UK threaten to enter Ecuadorian embassy and arrest Julian Assange
bbc.co.ukHow rapidly people forget their history. Britain has a specific law on the subject because of an incident that occurred in Britain within my memory, a shooting of a police officer from within the grounds of the Libyan embassy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Yvonne_Fletcher
No, harboring Julian Assange is not just like shooting at police officers outside the embassy, but preventing the host country from continuing to follow the steps of its agreements about accused defendants with another country is also not the normal activity of a diplomatic representative. There is a long tradition of dissidents seeking asylum in foreign embassies, and that tradition seems to be longest in Latin America, but that can also have consequences for the embassy's relationship with the host country.
AFTER EDIT:
By the way, it has been a very, very long time (since before I was born) since the United States federal government has imposed capital punishment for the crimes of treason or espionage (which, yes, could be a basis for capital punishment under federal law).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_by_the_Unite...
http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/tit...
Nowadays, it is routine for persons who revealed secret information to the harm of the United States to be imprisoned, sometimes for a term of years rather than for life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_spies#American...
Simply put, even IF Julian Assange were to have to leave Sweden after going from Britain to Sweden for questioning, and even IF Julian Assange were then charged with espionage by the United States, and even IF he were then convicted of espionage, it is quite doubtful that Assange would be executed. Most likely, he would just (if ALL of the hypothetical events happened) end up spending a lot of time in the Supermax prison in Colorado.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Penitentiary,_Flo...
Since 9/11 the USA has shown that it does not follow the civil rules of law for non-citizens. Obama's DOJ has convened a secret grand jury investigating Assange under the Espionage Act[1]. Joe Biden has called him a terrorist [2]. Others have called for his assassination [3]. Sweden was involved in the CIA's illegal rendition program and sent people to be tortured in Egypt[4]. Assange has every reason to fear for his life.
[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11...
[2] http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/19/assange-high-tec...
[3] http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40467957/ns/us_news-wikileaks_in...
[4] http://www.hrw.org/news/2006/11/09/sweden-violated-torture-b...
> Since 9/11 the USA has shown that it does not follow the civil rules of law for non-citizens.
Citizens too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamal_Derwish
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Aulaqi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul-Rahman_al-Awlaki (16 y.o. minor US citizen)
Obama's DOJ has convened a secret grand jury investigating Assange under the Espionage Act.
All grand jury proceedings are secret. This is a normal part of the US legal system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_juries_in_the_United_Stat...
but not all of the subpoenas are secret, certainly is it rare for them to include NSLs (as Appelbaum has indicated the FBI hinted) and rarely if never are the dockets themselves sealed (as Appelbaum's lawyer is currently fighting)
Let's not pretend that it's a problem only with the current administration and his political party. The previous one found the civil rules of law rather inconvenient also and waved them off just as easily.
I am not arguing with your statement (you have said nothing wrong) but I'd like to head off the potential "Obama/Democrats is/are the problem!" rants.
Yes. Obama ran on change but when he met the entrenched interests of executive branch Washington, he quickly refashioned himself into George Dubya Bush's third term. His civil rights policy, technology policy, tax policy, financial regulatory policy, and many others confirm it.
The only major difference is that Obama always really wanted to catch Bin Laden and Bush -- openly -- didn't care. Now that that's over, he seems to want to run for Bush's fourth term.
I emphatically disagree. Obama and his administration seems way more competent, and willing to hear many sides, than Bush.
Obama tried to close guantanamo for years (see politifact) before giving up. He tried to end the trickle-down economics that Bush had (such as ending tax cuts for the rich) but conceded to the opposition somewhere around the US debt ceiling crisis.
His administration's technology initiatives are far ahead of Bush's (witness http://data.gov for instance, and requirement for all agencies to have an API).
His social programs are better thought out and actually save us money. Compare for example Bush's Medicare act in 2003 vs the CBO's assessment of Obama's Affordable Care Act which actually will save a trillion dollars over the next 10 years. Or compare Bush's "gotta go cya later" bailout to the TARP that happened under Obama. His administration even set up http://recovery.gov to "track the money". Or compare the success that they had in bailing out the automakers. I would say that this administration is much more conscientious than the one with Dick "Deficits Don't Matter" Cheney and co.
Where Bush basically attacked Iraq with no emergency or multinational support ("coalition of the willing" was a sham), US involvement in Libya under Obama is closer to a Just War in that there is an emergency (dictator bombing his citizens), and it was also merely part of a multinational response, including a UN resolution, to a situation decried by human rights groups.
Where I agree with you is Obama's cavalier attitude toward executive privilege and rights granted by the NDAA. This represents an erosion of CIVIL liberties and security in America, which I am not happy about.
It should be no surprise that PPACA saves money over 10 years, if the 10 years contain 10 years of PPACA revenue and only 6 years of PPACA spending. Perhaps we would do well to determine whether it saves or spends money in its eventual steady state, rather than pretending that the world will end in 2020.
From Wikipedia:
As of the bill's passage into law in 2010, CBO estimated the legislation would reduce the deficit by $143 billion[185] over the first decade, but half of that was due to expected premiums for the C.L.A.S.S. Act, which has since been abandoned.[186] Although the CBO generally does not provide cost estimates beyond the 10-year budget projection period (because of the great degree of uncertainty involved in the data) it decided to do so in this case at the request of lawmakers, and estimated a second decade deficit reduction of $1.2 trillion.[180][187] ...
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordab...
He promised a lot of those issues during his campaign and a lot of people voted for him. Yes, they are utterly stupid to believe that Obama can just sit down and start writing laws into the books, but that doesn't exactly prevent him from appearing as being a liar.
I agree, he did break promises, many of them due to encountering opposition he couldn't muster the political power/courage/recklessness to surmount. You can see a more in depth analysis here:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/
Still, I want to say 3 things:
1) After getting into office, he actually addressed the fiscal and economic crisis that was developing, and we can definitely say that today the charts are a little higher than in 2008. That took some re-prioritizing.
2) All politicians promise something. Just hear Romney's promises: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlnaYOv0DZY ... so believing everyone's promises is silly. For me it's more about how competent the guy is to actually achieve/maintain the stuff I think we need as a country. And even so, I don't think the president can do that much these days. You should worry about the Senate, they have the lowest approval rating ever I think.
3) He has made some major reforms, the medical reform is a big one, perhaps one day he may tackle immigration reform. Also the JOBS act is bringing about some much-needed financial reform, but I can't give all the credit to Obama on this one. Actually here is what I think about the direction this country is headed: http://magarshak.com/blog/?p=108
I'm amused by the notion that Assange has to somehow be extradited to Sweden if the CIA is going to rendition him. The CIA renditions people by kidnapping them off the street. They can do that in London just as well as anywhere else in the world. If the CIA wanted to rendition Assange, Assange would have been renditioned by now. The whole Sweden business would only get in the way of a rendition, not facilitate it.
Perhaps they treat cases at the center of an international media spotlight a bit differently.
Yes, obviously they'd create as much publicity as possible around the issue, that way the disappearance would be as suspicious as possible.
The Obama admin has an active global program of executing US citizens that are labeled 'enemy combatants' or providing aid to E.C., with no judicial review.
Execution without judicial review.
The entire idea of charging Assange with espionage against the United States is ridiculous - he owes no duty to that nation. What's next, Russia demanding the extradition of CIA analysts so that they can be charged with revealing Russia's state secrets while working at a desk in Virginia?
That is if the world treated US as a reasonable actor bound by laws and respecting human rights etc. (all the propaganda that it like to spew about itself).
Its actions have shown in the last 10+ years that is not the case. It has detained, tortured and killed people extra-judicially. Even its own citizens. Making any appeals to the the quality of it judicial process is a bit silly at the moment.
So in other words it might not make sense to be afraid of that particular threat "charge of espionage" but it is not unreasonable for him to fear in general.
Remember the case how that Russian ex-KGB agent was poisoned with Polonium? There is little doubt it was the Russians doing it and they also wanted to make sure there would be little doubt (except hard evidence) that they did, so that everyone learns to fear opposing or criticizing them in the future.
It seems to me Assange and Manning are prime candidates for being turned into example for all to see.
There is a lot of doubt.There is little doubt it was the RussiansThe most obvious suspect is oligarch Boris Berezovsky, a London refugee from Russia, accused of embezzlement at home, who is waging a fierce propaganda war with the current Russian government.
http://www.rt.com/news/berezovsky-litvinenko-murder-allegati...
a link to an official Russian propaganda TV channel is kinda silly.
Hmmm, would a link to BBC, a UK propaganda TV channel, be less silly?
Let's not jump to conclusions here. The US hasn't done anything to Assange.
That's not what I was implying. The argument is that he fears they will do something to him. And whether that fear is based in reality.
The response of the grandparent was 'no' because US legal system can't technically touch him. My response to that was that I am not exactly sure if the world should trust US in light of its actions in the last 10 years.
We're still hip deep in hypotheticals.
When the hypothetical is "will I be killed" then it makes sense to try and work it out in hypothetical rather than ignore it until it becomes, one way or the other, reality.
As someone else already replied to this. When it comes to strategic decision (I call them decision that you can't reverse, say being killed, or imprisoned for life) hypotheticals and gut instincts are pretty good.
You can't conduct an experiment to figure things out, if you can't then come back and conduct more experiment because the first one killed you.
I think you've misread me. I'm not saying that it's ridiculous, so there's no reason to fear it happening; I'm saying it's ridiculous, and I would be entirely unsurprised if it happened anyway.
There's a Bob Dylan song called "Julius and Ethel". What is he singing about?
Julius and Ethel are the young couple who were executed for espionage in 1953. This was at the height of McCarthyism. Most of us agree McCarthy was a little, ahem, extreme. It's an interesting story and younger readers should check it out. Was Ethel Rosenberg really a spy? What did she do? The Wikipedia page has some links to further reading.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Rosenberg
Reading over the BBC's timeline of the Assange case really leaves one in a state of bewilderment. The "rape" story was shared with between two women and then with a journalist? The allegations were dropped. Then reinstated? He's being extradicted for some allegations? Allegations, not charges. And those have nothing to do with leaking documents and espionage? WTF?
