Ecuador grants Julian Assange asylum

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19281492

by anons2011 • 14 years ago

515 499 14 years ago

bbc.co.uk

rms• 14 years ago

I'd like to see a prediction market now for whether or not Assange makes it to Ecuador...

jtudisco• 14 years ago

You never know.. He might already be there.

cypherpunks01• 14 years ago

Similar, on Intrade: Julian Assange to be arrested by British police before midnight ET 31 Aug 2012

http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/contract/?contractId=76447...

gaius7• 14 years ago

I am fascinated to see how they will physically transport him from the embassy to a plane. This has the makings of a top quality chase movie.

tocomment3• 14 years ago

Could Ecuador have a boat waiting in international waters and take him via Helicopter to the boat?

Otherwise could they hide him in some kind of cargo? I heard that they can't pull over and search a diplomats car but the transition from car to plane is when they could get him.

gaius7• 14 years ago

Helicopter antics in London are pretty unlikely at the best of times, and right now we're tooled up for the Olympics too.

The police have the power to stop the car, but not search it. Do diplomatic vehicles have toilets?

cremnob• 14 years ago

I think he's going to be in defacto prison. He might as well take it on the chin and do his time for rape.

JCB_K• 14 years ago

The problem with that approach is that he expects be extradited to the US as soon as he gets to Sweden. Oh and you might call it nitpicking, but he's not convicted of rape yet, let alone charged with it.

yuvadam• 14 years ago

He won't be in jail for rape.

From all evidence it is clear that he will be extradited to the US where he just might face the death penalty.

davidw• 14 years ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_bag#Unusual_shipment...

ConstantineXVI• 14 years ago

The UK's already "suggested" that they're willing to revoke Ecuador's diplomatic privilege. Discarding the question of if they can legally or politically do so for the moment, what difference would it make to them if Assange is in Ecuador's embassy or a crate with their flag stamped on it?

mtgx• 14 years ago

They should take him with a helicopter. What are they going to do? Shoot it down?

gsnedders8• 14 years ago

Where are they going to get him into the helicopter?

shasta• 14 years ago

I vote for a swarm of mini coopers carrying Assange look alikes.

Terretta• 14 years ago

Relevant text from Vienna Convention on Consular Relations:

1. The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the head of the mission.

2. The receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity.

3. The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property thereon and the means of transport of the mission shall be immune from search, requisition, attachment or execution.

gaius7• 14 years ago

The UK has the power to declare an embassy not to be an embassy anymore.

gary4gar2• 14 years ago

He is not going to make it to Ecuador. Only thing Assange can do now is sit inside the embassy for indefinite period of time, until Ecuador gets bored with assange and figures he is not worth the damage of ties with Uk. another possible outcome is rather extreme -- UK goes on offences and arrests assange from the embassy.

Either way, it would be interesting how the whole story will play-out.

rwmj• 14 years ago

What evidence do you have for your claim that "UK has already blocked Ecuador embassy's supplies"?

oinksoft2• 14 years ago

The source is a "tweet" saying that a truck carrying the next day's supplies for the embassy (whatever those comprise) was turned away. This message was from ... Wikileaks. But the BBC reported police surrounding the embassy so it is not unbelievable that a supply truck was turned away.

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/235953183032217600

gary4gar2• 14 years ago

i read that in news but can't find the link. so removed it

daveying993• 14 years ago

Was it a truck carrying supplies to nearby Harrod's department store? That's what I remember reading.

toyg13• 14 years ago

Violating the Vienna Convention is the diplomatic equivalent of nuking Teheran. The world would be horrified at the UK, and their embassies worldwide would be physically threatened almost instantaneously. I hope even this amateurish government can understand that.

Whatever happens, and regardless of the man, today has been a sad day for international relations, and hence for peace. I thought this government couldn't get any worse; I was wrong.

peteretep7• 14 years ago

> The world would be horrified at the UK, and their embassies worldwide would be physically threatened almost instantaneously

Funny you should mention Tehran, given that the Iranians recently stormed the British embassy there, and ... the world didn't end!

beedogs• 14 years ago

The Minister of the Exterior's decision was... highly charged. He seemed to be making a stand for all of South America.

politician6• 14 years ago

The UK inflamed the situation with the irresponsible talk of storming Ecuador's embassy.

objclxt4• 14 years ago

No: Ecuador inflamed the situation by deliberately posting a bad translation of the letter sent to them by the UK. Britain never said they would 'storm' the embassy. They merely reminded Ecuador that their lawyers believed they could legally enter the embassy given appropriate notice (7 days). That is hardly 'storming'.

gavinlynch8• 14 years ago

It's so disappointing to hear this repeated ad naseum as fact.

gadders11• 14 years ago

Assange's credibility: shot.

http://www.indexoncensorship.org/tag/Ecuador/

I suppose he's going to live his life like Roman Polanski, on the run from rape charges.

sigzero• 14 years ago

I totally agree.

seanodonnell• 14 years ago

What charges? This is mere extradition for questioning is Sweden is to be believed.

UnoriginalGuy• 14 years ago

How has this hurt his credibility?

Also the type of rape in this case and the Roman Polanski case aren't even remotely similar. In the UK, USA, or most other Western countries what he did isn't even illegal.

It is essentially the sex version of fraud: lying to get ahead.

gadders11• 14 years ago

The UK Judge in his first extradition trial said he would be guilty of rape or sexual assault in the UK.

Also, the crusader for freedom has fled to a regime that is demonstrably un-free.

gsnedders8• 14 years ago

In England and Wales it is perfectly possible to say, "I consent to having sex to you if you use a condom". As such, if a condom has not been used, consent has not been given, and sex without consent is rape. One of the three charges is that he had sex while the girl was asleep — this is also illegal in England and Wales (as they cannot give consent — or withdraw it if they decide — as they are asleep).

meiji4• 14 years ago

It doesn't matter whether in other places it's not illegal; it isn't legal where he did it. Ignorance of the law is no excuse either so what you have is a rape suspect fleeing. It's not the same as the Polanski case admittedly but it's not like he was overdue on a library book

objclxt4• 14 years ago

Hurt his credibility? Well, I'd say a man who's modus operadi is exposing 'corruption' in government and then seeks asylum in a country with a terrible freedom of speech record does damage his credibility somewhat.

parfe• 14 years ago

Yes it is illegal. Consent does not give you free reign of a woman's body. If she consents to sex with a condom and you proceed without one then you have raped her. "I don't like condoms" isn't a defense for disregarding her autonomy. And neither is "She was still asleep and never said no".

jeltz4• 14 years ago

In Sweden it is probably not rape either.

The boss of the original prosecutor (Eva Finné) reduced the suspicion from rape to "ofredande" (not sure how to translate that but it is a very minor crime which almost never results in jail, it is not a sex offense either). Then a third prosecutor (Marianne Ny) joined and brought the suspicion up to rape again since she want to have it tried in court of this is rape or not.

So really this seems to me like Marianne Ny just wants to use this case to determine how Swedish law works in cases like this.

luriel5• 14 years ago

His credibility was already quite questionable given the witch hunts he had conducted at wikileaks when somebody leaked some of their internal discussions regarding the rape accusations: http://harmful.cat-v.org/journalism/wikileaks

gsb2• 14 years ago

He didn't choose Ecuador because he thinks they are great. They made an 'unofficial' offer of sanctuary to him back in 2010, and I am not aware that he has had any offers from anywhere else. I assume he doesn't really want to go there and is only buying time.

wes-exp2• 14 years ago

Ecuador falls into the same category as the US in the current Press Freedom Index.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index

vacri12• 14 years ago

Not really fair. The US does rate abysmally given how much it trumpets its free speech provisions, being in 47th place, but Ecuador is in 104th place, with a considerably worse rating.

LiveTheDream2• 14 years ago

The UK has asserted[0] that they have a legal basis for arresting Assange even while he is inside the Ecuadorian embassy. They cite the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987; the counterpoint is the Vienna convention and centuries worth of international law.

