Slashdot Mirror
One Year Since Assange Took Refuge in Ecuadorian Embassy
Daniel_Stuckey writes with an article marking the one year anniversary of Julian Assange seeking asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy. From the article: "Uninterested in facing U.S. justice, Assange said he's prepared to spend five years living there. If he goes out for a walk, he'll be extradited to Sweden to answer rape accusations —after which he has no promise from Sweden to deny further extradition efforts to America, where a grand jury investigation into WikiLeaks awaits. This also means that London's Metropolitan Police have been devoting their resources to keeping tabs on Assange for a year. Yesterday, a spokesperson explained the updated costs of guarding the embassy over the phone: 'From July 2012 through May 2013, the full cost has been £3.8 million ($5,963,340),' he said. '£700,000 ($1,099,560) of which are additional, or overtime costs.'
Julian has a treadmill, a SAD lamp, and a connection to the Internet, through which he's been publishing small leaks and conducting interviews. The indoor lifestyle has taken its toll on Julian, and it led to his contracting a chronic lung condition last fall."
Why bother guarding the embassy?
I thought they'd be able to fly him to Ecuador by now. The inside of their limo's are also considered part of their embassy aren't they?
nobody cares
Lots of people turn to raping after making speeches criticizing the primacy of the U.S. dollar, or revealing U.S. top secret documents. Hell, it wouldn't surprise me if Edward Snowden weren't considering raping some poor women right now, or molesting kids, or selling secrets to the Chinese, or kicking puppies.
The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
Without the option of moving out to breathe some air without a carbon content higher than some school pencils, it's more likely his condition is caused by being stuck in London's air.
The indoor lifestyle has taken its toll on Julian, and it led to his contracting a chronic lung condition last fall
Is he really the geek we all assumed? A year in an embassy should be a cakewalk after 18 years in your mom's basement..
We know you read Slashdot. You're a geek who can't go outside, so you've gotta be here. Come on and say hi to us already.
Even if you were paying 8 policemen (which seems like an awful lot of policemen) to do nothing but take turns guarding the embassy 24/7, those policemen would be making nearly 800,000/yr for the 6,000,000 total to work out. In reality those policemen are probably making closer to 30-40k a year. I would love to see the break down in expenditures and how they justify spending it on a man who isn't even wanted for anything in their country and who is wanted on only the most tenuous of charges in Sweden.
Hopefully they are invoicing the US Government monthly for doing their dirty work for them. I would love to hear the justification put forth when the London police force asks for more money from their government to patrol the streets because all their manpower is tied up guarding a guy in an embassy.
Even in prison you are actually allowed to go outside. Presumably he prefers an internet connection to being able to see the sun? What he's got now is hardly better than it he was extradited to the USA and thrown in jail, except he doesn't get to be a martyr or fight a decent trial this way.
...is he better off continuing to get publicity to keep him in the mind of people or better off trying to fade into obscurity so people don't remember him and he's less of a target?
Disgusting how couple politicians treat Police as private force and we, tax payers pay for their inflated egos.
At the same time, outside of London you can wait couple hours for Police to show up if crime is reported.
There is no accountability anymore and those going overboard with guarding the embassy are laughing in our faces.
Last I checked he was willing to go to sweden for the questioning (no charges have been put forward at all to my knowledge yet) so long as he had a guarantee to not be extradited to the US while there.
Sweden refused.
If I were him I'd take that as intent to ship him off after he gets there.
Fugitive, yes. But remember that every oppressive dictatorship in history has carried out their purges and atrocities in the name of 'justice.' It is a very flexible concept. What one country considered justice, another may well consider crimes against humanity - and often the same is true with the roles reversed. He isn't hiding from the rape accusation* - he he hiding from the US (He believes Sweden to be acting as their proxy), and given their treatment of other people involved in high-profile leaks** it could certainly be argued that any paranoia he feels is justified.
If I believed the US were trying to extradite me in connection with a major leak, I'd be packing my bags and buying a train ticket as far as I could go by cash.
*It isn't rape exactly, but there is no precise equivilent in UK or US law, so 'rape' is close enough. A better translation might be 'sex by deception.'
**Manning, kept in solitary confinement for years without trial, then being tried at a secret court in which he isn't permitted to see the evidence presented against him.
I think that's the biggest issue I have with it all. He was reasonably bailed and took the piss out of us by not answering bail.
It's not like the list of opressive regimes is Iran, Syria, North Korea........Sweden is it?
It looks like they extradite if they would face at least a year in prison in Sweden. The real question is do the politicians in Sweden want to gain favor with the US. http://www.government.se/sb/d/2710/a/15435
Except for the bit where the US has expressed interest in getting him in front of a US court and the other bit where Sweden has an extradition treaty with the US and is willing to honor it.
sounds like an allergy or sensitivity to mold or the like.
If Assange comes out, he'll be arrested and jailed. He won't be in general population, so the cost of guarding him will not be $28k per year. He'll be isolated and placed on suicide watch, increasing the cost considerably. His lung condition will have to be treated.
The current situation suits "The Government" very well: he's isolated, he's got little access to specialized medical treatment and the cost of keeping him in there is equal, if not smaller that having him go to jail and on trial.
I though the woman that accused him of rape, after the wikileaks thing blew up, was a known CIA operative. The theory being that if they could get him pinned down by the local authorities on other charges, it could be used as leverage.
Yep, just googled it, and she was CIA.
Hopefully the arrogant snot will croak in the embassy (soon).
"Uninterested in facing U.S. justice..."
I do want to point out that Assange is not facing U.S. justice. What he is "uninterested in facing" is a return to Sweden to be questioned on rape charges.
He says that if he's sent to Sweden, Sweden will extradite him to the U.S.. There's no actual evidence for that, and no real reason to believe it.
I wonder what the statue of limitations are for the crime he is being charged in the US?
Meaning, can he just wait it out at the embassy for a couple of years and then walk out a free man?
Same with the rape in Sweden.
Sweden refused to have the workings of their legal system dictated to them by a fugitive?
I can't thing of many countries where that would wash.
He says that if he's sent to Sweden, Sweden will extradite him to the U.S.. There's no actual evidence for that, and no real reason to believe it.
Assange stated repeated times that we would face the justice in Sweden in case Sweden let clear that Assange wouldn't be extradited to the USA. Sweden refused to grant that.
Can he still order hookers to service him in the embassy?
There's no real evidence that requires him to be extradited to Sweden. This was all hashed out last year. There's no evidence and noone is pressing charges. There were no charges pending when he left Sweden, long after the alleged incident happened. A prosecuter decided to open a closed case with no new evidence and no victim and demanded Assange show up in person for questioning.
If he wasn't wanted in the US, there's no reason for Sweden or Great Britain to go to the lengths they've gone to or to spend the money they've spent.
Yes, it was rape, unless you believe that consenting once to having protected sex means that you've automatically consented to having unprotected sex in the future.
Except if you have your head out of your ass in any way, shape or form.
There are no "rape" charges. They did reopen a previously closed case where he was accused of sexual impropriety involving the use of a condom.
That would be admitting that they are criminal and in the wrong, therefore going to open assasination to gain their ends.
The reason why they are still guarding the embassy is because they want everyone to know that they WILL get you and it is hopeless to resist the pre-eminent force of our time.
Handing that force out to some random civilian shows that they are NOT the pre-eminent force of our time, but need "our" help.
One of two bad things will happen:
1. The US's influence over the world will implode
2. The US's influence over the world will be "something something something 'DarkSide' something something something 'Complete!'"
What happens next should be obvious. Personally, I hope US influence implodes -- we need freedom and democracy again.
"chronic lung condition"
From being indoors? Yep. totally believable.. for sure.
They killed him. Just gotta wait for him to drop. Take another year or two.
There are usually exceptions, i.e. the case of being a fugitive. But in this case, as far as I know, Assange has never been charged with anything. I think in the US they have 5 years from the crime being brought to light to being able to legally charge you.
Then there are other exceptions where the limit doesn't apply. Murder is one of them, and treason/espionage may be the same (not really sure).
hes lived in a room in an embassy for an entire year, but its just questioning
hes prepared to live 5 more years in the embassy, but its just questioning
£200,000 bail was required to get him out of the klink, where he was awaiting extradition for questioning
swedish prosecutors have been given access to assange in jail, in the embassy, and during his house arrest on bail to which they declined
the british government has committed £3.8 million to playing what amounts to a very childish game of whack-a-mole with no end in sight...just to process an extradition for questioning about a possible rape.