Are all the newspapers innocent in this? They spread the cables far and wide. It took more than just a disillusioned private and some nerds sniffing Tor exit nodes. The papers are still attracting readers and advertising dollars using this whole incident as a catapult.
The whole thing is really bizarre if you come at it objectively.
And the world tends to have different views on requesting asylum due to political persecution vs requesting it to avoid accusations that you've committed a fairly serious criminal act.
How exactly do you think 'political persecution' works? When they come to arrest you, do you think they proclaim "We're politically persecuting you!" ?
Ecuador's justification is that they believe there is a chance that the USA is planning to extradite him from Sweeden and then charge him with a crime which is punishable by death. Ecuador believes that a death sentence is a violation of Assange's human rights.
Which is of course a highly suspect claim to make, since both Sweden and the UK do not extradite for crimes that are subject to the death penalty.
That is a pretty grand claim to make, when Sweden has conceded that they have participated in rendition from Sweden to Egypt that was in clear and blatant violation of both Swedish law and international treaties. They were censured by the UN for it. And those are only two cases where they were caught red-handed.
Sweden has done it before with the same laws that exist now. Simply put, there is no punishment if they would extradite Assange to the US.
But of course, they are not extraditing him for those crimes.
Just to clarify things there is no charge against Assange. Assange isn't accused of any crime.
Perhaps if there were Ecuadorian charges against Assange to which he could plead guilty and thus be a fugitive from international law, which would obviously require he be sent to Ecuador to serve time before going to Sweden for questioning.
I wonder how Britain would feel about it's international obligations under those circumstances.
Because that’s how it’s done in Sweden. He will only be charged after questioning.
Lest we forget, Bradley Manning was not given his right to be free of cruel and unusual punishment. Though the federal government hasn't imposed capital punishment for espionage/treason officially, who's to say solitary confinement isn't just as bad (or worse)?
The 1987 Act was a response to the Libyan embassy siege.
Let's face it if Assange does go to Ecuador then the ambassador is going with him.
Assange doing his thing via wikileaks is better than 10 diplomats in how he promotes governmental transparency, and more equitable relations between the people and their governors.
Its interesting that around all this talk about rape allegation, no actually allegation was made by the suggested victims called so by reporters. The two women were seeking advice on the possibility to force Assange to take a STD test after unprotected sex, and a prosecutor independently decided to start the prosecution after reading the report. One of the victims has gotten so tired of it all that she now refuses to testify, and refuses to sign any old statements she made in regards to the whole affair. The other woman, as far as I know, has left the country. If in a fantasy world this would go to trial in Sweden on rape charges, it would be unlikely to see either one of the two "victims" in court.
Isn't that basically an act of war? Or something just short of it? I can't remember another time when one country threatened to enter another country's embassy without an invitation... Have there been other cases like this in recent history??
It's somewhat unprecedented, but has happened in the past. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_mission
It's important to know that as the article points out Embassies do not enjoy full extraterritorial status, and contrary to popular belief are not sovereign.
The practice of the host country entering only with permission is based in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, and a violation of this would likely have no real material effect. That convention also requires the host country to protect the embassy and other rules. It is unlikely that the UK's allies would object, and even more unlikely that the country in question here would mount any serious diplomatic or military response.
As always power benefits the powerful.
From the article:
"The law which Britain is threatening to invoke in the Assange case is the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987.
It allows the UK to revoke the diplomatic immunity of an embassy on UK soil, which would potentially allow police to enter the building to arrest Mr Assange."
If they do that it wouldn't be an act of war, it would be legal. It definitely sets a terrible precedent though and even if it's legal Ecuador might interpret it as an act of war.
Whether or not it is legal would be pretty much irrelevant, I'd think - it would be something every regime that dislikes Britain would pay close attention to for the purpose of pointing to the moment they decide they want to pick someone up from a British embassy.
I can't imagine Britain would be willing to risk the integrity of its own embassies in that way over Assange. It sounds like sabre-rattling, nothing more.
Consider that they did not even try to enter an embassy over the killing of WPC Yvonne Fletcher by someone at the Libyan embassy - a murder that achieved infamy in Britain. The Metropolitain Police laid siege to the Libyan embassy for 11 days and the government severed all diplomatic ties with Libya. But they did not try to enter.
If Thatcher was not prepared to do it, I very much doubt the current government would be willing to deal with the fallout.
The Libyan case doesn't really apply - the suspected gunman was a diplomat and a Libyan national and there's a whole extra set of legal issues involved that don't apply to someone seeking asylum in an embassy for a non-political crime.
> a non-political crime.
I think some will disagree with the reason for asylum. I don't think there is any doubt that this is political. This is not about rape accusations. This is very political.
Do you honestly believe Ecuador will initiate hostilities against NATO in order to protect a foreign citizen from due legal process in that persons home country?
It would surely be less effort and risk to lift him from the roof by helicopter and whisk him to a waiting jet James Bond style.
The second option seems far more likely to me.
There's no current legal process against Assange in his home country.
There's what you say and what you do. I wouldn't be surprised if they called it an act of war. However, a violent response is highly unlikely.
They probably would not call it an act of war without backing it up --so I doubt they would. If they did bluff and get called, next time hostilities flared up with Peru or Columbia, they might not be taken seriously.
I can't remember another time when a country used the diplomatic immunity of their embassy to harbor a fugitive from rape charges. We're in fairly uncharted territory.
It would be more to the point to say that they are harboring him from espionage charges. We don't have an international incident every time somebody refuses to wear a condom.
But he's not being shielded from any charges. The extradition request is for questioning; he simply hasn't been charged yet.
It's his story that, upon extradition to Sweden, the Swedes will turn around and hand him over to the US to be Gitmo'ed with extreme prejudice, but that's all it is thus far: his story. That said, it's certainly plausible; he's mightily pissed off the US government, which does seem to have a habit — particularly lately — of treating people that embarrass it rather less than gently. It would also explain how het-up the Swedes are to have him extradited, and the fact that Britain is willing to violate the Ecuadorian embassy (which, FTR, is not sovereign territory) in order to retrieve him. But idiotically zealous investigation of alleged rape (let alone lesser charges) isn't exactly unheard of, either.
Either way, however much good Assange has done the world by exposing the stuff he and WikiLeaks have exposed, he is an attention-whore, and his motives are pretty broadly suspect. Personally, I'd vastly prefer he not be subject to "extraordinary rendition" — not because of anything he's done, but because I don't think anyone should be shipped off to countries where they "interrogate" with rectally inserted broken beer bottles (to reference just one of the many stories that have bubbled up from that kind of thing). But that's just me.
> Personally, I'd vastly prefer he not be subject to "extraordinary rendition"
If he was subject to extraordinary rendition, they'd have him by now. That's the whole point of extraordinary rendition.
> If he was subject to extraordinary rendition, they'd have him by now. That's the whole point of extraordinary rendition.
Maybe, maybe not. Depends on how well-protected and cautious he is, and how much cooperation the renditors can get from the local government.
> The extradition request is for questioning;
That sounds pretty silly. He was only a couple of hours away by plane, he is surrounded by media. Runs a talk show. Claiming they can't question him is just ridiculous and make them seem like they certainly have other ideas than just simple questioning for not wearing a condom.
> We don't have an international incident every time somebody refuses to wear a condom.
bingo. that's why, in part, this is clearly about something other than the alleged sex incidents. it's pretty obviously about Wikileaks, trying to impede/stop/punish it and him.
That's nonsense. You only have to look at Roman Polanski, who fled rape charges to a foreign jurisdiction and the amount of press generated over that.
The women accusing Assange have a fundamental human right to due process. It is extremely unusual for someone to deny that process by fleeing into a foreign embassy. Wikileaks adds to the press, but it is noteworthy regardless of that.
It is worth pointing out that the women in question did not go to the police to file a complaint. Nor have charges been taken out (there is an arrest warrant for questioning on suspicion).
This case was pursued by the prosecutor at the instigation of Swedish police, after a previous prosecutor had initially closed the case stating that there was no indication anything illegal had taken place.
The women in question does not under Swedish law legally have any say in whether or not the case is pursued or not - if a prosecutor believes a crime has taken place, it is their duty to pursue the case in the interest of the state, not on behalf of the women.
(What does make this case stink, though, is that one of the women in question at one point prior to the case against Assange published a blog post about leveraging this exact method to "legally" take revenge against a lover who she found had was involved with someone else)
The prosecutor said there was no case of rape to follow, but did concede that there was a case of sexual assault. The rape case was reopened and the sexual assault case remained opened
> That's nonsense.
that's rude. You may not have intended it, but that's how that sounds.
on a related note, I'm feeling HN is getting increasely overwhelmed by rude comments. something about the culture and the kind of people it attracts, perhaps an increasingly young male techie demographic, dunno.
Criticizing people for being impolite when you're all but justifying raping women isn't exactly arguing from a moral high ground.
This is the second comment by you where you are accusing someone of misogeny or justifying rape without basis. I think you should be careful about talking about moral high ground.
Funny how those who suggest that there is a smear campaign in progress are themselves then smeared.
Conspiracy theories are usually self-reinforcing that way.
How so? I'm not saying that anyone is correct because they are being smeared. I assert no connection between your smears and the alleged smear campaign against Assange, and I certainly am not saying that your smears in any way vindicate the accusations of those who you are smearing. I'm just saying it is amusing.
Well, not really amusing; that is the wrong word. There is nothing amusing about accusing somebody of "all but justifying raping women". That is a serious allegation.
There's nothing amusing about the remark that "one could argue that 'sex without a condom' with a naked woman already in bed with you by her own will is not rape". The notion being put forth is a justification of rape, and "one could argue" is a way of rhetorically evading responsibility for putting the notion forward.
I am going to have to agree with Steko here. (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4389438)
That is not a justification of rape. You could argue that that it conveys some sort of implied approval (and I am likely to disagree there, unless you can come up with a better supporting argument than namecalling) but it is not a justification.