[0] http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/aug/16/julian-assange-e...

peteretep7• 14 years ago

My understanding is that it's a little more nuanced than that: that the UK believes it has the right to withdraw the diplomatic status of the building used for the Ecuadorian embassy. Ecuadorian diplomats would continue to have diplomatic protection, presumably would be given long notice of the requirement to vacate the embassy, and move goods from it... but Mr Assange would not have any of that protection. I'm not sure which part of the Vienna Convention you think this would violate?

buro9• 14 years ago

I feel hesitant to even speculate on the possibilities, but what if Ecuador made him a diplomat?

eumenides12• 14 years ago

I think the UK is working on a technicality. They could do this, but should they do this? The UK risks it's ties with Ecuador to get Mr. Assange. Also the UK puts it's entire foreign affairs/ministry (operating in other countries) at real risk as well. Usually in these situation there are always tit-for-tat repercussions.

You expel my diplomat, I expel your diplomat.

So far it's, Mr Assange applies (key word!) for asylum. Britain threatens Ecuador with a letter, Ecuador gives him asylum.

Ecuador pretty much has to give him asylum or risk looking to be diplomatically weak.

The next move will be the British's move because Mr. Assange doesn't have to leave the embassy. He could stay there the rest of his life and do pretty well. He got famous for leaking documents on the internet and I'm pretty sure the embassy has the internet. So he can continue leaking documents on the internet.

The bonus is now that he is "on the run" he will have credibility and he can pretty much expose whatever he wants except for leaks of Ecuadorian issues.

LiveTheDream2• 14 years ago

Various media I've read makes the same claim that arresting Assange would violate the Vienna convention, including the linked article from GP. Seems like the main topic is this:

    Article 31. The host nation may not enter the consular premises, and must protect the premises from intrusion or damage. [0]

I don't really believe the UK is going to march into the embassy and take Assange; can you imagine the political fiasco that would arise? The letter was probably meant to add pressure to use as a negotiating tactic.

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_on_Consular_R...

zaidmo• 14 years ago

This is 2012. Can't they hold a videocon / telecon with Assange if they have questions? Why does he have to be on the ground in Sweden to be asked questions?

jgrahamc3• 14 years ago

I strongly doubt that Britain will take sudden action to arrest Assange in the embassy. What's likely to happen now is a stand off where he can't get out of the embassy because he'll be arrested. The UK and Ecuador will try to negotiate some sort of deal where Assange does go to Sweden to be questioned. Given that European states don't have the death penalty Assange would not be extradited to the US if there was a risk of him facing death there.

If he leaves he'll be arrested, if he manages to get in a diplomatic car the car will be stopped with Assange in it and there'll be a stand off. If Ecuador tries to make him into a diplomat the UK can simply refuse to accept that he is a diplomat. And if they try to use a diplomatic bag then the UK will claim that it's being used for improper purposes and block it. IMHO Assange is stuck there until a deal is worked out.

The granting of asylum is just one step in what will continue to be a tedious soap opera.

My interpretation of the letter that the FO sent to Ecuador is as a statement of a negotiating position given that the FO got wind of the fact that he was going to be offered asylum.

elmindreda• 14 years ago

Sweden doesn't have the best of records wrt extraditions in cases where the US has an interest.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_an...

roc2• 14 years ago

Can they not put him in a helicopter with a diplomatic courier or minor embassy functionary and fly him out to a boat in international waters? (Edit: I see now that was already discussed below. nm.)

That asked, I tend to agree that the most likely case is that Ecuador is only involved because they want unrelated concessions from the UK and will likely turn him over after some brief negotiations.

KimbaLion5• 14 years ago

Wow - this comment shows just how out of touch people who do not live in day to day Latin America are, with respect to Ecuador's decision to grant asylum. I am an Aussie/Brit, who has been happily living in Ecuador for the last four years. I would never have thought the day would come where I felt prouder looking at my Ecuadorian ID than I do my Aussie or British passports. But that certainly happened today! Anyway, to the point at hand. Ecuador has given Assange asylum because it has seriously considered the situation he's ended up in, and considers that not only is the whole clusterfuck politically motivated, but that if they DIDN'T offer asylum, at the very least, Assange's human rights would be violated. It is certainly NOT some cynical exercise in obtaining "unrelated concessions" from the UK ... that much I can assure you! It seems the UK Foreign Office also made such a misjudgement in trying to actually threaten Ecuador prior to the announcement, in the hope of perhaps intimidating them into NOT giving Assange asylum. What a monumental fail that was! It is actually hard to imagine how the UK could have made this situation much worse ... oh ... wait ... yes, they could've stormed the sovereign and inviolate territory of the Ecuadorian Embassy! Anyway, the point is that Ecuador is standing on principle here (remember that quaint concept?), and fortunately they are operating at a level of integrity which has allowed them to repudiate the skulduggery of two of the most powerful nations in the world. Viva Ecuador! Shining a light on what are some very very dark dealings indeed. Anybody who hasn't woken up to what is really going on here yet, is probably not going to reach the baseline IQ requirement in this lifetime anyway! And trying to explain this sort of stuff to those sorts of people is like banging your head on a brick wall (probably more painful actually!). Ciao for now. :)

ramblerman2• 14 years ago

It seems England is really serious about sexual assault.

dolbz• 14 years ago

Sorry but sexual assault is a very serious crime. Never mind the unusual circumstances of this particular case, your comment is insulting to sexual assault victims as it implies sexual assault is a lesser crime.

Tyrannosaurs27• 14 years ago

The nature of the charge is irrelevant. We're compelled by international agreements with Sweden to hand him over.

The question is really why would the UK want to piss Sweden off and not honour their agreement?

slurgfest13• 14 years ago

No, it seems the UK is really serious about embassies not being used to shield people pursued by its criminal justice system who are not diplomats of that embassy.

Perhaps the UK is serious about its relations with Sweden as well.

There are many things for the UK to be serious about short of alleged sexual assault in Sweden (not that one shouldn't be serious about sexual assault, in general, in any country...)

theorique• 14 years ago

Assange would not be extradited to the US if there was a risk of him facing death there.

There is no legal risk of Assange facing death in the US, is there? As far as I've read, he's just a nuisance to the US government, not wanted for any crimes. Or is that mistaken?

tedunangst2• 14 years ago

Some Senators or whoever said he should be killed. That has been accepted as proof that once he's in the US, he'll be killed.

datalus• 14 years ago

I doubt the US would seek the death penalty. It would be way too public, instead they'd probably just put him in a black hole like Gitmo or some super max. And that would be that.

revscat• 14 years ago

For an example of what the US will likely to do Assange you need look no further than how they have treated Bradley Manning.

chernevik• 14 years ago

In the two reports I've seen, the only evidence of the British threat to enter the embassy are representations by Ecuador. We haven't seen the letter and we haven't heard those suggestions from any British government spokesman.

It shouldn't surprise me to learn the Ecuadorans are making more of some reference than is actually there. I can't see what interest they have in Assange beyond tweaking the US, which is probably great domestic and regional politics for their government.

Nor would it surprise me if the British letter included some clarification of that embassy's status, without suggestion of entry in this matter. The British have had at least one police officer shot dead by a sniper from an embassy and are probably at pains that everyone understands there are limits.

The British aren't going to complicate diplomatic immunities over a two-bit twerp like Assange. They'll be content to let him get moldy in there. Eventually people will lose interest, he'll get bored, and he'll likely emerge of his own will to get back into the papers.

jpxxx6• 14 years ago

Your characterization of Julian Assange as a "two-bit twerp" is weird. You are aware he is an extraordinarily high profile figure on the world stage, yes?

KimbaLion5• 14 years ago

You are either lazy or deliberately obtuse. Here's the letter. Pretty unambiguous effort at intimidation. A monumental FAIL for that matter as well. http://www.twincities.com/allheadlines/ci_21326040/letter-uk...

sgoranson• 14 years ago

awh do you really find this narrative tedious? because now I feel silly, like I just got caught watching Jersey Shore

meiji4• 14 years ago

Obviously he has every right to be paranoid about the US trying to extradite him but you have to wonder how far he's willing to go on this. I think the Assange story long ago eclipsed the Wikileaks story (look how little attention Bradley Manning gets) and if he was prosecuted and convicted of rape in Sweden and had to do jail time there, I think the story would only be remembered for Assange. No need for a very messy public trial after extradition, no need for the miles of bad press it would generate.

autophil2• 14 years ago

The problem with Assange is while he is courageous, he is also morally weak. It's his utter lack of morals that has given his enemies so much ammunition.

