Slashdot Mirror
Ecuador To Grant Assange Political Asylum
NSN A392-99-964-5927 writes with news that Ecaudor will grant Julian Assange's request for political asylum. An Ecuador official told The Guardian that the country's president, who earlier indicated his decision would arrive after the Olympic Games, will approve the request Assange made in June.
"Government sources in Quito confirmed that despite the outstanding legal issues Correa would grant Assange asylum – a move which would annoy Britain, the US and Sweden. They added that the offer was made to Assange several months ago, well before he sought refuge in the embassy, and following confidential negotiations with senior London embassy staff. The official with knowledge of the discussions said the embassy had discussed Assange's asylum request. The British government, however, 'discouraged the idea,' the offical said. The Swedish government was also 'not very collaborative,' the official said. The official added: 'We see Assange's request as a humanitarian issue. The contact between the Ecuadorean government and WikiLeaks goes back to May 2011, when we became the first country to see the leaked US embassy cables completely declassified ... It is clear that when Julian entered the embassy there was already some sort of deal. We see in his work a parallel with our struggle for national sovereignty and the democratisation of international relations.'"
Good for Assange and good for Ecuador.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Ya because no covert intelligence agency anywhere has ever used a Honey trap.....
And to think most in the US view South America as some backwards "third world" with no freedom and the US is the freest country in the world.
Interesting how quickly things change.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
In Democratic Ecuador the government saves you???
Tomorrow is another day...
Ecuador is taking a startlingly appropriate and laudable position here, IMHO.
Ya because no covert intelligence agency anywhere has ever used a Honey trap...
And not at all suspicious that we have a known CIA operative - And a close friend of hers - as the women involved here.
That doesn't mean he didn't do it, but when it comes to "benefit of the doubt", he definitely gets it in this case.
Sweden assisted the US in extrajudicial rendition and had police turn over two egyptian guys straight to the CIA for transport to torture. The Swedish minister of 'Justice' at the time, Thomas Bodström, who most likely knew about and ok'd the illegal rendition at the time coincidentally runs a law firm together with the representative of the women who brought the allegations.
Not to say that it's a conspiracy, but one can understand why there's a certain reluctance to trust Sweden. It's become a banana republic complicit in torture run by a frat club of criminals.
Besides the way Obama's dealt with this Wikileaks issue I otherwise like him
So this bothers you, but his treatment of Thomas Drake doesn't? Or the fact that he considers legal medical marijuana dispensaries in California to be a higher priority target than the investment bankers who crashed the economy in 2008? Or his continued use of unconstitutional warrantless wiretaps? Or that he signed the blatantly unconstitutional 2012 NDAA? Or his unilateral assassination of American citizens abroad?
The chief of the ACLU is "disgusted" with Obama. You should be too.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Listen to Assange's side of the story.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9309000/9309320.stm
He isn't wanted for a crime in Sweden, only for "questioning" by a prosecutor. He was in Sweden for 5 weeks following the alleged incidents so there was ample opportunity for this. When he left, he wasn't running from the Swedish authorities like a fugitive. He's also willing to speak with the Swedish prosecutor, but he didn't want to go back to Sweden to do it.
I think this reeks of conspiracy.
Actually, it's because of such simplistic stereotypes about how rape victims are supposed to behave that so many sexual assaults still go unreported. Once you know that most rapes are committed by people the victim knew, you can understand why not all victims immediately go to the police. It's perfectly understandable that, if they had already had consensual intercourse before, the alleged victim would feel bad about what happened afterward if she did not agree to having sex without a condom but did not immediately report it. It's a common reaction and victims often need the help of their family or friends to fully understand what has happened to them and realize that it was rape. The fact that they "didn't seem phased" doesn't mean much, as there are many cases of rape victims dating and having subsequent intercourse with their rapist (clear-cut example: all those who were victims of marital rape).
See for references to published research: http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/pub_victim_responses_sexual_assault.pdf
Isn't it amazing, 60 years ago people wouldn't have believed if somebody told them, that America could become this....
I don't think America is that different then sixty years ago. The difference is that in these days of globalization, Americans aren't limited anymore to input from news sources who are strongly biased. It becomes harder to hide the truth about some things.
If you live in the rest of the world (even western) where you don't have "America #1" or "America the only free country" tagline which for me introduces a lot of ignorance by some Americans, you will rapidly see that America is quite a "normal" country as it has it faults and is certainly not perfect.
For me as European it even have a lot in common in some aspects with Russia or even China, especially in being raised with certain believes tied to nationalism.
However, you douches made it the only option. By hounding him you ensure that he has to cut a deal.
Way to go, douche bags.
Yes, that's the yarn which has circled in the fanboy echo chamber. Which has essentially no correlation with reality. Do you really think that two separate British courts, including the high court, reviewed the charges against him and confirmed that they met the definition of rape even in the UK, if that was the case?
Here's a brief summary of what was actually alleged. And here's the court's more detailed fact-finding (you should definitely read the latter). There's nothing "suspicious" about how the case was handled unless you don't actually know how the case was handled (which, of course, has been the main goal of Assange's backers).
To briefly summarize the *actual* accusations, they're that Assange quickly began trying to make out with the first woman, which she initially went along with, only to have him try to force her legs apart and pin her down trying to force sex without a condom, to wherein she consented to sex with a condom to prevent it from happening to her without a condom, only to find out later that the condom was "broken". That night she told a friend about the "violent" (her words) sex with assange, and then moved out of her *own apartment* to get away from him. Concerning the other girl, he had tried to sleep with her without a condom over and over, something which she had never done in her life, even with her previous long-term boyfriend. She kept refusing. He stayed up while she fell asleep, and she woke up to him having sex with her without a condom (if you don't think that having sex with a sleeping person is rape, imho, you're a sick bastard). And yes, she understandably freaked out after it and tried to force him to get an STD test, which he refused.
As for the whole "they didn't decide it was rape until talking together" thing, that's the most offfensive part to me. Do you know how hard it is to admit to even yourself, let alone others, that you were raped? I called mine "an unwanted sexual experience" and whatever other weasel words I could get out of to avoid using that term for myself. It took three months of denial and trying just to move on with my life before I could accept what happened to me. There's a reason most rapes are never reported. You just want to put it in the past and forget about it; the last thing you want to do is have to relive it, to face the person again, to have all sorts of vile allegations leveled against *you*, etc. But if I had found out shortly afterwards that the next day that the guy who attacked me had done the same sort of thing to another girl? I don't know how I would have reacted, but it certainly would have changed the picture.
As for the CPT, they criticize everyone. That's their job. The report on Sweden is no worse than on any other state, and a lot better than a number. And as for giving suspects to the US, Assange felt so comfortable with Sweden that he was *applying for residency* when he was charged with rape. And then fled to the UK from there, which is ten times the US lackey Sweden ever was.
We're practicing our labials.