Slashdot Mirror


Assange Requests Asylum In Ecuador

david.emery writes "Julian Assange, his appeals in the United Kingdom having run out, today went to the Ecuadorian Embassy in London to request asylum from his pending extradition to Sweden to face questioning for 'unlawful coercion and sexual misconduct including rape.'"

23 of 400 comments (clear)

  1. Smart move by crazyjj · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Ecuadoran President Rafael Correa is a friend of Venezuela and Cuba--and NO FRIEND of the U.S.

    --
    What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
    1. Re:Smart move by FhnuZoag · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Reminder:

      "In April 2011, Ecuador expelled the U.S. ambassador after a leaked diplomatic cable was shown accusing president Correa of knowingly ignoring police corruption. In retaliation, the Ecuadorian ambassador Luis Gallegos was expelled from the United States.[1]"

      Assange should find a good audience amongst Correa's corrupt and human rights abusing buddies. Assange continues to discard his principles - if he still has any remaining.

  2. All this trouble. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Is he really that afraid that he won't get a fair trial - in Sweden?!?

    Is there something about the Swedish judicial system that I don't know about? Is it a kangaroo court or something?

    What is Assange afraid of?

    1. Re:All this trouble. by crazyjj · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Is he really that afraid that he won't get a fair trial - in Sweden?!?

      No, he's not *afraid* of it. He *knows* it. This whole thing was such an obvious setup from the get-go that I'm surprised the CIA had the balls to even try it. Shit, even Dominique Strauss-Kahn was less obvious than this mess.

      --
      What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
    2. Re:All this trouble. by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Is he really that afraid that he won't get a fair trial - in Sweden?!?

      The charges were dropped, then mysteriously the investigation was reopened. If you had sent copies of the secrets of the world's most powerful government to everyone else, would you not be a little nervous about unusual criminal proceedings?

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    3. Re:All this trouble. by crazyjj · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The CIA has apparently gotten away from that (especially with public figures). Public discrediting works just as effectively, doesn't leave behind a martyr, and isn't as obvious. So if some asshole is criticizing the value of the U.S. dollar, you don't send up a guy with a gun to his room, you send up a maid shaking her ass. Much cleaner that any bullet to the head, and just as effective.

      --
      What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
    4. Re:All this trouble. by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, it's crazy to think something is wrong with a criminal investigation against a controversial person being closed for lack of evidence, then suddenly reopened. Clearly, anyone who thinks that the secretive intelligence agency of the country whose secrets were published by Assange would have anything to do with this situation is a crazy conspiracy theorist...

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    5. Re:All this trouble. by crazyjj · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Excuse me, Sir, but your tinfoil hat has slipped a bit to the side.

      There is somewhat of a difference between someone who thinks that aliens at Area 51 are teaming with the CIA to steal his urine--and someone who thinks that the CIA takes covert action against foreign nationals who threaten the security of U.S. confidential information.

      --
      What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
  3. Re:Dumb reading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Stop beating your meat to your masochistic prison torture fantasies. Wikileaks mismanged itself into death, while Assange had burned bridges with everyone. He'll spend a couple years in a nice comfy swedish reformatory dormitory and everyone will forget about him except his groupies.

  4. Re:[Stupid] move by crazyjj · · Score: 4, Insightful

    the "not wearing a condom" charge

    Are you really naive enough to believe that's what ANY of this is about?

    I mean, seriously?

    --
    What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
  5. Re:[Stupid] move by cpu6502 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    >>>Are you really naive enough to believe that's what ANY of this is about?

    I guess I am. Prove to me that something more nefarious is going on with this Sweden Condom Non-wearing case?

    --
    My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
  6. Re:[Stupid] move by cpu6502 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    >>>" those CIA agents over in that other plane are going to have a word with you. Goodbye."

    Why do you think that will happen? I'd like some citations, not some random Alex Jones-style conspriacist rambling. Kay-kay? Thanks.

    --
    My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
  7. Re:Dumb reading by just_a_monkey · · Score: 3, Insightful

    But I wonder if the next time someone in Sweden (but, for the sake of argument, someone who hasn't angered our rulers as Assange has) has sex with a sleeping partner and skips the country, there will again be a European arrest order and a worldwide Interpol hunt?

    --
    How inappropriate to call this planet Earth, when clearly it is Ocean.
  8. Re:[Stupid] move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Show that Interpol have ever got involved chasing someone not charged, let alone convicted, of a crime. Plus the fact the accuser took her time over complaining, still dated him well after the fuck session, and perhaps her CIA involvement? Keep your ears covered though, don't change from Fox News.

  9. Re:[Stupid] move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    this is horseshit.

    >> he broke the law to the point he used his influence to do things that would get other men arrested too.

    what law did he break? and if he broke the law, why hasn't he been charged? and why do Sweden need to extradite someone to answer some questions about an investigation — not even a charge?

    >> In most countries, what he did would be considered douchebaggery of the highest proportions. In Sweden, they find it criminal...even if it is pretty much a slap on the wrist. When a big name does it, they need to make an example...and the example is he pays a fine much smaller than he has wasted in lawyers so far and goes home.

    this is just a joke. the women in question were tweeting about how cool he was AFTER the claimed rape. they both threw a party in his honor. the first swedish prosecutor DROPPED the whole thing because there wasn't enough evidence; so Sweden reappointed a new prosecutor to drudge the thing up.