The case is hillariously frought with inconsistency. There are more consistent rape and assault allegations on an episode of Jerry Springer, but for some reason the swedish criminal justice system cant seem to get this one even remotely credible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange#Allegations_of_sexual_assault_and_political_refugee
the US denies any "witch-hunt" is being undertaken but this is coming from a country that practices rendition, operates torture camps, and executes its own citizens without trial. So its safe to say the opinion of the government targeted by Assanges leaks is wholly unqualified to comment upon their response.
Assange knows what we all refuse to admit: Sweden might be his country of extradition, but his final destination is the cuban resort with the lemon-pepper fish and waterboard wednesdays.
Good people go to bed earlier.
"Uninterested in facing U.S. justice..."
I do want to point out that Assange is not facing U.S. justice. What he is "uninterested in facing" is a return to Sweden to be questioned on rape charges.
He says that if he's sent to Sweden, Sweden will extradite him to the U.S.. There's no actual evidence for that, and no real reason to believe it.
Considering the rape charges magically appeared after he was identified as a US VIP (Very Interrogate-able Person), the writing on the wall certainly indicates his stay in Sweden would be rather short indeed.
More Twoson than Cupertino
Yes, it was rape, unless you believe that consenting once to having protected sex means that you've automatically consented to having unprotected sex in the future.
Jeez, we also know it isn't rape on Tuesday!
I basically never go outside and my lungs are just fine, lol. I don't see the cause and effect there. When I do go outside (summer at least) boom, allergy meltdown. Now that's a lung condition.
Sweden CANNOT guarantee that there will be no extradiction, as it would mean overriding the whole legal system in a way that a non-corrupt country shouldnt.
How much is this costing Ecuador and how long are they willing to host Assange?
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
I doubt they call us liberals. Maybe you can sort of call us socialist, but not really.
We have the same laws as in most other western countries, but we take slightly better care of each other.
Yep, just googled it, and she was CIA.
If Google says it, then it must be true.
He says that if he's sent to Sweden, Sweden will extradite him to the U.S.. There's no actual evidence for that, and no real reason to believe it.
Sweden has handed over suspects to the CIA for torture before.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Agiza_and_Muhammad_al-Zery
many cases like this also end up as a political football, and it doesn't help that the girls who raised the allegations have previous history with the CIA.
something stinks, but nobody wants to talk about the smell.
I've read that during the cold war embassies smuggled interesting things in/out of countries in creative ways. For example, putting a person in a diplomatic mail bag. I wonder what the British would do if Assange was shipped out of the country in a manner that tested diplomatic protocol?
Yep, just googled it...
Then clearly it must be true; that's the law.
Fugitive implies guilt. He hasn't been tried, no evidence has been presented, nothing. All we have is an accusation of rape, and half the leaders of the "free world" wanting him to answer for making them look back
Extradition has to be OK'd by the foreign minister (in the case of foreign nationals in the country). And they have questioned putative murderers by going there and asking them questions. Yet in this case, they say they can't ask him questions unless they have him on their soverein ground.
Why the sudden inability?
THAT is why his worries are NOT paranoia: they are blatantly out to get him, by hook or by crook.
Yes, it was rape, unless you believe that consenting once to having protected sex means that you've automatically consented to having unprotected sex in the future.
Protected or unprotected is completely orthogonal to rape. If he forced himself on her, it's rape. If he didn't, it's not.
William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
Sweden refused to have the workings of their legal system dictated to them by a fugitive?
I can't thing of many countries where that would wash.
"Wanted for questioning" and "fugitive" are not the same thing. Further, what he's "wanted for questioning" about isn't a crime in the United Kingdom (no, he's not been accused of "rape" in the traditional sense, he's been accused of continuing consensual intercourse after a condom broke after having agreeing to use one,) nor the US, nor most other countries on earth. And it gets better: A male is still liable for this "crime" even if neither party notices the break and neither party withdraws consent! The female can retroactively withdraw consent if she notices later the condom broke! 100% of all risk relating to consensual sex in Sweden is conferred onto the male by law, apparently.
It is too cute, by half, to suggest he's a "fugitive." An INTERPOL warrant was issued on a basis that has, historically never even once been used in the history of INTERPOL: That Assange is wanted for questioning over a misdemeanor crime. That he hasn't even been charged with.
That Sweden won't guarantee him safe passage (i.e. "We won't extradite you to the USA") you can surmise that extradition to the United States is the sole purpose of getting him to Sweden in the first place. If it wasn't, they'd have long since agreed just to end this stain on their reputation: Already most Europeans see them as a tool of the Americans. Ditto the UK. I mean, most people saw them that way before this, but this has only cemented that image in their minds.
And no, it isn't remotely uncommon for attorneys to set conditions for voluntary interviews with police. Or even involuntary ones... (i.e. "My client won't answer any questions unless he's unshackled and given some water to drink.")
Who did what now?
Google could house him in one of their data centers and provide him with a fast internet connection. Why doesn't Google do this? Don't they care about how good the world is?
I'm simply hoping this is satire on the subject of how people on Slashdot have started painting Google as "evil" using increasingly-absurd arguments in the form of "if they REALLY cared about [the world|freedom|America|the internet], why aren't they doing exactly what I instruct them to do?!??!?". Because if it is, that's actually pretty funny to the rest of us.
I think that's the biggest issue I have with it all. He was reasonably bailed and took the piss out of us by not answering bail.
It's not like the list of opressive regimes is Iran, Syria, North Korea........Sweden is it?
Perhaps it should be added: They're clearly functioning as an instrument of a government interested in punishing somebody over free speech that they don't like.
Who did what now?
Why do you assume that I give a crap about Sweden? Politics is politics no matter where you go.
That allegation, as I understand it, is that after having had protected sex with the lady the evening before, she woke up in the morning to discover him having unprotected sex with her.
Unless you believe that the consent to protected sex from the night before includes consent to unprotected sex the next morning, he was having sex with her without her consent. Therefore it would be rape.
However I look at these numbers, it appears that UK cops have got to be the highest-paid in the world.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
I suggest you go read the extradition rulings against Assange in the British courts, they address your point precisely (several of the things Assange is wanted for questioning over passes the definition of rape in the UK as well). Infact, the extradition rulings cover most of the often cited "issues" people come up with in these discussions - well worth a read if you are actually interested!
The rule is that you stand trial when you're accused of a crime. He can afford the best blood-sucking lawyers on earth. This whole politically technicality crap just has to stop. It's up there with the "I'm not touching you" game we played as a kid.
Maybe he's digging a tunnel to the nearest tube station.
Once I was a four stone apology. Now I am two separate gorillas.
Im willing to come with you and discuss the robbery charges, officer, if you sign this document stating that you promise to never extradite me to another country.
Any guesses as to why A) no officer would ever sign that and B) it would be worthless if he did?
Because then they would break the door down and have him arrested in about five seconds flat, because the only thing that is keeping them from doing that is the fact that an attack on the embassy would be an act of war.
It was funny, you know, until you fucked it up.
Ah yes, the old "extradite from the UK to Sweden so we can extradite you from Sweden to the US, even though we have an extradition treaty with the UK" maneuver-- creating red tape for no other reason than that we can.
A little tried, but much feared legal gambit.
True, but Sweden can claim that he cannot be extradited due to it being a "political offense". Please see Article 7 of the extradition treaty below:
ARTICLE V
Extradition shall not be granted in any of the following circumstances:
1. When the person sought has already been or is at the time of the request being proceeded
against in the requested State in accordance with the criminal laws of that State for the offense
for which his extradition is requested.
2. When the legal proceedings or the enforcement of the penalty for the offense has become
barred by limitation according to the laws of either the requesting State or the requested State.
3. When the person sought has been or will be tried [*8] in the requesting State by an
extraordinary tribunal or court.
4. When the offense is purely military.
5. If the offense is regarded by the requested State as a political offense or as an offense
connected with a political offense.
6. If in the specific case it is found to be obviously incompatible with the requirements of
humane treatment, because of, for example, the youth or health of the person sought, taking into
account also the nature of the offense and the interests of the requesting State.
He was also willing to be questioned by videoconference, or to meet with Swedish police or prosecutors in the UK (before the UK police chased him into the Ecuador embassy).
Sweden refused those options as well. This isn't in any way about getting him to answer questions, this is about having him physically in Sweden, with every indication that they'll ship him to the US immediately. The US, for its part, has made it abundantly clear that they will treat Assange in the sort of way that would make the years Bradley Manning spent in the brig look like a picnic.
I am officially gone from
We do not want him to swing across the channel to the Principality of Sealand, do we?
They could be arresting coloreds for smoking marijuana.
Yes, it is rape. Under Swedish law and UK law.
From the ruling on the 2nd November 2011:
Note the fourth offence Assange is sought for under the EAW.
Now, how does the court handle that?
