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?
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."
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.
No. The standard embassy deal covers only embassy ground and certain agreed-upon diplomatic staff (ie, if war breaks out, both sides agree to let the ambassadors for the other go home safely). Assange is not diplomatic staff, and thus cannot be transported. Even if he was, good luck getting clearance to fly. Right now the situation is stalemate: Assange cannot leave, and the UK government cannot enter.
Various quite public threats were made about what would happen if that was tried by people in UK politics, sometime around day one.
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.
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.
In order to qualify for diplomatic immunity, you have to present your credentials to the host country and have them accepted.
I expect the British government would absolutely love for Assange to try that, as he'd have to come out the embassy to do it.
use a ladder between the steps and the car door so you're not touching the ground?
Couldn't they then claim he was violating their airspace and shoot him down?
Everything is better with chainsaws.
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?
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.
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.
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.
What could the UK authorities do if Ecuador declared Assange to be an ambassador?
I think Assange would be the last person on earth they'd trust with state secrets.
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.
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.
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.
I'm pretty sure the limos are not considered part of the embassy. However, the diplomats themselves usually have diplomatic immunity. They could try to smuggle him out, but constant survelance makes that difficult.
Why can't they just appoint Assange a diplomat, travel to the host country, then strip him of diplomatic status?
More Twoson than Cupertino
Sure but if status of an ambassador is refused or revoked the normal etiquette is to send them back to the country from which they were supposedly an ambassador, not arrest them.
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..
Well, he's actually gotten laid before so it's easy to see why he'd miss it.
More Twoson than Cupertino
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
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...
According to international law he has the right as someone who has been granted asylum to be given free passage to Ecuador.
The problem is that for some reason our government seems to be placing law on bail conditions and Swedish law right up above fundamental globally established law on human rights and asylum that we've both signed up to and implemented.
God forbid someone desperate goes to the British embassy in a country where their life is genuinely in danger and is granted asylum because we've now created a precedent where they have absolutely no hope of getting out safely even if asylum granted. The same applies if say a British citizen finds themselves stuck in a nation that falls into chaos or similar for whatever reason and goes for asylum at a friendly embassy - why should that nation give safe free passage back home to a British citizen now given that we've flouted international law that we signed up to and implemented? We no longer have international credibility on issues like diplomatic protection and asylum because of this.
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.
Perhaps, but as he would have to leave the embassy and make it to Buckingham Palace to present those credentials, and he'll be arrested the moment he sets foot on the pavement, it won't ever reach the point where his credentials are refused.
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?
Which international law would that be? Ahh right, it wouldn't be because it doesn't actually exist.
Country A granting someone asylum does not obligate country B to do anything at all, including ignoring domestic law and allowing someone with a valid arrest warrant to leave the country. The ony place in which country A's asylum status means anything is in country A.
Getting into a limo would be possible. What would he do after that? If they see him go in, and he leaves the embasy, the Brittish can pull over the limo. Even if they don't he has to leave the country somehow, and they control all the exits
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
The larger problem for Assange is a change in government in Ecuador. Ecuador has not had a stable presidency for some time. Correa is liked right now, but if that changes, he could find himself in the embassy of a US-friendly government. Go back 10 years and Ecuador would have handed him over in a heartbeat.
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!
Diplomatic status has to be recognized by the host country (and you need to enter on that status or get approval to transfer to it).
It is like entering the country on a student visa then looking for a job. You either need to leave and reenter on a work visa or you need to get approval to work on your student visa.
They can't just say "Assange is a diplomat now!" without local government's approval.
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?
Assange doesn't qualify for asylum under international law. He would have to fear persecution based on protected grounds. Protected grounds include race, nationality, religion, political opinions and membership and/or participation in any particular social group or social activities.
Assange can not claim asylum to elude a rape charge in Sweden under international law.
Ambassadors don't just turn up at Buckingham palace and ask the Queen if they can stay.