I support Assange, although not without reservation, and I refuse to speak out for him in public because of his rape charges (charges which have not been proven).

I doubt he will successfully flee the UK.

To paraphrase the old Radiohead song, Assange, "you did it to yourself".

oinksoft2• 14 years ago

Innocent until proven guilty? Conspiracy theorists would tell you that there's no surer way to discredit somebody with no real evidence than to publicize a salacious sex story.

Tyrannosaurs27• 14 years ago

The issue with claiming innocent until proven guilty is that that is one part of a due process which Assange's actions are making impossible to follow.

I'm not saying he's guilty (or innocent), just that when you halt due process, terms like this become a little less meaningful as they're one part of a larger thing which is being blocked.

xutopia• 14 years ago

What do you mean morally weak?

autophil2• 14 years ago

If his motivations were purely based on freedom and the democratization of information, and not on his own physical yearnings, he wouldn't have compromised his mission.

Unfortunately, his sexual desires superseded his common sense and that of the greater good.

luriel5• 14 years ago

When the accusations first surfaced, some people at Wikileaks suggested that he does the reasonable thing and stand temporarily down from his role at Wikileaks while he deals with whatever clearly personal issues he has with the Swedish law.

Assange didn't take kindly to their suggestion, and they didn't last long at wikileaks.

Much more convenient for him to create a claim conspiracy theory and take cover in the hard and actually risky work done by wikileaks, and say that if he goes down, he will take the whole organization with him.

gavinlynch8• 14 years ago

I don't quite see the courage in leaking classified documents.

In fact, it's rather easy in this information age.

Jach2• 14 years ago

The courage is in leaking them with a name attached to the leaker or distributor. Bradley Manning is an example of what happens to people who leak stuff the State doesn't want leaked. Of course Assange seems more in it for the show than the leaks, which may in the end be the best strategy for most attention to the leaks themselves (along with attention to Assange), but it would have been a much easier and safer execution if it had been done anonymously. (It might not have received any attention though.)

0x0• 14 years ago

How often do you get see governments threatening to revoke the diplomatic status of an embassy for the sake of apprehending a rape suspect? Wow.

jgrahamc3• 14 years ago

Or, how often do rape suspects having gone through the entire legal system in the UK decide that asking for asylum is the way to go?

toyg13• 14 years ago

He has not been convicted of anything, in the UK nor in Sweden, so he's not "gone through the entire legal system".

The Swedish Police officially wants him for questioning, and for that reason they requested his arrest through Interpol. The UK legal system only argued on whether there's any impediment, under British Law, which would not allow him to be extradited.

Under pressure from the current government, Lord Justices ruled that they cannot find anything of the sort. Hardly a trial or "going through the entire legal system".

untog• 14 years ago

How often do rape suspects claim asylum?

meiji4• 14 years ago

It's also a different thing. He's also wanted in the UK for breaching his bail conditions. So he not only has the extradition hanging over him but he's broken the law in the UK now.

chimeracoder• 14 years ago

I'm pretty sure nearly anybody who seeks asylum is breaking some law in their home country.

The whole point of asylum is to protect against persecution, which is usually justified in the home country under some law.

mootothemax3• 14 years ago

How often do you get see governments threatening to revoke the diplomatic status of an embassy for the sake of apprehending a rape suspect?

You could argue the opposite side: how many embassies offer protection to famous rape suspects?

This is not an ordinary occurrence.

toyg13• 14 years ago

What about famous killers? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Allen_Davis_incident

DividesByZero3• 14 years ago

Something quite similar happened before with Roman Polanski.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Polanski#Sexual_abuse_cas...

furyg32• 14 years ago

The key word here is "suspect". We live in 2012: if you want to question a suspect you don't have to have him in your jurisdiction to do so. If you don't want to interview him in the embassy or by phone, you obviously don't care. If he doesn't want to talk, that's within his rights, and a refusal to come to your country should be interpreted as such.

The only reasons you would want a suspect extradited to your country are: to press charges and make an arrest, to torture, to make a media scene, or to 'punish' someone by detaining them even though you can't make the case stick.

The only acceptable reason is the first one, in which case you should press charges before extradition.

twelvechairs4• 14 years ago

Actually arguing the opposite as you say "how many embassies offer protection to famous rape suspects" is silly, because he is not being offered asylum because he is a rape suspect so effectively its as meaningful a question as "How many embassies offer protection to people born in Townsville, Queensland".

politician6• 14 years ago

Isn't the crime Assange is charged with in Sweden is significantly different from what is generally understood as rape in the US? Isn't he actually being charged with having two "one night stands"?

hythloday5• 14 years ago

He's charged with rape and two counts of sexual assault.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_A...

_delirium2• 14 years ago

If it's as alleged, I believe it would constitute at least some kind of sexual assault in the US as well. The allegation is that he had engaged in intercourse without a condom despite the protestations of his (otherwise consenting) partner that she didn't consent to unprotected sex.

jellicle3• 14 years ago

He hasn't been charged with anything in any country. Not publicly, anyway.

tzs• 14 years ago

The allegation for one of the cases is approximately this: they were going to have consensual sex, but the girl required that he wear a condom. One was not available, and so she refused to allow sex. They stayed in bed together, and fell asleep.

In the morning, she woke up to Assange on top of her having sex with her. She asked if he had obtained a condom and he said no. She told him to get off, and, well, he got off, but not in the way she meant--he kept going, came, and then withdrew.

That would arguably be rape in the US.

mootothemax3• 14 years ago

I'd love to know what Assange's endgame plan for all of this fuss is.

The States aren't going to extradite him from Sweden nor, evidently, from the UK. It makes me feel like a kiljoy to say it, but there isn't any conspiracy here, and nor will any play out. Let's face it - everything will play out normally and boringly, no matter how many people shout "conspiracy!"

My gut instinct is that one way or another he'll end up in Sweden, either walking free or serving a year or two in jail, and then - what? Sitting in Parisian cafes gazing wistfully upon what once could have been?

jonknee• 14 years ago

> The States aren't going to extradite him from Sweden nor, evidently, from the UK. It makes me feel like a kiljoy to say it, but there isn't any conspiracy here, and nor will any play out. Let's face it - everything will play out normally and boringly, no matter how many people shout "conspiracy!"

Why not? It seems a fair number of powerful people in the US would love to extradite him.

Henn• 14 years ago

Exactly. The US want to extradite Richard O'Dwyer and Gary McKinnon so why not Assange?

luriel5• 14 years ago

> I'd love to know what Assange's endgame plan for all of this fuss is.

The same endgame he has had for a while: more attention, more publicity, more people donating to his bank account (which is basically what wikileaks functions as) to make up for those that got burned when he jumped bail, more book deals, who knows, perhaps a film. Whatever feeds his ego.

runjake• 14 years ago

> his bank account (which is basically what wikileaks functions as)

Proof? Evidence?

daveying993• 14 years ago

You're underestimating the drive hat comes from conviction in an idea. The guy has been living like a nomad. He gave away his book rights earlier to pay for his and the organization's defense. That's when all donations were blocked by credit card companies and Paypal. He could be making much more money working as a programmer in San Francisco or as a talk sho host on CNN. His fame came from the effects of his actions. It's like saying Larry Page started Google because he enjoys the limelight. He built a world-changing organization, and fame happened as a side effect. He might get rich in the future though another book or a movie. But at this point he's personally in the red.

malsme• 14 years ago

From what I have read about him, my guess is he's somehow trying to subvert the system... what better way to get international publicity to your cause than to be effectively placed under house arrest in a stable nation while being protected by a third party state. At the very least, it's going to make people think about the situation.

nihilocrat• 14 years ago

Drone attack.

Just to clarify, I'm not wearing a tinfoil hat, I just have seen the circumstances of some drone attacks: against US citizens in places where no war was declared and with collateral damage shrugged off. From the US perspective, it is an easy means of getting rid of people they don't like with neither the need for judicial proceedings nor formal declaration of war. The only thing that is really stopping them right now is that Assange is currently in a highly populated part of the UK, and not in the middle of nowhere in Yemen.

mike-cardwell2• 14 years ago

How many drone attacks has the US launched against white Australian journalists?

vacri12• 14 years ago

The US would certainly not do a drone attack against a first-world nation, as the political fallout would be immense. They do have a great many other levers to use that the public would never see...

jlgreco2• 14 years ago

You have the luxury of being sure no harm will fall to him if he enters Sweden.