Again, in the 2nd November 2011 court ruling:
We identify things by both their characteristics and their context.
For example, if something looks like a duck we are tempted to say that it's a duck, and without regard to context that's the most likely explanation.
But then consider the context: If the context doesn't match, we change our assessment accordingly. If it's on top of a mountain, we think it's a rock that resembles a duck. In a store window, we think it's a stuffed-doll resembling a duck. If it's in the MIT swimming pool, we think it's a robot resembling a duck.
Absent any context, Sweden's request for extradition is innocent and benign - how could he possibly refuse such a simple legal request?
But the context surrounding the extradition does not match. There's a number of contextual inconsistencies with the situation, all of which indicate that this is not an extradition, it's something different.
It is abundantly clear that we're not seeing an actual duck. You can argue the probability in various ways, but it's not 100%.
You might next consider "so what?" What's so bad about being extradited to the US?
Consider the risk/reward equation. Julian probably carries around in his head contact information for informants and associates which the US does not know about, and activities of various people which the US would consider evidence of espionage. Once on US soil, it would be nigh impossible to keep this information from the US authorities. He would be forced(*) to give up not only his own freedom, but the freedom of people who put their trust in him. (Not to mention the chilling effect this would have on future whistle-blowers.)
It's likely that the value of this information is so high that even a tiny risk of extradition multiplied by the value potentially lost results in a negative payout. Taking the chance is too risky, it's not a good bet.
... There's no actual evidence for that, and no real reason to believe it.
See previous link, or google for yourself. Plenty of evidence, you are stating an untruth.
(*)Ref: Bradley Manning's treatment
Further to my previous comment, see the following British Court ruling, dated 2nd November 2011:
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/assange-summary.pdf
It never ceases to amaze me how a government can blatantly waste money on something and there's absolutely no way for the citizenry to do anything about it.
Here were have:
1) a situation where a police force has put almost $6 million into surveillance of someone
2) the person they're watching is under surveillance so they can be extradited to another country because they've been accused of rape. This person has not been convicted of any crimes yet. Typically, this level of resources is not put into even the average murder case, even with solid evidence
3) It's expected that the extradition is a smokescreen that will lead to another extradition to the US where he'll be "questioned" regarding a website the accused has been involved in
The average American doesn't want to see Assange extradited here. The British don't want to foot the bill for watching him in the Embassy. And the Ecuadorians probably aren't thrilled with having all eyes on them.
So how exactly does something like this happen?
Why do you assume I had any particular example in mind? The world isn't as simple as the 'free world' vs 'oppressive dictatorships.' There's a bit of oppression in every government - they just vary in how much, and who it is pointed at.
I though the woman that accused him of rape, after the wikileaks thing blew up, was a known CIA operative. The theory being that if they could get him pinned down by the local authorities on other charges, it could be used as leverage.
Yep, just googled it, and she was CIA.
If she was with the CIA, wouldn't Assange have known about it? I mean he had all their communiques right?
He skipped bail. He's a fugitive.
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
Further, what he's "wanted for questioning" about isn't a crime in the United Kingdom (no, he's not been accused of "rape" in the traditional sense, he's been accused of continuing consensual intercourse after a condom broke after having agreeing to use one,) nor the US, nor most other countries on earth.
Sorry, that's simply not true. Regardless of whether you believe Assange is innocent or guilty, he has been accused of: (i) forcefully holding down a woman and spreading her legs in order to penetrate her against her will; and (ii) non-consensual sex with a sleeping person who had explicitly told him no.
Now, you're free to disagree with both those allegations, free to accuse the entire justice department of Sweden of slander or whatnot, but you're not free to lie about what the accusations are or whether they're considered crimes.
If the Swedish prosecutors had just agreed to interview him in Britain in the first place a large part of that cost may have been saved. Regardless of whether he is guilty of the accusations, or whether Sweden had planned to extradite him to the US, the whole situation cheapens rape by showing that someone accused of a serious sex crime can avoid the process of lawful trial by having the right political contacts. Blame is to be shared by all parties(Assange, EC, UK, SE, US) for this waste of time, money and justice.
Is there a statute of limitation for whatever the UK wants to seize Assange for?
"The hallmark of humanity is the ability to move beyond sensory inputs" - Mary Helen Immordino-Yang
amendment. .
Whereas this will be called, "PROJECT GUMBY" - using wax as a highly classified weapon of mass distraction to go where no wax people have ever been waxed before! Also to eliminate the IRS and the INCOME WAX see - all the problems are solved now
Since all they have to do is "officially" lie.
Officially, he's not even a suspect. Officially he is not under arrest. But the prosecutor signed an European ARREST Warrant anyway.
Wikileaks he is a member of. He's wanted in the USA because of it leaking information which is not a crime for Julian to do. He isn't employed by the US government to keep their secrets and is not a signatory to any of their laws.
So the ONLY reason he is wanted by the USA, if they asked for him (and if they do not, there is no harm in guaranteeing they will not deport him to the USA), is because of Wikileaks.
And therefore my post stands.
But why all the via-Sweden subterfuge? The UK has already shown itself willing and able to bend over backwards to extradite people to the US. So surely if the US wanted to extradite him, they wouldn't bother going via a 3rd country, they would have just asked the UK to do it in the first place. This is what doesn't add up.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
In communist China, if you are wanted for political reason but manage to flee into a foreign embassy, the government will let you go to that country.
In democratic Great Briton, no?
He's not afraid of the rape allegations dumb ass. In fact, he's not even wanted for the crime of rape in Sweden. He's wanted for "questioning".
He's rightly concerned that he will be extradited to the USA and be subjected to indefinite detention as a "terrorist". Sweden refuses to provide a guarantee that this won't happen.
Fugitive implies guilt.
No it does not. Buy a dictionary.
He posted 240,000 pounds as bail, and as conditions of his release, agreed to turn over his passport, wear a GPS tracking device, visit police once daily, and agreed to a 10 p.m curfew.
He skipped out on the bail (and in doing so, forfeitting about half a million dollars put up on his behalf by people who trusted him). He's a fugitive, by definition.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Again, not sure why you're bothering to mention the use or lack of a condom. How exactly does it change anything?
William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
No, he SAYS he's hiding from the US. It's a good way to get sympathy from those whose help he needs to stay out of jail.
No, again, he SAYS he believe that. Meanwhile, the conspiracy theorists were claiming he'd be extradited to the US the LAST TIME Sweden had him in custody, but it didn't happen then, and I see no rational reason to believe it will happen next time.
Military personnel face a different justice system than civilians. Asange never enlisted in the US Military, so if he steps foot in the US, he'd be tried by the regular courts, with all the rights we've come to expect.
Actually, it's more likely you'd be wearing a tin-foil hat, drinking heavily, and living under an overpass.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Assange exposed wrongdoing by democratic governments. Bush and Obama responded by brazenly persecuting him for having done so. This is the way we expect countries like North Korea or Cuba to behave, but a democracy? Seriously?
unless they have a contraindication like sarcoidosis: http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/about-vitamin-d/
Humans are adapted to live in the sunshine. The US RDA for vitamin D is way too low for most adults, especially ones who spend most of their time indoors these days (which is most everyone in the USA): http://www.grassrootshealth.net/recommendation
It's not surprise Assange has lung issues if he has become vitamin D deficient: http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health-conditions/pneumonia/
If you have allergies, look into adding more phytonutrients to your diet along with the vitamin D.
http://www.drfuhrman.com/disease/Other.aspx
"If allergies are the problem, have you ever thought why your immune system is so sensitive and reactive to normal environmental substances?
Patients often state, “I struggled for years with pain and fatigue, until I finally found out fibromyalgia was my problem.” Does giving it a name establish a cause? Of course not. If you give the problem a name, patients may feel a little relieved that they now know what is wrong, but it usually does not help or solve their condition. The accuracy of the diagnosis is not as important when compared to the accuracy and effectiveness of the therapeutic recommendations for the problem.
On a practical level, the name of a disease doesn’t even matter that much. It is uncovering the cause of the disease that matters. When most of the causes are uncovered and removed, the body can manifest a recovery, all by itself. Most people are not taught, and they fail to realize that the vast majority of diseases occur because they are earned. They are earned by the causes of disease that stress their body to the point where their genetic weaknesses have a chance to be expressed."
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
The USA has never been one to care the least bit about sovereignty when it comes to the political and monetary interests of those in power.
I'm shocked they have not sent in Seal Team Six to raid the embassy, kick in the door and arrest Assange right there, and then transport him away by helicopter where he'll "disappear".
