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.'"

Comments

Good

[Hatta]

Good for Assange and good for Ecuador.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, sure glad they went with a country without very good diplomatic ties to the US, and one which the US won't miss if an imperial fuckton of bombs happened to vaporize it! That makes things so much easier than all this "diplomacy" bullshit we've been wasting our time on with our "allies"!

Re:Good

[sycodon]

Exiled to Ecuador.

Pathetic.

Re:Good

[Dyinobal]

Ya but if I Assange I'd be absurdly paranoid for the rest of my life. Drone strikes are so easy to do and for the USA to deploy a military asset to Ecuador cannot be that difficult.

Re:Good

[Trepidity]

Hey, it beats the Singapore exile that Facebook cofounder drew the short straw on.

Re:Good

[crawling_chaos]

Drones? More like hand over some unmarked Benjamins for a quick car accident and some planted cocaine.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

I dont think Assange is afraid of dying.

I think he is more afraid of languishing in American prisons like those guys who get 70yrs in prisons for stealing a loaf of bread.

Re:Good

[Dyinobal]

You're right if he was going to get killed by a professional group it would not be something so obvious as a drone strike.

Re:Good

[cynop]

Killing him would only make him a martyr. They need to discredit him first. Then they can organise an operation to snatch him, and bring him in front of a US judge

Re:Good

[ackthpt]

South American non-aligned flexing its muscle.

At least it's not Venezuela, which would be putting him on parade to rub US noses in it.

Re:Good

[Desler]

It's great for the US, too. Ecaudor is notorious for its high incidence of kidnapping. He'll have to watch his back perpetually.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Go put your tinfoil hat back on.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

thats ridiculous.
we are not going to assassinate assange.
the american public would have the president's head for such an outrage.

Re:Good

[Desler]

Then he shouldn't go to Ecaudor. Kidnappings are rampant and it wouldn't be hard to pay off a taxi driver to kidnap him.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

source?

Re:Good

[sycodon]

Well, with all that money, doesn't matter where you are exiled.

Re:Good

[Desler]

You confuse 'the American public' with 'internet nerds'. The American public is overwhelmingly anti-Wikileaks.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

you should move to Ecuador and join him. Please! We don't want you here.

Re:Good

[Frosty Piss]

and one which the US won't miss if an imperial fuckton of bombs happened to vaporize it!

Such statements have no relationship to reality and only serve to make pro-Assenge folks look like perseverating nut-jobs.

It is, however, a great day for Assenge and his cause, and a sad sad day for all those countries that COULD have stood up and made statement to the US and Sweeden.

Re:Good

[sycodon]

Armed Robbery: Strike 1
Assault :Strike 2
Steal loaf of bread: Strike 3 and we are fucking done with you. Goodby for the rest of your miserable life.

I see nothing wrong with this.

Re:Good

[pnot]

Quite apart from any supposed CIA attacks, Assange had better make sure he only says nice things about President Correa. From the Human Rights Watch Report:

Those involved in protests in which there are outbreaks of violence may be prosecuted on inflated and inappropriate terrorism charges. Criminal defamation laws that restrict freedom of expression remain in force and Correa has used them repeatedly against his critics... Impunity for police abuses is widespread... Ecuador’s Criminal Code still has provisions criminalizing desacato (“lack of respect”), under which anyone who offends a government official may receive a prison sentence up to three months and up to two years for offending the president... journalists face prison sentences and crippling damages for this offense... In a draft decree announced in December 2010, domestic NGOs, including those working on human rights, would have to re-register and submit to continuous government monitoring. The decree would give the government broad powers to dissolve groups for “political activism,”

Then again, Assange also said that Sweden was a great place where he felt totally safe, right up until the whole rape thing happened, at which point Sweden was suddenly declared a notorious US lackey...

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

and one which the US won't miss if an imperial fuckton of bombs happened to vaporize it!

Re-read what you just wrote, and ask yourself if you are on the good side or the bad side.

Re:Good

[Sir_Sri]

No, but assassinating him in Ecuador would pose massive regional problems, and would be blatantly illegal (as would kidnapping him, which again, while not that hard, is not legal).

I'd be more worried about a change in government having a change of mind in Ecuador, and suddenly assange finding himself without a friendly government to protect him.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd much rather live in Singapore than Ecuador.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

some american is confusing ecuador and el salvador. pay no attention.

Re:Good

[moeinvt]

"Such statements have no relationship to reality..."

Interesting perspective. I think there is very real evidence to demonstrate that the USA has a habit of bombing other countries and actively overthrowing governments (even elected ones) which refuse to toe the USA line. I wonder how many governments in Central and South America alone have been targeted for "regime change" because the USA didn't like their behavior?

I think the OP has a good point. Ecuador should be watching out for armed rebel groups even if they don't need to be dodging hellfire missiles and smart bombs at the moment.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

You confuse "the American public" with "a handful of people who took some poll".

Re:Good

[moeinvt]

It beats GITMO or some secret CIA prison in the Middle East.

Re:Good

[CanHasDIY]

Armed Robbery: Strike 1 Assault :Strike 2 Steal loaf of bread: Strike 3 and we are fucking done with you. Goodby for the rest of your miserable life.

I see nothing wrong with this.

Right, because every theft of leavened baked goods involves armed criminal action and assault, without exception.

Jackass.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

You've been watching too many movies. Get out and breathe some fresh air.

Re:Good

[CohibaVancouver]

source?

http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/travel-and-living-abroad/travel-advice-by-country/south-america/ecuador/

Express kidnappings are a common crime in Ecuador and are on the increase, particularly in Quito and Guayaquil. Both Ecuadorians and foreign visitors are targets. The kidnappings involve short-term opportunistic abductions aimed at extracting cash from victims who are selected at random. They are held while criminals empty their bank accounts using the victims bank cards. Once the money has been taken the victim is usually released in an isolated area. However, criminals have started to force victims to take them to their homes once they have withdrawn the cash, and violence is becoming more common. This type of crime can involve illegitimate taxis and complicit taxi drivers. In some recent cases in January, March and April 2012, the passengers were pepper sprayed. In 2009 a British tourist was express-kidnapped from a hotel in the north of Quito.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't; I like chewing gum and having room to swing a cat.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

thats ridiculous.
we are not going to assassinate assange.
the american public would have the president's head for such an outrage.

Right, did the american public have the president's head for the executive order that enables him to decide who to assassinate and who not ? And this includes american citizens living abroad.
So yeah, american public counts for nothing. Less than zero. Put them in front of some reality show and the deal is done. Bread and circuses. What else can you expect from a population that is married to their couches ?

Re:Good

[vlm]

You're right if he was going to get killed by a professional group it would not be something so obvious as a drone strike.

Agreed. They'd probably start by framing the guy in some kind of sex scandal, as is traditional for the US. Oh wait...

Re:Good

[kaatochacha]

wait, the loaf of bread guy doesn't get called on source, but the kidnappings in a South America country does?

Re:Good

[sycodon]

Because Three Strike laws require felonies.

Moron.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate gum and I am used to living in large cities.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

This is in a way good. Maybe Assange will learn something from it.

captcha: riddance

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone who lives in Brazil, with one amazing crime rate (1 million killed in 30 years with armed violence) I have to say that you are talking out of your ass.

Unless he decides to live in the middle of a crack and heroin afflicted slum, that is.

Like the states, nasty business is largely confined to nasty areas.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

"The American public is overwhelmingly anti-Wikileaks."

That article is obviously propaganda.

Fuck you for even posting it, you sorry sack of shit.

Re:Good

[fredprado]

South America has gone a long way from the time it was easily manipulated by US. If anything it is getting more hostile to US as time goes, and if US decides to push it too hard it may end losing a lot more than it can possibly win.

Re:Good

[robmv]

Exactly, I was thinking maybe the negotiation was "Ok. we grant you assylum, but you destroy every Ecuador incriminating information you get". I personally do not like much Assange modus operandi (nothing against publishing things with care and not because you care about your personal image), but I will start to respect more Mr. Assange if he dare to publish things about Ecuador even inside the country

Re:Good

[peragrin]

just have one of the many drug lords do it in exchange for looking the other way for a couple of years. we are talking about an unstable region after all.

Re:Good

[fredprado]

Don't worry. From there he can easily come to Brazil. We have never extradited anyone to US and won't start anytime soon. South America is probably the best place in the world for him to run. Nobody here likes US (and that includes most governments)

Re:Good

[sycodon]

That explains the millions crossing our border every year.

Re:Good

[Hatta]

The American public in general is overwhelmingly authoritarian.

Re:Good

[GameboyRMH]

Gentlemen, i give you, American geography.

Re:Good

[Jerry Rivers]

South America has gone a long way from the time it was easily manipulated by US. If anything it is getting more hostile to US as time goes, and if US decides to push it too hard it may end losing a lot more than it can possibly win.

Especially with the rise of Brazil as a regional regional economic powerhouse there may be less need to South American countries in general to put up with perceived U.S. bullying.

Re:Good

[fredprado]

Which come mostly from Mexico. It is a LOT harder to go there and cross your borders from here (it is kind of far, you know), especially from the very poor people who would be most tempted to do so.

Besides that, moving to a country with a better economy in the hope of having a better life has nothing to do with liking said country. It has a lot more to do with lack of perspective where you are.

Re:Good

[stymy]

Except for the fact that Mexico is in _North_ America.

Re:Good

[Orcris]

and one which the US won't miss if an imperial fuckton of bombs happened to vaporize it!

Re-read what you just wrote, and ask yourself if you are on the good side or the bad side.

I vote good.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure the American public also loves poverty now affectionately called green living, runs to get vaccinated at every turn, wrinkle their noses at organic food, trusts their goverment, uses their cars less, prefers soccer over football and meat consumption is also decreasing..

Well that's what the mainstream media is saying but that has no bearing on reality whatsoever. It's opinion that is put out there so that little Deslers lap it up and make it their own. What you read or hear in the media and especially in their contrived polls is what they would like to become reality and none of it is in your best interest. Nobody in their right mind gets rid of their car to use public transportation, Americans love football and have always hated any government interference in their lives, vaccination numbers are dwindling to the great upset of the pushers and don't even come near the subject of poverty in this country.

It's not that the media are just out of touch with the population why they spout the obvious nonsense they do, it is that they operate under the theory that if they just spout an opinion long enough that it gets adopted. 60000 repetitions make one truth .. or so their thinktanks believe but if anyone is at all out of touch with reality it is that class of privileged and pampered pseudoscholars like John Holdren (ecoscience population reduction scoundrel) that spent their cushy artificial lives in isolation from us.

Re:Good

[rmstar]

Steal loaf of bread: Strike 3 and we are fucking done with you. Goodby for the rest of your miserable life.

I see nothing wrong with this.

Nothing? Well, that makes you a cruel and evil person. That you can't understand this makes you also a very stupid person. Congratulations. You are a real liability and a net minus to anyone around you.

Re:Good

[icebraining]

Weak on geography, are we? Central America != South America.

Re:Good

[Lord Balto]

You mean the stuff that Ed Lansdale was so good at? Lansdale's the guy photographed in Dealey Plaza back in November of 1963. Of course, this goes back to gunboat diplomacy and ultimately to the aftermath of the Spanish-American War when the thugs in Washington figured out that they could go around the world pretending to be establishing democracy while they stole the resources of every country in sight.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, you need someone to be able to publish US's little secrets. If that means that this particular person won't be able to say bad things about Ecuador, Qatar or China, that's alright. There are more than one journalist in the world.

Re:Good

[Lord Balto]

Being on the equator, and with a healthy supply of mountains, coasts, and jungles, you can pretty much have whatever climate you like year round. The guy could have done worse.

Re:Good

[sycodon]

Gentleman, I give you Slashdot geopolitical ignorance.

Specifically ignorance of all the South American immigrants that come up through Mexico to get to the U.S.

Something you would know if you didn't spend all your waking hours playing the Gameboy in your mother's basement.

Re:Good

[Lord Balto]

He can't help it. He's a product of the U.S. educational system. He thinks Mexico is in South America. And anyhow, South Americans who do decide to come to North America tend to choose Canada over the Land of the Stupid.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

That's exactly it too. Only 1,000 people took that poll.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Better yet Julian beats and rapes a prostitute and she cuts his throat.

Re:Good

[sycodon]

Mexico 6,650,000 62% +42%
El Salvador 530,000 5% +25%
Guatemala 480,000 4% +65%
Honduras 320,000 3% +95%
Ecuador 170,000 2% +55%

Holy Crap people...pay attention.

Re:Good

[Lord Balto]

Oh gee, he quoted from a British Government website. Isn't that special?

Re:Good

[sycodon]

No we are not. But you are apparently ignorant of the migration path of immigrants from South America.

Re:Good

[sycodon]

And is the only way for South American Immigrants to get to the U.S.

Get whoever is close by to you to smack you upside the head.

Re:Good

[oreiasecaman]

"Ok. we grant you assylum

Sounds like an asylum with added benefits!! :)

Re:Good

[sycodon]

Frankly, I'd just as soon not have you here if
1) you don't like us
2) you don't intend to become one of us
3) You are just going to get on Federal aid.

Re:Good

[GameboyRMH]

Less than 1 for every 8 Mexicans and less than the number of Asians?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_impact_of_illegal_immigrants_in_the_United_States#Geographic_Origins_of_Undocumented_Immigrants

Something you would know if you checked your data instead of slinging childish ad-hominems.

Re:Good

[icebraining]

OK, care to show me the sources that estimate those millions of South Americans crossing the US border every year? Because I did look at the numbers from more than one source, and they were nowhere near those.

Re:Good

[RenderSeven]

Smartest thing Ecuador could do would be to kill Assange and blame it on the US. It's bloody brilliant!

Re:Good

[RenderSeven]

The only thing Assange is truly afraid of is not being the center of attention.

Re:Good

[icebraining]

So millions turn into less than 200k? I was wrong, your problems are in basic math, not geography.

Re:Good

[bobbutts]

We're America, to our north is North America and to our south is South America. I don't need some school to explain that to me!!

Re:Good

[CohibaVancouver]

Oh gee, he quoted from a British Government website. Isn't that special?

Sigh.

http://www.voyage.gc.ca/countries_pays/report_rapport-eng.asp?id=78000

Kidnapping for ransom and express kidnappings, often in connection with carjackings, are of particular concern in Guayaquil. Express kidnappings involve the brief detention of an individual, who is released only after being forced to withdraw funds from an ABM or after arranging for family to pay a ransom. Canadians should exercise caution when using taxis, as taxi drivers have been reportredly conducting express kidnappings. Travellers should always use reputable radio taxi companies.

Bottom line? It's well-known that there is a much-higher-than-average risk of kidnapping in Ecuador.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

According to their numbers, at 20%, only the 65+ age group showed less support for Wikileaks than the average (22%); the 45-64 age group was 25%, 30-44 was 37%, and 18-29 was 52%.

All that survey shows is that old people are scared, authoritarian, and respond to telephone polls a lot more frequently than younger people.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

The American public in general is also exceedingly stupid.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree. Because of this, that actually makes YOU a cruel and evil person. I can't explain why mind you. Congratulations.

Re:Good

[bhcompy]

No, that's not alright. That's partisan hackery and goes against what that douche says he stands for.

Re:Good

[makomk]

See, this is why Islam's apparently brutal punishments for theft aren't necessarily so bad. Without some kind of religious restrictions on the available punishments, people get it into their head that life sentences for stealing food to feed yourself are perfectly reasonable and proportionate (or even death sentences in some cases e.g. in the UK for a while).

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

except colombia...

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

No need to frame him.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Honduras & Paraguay certainly appear to be old school US backed coups.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

The Nazis felt the same way after World War Two.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is this "good"?

I see three likely outcomes:

1) Ecuador (not known for its sterling human rights record) suddenly starts receiving "glowing praise" for its devotion to human rights. I expect we'll see a "leak" of information to Wikileaks showing just how AMAZING the life of every person in Ecuador is, because it's a glowing land of milk, honey, where all your wildest dreams can come true! Why? Well, if Ecuador controls the destiny of Wikileaks' mouthpiece, they can easily dictate the coverage. (And spare us the "but America is just as bad" - if they're just as bad, they deserve every inch of criticism Assange has been leveling at America, too. But I forgot... Wikileaks is out to take down the AMERICAN government, not "corruption and collusion" wherever it exists, right?)

2) Assange cannot travel. Period. If he sets foot anywhere where Interpol has any jurisdictional influence, he will be arrested and extradited to Sweden to face the charges there. He will be at risk if he leaves Ecuador and goes ANY place where modern government & laws exist.

3) Assange accepting this further undermines any remaining bits of credibility he once had - he shows he's willing to get in bed with a corrupt & dictatorial regime to save himself, rather than answer questions relating to an alleged crime - this makes him look like he's got something to hide.

All in all, if Assange accepts asylum in Ecuador, he will have done more to destroy his own credibility and the credibility of Wikileaks than ANY nefarious CIA / NSA / FBI / Mossad / MI5 / Illuminati plot you can conceive of.

But yeah, "good" for Assange and Ecuador!

Re:Good

[triffid_98]

Don't worry. From there he can easily come to Brazil. We have never extradited anyone to US and won't start anytime soon.

Are you quite certain of that? On paper at least the US and Brazil have an extradition treaty in place. I believe that there is an exception for non-naturalized Brazilian citizens, but Assange wouldn't qualify for that.
Likewise the US government has such treaties with basically everyone in South America. (Argentina,Peru, Bolivia...even Venezuela believe it or not).

Re:Good

[cheesybagel]

Not really. Perhaps sometime in the future. Brazil certainly has the manpower and natural resources to do it but economically and militarily they are far from being able to compete with the US.

Re:Good

[Darinbob]

Just because they took in Assange the US will try to overthrow their government? And I thought Assange was nuts...

Re:Good

[Darinbob]

Pro or anti wikileaks has nothing to to with Assange. Many people liked wikileaks before Assange turned it into his personal ego building tool and managed to get the rest of the world to forget about the actual founders and original principals.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Your country is 4% of humanity.

Of the 56.8% of you that voted in 2008, Less than half of them voted for the more right-wing of your parties.
Of that group, what number actually voted on their convictions and not because they always voted Republican?
Of that group, what percentage are well informed about anything?
For example, there is a good chance that you think Global warming is a hoax and everyone in the world wants to be a US citizen

Do the world a favour and just consider that you are not part of the 99%, you are not even part of the 1% (unless we are talking about body surface area calculations). You are vociferous, opinionated and poorly informed about the world. Your country does not need you and the rest of the planet does not want you either. You may not be a country music loving redneck with a pickup, but I am afraid that that is your image.

Re:Good

[Gonoff]

Just frame him for rape like last time. Your masters are so stupid that they think we are that gullible - as you are.

Re:Good

[danhaas]

Quick googling: Peter F. Paul was extradited from Brazil to USA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_F._Paul#Securities_fraud_conviction_and_jail_terms

I'm a brazilian, and I can say that, though Brazil has matured politically in recent years, Assange is not entirely safe here either.
The current government is leftish, but if the political climate swings back right, the relationship between Brazil and USA will change and Assange would be a good bargaining chip.
Corruption in Brazil will still be a problem for the decades to come.

Re:Good

[mspohr]

The US keeps trying, though.
Attempted coup in Ecuador in 2010 and successful coup in Paraguay in June this year.
They usually do this by funding local right wing groups so it's difficult to trace the US origins but most people know how the system works.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

ANY place where modern government & laws exist.

That rules out the US for sure then - modern laws???

The UK too - monarchies don't really fit the word "modern", do they?