If you are wrong, you go about your daily life just as you do now. If he thought as you do and he was wrong, he would face torture and possibly execution.

If the stakes were equal, would you still feel as confident?

mcantelon2• 14 years ago

>The States aren't going to extradite him from Sweden nor, evidently, from the UK.

Adrian Lamo similarly declared that Bradley Manning would do less than 6 months (Manning has been in jail for more than a year and hasn't even been sentenced yet). If the US will extradict low-level software pirates, they'll likely extradict Assange.

GHFigs5• 14 years ago

Manning has been in jail for more than a year and hasn't even been sentenced yet

That's because he's awaiting trial, which has been delayed by both sides for various reasons. This is normal judicial process.

NathanRice4• 14 years ago

My guess is to get America (and other highly corrupt imperialist nations) to show its true colors for everyone to see.

If this WAS a conspiracy, consider this: the folks at Langley aren't stupid, they know that killing Julian or tossing him in Gitmo would only throw a keg of gasoline on the fire. The best way to erase Wikileaks from existence is to make everyone look at Julian as an evil, nasty, vile person unfit to spit upon. What are the most reviled crimes available for this? Setting him up for murder is very tricky and could easily unravel. Child molestation would be great, but this would be even harder than murder. Rape on the other hand is REALLY easy, because people have been convicted of rape with ZERO evidence, in a he-said-she-said dispute. Additionally, even if someone beats rape charges, the aura of it will linger around them basically forever; Julian will ALWAYS be an accused rapist, until the end of time. The analysts at the CIA would have looked this over from a lot of different angles, and known that this would play out as a win pretty much no matter what. What they didn't expect is that powerful conservative civilians in the united states would run their mouths so much about extradition, tribunals and treason that it would give another sovereign nation grounds to protect him.

vacri12• 14 years ago

The US managed to extradite an Australian citizen from his native country, who had never set foot on US soil, over mere copyright infringement. I don't really share your certainty that they couldn't be bothered to extradite someone.

gitarr• 14 years ago

And all just to keep a website on/off the internet.

dagrz• 14 years ago

Whenever I see a new post about this saga I feel compelled to post this mini documentary about it before everyone gets into the same old arguments.

Sex, Lies and Julian Assange http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/07/19/3549280.ht...

toyg13• 14 years ago

I'm renouncing my Amnesty International-funding credit card on this. The silence on their part, when this charade goes on on their doorstep in London, is deafening.

The same goes for LibDems and Labour, but I've given up on them a long time ago (and to be fair, Labour are not even in power). Human/civil rights was just about the last platform where LibDems had a shred of credibility, and now it's shot. To maintain a few perks, they will let the Tories destroy centuries of civilisation - the Vienna Convention is a cornerstone of international relations, and hence, of world peace; threatening it over a silly man is just irresponsible. Craig Murray, former UK Ambassador and old-time LibDem, is just about as shocked as I am, and it's the only reasonable voice I've heard in the last 24 hours: http://pastebin.com/s98KhnYD

Supporting journalists in Belarus, China, Syria, Iran without supporting Assange is not grassroot activism: it's cynical, masqueraded foreign policy.

gadders11• 14 years ago

Human rights of rape victims? What about those?

toyg13• 14 years ago

Ecuadorean diplomats even offered the option to send him to Sweden outright, as long as the Swedish government guarantees he will not be extradited to a third country. Swedish authorities refused.

Tell me please: how will Swedish rape victims' human rights be offended by the Swedish inability to ship him to another country? Are Swedish punishment terms not enough?

gsnedders8• 14 years ago

The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union applies to every man, woman, and child within the European Union. They apply both if you are a convicted criminal or have had a criminal offence committed against you.

derrida• 14 years ago

They want to question him over a complaint regarding compelling him to take an STD test. When he was charged and then those charges were dismissed he remained in Sweden for weeks. The story is so much more complicated than a simple charge for 'rape' (Assange has not been charged) One of the people he had relations with withdrew support for prosecution: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yu4WCskniEc

furyg32• 14 years ago

How are the rape victims' human rights being violated in this process?

They have not charged him with a crime (rape victims should be furious about this). They want him for 'questioning' but refuse to question him in London (again, furious).

donniezazen• 14 years ago

How do you assume that he is guilty? The way all countries including America are taking an interest in him, it sounds less rape related and more of a power struggle.

mike-cardwell2• 14 years ago

Can we come up with a new word for this alleged crime? Saying "rape" implies they didn't consent to sex, which in this case they did.

_delirium2• 14 years ago

Well, they did have a comment: http://www2.amnesty.org.uk/blogs/press-release-me-let-me-go/...

toyg13• 14 years ago

Yeah, that was a month ago, when it was all fun and games.

Now the Metropolitan Police is banging at the door of a foreign embassy to get hold of a suspect, and the time for jokes is all but gone. Now it's not about who's the best-looking media-darling, it's about principles and long-standing conventions in international relations.

They would look fabulous by coming out swinging, saying "we can't stand the man, but the asylum principle is inviolable and not worth losing just to score a cheap point, so let him go to Ecuador if they want him."

But no, silence. Had it happened in China or some godforsaken African hellhole, we wouldn't hear the end of it. It happens in London, chips are down, and now we're failing HARD at world peace.

It make me very sad.

twelvechairs4• 14 years ago

This is really weak. Nelson Mandela gratefully accepted support from Libya and Cuba in the ANC's struggles against apartheid... Does that make him a hypocrite? Amnesty would never say that in an official blog post...

twelvechairs4• 14 years ago

I think your link makes the right comparison with Chen Guangchen. When the UK can be compared unfavourably to China, it is a sad day for all of us in the Western world...

polshaw• 14 years ago

I don't think it is a fair comparison. There is a reason he went to the embassy of the world superpower and not Ecuador's embassy-- which China may have been much less likely to respect.

vacri12• 14 years ago

Come on, think. What would the Chinese gain by seriously pissing off their biggest trading partner, who is the cornerstone of their economy? Compare to the UK who has to weigh up pleasing their longtime ally the US and pissing off Ecuador.

If you're holding up the Chinese not violating the sanctity of the US embassy as a noble example, surely the annexing the entire nation of Tibet should counter that. Tibet was small fry. The US has the largest economy, military, and set of military allies in the world.

EDIT: Also, the "Freedom Fries" period in the last decade caused some damage to the French economy over a preceived slight that didn't even exist. Having China march into the US embassy would have a ton of ramifications from the US public pulling business, not just the government.

Symmetry• 14 years ago

The Vienna Convention is indeed a cornerstone of international relations and I would also be very upset to see it violated. But fundamentally it's about the rights of Westphalian states, not human rights. I think it's entirely fair for Amnesty International to say that they're only interested in securing human rights.

toyg13• 14 years ago

You cannot have human rights without peaceful international relations. You cannot have peaceful international relations without the Vienna Convention.

If Amnesty cannot see that, they're unworthy of their fame. Unfortunately, I suspect they do see that, and nevertheless they're not acting. Which is even more damning.

sounds• 14 years ago

When Assange is on trial in the US and in jeopardy of being executed will you say that is not a case of "human rights"?

Hint: the women in Sweden won't be the point of inquiry then. It will be his actions on the internet, for which he most definitely should not face death.

alpine2• 14 years ago

As for 'LibDems and Labour'?! You appear to be suggesting that it should be self-evident to everyone reading your post that the LibDems and Labour have a claim to moral superiority over Tories? The LibDems pay lip-service to Civil Liberties (they never expected power, they never expected to be called to deliver) and Labour are the most authoritarian party to ever hold power in the UK. It's just as well Labour are not in power, else Assange would have been shipped to Gitmo months ago.

coolestuk• 14 years ago

There are far bigger reasons to question Amnesty International's integrity. Search their website for the OIC's "Cairo Declaration" on Human Rights under Islam, and you'll find that Amnesty has completely ignored it. The Cairo Declaration subordinates all human rights to sharia law, and almost every islamic country in the world has signed the Cairo Declaration. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cairo_Declaration_on_Human_Righ...

