Ecuador Grants Asylum To Julian Assange

And now, the long wait by girlintraining · 2012-08-16 01:23 · Score: 5, Insightful

The UK has stated it will storm the embassy by force, violating the Vienna Conventions. Equador has shown remarkable courage, doing something many in the international community doubted it could: It has stood up to tyranny. It has stated it will now bow under the threat of terrorism. It does not negotiate with terrorists.

Your move, Britain.

--
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie

Re:And now, the long wait by Alkonaut · 2012-08-16 01:54 · Score: 5, Informative

Stripping the embassy privileges would mean they could go in and fetch him. This would be in accordance with conventions, but would cause serious diplomatic fallout.
The next option is to claim that the embassy is already in violation of the conventions, since it harbors criminals. You just can't do that forever and still follow the conventions. What the UK would do here is then to throw out an ambassador or like the above, strip the diplomatic privileges alltogether from the embassy. This too would cause serious diplomatic fallout.
The simplest option is to simply wait until he leaves the embassy, and just stop the car. The Vienna convention is quite clear on the fact that you can stop/search a diplomatic vehicle if there is a suspected crime. So the whole "sneak assange out to the airport in an embassy car" does not seem like a watertight plan. Even simpler, you could just block any way a car could leave the embassy, forcing people to walk from the embassy thereby letting him be arrested without having to search a car. In any case, I bet he will be extradited to sweden sooner or later. I'm also quite sure that once there, he will be questioned and released quickly (so quickly that the swedish authorities can claim not to know his whereabouts when the US asks, thereby avoiding a diplomatic problem between sweden and the US). There was a political scandal with the CIA smuggling suspected terrorists from Sweden to an egyptian CIA run prison where they were tortured, and no politician in Sweden will want to be involved in anything related to extradictions and the US again. At this point it is merely a question of prestige for the swedish legal authorities.
Re:And now, the long wait by girlintraining · 2012-08-16 02:03 · Score: 5, Insightful

1) Where did the UK state that? (i.e. you HAVEN'T read the letter, which was published in the same newspaper linked to above - there is no mention of storming or even entering ANYTHING, ANYWHERE in the entire letter).
That would be the last story slashdot posted on this... 12 hours ago, and it was based on a BBC story mentioning the letter, and to quote directly from the Foreign Minister of Equador: "Today we received from the United Kingdom an express threat, in writing, that they might storm our embassy in London if we don't hand over Julian Assange," he said."

2) It doesn't violate the Vienna convention to dissolve the embassy or even expel all the diplomatic staff. Go read it. It's quite clear that the UK can do that "at any time, and for any reason". Assange isn't covered by that, no matter what.
It violates article 9 of the Vienna convention, a treaty signed by the UK which supercecedes national law. That's the very definition of a treaty. The US has stated it has withdrawn from the Vienna convention, which is why it considers itself able to commit forced extradition of other countries citizens without any need to explain or justify itself. It has taken the diplomatic position of "We have more guns. Go ahead and try and stop us, but some piece of paper means nothing to us."

Rather than take Assange out of the embassy, they have threatened (indirectly and politely) to take the embassy away from Assange. Which is perfectly legitimate.

Yes, well, I see you have your life and liberty. I can't take away your liberty, so I'll just threaten to take your life -- indirectly and politely. It's perfectly legitimate because although it ends the exact same way, I can now say I never threatened to take away your liberty... your dead corpse will still have it. My internet logic is unbeatable!
Legitimacy isn't defined as what you can get away with; It's sticking to what you said before. And the UK signed the treaty, and the treaty is very explicit about this, in no uncertain terms, beyond any internet-troll logic: Once asylum is granted, the other country can't do anything to that person. Not while they're at the embassy. Not while they're in a vehicle leaving the embassy under the embassies protection. Not while they're at the airport getting out of the car. Not once they're in the air. Not anything. Anywhere. At anytime. For any reason. Period. End. Of. Discussion.
To quote directly from the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, source from the website of the organization responsible for its creation and oversight, the UN, Article 22, Item 1: The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the head of the mission, as wll as Article 29, The person of a diplomatic agent shall be inviolable. He shall not be liable to any form of arrest or detention.
You'll note it says person of a diplomatic agent; which refers to anyone under the protection of that embassy. It does not require approval of the host country, and does not restrict in any way that diplomatic envoy's right to designate any person as being under their protection, at any time, for any reason.