Re:Good

[Zibodiz]

Murderers get 3-12 years, unless they're serial killers or get a lot of media attention. Stealing anything under $1000 won't even get you prison time (maybe 6 months in jail if it's a repeat offense and you can't pay the fine). Drunk driving (in my state) is a $300 offense. A stolen loaf of bread would likely get you a night in jail and a $100 fine, at the most.
Now, if you commit a serious crime, like littering on a highway, fishing without a license, or using a cell phone in a car, you'll get 1000's in fines and prison time for repeat offenses. So just don't commit a serious crime.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

oh, but for some mod points.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

It beats GITMO or some secret CIA prison in the Middle East.

There are no CIA prisons in the Middle East

We have always been at war with EastAsia

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

The actual founders? What are you talking about? Name them. Assange is the founder and the driving force behind Wikileaks. The principles of Wikileaks are his principles.

The idea that it is his personal ego building tool is a spin applied to the story by a bunch of worthless hack reporters (mostly employees of The Guardian in the UK) whom Assange rubbed the wrong way while they were working together on releasing the US State Department cables.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

The American public is overwhelmingly retarded

There, fixed that for ya...

And by the way: I use "American public" as "limbs of a single body and a single mind". Because... yeah... they aren't really individuals with their own sense of reality, now are they?

Re:Good

[fredprado]

1) Honduras is not in South America,

2) Old School backed US coups usually involve military action. There was none in Paraguay. It was a dirty move by the congress, but it was done within their laws.

Re:Good

[fredprado]

We don't need to compete with US either military or economically and I don't see it ever happening to be honest. We just need to be what we already are. Nothing good to US would come from hostilizing us. US has far more to lose than to gain by playing tough with us. Even without significant military power we are in a very comfortable position regarding Sovereignty.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

> No need to frame him.

I think you miss the irony. Or, perhaps, you`re one of the victims of the so called "rape"?

Re:Good

[fredprado]

Don't worry, you won't ever have me there, rest assured. I am a highly qualified professional. If by any chance I decide to move out of Brazil I would probably go to a country that values that, like Canada or Australia, and never to US.

That said I don't dislike US. I dislike US politics of messing with which is not their business.

Re:Good

[fredprado]

This treaty was signed in the military regimen, it is limited to some very specific crimes (which are crimes in both countries) and conditions and it requires a judgement of the supreme tribunal of justice, which here will take at the very least a years. It does not apply even to money laundering, for example, and a lot of white collar crimes.

But I stand corrected. We have never extradited "political criminals" to US. We have sent drug lords and assassins back on occasion.

Re:Good

[Rei]

The most ridiculous aspect of it is the fact that Assange is not in, and will not be in, Ecuador. He's in the Ecuadorian embassy. And it's pretty inconceivable how he could possibly get from the embassy to Ecuador.

Honestly, unless the British want every two-bit criminal in London to try bribing some third-world embassador for assylum, I don't expect them to just sit there and take this. I expect them to use anything ranging from legal nuances (there is no international right to assylum in embassies and embassies are supposed to be obligated to do only work relative to their mission) to outright closing the Ecuadorian embassy for flouting their justice system.

Re:Good

[Rei]

Did you forget that the guy is not *in* Ecuador? He was granted a not-internationally-recognized status which he has no ability to make use of.

Re:Good

[kiwimate]

Nope...can't agree there. As I posted in a previous story, Assange is a creep and this does nothing to help his cause; running off to South America makes him look like he's got something to hide.

Many people here are railing against the U.S. and what they'd do, but I happen to think that even if you allow that conspiracy/paranoia/evil USA theory then he's still better off going to Sweden.

More to the point, that's what an adult should do. Show some guts, go back, fight the charges, and then disappear in a snit if you must.

From my original post:

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.

Re:Good

[Rei]

Right. Because it's so appropriate to call allegations of rape which haven't been tried "so-called rape".

Re:Good

[fredprado]

As I said above I stand corrected. Brazil has a few cases of extradition, which are restricted by the rules of our treaty which allows it only for some very specific crimes, none of which applies to Assange.

And even though I am not exactly a fan of PT and their policies I am quite sure they would never ever ever deliver an anti-US political activist to US. Never. For Gods sake they didn't even deliver a terrorist back to Italy. And for better or worse (most likely worse) PT is due to stay in power for a long time yet.

Corruption in Brazil is indeed a very grave problem (as it is in US too) but in this case it is irrelevant. There is no political sense in doing anything other than conceding asylum to Assage if asked.

Re:Good

[Rei]

Not only did he have only good things to say about Sweden right up until it became apparent that he was going to be charged with rape there, he was actually applying to *live* there. Which is why the Swedish prosecutors didn't see him as a flight risk. Suddenly Sweden is just a US lackey with a corrupt legal system. While freaking *Ecuador* is a beacon of freedom. Amazing how that happens.

Re:Good

[fredprado]

You can think whatever you want. If I was him I would not take the chance either, though. Nobody sane would.

Re:Good

[Jeremy Erwin]

as would kidnapping him, which again, while not that hard, is not legal

au contraire!

Re:Good

[JumperCable]

I would have rated you funny. Honestly, you don't have to reach out from some grand governmental conspiracy to explain what is going on.

Assange was staying at one woman's house, banged her, then while still using her place as home base, goes out and bangs some other fan-girl. Fan-girl unwittingly contacts the woman who Assange was staying with trying to get in touch with him. The feminist hostess puts two and two together, gets pissed and decides to extract her pound of flesh for revenge. Takes it to the police to see if they can force him to take an STD test. Then it hits the media and all hell breaks loose. Now everyone is scrambling to try to save face. It gets picked up by a prosecutor attempting to make a name for himself in feminist circles and to continues to snowball. Now the only way to save face is if someone at minimum gets legally slapped on the wrist for bad behavior. For Assange & his supporters it is far easier to blame some grand governmental conspiracy than to deal with the accusations being leveled at him.

You don't need some grand governmental conspiracy to explain what is going on. A better explanation is that everyone here is acting in their own self interest, except for the poor fan-girl who got unwittingly drug into this mess.

All of this and the US government didn't have to lift a finger. They have done the best thing possible, which is to sit back, do nothing, break out the popcorn, let people hang themselves and enjoy.

Re:Good

[pjabardo]

You are correct but since when has the US used intelligence in foreign policy? It a disaster following another. And we can see it in real time: arming Al Qaeda sympathizers in Lybia last year and now Syria (dejavu?)!

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

So is any of that supposed to be better or worse than the shit the US does to punish dissent and push its interests? I speak, of course, of widely planting moles and agent provocateurs into left wing associations, monitoring citizen communications without warrants, enacting "free speech zones" to prevent dissemination of politically unpopular speech, holding vast numbers of prisoners indefinitely and without charge, executing hundreds of people every year including teenagers and the mentally disabled, abducting and torturing people around the world, starting massive wars based on purposefully fake evidence, etc. Hell, human rights watch has an entire sub-site dedicated to the shit the US does, and here we are supposed to think that Equador is the worst country in the world?

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

America had nothing to do with this one.

The president really fucked up on several occasions and alienated his coalition partners
As leader of the smallest partner in the coalition he was in the end voted out of office with an overwhelming majority.

I do not say The US was not happy with this change, but definitely it was no coup

Re:Good

[grcumb]

The most ridiculous aspect of it is the fact that Assange is not in, and will not be in, Ecuador. He's in the Ecuadorian embassy. And it's pretty inconceivable how he could possibly get from the embassy to Ecuador.

Diplomatic passport. It would be an extraordinary circumstance, but perfectly workable. The Ecuadorean government would in effect inform the British that Assange was under their protection and therefore should be accorded the same transit and travel rights as other embassy staff.

I'm no expert on international law, but feel free to check whether's there's anything in the Vienna Conventions on Diplomatic Relations that would allow Great Britain to snatch up Assange once he'd been accorded diplomatic status. I suppose they could protest the Conventions' abuse in the International Criminal Court after the fact, but I really doubt they'd want to create the wrong kind of precedent, given that other countries have used diplomatic protection to spirit people out of unfriendly nations.

Re:Good

[Rei]

A diplomatic passport would not help.

There actually is very little law on asylum in embassies because most embassies and countries have worked very hard to discourage people from taking asylum there and trying to boot out people relatively quickly when they do. There have been a couple high profile cases where people have lived in embassies for years, but it's very rare. Getting someone who sought asylum in an embassy to its state without either the consent of the host state or an elaborate smuggling operation has never happened, as far as what I've read indicates.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

The American public is overwhelmingly ignorant.

Re:Good

[Rei]

A better link about the "diplomatic passport" option:

Were he to be given a diplomatic passport, that would not alter the situation: immunity from arrest is only conferred on diplomats accredited to the Court of St James's by the Foreign Office.

Any attempt by the Ecuadoreans to have him accredited would be rebuffed by UK authorities. Were Assange to accept an Ecuadorean diplomatic passport, some suggest, he would become an Ecuadorean national – and therefore be unable to seek asylum in what would now be his own country's embassy.

The basic summary of it is, there is no international right to asylum in embassies and no magic loophole that can move such a person out of country. Ultimately, the UK is i charge of the situation, with the only real limits being whatever degree of concern they have over upsetting Ecuador. Which I suspect is not that great, and certainly less than whatever level of concern they have over upsetting Sweden and over having every two-bit criminal try to pay off the ambassador of a third-world country to get asylum.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for electing to respond with effete sarcasm rather than, you know, an actual comment addressing the content of my points.

I see I've been "shouted down" by the mod brigade, too. Flamebait? I'd like somebody to actually provide a convincing argument that any of the 3 points I made are NOT inevitable results of Assange's decision to flee to Ecuador.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry he is used to that kind of crap, he is from Australia.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when is "Insightful" equivalent to the mod's political leaning?

This is not a black and white issue. Assange had the benefit of legal defense in -- ungrounded conspiracy assessments aside -- a well established judicial environment. And Sweden is not exactly a tin pot dictatorship. It too has a respectable legal infrastructure. And if I were the Swedish prosecutor, I wouldn't negotiate terms with Assange either. Would the crew cheering Assange's thumbing of the nose at the British Supreme Court have reacted similarly to Conrad Black (use that interweb thing) claiming asylum after not liking the judgements of the US courts?

The wikileaks issue isn't exactly black and white, either. It's one thing to be a whistleblower for specific illegal acts. It's another to just dump classified material on the internet. One can undoubtedly have long arguments about whether governments over-classify material. But it's less arguable -- unless you're taking an ideological stance -- to suggest that states should have no secrets, and that everything communicated between government officials should be immediately transparent. Transparency has its place. Secrecy has its place.

Me? I prefer an open judicial process to establish accountability and consequences to state sponsored assassination, even when I don't like the outcome.

Re:Good

[psiclops]

And it's pretty inconceivable how he could possibly get from the embassy to Ecuador.

generally nothing going into or out of an embassy get's searched.

there is no international right to assylum in embassies and embassies are supposed to be obligated to do only work relative to their mission

from the wiki entry on embassies
"As the host country may not enter the representing country's embassy without permission, embassies are sometimes used by refugees escaping from either the host country or a third country."

There's examples underneath. (the Extraterritoriality section of that page)

Re:Good

[psiclops]

Did you forget that the guy is not *in* Ecuador?

not at the moment. but now that he has been officially granted asylum there the plans will begin to get him there. (i'm assuming the began a while ago)

He was granted a not-internationally-recognized status

Equador is the only country that needs to recognise it. thats the thing about asylum, only the country granting it to you needs to recognise it, if everyone agreed on your status you could willingly travel between any countries you wished (and thus not need asyluym).

which he has no ability to make use of.

what are you on about?

Re:Good

[psiclops]

Your country is very windy.

of the 56.8% of you that actually notice the whooshing sound, Less than half of them attribute it to completely misunderstanding someone's point.
Of that group, what number actually realise that it is their own lack of understanding and not that of those around them?
Of that group, what percentage can realise their mistake?
For example, there is a good chance that you think that you are super intelligent and that the GP was being serious.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Aah, so it was a coup d'etas? That makes a world of difference.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry.. Given a few years he'll follow traffic and jump the US border looking for work.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep in mind the following facts:
1) Ignoring the current regimes that claim to be Islamic (adherent Islamic government died at the end of WWI and was replaced with UK/US backed tinpot puppet regimes like the Saudis), in the history of Islamic governments that actually adhered to the rules, there have been less than 10 recorded cases of authorities actually carrying out hand-chopping. That's less than 10 in 1,300 years of dilligently recorded history.
2) The requirements are that the crime be not one of necessity. I.e., stealing for food or to feed your family does not count toward your "tally".
3) Evidence requirements are pretty tough, and the Islamic judicial system was well known for its rigorous examination of hard data in evaluating legal outcomes.
4) What you hear in the media regarding summary punishment in villages around the world is a collation of isolated cases which are not conducted with anything resembling adherence to Islamic principles. Using them to draw conclusions regarding Islam is a logical fallacy, which can be used to come to all sorts of absurd conclusions, e.g., "Texas trailer park people inbreed. Texas trailer park people are Christian. Christians inbreed."

To be honest, guys who steal big, like the Enron mob or guys like Madoff and Chris Skase, hand-chopping would be totally deserved. Ruining hundreds or thousands of families by stealing when in a position of advantage over them is totally unforgivable, and I'd hazard a guess that if you spoke to any of the newly broke families brought about by the antics of people like those in Enron, they'd probably go a lot further than hand chopping.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Forget the middle East. The US had torture jails in parts of Europe. And in 2002 the US signed into law authorization to invade the Netherlands and extract and American that ended up in the court in Den Haag. That law still exists today. I wondering how many NATO members have explicitly laws threatening to invade their allies if any Amercian should be attempted to be held accountable for their war crimes?

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering the details surrounding the allegations, yes.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank God. Those regular kidnappings were becoming so drawn out and tedious. I'm glad they finally brought themselves into the 21st century with the express option. Now I can be kidnapped, have my account drained, AND still be home in time for supper.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Right. Like the outrage expressed at the wikileaks video of an American gunship shooting down a little boy and reports.

Re:Good

[fredprado]

It makes a lot of difference in number of dead bodies, rest assured.

Re:Good

[jkflying]

Pro or anti wikileaks has nothing to to with Assange. Many people liked wikileaks before the US Government told everyone it was his personal ego building tool and managed to get the rest of the world to forget about the actual founders and original principals.

FTFY.

Re:Good

[triffid_98]

But I stand corrected. We have never extradited "political criminals" to US. We have sent drug lords and assassins back on occasion.

Poliical criminals? Oh no, clearly Assange is a sexual predator and this has nothing to do with politics. It just happened to come out after the whole wiki-leaks scandal embarrassed US politicians. Pure coincidence I say!

Re:Good

[kamapuaa]

Ecuador should be perfect for him, as the Ecuadorean government refuses to stop camps that participate in rape, because converting homosexuals into good straight Christians is such a worthy cause and rape is a pittance. I mean you shouldn't do it, but what's really the bigger crime?

Re:Good

[omfgnosis]

I count myself among the people defending Assange from the political assault he's suffered due to his association with WikiLeaks, but I object to the level of dismissiveness this group attaches to the accusations of sexual assault. We don't know if Assange is guilty of sexual assault; a trial may reveal the truth, and he should stand trial, because there's an arrest warrant for that. This does not mean that he should be politically persecuted, and it does not mean that he shouldn't be granted political asylum.

It's entirely possible for a person to be a great journalist (or a great journalistic resource) and also a raping scumbag. Assange's defenders would do well to recognize that, and avoid casting themselves as rape deniers.

Re:Good

[omfgnosis]

If that's truly the case, it would be quite easy to take the spotlight off of him, by allowing him to stand trial for the actual crimes he may have committed (rape and sexual assault) and guarantee that he won't be extradited for non-crimes (journalism). There will certainly be coverage of the trial, but that would be the end of that. Instead, his opponents have made him into a martyr by taking advantage of an unrelated charge and trying overtly to destroy him and his activism with that charge. I personally think that Assange does good work, and I hope that he will continue to do so. I also hope that the allegations of rape are false, but we certainly can't know that if those allegations are being trampled to try to destroy his career. If you really want to have him treated like anybody else, you should favor granting political asylum so that he isn't a clear target of political repression.

Re:Good

[omfgnosis]

Please cite all of those claims.

Re:Good

[smolloy]

which he has no ability to make use of.

what are you on about?

I think he's commenting on the fact that the second he tries to make use of his asylum (i.e. by leaving the embassy to make his way to the airport) he will be arrested -- quite legally -- by British police.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

The US keeps trying, though.
Attempted coup in Ecuador in 2010 and successful coup in Paraguay in June this year.

``Coup'' is a strong word. The president was impeached by parliament after several protestors were killed when he ordered police in to break up the demonstration. He was then replaced by the vice-president. The former president admits that the impeachment was perfectly legal. I'm not sure that's what most people would describe as a coup; I'd describe it more as a healthy system of checks and balances.

Re:Good

[temcat]

1) Ignoring the current regimes that claim to be Islamic (adherent Islamic government died at the end of WWI and was replaced with UK/US backed tinpot puppet regimes like the Saudis), in the history of Islamic governments that actually adhered to the rules, there have been less than 10 recorded cases of authorities actually carrying out hand-chopping. That's less than 10 in 1,300 years of dilligently recorded history.

"No True Scotsman"

Re:Good

[pnot]

Indeed -- but it's very important for the Assange narrative to bury that unfortunate period when he actually wanted to live in Sweden, because it blows an embarrassing hole in the "rape case concocted by US agents" conspiracy theory. If the US really wanted Assange in Sweden so they could have him arrested and extradited at their convenience, they needed to do absolutely nothing -- that's where he intended to live anyway. Supposing for a moment that the rape allegations were made at the instigation of the US, they're 100% counterproductive: well done shadowy CIA conspiracy, you've expended enormous effort to scare him off, with zero benefit to yourselves.

Re:Good

[HertzaHaeon]

According to the police report, Assange had sex with one of the women while she slept. Sex without consent is rape.

Re:Good

[Rei]

Check the link above. "Generally" doesn't cut it. The British have made it clear that they will, in fact, stop any vehicle leaving the embassy to search for Assange, which is legally permissible (diplomatic plates do not protect you from being stopped).

Re:Good

[Rei]

Details which you got from Assange's fans, defense team, and the defendant himself. News Flash, defendent in rape case denies rape, details at 11.

Re:Good

[martin-boundary]

Then again, Assange also said that Sweden was a great place where he felt totally safe, right up until the whole rape thing happened, at which point Sweden was suddenly declared a notorious US lackey...

Is that a thinly veiled insinuation that he is mentally deficient? To quote Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Drones? More like hand over some unmarked Benjamins for a quick car accident and some planted cocaine.

That is not exemplary enough for the intended purpose. Covert operation plausibly deniable executions are fine for active threats, not for opponents who hit and got away. My bet is either on another smear campaign, next time better prepared and more sophisticated, or spectacular "don't mess with us(US)" show of muscle.

Re:Good

[cynop]

How do you figure? I personally think he was framed too.

Re:Good

[BlueStrat]

I think he's commenting on the fact that the second he tries to make use of his asylum (i.e. by leaving the embassy to make his way to the airport) he will be arrested -- quite legally -- by British police.

Then the Ecuadorians arrest British & American embassy officials in Ecuador...maybe even including the official ambassadors themselves. It's even possible other countries might join Ecuador is arresting British/US embassy officials to protest British/US violations of accepted international protocol regarding ambassadorial sovereignty.

I don't think either Britain or the US wants to go down that road. There's just too little gain for far too much risk and negative influence on general international relations for both countries.