At the most extreme interpretation, slavery is legal under islamic law - see Sultanhussein Tabandeh, "A Muslim Commentary on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights". And the Cairo Declaration says that there is no crime except that proscribed by sharia. Countries like Saudi Arabia and Yemen had slaves well into the 20th century (a 1951 UN report estimated that 5% of the population of those countries were slaves), and they only "outlawed" slavery under duress from the west. There is still slave-taking and trading in Mauritania and Sudan.

There are now plenty of serious works on the 1300 years of the islamic slave trade, e.g. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Islams-Black-Slaves-History-Diaspora... http://www.amazon.co.uk/Christian-Slaves-Muslim-Masters-Medi...

It beggars belief that Amnesty can simply ignore it when the islamic world rejects universal human rights. But as long as Amnesty ignores it, the OIC's Cairo Declaration can fly under the radar, and be ignored by mainstream media and governments.

My understanding of the Cairo Declaration might be wrong. But until it starts to be discussed by organisations like Amnesty, it is not going to be subjected to extensive critical examination.

slurgfest13• 14 years ago

Your sole complaint about Amnesty is that somehow, they are too soft on Muslims. But their site is full of criticism about Muslim countries, e.g. http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/saudi-arabia - no indication that they are holding back at all with respect to actual reported human rights violations.

So what I can conclude from your post is that you are disappointed that Amnesty does not go beyond specific human rights criticisms to some kind of blanket condemnation of all Muslims, which would serve absolutely no constructive purpose except to satisfy bigotry.

toyg13• 14 years ago

Let's be clear, I'm not saying that Amnesty have always been perfect before today.

What I find shocking is that they spend most of their time supporting this or that journalist in this or that country, and when something so egregious happens in the UK, in London, they stay mum because it's happening to somebody they don't like. They are failing spectacularly, in their own backyard, without any risk of repercussions whatsoever (this government is not friendly to them, they're not friendly to anyone really, so there's nothing to lose by criticising them).

I fail to see why I should support the rights of Russian rock bands to criticize Putin, but I should ignore the Metropolitan Police, down the road, banging on the door of foreign embassies to get hold of Assange. One day they might be looking for me on some trumped-up charge or other, and will Amnesty then stay silent if I'm not their pal?

That's just not how it works, and that's why Amnesty won't get any more money from me.

kragen• 14 years ago

Perhaps the Cairo Declaration's signatories believe that sharia law protects universal human rights adequately, and that the UN's version of universal human rights is an attempt to lump together rights that are truly universal with some "rights" that are culturally specific, dubious, and in some cases downright wrongheaded, in order to stuff them down the throats of other countries?

It makes as much sense to say that the Cairo Declaration "subordinates all human rights to sharia law" as to say that the UNDHR "subordinates all human rights to the will of the UN General Assembly". And characterizing the signing of the Cairo Declaration as "rejecting universal human rights" is exactly opposite of the truth: the Cairo Declaration is an affirmation of universal human rights.

lobster_johnson• 14 years ago

The Cairo declaration was published in 1990. It's more productive for Amnesty to criticize specific abuses than to attack a 22-year old declaration (which, to my knowledge, has not been made law by all the countries who signed).

philwelch5• 14 years ago

Are you implying that Assange is a political prisoner?

tomku• 14 years ago

I don't like this as precedent. If there's one thing we've learned from Wikileaks, it's that evidence of wrongdoing should be out in the open. This is a back-room deal between Assange and Ecuador to give him asylum as protection from a claimed US government conspiracy, but where's the proof? If it's good enough to convince the government of Ecuador, it's good enough to post publicly.

foobarqux6• 14 years ago

The Wikileaks Grand Jury.

DividesByZero3• 14 years ago

An angle that seems to be forgotten here is the political bind the UK government finds itself in. On the one hand, they cannot afford to violate territoriality of the Ecuadoran embassy (legally or not) - on the other, they also cannot afford to break the terms of their extradition treaty with Sweden.

Either outcome will see the UK have further problems on the world stage, and neither is something they can easily negotiate their way out of. In such a situation, it might be imagined that they would rather risk their reputation with the rest of the world than alienate their allies.

keithpeter4• 14 years ago

You may be right, but I would be a little concerned about what form those "further problems on the world stage2 might take if I was a UK diplomat, or, worse, a local civilian employee, in a UK embassy somewhere interesting.

vacri12• 14 years ago

It's not really a bind. They could just as easily say "Sorry, Sweden, he made it to neutral ground" as "we're going to violate the Vienna Convention". At this stage it's all politics; if the UK is threatening to do this, then it's getting something out of the deal.

Flow• 14 years ago

What if Ecuador make him an Ecuadorian diplomat?

Somehow I feel that when this is over, he'll return to Australia and make a quick political career and become very influential.

ceejayoz3• 14 years ago

> What if Ecuador make him an Ecuadorian diplomat?

England would refuse to grant credentials.

> Somehow I feel that when this is over, he'll return to Australia and make a quick political career and become very influential.

Given Australia's close ties to the US, that's pretty unlikely.

vacri12• 14 years ago

No he won't. The Australian public see him as a celebrity, and we don't really do celebrity politicians.

santiagoIT• 14 years ago

I am ecuadorian and currently live in Ecuador. Granting assylum to Assange is just a PR move from our government. You might not be aware of this, but our 'president' won a lawsuit for US$ 40 Mio against the 'El Universo' newspaper just because an editor wrote an article critizing him. In Ecuador government CENSORSHIP rules. Hopefully Assange can make it to Ecuador and then realizes with the type of people he got involved with and gets out of here. It so WRONG to have our government be depicted as standing for liberty, freedom of speech, by granting assylum to assange. Please do some research. This goverment is all but that!!!!!!

eternauta3k• 14 years ago

I think taking asylum from Ecuador compromises his integrity. Will Wikileaks publish leaks about Correa in the future?

jpincheira• 14 years ago

Ecuador: "We are not a colony from the UK".

EPIC.

Crake• 14 years ago

Yes, I quite enjoyed that bit of snark as well.

brudgers3• 14 years ago

The British didn't seem quite so committed to extraditing Augusto Pinochet. This despite the fact that he had been indicted for crimes against humanity, not simply wanted for questioning as is the case for Mr. Assange.

In the case of Pinochet, there were four extradition requests: Spain, Belgium, Switzerland and France.

However, the British government took Mr. Pinochet's frail health into account and ultimately released him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictment_and_arrest_of_August...

Tyrannosaurs27• 14 years ago

And many people detest in the UK and detest that decision and the woman who made it.

And so what if you make a bad decision historically? Are you suggesting that having made one that's a precedent and we should continue doing the wrong thing?

The rights and wrongs of this case aren't determined about mistakes that may or may not have been made in the past.

barking3• 14 years ago

Please don't downvote, I just can't miss this opportunity to re-tell a joke from the time (Everton, an English football team, had a reputation for being boring to watch).

What do Everton and General Pinochet have in common?

They both force people into football stadiums and torture them.

barking3• 14 years ago

Are you referring to Maggie Thatcher? She was quite vocal at the time but was long out of office by then

Tyrannosaurs27• 14 years ago

EDIT: It wasn't Mrs. T but I stand by the fact that it wouldn't be a decision that most in the UK would support, whoever made it.

alpine2• 14 years ago

Pinochet was a useful asset to the UK during the Falklands war, keeping regular Argentine troops committed to the mainland and helping UK Special Forces carry out clandestine missions there. In actuality, 'morality' and the 'rule of law', when quoted by politicians, are platitudes. The reality is rewards are expected and granted for political favours, and I think it is likely Pinochet's ill health was simply a convenient excuse to release him.

barking3• 14 years ago

Link to BBC report from the time http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/599526.stm

brudgers3• 14 years ago

Ecuadorian Anglo relations are currently strained over the sovereignty of the Falklands/Malvinas.

http://articles.cnn.com/2012-02-05/americas/world_americas_v...

vpeters25• 14 years ago

The rumor goes Pinochet secretly helped Britain during the Falkland islands war. Because of this, there was no way the British government would allow anyone to get their hands on him.

nsns3• 14 years ago

Everything seems so extreme about this saga: a "leaker" is accused of not using contraception (i.e., leaking) in a (possibly) covert plot by the US to subject him to the very same treatment his leaks so shockingly revealed. Then he turns himself into a public target for the US and its allies, thus rendering their actual disregard for human rights and tendency for over-the-top aggressiveness explicit and embarrassing, in a manner which is actually much more effective and public than his site's leaks.