--
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Re:And now, the long wait by squiggleslash · 2012-08-16 02:05 · Score: 5, Insightful

You don't exactly have to read between the lines.
From the letter:

You need to be aware that there is a legal base in the UK, the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987, that would allow us to take actions in order to arrest Mr Assange in the current premises of the embassy.
(...)
We need to reiterate that we consider the continued use of the diplomatic premises in this way incompatible with the Vienna convention and unsustainable and we have made clear the serious implications that this has for our diplomatic relations.

An FO spokeswoman, responding to the charges that the letter implies Britain intends to "storm" the embassy:

We have consistently made our position clear in our discussions with the government of Ecuador. The UK has a legal obligation to extradite Mr Assange to Sweden to face questioning over allegations of sexual offences and we remain determined to fulfil this obligation.
We have an obligation to extradite Mr Assange and it is only right that we give Ecuador the full picture.

I'm sorry, but what exactly is the above supposed to imply other than that Britain is making a serious threat to storm the embassy, if other options don't pan out?
I'm staggered, blown away, by the number of people here who think it doesn't mean that on the basis that the word "storm" isn't in the threat. It's right there, directly, there's no reading between the lines necessary: "You need to be aware that there is a legal base in the UK, the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987, that would allow us to take actions in order to arrest Mr Assange in the current premises of the embassy."

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Re:And now, the long wait by girlintraining · 2012-08-16 04:26 · Score: 5, Insightful

I'm staggered, blown away, by the number of people here who think it doesn't mean that on the basis that the word "storm" isn't in the threat
People are like that; Once they take a position, they won't change it no matter the facts. Outside the sciences, I've never heard the phrase, "I hadn't considered that. I guess I was wrong." Right now, troops could be massing outside the embassy and these same people would be sticking their fingers in their ears and chanting "I can't heeeeear you! Glory, glory, hallelujah!" Right up until the exact moment where what they are denying it's actually happening, and it can no longer be denied, they'll maintain their position. Then they'll change their tune; "It's justified," or, "It wasn't that bad." And finally, when the costs are tabulated, when everyone is tired of suffering, and they're miserable, and beyond even being angry and simply just want it to end... they might admit that it's all the other guy's fault for making them do it.

--
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Re:And now, the long wait by scot4875 · 2012-08-16 05:27 · Score: 5, Informative

The next option is to claim that the embassy is already in violation of the conventions, since it harbors criminals.
Actually, they can't make that claim, because Assange has not been charged with any crime.
--Jeremy

--
Jesus was a liberal
Re:And now, the long wait by luis_a_espinal · 2012-08-16 05:54 · Score: 5, Informative

Reminds me of that little Cuban boy who was "NOT" seized from his family at gun point by SWAT police...until the photo was released that showed just that.
His family? You mean the deceased mother's 2nd and 3rd relatives and a bunch of right-wing Cuban-American celebrities and politicians? His family was his father (his living and breathing father) to whom the swat team delivered the boy.
His family was his father, who was asking Elian Gonzales (the boy) to be returned to his care. His mother and husband at the time took him out of Cuba in a raft in complete violation of the father's shared custody rights. His family was not the people who held Elian Gonzales (the boy in question) refusing to deliver him to his father just because he didn't want to leave Cuba. It was all political, a disgraceful spectacle that we in Miami had to endure at the hand of those nutjobs.
The swat team had to intervene because the people holding Elian were treating to retaliate with violence. Get your facts straight buddy.

the moral to the story by Pirulo · 2012-08-16 01:24 · Score: 5, Funny

Having sex in Sweden can get complicated

Re:the moral to the story by timeOday · 2012-08-16 02:29 · Score: 5, Insightful

Do you honestly think that is what this whole thing is really about? Please. How many other allegations of "sure I wanted to sleep with him, but I didn't want to go all the way" are actually pursued through Interpol and extradition treaties each year? This is an empirical question.
Re:the moral to the story by chrb · 2012-08-16 02:51 · Score: 5, Informative