Strat

Re:Good

[AmiMoJo]

Bottom line? It's well-known that there is a much-higher-than-average risk of kidnapping in Ecuador.

Higher than the risk of kidnapping for Julian Assange in Sweden? Presumably he doesn't think so.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

I happen to be a country music loving redneck with a pickup (that I only use when I actually need a truck--my focus does fine most days), work in research on energy efficiency at my day job, believe that we must take strong action now to come to grips with global warming, and know that sustainable systems must be developed for every enterprise and activity of life.
 
I don't claim to be smart, but I interact with pretty smart folks every single day, and although stupidity exists in its normal amount, I am constantly amazed by the ingenuity and intelligence you find when you look for it. Now one person's observations are by rule anecdotal, but I have not seen things any different in other parts of the world I have worked and traveled in.
 
The bottom line is that I really don't give a flying fuck what your image of me or my countrymen is. If you can't see the normal spectrum of humanity in my world, then I can't really help you with that.

Re:Good

[Targon]

They would need to have a reason to arrest those people. If there are people who are breaking the laws of Ecuador while in that country, then it makes sense that they be arrested. I doubt that Ecuador would want their embassy closed, and all things considered, there isn't a real advantage to giving THEM anything at this point, so they are risking a lot here.

Re:Good

[Rei]

You're grossly misunderstanding how these things work. Assange is not a diplomat. He has no immunity. He can't be given immunity because immunity must be conferred by a host country. There is no right preventing a diplomatic vehicle from being stopped. There is no magic get-out-of-jail card here, as much as you want there to be one. There's just a weird little loophole that as long as he's in an embassy building, he's safe. At least, temporarily. Because there's also no reason Britain can't decide to close the Ecuadorian embassy at will as punishment for violating their justice system. Whose opinion do you think the UK cares about more, the US's and Sweden's, or Ecuador's? Not to mention that there may be perfectly legal ways to force Ecuador to evict him, since embassies are required to only do business related to their charter and not interfere with the justice systems of their host countries. Really, the immunity of embassies is only as good as how afraid you are of annoying the sending state.

And, FYI, there is no international "right to asylum". Most South American states recognize one, but the rest of the world does not.

Re:Good

[pnot]

Then again, Assange also said that Sweden was a great place where he felt totally safe,
    right up until the whole rape thing happened, at which point Sweden was suddenly declared
    a notorious US lackey...

Is that a thinly veiled insinuation that he is mentally deficient? To quote Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

What facts have changed? If, as Assange claims, Sweden would delightedly offer him up to the US, then they would presumably also have done so before the rape case, when he was happily living there. Sweden's extradition policy didn't (AFAIK) change radically at exactly the time Assange was charged with rape.

So... mentally deficient? I don't know. I think that the most charitable interpretation would be that he simply didn't bother checking whether Sweden was "safe" (according to his judgement) before publicly declaring it safe and deciding to live there -- I wouldn't say that that's mentally deficient, but it's certainly astonishingly careless behaviour for such a paranoid man. The other interpretation is, of course, that he's using the "extradition" argument to avoid being tried for rape.

Re:Good

[swehack]

> I wonder how many governments in Central and South America alone have been targeted for "regime change" because the USA didn't like their behavior?
The Panama Canal wouldn't have been built without the classic "find rebel dissidents and fund them to overthrow the local government" scheme played by the US. That's just one example you can look up in history books. But nobody cares about these things, they care about their iPad, their car and their new apartment.

Re:Good

[pnot]

Then again, Assange also said that Sweden was a great place where he felt totally safe,
    right up until the whole rape thing happened, at which point Sweden was suddenly declared
    a notorious US lackey...

Is that a thinly veiled insinuation that he is mentally deficient? To quote Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

What facts have changed? If Sweden would (as alleged) be happy to hand him over to the USA now, they would presumably have been happy to do so before the rape case. Assange's penis doesn't really have much bearing on Sweden's extradition policy.

Re:Good

[JosKarith]

An embassy is supposed to be sovreign territory of the country whose embassy it is. Considering how important British embassies are around the world I very much doubt even our insane government will do anything to risk them.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm an American and I have to say, you are correct, but most of us are terrified of what you have just termed "exceedingly stupid" and are trying to make a difference.

Remember, a nation is only as stupid as it's supporters. One day these that are governing the US will no longer have a mass of idiots to deal with, and any lies will not "work" for them. If a government has no power in it's ability to lie, then it's stuck with the same reality as the rest of us. At that point, each side will have learned something abuot the other that it hadn't learned before.

Re:Good

[RenderSeven]

Maybe Im coming late to this party, but is there any real evidence that he is being politically repressed? Any evidence that the US has the intention of trying to extradite him? It makes a great conspiracy theory but I havent seen a shred of evidence that it is actually happening. A casual read of the facts of the case make a compelling story, that Assange took some sexual liberties in a country that takes that seriously, and they are trying to follow established procedure. Everything else is based on assumptions after granting Assange exceptional status and consideration as a folk hero. To me the claim that GB would stand up to a US extradition request and Sweden wouldnt, is just silly. Comes off a little Python-esque: " Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! HELP! HELP! I'm being repressed!"

Re:Good

[SandwhichMaster]

You confuse "the American public" with "a handful of people who took some poll".

You mean, a whopping 1,029 people might not be an accurate poll of a country with 314 million people?

Re:Good

[RivenAleem]

The American public think the TSA is doing a good job.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

...ships?

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

The American Public in general is what made America the greatest country in the world where even in the 21st century it is still the land of opportunity, while your country is in the rotten basket of self-pity, stagnation and mental retardation.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

The Jews control American public opinion.

Re:Good

[Max Threshold]

Allegations that weren't tried because the "victim" admitted she was lying!

Re:Good

[cheesybagel]

You also have the Muslim Brotherhood in control of Egypt. These Arab 'Green Revolutions' are utter crap.

Re:Good

[Joce640k]

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.

Riiiight. And the fact that the US Secretary of State visited Sweden (the first official in 34 years) a few days before he was due to be extradited from the UK was a total coincidence? I think you underestimate the number of votes 'bringing him to justice' in the USA would gain.

Re:Good

[kiwimate]

Well, yes, I think the obvious answer - that it was due to the launch of CCAC as well as a chance to discuss Syria - is rather more likely. If she hadn't visited Sweden, in fact, it would've been quite tactless as she was doing the rounds of Denmark, Norway, and Finland. Oh, and also Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia, and then Turkey.

Or do you think Laos is part of the conspiracy too? She made the first visit to Laos by a US Secretary of State in 57 years in July. And she went to Burma/Myanmar back in November - that was the first such visit in 49 years. Gee, she was the first US Secretary of State ever to visit Togo, don't forget. (I'm assuming she probably visited Benin as well, but that's a guess.) Yes, I'm being silly, but do you get my point?

Re:Good

[martin-boundary]

The facts that changed are that Sweden's prosecution began harrassing him on bogus sex charges. By that event, Sweden was outed as an American lapdog (or if you like, elements of Sweden's ruling elite were shown to be, obviously not everybody in Sweden is corrupt). So it makes perfect sense to reevaluate the previous rating as a safe place for him.

If Sweden would (as alleged) be happy to hand him over to the USA now, they would presumably have been happy to do so before the rape case.

That's putting the cart before the horse. They have in fact been happy to do so before the rape case, since the rape case was the excuse that was chosen to arrest him. But setting up the rape prosecution wasn't trivial, the women had to be convinced to play along, the paperwork had to be filed, money had to change hands, etc. The simplest explanation is that Assange was lucky to escape just in time, and the plot failed.

Of course it's interesting that just today the UK is behaving in a highly unusual way, threatening to undo centuries of diplomacy by invading a diplomatic compound.

Re:Good

[randyleepublic]

Yeah, but there are more, way more, of him than there are of us. Now who's depressed and useless?

Re:Good

[randyleepublic]

He is, by definition, on the good side!

Re:Good

[Entropius]

Polling 1000 people, if it's a representative sample, gives statistical errors of a few percent.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry. From there he can easily come to Brazil. We have never extradited anyone to US and won't start anytime soon. South America is probably the best place in the world for him to run. Nobody here likes US (and that includes most governments)

That's not true. If you study brazilian recent history and south american recent history, you'll see that in every country there is a right-wing elite that are very well aligned with the U.S. interests, the same elite that supported all the millitary coups. If he enter in a right-wing aligned country, for instance Chile, Paraguay or Colombia he would be sent to U.S.

Remember: the violence in Brazil is very great, to the point that the homicide rate in cities in Brazil usually equals the homicide rate of whole european countries.

Here come the drones!

[s.petry]

While I am glad they are trying to make a stand, I'm wondering if the punishment will make them cave in shortly. Funny how a plane crash can change their perspective.

For those ignorant to the reference, see Poland and their reluctance to join the EU and what happened to their president for starters.

Re:Here come the drones!

[Columcille]

Because every time there's a plane crash, a conspiracy is somewhere behind it.

Re:Here come the drones!

[Anonymous Coward]

While there are certainly many mysteries surrounding polish president's death, it was well after Poland joined EU in 2004.

Re:Here come the drones!

[shutdown -p now]

What's really so mysterious about controlled flight into terrain under bad weather/visibility conditions? It's not like it's the first time that sort of thing happens.

Re:Here come the drones!

[Intrepid imaginaut]

Poland has been one of the more enthusiastic new EU members.

Re:Here come the drones!

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a DUPE. The NSA killed the Pole, and EVERYONE knows it. You're a capatalist dupe.

Re:Here come the drones!

[Teun]

At least three things in that last sentence don't correlate, Poland was and is overwhelmingly for the EU, they were already a member by the time the plane crash happened and the crash was on Russian soil, a country that is not so happy with Poland getting cosier with the West.

Re:Here come the drones!

[srussia]

What's really so mysterious about controlled flight into terrain under bad weather/visibility conditions? It's not like it's the first time that sort of thing happens.

Funny how often CFIT happens when the US Govt. sees fit

Re:Here come the drones!

[shutdown -p now]

Why would the US govt see fit to assassinate the rabidly pro-US Polish leadership?

Re:Here come the drones!

[i_ate_god]

The number one cause of plane crashes are indeed conspiracies.

Re:Here come the drones!

[i_ate_god]

US telling Russia "I scratched your back, now you scratch mine"

THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE DUUUUUUDE

Re:Here come the drones!

[s.petry]

Where we differ I believe, is that you see Russia and the West as completely separate from a political perspective. Is it possible that they work for the same team, at least at certain times? Look at the facts surrounding the plane crash and wonder. Also investigate who funded the Communist party in Russia and for how long they have been funded by "the west".

Re:Here come the drones!

[Teun]

Wow!

The ultimate conspiracy :)

Re:Here come the drones!

[Joce640k]

Weren't they the ones who helped defeat the MAFIAA by wearing Guy Fawkes masks in parliament? We could do with a few more countries like that.

sure

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet they'd be just as welcoming if it was their own internal governmental communications that were leaked...

He's in big trouble

[Anonymous Coward]

First, he'll have to learn to drive on the other side of the road. Then a crash course in Spanish won't hurt.

Here's a starter:
Alto! = Stop!
Tus papeles por favor = Your papers please

Re:He's in big trouble

[MightyMartian]

In Assange's case, I'm thinking the most often used phrase will be "Dónde puedo encontrar las prostitutas pervertidos?" followed by "Puedes encontrar a mi abogado?"

Re:He's in big trouble

[CanHasDIY]

First, he'll have to learn to drive on the other side of the road. Then a crash course in Spanish won't hurt.

Here's a starter: Alto! = Stop! Tus papeles por favor = Your papers please

He's going to Ecuador, not Texas...

Re:He's in big trouble

[mirix]

Seeing as he lived in Sweden for some time, I'm sure he knows how to drive on the right... Unless there was some sort of time warp and he lived in Sweden in the 60's.

Re:He's in big trouble

[i_ate_god]

you mean Arizona

Re:He's in big trouble

[Anonymous Coward]

And as far as I know Alto means high or tall.
unless he was saying alto != stop, in which case he was right.

Re:He's in big trouble

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, Ecuador. Apparently you have never been a fair skinned gringo in a Latin American country.

Re:He's in big trouble

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, he can just say:
(if you can, read it Malcolm Tucker style.)

Who am I?
I'm Julian Assange.
Why don't you call the President, and ask him who Julian Assange is?
Go ahead...

Oh, mister important here won't even get through to him?
Well, then I will... *dials number*
So... do you want to apologize now, or after the President personally fired you?

That should get the hairs on his neck to raise. ;)
And I think it fits the Assange character very well. ^^

Re:He's in big trouble

[fredprado]

Alto means stop too, both in Spanish and Portuguese.

Re:He's in big trouble

[Joce640k]

Tus papeles por favor = Your papers please

Wouldn't they say "Sus papeles..." in Ecuador?

What a turning point in American History

[GodfatherofSoul]

A Latin American country is providing safe harbor for a journalist who dared to expose top-secret documents on the military. Someone needs to rework the "In Soviet Russia..." meme for juntas.

Re:What a turning point in American History

[gstoddart]

Someone needs to rework the "In Soviet Russia..." meme for juntas.

In Ecuador ... asylum seeks you, senor.

Re:What a turning point in American History

[gagol]

In Democratic Ecuador the government saves you???

Re:What a turning point in American History

[iplayfast]

Wish I had moderator points. THAT was insightful!

Re:What a turning point in American History

[Anonymous Coward]

A Latin American country is providing safe harbor for a journalist who dared to expose top-secret documents on the military. Someone needs to rework the "In Soviet Russia..." meme for juntas.

Well, it seems to me you suggest that US is led by a junta - except for not being an anglo-saxon term, I think you may be right.

Re:What a turning point in American History

[Anonymous Coward]

A Latin American country is providing safe harbor for a journalist who dared to expose top-secret documents on the military.

Who may have raped two women. Presumably that's a bad thing.

Re:What a turning point in American History

[vgerclover]

You dropped this -> ~

Re:What a turning point in American History

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the story is something like this:

He was dating ( politely put) two girls at the same time, both of them clearly starstruck.
When they found out, they were both pissed off and also a bit worried, essentially since they had had sex without a condom.

When they found out about each other, and parts of their stories matched, they got to the conclusion that Assange probably wasn't much for using a condom. There was also a bit of persuading or force involved, that initially wasn't enough to make them stop meeting him or having sex with him, but probably became more of a problem with their new knowledge.

When they requested that Assange tested himself for HIV, he refused.

One of the ladies informally asked a police ( i think it was an acquaintance ) and she persuaded them to charge him for rape, which I think they initially resisted.
I suspect that the allegation was made primarily to be able to have him forced to be tested for HIV.

The case was immediately dropped, but it was reopened by a senior states attorney, Marianne Ny, who also immediately sent press releases about the event.

I think it's safe to describe mrs Ny as a feminist, and not entirely afraid of publicity.

I also think it's more or less safe to rule out US involvement, given the background of all involved so far. One of the girls was clearly seducing him, and her background is not clear, but it would be very hard to instrument these events even if she was involved in the scheme.

However, Assange was never arrested or detained ( by a formal decision by a court ) but he is wanted for questioning. The whole process was handled suspiciously incompetently by the police and attorneys, and it is unclear if he was ever contacted, but Assange allegedly contacted the police and was allowed to leave. It is obvious that he was free to leave the country at the time he passed the passport check when travelling to UK, as he was then leaving the EU Schengen Area.

As Assange initially refused to return to Sweden for questioning ( at his own expense, ) and is now avoiding the EU arrest order, a court will most likely order his detention if he in fact is brought back to Sweden and rather harsh restrictions that nearly all pre-trial detainees are subjected to in Sweden.

(quoting from Wikipedia )
The Committee for the Prevention of Torture of the Council of Europe has repeatedly criticized pre-trial detention in Sweden for the high percentage of cases where restrictions on communication are applied.[11] Such communication restrictions means in Sweden no visits, no telephone calls, no newspapers and no TV.

I do not think that Assange would risk extradition to USA, but unfortunately the Swedish government have been giving a few suspects to CIA before...

Re:What a turning point in American History

[Anonymous Coward]

No, he meant a "in Totalitarian USA..." type of joke.

But I guess, those would be modded down to -1 in seconds...

(Even though we mean the government... and those who let it be... not everyone in the USA.)

Re:What a turning point in American History

[Rei]

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.

Re:What a turning point in American History

[gstoddart]

My moustache! That's where I left it.

Re:What a turning point in American History

[geoffaus]

Can I suggest you watch this: http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/07/19/3549280.htm

OK, this is senseless

[Anonymous Coward]

I can understand giving him asylum from political persecution. He may indeed be faced with that someday. But this case is an accusation of rape. How about granting him asylum after he is exonerated (or after he serves his time if he is found guilty)? I know it is popular to be all tin-foil hat and say that this is all some grand conspiracy by the USA - but damn, you'd have to be an idiot to believe that is really true. Let the man stand trial in Sweden and then - pending the outcome - offer him asylum.

Re:OK, this is senseless

[Dyinobal]

Ya because no covert intelligence agency anywhere has ever used a Honey trap.....

Re:OK, this is senseless

[Anonymous Coward]

so... you are saying to grant him asylum after he has turned himself over to the people he is afraid of being imprisoned by? that makes no sense

Re:OK, this is senseless

[mmell]

The overriding issue is that once incarcerated in Britain (or even Sweden), it would be a simple thing for the US to extradite him to face charges of espionage for leaking confidential US information via Wikileaks. And of course the government here would never bring the death penalty into such conversations (at least, not until we had him safely and cozily wrapped up in our own grubby meat-beaters), so those countries would blithely hand him over to our custody to suffer "death by bunda", despite the fact that both countries should refuse extradition on precisely those grounds.

Ecuador is taking a startlingly appropriate and laudable position here, IMHO.

Re:OK, this is senseless

[cynop]

If he has been exonerated (or has served his time), why would he need asylum?

Re:OK, this is senseless

[RajivSLK]

Offering someone asylum doesn't magically transport them out of jail and into Ecuador. Once the Swedish authorities have their hands on him I would imagine that it would be difficult to give him asylum. Even if he is found not guilty of the charges in Sweden they may very well hand him straight to the US without releasing him.

Re:OK, this is senseless

[Fned]

Let the man stand trial in Sweden and then - pending the outcome - offer him asylum.

Asylum from what, exactly?

Re:OK, this is senseless

[crazyjj]

Because anyone in their right mind recognized it was a bogus charge and an obvious setup from the get-go.

Re:OK, this is senseless

[pla]

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.

Re:OK, this is senseless

[Anonymous Coward]

logic fail. you converted "there exists a" to "for all".

Re:OK, this is senseless

[Znork]

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.

Re:OK, this is senseless

[Hatta]

This is a trumped up accusation of rape, disclaimed by the victims, dropped by the proscutor, and only reopened under political pressure from the US. He can't expect a fair trial any more than he could expect a fair indictment.

Re:OK, this is senseless

[Sprouticus]

I am not very tin foil hat-ish (Im abig believer is stupidity and selishness being the root of most issues), but even I think he is being setup. Maybe not setup in the traditional sense, but the US is pressuing Sweden to nial him to the cross if they can on any charge they can when the oppurtunity arose (thus the charge being reduced then reinstated).

I cannot speak to the veracity, but I found several sources on Google that indicated that the 'rape' was having sex without a condom. That the sex was completely consensual (if foolish). Again, I dont have stats, but how many men go to jail is sweeden every year for doing a woman (or in this case 2 women) bareback. With their concent.

