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?
In this case I think that is a very good question. If they put up a reward for a tenth of what they've paid on guarding him, send posters round the area, then he would not get far if he got out. Its not like he's a Muslim terrorist who will exit in a burka and plant bombs when he gets out.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No it's worse than that, he posted some text on the internet!
They're getting paid anyways, the question is where they could be used better resource wise is the issue.
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.
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
"Its not like he's a Muslim terrorist"
Or, you know, any other bomb-wielding terrorist?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
The IRA never disarmed, they just forked and created another IRA under the moniker "Real IRA"
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.
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.
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.
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.
Actually, maybe that's not a bad idea. The Improv Everywhere folks could organize a "Julian Assange" subway day, instead of their "pantsless" subway day. Everyone dresses up like Julian Assange, and claims to have escaped via a tunnel.
Then see how the police react . . .
Maybe the real one could slip out in all the confusion, like Thomas Crown . . . ?
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Yeah, that's why the far right voted for the PATRIOT Act in the US. Here's a hint, Fascism is not 'far left', it is 'far right'.
And the left is abusing it just as much if not moreso than the right. So get off your high partisan horse and see the nation for what it really is.
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
Fascism actually seems like a centrist position at this point...
BlameBillCosby.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...
Fascism can both either left and right. Doesn't even have to be "far" to either side.
But good dodge around the fact that a leftist government made the Jews their target in the 1930s.
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
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.
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
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
Jumping Bail? Don't think so.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
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."
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
All Sweden has to do is guarantee asylum in the case of a US attempt at extradiction over wikileaks.
They really should make a hamster ball embassy for him to walk around in.
But they cannot seem to GUARANTEE he will make it to said Swedish courtroom.
THAT is the telling thing. Sweden would not send an officer to claim him (and therefore put him into Swedish custody directly) they expect UK to put him on a plane and that plane to make it to Sweden.
Swedes claim there is "no paperwork" but seem awfully intent on him being on a UK plane. Where such paperwork will suddenly appear, but he will be unable to reach his Swedish lawyer to argue his case in SWEDISH court while he's bound and gagged to the USA.
Even if it was -actual- rape, and not just a technicality of the terms, this would still be way out of line. There's got to be more going on than just questioning over rape charges.
We all see the elephant in the room, but the elephant seems to think he's invisible.
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...
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.
"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...
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.
No he's not. He's wanted for questioning. There's a distinct difference.
If he was officially accused of rape - i.e. if there was enough evidence to accuse him then the Swedish authorities would've decided to prosecute and ask for extradition based on that prosecution, instead they just want to get him to Sweden merely to "question" him, even though as the Ecuadorian authorities have pointed out there's no reason they couldn't do this at the embassy if it's necessary before pressing charges because they've done this before in other cases so it's perfectly possible under Swedish law.
Which is really what makes it all so odd, if there's so much certainty he committed rape, why not just press charges and issue a warrant based on that? Why pull him all the way to another country merely to just ask a few questions? He even offered to go to them and do this at the Swedish embassy in London for a while prior to seeking asylum.
Really if the rape charges are legit and he desperately needs to answer them this question could be resolved way more cheaply than funding this ongoing saga. Flying a couple of officers to the UK or using some possibly already present in the Swedish embassy would cost next to nothing just to question. Then once they've question if they want to press charges they can, and Assange's case is suddenly greatly weakened. The fact they're unwilling to spend next to nothing to backup their assertions is quite telling.
You don't spend $3.8million guarding an embassy and then millions more in politician, advisor, lawyer and additional police wages just to ask some questions. There's much more to it than that.
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.
Full details here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange
The rape charges are a bit tenuous.
Firstly, they started with consensual sex.
Secondly, some of the females changed their accusations.
In one of the two cases, the "rape" charge based on not using a condom was found to actually be that the condom broke during consensual sex.