Now, before you decide to accuse me of justifying rape as well, allow me to state this explicitly: I do not approve of the actions as portrayed in that narrative.
Maybe "justify" is too strong a word. The central principle is that having sex with someone who does not consent is rape. It doesn't matter if their clothes are on or if you're in bed with them. It doesn't matter if they consented to protected sex, but you chose to have unprotected sex with them instead even though they didn't consent to it. It's still rape.
To say that it isn't technically rape could mean a few things. It could mean that it's worse than rape or at least equivalent to rape, or it could mean that it's not as bad as rape. But if it's just as bad as rape or even worse, there would be no point to the remark at all, especially in a series of comments meant to defend Assange. Obviously, the intention was to say that this action is something less than rape.
To say that this particular type of rape is something less than rape might not justify it, but it does minimize it in such a way that denies the basic agency, dignity, and human rights of the victim. It's a hideous, misogynistic notion. (That's not a supporting argument, by the way, it's a conclusion.)
Phil, these are very serious allegations you are claiming as fact.
Phil, have Anna Ardin or Sofia Wilén said the sex was rape?
For two full years now, in multiple discussions about Mr. Assange, you have consistently participated in threads promoting that Assange is a rapist, that women have accused him of rape, and that he is charged with rape. Yet, despite being requested for citations showing your accusations are factual, you have failed to do so for two years now.
> Phil, these are very serious allegations you are claiming as fact.
Not at all. I simply think the Swedish justice system should fully process these accusations, and whatever outcome or verdict is reached will simply be whatever it is.
I am dismayed that in many rape cases, it's easier to perform a character assassination on the alleged victims and intimidate them from testifying. I'm worried that people with some sort of political sympathy for Assange due to his work with WikiLeaks will engage in this kind of character assassination and intimidation. Fortunately, the Swedish prosecutors seem to have collected depositions already, so Assange's alleged victims might not have to go through the agony of reliving their experiences on a worldwide stage only to be called liars or sluts, or to be accused of being paid off by the CIA.
Still, there's a very high chance that even if Assange is guilty, he will not be convicted. I simply hope that if he is guilty, he is convicted, and that if he is innocent, that he is not only acquitted but fully exonerated. No innocent man deserves that kind of cloud over his head.
Unfortunately, Assange isn't really helping matters.
> For two full years now, in multiple discussions about Mr. Assange, you have consistently participated in threads...
You seem to be keeping very close tabs on my activity on HN. If you had an email address in your profile I would ask you about this privately, but you seem determined to retain your pseudonymity, so I will ask publicly. Why exactly are you so interested in my comments in particular?
If I was stalking you as you are absurdly trying to assert then I'd be commenting frequently on your comments here, which I don't.
Your comments on the rape sounded familiar and I looked through past threads on Assange and was surprised to notice that you are the one bringing up and promoting the idea that the women have accused him of rape and he has been charged with rape, both which are false. The search also turned up that you are interested in the topic of rape in general and discuss it across the internet. I have no interest in your general interest in the topic of rape, but I do want to point out that your claims about Assange are bald faced lies and you have an agenda.
It would be one thing if you had heard in passing that the women had accused him of rape and he was being charged with rape and mistakenly thought it was correct. But you have a history of promoting these claims and during this time have not provided evidence either that he has been charged with rape or that either woman has claimed to have been raped. Thus you do know what the facts are, and you are intentionally choosing to lie here. There is nothing innocent about your assertions and your propaganda tactics are far from naive.
Your comments about "rape cases" where people blame the victims, "intimidate them from testifying" and engage in "character assassination" are more of your attempts to falsely promote and assert that these women have said they were raped and that he was been charged with rape, but then adds on a new accusation - there is a conspiracy to harm them right here on Hacker News! Who here is intimidating them from testifying? Name them! Rape has not been accused by the women or charged, so there is no rape case. There is no character assassination against the women to repeatedly ask you to show your evidence that rape has been charged, or that the women have accused him of rape. Cite specifically the character assassination that has occurred here. Show your evidence. Asking you to provide evidence of your claims is not character assassination against women, nor is it blaming victims, nor is it intimidating witnesses in a trial, and it is absurd rhetoric to claim these things.
> If I was stalking you as you are absurdly trying to assert
droithomme, has Philip Welch ever said your interest in his past comments on this issue was stalking? You have failed for one hour to provide a single citation showing your accusation is factual!
> you are the one bringing up and promoting the idea that the women have accused him of rape
It's all me, huh? If Google is to be trusted, the word "rape" has been used to describe the accusations against Assange by over a thousand news sources today alone. I promise you I'm not responsible for that.
> The search also turned up that you are interested in the topic of rape in general and discuss it across the internet. I have no interest in your general interest in the topic of rape
Now that's just plain bad faith on your part. My interest is in the basic human rights and dignity of all people. Some women get raped, and as a culture we do a bad job of handling it. We do a bad job of handling when men get raped, too.
> your propaganda tactics are far from naive
You give me too much credit, and yet too little at the same time.
> there is a conspiracy to harm them right here on Hacker News!
I'm not the one spinning conspiracy theories. I'm not the one calling people propaganda artists. I'm not the one who thinks it's all a CIA frame job intended to somehow make it easier to spirit Julian Assange away to Guantanamo Bay.
Yes, it's sadly a common thing for those accused of rape and their supporters to commit character assassination and intimidation against the alleged victims in order to undermine the criminal justice system. I'm far from the first or only person to notice this. I'm not accusing anyone here of doing this, I'm just disappointed that, as always, these tactics will interfere with the ability of the justice system to decide once and for all whether or not Julian Assange is guilty.
thank you
Interesting parallel perhaps in the two cases: the accused was initially not too concerned about the outcome, and cooperated, then suddenly something changed and it spooked the accused enough to go on the run.
In the Polanski case, his lawyer had arranged a plea bargain, then, later at trial, the judge suddenly reneged without explanation. In the Assange case, he had already been questioned, the allegations were dropped, then suddenly a couple days of media coverage pass and the allegations are reinstated.
Not to imply either is a case of no wrongdoing, but in each case the accused initially faced the allegations, then something changed and scared the accused enough to go on the run.
The victim in the Polanski case has all but forgiven him, but does anyone disagree he would be crazy to ever set foot in the US again? The prosecutors office seems to have a very long memory and an uncanny ability to hold a grudge.
there are no rape charges. rape != sexual assault. and one could argue that "sex without a condom" with a naked woman already in bed with you by her own will is not rape, certainly. also there are no charges. merely an accusation. and they merely want to "question" him, which of course they could do easily without forcing him to go to Sweden. The whole thing is a pretty blatant sham, a masquerade for some other goal of theirs.
From an article about the charges [1] "...one of the women alleges that Assange behaved threateningly with her and held her down to prevent her from reaching for a condom. He did end up wearing one, but she thinks he ripped it and deliberately ejaculated inside her. He also later rubbed up against her with his pants off, she says, against her will. The other alleged victim claims that she struggled with Assange over the condom all night, had consensual sex with him when he finally put it on, and then woke up later in the night to find Assange having sex with her, without her consent and without a condom. In my personal and professional experience with rape, these kinds of allegations are both credible and common."
These are definitely allegations of sexual assault, and the described behavior treads perilously close to what everyone would agree is rape.
[1] http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2010/12/the_p...
You might note that despite the way thesestatements are worded, neither women claimed to have been raped or sexually assaulted. Neither filed or asked to file charges. One of the women are now refusing to sign any past statements regarding the case. The other appears to have left Sweden. At tehe time prosecutor reviewed the statements and made it clear the full statements did not imply a crime had taken place.
Both statements also appears to have been made in interviews conducted in a manner that was a clear violation of Swedish police procedures. For starters, neither were recorded, and at least part of the statements were taken by a personal friend of one of the women.
There are good grounds for being cautious about whether the contents of the leaked statements is an accurate portrayal of what these women told the police at all, much less whether or not these women are willing to stand behind them.
Unfortunately, it's all too easy to intimidate victims of rape into not cooperating with attempts at prosecution. If the prosecutor has no case, though, Assange has nothing to fear going to Sweden. Even if the US could extradite him, they could do it from the UK just as easily as from Sweden.
Also:
> woke up later in the night to find Assange having sex with her, without her consent
By definition that's rape.
> If the prosecutor has no case, though, Assange has nothing to fear going to Sweden. Even if the US could extradite him, they could do it from the UK just as easily as from Sweden
I disagree. If the prosecutor has no case, Assange has - rightfully or not - every reason to wonder why they are pursuing him in this manner, and every reason to then worry about what the underlying motivation is. He might be more paranoid than justified in how he interprets it, but if I was in his shoes and a prosecutor acted the way the Swedish prosecutor has in this case, and I knew I hadn't done anything wrong (or thought I hadn't), I'd be worried something was up and be far more concerned about that than a potential Swedish jail sentence.
If the prosecutor actually has a case, Assange presumably knows he did what is claimed, and in that case he would have more reason to believe early on that his "worst case" scenario might be a very short stay in a low security, comfortable Swedish prison - the crimes he is wanted for questioning about have very short sentencing guidelines in Sweden.
In terms of extradition, if I was him I'd not be so concerned about legal, above board extradition. I would be concerned about the fact that Sweden has admitted to, and have been censured by the UN for, having violated their own laws as well as international treaties to participate in rendition arranged by the US of two Egyptians to Egypt where they were subsequently tortured. If they were willing to do that with some relatively low level targets, at the behest of the US, then there is every reason to worry they'd be willing to be "flexible" about giving Assange to the US.
The odds of them taking the political fallout from that in this case might be small, but then this is not just about what Assange might objectively have reason to fear - a lot of it boils down to what his actual, subjective fears are. I see little reason to doubt that Assange personally genuinely fear the US is after him and that he believes he is important enough that given its past history with rendition that Sweden might very well be easy to push into handing over him too.
He might very well make irrational choices because of that fear without there being any implication of guilt behind those choices.
Then again, he might also be guilty and just not want to face it.
Point is, this isn't nearly as clear cut as some would like to think it is.