And seriously, Ecuador? What kind of a fight do you think that country could put up against the might of the USA, even if raiding your embassy was an act of war? What American would even care for more than 1 second if Ecuador declared war on the USA? They'd go right back to munching on deep fried pork rinds while watching Dancing with the Stars. It wouldn't even make the news on CNN.
Hell, America has forgotten they are still at war with Afghanistan. It never even makes the news.
Frankly, if they "drone striked" the entire embassy, it would make the news for maybe a week, and then fade away in comparison to all the other government scandals, and it certainly wouldn't be the worst thing on the news. I think Americans would be more upset if Kim Kardashian got married again.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
Sweden refused to have the workings of their legal system dictated to them by a fugitive? I can't thing of many countries where that would wash.
"Wanted for questioning" and "fugitive" are not the same thing.
True. He is both wanted for questioning and a fugitive.
Further, what he's "wanted for questioning" about isn't a crime in the United Kingdom
Actually, it is. More particularly, though, he agreed to present himself to British Justice system on request-- that was a condition of his bail-- and, instead, he skipped out. So now he is a fugitive from justice in both Britain and Sweden.
That Sweden won't guarantee him safe passage (i.e. "We won't extradite you to the USA") you can surmise that extradition to the United States is the sole purpose of getting him to Sweden in the first place.
You can assume no such thing. In general, legal systems don't do negotiations with people wanted for questioning. Assange has come up with a continuously changing list of excuses why he doesn't want to go to Sweden to answer questions about rape charges, and the excuses evolve to fit whatever he seems to think will best please the audience. Since he could end up facing rape charges, one can see why he might want to not visit the police in Sweden. Possibly he should go to Switzerland, where he could join Roman Polanski, also fugitive from rape charges.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Any references for that? Even if true how the hell is that relevant, Assange is wanted for questioning on a set of charges that are pretty serious and merit extradition to Sweden. The UK has a strong history of extradition to the US, including of UK citizens so lets not think Assange was 'safe' in the UK. Isn't the reality that Assange is a bit of a douche and just wants to avoid questioning on this topic and is throwing about FUD and pretending to be a martyr to deflect attention away from the allegations.
For a man who preaches openness about the world he sure likes to hide behind things.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
Of course not. Sweden can only override its legal system when the US tells them to. And, since it's the US that wants Assange...
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Lots of people turn to raping after making speeches criticizing the primacy of the U.S. dollar, or revealing U.S. top secret documents. Hell, it wouldn't surprise me if Edward Snowden weren't considering raping some poor women right now, or molesting kids, or selling secrets to the Chinese, or kicking puppies.
In politics that if you can't attack the message, you attack the messenger. The United States has several organizations dedicated to discrediting people who come forward with allegations of impropriety against the government. It is a standard tactic used by many governments; Distributing disinformation is a time-honored military and political strategy.
And it is very effective. Just look at this thread: Some people have been completely taken in by it and the discussion now revolves not around the correctness of whistle blowing, or whether society benefits from an organization like wikileaks, or if what the government was exposed in having done was right or wrong... the entire discussion now centers largely on Julian.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
He hasn't been charged with anything. How can he be a fugitive?
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
You have got to be kidding. No real reason to believe it? There is no real reason not to believe it.
He was also willing to be questioned by videoconference, or to meet with Swedish police or prosecutors in the UK (before the UK police chased him into the Ecuador embassy).
Sweden refused those options as well. This isn't in any way about getting him to answer questions, this is about having him physically in Sweden, with every indication that they'll ship him to the US immediately. The US, for its part, has made it abundantly clear that they will treat Assange in the sort of way that would make the years Bradley Manning spent in the brig look like a picnic.
This is not about questioning him, this is about getting him into a Swedish police station so the prosecutor can formally lay charges under their standard rules. It would be pointless coming up with some legally creative way to present the charges against him by videolink if he still wasn't going to go to Sweden so the trial can go ahead.
And 'every indication that they'll ship him to the US immediately' amounts to .... no indications. This argument wasn't even brought up by his lawyers in court because it isn't anything other than speculation.
All Sweden has to do is guarantee asylum in the case of a US attempt at extradiction over wikileaks.
There's no real evidence that requires him to be extradited to Sweden. This was all hashed out last year. There's no evidence and noone is pressing charges. There were no charges pending when he left Sweden, long after the alleged incident happened. A prosecuter decided to open a closed case with no new evidence and no victim and demanded Assange show up in person for questioning.
The UK courts considered this point in detail and feel there is evidence. The whole point of the extradition is so the prosecutor can file charges in person. Filing charges by mail is pretty pointless if Assange would still refuse to go to Sweden for the trial.
If he wasn't wanted in the US, there's no reason for Sweden or Great Britain to go to the lengths they've gone to or to spend the money they've spent.
Well, there is the principle that sexual violence is a serious crime and that a person should not be able to avoid the consequences of his crimes by going to another country and claiming that everyone who doesn't agree with him is clearly involved in a CIA plot, for which he provides no actual evidence. There's also the principle that running into an embassy and refusing to come out can't become a common ploy when people repeatedly lose in court.
If (as has been claimed by a number of sources) the people who were allegedly raped by Assange no longer want the prosecution to go ahead), why are the Swedish (cops/state prosecutors etc) still interested in continuing with the prosecution?
Maybe the law is different in Sweden but from where I sit, if someone commits an act of rape against someone else, it should be up to the victim to make the decision on whether they want to make a complaint and proceed with prosecution.
There is still no charge against him, that's a huge difference. Furthermore, Interpol was used against him, a global agency that has never been used to look for anyone with these accusations, and never for "we want to question them". A little odd don't you think?
The reality is he pissed off powerful people in the US, that used the CIA to hook him up with female operatives. He should have been more weary and have kept his willy to himself.
Both Sweden and the UK have an extradition treaty with the US, and the US would like to see Assange "face justice." I know I would sure as hell not leave that embassy if I were him.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
What I think is definitely odd is that people seemingly don't seem to educate themselves before "wondering" about things. The court ruling touches on your "issue".
It changes things if her consent was conditional on the use of protection.
For someone as anti-government as you are, you're awfully supportive of a government using trumped-up charges to harass an anti-government whistleblower.
But then nothing else you say has any internal consistency either, so I guess hypocrisy in this case shouldn't be surprising.
but if larry flint has is rights violated then your next. People don't even care about the message of Wikileaks and how their lives could be better if the US government was reigned in and spent all that money pursing power on US Citizens.
Of course YOU would say that, you commie terrorist bastard!
The EAW was not written by a judge, it was written BEFORE the trial by the prosecution. There was thought to be no need for any evidence for the EAW claims because it was supposed to be an ARREST WARRANT, I.e. NOT "we want to question you", "We arrest you under suspicion of..." therefore had gone through at least enough judicial review to have SOME evidence for it.
So the claim by the prosecutor "He committed rape!!" *IS* a charge for which he can be extradited, nowhere in that document did it say that the claim had to be valid. Because it wasn't.
The Crown Court review was NOT about whether he had committed the act, it was whether the forms had been filled in correctly.
You REALLY need to read them if you want to assert someone else needs to read them. They don't say what the Daily Mail and Fox News say they do.
He and the Ecuadorians need to place a tote board on the side of the embassy with a debt clock-like running total to show how much UK taxpayer money is being wasted on this US-led smear campaign.
But, in keeping with the times, the actual cost is probably a fucking state secret.
Lots of people turn to raping after making speeches criticizing the primacy of the U.S. dollar, or revealing U.S. top secret documents. Hell, it wouldn't surprise me if Edward Snowden weren't considering raping some poor women right now, or molesting kids, or selling secrets to the Chinese, or kicking puppies.
In politics that if you can't attack the message, you attack the messenger. The United States has several organizations dedicated to discrediting people who come forward with allegations of impropriety against the government. It is a standard tactic used by many governments; Distributing disinformation is a time-honored military and political strategy.
Joe Wilson aka the Valerie Plame affair.
A more relevant example would be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_and_Muhammad_al-Zery which details Swedens participation in illegal rendition to torturing countries, an act clearly illegal both in treaties Sweden is a signatory to and in Swedish law. Unsurprisingly, nobody has been held accountable.
Sweden cannot be trusted with human rights as it takes nothing more than the right opportunity for brownnosing for its politicians to ignore the law.
People being sought for questioning dont get to lay down conditions. Thats not how sovereigns operate.
Good-bye
I wonder how long Equador will keep this douche bag around, hogging space in their embassy, because they decide that he's more trouble than he's worth?
Harbouring a rapist and a convicted computer criminal will not endear Equador to anybody. And last time I checked -- beggars can't be choosers.
Dummy. If B is true, the A is not. Cops love to lie. Even without B, a real investigator would sign it, if he really wanted to solve the crime. Cops, like government, care nothing for solving crimes.