A bona fide political circus, in which the main performer, Assange, turns out to be an extremely talented clown.

debacle• 14 years ago

I don't understand all of these people suggesting that once Assange is in international waters he is somehow safe.

The US will just stop the Ecuadoran vessel, board it, and take Assange. We've got historic precedent for their lack of Give a Fuck in situations of this nature.

philwelch5• 14 years ago

There's no evidence that the US even wants Assange.

radio4fan4• 14 years ago

Except of course the ongoing grand jury in Virginia.

chrisacky• 14 years ago

Reading down through all of the comments, I can see that people have a totally mixed opinion of how this can happen. Some people think that the US have no intention of wanting to extradite and charge Assange, but Assange and his counsel have repeatedly (in the last month) requested that the US make a statement confirming this. The matter of the fact is, many high profile American's have said that he should be killed, and put to death.

Onto the other topic of the rape charges, I think some people don't fully understand the facts surrounding the charge. I didn't either until I spent thirty minutes and read this article: http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/07/19/3549280.ht...

But from this transcript... these are the key points:

-------------

The "sexual assault/rape/molestation" charges were filed after two women Anna Ardin and Sofia Wilen went to the police to seek advice if they could compel Assange to take a STD test since they did not use a condom during sex.

Both of the women went to the Klara police station in central Stockholm, however, it is mentioned that Ardin had gone along primarily to support Wilen.

Ardin had been frequently in the company of Assange. She had previously described him as such a "cool man" (Twitter). They also arrived and left together at a Crayfish party (equivalent of a cocktail party). Ardin was sharing accomodation with Assange and had refused an offer from someone else for temporary accomodation.

The day after the accusation of rape and molesation Ardin sent a SMS saying : "I've just spent some time with the coolest people in the world".

SMS text messages were also exchanged between Sofia and Ardin, which showed that the two of them knew of the relationship between each other and Assange.

Ardin responded to a friend who was looking for Assange : "He's not here. He's planned to have sex with the cashmere girl every evening, but not made it. Maybe he finally found time yesterday?"

The Swedish police, totally railroaded the investigation. Interviews have been leaked with Assange, and Wilen commented initially "that she became so distraught she refused to give any more testimony and refused to sign what had been taken down.". Assange went freely for interview to the police station and was released without immediate charge, and was free to travel. Almost immediately there after, another warrant was issued for his arrest.

Eventually, it was also upgraded to an Interpol "Red Notice".

It's alleged (from the transcripts), that Sweden has frankly always been the United States' lap dog and it's not a matter we are particularly proud of. The Swedish Government has... essentially, whenever a US official says, "Jump", the Sweden Government asks, "How high?"

Assange's legal team are clearly trying to point out that US is coercing all of this behind the scenes so that he can then be extradited from Sweden and face trial for conspiracy to commit espionage.

> The burden should be on the United States Government to say, "We are not planning to prosecute Julian Assange". If they just gave that assurance, I can guarantee you that Julian Assange would go to Sweden tomorrow.

----------------

This is hugely and unequivocally politically motivated. I'm British, and I am largely ashamed that pressure is not being placed on Sweden by the foreign minister to have them reinvestigate the extradition request. Also, Sweden will, and has previously done all it can to scratch America's back.

Assange should stay put, until US says "we will not pursue extradition from Sweden". (Which they will not do.)

Tyrannosaurs27• 14 years ago

The US will never say that and are right to do so.

Even if based on everything they know right now they honestly believed that to be true, what if they found new evidence tomorrow that changed their view?

The best you could ever get from them is "we have no plans based on what we know now" and that simply wouldn't be enough.

bergie3• 14 years ago

Apparently Sweden is making no promises either:

Patiño made it clear that Ecuador had asked Sweden for a guarantee that it would not extradite him to the US, were such a request made. But Sweden had said no, he said.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/aug/16/julian-assange-e...

arrrg3• 14 years ago

The whole section in the middle where you describe the relationship between Assange and the two women – I’m honestly not really sure what you want to say with that. Do you think those facts make it less likely that rape occurred?

None of the facts you presented would lead me to adjust the probability that a rape actually occurred down.

Most commonly rape happens between people who know each other, not in some dark alley between total strangers. The fact that the women knew Assange and even expressed that they liked him doesn’t make rape less plausible. I can’t see how that can be evidence for some sort of conspiracy.

Similarly, victims of rape becoming distraught with the process and essentially giving up on it – especially with one that is so very public – isn’t something that would surprise me, so I’m also not sure why that is evidence in favor of a government conspiracy.

I don’t really care whether Assange really raped someone (I think the very capable Swedish justice system is perfectly able to sort that out), I’m only interested in whether there is any evidence that points to a government conspiracy – and I honestly do not see anything.

krenoten• 14 years ago

In Swedish law, rape can mean something quite different than it does in the states. They both consented to sex, there was a contraception miscommunication, and afterward they decided it would be a good idea to have Assange tested for an STD to be safe. In Swedish law, rape can mean a disagreement over contraception.

If these women approached a lawyer in the US with their side of what happened, the lawyer would advise not to bring the matter to criminal court, with civil court also being a waste of time.

pasbesoin• 14 years ago

It's been a while since I read through various reporting and accounts, but as I recall from memory, here are a few pertinent points:

- The two women involved asked whether Assange could be compelled to take a test for sexually transmitted diseases (STD). They did not allege rape.

- The initial prosecutor dropped their investigation as not meeting criteria that would merit its continuance.

- Later, a second prosecutor -- in a different district and with no prior involvement -- picked the case up and pursued it further. Why?

- Assange stayed in Sweden upwards of a month and did participate in questioning. He left after the case was supposedly dropped and he was told, in response to his question, that he was free to travel abroad.

- Subsequent to his travel to England, Swedish authorities reopened the case and sought him for further questioning.

- Assange was willing to participate in further questioning, but upon advice of his attorneys declined to return to Sweden. Swedish law permits questioning to procede under such circumstances.

- Up to this point, Assange was not charged with any crime. He was simply "wanted for further questioning". If anything, the Swedish prosecutors seemed to be going out of their way to avoid charging him with any crime -- perhaps seeking to avoid causing any "warning", either informally or in some legal sense.

- When Assange refused to return, Sweden finally issued an Interpol Red Notice. Red Notices are the highest level of Interpol "flag". They are very rarely used. This was issued for someone wanted for questioning regarding alleged rape -- an allegation apparently made by a prosecutor but not by the actual alleged victims.

- Some fairly convincing, if circumstantial, evidence has been identified and reported that the U.S. has indeed convened a grand jury. This includes someone having identified the specific grand jury identification number. Decomposition of said number (it's constructed using various aspects of the grand jury timing and topic) shows that the grand jury is investigating a topic pertaining the Espionage Act.

- Apparently (I've seen less on this), one of the women involved has refused to sign her initial statements or to participate further in the Swedish investigation. The other woman has left Sweden. Now, granted, publicity and "blowback" from Assange supporters might well be a cause for this. But we don't have any reports of this being the case nor of specific events that might show such activity. On the other hand, it does not present a picture of two victims of rape seeking justice (in Sweden, where women's rights are much more supported than in many countries).

I don't mean to minimize the very real crime and trauma of rape. But upon digging into the specific details and timeline of this situation, it really starts to stink.

P.S. I'm reading some of the more specific, step by step descriptions of the sexual activity allegedly involved. If Assange did indeed force intercourse without the use of a condom, then I'm all for him being charged. Although this still seems at odds with the publicly observed personal interactions that continued for days after the alleged events.

Even if this were to be the case, it does not mean that the U.S. is not leaving no stone unturned in its effort to get its hands on Assange. And, if nothing else, the treatment of Manning -- now formally classified as torture by the U.N. -- seems to provide clear indication that extradition to the U.S. might well result in the violation of Assange's rights.

This is what happens when a government stoops to criminal activity. It no longer has any credence, even were its case to be legitimate.

And finally, once again, I'll ask: Where are the reprimands and punishments for those responsible who mis-designed and mis-managed such a fucked up intelligence information system? And for those whose criminal activities were identified by the leaked information.

U.S.A. -- land of hypocrisy.

valdiorn• 14 years ago

> The day after the accusation of rape and molesation Ardin sent a SMS saying : "I've just spent some time with the coolest people in the world".

