous? All that Wikileaks has done could be done without having a public figurehead, right?

Being public seems to have been the tactical error. (or was he trying to be anonymous, but got outed at some point and then given that he couldn't be anonymous anymore he decided to embrace it?)

danielweber• 14 years ago

According to the people at the New York Times he worked with, he became transformed by his celebrity.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/30/magazine/30Wikileaks-t.htm... goes into their history. I'm tempted to quote a few paragraphs but it wouldn't be fair since there is a very large picture being painted.

gringomorcego2• 14 years ago

Hahahahahahahaha.

Guess what Bill Keller also wrote?

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/08/opinion/the-i-can-t-believ...

OzzyB• 14 years ago

>All that Wikileaks has done could be done without having a public figurehead, right?

I say no.

Taking a feather from Rock 'n Roll, you need a front-man.

iand3• 14 years ago

My recollection was that Assange chose to be a figurehead to allow the other wikileaks members to remain anonymous. If that's true then it's been a superbly successful strategy.

planetguy3• 14 years ago

Because fame and ego. Assange is a weird-looking socially awkward epsilon-male, but make him the figurehead of anti-Americanism and apparently a bunch of Swedish leftist chicks want to bang him. At least once. As long as he puts on a condom.

In all seriousness, if you find yourself asking "Why did this man choose fame, glory and groupies over the good of the cause he claims to espouse" then you don't know much about human psychology.

ForrestN3• 14 years ago

It must be nice to live in a world with such simple people!

stfu• 14 years ago

At one point people fearing for their life have to make the decision if they want to become protected either by anonymity or by celebrity. While his high profile makes him an easy media target, it reduces the probability of unfortunate "accidents". Plus his public image should give him certain securities - such as raising money or awareness - that he would not have otherwise.

rickmb2• 14 years ago

Seems to me Assange isn't so much afraid of being extradited to US (there is a truckload of ways to fight that if it ever comes to that) but of actually being convicted in Sweden.

The Piratebay trials have shown how corrupted the Swedish justice system can be, with both police, prosecution and judges having proven private connections with the copyright industry (which in itself is not only organized and financed by the US, but also actively backed up by the US government).

Being extradited to the US would make him a martyr, but being convicted for rape in Sweden would damage his reputation beyond repair. I doubt if the US even wants to deal with the whole circus of getting Assange extradited if there's an easier way to take him out of play.

objclxt5• 14 years ago

It depresses me that people are trying to make comparisons between a copyright infringement case and a rape accusation. Copyright infringement and rape are rather different. This should be obvious. I really don't know where to begin there - I know this community is male dominated, but rape is a incredibly serious crime. Piracy may well be a 'victimless crime'. Rape is not.

Two women have accused Assange of rape. They have a fundamental right under law to due process. Assange is attempting to deny them this due process by evading the Swedish courts.

Sweden's justice system really isn't corrupt. Assange knows this. His lawyers know this. If Assange thought he wouldn't get a fair trial he would have argued this point in the English courts. Many people have avoided extradition from the UK to various unpleasant places on the basis they wouldn't get a fair trial.

His legal argument was flimsy at best. Assange tried to argue Sweden lacked the authority to issue the arrest warrant in the first place, an argument that was basically laughed out of court. However, the English courts have had a lot of patience for Assange, and have offered him several avenues of appeal on the basis it's an important and high profile case. The Supreme Court even allowed an additional submission after their judgement (this is very unusual).

This is a criminal case involving two parties. Both parties have guaranteed rights. Think about the women involved for a second. They have accused Assange of rape. Perhaps they are lying: Assange is after all innocent until proven guilty. But is it out of the question they are telling the truth? No, it's not.

And that is why Assange should really willingly return to Sweden to face his accusers. He isn't willing, and his arguments about fearing the US really aren't that convincing given the UK is more than happy to extradite people to the states.

gringomorcego2• 14 years ago

"Sweden's justice system really isn't corrupt."

http://falkvinge.net/2011/09/05/cable-reveals-extent-of-lapd...

Wah wah.

njharman• 14 years ago

Accusation of a crime is identical to accusation of any other crime. Doesn't matter what the Respective crimes are.