Also on top of that. Why wouldnt the UK ship him over when THEY had him (twice)?
Honestly even if the allegations are true of the US using Sweden as a proxy. He has acted in a way that pisses off judges. Not showing for court dates does not get you a pat on the head. It gets police showing up and handcuffing you for contempt of court. It also usually gets you summary judgments. If there is one thing I have learned over the years do not pee in the pool of a judge. They do not act nicely and will act under their full authority under the law.
There never was a free, democratic 'West', but at least once the governments of the West worked to a certain degree to make this lie seem plausible to ordinary people. Now we have a full blown police-state concept sweeping the West, with every effort made to ensure that daily, the sheep have their face shoved into exactly what this implies.
The French power-player who had the fake rape charge used to take him out in New York, so he couldn't run for major office during the next French elections. He was held in a notorious US torture facility, and the world's press told to tell the sheep he was on constant 'suicide watch'. Given the choice of being suicided or giving in, he chose to give in and resigned his position.
The fake rape charges against Assange by CIA operatives in Sweden are 100% more transparent than the plot used to take down Strauss-Kahn. They aren't even rape charges in the true sense of the word, but are a consequence of feminist dogma (the same dogma that also legalised child pornography for a significant period of time in Scandinavia). The feminist dogma states that any woman can withdraw consent for a consensual sexual encounter AFTER that encounter has concluded, retro-actively converting consensual sexual activity into 'rape'. The dogma is based on the theory that a 'happy' woman would have no reason to do this, so a woman who DOES choose to retro-actively withdraw consent must have just cause.
Tony Blair personally over-saw the creation of EU wide warrants where a person could be arrested in a country that did NOT recognise the action as criminal in any sense, and ship person back to the land where the action was seen as criminal. For instance, if Blair gets Turkey into the EU, a woman that refuses a forced virginity examination in Turkey and runs away to Britain can, and will be arrested in Britain and extradited back to Turkey to stand trial. This stands all concept of natural justice on its head. This depraved crap is what feminists in Sweden demand.
If Assange's acts are NOT seen as criminal in any form in the UK (and they are not), Assange should have sanctuary in the UK. This is how decent Humanity has worked forever. But this has NOTHING to do with his sex life. This is about the psychopathic war-monger, Obama, saying that his 'enemies' have no place to hide on this planet. Hitler and Stalin also made the same declaration, and were also notorious for murdering their targets anywhere they managed to run to. Israel boasts the same. We can identify true evil by simply looking at the stated desires and actions of truly evil people and regimes.
Every true monster in Human history had his legions of supporters. You'll see similar followers of evil flood this thread with support of Obama's actions against Assange.
The true irony is, at every stage, Assange has been Tony Blair's unknowing puppet, leaking information to aid Blair's agendas across the planet. Tony Blair in print, otherwise known as The Guardian newspaper, has been and is at the forefront of the whole 'leaks' psy-op.
PS I hope you idiot Yanks have noticed that Obama has begun the process to officially hand over Afghanistan to the rule of the Taliban. What was it you brain-dead sheeple were told you were fighting for over there? A massive increase in the heroin trade? Trillions wasted? A vastly improved training ground for extremist terrorists? Empowering a regime that eliminates every Human Right for women? A vast expansion of extremist Islamic rule across the Middle-east, Asia and North Africa? You Yanks must be so proud of yourselves.
Sweden's denial was basically "we've received no request for extradition to the US, and we're not going to pre-emptively refuse, because that's fucking ridiculous."
He hasn't been charged with anything. How can he be a fugitive?
--Jeremy
He was on bail subject to certain conditions and by running away ('fugit' in Latin) to the Ecuadorean embassy he has absconded from bail. It's got nothing to do with whether he has been charged.
It means a hell of a lot if you're the woman who doesn't want to contract an STD or get pregnant from him, and specifically told him no, not without a condom, only to find him doing it without a condom the next day, while you were asleep and unable to stop him.
If you have sex with a girl while she is so drunk she can't stop you or know what is going on, it's still rape. She was not in a condition to consent. Neither was the SLEEPING WOMAN.
Fuck wikileaks; he's a piece of shit rapist.
We're not talking about the US here.
Seriously, $6 million to watch ONE building (or compound, I don't know how extensive the embassy is) for a year?
WTF?
Let's say you put 4 cops on the job (one to watch each corner).
3 shifts = 24 hours. Call it 14 cops, so you have relief, weekend coverage, and overlap.
London cops get paid $400,000+/year?
I'm in the wrong business. I'll sit and watch a building for a single guy for a year for $400k.
Oh wait, see, I forgot that this is absurdly inflated so that every department/administrator can justify his/her 'piece' of the largesse. Good thing taxpayers apparently don't give a shit how their money is wasted.
-Styopa
Use some sort of manacle device to secure Assange to an Ecuadorian diplomat. Something the authorities could not easily remove. A large steel box 2 feet long with two arm holes, for example. Open the box, one arm of the diplomat in, one arm of Assange in, close the box, lock it, keep the key(s) in the embassy.
They cannot force the embassy to produce the key(s).
They cannot detain the diplomat long enough for them to pick the lock(s).
They cannot try to break the device with cutting or burning tools due to risk of injury to the diplomat.
GTFO to Ecuador, then GTFO to the safest place (for Assange) where Ecuador has a diplomatic presence.
Send the keys over (or reproduce them, or have a second set waiting, etc.) and separate them.
Suppose, hypothetically, it is established that Assange committed something that was clearly and obviously a crime while in the US, and this becomes apparent while Assange is in Swedish custody.Assange states "yes I did it and there's nothing you can do about it suckers"
What is Sweden to do?
How much would it cost to arrange a skyhook?
.
Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!
This is a very crazy idea, but what if a Julian Assange body double exited the embassy?
I think that would be very interesting to see.
The UK didn't want to get their hands dirty. They have a well-known "special relationship" with U.S. intelligence and it would be just too obvious to have them extradite directly. Sending him to Sweden first helps create the air of legitimacy to the whole con and further discredits him, by directly associating him with a rape there. Everyone involved needs to have everything have a modicum of the *appearance* of a legitimate extradition.
The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
If you've read the Swedish police report it also states that upon waking to him having sex with her, asking if it was unprotected, she also joked it off with 'you'd better not have a disease' and had no more significant objection. Swedish rape law has a requirement for either incapacitation or clearly indicating dissent. The previous evening is irrelevant, but the actions after waking up aren't. With current law if the court has only the plaintiffs story to go on it would not convict on a charge of rape (well, unless it feels like it, of course, it's not like Swedish judges are entirely apolitical).
To get convicted in unbiased court Assange would basically have to convict himself by testifying that 'yeah I knew she really didn't want it but I figured she'd be too afraid to protest', which still wouldn't fit the rest of the story about the morning (breakfast shopping, etc), but which could conceivably be argued away with some creative psychological theories.
The prosecutor is probably very happy with how the situation evolved; she's on record saying that it's good to (mis)use Swedens indefinite detention to give purported victims some extrajudicial retribution. Here she has basically handed Assange a significant prison sentance of his own making even when she knows she has no case. Makes Ortiz look like an amateur.
That's because their bodies shut down, preventing pregnancy. That's how it works.
by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
What an appalling post to have positive moderation.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Don't worry, you'll be completely ignored just like every other thread. People will continue to say it's not rape, it's not a crime in the UK, there is no victim willing to prosecute, the charges were dropped, it's just questioning there are no charges.
Everyone of these statements is a lie and it doesn't matter what evidence there is such as DIRECT quotes from the UK judicial finding contradicting them people will still continue to quote the lies. It's sad people are so convinced there is evil intentions at work that they are willing to let him have a pass on something I at least consider a serious violation of a woman's rights. He should be a man and face the charges in Sweden.
and the IRS will come after your Roth IRA to "balance the budget".
New Economic Perspectives
It changes everything. Do you even understand the concept of consent?
If she agreed to having sex with him IF AND ONLY IF he used a condom that is consent. If he did not use a condom, that means it was without consent. Under swedish law, having sex with someone without consent is considered rape.
This is not about YOUR position on condoms, it is about his sexual partners position on the use of condoms.
. . .the real facts of the matter:
http://www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/suspicious.pdf
Exactly!
http://www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/suspicious.pdf
Exactly, and thanks for stating the actual facts!
http://www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/suspicious.pdf
Again, thanks for stating the facts, something which the enemies of the people can't abide by.
http://www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/suspicious.pdf
. . .but many simply can't deal with the facts, or the truth!
http://www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/suspicious.pdf
...which turned into a rather enormous political scandal in Sweden when it became known, and was actually caused mostly by typical Swedish naivety (where the U.S. had promised Swedish ministers not to torture him if he was extradited). It is not for no reason there exists such a lengthy Wikipedia article about the poor man, considering his fate is fare from unique internationally speaking. So the example you bring up is in fact a strong argument for why Assange will very likely not be extradited from Sweden on a whim. Doing that would be political suicide for whoever gives the order.