To quote the meat:
An extradition hearing took place on 7â"8 and 11 February 2011 before the City of Westminster Magistrates' Court.[260][261] At the hearing, Assange's defence raised a variety of objections, including mismatches between the EAW and the original accuser statements to the Swedish police[262][263] that exaggerated the nature of the complaints.[264][265] In particular they argued the original police reports showed - contrary to the EAW - absence of alleged rape; absence of alleged force or injury; admission in both cases of consensual sex on the same occasions as the allegations; and splitting of a condom used with plaintiff 1 rather than failure to use one.
The defence also highlighted evidence that: plaintiff 2 had later admitted to being "half asleep" after consensual sex, rather than "asleep"; that the plaintiffs had originally been seeking to compel Assange to take an STD test rather than prosecution;[266] and that plaintiff 1 had thrown a Crayfish party for Assange at her home the evening after the alleged incidents, from which she tweeted: "Sitting outdoors at 02:00 and hardly freezing with the world's coolest, smartest people! It's amazing!" and invited Assange to stay in her room afterwards.[267][268]
---
The entire thing is a ridiculous abuse of government power and abuse of the rule of law.
They do not spend millions of dollars per rapist. If they DID we would probably catch more of rapists until we went broke.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
And, again, he has offered to speak to the prosecutor in England, which has been done numerous times under Swedish law.
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
Actually, in this case, it is justified to berate the women.
Anna Ardin made boasts about having sex with Julian on Twitter, tweets that were later deleted.
Sofia Wilen sent SMS's to a friend stating that she was half asleep when one sex act occured.
In statements to prosecutors, Anna Ardin gave in total 5 different versions of events. Sofia Wilen gave in total 3 different versions, one of them being that she was fully asleep, and was awakened by Assange having sex with her. The original prosecutor dropped the case, because she could establish no credibility to the claims made by the women. Then Marianne Ny, a well-known ultra-feminist manhater, who has a track record of not only prosecuting men just for being men, but also for destroying evidence that proves their innocence, and, when higher courts clear their names, she insists that they have not been cleared, in media campaigns.
The defense laywer for both women was a well-known politically motivated person with previous shady dealings with courts and prosecutors(Famous for the Quick case mishandling for example), namely Claes BorgstrÃm. He's also a close personal friend of Marianne Ny. Anna Ardin, BorgstrÃm and Marianne Ny are all activist members of the same politcal party, a party known for extra-legal maneuverings.
Here's the kicker: The last statement by both women, made when Marianne Ny had taken over, suddenly had the events match exactly.... From previously being totally incoherent and unsubstantiated due to evidence to the contrary, to coordinated and coherent, with important evidence to the contrary suddenly not taken into account.
One of the women, Sofia Wilen, refused to sign her statement in the end, and later on said she felt railroaded into making a particular statement.
A rather famous old guard swedish feminist, of the old and respectable "Equality means equal rights, but also equal responsibilities" philosophy, who also happens to be a journalist, has looked through the case, including all the testimonies, and she's highlighted a lot of inconsistencies. A former High Court judge, also a woman, classes it as a "case with questionable validity, driven by political demand".
Marianne Ny in march retreated from being the actual prosecutor in the case, but she will still be the leader of the group handling the case.
This excuse has come up before but it was debunked when Assange was granted asylum as the Ecuadorian authorities explicitly addressed it pointing out that the excuse is invalid given that Sweden has done exactly what they are requesting in other cases in the past.
In other words it's a made up excuse by his detractors that has no actual basis in reality. If they've done it in the past they can do it in this case.
Right and that's fine, but what's to stop them questioning him still in the embassy to get to that point?
They have a perfectly trivial cheap and easy option to strengthen their case but for some obscure reason they want to avoid it.
The most likely reason they want to avoid it is because they know their case has no merit and what they're really actually interested in is just getting him to Sweden where they have also refused to give a guarantee that they wont send him on to the US with or without Britain's blessing.
If I was the Swedish authorities, and I genuinely believed in my case and that he genuinely needed to be brought to justice for rape, I'd do what needed to be done to prove my case and get him to face justice. I wouldn't go out my way to avoid making him face justice by refusing to question him on neutral territory and refusing to explicitly delink his trip to Sweden with potential onwards extradition to the US by at least giving a guarantee he would be returned to Britain or somewhere else and a re-extradition attempt would be made to pass him on to the US if the US put a request forward.