It is possible I suppose that they withdrew consent as some sources claim, but that becomes a he-said she-said thing. Add to that the fact that neither woman seemed phased by the encounters until they talked to each other and it becomes even more fishy and sounds like sour grapes.

Add to THAT the pressure the US government is surely putting on the Swedes, and you have a nice little setup.

The entire thing has oddity written all over it, and frnakly as much as I think the guy is an arrogant douchebag, I would do the same thing in his situation.

Re:OK, this is senseless

[cdrudge]

If it was you or I, then generally I would agree with you. However when you're considered the enemy he is by the US, Sweden, et al, you need to not only think of your next step but your next several as well as your exits. Regardless of if he might be exonerated in Sweden, I don't think the likelihood of him continuing to live a life of freedom would exist as he'd promptly be handed over to US authorities.

It's also worth noting that he hasn't even been charged with a crime in Sweden. He's only wanted for questioning. If anyone else raped/molested/sexually assaulted multiple people, I'm sure the police would like to question the accuse but I don't think it's going to hold up their case if the accused doesn't say anything or refuses to come in. They are either going to charge em, or not.

Re:OK, this is senseless

[sjames]

If it was what the rest of the world considers rape and there weren't so many questions surrounding the 'victim''s apparent reluctance to cooperate with the prosecution, I might agree.

What he is charged with is what most of the world would call 'turning out to be a douche the morning after'.

Re:OK, this is senseless

[wisnoskij]

He can only be granted asylum if he can get to or is on Ecaudor and likely the last chance he had to do so was before he was taken into custody.

Re:OK, this is senseless

[kaatochacha]

wow, Google. Bravo!
I also found some sources on Google. They indicated I could increase my penis size by five inches! Tripling it!

Re:OK, this is senseless

[Anonymous Coward]

So, how to uncover the corrupt?

Re:OK, this is senseless

[moeinvt]

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.

Re:OK, this is senseless

[damienl451]

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

Re:OK, this is senseless

[Anonymous Coward]

Ya because no moderately (in)famous man has ever raped or sexually assaulted a woman.

Re:OK, this is senseless

[i_ate_god]

he was placed under house arrest. Why didn't the US extradite him then? Why would Sweden extradite him before he can stand trial for crimes allegedly committed in Sweden?

Re:OK, this is senseless

[Anonymous Coward]

When he's on the Embassy grounds he's on Ecuadorian soil, when he's in the Ambassador's limo on the way to the airport he's on Ecuadorian soil (Diplomatic plates, cops can't stop it), When he steps from the limo directly on the steps of a Ecuadorian State aircraft he's on Ecuadorian soil.

So what's the problem with leaving the UK?

Re:OK, this is senseless

[Anonymous Coward]

What he is charged with is what most of the world would call 'turning out to be a douche the morning after'.

Oh look, somebody else who's sure it's a conspiracy, who hasn't bothered to actually fucking read the actual fucking European Arrest Warrant, or educate himself about how the process works.

The 4 charges he is wanted for questioning in relation to include at least 2 incidents that would *absolutely* be considered rape and sexual assault in most of the rest of the world.

Wait, let me guess your response: "hurr durr sexy by surprise lol justice4assange"?

Re:OK, this is senseless

[Anonymous Coward]

My understanding is he is in the Ecuadorean Embassy. International law/convention grants Ecuador soverign control over this property, as well as any diplomatic envoy transitting between same and an international passageway (such as an airport, sea-port or border-crossing).

If the Ecuadorian government puts him in a limo of theirs and drives him to an international airport. As far as diplomatic/international relations are concerned, there's not much authorities can do about it (legally).

From there he's free to board an Ecuadorian diplomatic transport and return there to live out however many days he has left there...

-AC

Re:OK, this is senseless

[Anonymous Coward]

Only on Slashdot, will Hatta's unsupported conspiracy ravings get modded "+5, Informative."

Thanks for demanding a high standard of proof in your "facts," Slashdot! It's why I keep on reading!

Re:OK, this is senseless

[Darinbob]

The whole thing would have been over ages ago if he'd just gone to Sweden to answer the questions. Only the conspiracy nutjobs thinks it was a US plot to execute him. When Ecuador looks like a better democractic country than Sweden then you know someone's been drinking too much of the koolaid.

Re:OK, this is senseless

[cheesybagel]

He is in the Ecuadorian embassy in the UK and Ecuador just granted him asylum.

Re:OK, this is senseless

[cheesybagel]

Political persecution which is actually what asylum is supposed to be available for.

Re:OK, this is senseless

[RajivSLK]

Yes, the GP was saying let him go to Sweden first then give him asylum. I am saying that won't really work.

Re:OK, this is senseless

[sjames]

Care to point out which one?

Re:OK, this is senseless

[Anonymous Coward]

Because UK cannot extradite him except to Sweden as they were first and some other rules on extradition. In the EU people still follow the laws somewhat even though they let CIA and others operate beyond the law from time to time.

Re:OK, this is senseless

[misexistentialist]

Yeah, the millions of men who didn't agree to sex without hormonal birth control could use some help to realize what happened to them too. Lots of rapists at large... Oh, that's right, your definition of rape is utter bullshit.

Re:OK, this is senseless

[Anonymous Coward]

He isn't wanted for a crime in Sweden, only for "questioning" by a prosecutor.

Swedish prosecutors (apparently) can't charge someone 'in absentia', according to other stories on the subject.

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.

Of course, a Swedish prosecutor travelling to London would not be enough to allow Swedish charges to be levied against him.

I think this reeks of conspiracy.

Not all conspiracies are carried out by governments.

Re:OK, this is senseless

[Sycraft-fu]

Ya I think the geeks need to do a bit more research on rape victims and what goes on. The near universal geek reaction seems to be "This is such bullshit, he didn't rape her, she's a liar clearly!" Well my sister, who is getting a PhD in sociology relating to women's issues has a rather different view: She says ya, she could see this being true. Assange is clearly a person with boundary issues, and the way the victims have acted is quite consistent with how many women act, including ones she's interviewed.

None of that means it is true, of course, just that it passes her "smell test" for something that could be true. She also does have a bit of experience with such a thing given that she actively does research in it.

I think there needs to be a bit of mind-opening for geeks with regards to this. Certainly don't pre-suppose guilt but consider that it is possible. If you don't think the women acted "like they should" then it means you need to do more research as to how women ACTUALLY act in such cases. No surprise, it is quite varied.

Re:OK, this is senseless

[Anonymous Coward]

He's *in* Ecuador. Embassies are considered as part of the country they represent, I believe.

All we need wait for now is his fast-tracking to Ecuadorian citizenship, Ecuador hiring him as a cultural attaché, and then he can come and go as he pleases. All the UK can then do is eject him back to his country.

At least that's how it would play out in a Ludlum novel. I have no idea what the realities are under international "law" :-)

Re:OK, this is senseless

[sapphire wyvern]

Hmm. This is the first time I've heard that the women are known to have ties to the CIA.

Got a citation for that?

Re:OK, this is senseless

[fredprado]

Indeed. Why not give the +5 to a half-assed comment from an AC? Right?

Re:OK, this is senseless

[fredprado]

It astonishes me how naive people can be. After what happened in the Piratebay trial it should be obvious that the Swedish government bows to US interests whenever it is convenient to them.

Re:OK, this is senseless

[fredprado]

No there isn't that "need". It is no coincidences the accusations appeared when he became an inconvenient to US. It is beyond obvious that there is a political agenda here.

Re:OK, this is senseless

[Rei]

The "covert CIA operative" line is the most "jumped the shark" accusation in this whole fiasco. Do you actually know where that comes from? It's because Ardin once wrote two anti-Castro articles for a magazine Revista de Asignaturas Cubanas, which is put out by a group, Misceláneas de Cuba, which according to some professor, is itself funded by a Swedish organization (unnamed), which is connected with Union Liberal Cubana, which is led by led by Carlos Alberto Montaner, which a Wordpress article says is connected with the CIA. Oh, and she met with a women's right group in Cuba who once had a parade in Florida wherein an accused plane bomber marched next to Maria Carey. Therefore, she's a CIA operative! I kid you not.

Can you Assange fans please get back in touch with reality here and step out of the echo chamber for once? Start with the judgement.

Re:OK, this is senseless

[Rei]

You're mixing things up. The regulation is that to extradite him *from* Sweden, the UK would also have to sign off on it (that would be, two countries would need to approve). It's a quirk of European Arrest Warrants. From the UK, only the UK has to approve extradition to the US. There is no priority, since the US would not be applying under the European Arrest Warrant system.

Re:OK, this is senseless

[Rei]

And amazingly, did that only based on the statements of Assange, his defense teams, and his legion of millions of fans! Clearly the fact that two separate courts in the UK, including the UK high court, means that the UK court system is in on a giant American conspiracy because, hey, Assange, his defense team, and his fans say the charges are ridiculous, and if they're ridiculous, then the only way the charges could be confirmed would be a conspiracy. See how the logic works?

The concept that, hey, defense teams and defendents spin cases toward their perspective (in this case, playing so hard and loose with the facts that one of Assange's attorneys is lucky he didn't get charged with perjury), doesn't seem to have occurred to any of you.

Re:OK, this is senseless

[Rei]

I know... it's one of those "why even bother" things. You know they'll never read the actual charges, you know they'll never read the court ruling against him.... they'll just keep saying "It's sex without a condom and they didn't decide it was rape until they got jealous and the prosector is a feminist with an agenda and the girls are CIA plants!" and on and on.

Re:OK, this is senseless

[Rei]

How about you read the actual charges and the lower court ruling, which was upheld by the UK high court, mmmkay?

Or are conspiracies just too much fun?

Re:OK, this is senseless

[Rei]

when he's in the Ambassador's limo on the way to the airport he's on Ecuadorian soil (Diplomatic plates, cops can't stop it)

Wrong. Diplomatic immunity protects people, not vehicles. Police can still stop a vehicle with diplomatic plates. And the UK most definitely will. Now, the police aren't allowed to search a "diplomatic pouch", but people have tried to smuggle other people in diplomatic pouches before, and it's never worked.

This whole thing is sheer fantasy. All the experts in the field are pretty much unanimous on this one. There've been some wild proposals for how to move him which might pass legal muster, such as declaring him to be Ecuador's UN ambassador, but he'd haveu to fly first to New York City before he could fly home to Ecuador - and you really think that if he believes all the stuff he's been saying about the lengths the US wants to go to get him, that he'd fly straight into New York City, even if he ostensibly had immunity?

It's not going to happen.

On the other hand, the UK has a number of way to force him out of the embassy - everything from legal maneuvers (embassies are not allowed to take part in operations unrelated to their charter) to outright closing the embassy. Or they could just let him rot inside a little embassy building for the rest of his life, or until he gets sick enough that he has to go to the hospital.

Re:OK, this is senseless

[Rei]

You know, you could read the actual ruling on the facts of the case, but you know, what fun would that be? Conspiracy theories are so much more fun!

As for what you wrote: The Swedish judicial system has a series of stages which things must go through, and being formally charged is one of the later stages. He can't be formally charged until he's back in Swedish custody. He left when there was a warrant being readied for his arrest during those "five weeks", and he knew about this from his lawyer, as emerged during the trial (with the lawyer being lucky he didn't get hit with a perjury charge over that). He most definitely knew he was running from the law.

Re:OK, this is senseless

[poity]

Where's the "No Sources Except Tin Foil Hat Blogs" moderation? Are we so happy to accept this unsubstantiated claim just because it meshes with our prejudices?

Re:OK, this is senseless

[Darinbob]

And yet Sweden does not always bow to the US. They would not so readily abandon rule of law over someone like that. The UK would have been far more likely to turn him over if the US had asked even with the realization of the nasty international incident it would have caused, and yet they did not do that and instead held a perfectly legitimate extradition hearing. Maybe some people don't agree with the Swedish law here or think that it's silly that they don't do things like other countries.

And the US clearly will not haul him off to a hidden location forever without a trial, that's just silly, they know they'd be in big trouble internationally and domestically if they tried this. It's only done for terrorists captured on field of battle or while plotting to commit acts of terrorism. Assange is not important or dangerous enough to step into that mess, he's an embarrassment is all.

What should have happened, in the interests of just getting this nasty business cleared up so that Assange can go back to being a forgotten nobody, is that Swedish prosecutors go to UK and question him there, resolve the issues, then let the matter go. It's a loss of face for Sweden though as legally they don't need to do that, no other country has to resort to such a thing. But as is Assange gets his positive PR spin on everything.

Wikileaks started as a secure way to allow whistleblowers to get information out. Along the way Assange turned it into an anti-US and anti-war vehicle. However by posting so many diplomatic cables he has damaged his anti-war stance. Diplomacy is what you do to avoid war, but embarassing so many countries by airing secrets and making all countries distrust any further secret discussions means that war could become more likely. Secrets are necessary even if Assange can't see that. And he said he did not care of Afghan informers were killed in retaliation because he did not want to redact the names like legitimate news organizations did.

But just keep repeating your mantra that Sweden is a puppet regime, that US is the most evil country on the planet with fewer human rights than Ecuador, and that Assange is a hero to children everywhere.

Re:OK, this is senseless

[Darinbob]

The lawyer for the women involved objected to the UK extradition hearings dropping some part of the case. Is this lawyer just a puppet also, or maybe these women have not dropped the case and still have an interest in it?

Re:OK, this is senseless

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed, why not save the fucking mod points to mod up the informed, well-reasoned arguments, instead of "the arguments that make me giggle like a 12 year old watching his first scrambled porno," or "the arguments that confirm my own biases"?

While we're on the subject, though, I'd like my comment above to be modded to "+5, Insightful" - because it's a hell of a lot more Insightful than Hatta's pandering was "Informative."

For a bunch of people who pride themselves on their rational, logical nature, you geeks sure do lose any capacity to be objective or exacting in your standards of evidence when one of your heroes misbehaves. But then, this is the board where a significant portion of the membership was applauding Hans Reiser as a hero and a martyr right up until he actually admitted to murdering his wife. I don't know why Slashdot continues to be able to surprise me.

Re:OK, this is senseless

[Anonymous Coward]

NEVER talk to the cops. Don't answer their questions. Don't listen to them ask.

Re:OK, this is senseless

[Anonymous Coward]

Not entirely relevant, but: I just want to say that having seen your name attached to a substantial part of the reasoned, articulate commentary I've read here over the past few days, I wanted to tell you I appreciate the efforts you've made to construct coherent arguments.

Given some of the things you said, I suspect our outlooks and beliefs might diverge wildly, but your voice has been one of the few thoughtful & interesting ones in several of the discussions I've seen you participating in lately - so, thanks for taking the time to make actual arguments based on actual facts, rather than transparent attempts at pandering to the masses for a +5.

Re:OK, this is senseless

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure. I'm sure, you being such a well-informed dude, you're already aware that there are FOUR allegations he's wanted for questioning about, but I'll reprint them here from this judgement, in case you've forgotten the details in your rush to exonerate Mr. Assange.

1. On 13th – 14th August 2010, in the home of the injured party [name given] in Stockholm, Assange, by using violence, forced the injured party to endure his restricting her freedom of movement. The violence consisted in a firm hold of the injured party’s arms and a forceful spreading of her legs whilst lying on top of her and with his body weight preventing her from moving or shifting.

Now, this is - at a minimum - assault, if she didn't wish to be restrained the way he did. If he was penetrating her while restraining her against her wishes, this would be rape.

2. On 13th – 14th August 2010, in the home of the injured party [name given] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity. Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her without her knowledge.

He violated the condition of her consent - that a condom be used. Therefore, he did not have her consent. Having sex with someone, when you knowingly violate the conditions that they place on their consent, is rape. In any civilized country in the world, it's rape.

3. On 18th August 2010 or on any of the days before or after that date, in the home of the injured party [name given] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity i.e. lying next to her and pressing his naked, erect penis to her body.

Again, if she was unwilling to be touched this way... and she expressed that wish to him... this is, at a minimum, assault.

4. On 17th August 2010, in the home of the injured party [name given] in Enkoping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state. It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party’s sexual integrity.

Having unprotected sex with an unconscious woman who has specifically expressed a wish that a condom be used in any sexual act most definitely qualifies as rape in pretty much any civilized society, as well.

So now why don't you tell us how and why these allegations, if true, would not constitute rape and/or sexual assault. Also, bear in mind that consent for sex in one circumstance does not give you unlimited license to do anything you want, at any time you want, as many times as you want, with the other person's body. If she withdraws her consent, or has stated clear conditions for her consent, and you willingly and knowingly disregard them and force her to continue, you have, at a minimum, assaulted her; if you actually succeed in achieving intercourse, then you are raping her.

Re:OK, this is senseless

[sjames]

Now, this is - at a minimum - assault, if she didn't wish to be restrained the way he did. If he was penetrating her while restraining her against her wishes, this would be rape.

Taken out of context. She seemed to be consenting, then when he went to consummate the act, she stopped him and said she wanted him to use a condom. So he put a condom on. At least that's what SHE says happened. That isn't considered rape anywhere else.

He violated the condition of her consent - that a condom be used. Therefore, he did not have her consent. Having sex with someone, when you knowingly violate the conditions that they place on their consent, is rape. In any civilized country in the world, it's rape.

Translation, he did use a condom as she asked, but it broke. Not considered rape anywhere else.

Again, if she was unwilling to be touched this way... and she expressed that wish to him... this is, at a minimum, assault.

They had been in a sexual relationship for a week by then (including after counts one and two, so she apparently wasn't thinking of those as rape at the time). So he came on to her and she wasn't in the mood. Not considered rape anywhere else.

Having unprotected sex with an unconscious woman who has specifically expressed a wish that a condom be used in any sexual act most definitely qualifies as rape in pretty much any civilized society, as well.

Translation, he came on to her in the middle of the night when she had been asleep. Not considered rape anywhere else.

It is noteworthy that the 'victim' seems not to be all that happy to see charges filed even though she obviously has the full backing of the state behind her. She acts as if she doesn't feel raped. It seems that she is now being compelled to cooperate in the proceedings.

It also seems that the authorities in Sweden didn't consider any of that rape until he had already left the country with their blessings.

Call it rape if you want, but in doing so you risk belittling the victimization of women who truly were raped in the sense of having sexual contact forced upon them against their will.

Re:OK, this is senseless

[fredprado]

Sweden may not extradite him to US, but then again it may, and you can't guarantee it won't anymore than I can guarantee it will.

And US doesn't need to make him disappear or bring him to an unknown location. They will just judge him by their draconian espionage laws and "legally" condemn him there, and in the meanwhile they will make anything they can stick to him.

Wikileaks is what wikileaks members want it to be. You may not like it. It is your prerrogative, but there are those who support it and it is there to stay. Contrary to your belief it is not Wikileaks that "embarrasses so many countries" it is those countries diplomatic ineptitudes and their dirty games. It is past time for the world to know US for what it is a dirty and manipulative government, and if they are so offended by this image it is a great opportunity to change their attitude.

Re:OK, this is senseless

[fredprado]

People don't agree with you. Get over it.

Re:OK, this is senseless

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, the US. A country that refuses to allow any of it's citizens to face war crimes. Very sweet.

http://www.iccnow.org/documents/8-3-02HRWBushSignsASPA.pdf

Re:OK, this is senseless

[Darinbob]

Wikileaks has had members pushed out too.

The US could extradite if it wanted too. There's no logical reason to go through this circuitous route to extradite him via Sweden.

If the US did make him "disappear" it would be widely known, they could not hold him without trial without it being known. They could not do this quietly, the US citizens would be angry and the rest of the world would be angry. So they won't do it. Contrary to opinions of some the US government is not a police state or dictatorship and has to worry about its image to the voting public and its trading partners.