In Assange's own mind, yes, he probably is the victim of a massive international conspiracy whether or not he committed rape. It's a little disappointing to see so many people on HN take those delusions of grandeur at face value.
Don't you think it's a little bit strange that the Ecuadorian offer to have Assange interviewed by the Swedish prosecutors was refused?
What's the priority? Question him to find out what happened or bring him to Sweden?
> You might note that despite the way thesestatements are worded, neither women claimed to have been raped or sexually assaulted. Neither filed or asked to file charges.
This, ultimately, is why this should be seen as a "non-case" and therefore just an excuse for the US/UK/Swedish government to hassle Assange and therefore Wikileaks.
thank you for being another voice of reason in this discussion
The thing is, I don't even like the guy. Wikileaks is fantastic, but we can credit him for his involvement with that without whitewashing the person.
Even if I were to only accept the parts his own lawyers have conceded, the statements do paint the picture of someone who is quite a bit of an asshole. Maybe he is a bit of a misogynist, though I think it's more likely he is "just" a bit narcissistic and didn't really take anyones feelings into account. Add in some paranoia - even if people are after him, he comes across as believing they care more than I think they do.
I just think there are a lot of things about this case that are fishy to the point where there's good reason to be extremely suspicious about the motivations of some of the people involved, even if one discounts the idea of US involvement. He might very well be guilty for what I know, but that still doesn't mean there's nothing weird going on with how the whole situation has been handled.
Doesn't it seem like Assange has introduced most of the weirdness himself? Lots of people run into legal trouble overseas. Most of them don't hide in the Ecuadorian embassy.
The vast majority of this weirdness preceded his decision to hide in the Ecuadorian embassy. In fact, the vast majority of it took place even before the arrest warrant was issued, and by the time of the initial extradition decision the prosecutor had continued to make it worse by refusing even more offers of interviewing Assange while making excuses for why she can't that are directly contradicted by Swedish authorities behaviour in other recent cases.
Evidently, they have to formally question Assange before filing charges. They'd rather have him in custody in Sweden before they do that. Isn't it pretty well established by Assange's own actions that Assange would be a massive flight risk? The Swedish aren't the ones acting irrationally.
First of all, you can be charged in absentia in Sweden. If they interviewed him, and he still refused to return, then that would be a textbook case of a justification for having him charged in absentia.
Secondly, he claims that he will be extradited to the US if he is brought to Sweden. How exactly would he suddenly become more likely to try to flee if they decide to charge him? He is already claiming that going to Sweden means a risk of facing the death penalty in the US.
In that context it seems ludicrous to think that interviewing him and then charging him would somehow increase his resolve try to avoid extradition, or that this has been the case for a very long time.
It is not like he would have considered voluntarily setting foot on Swedish soil from any point over the past year or more. A charge would not have made that more or less likely.
Meanwhile, a formal charge would remove at least some reason to question the motivations of the Swedish prosecutor, and it would make it much harder for Ecuador to justify asylum given that they have publicly used this as part of their process for determining whether or not to give asylum.
As for that. At the moment he is holed up in a small embassy, while the Metropolitan police is outside, waiting for a chance to grab him.
Yet the Swedish police still refuse to interview him, while making up bogus excuses for why they don't. They could have stated the reason you suggest: That if they make the decision to charge him, they want to be able to take him into custody immediately under the circumstances. That reason is still a poor excuse, but they've not even tried to use even that.
If he is a flight risk in his current location, he is a flight risk whether or not they interview or charge him - his only realistic means of escape is if he gets asylum from Ecuador and Ecuador finds a way of getting him on a plane, whether smuggling him in an oversized diplomatic pouch or convincing the UK to give him free passage. Either way, this doesn't become any harder or easier depending on whether or not Swedish authorities interview him.
The Swedish might not be the only ones acting irrationally. But if they're not acting irrationally, it would imply they have a hidden agenda. If their agenda is what they claim it is, then yes, they are acting irrationally. Either alternative is pretty bad.
So in the absence of information, we assume it's a CIA conspiracy? What?
OK, maybe it's a little irrational that the Swedish prosecutor doesn't want to bend over backwards and do it Assange's way just to humor his paranoid delusions. But it's not suspicious.
> and one could argue that "sex without a condom" with a naked woman already in bed with you by her own will is not rape, certainly
If one was a misogynist who thought women lost their basic human rights as soon as their clothes were off, one could certainly argue that.
You can make statements about non-explicitly authorized "wake-up sex" in either gender direction. The fact that we're talking about one particular direction does not make one a misogynist.
You seem quite eager to call people misogynists. It sounds to me like you enjoy it.
if one were a rude asshole, one would make the comment you just made
The notion that once a woman is naked and in someone's bed, they have the right to do whatever they want to her regardless of her consent is pure misogyny. It outright justifies rape. I'm not going to give you a pass on making comments like that out of politeness. Ideas like that need to be called out for what they are.
> The notion that once a woman is naked and in someone's bed, they have the right to do whatever they want to her regardless of her consent
I never said that. Quote me where I said that. You can't.
> It outright justifies rape.
I never said that. Quote me where I said that. Again, you can't.
I'm very careful with my wording. You are probably falling into the trap of getting emotional about something that wasn't said, something that lives only in your own mind. Unfortunately this is one of those topics that never fails to draw people out who commit that kind of mistake.
Also, I'd love to meet you sometime for a friendly coffee somewhere. Always good to meet fellow HN'ers, and as a bonus we can clear up any misunderstandings.
> I never said that. Quote me where I said that. You can't.
I never claimed you did say that. But you introduced the notion as something "one could argue", and the only thing I'm attacking is that notion, not you personally. That's more than you can say for yourself, incidentally.
That you took it personally says far more about you than it does me. When one puts forward a notion on the basis of "one could argue", sometimes it means it's a notion they're not especially attached to but they think is worthy of consideration. Other times, it means they're evading personal criticism for believing in that notion. In the first case, one would not feel so worked up and personally attacked by having the notion criticized; in the second case, they would. Your reaction, I'm afraid, has given you away.
"But you introduced the notion as something"
You keep spooning these words into his mouth but no he didn't ever say them. You think they are equivalent to what he said but they are not. What he said was 'X is arguably not rape'. That doesn't mean 'X is ok'. That means exactly what it says.
In context, the notion put forward is this: it's arguably not rape to have unprotected sex with someone who refuses consent to have unprotected sex with you, as long as you've already got them naked and in bed with you. I'm not sure you can classify that notion as a harmless technicality. And if you leave out the part about the woman refusing consent, then it's a non-sequitur anyway.
> You keep spooning these words into his mouth but no he didn't ever say them. You think they are equivalent to what he said but they are not. What he said was 'X is arguably not rape'. That doesn't mean 'X is ok'. That means exactly what it says.
BINGO. thank you. there are other intelligent, sane people on this website.
Note that the arrest warrant does explicitly claim rape, though it does so in a very vague manner.
Someone pointed out at the Guardian's site last night that the warrant presented to the UK courts actually is worded in a very contorted way to claim an allegation on rape on the basis that one of the women was in a "state of sleep" without actually stating whether she was asleep or half asleep and whether or not there's a claim that she was not consenting or unable to consent.
If she was claiming to be "half asleep", which is what has been stated previously in the Swedish press, and aware of what was going on, she might very well have been in position to legally consent, and there's to my knowledge not been a claim in Sweden that this in itself is what gave rise to rape claims, but that the rape claim was predicated on him not using a condom in that instance, despite her previous insistence that he had to.
It could be just an innocent bad wording, but given the rest of this case, and how this curiously misrepresents the claims presented in Sweden, this does seem rather odd. It would have been trivial to precisely express the claims presented in Sweden in unambiguous terms in far fewer words than they used.
"Rape charges"
Phil, do either of the women, Anna Ardin or Sofia Wilén say the sex was rape?
There are no charges yet either.
We're deep into "if you repeat it often enough people will believe it's true" territory.
> The other alleged victim claims that she...woke up later in the night to find Assange having sex with her, without her consent and without a condom.
Emphasis added. Source: http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2010/12/the_p...
Please note that "having sex with [someone] without [their] consent" is the definition of rape.
Here are some facts:
1. Neither woman has stated Assange raped her.
2. Assange has not been charged with rape.
Here are some lies:
1. The women state that Assange raped them.
2. Assange has been charged with rape.
Here is the transcript of the interview referenced in the Naomi Wolf attack article that you have cited.
http://www.democracynow.org/seo/2010/12/20/naomi_wolf_vs_jac...
Fine. The truth is, it doesn't really matter. I would be ecstatic for the Swedish criminal justice system to carefully consider all the evidence and come to a fair outcome for everyone involved. My concern is that Julian Assange is obstructing this process out of either paranoid delusion or regular evasiveness, and his political supporters are all too eager to support his actions.
He isn't charged AFAIK.
They "just want to have a chat."
Fair point. It just struck me that this seems a bit unprecedented.
This may not answer your question, but it's somewhat related as it kind of did lead to war against Iran (at least that's what wikipedia tells me).
>The Iran hostage crisis was a diplomatic crisis between Iran and the United States where 52 Americans were held hostage for 444 days from November 4, 1979, to January 20, 1981, after a group of Islamist students and militants took over the American Embassy in Tehran in support of the Iranian Revolution.
Sorry, but which war are you referring to?
jere is suggesting that it led to Iraq declaring war on Iran, as mentioned here:
They must really want to know if Assange used a condom.
If he did, he could not very well be the leaky wick.
That was bad and you should feel bad.
But damnit, I giggled like an idiot.
> Isn't that basically an act of war?
So.
Forget all the legal nuances. We have to answer that question. So what then? So Britain blows everyone the middle finger and declared a war on Ecuador. Just like US invaded Iraq (physically).
Who is going to protect Ecuador? Is Ecuador going to suicide its soldiers by landing in Britain to protect Assange? Some Latin American countries will issue a very strongly worded statement and maybe some other countries will say something, and then I bet you nothing happens.
Precedent for storming another country's embassy?
Sure. Tehran, November 4, 1979.