The country of origin phones the foreign office and tells them they're declaring a new ambassador, the foreign office then decides whether to grant or deny, if they grant they stay, if they deny they send them home.
Well, I'd probably trust Manning even less.
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.
Sorry, my mistake, I thought people on Slashdot would all be technically literate enough to use the internet and Google it. The UK is signatory to and has implemented all of these, in fact, it helped write most of them.
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.
True. It *should* be legally possible to smuggle him out in a diplomatic bag (this kind of thing has been done before), but the UK police have promised they'll arrest him if this is tried...which seems to violate Ecuador's sovereignty. But there's been silence on this threat the whole time, even though the UK government apologized for their threat to storm the embassy, which is legally exactly the same.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
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
No. Being accepted as a diplomat to a country is an agreement between the two countries. I don't think the British would be too keen on this.
Not to mention it would make Ecuador look like a joke. Ecuador is alread putting their necks out enough for this guy.
We do not want him to swing across the channel to the Principality of Sealand, do we?
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
That would only work if wikileaks were the 'official' reason he was wanted. Officially, he is a suspect in a rape(ish) investigation. Assange claims that this is really just a pretext, but what he claims doesn't matter: He'd need to get a judge to agree, and that's a big gamble.
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.
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
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
Would you like to point to the precise, actual line which covers your assertion?
Yes, I am technically literate enough to google it, but *you* are the one who made the assertion without backing it up - so therefor, provide evidence to back your position up please.
Please show where a country is obligated to allow a person who has a valid arrest warrant outstanding to be allowed safe passage out of their jurisdiction. Go on, please do.
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
It might also harm your claim that Assange does not fall under the definition of a "refugee" under those very protocols that you mention.
Oh, and also, neither of those conventions or protocols require a country to ignore its own law with regard to actionable arrest warrants unrelated to refugee status - so even if he did fall under the definition, there is still nothing there which requires Britain to grant him passage out of the Ecuadorian embassy...
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
Someone suggested that the Limo boards a ferry, if the Limo is considered part of the embassy, then the UK would be violating their treaties and the law in general if they acted therein.
I'm pretty sure the limos are not considered part of the embassy.
The State Department says otherwise (in certain situations). According to their own document:
Diplomatic Agents. Diplomatic agents enjoy the highest degree of privileges and immunities. They enjoy complete personal inviolability, which means that they may not be handcuffed (except in extraordinary circumstances), arrested, or detained; and neither their property (including vehicles) nor residences may be entered or searched. (emphasis mine)
This comes straight from their paper, Diplomatic and Consular Immunity: Guidance for Law Enforcement and Judicial Authorities found at this link.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
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.
They do need our help to the tune of £3.8 million thus far. ("Our" in this case being the British taxpayer.)
Does God treat us as servants or friends? Check my homepage.
They haven't charged him with a crime; that's the joke.
It's probably a little more complicated than that. Even if the British did storm the Embassy, what could Ecuador really do about it? Declare war, doubtful. Even if they did, what hope would they have of winning against the might of the British and the US? Really all the British are doing is humoring the Ecuadorians. I could be wrong, though.
21st Century Renaissance Man
Different countries have different rules.
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
All Sweden has to do is guarantee asylum in the case of a US attempt at extradiction over wikileaks.
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.
They really should make a hamster ball embassy for him to walk around in.
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.
I made a post about this very topic:
http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3883265&cid=44050753
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
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.
Yes, but Elbonia could elect him president, then he'd have automatic diplomatic immunity.
Ecuador is granting him sanctuary, not asylum.
Good-bye
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.
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.
Oops, we dropped a teargas canister outside the limo. So sorry!
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
"It might also harm your claim that Assange does not fall under the definition of a "refugee" under those very protocols that you mention."
Yes he does. Go learn what a political refugee is. Refugees aren't just poor black African people at risk of massacre by some butcher in their home country or whatever the hell you think the definition actually is. Risk of political persecution is very much one of the grounds under which someone can be granted asylum and that's the grounds he has been granted asylum on by the Ecuadorian government.