I don't get why we are so quick to defend people we support otherwise when accused of criminal activities, and be so sure about their innocence. Even nerds can be douchebags.
You're right - we don't really know what happened. Maybe he did it. Maybe he didn't. But the situation that led up to this point is complicated by the fact that the original prosecutor said that whatever Assange is alleged to have done wasn't a crime and he was free to leave Sweden. Also there is the issue of his alleged victim apparently no longer cooperating with the prosecution. There is the issue that she gave consent for him to continue after she asked and he confirmed that he wasn't using a condom. There is the whole issue of Interpol getting involved in what would usually be a non-Interpol matter. There is the issue that, once in Sweden, Assange could be extradited or otherwise renditioned into the hands of the U.S. government - the Swedish government has never denied that it would extradite Assange once he is back in Sweden - isn't that kind of weird? They could've ended this whole thing at any time by announcing that there would be no subsequent extradition to the US government. And yet they haven't done it.

- and if the consent is clearly dependent on condom, you don't have consent if you drop it.
Actually the issue of predicated consent in sexual activity is tricky and controversial - for example, in Israel it is considered rape if a woman thinks a man is Jewish and has sex with the man, but later finds out that he is a non-Jew (eg Sabbar Kashur and an unknown Israeli Air Force officer). A similar issue is prosecutions against HIV carriers who have unprotected sex but don't inform their sexual partner - is this actually rape? Most times the man will be charged with assault, but under some legal systems, yes, that would be considered rape. Is it rape if a man has sex with a woman, then she falls asleep, and he begins to have sex with her again? Technically it may be, as she is unconscious and has not affirmed her consent to sex again, and yet this happens often, even in relationships. Can a man rape his wife? Yes, obviously (though some legal systems would disagree). What about a man who has sex with his sleeping wife? Maybe.

Extradition to US by Ly4 · 2012-08-16 01:28 · Score: 5, Interesting

Something that was in the press release, but that is not being widely reported:

Ecuador offered for Assange to go to Stockholm tomorrow if there was no extradition to the US.

Sweden refused.

Re:Extradition to US by stiggle · 2012-08-16 01:41 · Score: 5, Insightful

They offered for Swedish investigators to come to the embassy and interview Assange there - they refused.
Re:Extradition to US by Xest · 2012-08-16 01:48 · Score: 5, Interesting

That was only part of it, they also tried to get the UK to do the same and guarantee there was no potential for Assange to then be moved onto the US after Sweden too but they wouldn't.
They also made it clear Sweden can and has in the past interviewed people in foreign embassies and so Sweden does have the legal capability to do this.
They asked the US to also confirm whether there were any plans to try and get Assange over Wikileaks and the US wouldn't comment on that either.
It was all in all really interesting, because the statement basically drove a bulldozer through all the anti-Assange arguments that have been made here on Slashdot over the last year or so. All the stuff about how there were protections against Assange being moved on from Sweden to the US preventing that being possible, and all the crap about how Sweden supposedly doesn't allow in it's law for questioning via video link or in foreign countries hence the need for extradition turns out to be complete and utter crap.
Re:Extradition to US by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-16 01:53 · Score: 5, Insightful

Here's someone the UK would not extradite: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet
I guess their laws mean nothing.
Re:Extradition to US by Xest · 2012-08-16 02:36 · Score: 5, Insightful