The series of tweets from https://twitter.com/abcnews (Australian Broadcasting Corp):
- #Breaking Wikileaks founder Julian Assange granted asylum in Ecuador
- #BREAKING: British Government won't guarantee Julian Assange safe passage to airport to leave for Ecuador #assange
- Clarification - Ecuador wants to give Assange asylum, but Britain is refusing to grant safe passage #breaking #wikileaks
- Ecuador Foreign Minister says they received a letter from British govt threatening to enter embassy & arrest Assange if he's not handed over
I strongly advise anyone who isn't familiar with English law (so, you know, most people here) to actually read what lawyers have to say about the matter. There is a very good legal analysis here:
http://www.headoflegal.com/2012/08/15/julian-assange-can-the...
Whenever I see a story here about Julian Assange I just sigh. I don't understand how on the one hand people can be absolutely appalled when stories about sexism at conference, in the workplace, etc etc come along and then take the sort of attitudes we see here.
Sweden would like to question Julian Assange about allegations made be two women. These women have a right to make these accusations, and they have a right for the state to investigate them. Nobody could possibly deny this.
Maybe, just maybe this is a big fit up from people 'out to get' Assange. But you also have to concede that both the simplest explanation, and one not beyond the realms of possibility, is that these women are genuinely making these accusations. They may not be true, but the truthfulness of the allegations is outside the scope of an extradition.
Most people accused of what Assange does do not have the luxury of fleeing to a foreign embassy. I don't see why it is so controversial that Assange should go and face these allegations. Supporters of Assange really can't have their cake and eat it.
For starters, the women did not make these accusations. A prosecutor have.
This distinction is worth making. At no point did these women go to the police and claim that Assange had raped them - not even the Swedish prosecution has made the claim they did. They did go to the police and ask questions that someone at the police then decided to interpret as indicating that a crime might have taken place, and start an investigation.
They then were interviewed, in situations that subsequent reports indicate may have been blatant violations of police procedure - no recording was apparently made, one of the police officers involved was allegedly a friend of one of the witnesses.
The results were statements that have not been formally released, nor been verified or scrutinized by anyone independent.
What is allegedly the police reports were on the other hand illegally leaked to a Swedish newspaper, and Assanges name was confirmed by authorities in conjunction with the case in blatant violation of Swedish police procedures. But we don't even know if the leaked police reports are accurate or final copies.
Subsequent to the investigation, the first prosecutor to get involved in the case looked at the police reports and decided they indicated that no crime had taken part.
What is allegedly descriptions supported by the contents of these statements was then used in the arrest warrants formulated by a second prosecutor that stepped in in a highly unusual move and reopened the investigation.
The reasons for why she stepped in to reopen just this case, despite how unusual it is to do so when another prosecutor has closed the case, has not at any point been explained.
In retrospect, it is now also being alleged that one of the women is refusing to sign statements about the case at all.
In other words, so far we don't even know what the women actually said to the police.
What we know is the content of a highly unusual and highly illegal leak to a Swedish newspaper, and how one prosecutor has chosen to interpret their words in an arrest warrant written with the express purpose of ensuring that a UK court would extradite Assange to the UK.
We do know one prosecutor found the police investigation had not found any evidence that any crime had taken place at all, and another found it did. We do know there are a lot of open questions about how the statements were collected, and about lack of documentation. We do have reason to question whether at least one of the women is willing to put her name behind the police interpretation of what she said. We don't know whether they made any actual allegations that amount to any crimes.
Maybe it is all accurate, and perhaps he is guilty. But it isn't even remotely clear whether or not there even should be a case to answer.
> They may not be true, but the truthfulness of the allegations is outside the scope of an extradition.
That is true, and it is not surprising that UK courts ordered the extradition.
But the real issue here is also not whether there is a genuine reason for a UK court to approve an extradition, but whether or not there is something going on that gives reason to be concerned that these accusations are not the full story.
Especially in a case where the Swedish prosecution have had a year or so to interview him in London, yet have chosen not to while claiming they can't. At the same time, somehow Swedish police has been able to go off to Poland to interview two suspected Polish murderers about a double homicide.
So either Swedish police has just risked messing up a double homicide case, or the Swedish prosecutor in the Assange case is at best misinformed about something she ought to know about, at worst being intentionally deceptive.
Even if we don't buy the US extradition idea, this is still a strange situation. The argument that they somehow need him on Swedish soil is nonsense - Swedish police provably regularly conduct interviews outside of Sweden, and you can provably be charged and tried in absentia in Sweden, despite many claims to the contrary.
So why does the Swedish prosecutor resist taking up evidence in a rape case for a year while making claims about why she is not that can not be supported by fact?
You seem to bringing up a lot of new information about this case that I didn't know, so I have to ask: citations?
If all they want to do is question him, they can easily do that without extraditing him. That said, I don't know the details of the case nor any of the evidence. For me it looks like this could have been easily solved using technology, but someone is not willing, and that makes it smell like politics.
Are the Swedish police acting in a manner representative of a suspect wanted for questioning, known to be in a foreign country? Does Sweden regularly request extradition of people in similar circumstances?
Had his name been Joe Smith or something, would've they bothered?
Part of the issue though is that Assange has volunteered to speak to Swedish authorities to answer these accusations but they have refused to do this.
> Sweden would like to question Julian Assange about allegations made be two women.
He has been under house arrest with access to phone, TV, internet. He even runs a freakin' talk show. Telling the world they can't "question" him is a little dis-indigenous and they need to make up a better reason.
> Sweden would like to question Julian Assange about allegations made be two women. These women have a right to make these accusations, and they have a right for the state to investigate them. Nobody could possibly deny this.
You may have missed this bit in the article, at the very end:
"An offer to the Swedish authorities by Ecuador for investigators to interview Mr Assange inside the embassy, was rejected."
So? Sweden is well within their rights to refuse that offer. They have an outstanding, legitimate European Arrest Warrant that was subject to many appeals, all of which were denied. I do not blame them for refusing that offer: are you suggesting if they did interview Assange in the embassy and decided they wanted to charge him he would just walk out happily? I doubt it.
Swedish law says that Assange can very well be interviewed over video link, police station and embassy (Even Ecuador offered). Despite this, the Swedish prosecutor is adamant that he should be on Swedish soil to be questioned.
If they did charge him at Ecuadorian embassy and then he refuses to leave, Ecuador would feel a lot more pressure and Assange would lose a lot of support. But now that it's clear that the Swedish prosecutor's blatant disregard for immediately interviewing him in favour of him being disadvantage in Sweden, there's even more support for Assange and Ecuador.
You seem confused. At one point you claim that this is about helping the women who are Swedish citizens and trying to question Assange so they can charge him with rape or figure out what happened. Have we agreed that in the previous comment you seems to be concerned and think the Swedish government is also concerned about these women?
> These women have a right to make these accusations, and they have a right for the state to investigate them. Nobody could possibly deny this.
and
> not beyond the realms of possibility, is that these women are genuinely making these accusations.
Those statements seem to support that, wouldn't you say?
However, when presented with the question of why didn't they just come in and questioned him after being invited and granted access you reply with
> Sweden is well within their rights to refuse that offer.
So they are just dragging their feet refusing the offer. Is it because they don't like British food or is the travel too grueling. Remember, they are spending all this effort and time supposedly because they deeply care about the fate of these two women.
The next step in the process is the questioning and then after being invited to question him to move the process along they refuse.
You'll have to forgive everyone if they don't quite believe the official reasons. To me it sounds fishy for example.
> Assange in the embassy and decided they wanted to charge him he would just walk out happily?
It doesn't matter what happens then. They identified a next step in the process and they claim they cannot accomplish it. While it has been clear that they can.
Sweden has the option, under their law, to interview someone over a video link, and it does the job just as well. Edit: They also have permission to come to the UK and interview him there.
They have been offered many times over by now, but have refused. Its refusal is probably going to cause a major diplomatic incident between two different sovereign nations that has the potential to violate some serious stuff.
Does any of this sound, if not normal, even remotely reasonable to you?
If the prosecutor had any real interest in seeing justice for these women any time soon, he would have done said interview months and months and months ago. Instead, if Julian Assange is guilty, then it's been an unnecessarily long drawn out process for the victims. Instead, the prosecutor is saying by this that he has no real interest in the case, but is just trying to get Julian Assange to Sweden, for easier extradition to the US. It's pretty known, through The Pirate Bay not least of all, that the Swedish justice system is at least a bit under the control of the US. Not unlike New Zealand's.
> if they did interview Assange in the embassy and decided they wanted to charge him he would just walk out happily?
How does that matter at this stage? Let's assume that Sweden does find him guilty, and it's pretty likely that they will (guilty or innocent)... Julian Assange will lose at least a bit of support once he is a convicted criminal, so there's a win for the prosecutor over the current situation there too.
Edit: Furthermore, they sent a letter, which says "You need to be aware that there is a legal base in the UK, the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987, that would allow us to take actions in order to arrest Mr Assange in the current premises of the Embassy."
The only way that this can happen is by invoking the "Under National Security" clause of said act. If Julian Assange is arrested in the embassy, then the UK must consider him a national security risk for this arrest to be valid under UK law. If that happens, it's a very, very serious bending, if not breaking, of the law.
Edit 2: And lastly, Julian Assange presented himself to the Swedish authorities before, in Sweden, for questioning. But they decided that they weren't going to press charges. That was on the 30th of August 2010, almost two years ago. I quote from Wikipedia: "On 1 September 2010, Swedish Director of Public Prosecution Marianne Ny decided to resume the preliminary investigation concerning all of the original allegations. On 18 August 2010, Assange applied for a work and residence permit in Sweden. On 18 October 2010, his request was denied. He left Sweden on 27 September 2010. The Swedish authorities have asserted that this is the same day that they notified Assange's lawyer of his imminent arrest."
For the second time:
If the Swedish government legitimately wanted to question Assange about the risible "rape" charges (that they didn't even bother with while he was in Sweden), why didn't they give a guarantee not to extradite him to the US?
Because they want to extradite him and the "rape" case is an excuse.