The embarrassments did not just come from dirty games, it came from memos where a diplomatic confidentially revealed what was thought about a third party. Diplomacy must happen in secret. This was not just about US as you seem to hate and despise, but all countries who had diplomatic relations, all of it was released. Wikileaks made no attempt to read through the data and release the important stuff and keep back others, they released it all without knowing what was there.

If you are a US citizen then contact your representative to try to improve things; it's a democracy still unless you're too blinded by hate to think otherwise. If you're not a US citizen then contact politicians in your own country to put diplomatic pressure on the US. This will do far more good than promoting a silly conspiracy theory.

Re:OK, this is senseless

[Anonymous Coward]

I see. So you were in the room, and know that a completely reasonable explanation exists that exonerates Mr. Assange on all 4 charges?

When the girl you're with says "use a condom," and you pin her down and try to force yourself on her without one, that is an attempted rape. And that is *exactly* what the allegation is. (That he prevented her from reaching for a condom and only reluctantly agreed to put one on after she struggled against him.) Certainly, "the condom broke, it was a total accident," may be a *defense* against that allegation - but it does not excuse his attempt to have sex with her without the condom. She said "no," he continued trying to have sex with her by pinning her and trying to force himself on her.

The middle of the night scenario, again, was that she woke up to him having sex with her, and that she asked him if he was wearing a condom, and he said "No." This, despite her earlier and repeated insistence that he wear a condom. He initiated sex in a way that he *knew* she wouldn't have consented to while she was in a state where she couldn't give consent. This viewpoint you're espousing suggests that you'd consider roofies a valid solution for getting sex from your girlfriend after you've had a fight, too.

These allegations indicate that he *forced* himself on these women. The only way the TRUTH of the allegations can be determined is if he goes to Sweden, has his interview with the police, and charges are filed (or investigation closed) as a result. But since he is resisting doing that with every scrap of energy he has, it's possible that will never happen, and that the spectre of these charges will follow him around for the rest of his life.

Now, since I provided you with actual information on the actual charges, to enlighten and edify you, maybe you can substantiate your claim that "It is noteworthy that the 'victim' seems not to be all that happy to see charges filed, even though she obviously has the full backing of the state behind her. She acts as if she doesn't feel raped. It seems that she is now being compelled to cooperate in the proceedings."

Can you offer any reports that support that interpretation of events that are NOT wild-ass speculation based on anonymous sources cited in the 2010 story originally posted on Crikey.com? The same story that had zero follow-up, zero factual reporting to support it, and was simply a pile of speculative bullshit based on the fact that one of the women appears to have joined up with a christian missionary group to do work in the Palestinian territories, but has issued no official statement herself (or through police) that she is refusing to cooperate and wants to forget the allegations?

In your mockery of concern for "belittling victimization of women who were truly raped," it's odd that you don't notice how condescending your entire viewpoint is: in seeking to trivialize allegations of rape to protect your fanciful image of your hero, you ARE belittling the victimization of women who truly were raped - because if the charges are true, these women *were* raped.

Re:OK, this is senseless

[sjames]

And, in turn, I presume *you* were in the room. I at least bothered to read the news reports including what the women had to say and noting that initially Swedish authorities were so convinced there was nothing to prosecute that they told him he was free to leave the country. I am aware that re-opening the matter was considered unusual at the time. It's also a bit strange that the authorities were unwilling to accept his statements at the embassy considering that charges are not yet filed.

It's funny the way you reverse cause and effect repeatedly in an effort to see the worst but fail totally to explain why the women returned to him night after night for more of the same. That seems a bit unusual to say the least.

But as I said, feel free to believe whatever you care to.

But first, read this.

Re:OK, this is senseless

[Xest]

You seem very focussed on the judgement, and have claimed once already that because two courts were involved in the decision it's somehow less likely that the decision is biased.

Might I remind you how, on many, many occasions cases that have been escalated through a number of levels of court in the UK resulting in the same decision at each level have then been overturned when challenged in the inherently much more objective court - the European Court of Human Rights? The ECHR was created precisely because after the war, and as a result of what happened to German jews etc., there needed to be a place where people could hold their own government and judiciary to account if they believed they were a victim of injustice in their own country. The fact that the ECHR has overturned a number of UK court decisions, and tend to do so a few times a year, suggests that injustice via UK courts is not a particularly rare occurance.

Of course, if you're from the UK you may have also noticed a number of MPs complaining about the ECHR. It's not suprising that these are the same MPs who have little care for true justice, and are often the first to throw it out the window in favour of populist ideologies. The same ones who often have a rather authoritarian and sometimes even fascist ideology on many issues. In other words, the MPs who complain about the ECHR are the same MPs who see little problem with a bent court system. The same MPs who would gladly be happy with a justice system that they can control to give them favourable outcomes when it suits them, even if against the letter of the law.

What makes you so absolutely certain that Assange's case isn't one of these many cases? Your argument that things are being done properly in the UK justice system is based on the demonstrably false premise that the UK justice system is infallible. Many cases each year prove that this is absolutely not the case.

It's pretty clear the British courts do get things wrong, even when pursued through multiple levels of the court system, it's pretty clear there are a number of MPs happy with the idea of political interference in the courts being an acceptable thing. So again, why are you so certain this doesn't happen? why are you so sure the courts have got it right? I see nothing particularly damning in the judgement and if anything, note a number of places where the judge recognises points at which the Swedish authorities have failed to do things correctly, and yet, the judge still ultimately gives them what they want. Perhaps you're right, perhaps the judgement is valid - but that's certainly not the foregone conclusion you're making it out to be, and the link you keep posting absolutely does not make it so.

Re:OK, this is senseless

[Xest]

Because it would be politically untenable and it would be the death knell for the UK's extradition treaty with the US.

It's already undergone years and years of flak because of cases like McKinnon's, and O'Dwyer's. Adding Assange into the mix would force the British government's had to cancel the treaty and let Assange go free. The British people simply would not tolerate another high profile unfair extradition like this, the treaty is already at breaking point in the public's eyes, and it's only a matter of time until parliament has to do something about it anyway, Assange's case would just force them to do something about it immediately and stop delaying.

Re:OK, this is senseless

[Xest]

That and The Pirate Bay raid was carried out at the request of US authorities, and The Pirate Bay trial was presided over by a judge who is a member of a music lobbying organisation and personal friend of the prosecutor in that case.

There's an awful lot of evidence that shows Sweden as being far from the bastion of justice and freedom that it used to be famous as.

Re:OK, this is senseless

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong use of phrase "jumped the shark". I kid you not.

Re:OK, this is senseless

[Rei]

The fact that the ECHR has overturned a number of UK court decisions, and tend to do so a few times a year, suggests that injustice via UK courts is not a particularly rare occurance.

Um, yes it is.

The UK has a very low 'rate of defeat' at Strasbourg. Of the nearly 12,000 applications brought against the UK between 1999 and 2010, the vast majority fell at the first hurdle. Only three percent (390 applications) were declared admissible. An even smaller proportion of applicants - 1.8 per cent (215) - eventually resulted in a judgment finding a violation. In other words, the UK 'lost' only one in fifty cases brought against it in Strasbourg. If adjustment is made for repetitive cases (i.e. cases where the violation has the same root cause and therefore multiple judgments are counted as a single judgment), the rate of defeat falls to 1.4 per cent (161). The latest figures for 2011 show a rate of defeat of just 0.5 per cent, or one in 200.

You were saying?

Re:OK, this is senseless

[Anonymous Coward]

Good for your sister. As a counter anecdote I have a friend who is a journalist for a woman's rights publication, and is hence extremely feminist. She helps organise, publicise, and attends women's rights marches, and is a vocal activist for minority groups in North America where there is a lack of awareness about rape being a common problem. She has done a lot of voluntary work at rape crisis centres, because she herself was raped when at university, and in a rather shocking ordeal - she was drugged and held and repeatedly raped for a 3 day period. I'd say therefore with her own experience, and the experience of those she's worked with, interviewed, and written about, she knows just something about rape, and how women react to it.

She didn't even believe Dominic Strauss Kahn and he ultimately had the charges dropped against him, she was vocal in suggesting it was disgusting that he had been able to use his fortunes to sway public opinion against his accuser. Rightly or wrongly, she believes that someone accused of rape, probably is guilty.

Yet despite all this, even she supports Assange, because she recognises that the claims and actions of the two girls in the Assange case are so petty that it makes a mockery of those who really have been genuinely raped. Similarly, she says her colleagues feel the same.

Your sister may well be studying for a PhD in sociology, she may well have interviewed some victims. But really, it's small fry compared to someone who, as a victim themselves, has been able to help many hundreds of other victims by being able to relate to them, and speak to them in confidence to gain a far better understanding of the events and effects than a sociology student is going to be able to get out of a victim.

Don't assume that you have some high and mighty position that allows you to speak down on the many people who you are disagreeing with. You really don't.

Re:OK, this is senseless

[Xest]

I guess there's not really much point arguing you as the data you've provided perfectly proves my point and yet you seem to have completely missed that, but here goes.

As I stated, it occurs a few times a year, your numbers show that it occurs actually more frequently than once a month which tallies well with what I said (in fact, I thought it was less frequent than that, so if anything it strengthens my point from a few times a year, to more than once a month on average). Quite how you can suggest that once a month isn't a rare occurance I really don't know. Perhaps we have different standards on that, rare, for me, would be maybe once every few years, not more than once a month.

I suppose you could be trying to argue that the ratio of defeats is quite low, and hence imply that the odds are that the ruling in Assange's case is valid, but that's not a strong argument, as it ignores so many factors, the obvious one being that the number of applications is bound to be high, anyone wanting a reduced sentence even when genuinely guilty is bound to give it a go as they have really nothing to lose. In this case though there is a more fundamental point and that is the potential for there being a political conspiracy component to the case- the absolute vast majority of the cases would have no reasonble scope for this, but Assange's case clearly does.

If you could eliminate from those figures all frivolous ECHR appeals, then the number would be a little bit more informative. If you could break down the number to give the percentage of cases where there was scope for a real or alleged political motivated outcome to the British court's decision then it would be even more informative. As it stands though it's really meaningless and proves my point - that you implied suggestion that the UK justice system is infallible, which was the fudnamental presmise of your existing argument, is clearly false. Presumably those deemed inadmissable would likely be the afformentioned frivolous cases, and in that case the percentage finding violation of non-frivolous cases would jump to 55%, which obviously doesn't look as good, but perhaps you can think of a valid argument as to why non-frivolous cases would be dismissed as inadmissable too, hence invalidating this figure. If this figure is correct, and you consider looking at similarly admitted cases, that Assange's case would be admissable, then it implies there's a more than 50% chance that the judgement against Assange is in fact invalid, but this is of course speculation, without further analysis of what was and wasn't admitted we can't say this with any degree of certainty. Either way though, the fact that most admitted cases result in a ruling against the British courts doesn't really do much to backup your argument.

But regardless, try again if you want, all the evidence you've provided so far does not prove what you're trying to imply it proves. In this case the data you've provided tallies rather well with what I said, whilst failing to do anything to prove the point you're trying to make - that you believe the ruling against Assange is unquestionably legitimate. That still isn't even close to proven.

Providing evidence to back up your argument is only a valid discussion tactic if the evidence actually backs up your argument. Thus far everything you've provided does not, despite your implied suggestions to the contrary.

You were quick to criticise suggesting that people who have not read the judgement and imply they're not informed enough to make the comments they're making, but frankly it appears you've not really thought this through particularly well yourself. You're taking away a conclusion from the facts that those facts do not result in, this suggests you're not exactly being very objective about this and are merely trying to backup your own predetermined conclusion.

Re:OK, this is senseless

[Rei]

Is your argument honestly that because some tiny fraction of cases in Britain are brought to the ECHR, and of those, only one-in-200 is found credible, that therefore the British court system can't be trusted? I mean, *really*? Turkey and Russia alone split nearly half of the negative judgements by the EHCR. The UK barely even makes the list.

Re:OK, this is senseless

[crazyjj]

Believe what you want. Hopefully this will end with him in Ecuador. Then it won't matter whether the U.S. controls the UK and Sweden or not, because the U.S. certainly doesn't control Ecuador.

Re:OK, this is senseless

[Hatta]

The whole thing would have been over ages ago if he'd just gone to Sweden to answer the questions.

The whole thing would have been over ages ago if Sweden would guarantee that they would not extradite Assange to the US. Assange requested this assurance and it was refused. Why would they refuse unless they intend to send him to the US? Why would Assange go to Sweden when the indications are that they intend to send him to the US?

Re:OK, this is senseless

[Xest]

My argument is that your original implication that the UK courts are infallible is clearly false. Your figures prove this.

Your figures also show that of those case that are deemed credible enough for a hearing, over half of them succede in overturning the British court's decision. As I pointed out, this has the implication that if Assange's case was one of those deemed credible, which it almost certainly is due to the fact that:

a) There is large scope for political interest in the case

b) The case touches on points for which no precedence exists, and for which parts of the law are extremely ambiguous (by this I'm referring to the EAW scheme)

Again, looking at other historical cases that have been deemed appropriate for an ECHR hearing, Assange's case would be typical of the type of case that gets heard, note that this is in part, because ECHR admission is in part, decided on based on public interest/government interest. As there is clearly a lot of interest in the Assange case, this would add a lot of weight to his case getting a hearing.

You are still abusing the statistics in that you're still trying to lump in appeals for which there is no merit with appeals for which there is merit. Again, this simply shows that you have made up your mind, are not interested in examining the situation objectively, and are just trying to publicly convince everyone that your predetermined conclusion is correct, using evidence which has no relevance to the correctness of your conclusion. If that makes you feel better then fine, but it doesn't mean your argument actually has any merit in practice.

Your comments about Russia and Turkey are perfectly valid, but also entirely irrelevant. It doesn't really matter that Turkey and Russia are worse than the UK, the point remains that the UK courts are still fallible. To put the issues in the Russia/Turkey cases into context, the whole reason they have more is because Russia/Turkey is failing in even non-controversial cases. For example, Russia has a lot of people being framed for crimes due to their competitors giving payments to corrupt police officers. This isn't, as far as anyone is aware, an issue in the UK and so there is a lot higher confidence in the outcome of more run of the mill cases with no political relevance in British courts than in Russian courts, hence the disparity. This doesn't however mean that the British courts are able to maintain the same level of objectivity when there is political interference in cases (if there is) than when there definitely isn't, this is why the disparity between the relative level of admitted cases between Turkey/Russia and the UK is entirely irrelevant- you're comparing countries with different situations and different issues. Relatively widespread judicial corruption in Russia, does not mean judicial corruption is non-existent in the UK.

Re:OK, this is senseless

[Rei]

My argument is that your original implication that the UK courts are infallible is clearly false. Your figures prove this.

Nothing is infallable in this world. Nothing is perfect. But it's hard to beat "one of the best records in the EHCR".

Your figures also show that of those case that are deemed credible enough for a hearing, over half of them succede in overturning the British court's decision.

And? What, you expect courts to hear cases that it finds *not* credible? Look at the percentages of cases in the EHCR. Turkey and Russia have big human rights problems in their judicial systems. The UK does not. The statistics bear this out. I'm sorry that you don't like this fact, but it's what the numbers say.

the point remains that the UK courts are still fallible.

So is the concept that the Earth isn't flat, but that won't stop me from traveling internationally. The argument "It must be 100% perfection or else people I like shouldn't have to face trial" is about as absurd as you can get.

Re:OK, this is senseless

[fredprado]

No the US couldn't extradite him directly in these circumstances, and the US do want to extradite him, rest assured.

And apparently you don't even read what the people you are arguing with write. As I said US don't need to make him disappear. US can legally make his life hell and possibly execute him for espionage if he is brought to its jurisdiction. US is a corporate police state, you are just too naive to realize this.

And no, Diplomacy does not need to be kept secret. It is this kind of thinking that is turning US into a police state.

Re:OK, this is senseless

[pla]

Where's the "No Sources Except Tin Foil Hat Blogs" moderation? Are we so happy to accept this unsubstantiated claim just because it meshes with our prejudices?

Well now, unfortunately, Ardin and Wilen have have managed to purge the web of all but the most ridiculous information relating to them, so efficiently that most fortune-500 companies can't afford such effective PR. Impressive.

For example, the fact that Anna Ardin wrote her Master's thesis on the use of rape as a weapon - Google that. You'll get tons of hits containing it in the cached summary, and yet, every single one of them seems to go to an unrelated (or redacted) page. You can, however, still find copies of her curiously-no-longer-existant blog where she detailed her "seven steps to revenge".

Or the fact that Ardin's cousin served as deputy head of ops in Afghanistan. Again, cached summaries, but no content actually says that (interestingly, two years ago you could find this information everywhere; today, I can barely find reference to it except one bullet point on a website I wouldn't tend to trust as a source, except insofar that it agrees with a reality that has somehow otherwise vanished).

Or the fact that Ardin spent several years working as an anti-Castro organizer in Cuba, somehow "personally" funding the movement until Cuba deported her - Which I can only find in Spanish (guess her PR whitewashing friends don't speak Spanish) and the occasional snippets here and there.

Or the fact that it horrified Sofia Wilen to learn that the police (and not just any police; not the local police; but rather, a detective Ardin knew personally from an entirely different jurisdiction) had charged Assange with rape, when she (apparently something of a germophobe) only wanted to compel him to get an STD test.


Yep. Completely unsubstantiated - If you require a link from CNN. If you actually dig a bit, a much darker picture appears than that of two girls falling victim to a serial acquaintance-rapist.

Re:OK, this is senseless

[Xest]

It seems you still can't grasp the distinction between frivolous appeals to the ECHR by criminals clutching at straws and genuine appeals, and still have failed to comprehend that in the case of genuine appeals, Britain doesn't have a very good track record at all.

It seems you still fail to get that the ratio of non-frivolous to frivolous appeals in Turkey/Russia is much higher compared to the UK, but that this has no bearing on the success rate of non-frivolous appeals.

Neither of these points are hard to grasp, and I do not believe you are stupid enough to fail to grasp them. I believe you are simply ignoring these points because they weaken your previous assertion that the Assange court case was without fault, despite the fact you cannot actually be sure of that, and it's not simply about 100% perfection as you're trying to suggest. It's about the UK judiciary not having a particularly perfect record in political cases, of which this is certainly one.

Note that I haven't even argued one way or the other whether the Assange case was mishandled or not, I've merely been making the point that there is certainly a feasible possibility that it hasn't, and that hence your assertion that it almost definitely has, does not have quite the solid grounding you have been making out it does- in other words, you've been trying to claim something you have no evidence for, and that the links you have posted do not provide the evidence you imply they do. To put it bluntly, you've been rather at best mistaken to be so assertive in your beliefs, and at worst, been outright dishonest in your posts.

But anyway, if you can't show a basic understanding of what I've been saying which, again, as I say, really isn't difficult to understand if you're willing to be somewhat open minded and consider that the case against Assange may not actually have been handled perfectly as you believe, then I think we're done here as obviously it means you believe only what you want to believe, and a more objective look at the possibilities is not something you are interested in, that is, you have no interest in being objective.

Re:OK, this is senseless

[pla]

Do I know? Yep, that I do!

She didn't just write two anti-Castro articles - She "personally" (aka via Ulf Bjereld or OneSweden) funded (and to some degree led, until her deluded army of angry young men realized she had goals totally unrelated to their best interests) an organized anti-Castro movement, in Cuba, leading to her eventual deportation.