"The UK have no interest in him."
We have no interest in him yet we're willing to make the totally unprecedented move that defies all international convention and precedence on the issue of embassies of revoking the Ecuadorian right to an embassy in our country?
You're right about one thing though, he's not our problem, but if he's not our problem, why are we going to the level of creating a diplomatic shit-storm that undoes every bit of good-will towards the UK from the international community that the likes of the royal wedding and the olympics have built up? Why are we willing to have our embassies shut down across the globe in retaliation by Ecuador and it's allies over someone who is not our problem? Why don't we just let Ecuador fly him to Ecuador and let Sweden/Ecuador sort it out through their own channels?
"The UK *MUST* extradite him or their laws mean nothing."
No we mustn't, historical precedence, and international convention says that political asylum takes precedence. How can we possibly preach to countries like Iran over things such as holding British sailors or US citizens prisoner if we do this sort of thing? At that point we've lost the moral high ground on this and many similar issues and no one should or will listen to us ever again on them.
"The laws on embassies mean we *CAN* legally revoke embassy status from the building itself."
That's what government claims. No one else seems to be convinced. Even if we can the cost of doing so is so massive there has to be a question of why, unless the government is seeing absolutely massive pressure/threats from elsewhere - i.e. the US government. The cost of doing this is so large relative to just letting Assange go to Ecuardor that it makes no sense without some other massive external factor (i.e. the US).
"Even the Vienna convention says we can just expel all the diplomats (so long as we don't harm them, etc.) "at any time, and for any reason"."
Yes, but the actual process of expelling a diplomat means you have to give them chance to pack up and go, and again, the cost of doing so is so mind bogglingly large for Britain's reputation that it doesn't make any sense to do this.
You're using the word "must" an awful lot where you should actually have typed "in my opinion should" because there is no real grounding for your claim of must.
"He deliberately and knowingly breached UK bail and will have to stand up in court for that at some point, no matter what."
Again, this is rather forceful language - "no matter what"? are you sure about that? are you sure that he wont manage to get to Ecuador and 30 years down the line when global geopolitics have changed and anything Assange has done wrong is forgotten the charges are dropped? It's not like this sort of thing hasn't happened across the globe many hundreds of times before in geopolitics.
Unless you can tell the future and know something the rest of us don't you should stick to stating things as opinion rather than demanding that what you say is the absolute truth and nothing else could possibly be the case, as that just makes you look like some zealous preacher, you may think it somehow adds strength to your argument, but it really doesn't, it just makes you look like an unobjective wingnut.
Re:Extradition to US by girlintraining · 2012-08-16 03:32 · Score: 5, Insightful

There is no law, statute or convention that protects him in there, under asylum or not (he has NOT been granted UK asylum, and cannot leave the building to be taken anywhere else that might recognise asylum for him).
Article 29 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations states otherwise. In one sentence. No exceptions.

The UK *MUST* extradite him or their laws mean nothing.

No, the UK doesn't have to do anything. They're a sovereign power. And they're a sovereign power that signed a treaty stating that embassies hosted within their borders are involate, as is any person under their protection. And that treaty also stipulates that while they can expel the envoy, and all persons under their protection, they still can't touch them. Treaties supercede both UK law and EU law; that's the very definition of a treaty.
And for the record, there's no "temporary" dissolution of the embassy. Equador made their choice, they said the UK is wrong. If the UK resorts to military action, they're not setting up an embassy again -- they just wiped their ass with a treaty they signed, and it doesn't just affect Equador, but every treaty signee, who now has to consider that the UK has shown it will resort to violence to get what it wants out of the embassies. Many embassies will close in the UK, especially those without militaries of equal size. They'll be held as oath-breakers -- they won't be trusted for a long time with keeping their word on anything negotiated diplomatically. It might mean the UK can't do prisoner exchanges anymore with other countries, or get its own citizens out of a bind in those countries. The UK will have to resort to violence then to solve every one of its diplomatic problems, since their word is now worth nothing.
This is no longer about Assage; the UK has become militant, committed an act of terrorism, and is a threat to the national security of over a hundred countries. And if it doesn't back down, the damage will be severe, swift, and irreparable. As a citizen of the UK who supports this action, you need to be asking yourself how much extra taxation you're willing to bear for increased military expenditures, and how comfortable you are with the UKs more aggressive stance. And you might want to cancel any travel arrangements you have to... just about anywhere outside your country. If you run afoul of any laws while abroad, you might not have an embassy to help you sort it out. In fact, in some places, you may be arrested and held as a prisoner of war to be used as a bargaining chip to get their own citizens released from UK jails.
This is the price to be paid when you walk this path.

--
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie

Re:Oh, the delicious irony! by canadiannomad · 2012-08-16 01:32 · Score: 5, Insightful

What scares me most is the willingness the world seems to have to allow first the violation of Assange's human rights, then to threaten the 10+ international treaties (acts of hostility against a friendly nation) that the world has in place to protect people from such a situation. In the end we are left looking to a third world country, with a somewhat poor record itself, for those rights that should be universal. Australia should be ashamed of itself that he has to resort to Ecuador and not his home nation.

--
Hmm, the humour and sarcasm seem to have been be lost on you.