"Oh, and also, neither of those conventions or protocols require a country to ignore its own law with regard to actionable arrest warrants unrelated to refugee status - so even if he did fall under the definition, there is still nothing there which requires Britain to grant him passage out of the Ecuadorian embassy..."
Yes they do. International law trumps national law once you've signed up to it. If it didn't then dictators could make genocide legal whilst retaining their seats at the UN by not pulling out of the relevant treaties they'd signed up to because they'd be doing nothing wrong. Granting asylum is not something done on a whim, it's something granted by a country when it has a genuine belief that someone is at risk of persecution which is why it's used so sparingly worldwide. The whole reason for example that the European Court of Human Rights was created was because Hitler was persecuting the Jews and they had no one higher than their own government to turn to so post war the British authorities above all else realised it was essential to have such supra-national authorities. The relevant UN authorities were created with the same recognition.
Why don't you learn a bit more about the topic before making anymore of a fool of yourself by making shit up on the fly that just isn't true?
If you don't like Assange that's fine, just say that and stick to highlighting your opinion. No need to start making up stuff that is simply false as if that somehow bolsters your opinion and gives it credence. It doesn't to anyone other than those who already share your opinion that Assange is the anti-christ or whatever.
Because if the Brits storm Ecuador's embassy, their own embassies hold no status not to be taken over to unlock the asylum granted people inside. Im sure there are some ugly countries that would love an excuse to knock down their local UK embassy.
Accusing foreign nationals of rape in order to facilitate extradition to a third-party nation is also considered poor form.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
That would matter if they wanted to incarcerate a diplomat. Assange is not a diplomat.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
And how many Russian and Chinese and Cuban dissidents do we take in for things like "child abuse" where the "abuse" is reading Capitalist literature???
Well that's absolutely a fair argument in practice there's very little that good be done.
The only thing I will say is such actions are what have scraped away and weakened American and British credibility on the international stage in the last decade or so though. Things like throwing torture laws out the window, arbitrarily going to war without international legal support, doing away with fair trials with guantanamo, and extraordinary rendition. All these things have chipped away at Anglo-American political capital which is precisely why they now can't get universal agreement on action in Syria. Countries like Russia know that Britain and America can no longer claim the moral high ground on this sort of thing so they get away with blocking.
Any action against the embassy would just be the loss of further capital and would put British ambassadors and over citizens at risk of arbitrary arrest of other interference overseas because we'd no longer have the political capital to prevent it.
So Ecuador couldn't do anything directly, but it'd absolutely harm the UK.
He would have to apply for diplomatic status prior to entering the country. He can not apply after the fact, otherwise it opens the system up for abuse.
The country he is in right now is Ecuador, not the UK.
It's just a matter of the UK accepting his diplomatic status.
According to international law he has the right as someone who has been granted asylum to be given free passage to Ecuador.
Well, in that case, they should have the international cops come in and protect him.
The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
No. That's a myth. He's in the UK. The embassy simply has certain diplomatic rights and privileges.
Well put. That was the gist of my argument, only well thought out and written.
21st Century Renaissance Man
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
Why can't they just appoint Assange a diplomat, travel to the host country, then strip him of diplomatic status?
Because diplomatic credentials for a person have to be accepted by the country receiving them. They could reject that for Assange.
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
It's poor form only if it's true.
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
I think Assange would be the last person on earth they'd trust with state secrets.
What do you mean? I have little doubt that Ecuador would trust him with American state secrets, maybe even some American secrets that Venezuela found.
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
There's a reason Assange said he's prepared to stay there for five years. In five years, Correa's current term is up - he was just reelected.
I don't think Correa is going to be ousted in this period. He's popular on the left, and he's not nearly as incendiary to the right as Hugo Chavez.
xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
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
Sorry, my mistake, I thought people on Slashdot would all be technically literate enough to use the internet and Google it. The UK is signatory to and has implemented all of these, in fact, it helped write most of them.