Please merge any further responses in with my other, far more detailed, response on this topic.

Re:OK, this is senseless

[Darinbob]

The US won't execute him because they can't do it in secret. If they were going to execute someone they'd have done it with Pvt Manning who is directly responsible for the events and broke laws directly. They won't execute him because it would cause a massive scandal over a guy who's not worth bothering with. There may be jail time for Assange but execution is just beyond all logic.

Re:OK, this is senseless

[fredprado]

They can do it. What he did can be considered espionage by US draconian laws and that may end in death sentence, legally. But if it will be 30 years in jail or a death sentence is entirely academic. Either possibility is not something anyone sane would be willing to risk without an overwhelmingly good reason.

Re:OK, this is senseless

[Anonymous Coward]

I see. So in your world, something is "informative" only if you happen to agree with it, regardless of the facts supporting (or contradicting) the conclusion?

What a dim, sad world you must live in. You should probably just stick to reading Twilight and Harry Potter, friend - I think news & current events is beyond your ken.

Re:OK, this is senseless

[Anonymous Coward]

And, in turn, I presume *you* were in the room.

Neither of us were in the room, you dumb fuck, and that's the point: He is *accused* of something. He is wanted for questioning in relation to those accusations. Since neither of us were in the room, neither of us is qualified to exonerate or convict him. The disconnect you seem to be having here is that, while I'm arguing that the allegations he is accused of "constitute rape, if they are true," you are jumping through every imaginable hoop to argue why they "aren't true, can't be true, and will never be true, and therefore there's no need for him to answer the questions of investigators, because it's all some sort of vast right-wing conspiracy." Where I am saying, "he should answer these questions, because the allegations are serious," you are saying "The allegations are nonsense and without merit, because... I like Julian Assange."

As for the "charges not yet filed" point - you obviously have zero understanding of how the Swedish legal process works: charges CANNOT be filed until the prosecutors conduct an in-person interview with him to get his side of the story on the allegations. At that point, if the prosecutor feels charges are warranted, charges will be filed, and he will be tried in a court. Until that interview happens, he *cannot* be "charged" under Swedish law. The lack of charges is a procedural element of Swedish law - the EAW that requested his extradition was so that he would be returned to Sweden to be interviewed about the allegations, since he *refused* to return willingly.

but fail totally to explain why the women returned to him night after night for more of the same. That seems a bit unusual to say the least.

Yes, no woman has ever put up with someone abusing her, night after night. No woman has ever been afraid to seek legal help. No woman has ever convinced herself that she wasn't 'really' raped, or decided to just 'go along with it until he leaves,' because that'll be safer. This is the first time, in the history of humanity, that it's ever happened, clearly.

Now I have one question - what fucking world do you live in? If you had read the news stories and court filings, you'd also know that the women both testified that while he was *staying* with them, they terminated sexual contact because of his behavior. In other words, "He's a fucking creep, but he's supposed to be gone in a couple days anyway, so I'll just stay away from him until he leaves."

The only thing unusual about this is that Assange has invented a whopper of a story to explain why he's "afraid" to return to Sweden. "If I return, I'll be whisked away to Guantanamo, because Sweden is the evil lackey of the United States, and has no real interest in abiding by its international commitments to the EU as an EU member state. I know I wanted to come live here in Sweden before this all happened, but now that I might be in trouble, I can't imagine a worse place on earth to live!"

In closing, I'd like you to reread part of my post - the part that reads, "Can you offer any reports that support that interpretation of events that are NOT wild-ass speculation based on anonymous sources cited in the 2010 story originally posted on Crikey.com?"

Your "evidence" offered, via the link to businessinsider.com, reads like so: "The popular Australian website Crikey has a report suggesting that the prosecution of Julian Assange in Sweden may be hitting the skids [...]"

In other words, the BusinessInsider story is simply reporting on the same speculative Crikey report that - once again - had zero followup, zero sources, and zero facts to support it, in the nearly-2-years since the initial story was written. Has any *evidence* emerged to support your claims in those 2 years? Or are you simply holding fast to "Crikey says," and "hurr durr sex by surprise LOL" as your method of exonerating him?

The ONLY story indicating that Ms. Ardin is no longer cooperating

Re:OK, this is senseless

[sjames]

Neither of us were in the room, you dumb fuck

Oh! WOO WOO! You Cuuuuusssssed!! Oooooh, you must hava really big peenis.

Re:OK, this is senseless

[Anonymous Coward]

So.... according to you its only rape when the victim is beaten, bloody, missing teeth and .... Who's definition of rape is utter bullshit?

Re:OK, this is senseless

[fredprado]

No. People don't agree with you when you say it is was informative, and you have given absolutely no argument to convince them otherwise. You are the one who live in the dim sad and lonely world. The world of self-righteousness.

Re:OK, this is senseless

[Rei]

One-sentence response: given that approximately 0.002% of UK court cases (at the current going rate) are overturned by the ECRH, how on Earth can you possibly claim that this means that there's even remotely probable odds that a random case is problematic?

Re:OK, this is senseless

[Rei]

Challenge accepted.

Here's Ardin's thesis, titled "The Cuban Multi-Party System: Is The Democratic alternative really democratic and an alternative after the Castro regime?" The word rape does not appear in it.

Oh, really, it's time to look at *everything a person has ever written on the internet*, really? Like you've never written anything that others could use to discredit you online, ever? Really? First off, the "seven steps to revenge" 1) was a repost, 2) begins with, basically, "don't", and is 3) in general about how, if you do, how to cause an ex boyfriend's new girlfriend to break up with him.

Secondly, if you want to take the "anything you've ever written", let's see what Assange thinks about women.

I was exactly what she secretly longed for; a man willing to openly disagree with her father. All along she had needed a man to devote herself to. All along she had failed to find a man worthy of being called a man, failed to find a man who would not bow to gods, so she had chosen a god unworthy of being called a god, but who would not bow to a man.

Wow, really Julian? You're a freaking God to women? And do we even need to get into his dating profile, Mr. I AM DANGER, ACHTUNG?

See how this "dig up anything a person has ever written" game works?

Wow, what the frick is up with your "one bullet point on a website" link? It's not a reference to anything - nothing is backed up in any way, shape or form - but man, what a stalker site that is.

You need to work on your reading comprehension on the Mundo article you linked. It says she worked as the head of the Swedish group connected to the party, a party based on peaceful civil disobedience. "Somehow" funding it? It says right there - she funded it "minimally" with the magazine Consenso. Nowhere does it say she was deported. That's only said in the counterpunch article, which the article you linked to describes as riddled with errors. And furthermore, in what f-ed up world does supporting democracy in Cuba mean "CIA agent"? I mean, for crying out loud!

The interrogation does not at all say what you nor the person who posted it claim it says. The part about Wilen hearing the news reads as follows:

Sofia and I were notified during the interrogation that Julian Assange had been arrested in absentia. Sofia had difficulty concentrating after that news, whereby I made the judgement it was best to terminate the interrogation. But Sofia had time anyway to explain that Assange was angry with her. I didn't have time to get any further details about why he was angry with her or how this manifested itself. And we didn't have time to get into what else happened afterwards. The interrogation was neither read back to Sofia nor reviewed for approval by her but Sofia was told she had the opportunity to do this later.

Amazing how "difficulty concentrating" and concerned that "Assange was angry with her" transforms into "horrified" that they brought charges. I also noted (to put it another way, it made me sick to read) how the person who posted the article tried to spin the following passage as "consent":

They fell asleep and she woke by feeling him penetrate her. She immediately asked 'are you wearing anything' and he answered 'you'. She told him 'you better not have HIV' and he replied 'of course not'. She felt it was too late. He was already inside her and she let him continue. She couldn't be bothered telling him again. She'd been nagging about condoms all night lo

Re:OK, this is senseless

[Rei]

Debunked in your other thread.

Re:OK, this is senseless

[Anonymous Coward]

Dipshit, what about Hatta's post was "informative"?

Answer: nothing.

The only reason he received +5 moderation is because he's spouting the same unfounded conspiracy bullshit the mods also believe. Every single point he made requires you to accept the existence of a conspiracy for which NO EVIDENCE has been offered - only speculation and wild-ass guesswork. If he posted evidence to support his allegations of a conspiracy, his post would be informative. Since it is simply baseless assertion and grandstanding, it is not informative - it is karma whoring of the first order.

Re:OK, this is senseless

[pla]

Wow... Consider me impressed! Very thorough!

I do, however, find the thesis... Strange. Primarily because I had read a translation of it (translation, as in, why did she submit her thesis to a Swedish university in English?) a while back and it said largely what I claimed. As I have no way to prove this, however, consider the point ceded.

Re:OK, this is senseless

[fredprado]

No it does not. It only requires a prosecutor wanting to get famous by prosecuting a celebrity and a few sycophants politicians in the Swedish government ready to sell him out. And after the Swedish government crapped over its laws to abusively sentence piratebay founders at US orders it is no an unreasonable assumption. That is evidence enough for me that the Swedish government and legal procedures are rotten.

You may keep being naive for all eternity if it suits you, but it is unreasonable to think everybody will follow suit.

Re:OK, this is senseless

[Joce640k]

Only the conspiracy nutjobs thinks it was a US plot to execute him.

We'll see what happens tomorrow. Want to bet if you'll be eating those words or not?

Re:OK, this is senseless

[Anonymous Coward]

If the shoe fits, wear it friend - if you behave like a dumb fuck, expect to be called a dumb fuck. I'm not here to help you feel good about yourself by pretending anything you've said is correct, insightful, or accurate.

But, since you've decided you have no ACTUAL facts or evidence to support any of your arguments, I'm glad to see that you've conceded your error, and I look forward to reading your thoughtful public retraction soon.

If you are holding fast to an opinion with no facts and evidence to support it - or worse, ignoring facts and evidence that don't support your opinion - you are engaging in worship. Yes, worship. For someone as interested in transparency, accountability, and responsibility as Mr. Assange, I'm genuinely surprised that his followers aren't far more interested in learning the facts of the situation and holding him accountable if he did something wrong, as well.

I guess with Mr. Assange, it's just a case of "do as I say, not as I do," huh?

Re:OK, this is senseless

[Joce640k]

Again, I dont have stats, but how many men go to jail is sweeden every year for doing a woman (or in this case 2 women) bareback.

Sweden has some very weird laws regarding consent. Anything which might cause her to do what the USA calls the "walk of shame" the next day can be rape. Even a particularly clever chat up line which lowered her defenses can theoretically get you charged with rape.

Don't even think of buying a girl a drink if you ever go over there. You could be doing prison time if she wakes up thinking it wasn't worth it.

Re:OK, this is senseless

[Joce640k]

OK, let's assume for a moment it *is* rape. How many embassies have ever been stormed in order to extradite rapists? Does anything else about this pass her smell test?

If the rest of it is so rotten then why wouldn't the 'rape' thing be invented too? It fits perfectly.

Re:OK, this is senseless

[Anonymous Coward]

The 4 charges he is wanted for questioning in relation to include at least 2 incidents that would *absolutely* be considered rape and sexual assault in most of the rest of the world.

Maybe so, but the fact remains he's just wanted for questioning. He hasn't been charged with anything (presumably due to lack of evidence).

Re:OK, this is senseless

[Anonymous Coward]

I can understand rape victims not calling the police.

Organizing a party next day for her friends to meet her rapist? Not so much.

Re:OK, this is senseless

[Anonymous Coward]

No it does not. It only requires a prosecutor wanting to get famous by prosecuting a celebrity and a few sycophants politicians in the Swedish government ready to sell him out.

Yes, exactly as I said: it requires you to accept the existence of a conspiracy for which NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN OFFERED. Where is the evidence to support even one of the claims or speculation you've made?

EVIDENCE. Not "rumor." Not "speculation." The ONLY way Sweden could "hand him over" to the US is if they disregard all of their commitments under EU law, and piss off the EU, the UK, and no doubt, a good portion of the rest of the world. And why would they do that? How would they benefit? It would require a bunch of Swedish bureaucrats to be *so slavishly devoted* to serving the US that they would do so at the risk of their own careers, and their entire government's good standing in the international community. Also, it would require the US government to, you know, ACTUALLY REQUEST EXTRADITION, and offer up charges on which they intend to try him. Since the ONLY charge they could get him on would be espionage - if and only if they can prove he *solicited* the material from PFC Manning, rather than acted as a passive recipient of the leaked data - it's incredibly unlikely that any extradition request would be made.

Even if there WAS an indictment for espionage, Sweden would need to get the consent of the UK as well, since he is in their custody under the EAW - which gives Assange legal recourse with the Swedish government, the UK Ministry of Justice, and the European high court, and gives the UK veto power over any extradition to the US.

And you ask us to accept all of this "on faith," because the simpler, and more reasonable alternative - that Sweden lives up to its obligations, asks him the questions they want to ask him, then either try him, or return him to the UK, doesn't fit with your political worldview, where the US is a giant ogre just waiting to kill anybody and everything that falls into its clutches.

You are not privy to some higher and more accurate method of knowing things - what you are doing is making up a conspiracy theory that doesn't contradict your biased, subjective world view, because cognitive dissonance makes you uncomfortable. I'm here to tell you that it's quite possible for Assange to be both someone whose work you admire, and at the same time, be a real asshole who really did assault two women in Sweden.

I'm sorry friend, but you live in a fairy tale if you think that every person you look up to is a white knight on a golden stallion.

Re:OK, this is senseless

[sjames]

OOOOOOOOhhhh did you actually type that with your penis?

Actually, you are the one who never provided a link, I did and to a reputable publication.

Re:OK, this is senseless

[jkflying]

The Ecuadoran embassy offered the Swedish prosecutors the chance of interviewing him inside of the embassy. They refused the offer. This was in the BBC article.

Re:OK, this is senseless

[Xest]

Simple: Because once again, not all cases are equal.

You're assuming that all cases have equal probability of being overturned, obviously this is outright false as some cases have more merit than others. Once again, as per the stats you provided, of cases that have merit, 55% get overturned. It's almost certainly the case that Assange's case would be one of those heard by the ECHR.

This is statistics 101, we're not talking about rolling a dice where each side has equal probability here.

Oh, darn, U.S.!

[crazyjj]

You almost had him!

Re:Oh, darn, U.S.!

[Desler]

All they have to do is pay a taxi cab driver to kidnap him. No fuss. No muss. He's only made it easier for himself to be nabbed.

Re:Oh, darn, U.S.!

[spire3661]

We have but to extend our hand if we really wanted to put out Assange's light. Hes really not worth the effort. Hes neutered, and will be the rest of his life.

Re:Oh, darn, U.S.!

[CanHasDIY]

All they have to do is pay a taxi cab driver to kidnap him. No fuss. No muss. He's only made it easier for himself to be nabbed.

Considering that you yourself have thought of such a situation, one would think Assange has already taken such matters into consideration.

I mean, c'mon, if he was dumb enough to have not thought of something so obviously obvious, he'd already be in Gitmo.

Re:Oh, darn, U.S.!

[Anonymous Coward]

dead man's switch is hardly neutered.

Re:Oh, darn, U.S.!

[Anonymous Coward]

I would imagine he has more than enough money to buy a Benz with a bulletproof exterior and a fulltime prositute to drive it.

Re:Oh, darn, U.S.!

[Anonymous Coward]

No, because everyone will point at you and say murder, murder. Then again when has that stopped you.

And..."I suppose it was only a matter of time."

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Still waiting for my own country, the US, to put up or shut up as to whether he bribed the leaker or not, the only legimitate criminal charge it could levy.

Regarding free speech, "I will not compromise. Not even in the face of Armageddon."

Re:And..."I suppose it was only a matter of time."

[crazyjj]

"I will not compromise. Not even in the face of Armageddon."

Even if they threatened to make you watch that animal crackers scene over and over again?

Re:And..."I suppose it was only a matter of time."

[Monkey-Man2000]

As myself an American expat, we both know that at Guantanamo, you don't need a legitimate criminal charge to be extradited there or imprisoned indefinitely by us. Besides the way Obama's dealt with this Wikileaks issue I otherwise like him, but this situation had nearly turned me. But the lesser of two evils you know because a Republican president would have rattled a few more sabers as loudly as they could I think. Consequently, I really believe Congress would have enacted some new law (that retroactively is legal) where foreigners who smear the reputation of the US in some way can be tried for something analogous to treason in the US -- death penalty and all...

Re:And..."I suppose it was only a matter of time."

[flaming error]

Maybe that's a "legitimate criminal charge," but the US government does exactly the same, quite regularly and quite without remorse.

Unless we have double-standards, allowing POTUS to do it to others makes it nonsensical to condemn when others do it to POTUS.

Re:And..."I suppose it was only a matter of time."

[Hatta]

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.

Re:And..."I suppose it was only a matter of time."

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone has double standards. If you call call the military of your country and warn them of the attack you're helpful, if you can the opposing military and warn them of the attack you're a spy. Funny how that works right?

Re:And..."I suppose it was only a matter of time."

[Anonymous Coward]

All those things are good deeds if the person doing them has a "D" after his name.

Disagree? Then you are racist.

Re:And..."I suppose it was only a matter of time."

[Monkey-Man2000]

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.

Fuck the ACLU, but these points you make don't make me happy but aren't deal-breakers. The treatment of Assange is nearly the breaking point as I mentioned. Killing Americans that have clearly called for the destruction of the US and have means to carry it out are fair-game -- Assange has done NOTHING remotely like that. All the rest of your points are the normal collateral from the American military-industrial complex. That doesn't mean it's right but it's entrenched, and don't try to tell me a Republican would be more sympathetic. As I admitted, this is the (FAR) lesser of two evils in my estimate.

Re:And..."I suppose it was only a matter of time."

[Anonymous Coward]

Get over your butthurt.

Re:And..."I suppose it was only a matter of time."

[Hatta]

and don't try to tell me a Republican would be more sympathetic.

Who said anything about Republicans? Vote third party or stay the fuck home.

As I admitted, this is the (FAR) lesser of two evils in my estimate

You're still voting for evil.

Re:And..."I suppose it was only a matter of time."

[Anonymous Coward]

As I admitted, this is the (FAR) lesser of two evils in my estimate

You're still voting for evil.

So? That's politics, and life. It's still voting to prevent the evils the other guy would do. And it's far better than doing nothing, which is what staying home is.

Re:And..."I suppose it was only a matter of time."

[jkauzlar]

Killing Americans that have clearly called for the destruction of the US and have means to carry it out are fair-game

It's much worse than you think. He's actually killing americans who *might* have called for the destruction of the U.S and may not necessarily have the means of carrying it out. And not only these, but those who happen to be standing nearby at the time. More specifically, a signature drone strike is determined by 'patterns of behavior', where military-aged males are behaving in a way that might be deemed suspicious as viewed from a drone's camera. They don't even know their names. In one case, they killed a 16 year old muslim kid from Colorado.

Re:And..."I suppose it was only a matter of time."

[Gavagai80]

What if we don't agree with any of the third (and fourth, fifth, etc) parties on everything either? It's impossible to agree with a party on everything, and all of them have some different types of evil in their platform. Unless you vote for yourself, you're compromising.

Re:And..."I suppose it was only a matter of time."

[Hatta]

No, voting for evil is far worse than doing nothing. If you vote for either D or R you are actively assisting evil and are therefore evil yourself.

Re:And..."I suppose it was only a matter of time."