WMD in Ecuador by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-16 01:32 · Score: 5, Funny

BREAKING NEWS: "Al-Qaeda is hiding a stock of WMDs in Ecuador", says a US diplomat.

And you are showing your true colors by SmallFurryCreature · 2012-08-16 01:37 · Score: 5, Insightful

You question Ecuador's record on human rights. Well, how about the US and the UK and for that matter Sweden? The US routinely tortures civilians with no right to process or a legal representative. And that is just the most blatant example.

The UK has a very long history of violent repression and total disregard for human rights. The only reason it has improved is because its power to abuse has been greatly reduced.

Sweden has shown itself to be a puppet state in the last ten years.

Nobody claims Ecuador is a saint but in the fight against evil you sometimes have to make strange bed fellows.

And good job quoting a guy working for a rightwing think tank. This was funded by the people who made the atom bomb. I want their opinion on human rights?

Willfull slaves such as you quake in their boots at the idea of anyone daring to rebel. You do not believe in the system that represents the status quo, you just are desperately afraid of any change whatsoever. You rather continue to be raped up the ass then risk any change because it might cause just the tiniest upset and then all hell will break lose.

Wikileaks was the only response possible in a world where western governments from administration to adminstration have sought to keep ever more hidden from fact in the name of national security. That this was a complete and utter lie is simply proven to anyone who isn't a sniffeling coward like the parent poster, NOT A FUCKING THING HAPPENED after the wikileaks. All that happened is that it became clear how much we had been lied to and how many of the rumors were true. People lost faces but no bases were attacked, no wars were lost. Just the powerful ended up with eggs on their faces.

And that frighens little dave shroeder, Wikileaks upset his world view. He believed Bush was protecting little dave and not at in it for himself. Poor dave is upset. Wikileaks must be shutdown so dave can put his head under the blanket again.

Well, fuck that.

--

MMO Quests are like orgasms:

You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

Re:What violation of his rights? by pointyhat · 2012-08-16 01:41 · Score: 5, Interesting

He stated that he would go to Stockholm to face his allegations, but only if they guaranteed that they would not extradite him to the US. The Swedish government confirmed that they couldn't promise that.

That is the human rights violation - it's effectively a one stop trip to Guantanamo for him without a rape trial.

Assange is being very reasonable, but only if International Treaties such as the Vienna Convention are adhered to.

Re:Oh, the delicious irony! by Xest · 2012-08-16 01:43 · Score: 5, Interesting

Oh dear, Dave Schroeder the self-confessed "Information Warfare Officer in the United States Navy Fleet Cyber Command/US Tenth Fleet." from his own homepage was just waiting to pounce on first post for this one.

Well, anyway, I actually listened to the statement by Ecuador's spokesman live today and it was pretty interesting. The reason Ecuador took so long over this decision is that they have been trying to avoid it. What this involved was trying to find out whether Assange really was under some kind of threat. As such they:

- Asked Britain to guarantee that there was no possibility of Assange being extradited to the US. Britain refused to give this guarantee.

- Asked Sweden to guarantee that Assange would not be further extradited to the US after the rape case was dealt with. Sweden refused to give this guarantee.

- Asked Sweden if they would be willing to interview Assange in the Ecuardorian embassy over the accusations, noting that contrary to much FUD posted on Slashdot, this is in fact something Sweden can do, and has done in the past hence debunking the argument that Sweden's legal system does not allow this.

- Asked the US whether there was any existing or planned legal proceedings ongoing against Assange, and any current or potential future plans to extradite him over Wikileaks. The US refused to respond to this.

Given these 3 points, Ecuador decided that on the balance of probabilities, Assange was indeed at risk because they could not get any kind of guarantee from any of the parties involved that this was nothing to do with Wikileaks. As such they granted him asylum.

Or if you cut away the bullshit, the responses, or lack of, from Britain, Sweden, and America when Ecuador tried to resolve this without having to give Assange asylum and hence now deal with the tricky situation of how to get him the hell out of the UK all but confirm that this whole thing is indeed about Wikileaks.

Still, keep on trying to just slag off Ecuador as a bit of misdirection from the actual story here Dave if that's what makes you a happy guy.