    >> Gotta hand it to him...he knows how to play others. Are you so naive to think that a man so skilled at manipulation isn't manipulating you?

    You're the one being played, friend.

  10. Re:[Stupid] move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Who died because of his actions? Name a single person who died. Link to a single story in a reputable newspaper that details how someone lost their life as a result of leaks he published.

  11. Re:[Stupid] move by clifyt · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Hello someone that doesn't understand that the system of justice in one country isn't the same in another country.

    In Sweden, it has been established over and over in these debates, one cannot be charged with a crime unless they have been questioned in person.

    He left the country before he could be questioned in person. Yes, one prosecutor decided there wasn't enough evidence at the time...and another said there was enough to question him. Even in the US, this happens all the time. And it is rarely politically motivated...

    I wouldn't be surprised if the US had a part in this...however, I think that Assange had a MUCH bigger part...and I believe Sweden may just be following their own rules, even if the US likes that they are. if someone pisses me off and I see them jaywalking while a cop had his back to my enemy...I might just walk over to the cop and mention how dangerous it is for that guy to be endangering the cars going by and encourage them to follow the laws already there, if nothing more than to piss the guy off a little.

    I don't think it takes any conspiracy to note the US is probably enjoying this as they know it is destroying Wikileaks. However, I don't think there is any nefarious plan to extradite him...especially as we have extradition treaties with the UK as well and could just as easily asked to bring him over with the caveat that we'd have to promise not to kill him...that's the only thing the UK asks...and I don't think the US could do this legally...much easier to kill him right where he was in the first place and even if everyone knew it was the US, we'd still have plausible deniability. That's the problem with you conspiracy theorists...you don't think of the simplest solutions. Occam's Razor...

  12. Re:Dumb reading by Darinbob · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sweden is not a lap dog of the United States.

    Assange should show up in Sweden, get the case resolved, then go home. End of paranoid story.

  13. Re:Dumb reading by KeensMustard · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How, pray tell did Wikileaks mismanage anything? Seems to me that they got an awful lot of important information to press where it belonged. Like what our elected representatives actually think of the war in Afghanistan, or the fact that there was a certain senator in the Australian parliament passing information to the US embassy. Information we, the people who elect the senate didn't know but should have, by rights. Or that a US defence contractor was buying Afghan boys to be raped by war lords. Kind of critical information if that defence contractor is also buying US congressman.

  14. Re:[Stupid] move by Cederic · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you're not a U.S. citizen you also have no constitutional rights

    That's odd. I'm sure the fifth amendment begins with "No person". Not "No citizen of the US". Further to that, Article III asserts the supremacy of the US Supreme Court in applying the constitution to foreign citizens and amendment six refers to "the accused", not "the accused, if they happen to be born in the US and haven't pissed us off enough to ship them off to Guantanamo or add them to Obama's Kill List".

    Just because you don't like the idea of justice doesn't mean it's not legally binding.

  15. Lets get a few things clear by Gonoff · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The woman that he is alleged to have raped has tried to drop the case that she was persuaded to bring.

    In most of the world, if a woman does not want to bring a case, the suspect has nothing to answer. What he may have done does not seem to have offended her sufficiently for her to want a court case.

    The prosecutor that has managed to bring this case is alleged to be a shill for the USA.

    Assange has performed a huge service for the USA, Australia, the UK and loads of other places by bringing to light the crimes of those who see themselves as our betters. That is his real "crime"

    --
    I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
  16. Re:[Stupid] move by kiwimate · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It makes him look guilty of the "not wearing a condom" charge. He should just go face the trial, especially since there's no way they can prove he's guilty (it's just her word vs. his).

    Are you really naive enough to believe that's what ANY of this is about?

    I guess I'm just as naive as cpu6502, because I believe this too. Honestly, my first thought on reading this was "urgh, that does NOT look good...guy looks like he's running for cover". Innocent or guilty, running off to South America has a strong appearance of someone trying to escape the law.

    Do I think the U.S. government is completely ambivalent about the chap? Well, duh, of course they're likely to be somewhat annoyed. Do I think this entire shambles is some huge conspiracy? And that Sweden, of all places, is just going to roll over in acquiescence? Come on...

    Assange is a creep. Looking at the whole "using force" bit, the "not using a condom when you knew full well the woman didn't want that" bit, the guy is a jerk and a creep. Yes, you might think he's a hero with Wikileaks. That doesn't mean he's not a creep. In some countries what he did would just get him branded a creep; in Sweden, they are a bit more adamant about protecting women's rights and they think he did something criminal.

    If he doesn't like it and says the charges are without basis, well, man up and go back and fight the charges, and then bugger off to Ecuador or anywhere else you want to, in a fit of self-righteous pique. But the guy needs to take responsibility for his actions.

    Personally I think half the reason he doesn't want to is because he's afraid he won't get yanked out to the United States. That would really damage his whole martyr/conspiracy victim image. Without that he's a seriously underwhelming and unprepossessing figure. He'll get prosecuted, he'll be freed, or he might serve some jail time, and in a few months or a few years he'll come out, not having been assassinated. But by then everyone will have forgotten about him.

  17. Re:[Stupid] move by socceroos · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I would agree with you - if you take the case against Assange in isolation, that is. But when you widen the scope of your consideration to the events surrounding Assagne at the time, and factor in the part where the judges dismissed the case and then mysteriously reopened it then you should get a better idea of why something more nefarious is going on.