Why would this topic be different than any other? Many people on Slashdot have been denying for more than a decade that terrorists exist, conduct attacks, get arrested, and have their own independent motives for doing so apart from anything done by anyone in the West. The whole Assange affair is no different. People regularly misstate ordinary and readily obtainable facts of the matter because they don't like the current and most likely outcome.
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
. . .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
...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.
The UK is signatory to and has implemented all of these, in fact, it helped write most of them.
Let's face it, that UK no longer exists. Instead you have creeping US-style fascism in the form of your Tory "leadership". The current UK ministers would never sign those bills much less write them.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
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.
The question was whether a limo is considered part of the embassy so that Assange could get into it and still be protected.
At least according our State Department, the answer would be yes.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
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.
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
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.
Well, they do ever since Google took down the "Swim to New York" option from their directions.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
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.
Drones, Badley Manning, Assange, Gitmo.... The US is a selective dictatorship.
Sorry, my mistake, I thought people on Slashdot would all be technically literate enough to use the internet and Google it. The UK is signatory to and has implemented all of these, in fact, it helped write most of them.
Why would this topic be different than any other? Many people on Slashdot have been denying for more than a decade that terrorists exist, conduct attacks, get arrested, and have their own independent motives for doing so apart from anything done by anyone in the West. The whole Assange affair is no different. People regularly misstate ordinary and readily obtainable facts of the matter because they don't like the current and most likely outcome.
It's not that I don't think terrorists don't exists, it's just that the numbers indicate that the average American should be more concerned about the flu than they should be about terrorists. I'm not saying nothing should be done about terrorism, just that a lot of the stuff being done is security theatre and not actual security, and that a normal level of prudence would keep the risk at the minimal level it's occupied for the last 40 years.
Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
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.
...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?
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?
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
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
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).
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)
Easily with just a little rewriting of your premise
It never ceases to amaze me how a government can blatantly waste money on something and there's absolutely no way for the subjects to do anything about it.
Welcome to the new bosses, same as the old bosses.
Sure they can't act against the vehicle itself unless it poses a danger to the public. But if it boards a ferry they will just put a ring of police around the limo and order the ferry to come to a halt a few nautical miles off the coast and then Assange would really be in a shitty situation because instead of staying in an embassy indefinitely he would have to stay in a car indefinitely. Or they could just let the ferry get into international waters and then some "pirates" would conveniently appear.
Same thing if he tries to get on a plane, to get from the diplomatic limo to the diplomatic aircraft he would have to cross Brittish territory so you just place 50 police at the entrances of the aircraft, problem solved.
It is also completely legal to impound a diplomatic vehicle for traffic violations and the likes. So if they suspect Assange is hiding in a limo they'll either have a convenient prior reason to impound(a lot of diplomatic vehicles have at least one traffic ticked issued at some point or another) it or they can probably make sure the vehicle breaks some traffic violation during the transport and then they would have cause to impound it. Then Assange would be sitting in an impound lot surrounded by police until he decides to get out of the limo or risks starving to death in which the police can act to save his life and then arrest him.
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.
Assuming that the UK recognizes Elbonia as a state that could possibly be true. If a country doesn't recognize a nation then it doesn't recognize that it has obligations any obligations, and hence there would be no diplomatic immunity.
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.
The right of asylum enshrined there relates to persecution on certain protected grounds, such protected grounds may for example be persecution based on race, gender, nationality, political opinions etc.
Trying to avoid being persecuted for rape is not one of those protected grounds and thus the UK has no duty to accept Assange as having the right of asylum. I quote from the UNHCR Introductory to the treaty text:
"The Convention does not however apply to all persons who might otherwise satisfy the definition of a refugee in Article 1. In particular, the Convention does not apply to those for whom there are serious reasons for considering that they have committed war crimes or crimes against humanity, serious non-political crimes, or are guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and prin- ciples of the United Nations."