ACCUSATION is not guilt.

genwin2• 14 years ago

If I had to fight an accusation of a rape I didn't commit, even if I was vindicated I'd end up destitute and homeless. Any reasonable person would evade these women's due process if they were in Assange's shoes, especially the innocent.

mathetic• 14 years ago

It depresses me that people are commenting on the issue without actually knowing what the investigation in Sweden is about.

I might be wrong but there is a slight difference between not wearing a condom and rape. I don't care if Sweden is calling consensual sex without condom rape. In Assange's case, he allegedly sabotaged his condom with one woman and allegedly refused to wear a condom with another one but he did not have sex with them against their will. Nobody can argue that because there are no signs of forceful sex.

IMO, this is crazy. There is no way of proving Assange right since only witnesses are two different women claiming similar accusations and the nature of the crime does not allow much evidence. It might sound like a crazy conspiracy theory (I take into account that even Canadian strategist called for Assange's assassination[1]), but somebody might be paying these two women (or threatening them) to lie in the court.

[2] http://redicecreations.com/article.php?id=13391

lawnchair_larry2• 14 years ago

He is not being charged with rape. He is being charged with intentionally tearing a condom during consensual intercourse. It's pretty offensive to compare this with rape, imo.

ggchappell• 14 years ago

> Two women have accused Assange of rape. They have a fundamental right under law to due process. Assange is attempting to deny them this due process by evading the Swedish courts.

Where did this come from? Due process is a right of the accused. I've never heard of accusers having due process rights. After all, anyone can accuse anyone of anything. And prosecutors can just roll their eyes at them, if they want.

Just to be clear: I'm not saying that the accusations against JA are worth an eye-roll; I'm only questioning your assertion about due-process rights for accusers.

Also, I'm generally familiar with U.S. law, less so with English law, and very much less so with Swedish.

roguecoder3• 14 years ago

It wouldn't have anything to do with him having admitted all matters of fact, would it? He's basically arguing, "yeah, I broke the law, but it's a stupid law." That always works out great.

lawnchair_larry2• 14 years ago

That might be a concern, but I doubt it. He was very forthcoming while he was in Sweden. He showed up for questioning and was given permission to leave. He's asked to be questioned remotely, and Sweden refuses to charge him or question him. If you've read anything about the incidents, it's a very weak case for something that shouldn't be a crime to begin with.

None of us know what the US is doing, if anything. We do know, by their own admission, that they began an aggressive investigation into whether or not Assange could be charged. We also know that everyone known associated with Wikileaks had their twitter and other social accounts subpoenaed. Manning's lawyer also indicated that the DoJ discussed the possibility of a plea bargain. As recently as a few weeks ago, US officials said they are waiting to see how the UK case plays out before charging him.

It is more probable than not that after such statements and aggressive investigations, that the US will charge him. It is more probable than not that the reason they have not yet done so, is because it's better for them to let this case finish, as they said.

Assange is not under the impression that he is immune to these inevitable charges and extradition in any of the countries involved. He has resigned to the fact that he is likely to face the US DoJ, and an extradition request, one way or another.

Assange believes that he has a tactical advantage in this case if this does not happen in Sweden. I don't know all of the reasons for this, but this is not surprising, and he has obviously been advised to exhaust this route by his legal counsel. It's safe to assume that this has been their decision, not his.

This is not a conspiracy theory, this is just how court cases work. Even in the US, it is common to fight for the most favorable jurisdiction. The presence of an extradition treaty in both countries does not mean that an extradition request is equally difficult to fight in both countries. This could change depending on laws in a specific country, or even be influenced by public perception or even corruption.

When is the last time someone was held for a year and a half in an international dispute to be questioned about a broken or missing condom incident? That makes the least sense.

Edit: It's worth noting that according to the hacked stratfor emails, the US already has a sealed indictment for him:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/28/1069018/-Leaked-Str...

kakaroto_BR• 14 years ago

Fool, he shoud come to Brazil, best land to any foreign person escaping law.

laic• 14 years ago

Apparently he is inspired by the blind Chinese lawyer seeking asylum in US embassy.

Julian Assange Seeks Asylum In Ecuador Embassy

Related Stories