I think I speak for the majority of Brits by Dudibob · 2012-08-16 01:43 · Score: 5, Insightful

To say I am ashamed of the actions the the Government to even threaten the Ecuador embassy with stripping it of its diplomatic status. For the alleged crimes Assange has committed this action is way way way over the top and obvious for all to see.

Re:Storm? Who said that, exactly? by CMYKjunkie · 2012-08-16 01:43 · Score: 5, Funny

Do you see the word 'storm' in there? I don't.

Obvious: "We very much hope not to get thiS point, buT if you cannOt Resolve the issue of Mr. Assange's presence on your premises, this route is open to us."

Re:I don't think so by pointyhat · 2012-08-16 01:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

Well actually no. It proves that we will break international extradition and asylum treaties on a political whim...

Assange said he'd willingly go to Sweden to face charges if they guaranteed it wasn't a ploy to extradite him to the US. They could not guarantee that which is why he's seeking asylum. He's not trying to escape the allegations.

I think the guy is an asshat generally, but he's right on this one.

Re:Oh, the delicious irony! by Lehk228 · 2012-08-16 01:48 · Score: 5, Informative

Retrieved 20120816 9:45AM from http://das.doit.wisc.edu/

Dave Schroeder
About Me

I am located at the University of Wisconsinâ"Madison in Madison, Wisconsin. I work in the University's Division of Information Technology (DoIT) in Systems Engineering and Operations as a senior systems engineer. My work involves assessing services in enterprise IT environments at the University.

I am the Continuity of Operations (COOP) Architect, which is responsible for the technical efforts that drive business continuity, disaster recovery, and continuity of operations analysis and planning for critical IT infrastructure at the University of Wisconsinâ"Madison, a major state government agency.

I also serve as an Information Warfare Officer in the United States Navy Fleet Cyber Command/US Tenth Fleet. I have a master's degree in Information Warfare, and am currently in the graduate Space Systems program at the Naval Postgraduate School. For contact information, see the left sidebar.

technically not a shill, but he is a US operative that is unquestionable.

--
Snowden and Manning are heroes.

Re:They are too generous by Alwin+Henseler · 2012-08-16 01:49 · Score: 5, Insightful

Well if it pisses off governments that aren't working the way they're supposed to work, then it can't be that bad what he's done.

In my book he's a hero. As a private person he might be an a**hole, but that doesn't change the service he's done the public (which is the more important thing anyway).

Re:Oh, the delicious irony! by jkflying · 2012-08-16 01:55 · Score: 5, Informative

It's easy to tell:
http://das.doit.wisc.edu/

He has a post in Information Warfare in the US Navy. He prepared a large document smearing a country and managed to get first post. The evidence really is rather damning.

--
Help I am stuck in a signature factory!

It doesn't take a genius... by dark-br · 2012-08-16 01:59 · Score: 5, Informative

... to work out that there is definetely something fishy going on with the whole extradition story.

To begin with when both woman when to the police station to "report" Assange what they stated was NOT that they were raped but instead that he REFUSED to use a condom and they wanted to confirm with the police if they had the power to force him to take a STD test. Pure and simple! Now the police officer that took their statements called the prosecutor and, given the nature of the inquire, it already starts to sound a bit fishy. When the woman were told that they will issue an arrest warrant for Assange one of them REFUSED to continue with the statements and also even REFUSED to sign what had already been said. It sounds to me that it's pretty obvious that the public prosecutor that was called from that police station informed "someone" that they might had something on Assange.

There is so much to this it's hard to consolidate in a short coment but I would suggest watching this documentary on the subject:

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

I don't buy for a second that the woman were raped. And given all the evidence already presented in Sweden I don't think anyone does. The question has got to be related to something else, not even Kadafi had a RED Notice put on him, not even the Syrian president, it's an orange notice, but hey, he refused to use a condom, that's seems justified!

Re:What violation of his rights? by 1s44c · 2012-08-16 02:09 · Score: 5, Insightful

"That is the human rights violation"

No it isn't. No country should make deals with a criminal to get him to face justice.

If his suspected crime is rape he should expect to only be tried for rape.

What Sweden is attempting here isn't bringing a suspected criminal to justice, it's bringing a suspected criminal to a place where he will be abducted, tortured, and likely killed by a third party country that has no stake in the crime he is accused of.