Rape is definitely not a political crime and most jurisdictions certainly recognize it as a serious crime. Thus there is plenty of reason to see Assange's pleas for Asylum as invalid.
This has been said repeatedly elsewhere, but as everyone with any international law background knows, there is no such thing as diplomatic asylum anywhere, except as a local custom in South America. And not all of South America either.
There is no -law- in international law. It is entirely based on consent by each State. Even signed and ratified treaties are still open to interpretation sometimes. Sovereign governments do pretty much whatever they can get away with politically. The highest 'authority' of international law would be the ICJ, because everyone likes to pretend the UN Charter is important. Well, almost everyone. The US doesn't feel like recognising the authority of the ICJ is beneficial, so it doesn't, and then its not bound by it. Simple as that.
It's the same with the UK and Ecuador. The UK does not recognise asylum rights to free passage wherever. Assange is not a political refugee anywhere relevant to European courts. He has a pending arrest warrant. Whatever Ecuador says about their understanding of international law is completely irrelevant. Very simple too.
No, the UK setting aside the international treaties regarding embassies etc would be a huge deal even if Ecuador is a tiny insignificant bug. Simply because it creates a very dangerous precedent, if the Brittish can do it then so can any dictator/despot as well.
There is no arrest warrant. He is merely wanted for questioning *before* charges are even laid.
No, it's not a myth. Embassies are typically considered foreign soil. Same goes for reservations in the US. If you kill someone and you're 1/8th native american you can run to the reservation and you're untouchable.
Diplomatic mail can only contain stuff for official use, if the UK can prove that Ecuador is abusing that system they can go ahead and open it. The same thing has been done on multiple occasions where the host country has suspected that diplomatic mail was being used to smuggle drugs.
According to article 27 of the Vienna convention on Diplomatic Relations only official correspondence of the diplomatic mission is inviolable: Julian Assange can hardly be considered official correspondence of the Ecuadorian Diplomatic Mission to the United Kingdoms and hence his shipment is not inviolable.
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.
(Posting as anonymous coward, since things posted that are even slightly critical of Assange somehow get rated "troll".)
Same here. I've posted almost a dozen items on this story, all AC. Although I have an opinion on the case, and on Assange himself, I don't feel like having my karma destroyed because someone on either side doesn't like how I think, or what questions I ask.
And to be honest, people on both side of this are being ignorant dicks.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
All they have to do is publicly negotiate with an international fugitive and promise a specific political action? How could they refuse?
> 'From July 2012 through May 2013, the full cost has been £3.8 million ($5,963,340),'
The Six Million Dollar Man, then...
Indian reservations may well be considered foreign soil, but there are many enclaves throughout the world in similar legal positions.
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?
You may already know this, but just in case someone else reading doesn't (ie to clarify a point). The UK Government can enter, but chooses not to. Embassies and Embassy grounds are still part of the country they are in (so the Ecuadorian Embassy is still UK soil). It is only on agreement that they do not enter for fear of an international incident and condemnation from the rest of the world. But legally they can still enter if they chose to. (Which was something the UK Government actually considered - because they do have a legal cause for entering and apprehending Assange). The Embassy being the soil of the country who reside in the Embassy is a Hollywood myth. So, by 'cannot enter' it is 'cannot enter without causing an international incident' and not 'cannot enter due to a legal restraint'.
Sure enough, the cow costume was hanging up next to the superhero outfit and sailors uniform. (S,Spud)
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?!
There is no such thing as unbiased journalism.
I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
The joke is actually the number of bozos on Slashdot who are repeating the fallacy that arrest warrants in European countries (including the UK) require charges. They do not now, nor ever have, required charges -- indeed, the _vast_ majority of arrest warrants have been issued without any prior charges. I respectfully suggest that you and others of your ilk actually read up on European and UK law instead making posts that do nothing except display your ignorance of the subject.
I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
How did I get a -1 Overrated mod (and nothing else) for this comment? Overrated and Underrated need to be eligible for meta-moderation.
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.