From memory the Swedish prosecutor first requested he came back only when he refused did it all go down the extradition route.
If Assange was so afraid Sweden would send him to the US why did he go there in the first place?
Because he wasn't so afraid until he was brought in for questioning about rapes that neither of the alleged victims had actually filed claims about, only to be let go, just for another prosecutor to swoop in and reopen the case and try to get him to come back.
It might be total paranoia on his end, but he does certainly have reason to wonder what suddenly changed that made things go from a situation where one prosecutor closed the case stating that there was nothing that indicated a crime had taken place, to an entirely unrelated prosecutor from a different district deciding it was suddenly urgent to get him back into the country and then repeatedly escalating matters.
In fact, to the point where said prosecutor has now been faced with a formal complaint about judicial misconduct from a third party (two Swedish journalists) over her handling of this case.
Is that even a real question? Obviously he wasn't scared in the first place.
So it appears that both the UK government and the Swedish government have lost moral authority due to their behavior on this issue. And if they violate the Ecuadoran embassy that could be considered an act of war. At the least a cause to cease diplomatic and trade relations.
If Sweden truly just wanted to question Assange, they could do it via mail, email, phone, video chat or of course an in person meeting in the UK. All of which I believe Assange has already offered to do. But they've declined. Which means that Sweden/UK/USA's actual goal is something other than simply questioning him. It's a fact that he's neither been convicted or even charged with any crime (IIRC), especially not with respect to the supposed sexual "assault" incidents, which look like he-said/she-said instances at best, and a frame-up at worst.
Since when has the 'accused' had the right to tell law enforcement agencies when and where they may be questioned?
Without charges (i.e. being placed under arrest) he has every right to freedom of movement. Ergo he can answer (or not answer) questions wherever he damn well pleases. If that's so inconvenient for law enforcement, charge the fucker and arrest him.
I don't understand why it's gotten to this point- you charge and arrest him ... or GTFO.
He was arrested, and his extradition was ordered. Then he sought asylum with the Ecuadorian embassy. That's what this is about.
Had he remained under arrest, how could he have sought asylum with some other embassy?
"Mr. Copper, I've decided to seek asylum with the Ecuadorian embassy..." "Well, Mr. Assange, I sure hate to see you go but I guess I'll drive you there myself."
He had been released on bail, pending an appeal, which he lost.
Apparently something is missing here. How did he get from being in custody to seeking asylum in an embassy? Somewhere along the way he was not in custody. Why was he not in the custody of law enforcement? They had no reason to hold him? He was out on bail? If he was out on bail, lost an appeal, why didn't he return to custody?
If they didn't want him walking around (where he could claim asylum in an embassy) then he should have been in custody. If he wasn't in custody, there must have been a reason he wasn't. Sounds to me like they (law enforcement) screwed up and they're now trying to blame an Ecuadorian ambassador.
If the UK really is threatening that, then that is more evidence that the Swedish charges are politically motivated rather than being from an actual crime.
Or he is someone who flees from serious charges and the British authorities don’t want to look like idiots in front of the whole world because they can’t do something simple like extradite him.
Why is there this willingness to believe everything this idiot says? He’s a pompous ass, pure and simple. No conspiracy required.
Meanwhile the idea of an anonymous leaks platform dies because everyone focuses on his stupid antics.
He is a pompous ass and so is Kim Dotcom. The problem is that the charges against each of them appear to be completely exaggerated or made up[1].
That's a biased source being discussed there, along with some wishful and imaginative thinking about what various interpol notices indicate.
Lets take into account that invading an embassy is a rare occurrence (happened once that I know of), that it's largely regarded as somewhat hostile towards the nation that owns that embassy and the whole "bad precedent" thing.
Being afraid of "looking like idiots" doesn't seem like a very plausible explanation for invading an embassy.
I doubt the rest of the world would think British authorities were incompetent for wanting to avoid an international incident. Nor is forcing an embassy to release an asylum seeker something "simple".
I doubt that Assange being a "pompous ass" is what's killing the anonymous leaks platform idea. Rather I would say that the relentless pursuit of everyone involved in such leaks and their infrastructure as well as lack of support from traditional media are probably to blame for it.
> He’s a pompous ass, pure and simple. No conspiracy required.
I don't get where this sentiment comes from - care to explain?
It is the old, "I do not know this person, but I intensely dislike them as a person. I feel this has great relevance to all legal matters concerning this person" routine. It it commonly seen in discussions about Assange and Dotcom.
> the British authorities don’t want to look like idiots in front of the whole world
...they're looking like idiots right now.
Maybe they are misguided. But the publicity of this whole thing makes their (possible?) overreaction completely explainable without any conspiracy theories.
Calling them idiots is not a conspiracy theory.
No, but it seemed to me you were suggesting my explanation didn’t make sense because they look like idiots.
Saying that your explanation doesn't make sense is also not a conspiracy theory.
One thing going unsaid in all this is that it's quite likely British intelligence sources were put at risk but various wikileaks as well.
Which is probably key to their reaction.
It could always be both. Assange is probably persona non grata to the British authorities, but even if you wanted to manufacture some cause to imprison him, you wouldn't go for fabricating a rape charge in Sweden. At most, the British authorities are reacting opportunistically to an otherwise valid, legitimate charge.
> you wouldn't go for fabricating a rape charge in Sweden
If you want to go after someone's reputation, a rape charge is perfect -- repugnant and requires no hard evidence, especially in Sweden. The only thing better would be an allegation without a formal charge... Though sure, there are more plausible explanations.
Sexual assualt charges have ludicrously low conviction rates (rapes especially), they are usually a he said, she said affair unless there's a significant degree of violence. Going down a peso route would be a lot easier, lower burden of proof... And evidence that can be fabricated without bringing a victim or witness to court.
Secondly, if the us wanted assagne they'd have him, shifting to Ecuador is probably a lot less safe than hanging around an EU country IMO
Thirdly, he had his chance to go back to Sweden, he ran. He had his chance in the uk, he ran. He's not showing him self to be of good character if the acts of abuse of process he claims to stand against are being carried out by himself
Guilty or not, he's got questions to ask. Running away isn't going to make his issues disappear
And lets not forget, sexual assault is a serious allegation, and if you had any sense about you, someone lying about using protection would really piss you off. Apart from the fact it means putting a woman at risk of having to look after a brat for 18 years plus incubation, there's also the risk of disease, complication through pregnancy and common flipping curtosey.
even if you wanted to manufacture some cause to imprison him, you wouldn't go for fabricating a rape charge in Sweden
I would absolutely go for something like that, if I were clever enough to think of it. Look at how effectively it's split his support on the left by pitting civil libertarians against feminists, even on this thread.
There's been a complaint filed against the Swedish prosecutor over this case by third parties (two journalists) alleging judicial misconduct and serious breaches of Swedish law over amongst others her insistent refusal to send anyone to the UK to interview Assange, so it remains to be seem just how valid and legitimate this whole thing is.
I agree 100%. I wonder if those defending Assange would do so if he were accused of raping someone they care about.
Fact: he has not been accused of rape. He has not been charged with rape. There is no trial. There are no charges. And there are no witnesses, and no physical evidence.
And if you read up on the details of the story, and the context, it's very fishy. It's at best a case of he-said vs she-said --- arguably one of the perfect ways to smear someone's reputation and cause them legal and financial hassle, without having to meet the minimum legal standards to convict someone of guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. Men and women have sex ALL the time, 24/7, all across the world, in all sorts of complex ways, variations, situations, and very often without condoms. It's also a fact that a large percentage of women like men to be dominant with them and it arouses them.
Given all these facts, and this cultural context, it's hard to know exactly what happened behind closed doors in these incidents, and before the legal system ruins a man's life they need to be damn sure they're doing the right thing. From just what's known publicly so far this case looks so flaky and muddled and suspicious that a reasonable person could easily say those standards aren't met here.
I must admit that I'm confused. The Wikipedia page says he's been accused of rape:
"In 2010, a European Arrest Warrant was issued for Assange in relation to allegations of rape and sexual assault by two women in Sweden"
That seems to imply that an attorney was able to present sufficient evidence to a court to merit an arrest warrant being issued. I don't know the facts of the case in depth, but you seem to be asserting that European Arrest Warrants are issued capriciously, with no regard for due process. That would seem to be far more worrying that the specifics of this case.
>> There is no trial. There are no charges.
At least in the US, those typically come after the suspect is apprehended (and not in that order). Perhaps it's different in European courts. But I was not aware that trials in absentia were the norm there.
The UK has a legal obligation to hand him over to Sweden per treaty. If they are to follow the law, rather than just make stuff up as they go along like a banana republic, then the legal apparatus in the UK has no discretion under which they can allow Assange to leave.
Granting someone asylum is a politically motivated act, wanting to arrest someone who's in breach of their bail conditions - not so much.
Threatening to invade an embassy is.
>that is more evidence that the Swedish charges are politically motivated //
Can you explain this? In what way is it evidence in regards to the Swedish charges.
Based on recent cases of extradition to the USA examination of the charges is not made locally?
Bizarre. The usual script for these kinds of things is a standoff where the host country denies passage out of the embassy, so the person being harbored in the embassy is stuck there until either that person gives up, the embassy gives them up, or some kind of deal for passage or exchange is struck. Threatening to the invade the embassy isn't usually on the table, at least in peacetime.
The difference is that Assange did not simply ask for asylum. He agreed to go through the British Court system including posting bail under the solemn promise to obey the court.
Only when he lost did he go for asylum. Sincere asylum is not "Plan B."
That part, jumping bail by walking into an embassy, isn't all that unusual. China is worried enough about it that they sometimes shadow politically sensitive detainees who're out on bail to make sure they don't get close to any western embassies in Beijing.
Do the Chinese who might seek asylum also wait until the Court rules against them?
I assume that would be a common trigger! Until that point, they may hope to be acquitted and not have to flee the country. For example, Chen Guangcheng escaped house arrest and fled to the U.S. embassy. The Chinese were not happy about that, and applied pressure, but they didn't send police into the embassy.