If Assange is guilty of rape I have absolutely no problem with him facing justice, but the Swedish authorities must understand his suspicions and those shared by Ecuador and many millions of other people in the world. They must accept that to get him to face justice over the rape allegations that he must be protected from arbitrary extradition to the US given that he has broken no law in US territory.
It's not that I'm an Assange fanboy but I am a justice fanboy and serious attempts at seeking justice just aren't being sought here - again it'd cost nothing and take so little effort to just question him in the Ecuadorian embassy, why not just do it to strengthen their case? why so desperately attempt to avoid that?
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.
LOL "the left". You meant that the right is abusing it just as much as the other right is.
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
Advocates for Assange understand everything except why he should be treated the same as the vast majority of people that go before the Swedish legal system.
If they are going to try him they have to charge him. To charge him they have to question him. If they go to the UK to question him, which will cost and waste money, time, and paperwork, and then charge him, he will still be in the embassy, only on charges not questioning. Nothing really changes. Assange will still be in the embassy. Assange's advocates will continue to proclaim his innocence and that bringing him before the Swedish legal system is all a big plot. What the Swedish government is doing, waiting him out, makes perfect sense. The British government is responsible for delivering Assange to Sweden as he was in their custody. No need for Swedish prosecutors to take time away from other work to travel to meet with his excellency, Julian of Wikileaks.
You can also understand why the British government has warned given a certain issue in a former British Crown colony.
Britain to airlines: Don't let Edward Snowden fly to U.K.
Hmm, Britain, sex, and Sweden.... sounds familiar.
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
So, is your point that this case is obvious to you, based on what you have heard and read, that there is no need for a court to decide, and therefore extraditing Assange is redundant and he should be let go?
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?
He has to be charged before he can be tried. Him being charged and tried aren't things Sweden needs to keep secret to stealth him in.
The case should never have been reopened after the first prosecutor closed it, so yes, Assange should be let go. At least Anna Ardin should be tried for perjury, Marianne Ny should be tried for gross misconduct. Ardin, Ny, BorgstrÃm and Wilen should all be tried for conspiracy.
As for your insinuations, when a former High Court justice(High court being the highest instance of regular court in Sweden) STRONGLY talks, non-anonymously, about the case being without merit, and it is a woman too, it cannot be waved away, no matter if someone tries to claim sexism or "attempting to escape justice". The fact that one of the accusers, the defense lawyer and the prosecutor that re-opened the case are all activists(not just members, but active in policy making etc) in the same political party should have been an immediate cause for investigation of judicial integrity. The fact that the lawyer and prosecutor are personal friends should have raised a formal inquiry too. The fact that both the lawyer and prosecutor have a history of judicial scandals should have triggered a formal inquiry.
As it is, so many of the principles of the Swedish Judicial system have been violated that its integrity can not be restored without a total restructuring.
To reiterate the first comment:
The case should never have been re-opened, based on all the evidence that have come out.
"You can face at least questions over "throw away" statements."
Sure but it is unusual in the extreme to face extradition to answer those questions or for a completely different nation to spend millions attempting to seize you for that extradition or to battle the embassy of another nation that is granting you asylum.
Even if he had been convicted of rape, in the UK, and escaped to seek asylum in the embassy it is highly unlikely the police would actively guard the place. Police only expend that kind of effort if there is political pressure. This isn't something that is likely to help or hurt an official in re-election so where do you think the pressure is coming from?
I doubt it's a money saving effort. They've already spent a ridiculous amount of time and money getting him extradited in the first place which is hardly typical.
More likely the issue is that if they charged him they would be obligated to make him answer for those Swedish charges before extradition to the US.
He lost because the U.S. government has it's hand so far up Sweden's ass that the U.S. are poking their fingers in Sweden's mouth and controlling what they say.
I'm a U.S. citizen and it's shameful to me. I'm embarrassed for Sweden.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.