[dave1791]

People who refuse to do anything about a greater evil, lest they accept a smaller evil, piss me off. Suppose that the greater evil would win by one vote if you stayed home. Your choice in this case is to vote for the lesser evil, which is still evil, or not vote; which in this case is the same as voting for the greater evil. If Gore had been president in 2001, we’d not have had Dick Fucking Cheney using 9/11 to push the US into the Iraq war. Would we have had rendition? Torture? Since Cheney actively supported these things and was their biggest cheerleader, it made a BIG difference between having a smaller or bigger evil and in this case, we got the bigger evil.

Those people who voted for Nader in 2000, because “voting for the smaller evil is still evil” have the blood of the Iraq war on their hands!

Re:And..."I suppose it was only a matter of time."

[Hatta]

People who refuse to do anything about a greater evil, lest they accept a smaller evil, piss me off.

I agree entirely, you just haven't identified the greater and lesser evils correctly. The greater evil in this case is the two party (one really) political system. The lesser evil in this case is the marginal difference between D and R.

Those people who voted for Nader in 2000, because âoevoting for the smaller evil is still evilâ have the blood of the Iraq war on their hands!

If we had a functioning electoral system, this wouldn't be a problem at all. That is the greater evil we must try to destroy. Don't just worry about the Iraq war, worry about all the future Iraq wars that will happen if we don't fix the system.

To all of you going on about drone strikes

[killmenow]

As easy as it may be to pull off logistically, it's not nearly as simple politically. Which is why this dog & pony show has gone on so long. If it were as simple as a plane crash or a fuckton of missles or a drone strike, he'd already be dead.

Of course, Ecuador can expect to be brought before some trumped up UN committee and sanctioned for this soon.

Drinking the kool-aid

[Anonymous Coward]

While I would expect the comments to consist primarily of the usual conspiracy fantasies, can we at least keep them out of the summary? The claim that this decision would or should "annoy" the United States has no basis in reality.

And to think...

[Darkness404]

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.

Re:And to think...

[Desler]

Considering the long history of dictators and military juntas they would be correct. Go to Venezuela and start some demonstrations to speak out against Hugo Chavez and see how much 'freedom' he affords you.

Re:And to think...

[Anonymous Coward]

Things haven't changed, just see how people vote with their feet, and the flow of people is decidedly south to north.

BOOM!! I just fuckin destroyed your idiotic nonsense with facts.

Re:And to think...

[roberto.moraes]

Consider also the US being the dictator of the world, since the second world war ..

Re:And to think...

[Dunbal]

Yeah. I live in Latin America. I've lived in the US. Have you traveled outside your country? You would be surprised at the non universality of your "freedom".

Re:And to think...

[Desler]

Great. How does that make Chavez any less of a dictator that jails people for speaking out against him?

Re:And to think...

[wierd_w]

America? Free?

In the US, you are free to:

Work a drudgy job
Pay taxes, deducted weekly from your pay, and levied higher if they think you didn't pay enough over the course of the year.
Pay taxes at the fuel pump
Pay taxes at the grocery store
Pay taxes when you buy alcohol or tobacco
Pay taxes when you somehow manage to buy a luxury item
Pay taxes on your property anually
Pay taxes on your vehicle
Pay levies for public scools
Be assaulted by police, who illegally confiscate any recording devices you have.
Speak publicly and exercise your right to assemble and address grievances in authorised "free speech zones"
Be subjected to brutal beatings if you exercise those rights anywere else
Be subjected to brutal beatings if you exercise those rights in the designated areas, if the message is controvertial or inconvenient
Be innundated in outright lies and yellow journalism 24/7 during election years
Choose which political dick you want up your ass for the next 4, 8, or 10 years (depending on level of govt)
Buy legal immunity if you are wealthy enough
Get totally shafted in the legal system if you aren't
Get enjoined as a spurrious "john doe" in a copyright case with flimsy evidence
Have your internet unplugged through mere allegations.
Get presumed guilty until proven innocent in matters involving copyright via the DMCA
Be arrested for spurrious offences only tangentally related to interstate commerce
Be detained indefinately without evidence or council if even suspected of engaging in terrorism

And so much more!

Just look at all those freedoms! The USA is a GREAT place to live!

Re:And to think...

[Darkness404]

Says someone completely ignorant of the facts. Just look at this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/for-first-time-since-depression-more-mexicans-leave-us-than-enter/2012/04/23/gIQApyiDdT_story.html for example.

To begin with, a lot of those entering the US from Mexico and other central American countries were poor, unskilled workers who benefited from the socialist nature of American "capitalism" (things such as the minimum wage, free medical care at any hospital, etc.) which naturally would appeal to them. Or people where the lack of free markets in the US create a benefit for them (for example, doctors and hospitals are very competitive in South America, they act more like monopolies in the US). There are a whole lot of people who would rather have comfort than freedom, when given the choice between a completely free life with no government handouts and a life filled with rules, regulations and restrictions with government handouts a lot of them are going to pick the latter option.

I can see the US having "entrepreneur drain" as young people quickly realize that there is an entire world out there to explore and many places where it is easier and more profitable (not just in dollars but in quality of life) to run a business outside of the USA. Just look at Eduardo Saverin who left the US for greener pastures in Asia.

Re:And to think...

[Darkness404]

And go to anywhere in the US that isn't designated as a "Free Speech Zone" and see how much freedom you have. See, the funny thing is with most Americans is they think that just because something is written on paper that you can or can't do something that is the judge of how free something is. In most other countries how free you are is measured by what you are really capable of doing, for example, I'm sure that there's no law in the UK about having to smile all the time. I'm pretty sure there's also no common law precedent forcing someone to smile but that didn't stop the British police for arresting a middle aged man suffering from Parkinson's disease for "acting suspicious" for not smiling (see http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/aug/08/olympics-spectator-parkinsons-arrest-smiling ).

Just because something is technically legal or technically illegal it doesn't really much matter. What matters is can you do it without being arrested, shot, beaten, etc.

Re:And to think...

[rmstar]

Great. How does that make Chavez any less of a dictator that jails people for speaking out against him?

How about facts? Last time I heard, there's a whole lot of people in Venezuela writing and saying lots of bad things about him, without being bothered too much. And a countercandidate for the elections with a good chance of winning. And better and safer voting machines than anything the US will ever have.

Perhaps you are just making shit up?

Re:And to think...

[Anonymous Coward]

It does not, of course.

But the hypocrisy of my fellow Americans is hilarious. People in glass houses and all that.

We're a nation founded on terrorism and tyranny.

Oh, but we don't murder British civilians these days. Or commit wide-scale genocide against the natives. And, why, we exchanged slavery for good ol' Jim Crow and let the situation sit for a century or so. Magnanimous, to be sure! We may have thrown countless American citizens into concentration camps with inward-facing machine guns, but at least we didn't gas 'em, right? And hell, even are women are treated as equals, at least until a bare minority of the country manages to seize control of their uteruses.

We imprison people over consumption of plants. We constantly surveil our citizens; we molest them in a sexual manner if they choose to fly.

We have 'free speech zones'.

We arrest people for dancing - without disturbing anyone, without making abnormal noise, without preventing tourism/et cetera - at national monuments.

We assault photographers, at least in New York City. ;)

None of this, of course, makes Chavez and his ilk any better. It doesn't excuse their own brands of ridiculous douchebaggery, which is often quite a bit worse than what our own country has done and is doing to us.

Just as, "The US has done things!" isn't an excuse for Chavez and friends; tinpot dictators are not an excuse for the oppression we suffer at home.

If you don't understand the absurdity of Americans whining about the conduct of other countries while pretending the US is flawless, you are a fool.

Re:And to think...

[Anonymous Coward]

Starting off your list supposedly mocking the freedom in the U.S.A. with several "pay taxes" items means either you don't understand freedom or you just don't care. Freedom != a free ride, so unless your idea of freedom is a true anarchistic environment, you're being a wanker.

Re:And to think...

[wierd_w]

Hello captain obvious.

Paying taxes *is* a requirement for a healthy state. No question. The issue is just what percentage of personal income should be extracted as taxation, before the system becomes onerous. The point of listing so many as to point out that not only does the US have taxes, we just about have taxes for *everything*.

Wanna get married? There's a tax for that!
Inherit property? There's a tax for that too!

Etc.

It isn't that I am opposed to taxes. Far from it. I am opposed to onerous, continually compounding taxes.

This "all or nothing" rhetoric that jumps straight to "move to somalia then!" As an argument is *NOT* acceptable.

Re:And to think...

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget how many of those dictators and military juntas were put in place by the US.

Re:And to think...

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell us where is a better country. And check it against your list. Having some experience I can tell US isn't that bad. Especially for those healthy and rich. For poor and sick Cuba or Europe are better choice. (hmm... except Greece)

Re:And to think...

[Anonymous Coward]

Really, the US should be required to take all central and south american refugees.

The US is _the_ responsible party for both political persecution and economic issues.

Every time a latin american country gets a popularly elected democratic government, the US intervenes and throws in a right-wing bloody dictator. The Reagan administration got a bit more creative and came up with death squads, but the technique hasn't really changed other than murderous details in over half a century.

The US failed in their coup attempt against Chavez because Chavez educated the people about exactly what their constitution grants as rights, so the population knew the US led coup was illegal. Unfortunately, for Lugo, the US led coup in Paraguay was declared "legal" by the right-wing courts in spite of all facts, and the people did not know their rights.

As Evo Morales says, " The only country safe from a coup is the US because they don't have an American Embassy in which to plan it."

Re:And to think...

[wierd_w]

I don't *NEED* to point to an alternative, to be justified in lampooning the faults of my own country.

Amusingly, this is exactly why we have first amendment rights in the first place, which is a genuine good thing that many other countries DON'T have.

I don't need to give examples of perfect, candycane and strawberry unicorn spooge gushing utopias in order to point out that there's knee deep bullshit in my back yard. The existence of the bullshit, and that it is in my back yard are self-sufficient in that deterimation.

I don't require a bullshit free back yard to point to, as a source of comparison.

Re:And to think...

[Anonymous Coward]

...but wait! There's more!

You could also win the once-in-a-lifetime chance to be selected during 'Terror Tuesday'! Offer available to all ages and nationalities!

(death taxes and rates may still apply)

Re:And to think...

[Anonymous Coward]

Pay levies for public scools

Apparently your state/county/municpality hasn't been levying enough in your area....

-AC

Re:And to think...

[wierd_w]

Or, I could be using a horrible input method on an android phone. What with being at work, behind a monitored corporate LAN and all.

No. Clearly it is because I do not know how to properly spell "school".

It couldn't be that your obvious troll is obvious, and that you needed to nitpick to find something, anything at all, to find fault with so you could erroneously apply faulted logic about my state of educational background.

That couldn't be it at all. Absolutely not. Couldn't be.

(And in case your sarcasm sensor is broken, let me be blunt. Picking out a typograhical error as being de-facto evidence of a poor education does not in any way enhance your position, it does not make you seem whitty or intelligent, and in fact, it only helps to illustrate how shallow and pathetic you are.)

Re:And to think...

[Anonymous Coward]

My point was that you make a list about freedoms and then waste by starting off with many complaints about taxes. Why not start the list with actual impositions on freedom? Even if you're that money obsessed, civil forfeiture laws would be a much better choice. Instead, it's taxes, taxes, taxes, so much so that most people -- including me -- aren't even going to bother reading the rest of the list because you just sound cheap rather than like someone who gives a shit about freedom.

Re:And to think...

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot about being held indefinitely if you happen to have a common name that you share with someone the government doesn't like.
The freedom of religion, as long as it's one of the mainstream Christian religions.
The right of fanatical churches to protest a soldier's death, because they believe that if we stoned homosexuals, our soldiers would be invicible.
The right to compete economically with countries who's minimum wages pays less then a dollar a day.
The right to spend money as a form of free speech. A right both the rich and poor share alike.
The right to become richer if you're already rich.

Re:And to think...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah. In the USA they start demonstrations to speak out against wallstreet and the goverment...
Got tasered, beaten, killed, jailed, and blamed for all the ills of the country.

HUGE difference between us and some south american 3rd world countries!
We have the technology and media to see it all happen realtime. And still do nothing.

go us :|

Re:And to think...

[phantomfive]

And go to anywhere in the US that isn't designated as a "Free Speech Zone" and see how much freedom you have.

Generally you'll be ok as long as you don't start annoying everyone around you. Free speech zones started at universities because protesters were making so much noise they were disturbing classes. OK, great, but some people want to learn, not hear the rantings of a college student who just learned how to protest and is having fun.

Re:And to think...

[phantomfive]

You use "The Newsroom" as a citation for anything? His facts weren't even correct. Well I can tell you "Betty la Fea" makes Latin America look really good, and completely backs up my point.

Re:And to think...

[Anonymous Coward]

I suppose you are making that reference generically? Anybody that has traveled realizes that freedom is greatly limited with every government. Not just the US. Granted I've only lived in a few dozen countries... But people complaining about the US do so merely because their country is limited. China will likely rise to power and people will complain non-stop about Em.then somebody else will follow suit down the road. This conversation is less enlightening every time I hear it.

Re:And to think...

[Hentes]

Tax rates depend on how the society and economy functions, there is no single optimal value. Communist states or states with lots of resources (like Kuwait) have no taxes. On the other hand, Western European welfare states tend to have high tax rates to cover all the spending. I would say that the US is still on the liberal end of the spectrum compared to countries with similar economy.

Re:And to think...

[Anonymous Coward]

Communist states...have no taxes.

Yes they do. In a pure communist state, the income tax rate is 100% for the entire population. Everything you produce belongs to the state and is seized at the moment of production, thereby eliminating the need for any pesky IRS-type agency, and you get back only what the state decides you need to live. Prime example - - North Korea.

Fortunately, most of the few other remaining communist states realized what a miserable failure that, decided to abandon pure communism as an economic model, and now mix in healthy doses of capitalism to varying degrees.

Re:And to think...

[wierd_w]

This is absolutely correct. Government collects taxes to pay for the services it renders.

The comon misconception is that government provides free services. This is simply untrue, since the government itself actually produces nothing, and has to pay people to render the services expected of it. That means the government needs money to buy resources and to pay the people distributing those resources, in order to provide.

I personally feel that most of what the government renders as services could be better provided by local institutions, and that the government has no business trying to provide such services.

For reference, the only services I feel a (national) government should provide are: national security, internaltional relations, creation and enforcement of laws. Local regional government (state) should supply: road construction and maintenance, county law enforcement and fire control, county level rural water and sewer (even if just mandating standards), a slush fund for public school one-time expenditures, and state level legislation. Local city government should provide: local police and fire protection, public libraries, public schools, civic planning, city roads and bridges, city water and sewer.

No level of government should provide these services: public welfare, public healthcare, financial support for the elderly or infirm, garanteed constructon contracts, garanteed monopoly franchises for utilities, incentives programs for for-profit companies.

Public welfare is better handled though local charities than though an enormous government piggybank. When you use a large pool, it produces the appearance that resources are limitless, which promotes freeriders. Local level charities are more transparent, the public can clearly see the work being done, they see the money they spend being used locally. Those are all things that a national welfare system does not offer. Is local wellfare a silver bullet? Not by a long shot, but in the "dollars spend and services rendered" measure of efficiency, they clean house on govt wellfare. The truble with them is the lack of homogeneity; the level of service rendered in some locales will be better than in others, simply due to regional resource scarcities. This is why the national wellfare systems get implemented in the first place, but you lose the transparancy, lose the understanding of where your dollars go, and culture apathy in both the recipients of services, as well as those supplying the funding as a consequence. Legislating minimal care levels in relation to resources collected would do a better job in that regard.

The same issue applies to public school systems. Local schools are currently wedged in a catch-22 of public relations and legal quagmire. On one hand, they are required per federal law to spend 100% of their budgets yearly, and cannot retain a surplus. This means that expensive items outside of their budgets don't get purchased, and lots of small items they don't really need do get purchased. They do this in exchange for federal financial assistance. Then, when they need that really expensive purchase "right now", (like a new building, or a major renovation) they have to raise a public bond issue to get the money, which the local piblic does not want to pay, since they are *already* paying the education levy and the fed is paying the school too. The usual retort is "just how much money do you really need anyway?" The federal govt would be better off keeping their fingers out of public schools, at least in terms of how they are funded, and instead focus on a standardized curriculum, and the legal side of things. The public school system should be run at the city level, where budgeting rules are defined locally by the city (or county, if applicable) government, with occasional one-off financial aid packages from the county for major one-time expenses, with a cooloff period between requests from that fund.

Healthcare is tricky. The problem with healthcare mostly stems from the scarcity of doctors in general,

Re:And to think...

[jdc18]

Because the US never imposed those dictators in South America as way to prevent comunism right? Noriega what? Pinochet what? The US played with South America like it was their backyard during the cold war. Most of those dictators in South America went to the Escuela de las Americas founded by the US. US backed up those dictators and military juntas as long as they didnt became Communists.

Re:And to think...

[cyber-vandal]

Libertarians are just as guilty of that and far more obnoxious about it. That's why people don't like you. For example Scott Hanselman posted on Google+ that he couldn't get healthcare because of a pre-existing condition and within hours there were libertarians all over the thread quoting Thomas Jefferson at him and trying to tell him that the system was fine because anything else would be communism.

Sometimes you guys need to try a bit of empathy instead of being endlessly selfish and unbending. Yes we all know our governments are broken, however looking at how broken most of the world's governments are I'm pretty happy with mine. I don't have to bribe anyone, I don't have armed militias driving me out of my home, I can read and write, I live in a country where getting sick doesn't carry a huge financial penalty and the roads that I use to get to work are tarmac and regularly maintained.

Political refugee

[roman_mir]

Assange is a political refugee, he needs a hide out because a large and a very powerful organisation (and more than one) are after him for disseminating information that those powerful organisations want to keep quiet.

If Assange falls in the hands of American government, he is going to be made an example of, and it's going to be worse than Vietnam for him, sort of like what they did to Bradley Manning but maybe times 10.

Isn't it amazing, 60 years ago people wouldn't have believed if somebody told them, that America could become this....

Re:Political refugee

[Desler]

Then they must have never read much US history or even followed contemporary news.

Re:Political refugee

[spire3661]

Become what? These are not new tricks, we jsut see more now.

Re:Political refugee

[Anonymous Coward]

Wasn't it about 60 years ago that America executed Julius and Ethel Rosenberg for espionage? Obviously the facts of the case are different, but I don't see how this could indicate that America has changed in the past 60 years.

dom

Re:Political refugee

[SilenceBE]

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.

Re:Political refugee

[Gavagai80]

Ah, for the good old days 60 years ago when Senator McCarthy was protecting our freedom.

Re:Political refugee

[Anonymous Coward]

60 years ago....

You mean during the red scare?

Olympics

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you think he could have snook out of the Ecuadorean embassy with the Olympians? I mean, what was the purpose of wait for the Olympics to finish?

He could be in Ecuador already.

Re:Olympics

[jittles]

Maybe to prevent an incident where the UK prevents the Ecuadorian team from entering the country? Not likely to happen, but perhaps a concern. Or a concern with the Ecuadorian team not being able to pass over US airspace if there was some sort of political fallout? Again not likely to happen, but I am sure they just wanted to make sure there was no political issue during the games. I think it makes sense to wait. I don't really believe that Julian Assange required assylum, but whatever. If they want to let him live there, I hope he enjoys it. South America is a very beautiful continent.

WMDs

[Anonymous Coward]

So, I heard Ecuador is chock full of weapons of mass destruction...

This is a false story

[Anonymous Coward]

Everybody knows that Julian Assange is in the Outlands along with that mysterious yellow family that always seems to get up to hijinks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQbXvHEMxyk

False report

[bug1]

Apparently the story from the Guardian is false.

https://rt.com/news/assange-granted-asylum-ecuador-298/

Re:False report

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent up

Re:False report

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's the president's Twitter: https://twitter.com/MashiRafael

Re:False report

[Anonymous Coward]

And how do you know that this story isn't just as false?