Chen was neither charged with a crime nor was he serving a sentence at the time he fled.
And neither is Assange, on both counts.
There was no warrant or ongoing court case either.
> Sincere asylum is not "Plan B."
I do not see why this is always the case, care to elaborate?
To receive bail, you must pledge to return to court and be bound by its decisions. Assange broke his pledge when the court ruled against him.
You can choose asylum or you can choose to let the court decide. Trying to get the best of both worlds is mere gamesmanship and lacks any pretense at integrity.
This is why, for example, Roman Polanski's lawyers have been refused a hearing on his matter in the US. You have to choose between being a fugitive or being tried in court. You don't get to say "I'd like the Court to find me innocent before I stop being a fugitive."
"embassy is stuck there until "
Or of course they need medical attention that can't be taken care of inside the embassy.
I'm a little surprised by the HN crowd's desire to turn this into some kind of Michael Bay movie with diplomatic explosions left, right and centre: the phrase "act of war" is being dropped around as if some kind of violent confrontation would ever actually occur between Ecuador and the United Kingdom based on this. This is simply not the case; at most, it would be loosely unfair of the British government to 'bully' Ecuador into its bidding and they would protest as harshly as they could (not very). This is not a fair system; international relations is a system wherein "the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must"[1].
The Government here has advised that under through a sound legal process it may revoke the legal status of an instituion within and on its territory. Is this right? Well, it's a little unusual...alternatively, ignoring the interests and desires of Sweden, the European Union and the United States would be still further unwise for the British. Britain has its interests, and it must do what serves them best.
In this case, doing something less than usual is worth it: there's virtually no downside to upsetting a small Latin American country in the process. The British government just won't care. It's not fair, but for better or worse, that's that.
"In this case, doing something less than usual is worth it: there's virtually no downside to upsetting a small Latin American country in the process. "
Let's analyze this a bit further...
Next time a British citizen holes up in the British embassy over some sham charges at the hands of the local police what are the likely aftershocks of Britain bullying Ecuador over Assange.
Yes. The most likely result is a tit-for-tat expulsion of ambassadors, followed by a quiet re-establishment of diplomatic ties in about a year's time.
About time we started applying the pressure...
Assange is taking his supporters for a ride, if he's not guilty why doesn't he go back to Sweden and face the questions?
As for this "I offered to talk to the Swedes in the UK" business it's bollocks, since when has law-enforcement done things at the convenience of the 'accused'
The whole extradition to the US is a red-herring - have you seen how easy it is to extradite someone from the UK to US if a US judge says they've got a case to answer?
Ship Assange out, if not Sweden then Australia, he's taking the piss (to use an UK colloquialism) and lots of people are falling for his conspiracy theory rubbish.
If he IS guilty, and knows that this isn't politically motivated, then why doesn't he go back to Sweden?
The worst possible sentence he is likely to get under Swedish law is so short that he'd likely have been out by now, after serving in a low security prison of a standard better than many British hotel rooms.
If he ISN'T guilty, then he has every reason to be concerned over the bizarre situations surrounding this case, such as why one prosecutor dismissed the case as obviously nothing criminal, only for another prosecutor with a known history for being aggressive about these types of cases to jump in an pick it up in a pretty unheard of move, and with the long list of other irregularities in the case, combined with Marianne Ny (the prosecutor)'s long standing refusal to consider interviewing him in London - a move that is pretty shocking given how they continue to expend resources in this case and insist it is so serious.
It is quite possible that the US has nothing to do with it, but something is fishy in the way the Swedish prosecution is handling this. Maybe it's not a US desire to extradite him, but "just" a prosecutor out to make her name with a politically motivated case where the target is Swedish rape law, not Assange - if it is he'd surely be a perfect target. But if I was him and I was innocent, I'd resist extradition too.
Of course, it is possible he's guilty but at the same time paranoid about the US - just pointing out that it is not a given that staying away from Sweden in these circumstances imply guilt. On the contrary, there are plenty of reasons for someone to be more wary about going back if not guilty in this case.
> As for this "I offered to talk to the Swedes in the UK" business it's bollocks, since when has law-enforcement done things at the convenience of the 'accused'
Law enforcement frequently opt to interview suspects in situations less than ideal when the choice is to not be able to interview them at all, or to have the interviews delayed.
Consider that if there is a case to answer - something that is not clear, as no charges have been filed (Assange is wanted for arrest for questioning on suspicion, not charged; the distinction keeps confusing British media, who is not used to the Scandinavian justice systems) -, then every day that goes makes any testimony that is collected less likely to be considered reliable by the court, and it is also clearly not in the interest of the alleged victims either to have the situation drag on without knowing whether or not the case will move forward.
This is also, despite the protestations of the Swedish prosecutor, commonly the case in Sweden. As many has pointed out, Sweden recently sent people to Poland to interview two people arrested on suspicion of a brutal double homicide, prior to an extradition hearing in Poland under an EAW.
Yet somehow they keep claiming they couldn't possibly do this in the Assange case, even going so far as to claim that Swedish law and court procedures won't allow it. This is another one of those things that makes the Assange case stink a long way, whether the US is involved in any way or not.
> The whole extradition to the US is a red-herring - have you seen how easy it is to extradite someone from the UK to US if a US judge says they've got a case to answer?
How easy is it? McKinnon has been able to avoid extradition for 10 years now, despite a pretty clear cut case of hacking that is clearly illegal in both countries. As it turns out, while UK judges will honour UK obligations, they are also highly scrupulous about ensuring all arguments are heard, and the UK government seems unwilling to try an end-run around the legal process.
Meanwhile, Sweden has been censured by the UN for participating in rendition of at least two people in blatant violation of not only internatonal obligatons, but also of Swedish law.
Yeh, but McKinnon may well be mentally ill. Look at the Natwest Bankers, the guys with the battery for other cases where it happened fairly quickly
>> if he's not guilty why doesn't he go back to Sweden and face the questions?
If he's not guilty, AND this isn't politically motivated, why not just go back? If this is actually politically motivated, then your question is fundamentally no different from "if you're not a terrorist, why don't you just submit to wiretaps / TSA body scans / etc..."
If I was him and I was innocent, I would probably not expect to face fair questions if I went back. The being said, I know almost nothing about the Swedish government so maybe I am being too much of a conspiracy theorist.
Sweden is part of the EU and any extradition from Sweden to the US would have to permissible under EU Human Rights laws, which specifically deny extradition if the extradited person could be subject to the death penalty if found guilty of the accusations they're being extradited for.
Given that the US has filled no charges against him, made no extradition requests to Sweden or the UK, and that there seems to be a fair degree of legal consensus that the European Court of Human Rights would deny extradition for the sort of charges that the US could plausibly file against him it seems to me that to believe that Assange has credible reasons to try and avoid obeying the request that he attend questioning in Sweden for what would be considered fairly serious accusations in most western countries is to buy into a conspiracy theory.
Sweden has participated in illegal rendition with the US (and admitted as much). It is naive to assume that if they were prepared to violate their own laws in order to bend over for US interests, that they will somehow worry all that much about following extradition procedures for Assange.
It also means the lack of public charges (the repeated claims is that there might be a secret grand jury indictment), nor a lack of a public extradition request is pretty much irrelevant.
It's not like Sweden or the US announced in advance they planned to illegally take a couple of Egyptians from Sweden and hand them over to Egyptian authorities for torture. But they did.
Incidentally, this is a good reason for Assange to prefer to be in the UK vs. Sweden - the UK seems less inclined to violate their own laws in this manner.
I'm not sure I believe this is part of a plot to get him to the US either, but I also think that given the weakness of the actual accusations from the female "plaintiffs" (perhaps not the best word) it seems unusual how bold some parties are being in trying to apprehend Assange. Calling him the "scum of earth" also doesn't help anybody seem impartial.
Given the way the US government has behaved over the past ten years, the fear is not irrational. Also, we're talking about the possibility of extradition to the US from Sweden, not from the UK.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/20/julian-a...
Yes but if the US want him they can get a US judge to decide he has a case to answer and then seek his extradition from the UK, they don't need to go through Sweden.
Maybe the clue is in the BBC story?
"Throughout this process have we have drawn the Ecuadorians' attention to relevant provisions of our law, whether, for example, the extensive human rights safeguards in our extradition procedures, or to the legal status of diplomatic premises in the UK," the spokesman said."
Perhaps Sweden has fewer safeguards built into its extradition laws?
What happens if the US has already secretly convicted and sentenced Assange in his absence? Maybe even the death sentence? It might be the case that the UK's extradition laws with "extensive human rights safeguards" would prevent extradition to the US, but Sweden's laws wouldn't. Extradition to Sweden is a way for the UK to step around their own human rights laws.
For one reason the definition of rape in Sweden is rather interesting. There is no concept of consent rather the accusation is apparently based on the amount of violence. All a woman has to do is resist for there to be a rape case and prove so. The result is that generally it seems to be all the court needs to do is believe the woman. Hence you could have the case of there being what happens a lot in other countries, a boozy night out, consensual sex, followed by remorse the next day. However you can then charge the man with rape. It's this fuzzy line that usually throws out rape cases (In Australia at least, and this is not necessarily a good thing) where alcohol was shown to be involved.
I am not a lawyer, and not that familiar with Swedish law, but I would be Assange or his lawyer is, and is also aware that if the women are really working on behalf of some other agency there is a high likely hood of Swedish law working against him. If that's the case he is unlikely to get a fair hearing.
NB if someone more familiar with Swedish law could speak up about this that would be excellent. I would love some corrections about the above with supported documentation.
BTW as an Aussie I am horrified that our PM Julia Gillard condemned him without any proof, and even more furious over their lack of involvement to help an Australian national. Convicted Drug Traffickers seem to get more help from the Australian government then people only accused of a crime.
Yes, I don't know if he's guilty of rape or not (there seems to be a whiff of women scorned about it) but the Swedish justice system has as good a reputation as any.
Not when it comes to politics or copyright.