Really? that doesn't say ANYTHING to you?

the day AFTER. Very few people go out of their way to advertise how cool their rapists are.

Tichy• 14 years ago

Is it common practice to raid foreign embassies because of rape allegations? I was undecided about the allegations, but I think the current situation makes it pretty clear that this is not about the rape allegations at all.

CJefferson2• 14 years ago

Is it common practice to grant asylum to people wanted for rape?

rmc7• 14 years ago

Oh no, normally the governments and police just ignore the rape. "She was probabaly asking for it" is a common way to brush it under the carpet.

The one thing that's very fishy about this is how determined they are to prosecute this rape case.

fusiongyro2• 14 years ago

> Some people think that the US have no intention of wanting to extradite and charge Assange, but Assange and his counsel have repeatedly (in the last month) requested that the US make a statement confirming this. The matter of the fact is, many high profile American's have said that he should be killed, and put to death.

Your argument is that the government is evil enough to extradite him on trumped up charges in order to have him killed, but also somehow incapable of telling a lie.

lmm4• 14 years ago

If it would have the support of its people in the one but not the other, that doesn't seem so unreasonable.

dspillett2• 14 years ago

> he should be killed, and put to death

Would that be two consecutive sentences, or would they be served in parallel?

lizzard• 14 years ago

Here's the testimony from Assange's own lawyers:

He described Assange as penetrating one woman while she slept without a condom, in defiance of her previously expressed wishes, before arguing that because she subsequently “consented to … continuation” of the act of intercourse, the incident as a whole must be taken as consensual.

In the other incident, in which Assange is alleged to have held a woman down against her will during a sexual encounter, Emmerson offered this summary: “[The complainant] was lying on her back and Assange was on top of her … [she] felt that Assange wanted to insert his penis into her vagina directly, which she did not want since he was not wearing a condom … she therefore tried to turn her hips and squeeze her legs together in order to avoid a penetration … [she] tried several times to reach for a condom, which Assange had stopped her from doing by holding her arms and bending her legs open and trying to penetrate her with his penis without using a condom. [She] says that she felt about to cry since she was held down and could not reach a condom and felt this could end badly.”

That's rape.

tomp8• 14 years ago

sources?

ryguytilidie2• 14 years ago

This misses the point so ridiculously badly. As I said on twitter yesterday.

Is there a chance in hell that he is being extradited for these crimes if the US didn't want him for leaking documents? Once you realize the answer is a firm no, this whole side story becomes irrelevant. There is no way Sweden is extraditing a rapist from the UK UNLESS someone like the US puts on pressure because of something else.

vidarh19• 14 years ago

You are grossly misrepresenting this.

The purpose was for Assanges lawyers to explain why even if the facts are as stated by the prosecution there would be no case for Assange to answer. The purpose was not to present a defence for Assange, nor to present Assange's version of events.

Emmerson went on to make it clear that whether or not Assange agreed with this version of events was immaterial for the extradition hearing, as in the extradition hearing, the evidence will be interpreted as favorably as reasonable for the prosecution.

In other words, this is Assange's lawyer saying "even if all you say is true this is why we believe there is no case". And you conveniently ignored the part where he provided that explanation for your last paragraph.

Whether or not you agree with his justification is also immaterial - this was not Assanges defence against the accusations.

mmaunder• 14 years ago

What is really being discussed here, without saying it explicitly, is whether it's OK for the United States to go after it's perceived enemies in other countries, for crimes committed outside the USA that violate USA laws, and bring them home to face trial, whether or not they are US citizens. And lets just call a spade a spade. It's clearly the "United States of Sweden".

anuraj2• 14 years ago

Best wishes to assange in his quest to make the most secretive regimes of the world transparent. Less governments the better! Humanity do not need extra ordinary hijackers, tramplers of human rights and surveillance junkies.

slurgfest13• 14 years ago

Look to Somalia to see how the removal of government opens a power vacuum which creates chaos and ultimately new governments.

Unless you have got a sustainable plan for maintaining a vacuum, you can reasonably assume that nature will fill it.

anuraj2• 14 years ago

The existence of a government do not mean it is desirable. It is an act of authority on people. When people are enlightened and can choose for themselves and govern themselves, the power of governments to arrogate themselves the power shall wither away - but the secretive regimes are fearing just that - they do not want their citizens to be informed or enlightened and are a regressive influence to the progress of humanity.

antoinevg• 14 years ago

I'm just going to leave this here:

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine

cletus• 14 years ago

I find the points and counterpoints on the Assange issue rather confusing and it's hard for me, as an observer, to separate fact from fiction. I'm wondering if someone can clear up some points:

1. Apparently there is a two-stage interview process in Sweden with criminal investigations. A first interview, which Assange has done, and a second that is equivalent to being charged. Is this true?

2. It has been argued that Swedish authorities have done interviews in embassies and other countries in other cases but have refused to do so here. In those other cases, are they first or second interviews (assuming (1) is correct)?

3. Has the US formally charged, indicated they would charge, sought extradition or otherwise indicated they would seek extradition of Assange or is it merely assumed?

4. Is there any substantive difference in extradition proceedings from the UK or Sweden? The US could seek extradition from the UK. It is argued by Assange's defenders that it is easier from Sweden and a UK judge may well throw out the request as being politically motivated whereas extradition from Sweden, it is argued, can be done politically rather than through the courts. How true is this?

5. Sweden has refused to not extradite Assange, should he return, to the US. How normal is this? Can Sweden legally do this? I know EU countries have, in the past, as a condition of extradition required the US to guarantee that the death penalty won't be sought or applied. I assume in those cases that is a real issue so it seems like there is some room for movement when it comes to extradition;

6. What is the status of Assange's legal proceedings against extradition to Sweden? The High Court has ruled I believe so the only recourse now is the European Court of Human Rights? Is that still ongoing? Can it make a binding ruling against extradition that the UK must abide by?

7. When it comes to criminal charges in any country I'm familiar with there are two things: how the law is written and how it is applied. Many things are illegal that the authorities don't actively pursue. Partially this is simply convention, partially its policing and partially (IMHO) it's holding things in reserve, meaning if you really want to get someone you have something. Is this also the case for Sweden? Given the facts as (publicly) known regarding the rape allegations, how normal is it to seek criminal charges in this case?

8. With regards to political asylum. How normal is it for a country to offer political asylum to someone in another country who is a citizen of a third country resisting extradition to a fourth? Hell, you can probably add "because of fears of being extradited to a fifth"!

Assange is an Australian citizen. As an Australian citizen myself I'm disappointed but not at all surprised in the silence of the Australian government on this issue and the apparent acquiescence to US demands. It's often pointed out that citizenship is not only a privilege but a responsibility. The government likewise has a responsibility to defend the interests of its citizens and I see that sadly lacking here.

gadders11• 14 years ago

I believe for (3) it is politicians grandstanding (and not even ones in the current US administration) saying he should be tried in the US.

For (6), I'm not sure if the case is with the ECHR, but yes they can make binding decisions over the UK government.

jmillikin2• 14 years ago

  > Is there any substantive difference in extradition
  > proceedings from the UK or Sweden?

The UK will not extradite to the US if the accused faces the death penalty. Sweden will. Assange's lawyers argue that the US's apparent desire for a Swedish extradition indicates that US prosecutors want a conviction that will lead to his execution.

jrockway3• 14 years ago

What can the US charge him for that is punishable by death? The most I think they can get is conspiracy to commit espionage, which is not, according to the below list, a capital offense.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/federal-laws-providing-death...

mjvandenbergh2• 14 years ago

Neither Sweden nor the UK will or can do such a thing as it's a violation of EU treaties to do so.

johansch4• 14 years ago

Where did you get this disinformation? Why did you trust it enough to post it under your name, John Millikin?

It is equally illegal in Sweden to extradite people to countries where they could face the death penalty.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/16/julian-a...

jeltz4• 14 years ago

I think 1 is incorrect. There are two types of interviews in Sweden. Normal police interviews and 24:8 interviews. The purpose of a 24:8 interview is to determine if it is necessary to arrest the suspect, and has nothing to do with if the suspect will be charged or not. (Though he must be charged soon after being arrested or let free.) So they do only need to have a normal police interview with Assange at this stage. The 24:8 interview should be held once Assange has arrived in Sweden.