Re:Oh, the delicious irony! by Xest · 2012-08-16 02:12 · Score: 5, Informative

"Why would the UK or Sweden "guarantee" that he won't be extradited? If the US has not requested it, and a court has not ruled, then no guarantee could be made."

The UK specifically because it was extraditing him for the claimed rape and has claimed Sweden couldn't then pass him on to a 3rd country without the UK's agreement. It was a bit more explicit than the way I simply worded it, such that the UK wouldn't give a guarantee that Sweden couldn't then just pass him on to the US, which is contrary to what UK officials have claimed in the past about the case.

In the case of Sweden, the guarantee sought was that Sweden wouldn't just pass him on to the US without a separate extradition agreement from the UK. Again, Sweden wouldn't do this, and again, despite the fact Swedish officials have claimed they would need to do this to pass him onto the UK.

Effectively all Ecuador was after is a solid guarantee that the standards of justice in protecting Assange from extradition to the US that both British and Swedish officials had claimed would protect Assange, really would protect him. Neither country was willing to put their money where their mouth is and actually back up their previous claims with a solid guarantee.

So it ties in with your last sentence basically, that it's not so much that both countries wouldn't give some arbitrary guarantee that Assange was safe from US extradition, but instead that both countries wouldn't give a guarantee that Assange would in fact be protected by the proper legal mechanisms both countries previously claimed would protect him. In other words, what was said by officials about protection for Assange from further extradition to the US was in fact likely just a facade.

Pinochet by paugq · 2012-08-16 02:43 · Score: 5, Insightful

Pinochet: well-known and repeatedly convicted dictator. UK verdict: let go free

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

Assange: not even charged, more than doubtful testimonies, a "crime" which does not even exist outside Sweden (sex without condom!). UK verdict: all kinds of threaten and proposal to violate Vienna Convention

Way to go UK, way to go.

Re:Oh, the delicious irony! by Hatta · 2012-08-16 03:15 · Score: 5, Insightful

The disinformation lies not in the falsehood, but the lack of relevance.

Also, Ecuador's free speech record is highly relevant:

Nothing you say following this colon shows any sort of relevance of Ecuador's free speech record. The only thing that matters is that the West is persecuting Assange and Ecuador is not. If you were Assange, who would you choose?

Nothing about seeking asylum in a country can be reasonably construed as an endorsement of that country.

Second, why are Western governments "persecuting" Assange (ignoring for a moment that if ANY Western government wanted Assange out of the picture, he would have been dead long ago) to whatever extent they are? Could it be that in free and open societies governed by the rule of law we don't allow individuals to unilaterally decide, on their own, what secrets of their own governments should be released? Intelligence operations and diplomatic work demand secrecy even in free societies. We allow for that as a people.

Ah, so you admit that this is prosecution is politically motivated. Good. I'm glad we can agree on that much.

do you really believe Correa and Assange are some kind of kindred spirits?

No I don't. Do you believe that the US and Saudi Arabia are some kind of kindred spirits? By your argument, the US is as smeared by its association with Saudi Arabia as Assange is by association with Ecuador.

Does our alliance with Saudi Arabia "absolutely smear" the US? If not, how can you say the same about Assange?

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!

Re:Oh, the delicious irony! by Lehk228 · 2012-08-16 04:03 · Score: 5, Insightful

How did we get to a place where states like Russia, Venezuela, and Ecuador are â" explicitly or implicitly â" thought to be more "free" by ANY measure than the US, UK, and Sweden?

by pursuing whistleblowers as spies instead of prosecuting the crimes exposed by the whistleblowers

--
Snowden and Manning are heroes.

Re:Oh, the delicious irony! by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-08-16 05:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

The irony, I suppose — irony being a common thread here — is that all the leaked cables showed is that the US has a thoughtful and dedicated foreign service. Unless, of course, you're one of those people who hates the US and believes that they revealed some dark and sinister secrets by taking a handful of cables out-of-context out of hundreds of thousands and using them to invent some kind of imagined scandal.

Pray tell, how can you take supplying underage sexual slaves to Afghan warlords "out of context"?

(yes, I do realize that it's not the US government - it is, however, a company hired by said government and paid by it, and no-one was prosecuted for this)

Slashdot Mirror

Ecuador Grants Asylum To Julian Assange

34 of 923 comments (clear)