Two known events:
CIA extraordinary rendition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition#Sweden
The Pirate Bay
Pirate Bay Judge Exposed as Member of Pro-Copyright Groups http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/04/pirateconflict/
Aftermath of The Pirate Bay Trial: Peter Sunde’s Plea http://falkvinge.net/2012/07/06/aftermath-of-the-pirate-bay-...
Pro-Copyright Judges Never Drop Cases Over Conflicts, So Why Does Megaupload Judge Have To Step Down? http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120718/00503119739/pro-co...
If the Swedish government legitimately wanted to question Assange about the risible "rape" charges (that they didn't even bother with while he was in Sweden), why didn't they give a guarantee not to extradite him to the US?
Because they want to extradite him and the "rape" case is an excuse.
Why not guarantee they won't extradite him to the US?
Well first of all, either an arrest warrant is valid or it is not. If valid, why do they need to bribe someone to obey the law? Sure, I sometimes give my kids snacks to bribe them into doing something they don't want to do, but I'm not the law.
Second, they cannot promise what their reaction would be. Suppose something impossibly-unlikely like the US has a video-tape of Assange killing someone in the US. The Swedes would then look pretty stupid at having given Assange a no-extradite promise. Now of course Assange isn't a murderer; the point is that the Swedes can't give blanket promises about extradition without actually seeing the facts of the extradition request first.
That's a nice abstract argument. The facts are otherwise.
If the US shows up with a video of Assange killing someone it will have been made on a Hollywood renderfarm.
We know that because we know that the US is bent on hunting Assange down for political reasons and have set up a secret Grand Jury for this purpose.
When the law says one thing and justice says another, the customary thing to do is to push the law towards justice, not the victim of injustice towards the law.
> "If the US shows up with a video of Assange killing someone it will have been made on a Hollywood renderfarm."
I remember when that idea was just the plot of a mediocre Michael Crighton book. That it doesn't strike me as absurd anymore is either amazing or frightening. How would you even begin to fight that kind of evidence in front of a jury?
It appears under UK law the Prime Minister could denounce the embassy as no longer Ecuadorian territory.
The UK government has 'reminded' Ecuador of this fact in an attempt to influence their decision.
It isn't Ecuadorian territory, it's still British territory. UK law allows the UK to declare that it won't abide by the convention that embassies enjoy special legal status in law.
Presumably Ecuador could respond in kind.
It may well be that the wonderful British police or SAS could smoothly extract Assange, however, what happens if the not so wonderful Ecuadorian authorities decided to lay some sort of siege to the British Embassy in Ecuador? Are British authorities really prepared to risk that?
If Ecuador did that, the British would simply leave peaceably. I'm not understanding the risk you refer to -- would not Ecuadorians be equally hindered by the lack of a British Embassy as the British?
Well then, if that was the case then Assange could just as well peacefully with the rest of the Ecuadorian delegation.
Don't forget that Assange is not and asylum "seeker" anymore, but that he has in fact been granted asylum. In other words, under international law, he is and Ecuadorian Citizen and unless Britain decides to transgress International Law and effectively declare war on Ecuador, no amount of sabre rattling will amount to anything at all.
Eh, even if they get him, it's not like it's going to change much for WikiLeaks - the platform will go on, probably stronger than before. The politicians will pat themselves on the back for a "good job" catching Assange, while the leaks go on and people find out stuff they weren't supposed to know (and most of them don't even care either way).
The UK should be like, "well, whatever, he'll come out eventually" instead of issuing threats against other countries. Maybe they'll send in the SAS next - that would be interesting to watch...
Did anyone not see this coming? Does he actually think they won't go after him to the full extent they are capable?
The thing about being a martyr for a cause is that they usually don't walk away from the experience unscathed. I think this man thought he was untouchable and acted accordingly, deciding to be a celebrity instead of a quiet hero. Well, the hammer is dropping.
Good luck, Julian, you completely unlikable but necessary bastard. Hopefully the people who carry on in your stead are a bit more careful.
I like him. I guess we've probably swallowed different propaganda.
I tend not to swallow propaganda - I generally just dislike his behavior from the stories I've heard, from both friend and foe alike. He basically talked Manning into putting himself in the brig so he can go be the hero. I'm sure Manning was rotting in a cell while Assange was off having the sex (consensual or otherwise) that put the whole operation in jeopardy. I don't like him. Maybe that's all propaganda, and correct me if I'm wrong, but that's my take on it. His work is necessary but I don't like him.
Besides, look at that smug face. It's seriously in the running for a 'most punchable face alive' award.
I believe that's incorrect. Manning wasn't talked into putting himself in the brick. Well not literally: he bragged about what he had done to someone on an internet chat. That someone was a convicted hacker that gave him up to law enforcement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Manning#Chats_with_Adri...
That's some good propaganda there. BTW, I don't know if it's healthy to fantasize about punching people just based on how they look.
If it's propaganda then explain the reality of it, don't just claim victory through superior hidden knowledge and wander off.
In regards to your second point, I deal with smug bastards on a day to day basis. Smug isn't so much about how someone looks as it is about how they look at you.
Neither of us know anything except what we've read in news stories which are filtered through layers of different political interests. Like I said, we've swallowed different propaganda.
If you walk away with your life you're by definition not a martyr.
Nitpicking. People are often called 'martyr for a cause' if they end up persecuted or imprisoned.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/martyr
Definition #2. It helps if you die, but it's not required.
Actually, if you'll look at the wikipedia article about the term and its history, you'll see that it has several meanings. Dying isn't always required.
It is important to notice that when someone started shooting from Libyan embassy in the 80s and killed a British policewoman the UK's government did not enter the embassy. However, now in a case of far less importance(basically a case whether a condom broke on its own or did Assange do it on purpose) they consider doing it? Something is seriously not right here.
I undertood that because the event (shooting + aftermatch) happened, the "Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987" was created. Which is now used by Brittish government.
I am starting to think that the event Julian Assange fears most is that he'll end up in Sweden, walking down the street either a free man or after serving some time in jail, and have to wonder "what should I do now?"
General opinion seems to think that he'll be questioned in Sweden and then extradited to the US, likely to sit in solitary confinement a la Bradley Manning. Now I'm not saying one way or the other, but it is definitely a possibility.
Why would Sweden be more likely to extradite to the USA than the UK? Sweden is neutral whereas the UK is a USA ally.
I agree that it isn't sensible necessarily, but I also don't blame him for believing it may happen. The US has taken a surprisingly cavalier attitude to the rights of citizens and foreign nationals as of late.
The UK government is showing its true face, that of a tyrannical authoritarian government, who's legitimacy is threatened by the exact kind of transparency that Assange's organization intends to protect.
When was there even any doubt about it? Britain has been aligned with US imperialism for decades.
Why does Ecuador even want to stand its ground on this? Why do they want to harbor Assange in the first place? Seems silly to escalate this to the national level when they don't seem to benefit from it in any material or practical sense.
South American countries tend to lurch from right to left and back. Currently Ecuador has elected to be governed by their anti-American leftist party. I would be shocked if they didn't grant Assange asylum just for the sake of pretending to save Assange from the US, if for no better reason.
So countries should only respond to requests for asylum when they themselves benefit from it?
The only thing that they should be looking at, is whether or not his case for asylum is valid under their rules.
Touche
I'm no pro in politics but what I have read Ecuador has pretty strong relationship with Venezuela. And at least the later one is happy to get USA "angry" when possible.
So, just to make sure I'm keeping up, the UK is threatening an act of war against Ecuador in order to extradite an Australian who's wanted by the US to Sweden. okithinkigotit.
It's not an act of war - it's, at worst, a violation of a convention. An embassy/consulate/mission is the territory of the host country and not, as is commonly thought, sovereign to the country who's located in it.
You are mistaken. Under International law, embassies are on sovereign soil of the guest country.
This case continues to amaze me.
It is like a movie not real life.
I some how now expect loads of people turning up in anonymous masks outside the embassy with a group of people leaving also in aformentioned masks. There then ensues a combination of the Thomas Crown Affair and a Benny Hill sketch.
Now that possible outcome aside I do wonder if there are more important clear-cut cases of people in the UK wanted for questioning regarding crimes in Switzerland. I'm tending to think that if there was then that would of been made very public already and yet I have seen none. If he is in all effect Sitzerlands number one criminal suspect or wanted criminal in the UK and who's location is known then maybe this isn't as biased with regard to pursuit than any other case and only with the News value is it publicly deemed more impacting.
But thats not realy the issue, the issue if he ends up being shipped to America and lost in a maze of prisons that is the issue realy as if there was a case against him then America would of been granted a extradition from the UK, that did not happen. Now if that happens in Switzerland then that is the concern and the real issue and in that you can respect Mr Assange's concerns upon that matter and why he is taking the approach he is currently as that whole assurance has not been given that it will not happen. If he had that assurance then from my understanding is that this would not be an issue and in the news today. It is this that makes things concerning in how things are being possibly being handled.
RIP Yvonne Fletcher, justice was slow, but we do get there.
Based on Twitter chatter, Anonymous is indeed gathering supporters in Britain outside the Ecuadorian embassy as we speak.
In 2012 a journalist is persecuted in this way. I never would have expected this to happen.
This looks like a raw smear against Assange. Would be interesting to know the political pressures being brought to bear on the Swedish prosecutor's office.
I'm quite surprised that its only now that the links to Argentina and Britians current wranglings with South American countries are being talked about.
Remember they are all friends. The UK has the Falklands which Argentina (mates of Ecuador) are very keen to take ownership, especially with the discovery of every conspiracy theorists favourite motivator.... OIL
Yes boys and girls, perhaps this whole thing is less to do with Assange and wiki-leaks and more to do with a bit of dick waving over old wounds and money. That's a better theory for whats going on now
I think we are about to witness the only real rape in this whole sad story.
Absolute disgrace.
It appears that the livestreaming site bambuser.com is down after a British fellow started streaming from outside the embassy and it was picked up by wikileaks on twitter:
http://twitter.com/alburyj http://www.bambuser.com/channel/alburyj
What appears to be the text of the communication:
http://www.eltelegrafo.com.ec/images/eltelegrafo/banners/201...