It's just text on your screen. Even if there ever was a real event tied to it... there were hundreds if not thousands of manipulatable computer and unavoidably biased brain nodes between you and it. (Routers, servers, reporters and their devices, whoever gave them the information [99% guaranteed to be a lobby group], etc, etc, etc)
So in the end, it's all about trust anyway. Unless you actually personally were with the Ecuadorean president when he made his final decision. (If he can even make that.)

And my philosophy is: If I can't find out if *any* side is right, I can't rely on it *at all*, and hence it's completely useless, and only serves as social engineering. That's why I don't trust *any* of it, and concentrate on things that can actually be useful for my life.

Re:False report

[Anonymous Coward]

President's twitter says it's false.

Assange is a hero. Assange stood up for freedom.

[Anonymous Coward]

It is sad that so few people understand this.

LOL...Ecuador? Really?

[daveschroeder]

Figures you'd be the one to say this is a "good" thing, Hatta. ;-)

Ecuador's Rafael Correa under fire for media laws
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-16806224

Ecuador's free speech record at odds with Julian Assange's bid for openness
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/19/ecuador-free-speech-julian-assange

Ecuador’s Assault on Free Speech
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/22/opinion/ecuadors-assault-on-free-speech.html

Oh, I know that in your world Ecuador is probably some kind of panacea — but this really just shows Assange's true colors (and those of anyone who can't see anything in conflict between concepts like "free speech" and "Ecuador") in spades.

Re:LOL...Ecuador? Really?

[Darinbob]

Assange doesn't care about openness if the country is anti-US. When wikileaks was about revealing secret information without taking sides then it had a lot more admirers. Now it's just a US bashing tool.

Re:LOL...Ecuador? Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well what alternatives does he have? Do you seriously think he won't be extradited to the US and harassed on trumped up charges along the way otherwise? You often see right-winged nutcases claim the UN is turning into a world government and that the US no longer can decide its own policy. The actual truth is that the US government *is* effectively the world government and are enforcing they idiotic laws all over the world.

Re:LOL...Ecuador? Really?

[Rei]

The whole extradition argument was just absurd from the get-go. He sure wasn't afraid of Sweden being such a US lackey when he was *applying to live there*. It only became a "US lackey" when he was charged with rape. Suddenly Britain, the infamous US lackey in Europe, was the beacon of freedom and his salvation against a corrupt Sweden. Only after reviewing the evidence against him, two separate British courts found the charges credible and the extradition request valid. So suddenly Britain became an evil US lackey and now freaking Ecuador is the beacon of freedom.

I really don't understand why anyone is still supporting this attention-hog.

Re:LOL...Ecuador? Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

The US started it.

Re:LOL...Ecuador? Really?

[SteveTheNewbie]

Oh, when was he charged ? is this a new development ?

Re:LOL...Ecuador? Really?

[Rei]

Linguistics. "Accusations", is that better? He can't be formally charged in Sweden in absentia. The checkbox for "rape" was listed on the European Arrest Warrant anyway.

Re:LOL...Ecuador? Really?

[SteveTheNewbie]

I'm pretty sure people don't need to be present to be charged with a crime.

Or are you saying that if I killed someone then skipped the country I couldn't be charged with murder ? even if I admitted to it ?

And the linguistics are quite important as generally, you can't extradite someone for 'questioning' (and to be honest, unless something has changed, I don't think he's even been accused of the crime, at the moment he is an interested party that is wanted for questioning, which couldn't be done in the month he was there waiting for them to question for some reason (apparently the police officer was sick or something) and when asked if he could leave and given permission by the prosecutor, found it couldn't be done by video (Scotland yard or the Swedish embassy) after the prosecutor changed his mind the instant (well, within hours) he left the country, but for some reason he had to travel back to Sweden for it. (even though it has since been shown that it's actually quite common to be questioned remotely by video hookup for this sort of thing)

Brazil has extradited someone to the US

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry. From there he can easily come to Brazil. We have never extradited anyone to US and won't start anytime soon. South America is probably the best place in the world for him to run. Nobody here likes US (and that includes most governments)

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1310&dat=19951219&id=vkVWAAAAIBAJ&sjid=c-sDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3374,4969784

However, you douches made it the only option

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:However, you douches made it the only option

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you noticed these guys always go with registered accounts?

Nobody is defending their country in a honest way; it's kinda scary as they look like "men in the street" defending their parties. It looks so much like something which happened some 75 years ago... now they get angry at someone who reveals the truth.

I wonder what would say those people who were persecuted by the English Army for "crimes" like that...

Come on guys. Correct the typo.

[Anonymous Coward]

Come on guys. Correct the typo in the name of th Ecuador country.

Assange: What an interesting life!

[Dr. Spork]

Is there a person alive right now who is living a more interesting life than Julien Assange? I'm not calling him a hero or a villain, I'm just saying that I can't think of anyone alive who's actual life would fit so well in a movie thriller.

Re:Assange: What an interesting life!

[Anonymous Coward]

I nominate Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and Chen Guangcheng.

And I remind you that, "May you live in interesting times" is a horrible curse.

Re:Assange: What an interesting life!

[Greyfox]

Well right now I assume he's mostly just hiding in an embassy so he doesn't get arrested. Sounds pretty boring. I'm sure a lot of the firefighters here and points west probably are having a more interesting time. There was just a bit of excitement over at NASA and some records set with the LHC. His life may be a spy thriller, but real life spy thrillers tend to involve a lot of waiting or boring footwork that gets glossed over. Overall his life may be more exciting, and maybe even on average, but at any given moment I'd guess he's about even with everyone else, with some really big spikes.

Economic freedom

[bladesinger]

Hi poster

There is a lot of excellent first-hand information here about which country has which amenities or pluses, but note that most people in this community (educated, well-off) will likely discuss their country with biased, irrational optimism (ex- don't worry about US debt, it will never be a problem!).

There is a startling correlation between economic freedom and quality of life. I would look at this list of countries:

http://www.heritage.org/index/default

and pick whichever one is easiest for you to re-locate to (or in general), and preferably whichever country has INCREASING economic freedom.

For your convenience, the top 5 are Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, and Switzerland.

Re:Economic freedom

[Jeremy Erwin]

The Heritage Foundation is a political shill. You can do better.

I guess for some definitions of democratic

[Sycraft-fu]

"For the past 10 years, Ecuador has been trapped in a downward spiral of political conflict and instability that has eroded the rule of law and kept the country perched on the brink of breakdown. At the time of writing, newly elected president Rafael Correa is weathering a political storm caused by his controversial strategy of bending elected and independent government branches, including the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (TSE) and congress, to his will regarding his plans for a constituent assembly"

http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/countries-crossroads-2007/ecuador

Re:I guess for some definitions of democratic

[jdc18]

I am Ecuadorian and during my whole life, Ecuador has being going for one crisis to another, 10 years? Try 30. But that is something we learn to live with. At least with Correa I have seeing advances in infraestructure, our roads are at the best they have ever being. Schools and Hospitals are being built and I have seing some great changes there. There are many things to critice Correa, there is still a lot of corruption. The thing is that I when other presidents played with the Supreme Electoral Tribunal and other branches the US and other countries didnt seem quite interested in them, but when you have a president that doesnt follow the rules set by them you seem to get a lot of news coverage. I dont support many things Correa does, i vote mostly NO on many of the questions he proposed for the Consulta Nacional. But looking at the media bias against Correa, looking at how the opposition handles and distorts eveything makes me wanna root for the guy. (The opposition are basically the guys that have always ruled the country) So when ever I read an article against Correa of 2007 of an American NGO, specially after I have seeing all my life how NGOs work, I would think it has a lot of credibility. You took from that article what you wanted to read, but if you read the bottom lines it clearly said that 83% of Ecuadorians voted for the asamble constitucional. One more thing, we no longer have TSE, it is Consejo Nacional Electoral.

holy overrated, batman!

[Anonymous Coward]

an admitted sock-puppeteer posts random regurgitated speculation and scores +4? what the hell is going on here - did he manage to score mod points with his sock puppets and use those to push this score up?

personal ego building tool?

[Anonymous Coward]

personal ego building tool?
wtf are you talking about?

Science is stupid?

[INowRegretThesePosts]

And anyhow, South Americans who do decide to come to North America tend to choose Canada over the Land of the Stupid.

The "Land of the Stupid" dominates science and technology. It also has great Constitutional freedoms.

Citation needed

[INowRegretThesePosts]

Attempted coup in Ecuador in 2010 and successful coup in Paraguay in June this year.

The Paraguayan President was ousted in a Contitutional manner, due to his enormous incompetence.

They usually do this by funding local right wing groups so it's difficult to trace the US origins but most people know how the system works.

Source?

Re:Citation needed

[mspohr]

"The Paraguayan President was ousted in a Contitutional (sic) manner, due to his enormous incompetence."

The President was ousted in a right wing kangaroo court where he was give 24 hours to prepare and 2 hours to testify. If you read the Wikipedia entry, you'll read that most of the neighboring countries considered this to be a coup. If you Google "Paraguay coup", you'll find lots of reputable news sources who reported it as a coup.
The US, of course, supported the coup and welcomed the right wing administration.

Re:Citation needed

[INowRegretThesePosts]

The President was ousted in a right wing kangaroo court where he was give 24 hours to prepare and 2 hours to testify. If you read the Wikipedia entry, you'll read that most of the neighboring countries considered this to be a coup.

The procedure respected the rules in Paraguay Constitution. Regarding the neighboring countries, they are very biased. Paraguay was opposed to Venezuela (which is undeniably a dictatorship), and the neighboring countries took the opportunity (of Paraguay being expelled from Mercosur) to immediately welcome Venezuela.

These same countries don't consider FARC to be terrorist... these people are very left-biased, and it is no wonder they complained about the ousting of Lugo (who was leftist).

Re:Citation needed

[randyleepublic]

In regard to AGW, so what is the answer? The only viable strategy for this nation that I can see would be to cover the nation with breeder reactors to be built and operated by a new branch of the federal government, and with a good percentage of the labor to be supplied by draft age young adults. Then we could reduce the cost of electricity to nearly 0, and that would spur the adoption of electricity based transportation and heating infrastructure to replace our petroleum and coal based infrastructure. Have you got a better idea?

Oh please

[INowRegretThesePosts]

Assange is being prosecuted for a common crime.

Awful hyperbole

[INowRegretThesePosts]

Work a drudgy job

American jobs pay quite well.

Pay taxes, deducted weekly from your pay, and levied higher if they think you didn't pay enough over the course of the year.
Pay taxes at the fuel pump
Pay taxes at the grocery store
Pay taxes when you buy alcohol or tobacco
Pay taxes when you somehow manage to buy a luxury item
Pay taxes on your property anually
Pay taxes on your vehicle
Pay levies for public scools

Duh, Americans pay taxes.

Speak publicly and exercise your right to assemble and address grievances in authorised "free speech zones"
Be subjected to brutal beatings if you exercise those rights anywere else
Be subjected to brutal beatings if you exercise those rights in the designated areas, if the message is controvertial or inconvenient

Oh please. This is ridiculous hyperbole. The USA is so radically pro-freespeech that it allows ***hats to offend people in funerals.

Be innundated in outright lies and yellow journalism 24/7 during election years

How is American media worse than anywhere else?

The reverse

[INowRegretThesePosts]

I can see the US having "entrepreneur drain" as young people quickly realize that there is an entire world out there to explore and many places where it is easier and more profitable (not just in dollars but in quality of life) to run a business outside of the USA.

Except that entrepreneurial geniuses (like Elon Musk) go to the USA.
And American Universities are full of bright Indians, Chinese, etc.

Take off the tinfoil hat

[INowRegretThesePosts]

Sweden is a first-world democracy, with duly separated branches of government.

The Swedish judges are entirely independent from the ambassadors. They come from separated branches of the government.

Sweden is a first world democracy

[INowRegretThesePosts]

Sweden is a first world democracy with duly separated branches of government.

The USA doesn't manipulate Sweden's judicial branch.

By the way, if you claim this to be a conspiracy, then don't complain when some conservative claims that Obama's nationality is hidden.

If you start believing in conspiracies, you must give your opponents the same right.

I, myself, deny conspiracies.

The Boy from Brazil

[Anonymous Coward]

seeing as South America has, in the past, been an exceedingly hospitable hiding place for Nazi war criminals, I applaude Mr Assanges choice of bolthole. As they say, "Birds of a feather flock together".

And he seemed such a nice chap......
(Tongue so far in cheek that its in danger of burrowing through into the outside world)

Yeah right

[SmallFurryCreature]

You are saying that in Brazil, lying to get sex is a crime? The entire country would be in jail.

Lets not forget the the rape charge in Sweden would be laughed out of court in the rest of the world. Hell, in most countries, if a woman made the charges made, the police would arrest HER for wasting the police time and slander. Check the charges. They are insane, never mind they were not prosecuted in Sweden until the Swedes needed something to stick Assange with at the behest of their American masters.

What accusations

[SmallFurryCreature]

You are aware that in the normal world (any place that is not Sweden) lying to get sex is not actually a crime? If it was, 99% of men would in jail. The remaining 1% are catholic priests and they would be in jail for raping kids.

Assange played two women. That is what ALL this is about. There is NO way this would stand up in any court expect in Sweden and then only because the Americans told them to do something.

Only right wing nutcases pretend the case against Assange has any merit whatsoever.

Oh and the two women involved already knew each other. AND the case had already been dismissed before the Americans got involved.

Re:What accusations

[FhnuZoag]

The case is not about lying to get sex.

Re:What accusations

[AmiMoJo]

It probably wouldn't stand up in Sweden either. The prosecutor certainly didn't think so which is why she dropped the case, until the US told her to pick it up again.

I guess whatever Assange has in that insurance.zip file he posted isn't enough to scare the US off.

I call bullshit

[SmallFurryCreature]

You are just a right winger. Read the charges, if you can read, there is no mention of sexual assault as it is understood in the rest of the world.

Only right wingers are pretending the "rape" charges have anything to do with rape. Don't pretend to be anything else but a right wing scumbag.

Re:I call bullshit

[FhnuZoag]

Have *you* read the charges? As outlined in the extradition ruling, it's rape anywhere in the world.

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/jud-aut-sweden-v-assange-judgment.pdf

Read the charges, if you can read, there is no mention of sexual assault as it is understood in the rest of the world.

Page 23:

The position with offence 4 is different. This is an allegation of rape. The framework list is ticked for rape. The defence accepts that normally the ticking of a framework list offence box on an EAW would require very little analysis by the court. However they then developed a sophisticated argument that the conduct alleged here would not amount to rape in most European countries. However, what is alleged here is that Mr Assange “deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state”. In this country that would amount to rape.

Assange and Correa, opposite poles of freedom

[Kecho]

What most people doesn't realize is how oppresive and unfair is Correa's government. This entire asylum provision is nothing more than a political strategy from Correa to make look the 'yankees' bad and post himself as a martyr of a sovereign nation. Correa is pairing up with Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Evo Morales (the one that wants to legalize coke in Bolivia) and so on. This is a new wave of communist / socialists that have done nothing but oppress the population and press. If you guys investigate a little bit, you will see how Correa has put in jail and fined ridiculous fees to newspapers executives that speak wrongly about his government. Most interesting scandal is that one of "El Universo", one of the most popular diaries of my city, Guayaquil. http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/120224/ecuador-libel-case-rafael-correa I guess it will be interesting seeing Assange's reaction once he arrives to a country that is currently crippled by oppresive laws which are silencing the press and population in favor of a corrupt government.

I have a question

[Anonymous Coward]

Paying taxes *is* a requirement for a healthy state. No question.

Here's a question for your un-questionable opinion (notice I didn't say "fact"). If instead of paying taxes, government relied exclusively on voluntary contributions, then wouldn't the result be a government that truly, honestly, accurately represents what the people want, rather than what the people in power want?

Suddenly it doesn't seem so "obvious" that taxing is a prerequisite for civilization, let alone freedom or prosperity.

Re:I have a question

[Anonymous Coward]

No, what you would then end up with is a system in which tremendous numbers of people would try to be free riders, wanting to enjoy all the benefits of government without ever paying any of the support costs. Such a government couldn't even begin to function and execute basic duties like "national defense" or "build roads."

Explain to me how you would persuade people to pay for things they would stand a reasonable chance of getting anyway without paying and then we can entertain your little thought experiment.

Re:I have a question

[Anonymous Coward]

*cough* you've just inadvertently made a quite compelling case for free market anarcho-capitalism.

No free riders, because everybody contracts for and pays voluntarily for the things they want - I buy *my* services. You buy your own. Defense, roads, health care, all of it.

The "free rider" problem is, in fact, a problem ONLY when and where a central government has the authority to tax. Because as soon as you give the government that authority, people begin fighting for control of that power, so that they can get as much 'free shit' as they can, while paying as little as possible.

And then you end up with one of two things:
1) Plutocracy, where the rich control the government because they can buy and sell representatives, and the government does the bidding of the rich business owners, and enough bread & circuses are given to the masses to keep them distracted;
2) Communism, where "everything" belongs to the state, and everybody's a "free rider" because they're granted everything through the generosity of the state who allocates their share of things to them.

You want to see a system in which tremendous numbers of people would try to be free riders? Look at any democratic republic in existence today. Entire classes of people fight for the privilege to be a free rider. Eliminate the mechanism by which they're given the power & opportunity to be a free rider, and you solve the problem.

Spandau

[ThatsNotPudding]

Assange should set up his own Spandau Prison in the Ecuadorian emabassy right there is London. He'd retain all the press attention and be a damn sight more secure than he ever would be in Ecuador proper, given that if the US will invade a country based on lies, they won't blink in snatching JA from a 'mere' central American country. Though it would be a bit of a tough arguement for him to sell: "Thank you for giving me refuge, but I don't want to go to your actual country as it would never be safe for me."

Mariconada

[Mana Mana]

!No, no queremos a ese hijueputa aqui! Presunto doble violador andate al diablo. kfc

Very bad video

[INowRegretThesePosts]

You would be surprised [youtube.com] at the non universality of your "freedom".

That video portrays "percentage of adults who believe in angels" as a bad thing; this is bigotry, but because it is politically correct bigotry, then slashdotters think it is a good thing.

Also, the video forgets about the First Amendment; America has considerably more freedom of speech and religion than England (for example), with its "hate speech" legislation.

Also, America has more federalism than most other countries I know.

Also, America has a better demographic future than European countries, because American women still have 2 children per woman. Europeans have only 1.6 children per woman, which will lead, in the long term, to population ageing, shrinking and ossifying.

The USA is a leader in economy, science, technology, sports, and military.

World

[NewYork]

Freedom is suffering from "Stockholm Syndrome".

Assange will not join your cult

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't fool yourself otherwise, even for a minute. Julian Assange believes in government for and of the people, with constraints and accountability. Your cult leader believes in none of that.

How to fix AGW

[INowRegretThesePosts]

In regard to AGW, so what is the answer?

1. Remove the artificial barriers to Brazilian ethanol.
2. Increase the taxes on petroleum and coal
3. Decrease the taxes on wind, solar, and next-generation nuclear.

Given that the renewable technologies are already close to reaching grid parity*, the government only has to give them a small extra push.

And we can accelerate the cooling process with geo-engineering:

4. Actively cool Earth**

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_parity
** http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/08/putting-the-breaks-on-climate-change-with-diamonds/