Thanks and exactly, and this is why it is far from coincidental that at the recent Bilderberg forum meeting, we find Sweden's Carl Bildt (the major force in attempting to extradite Assange to Sweden), and people from Stratfor and Palintir, the two sleazoid outfits which targeted WikiLeaks, and then were hacked by Anonymous, as well as Harvard's Lawrence Lessig, the supposed friend of Aaron Swartz who conveniently waiting until the weekend was over, and Aaron had committed suicide, before attempting to pass on the positive news that the federal prosecutors had reduced the onerous penalties they were originally exacting upon Aaron!
http://www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/suspicious.pdf
sgt_doom
The specified laws came into existence after the alleged actions took place (they custom-wrote this crapola expressly for their fictions being perpetrated against WikiLeaks' Assange, much the same matter they have been pursuing Jacob Appelbaum in the USA with constant and chronic harrassment.
http://www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/suspicious.pdf
http://www.democracynow.org/2013/2/5/court_govt_can_secretly_obtain_email
sgt_doom
It changes everything. Do you even understand the concept of consent?
Likely better than you judging by your post.
So if he started having sex with a sleeping woman but wore a condom, it's all good?
William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
And it is very effective. Just look at this thread: Some people have been completely taken in by it and the discussion now revolves not around the correctness of whistle blowing, or whether society benefits from an organization like wikileaks, or if what the government was exposed in having done was right or wrong... the entire discussion now centers largely on Julian.
Well, maybe because TFA is about Julian, and not about Wikileaks, or whistle blowing or government wrong-doing. I'd say it is you who are the one conflating the person with the deed right now. But then again, I guess that proves your point as well, in a way.
It changes things if her consent was conditional on the use of protection.
It also changes things if her consent was conditional on him holding a wooden spoon with his teeth during sex.
I don't care what conditions she put on consent, just whether or not she gave it.
William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
Neither was the SLEEPING WOMAN.
So you're saying it doesn't matter whether he wore a condom or not?
William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
How can he be accused of rape, exactly, when both women have been quoted in interviews, stating that they were NOT raped?
"Oh, no officer, he didn't rape me."
"Your honor, I'm asking that you sign a warrant of arrest for rape, because the witness states that she has not been raped."
That's a pretty shallow observation. Not all victims of domestic violence want to confront their accusers and sometime recant under pressure. That's why there should always be an investigation.
The only facts that apparently are not in dispute is that there was an official complaint field with the Stockholm police by two women 2010-Aug-20 against Mr Assange and that on 2010-Aug-30, he admitted under questioning by the Stockholm police that he actually had sex with both of these two accusers and that there is a physical evidence of this (a condom), but it was consensual. To me that is tantemount of an accusation (maybe true or not, but still an accusation), so I don't know where you get your information.
Also, your assertion that the women have recanted is not exactly true. One of the presumed women (Ms. Arden), has actually posted on her blog that it actually happen and that she has been horrified by the threats made against her by presumed Assange sympathisers have pretty much ruined her life. The reported recanting/exonerating quote was published a unconfirmed tabloid report Aftonbladet by an anoymous person that claimed she was one of the two women. Hard to say if this was an actual quote of the person involved or not.
Someone's never heard of an "enemy combatant"
You're right, this isn't about questioning him, it's about getting him on Swedish soil where their law and agreement with the USA allow Sweden to send Assange over to the USA because he is
a) accused (not charged) of a crime in Sweden, hence can be forcibly removed from territorial land
b) asked for by the USA
But if he isn't on Swedish soil, they cannot send him to the USA.
MOREOVER, if they ACTUALLY charge him, he HAS to, if convicted, spend time in Sweden's jail system for that crime before he can be given over to the USA and, if not convicted, cannot be extradited since he cannot be forced out of Sweden.
Hence "wanted for questioning, not charged, but he MUST be on Swedish Soil!".
Not because they DO want to question him, but because the USA want him.
There's no actual evidence for that, and no real reason to believe it.
You have got to be kidding. No real reason to believe it? There is no real reason not to believe it.
It turns out that "no reason not to believe something" is not, in fact, a good reason to believe something.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Well, maybe because TFA is about Julian, and not about Wikileaks, or whistle blowing or government wrong-doing. I'd say it is you who are the one conflating the person with the deed right now. But then again, I guess that proves your point as well, in a way.
An irony not lost on me, I assure you.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
According to the Daily Mail there are 3 police officers on duty in and around the embassy 24 hours a day. In addition there is some sort of rapid response vehicle available to them. This is central London, where there are always rapid response vehicles available 24 hours a day. Even taking into account making an extra vehicle and crew being made available I can't see how this can cost more than $2,500 a day, not the $17,000 quoted in the article. This figure is purely fictional, so Hague can grab a headline and manipulate public opinion on Assange.
His exile is self-imposed, on a wild (paranoid?) theory that the charges in Sweden (Sweden!) are trumped up in order to get him extradited there so that he can then be extradited to the US on a non-existent extradition demand. I suppose the Swedes can be grateful that he has imprisoned himself under conditions that are likely worse than a Swedish prison and that don't cost the Swedish tax payer a dime.
That is not the whole story.
The reason that this case has a rather long Wikipedia article, and probably the reason you knew about it in the first place, is that it caused a rather huge political scandal when it became known in Sweden. And the whole deal was caused by typically naive Swedish politicians basically being suckered by the U.S. into believing no harm would come to the poor fellow. The fact that this particular rendition is so well known, unlike the X hundreds or thousands of others that have occurred around the world, is precisely because human rights violations are taken quite seriously in Swedish public debate.
And yes, it is unsurprising that nobody has been held accountable, considering that the person who made the decision had been murdered when the case became known.
All these facts makes it extremely politically volatile for anyone considering allowing a similar rendition again. Not that I think many Swedish foreign ministers would trust the United States' assurances so easily on matters like these soon again.
" People will continue to say it's not rape"
It isn't.
"it's not a crime in the UK"
not-rape is not a crime ANYWHERE.
"there is no victim willing to prosecute"
There isn't. Both women have emphatically said that it was not rape and withdrew their statements.
" the charges were dropped"
They were.
"it's just questioning"
That's what the swedish officals insist, they INSIST it isn't being charged.
" there are no charges."
See above.
" such as DIRECT quotes from the UK judicial finding contradicting them"
The judicial review was SOLELY to ascertain whether the EAW was filled in correctly. It hadn't EVER been used for a case like this before and not written by a prosecutor, only and ever a judge who had been given evidence sufficient to convince them that a case had to be answered, which is why the EAW doesn't require evidence for the claims.
But you'll ignore these facts and pretend you've read the judicial review and its remit for this case because you read on Fox News and Daily Fail that this was something completely different.
Posting as AC as to not ruin my moderations.
We had similar cases in Denmark, and what you call naivety is just bollocks and bad excuses. The politicians chose to trust CIA/the US. These people very well know how the political system works, a promise is only a promise as long as it is convenient - they just chose to close their eyes.
Also there's no reason to believe the US will torture Julian Assange. I doubt he'll get a fair trial - when the government wants you, you're in trouble no matter what. But I don't see why they'd torture him. So I have a hard time believing the Swedish government would fight over him if it came to that. If that was the case, the prosecutor would probably have been told to shut up and drop the questioning - it doesn't seem the strongest of cases, resources would probably be spent better elsewhere.
If I was Ecuador, I'd have every person who entered and left the embassy dye their hair the same color as Julian, dress like Julian, and wear hats and dark glasses. Every single person. Eventually it'd be trivial to sneak Julian out of there.
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
as long as he is in the enbassy he has 24/7 security supplied by teh britich gov. Is this benefitial for him? Probably. Is it like being in prison? yes and no. He doesn't have to deal with prosion life but his freedom is compromised non the less. IS what he does in communication with teh outside of the Embassy being monitored? Of course it is!
Why bother spending that much money trying to send him away to Sweden while we all know an easy solution to catch him is by torch the embassy up by a mi5 agent, no I mean a drunk kid. All the people from the embassy has to be evacuated while firefighter putting out the fire. HINT HINT.
How could that possibly be true? He is wanted for questioning in relation to a possible rape in Sweden. Why would Sweden need to reserve the right to extradite him to the US in order to investigate that crime? There is no overriding any legal system going on. They either actually want to extradite him or they want him to think that they will so that this rape discussion is drawn out in order to please the US. Which actually either way IS precisely the kind of overriding the whole legal system that you were complaining about in the first place: In order to defend yourself in a possible rape case, you should not have to fear being handed over to a country that waterboards its prisoners.