Basically the process should be:

  1) International arrest warrant
  2) Police interview in London
  3) Charges are laid
  4) Extradition to Sweden
  5) 24:8 interview to check if Assange is likely to leave the country.
  6) Trial

People with more knowledgeable of the law are welcome to correct me

podperson2• 14 years ago

I found this while Googling with similar questions in mind.

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/07/19/3549280.ht...

4Corners is an excellent in-depth news program, along the lines of Frontline in the US. You can watch the video or simply read a transcript of the entire program.

It seems fairly clear that the Swedish authorities have behaved very strangely: 1) the "victims" don't think they were raped, they wanted Assange to submit to an STD test, 2) the first prosecutor didn't think there was a criminal case, 3) the Swedes used an "Interpol Red Notice" -- normally reserved for imminent terrorist threads -- on Julian Assange (apparently neither Gaddafi, when he was on the run, nor the current president of Syria have warranted such a notice).

As regards your last question -- political asylum is generally unusual to begin with, and the number of parties involved is hardly unusual. A "typical" asylum case from the cold war would usually involve a citizen of an Eastern Bloc country seeking protection in an embassy (usually the US or a country friendly to the US) in another country. So that's three or four jurisdictions involved off that bat.

During WWII you'd have a fairly typical case of an allied airman fleeing from occupied France (two jurisdictions to begin with) into Spain, and getting to an allied embassy.

Again -- per the 4Corners report, the Australian government has not so much been "silent" as has been "all in" with the US government.

tomp8• 14 years ago

4. Extradition in Sweden does not need to be through the courts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_an...

KimbaLion5• 14 years ago

If Sweden is capable of doing this (renditioning people for the US to torture) I'm pretty sure it's not going to have too much of a problem handing over Assange! http://www.hrw.org/news/2006/11/09/sweden-violated-torture-b... Now (because of their blind obeisance to the US) three countries ... the UK, Sweden and Australia have all made themselves look like pathetic US lap-dogs, in the eyes of any reasonably-minded person in the world.

michiexile2• 14 years ago

For 5., the actual statement I could find reported was that Sweden will honour its treaties, and in particular if the US fulfills all conditions in the US-Sweden extradition treaty, Sweden is obliged, under treaty, to comply.

And it is extremely problematic in many ways for anyone (Judge or Politician) to promise at this stage what will happen when the Swedish judicial system deals with a hypothetical extradition request.

gavinlynch8• 14 years ago

I find it very interesting that I haven't seen anyone refute one amazingly central point in this entire affair: #1. A second interview essentially is a lead-up to being formally charged. If this is true, Assange was one step away from being charged before fleeing the country. I think that context, if true, is important.

arkem• 14 years ago

For number 3. I don't believe that the US government has indicted, charged, or has otherwise show interest in Julian Assange. The best information I can find on the topic are quotes [1][2] from the US Ambassador to Australia saying that the US is not interested in Julian Assange. The articles also quote the Ambassador as saying that the US-UK extradition treaty would be more convenient than the US-SE one.

[1] http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/wikileaks/we-dont-c...

[2] http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/were-not-...

rmc7• 14 years ago

I know EU countries have, in the past, as a condition of extradition required the US to guarantee that the death penalty won't be sought or applied.

EU (& other countries bound by the European Convention on Human Rights) are not allowed to extradite people to countries where they might face a breech of the ECHR, ergo you cannot extradite unless there is a guarantee of no capital punishment.

rmc7• 14 years ago

"1. Apparently there is a two-stage interview process in Sweden with criminal investigations. A first interview, which Assange has done, and a second that is equivalent to being charged. Is this true?"

According to the English courts, he has already been the equivalent of "charged": ""there can be no doubt that if what Mr Assange had done had been done in England and Wales, he would have been charged" (§153 of http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html)

lifeguard2• 14 years ago

For perspective, Bradly Manning his under 24 hour gaurd and observation. He must strip nude every morning before his female and male guards. He is allowed no mail. He never sees the sky or breathes fresh air.

Some of this is for his protection they say.

Assange is wise to fear the wrath of the USA and its special friend the UK.

lifeguard2• 14 years ago

"INTERPOL cannot compel any of its 190 member countries to arrest the subject of a Red Notice. Any individual wanted for arrest should be considered innocent until proven guilty. "

http://www.interpol.int/

nacker6• 14 years ago

A 1994 study by Dr. Eugene Kanin of Purdue University revealed that 41% of rape allegations are fabrications.

The Innocence Project reports that the number one crime for which they release wrongfully convicted individuals from prison is rape.

Why are these women not in prison? http://www.register-her.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

duaneb• 14 years ago

...because there has been nothing but accusations and guilt for any party has not been resolved?

nacker6• 14 years ago

Read the submission guidelines:

"Only those submissions that can be corroborated by either a link(s) to a recognized news affiliate and/or digital copies of court records, with correct contact information for that court, or other compelling, substantiated documentation, will be accepted as proof.

All submissions based on court records must be verified by our staff before they will be posted. "

You want the actual court documents on the site? That is not going to happen.

HomaSapiens8• 14 years ago

Actually, his study revealed that a specific police station in a small city determined 45 out of 109 rape allegations filed between 1978 and 1987 were "false." I can think of 45 reasons why (male, politically connected) police in the pre-nineties would make that decision.

To be fair, one of those reasons could be because the allegation actually is false.

But the common reason is because men don't want the allegations to be true-- as you have demonstrated in these threads, and have the power, unlike yourself, to rubber stamp them away.

fduran• 14 years ago

A movie script couldn't do better: Assange's lawyer is Baltazar Garzon, the Spanish ex-judge who asked London for the extradition of Pinochet.

melvinmt• 14 years ago

Is there a particular reason why Assange chose to ask political asylum in Ecuador?

credo• 14 years ago

Sometimes it looks like authoritarian governments can learn a thing or two from "democratic" countries.

When Chen Guangcheng sought refuge in the American embassy, the Chinese govt didn't use any trumped up criminal charges against him as an excuse to threaten to invade the American embassy and arrest Mr Chen.

Britain is threatening to invade the embassy of Ecuador by using a local 1987 law to revoke the diplomatic status of the embassy. Next time around, the Chinese and every authoritarian govt around the world will know how to handle any asylum seekers in any British embassy in the world.

bwilson• 14 years ago

Mr. Patiño said his government had made its decision after the authorities in Britain, Sweden and the United States refused to give guarantees that, if Mr. Assange were extradited to Sweden, he would not then be sent on to the United States to face other charges.

This is key, and pretty much proves what's going on. They didn't want to take extradition to the US off the table, yet supposedly this is only about answering to rape charges.

dsirijus• 14 years ago

In failure to deliver my sentiment in proper wording (and I've scratched the written few times), I'll just quote one of my personal heroes:

"The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater." ~ Frank Zappa

tokenadult• 14 years ago

I agree with this Toronto Globe and Mail editorial on the issue:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/editorials/ecuador...

"As for Mr. Assange, he should step out of doors and defend himself."

dgdg• 14 years ago

Why are now British authorities are under a binding obligation to extradite him to Sweden, but British Court released V. Antonov on bail when Lithuania asked UK to extradite him to Lithuania?

gadders11• 14 years ago

To be honest, I think what we have here is a case of cognitive dissonance - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

People admire Assange for what he has done as part of wikileaks, whilst also simultaneously loathing rapists.

I felt the same when Mike Tyson was convicted of rape. As a follower of boxing, I was a huge fan of his power and skill. And then he got convicted of rape.

I tried to tell myself that it was a fix, the "victim" was after his money etc etc. But now I realise that both things are true. He was one of the best boxers ever, and he did rape that woman.

Steve Jobs could be a fantastic businessman and innovator, and a bit of an arsehole to work with.

Benjamin Britten could be a great composer and sexually attracted to youg boys.

Assange could be a brave "dissident" and sexually taken advantage of those two women.

vacri12• 14 years ago

A bit more information has come to light. A respected broadsheet newspaper here in Australia has requested some diplomatic cables under the Freedom of Information Act and reports that the Australian diplomatic service believes that the US will attempt to extradite Assange.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/us-in-pursuit-of-assange-c...

Ecuador grants Julian Assange asylum

Related Stories