Drones, Badley Manning, Assange, Gitmo.... The US is a selective dictatorship.
If he wasn't wanted in the US, there's no reason for Sweden or Great Britain to go to the lengths they've gone to or to spend the money they've spent.
It might be that the expensive is actually all about convincing Assange that he will be extradited. This has all worked out quite well for the US. We aren't talking about Wikileaks or their leaks anymore, are we?
He is not accused by the court system.
He is not accused by the women.
The prosecutor has accused him.
But if that is all that is needed as proof of guilt, why the need for anyone other than the prosecutor?
If they haven't arrested him, he's not being accused by the system. If they aren't charging him, he DOES NOT have to answer questions.
Im not supportive of anything particular here, just recognizing how ludicrous the claims of conspiracies surrounding assange are.
"Not a fan of big government" doesnt mean "believes every tin-foil hat conspiracy anyone makes up". Im capable of nuance and subtlety like that.
There are no rape charges because there are no charges. He is wanted for questioning.
Enormous? No. There was a semi-big kerfluffle on the news. No one involved ever had to face any consequences. And yeah, they knew more or less exactly what was going to happen with them.
...which turned into a rather enormous political scandal in Sweden when it became known, and was actually caused mostly by typical Swedish naivety (where the U.S. had promised Swedish ministers not to torture him if he was extradited). It is not for no reason there exists such a lengthy Wikipedia article about the poor man, considering his fate is fare from unique internationally speaking. So the example you bring up is in fact a strong argument for why Assange will very likely not be extradited from Sweden on a whim. Doing that would be political suicide for whoever gives the order.
Then it sounds like the Swedish government should be able to guarantee that since there is no (public) indictment against Assange from the United States, that they will guarantee not to extradite him if he goes to Sweden for questioning. If their intention is to not make the same mistake twice (three times?), then stating so before-hand doesn't seem too difficult.
If you have no intention of ever beating your wife, why would you be unwilling to say, "I will never beat my wife?"
Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
Last I checked he was willing to go to sweden for the questioning (no charges have been put forward at all to my knowledge yet) so long as he had a guarantee to not be extradited to the US while there.
If Sweden agreed to those terms, of course, he would just come up with some other excuse not to appear.
There doesn't seem to be any end to the list of plausible-sounding reasons he can come up with to avoid being sent back to Sweden to face questioning on the rape charges.
Can't say I blame him-- he wants the spotlight to stay firmly focused on making him look like a hero, not the stuff that-- at best-- makes him look like a sleazebag.
He skipped bail. He's a fugitive.
How, exactly, does one "skip bail" on a case that was already closed and wasn't re-opened until after he left the country?
Who did what now?
If the statement is "I consent to sex under condition X" and then at a later time X is not met, then there is no consent, even if the alleged victim does not want to press charges. I think the problem is that "rape" as that word is normally understood is clearly different from what is alleged here, but there is no category of crime named "being such a colossal dick during sex that it rises to the level of criminality." So it all gets lumped under the category of "rape".
That allegation, as I understand it,...
I am troubled by the phrase "As I understand it." That means "according to unsubstantiated rumors", which is basically hearsay. So far, everything seems to be third-hand stories; I don't think we've heard any actual testimony. And, of course, the Swedish prosecutor really can't give the newspapers the evidence they have; their job is to tell it to a judge, not conduct a trial in the court of public opinion.
It's hard to judge a case when you haven't heard both sides, and even harder when we haven't heard either side. However, the allegations revealed in the extradition papers filed in Britain sure sound serious enough that I would say it seems fair to ask him to tell his side of the story to the prosecutors.
(Posting as anonymous coward, since things posted that are even slightly critical of Assange somehow get rated "troll".)
I wonder what the statue of limitations are for the crime he is being charged in the US?
He hasn't been charged with a crime in the U.S..
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Any idea why charges haven't been laid if it is so clear cut of a case?
Oh right, so now every liberals poster boy country - sweden - is an oppressive dictatorship is it?
Might as well be. The primary political agenda in Sweden is to use fear of rape to rule the country. Ignoring the lack of any evidence and statistics counter to their claims they manufacture media with blatantly false stories to drum up fear of men-- Male Satanists Eating Babies Before They're Born!? For fuck's sake, get a grip. You've got no idea what you're talking about, the place is run by nutters.
The Swedish government is corrupt as can be, mate. Using false rape accusations is their primary modus operandi.
I'm not sure there is much judicial ground for making such a promise. It would also mean treating Assange differently because he is a public figure. The Swedish system is in some regards different from the U.S. (and maybe other common law systems). It is for example illegal for Swedish prosecutors to make any sort of plea bargains; only courts can rule on punishments, and this has to be in accordance with how the law is written -- there isn't much lee-way.
It might sort of be possible for the current administration to promise they will not let him be extradited while they are in office, since they have the authority to veto extraditions (at least to non-EU countries). But to be fair, this is a rather minor criminal case. I don't think they care if Assange remains in self-imposed house arrest in London.
Moreover, it is at least theoretically possible that there could be previously unknown but perfectly valid reasons to extradite him.
That said, it is expressly forbidden to extradite anyone charged with political or military offences, and the receiving country must guarantee that they will not charge the person for any other crime than the one they claim extradition on. Furthermore, unless I am mistaken (I can't find a source right now), since Assange would have been extradited to Sweden first, Swedish courts may not allow extradition to a third country unless the U.K. approves of it as well. Which, frankly, makes Assange's whole argument quite ridiculous -- he would be safer in Sweden than he previously was in the U.K., since in that case two countries would have to approve of any extradition to the U.S.
I see that the small fact that Swedish government can't legally give him any guarantee of safe passage since that is decided by the courts and not the government isn't bothering you. Actually, giving such an guarantee would be illegal in Sweden since government can't legally interfere with a court case.
The idea that Anna Lindh was the only one with knowledge and decisive power in the case is simply not credible. And at least one person who knew the murdered foreign minister claims in writing, and claims that other confirm it, and has shown certain supporting materials, that both the minister of justice, Thomas Bodström and the prime minister Göran Persson knew about the planned rendition. In fact, them not knowing about such a decision borders on the unthinkable.
There is far more than enough to open a criminal investigation and throughly examine the roles of everyone involved, as well as a criminal investigation into the security police. No such investigation has been done, clearly demonstrating that if ministers knowingly violate the law they won't even be seriously investigated.
And no, I'm sure Swedish foreign ministers wont trust US assurances. They will, however, do as they're told.
You do realise that the person who gave the order, and should have faced the consequences, was Anna Lindh, and that she was dead at the time this became known?
Hes a coward and should answer the charges or whatever it takes to clear his name. Hes acting guilty IMO as will be given the respect of a zip on a whales ass :}
Jack of all trades,master of none
That allegation, as I understand it, is that after having had protected sex with the lady the evening before, she woke up in the morning to discover him having unprotected sex with her.
Context is king
1) She also admitted to leaving the house alone after the incident, buying food, returning to the house, preparing and eating a meal with him, having sex with him later that day, and an additional time the next day. This behavior is not consistent with that of someone who believes they are the victim of a rape.
2) Ecuador has offered access to their embassy to Swedish investigators for questioning Assange. The have offered to revisit their provision of asylum should an actual charge, indictment, or warrant. Ecuador waged a fair amount of diplomatic capital on the situation being 100% bullshit, and so far, it looks like they are winning that bet. Good on them.
Indubitably. It is a lousy excuse, if you can even call it that.
My point was only that GGP:s post isn't an argument in support of Assange likely being extradited. I don't mean they could never extradite him under any circumstances, but if anything, they'll be more careful the next time. The Americans would have to make a good case, and there are more legal restrictions than risk of torture.
But they didn't try while Assange was living in the U.K., so to be honest I don't think the U.S. cares about him nearly as much has he thinks himself. He can't really cause much more harm/humiliation -- WikiLeaks is more or less dead -- and they have other things to worry about right now (e.g. Snowden).
There is no need to question on Swedish soil and they've questioned people about murder without demanding that the one wanted for questioning have to come back to Sweden first.
If he's not being arrested, they can ask him to come to Sweden, but he has no requirement to do so: he is not being arrested.
How the hell can you idiots get it so consistently and PROUDLY wrong?
There is more character and honor in Ecuador's little embassy than all of Washington DC and London combined.
I'm with you that there should have been a criminal investigation. Obviously everyone involved wants to weasel their way out of it, which to some extent includes the judicial system and the police, and since the one most obviously and ultimately responsible is dead, well that's just a rather convenient situation for everyone.
But that's beside the point; what I'm saying is that it's politically more difficult to rendition people arbitrarily since this case became known, regardless of the potential criminal consequences (or lack thereof).
A Google data center does not enjoy any extraterritorial status so the police would just waltz in there and drag him out kicking and screaming, case closed. Embassies are tricky things and could cause a minor crisis(minor because Ecuador is a pretty minor concern for most nations)
Yes, that's true, folks: if you don't turn up to your trial, you don't get to present any evidence. Therefore if the evidence is convincing, you cannot counter it and will lose.
Courts will NOT decide they cannot have a trial because the one on trial isn't there: they can try in absentia.
First, I'll deal with the UK portion of your claim to security in him not being extradited to the United States. There is evidence that the UK has engaged in extraordinary rendition to the United States before. I wouldn't hold my breath that they wouldn't give approval merely to extradite him if I were in his shoes.
Second, on these valid reasons to extradite him. Unless he's done something new in the last year, then why did the United States not make that request to the UK while they had him under arrest? As far as I'm aware, the extradition treaties are very similar among the EU nations. Perhaps the reason is like you said, and political offenses can't be extradited. So much easier to redirect a flight in progress and engage in yet another extraordinary rendition with the thinnest veil of deniability than to blatantly do so directly from a UK jail.
While reviewing the legal documents, it sounds like Sweden has some odd technicalities in their legal system. Odd being, not like the technicalities in systems I'm more familiar with. So apparently there is an arrest warrant (accused with probable cause of rape) out there, although they won't charge him with anything until after questioning. Based on what I'm seeing, it still sounds like they have a very flimsy case, based on laws that don't seem to even require guilty intent, by a prosecutor who seems to be a bit of a crusader (case was closed with no charges laid, then reopened after he'd already left the country). None of that, though, takes away from his concerns about extradition or extraordinary rendition. This wouldn't be the first time a "true believer" was used for a deeper purpose.
I will admit, extradition does seem unlikely, but I can't say the same about extraordinary rendition. All three nations in question have too much history in that regard for any protestations to the contrary to change my opinion.
Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
How do you know?
And why is he afraid of that? If the US indicts and extradites him, what's going to happen in the US? He (a) receives a fair trial and is set free, (b) receives a fair trial and is convicted, (c) receives an unfair trial and is convicted, or (d) is detained indefinitely. It seems to me that (b)-(d) are all excellent ways of bringing about political change, with (d) being very unlikely. I think what Assange really is afraid of is that the US does nothing, or that he gets a trial and is not convicted. Those seem like the most likely outcomes to me. And he is afraid of that because he simply can't square it with his view of the US as the great devil.
Effective civil disobedience and making change happen requires facing the justice system and paying the price; it is much less effective and convincing if you don't. But Assange doesn't seem interested in effecting positive change, he simply hates.
So, precisely the reasons you state is what makes Assange's argument more or less moot. If the U.S. wanted him extradited, it would certainly have been easier to have done it while he was living openly in the U.K., one of their closest allies. The fact that they didn't suggests they don't bother. If you add to that that they would have for some reason orchestrated a complicated international conspiracy involving a number of people in the Swedish police and judicial system, just so they could get him there instead, the theory becomes almost absurd.
As for somehow intercepting him en-route, I honestly don't think the U.S. cares enough about him for that. It would make some public spectacle, result in a diplomatic incident, and they already have the primary source for the leak (Manning). If you ask me, Assange is just being a narcissistic douche -- not that it diminishes the positive things he has done.
Assange is a big-mouth real coward, celebrated by big-mouth virtual heroes.
The European arrest warrant was not closed and the bail was on that arrest warrant. So as disgustingly wrong as the warrant is, he did skip bail.
You are correct, and the correct counter to that would have been to go to Sweden and face his day in court and to undermine his accusers. What Assange is doing is playing right into their hands, he makes himself seem as nothing more than someone trying to avoid being prosecuted for rape.
And trying to avoid being persecuted for rape makes him seem guilty. And people tend to have very little respect for rapists.
Yes he hasn't been convicted yet and ought to be considered innocent until proven otherwise but since when has the media ever cared about that?
Further, what he's "wanted for questioning" about isn't a crime in the United Kingdom (no, he's not been accused of "rape" in the traditional sense, he's been accused of continuing consensual intercourse after a condom broke after having agreeing to use one,) nor the US, nor most other countries on earth.
The UK Supreme Court disagrees with you, in the verdict on extradition they pretty clearly stated that they were of the opinion that The actions Assange stands accused of would constitute a crime in the UK as well.
That Sweden won't guarantee him safe passage (i.e. "We won't extradite you to the USA") you can surmise that extradition to the United States is the sole purpose of getting him to Sweden in the first place. If it wasn't, they'd have long since agreed just to end this stain on their reputation: Already most Europeans see them as a tool of the Americans. Ditto the UK. I mean, most people saw them that way before this, but this has only cemented that image in their minds.
Sweden cannot make that guarantee because extradition here is a judicial process and the government like in most civil states is forbidden from meddling in the affairs of the courts. The govenment can overrule the courts under certain circumstances such as if Assange was risking death or torture if he was extradited.
The only thing the Swedish government could do to prevent a lawful extradition would be to rescind the extradition agreement with the US...
Nobody has been held accountable because the person who greenlighted the entire thing and therefore accountable, the foreign affairs minister Anna Lindh was murdered before this event came to light, so the accountable cannot be held accountable unless you know of some way to ressurrect the dead to face charges.
Yes that event is very unfortunate and shameful but to claim that the highly public Julian Assange would face the same risk as two "faceless" unknown Egyptians is absurd. When that event came to light there was a big public outcry, the government could not just quietly shuffle Assange over to the US without anyone knowing or noticing.
In Sweden the statute of limitations for rape is 10 years.
If you would like to learn more about the Julian Assange sex allegations please view, "Sex, Lies and Julian Assauge" by Four Corners; flagship Australian investigative journalism. Four Corners have been screening for 50 years on the ABC, the government funded channel.
Here's the link to "Sex, Lies and Julian Assauge", enjoy: http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/07/23/3549280.htm
If you would like to learn more about why Julian Assange is "hunted" watch "Wikirebels", on SBS Australia.
Here's the link to "Wikirebels", enjoy: http://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/video/31404099779/WikiRebels
If you watch these with an open mind and can accept that they are valid unbiased journalism you may come away more informed.
All they have to do is publicly negotiate with an international fugitive and promise a specific political action? How could they refuse?
Yeah, well fuck Australia\New Zealand, or maybe Canada (but probably Australia), too!
Where's the Open Source Julian Assange lookalike kit? 500 Julian Assanges periodically showing up at the Ecuadorian embassy and then all independently making their way elsewhere sounds like fun.
> 'From July 2012 through May 2013, the full cost has been £3.8 million ($5,963,340),'
The Six Million Dollar Man, then...
but there is no category of crime named "being such a colossal dick during sex that it rises to the level of criminality." So it all gets lumped under the category of "rape".
It is well known in journalist circles that Assange does indeed have a very large phallus and loves womanizing, so most of the time when he travels through Sweden he faces a conundrum. Try to stretch a magnum sized condom over and have it inevitably break or just do without. In most countries he has traveled through it is not so much of a problem, with the many ladies he beds. Unfortunately in Sweden his extremely large proportions were his undoing.
That allegation, as I understand it, is that after having had protected sex with the lady the evening before, she woke up in the morning to discover him having unprotected sex with her.
Unless you believe that the consent to protected sex from the night before includes consent to unprotected sex the next morning, he was having sex with her without her consent. Therefore it would be rape.
and therefore the Iraq War Logs never happened.
What an appalling post to have positive moderation.
He's a Muslim who's annoyed that I didn't fall for his Taqiyya and met his "false challenge"..
The European Arrest Warrant was brought after he had left Sweden. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/nov/18/sweden-arrest-warrant-julian-assange
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
...at least he has his freedom, right?
They already focused on his (former?) girl friend. They are not fully coherent whether they want to picture her as a kicked puppy or a prostitute, but either way, Snowden is a lowlife. What's to be expected from a traitor who is sworn in to the constitution and thinks that entitles him from exposing people wiping their ass with the constitution and whining about how it is their task rather than its authors and the public to figure out the balance between freedom and security?
Prepared to spend five years living there? If he goes out for a walk, he'll be extradited to Sweden? So... to avoid "possible" prison, he has most definitely imprisoned himself right now?
Prepared to spend five years living there? If he goes out for a walk, he'll be extradited to Sweden? So... to avoid "possible" prison, he has effectively and most definitely imprisoned himself right now?!