Julian Assange Plans Modeling Debut At London Fashion Show

An anonymous reader writes with news about a possible new direction for Julian Assange. Julian Assange is expected to make his London Fashion Week debut this September. The Australian WikiLeaks founder will reportedly model for Vivienne Westwood’s son, Ben Westwood, at a fashion show staged at the Ecuadorean Embassy, where he has been seeking refuge for the past two years. He is avoiding extradition to Sweden, where he is wanted for questioning over claims of sex offences. “Julian’s been in the embassy for two years and it’s important that he doesn’t slip into obscurity,” said Ben Westwood. “I want to highlight Julian Assange’s plight. What happened to him is totally unfair.”

Comments

Can we asume ...

[bigjocker]

... he will bare it all?

Re:Can we asume ...

[flyingsquid]

I just want to double-check- are we absolutely, 100% positive that this is a legitimate news story, and not a leaked script for a sequel to Zoolander or the latest Austin Powers movie?

Re:Can we asume ...

[AndyAndyAndyAndy]

No, but someone will anonymously release pictures from the changing room.

Re:Can we asume ...

[Aeros]

ugg..thats a scary pasty-white thought there.

Re:Can we asume ...

[Anonymous Coward]

In a twist, the bit where he's sandwiched between the two Finnish dwarves and the Maori tribesmen ends with him being extradited without charge and holed up in an embassy for two years.

Re:Can we asume ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I was wondering the same, and if there's a risk of him taking a wiki-leak on the platform, in civil disobedience fashion.

Re:Can we asume ...

[FriendlyLurker]

You might be onto something there: "the WikiLeaks Twitter account criticized the media for spreading a rumor about Julian Assange starring in a fashion show (12,600 results on Google News Search) despite Assange never hearing of it and the fashion show director Ben Westwood stating, "I haven't spoken to Julian at all actually":" https://twitter.com/wikileaks/...

Journalism standards collapse: 12,600 news articles on #Assange fashion show - that #Assange hadn't even heard of

New category of Who Cares?

[LWATCDR]

This is now at level of E!.
Modeling debut? Good grief.

Re:New category of Who Cares?

[Z00L00K]

Who cares? He has had his 15 minutes of fame.

Re:New category of Who Cares?

[homey of my owney]

Good grief.

No, not really. This is to quash any idea that he's an attention whore.

Re:New category of Who Cares?

[Rei]

Just like the Calle 13 rap, the Lady Gaga hangout, and the mulletted "You're The Voice" music video did.

and yet

[Aryden]

Had he just taken the damn HIV test, he'd be at home leaking more stuff.

Re:and yet

[GameboyRMH]

If by "home" you mean "Gitmo" and by "more stuff" you mean bodily fluids you generally try to keep inside...

Re:and yet

[aliquis]

Personally I would had wanted to find out if my country really deserved to lit on fire or whatever he's just a chicken.

Re:and yet

[BitZtream]

Why would he go to Gitmo? His leaks were a joke at best. He lost all credibility at the ridiculously edited collateral murder video and then actually managed to go down hill more after that. He has done more to destroy his own credibility than anyone in the US government could have possibly done. A couple senators tried to politic it up by shouting silly things about him to get people worked up but at no point was he ever going to be extradited nor was he ever going to gitmo, at least not for any of these 'leaks'. He didn't steal the data himself even, he got it from others. He's nothing more than an attention whore, and a pretty shitty one at that.

As far as keeping body fluids inside, only if you're trying to get her pregnant.

Re:and yet

[ScentCone]

If by "home" you mean "Gitmo"

So you really, honestly believe that if he'd answered the questions that the Swedish investigators wanted to ask, that he'd have been sent from Sweden, via some flavor of rendition, right to Gitmo? Assange's nearly Jobs-like reality distortion field is definitely getting to you. Or, you're just trolling in the interests of ... what, exactly?

Re:and yet

[Anonymous Coward]

and despite his current status of clearly eating out of Putin's hand

Yeah because a wanted man who seeks asylum with Russia is *really* in a position to refuse what Putin wants. Sure thing man.

Re:and yet

[91degrees]

Every favour?

You mean like going through channels and demanding extradition to the US? Or going for the secret rendition route that they did from the UK for years but don't seem to have done from Sweden?

The plan to have him extradited to Sweden on frankly bizarre charges, and then have him extradited from there to the US, which would need both Britian and Sweden's agreement seems a very covoluted way of doing things. What could possibly go wrong?

Re:and yet

[Rei]

"Pulling in every favor" - and your evidence is?

You do realize that it's an explicit violation of the Swedish extradition treaty with the US to extradite someone for political, military, or intelligence crimes, don't you? They couldn't even hand over Edward Lee Howard, the greatest CIA defector to the Soviets during the cold war, and he didn't even have the cover of being a journalist (Sweden having the strongest whistleblower protections on Earth, as repeatedly noted by Assange at the time when he was moving there). And I assume that you know that someone surrendered under an EAW requires both the consent of the receiving (Sweden) *and* sending state (Britain) to be forward-extradited to a third state, meaning that being surrendered under an EAW only increases your protections against extradition. Britain, of course, being the country that took most of a decade to hand over Abu Hamza, a guy everyone hated and who was setting up terrorist training camps in the US, and which wouldn't hand over at all Gary McKinnon (the most costly hacker of US military systems in history) because he (like Assange) has Aspergers. Oh, and I'm sure you you know the ECHR, the world's greatest refuge for people seeking to avoid extradition, has the final say.

Lets just see if I've got the Shadowy CIA Conspiracy(TM) down pat. For reasons only beknownst to them, they can only nab Assange from Sweden, not the the UK, or any of the vast numbers of far-easier countries that Assange regularly globetrots to. No, it has to be Sweden. Let's just take that as a given for some Unknown Shadowy CIA Reason. Now, Assange was applying to live in Sweden when the Shadowy CIA Conspiracy decided, "Instead of waiting until we're ready to nab him for our charges, since he's planning to live here, wouldn't it be so much more fun to frame him for a crime? Yeah! And let's pick a crime that has a pathetically low conviction rate! Let's not only frame him for rape, but let's frame him for rape but use a case that involves the women having consented to certain acts but not others, have them do delays and other actions that could potentially hurt their case, etc, just like in real rape situations, where victims don't live their lives as though they're about to be judged in a trial, instead of a phony "knife to the throat" hollywood-style rape case." Why? Because the Shadowy CIA Conspiracy just rolls that way, stop asking questions! And because our CIA psychics have foreseen this event for decades in advance, we can now activate Sleeper Agent SW who we've had spend decades misleadingly cultivating herself as a young Swedish museum worker with a lifelong paranoia about unprotected sex. Now, let's install our CIA Plant, Ms. Ny, to prosecute him - because of course, we at the CIA have infiltrated the top levels of all of the major governments' of the world's judicial systems just for this purpose (we also run all of their courts, so that we can have the Svea Court of Appeals, the Swedish Supreme Court, the UK District Court, the UK High Court, and the UK Supreme Court each rule against him in turn). But, for fun, let's have the prosecutor take several weeks to get him, and let's let the news totally leak out during the time that they're getting ready to arrest him so that Assange can run. And let's just let him flee the country, and not tell Sweden so that they can stop him. Then when he exhausts his legal options in the UK and jumps bail to run into the embassy of a country with an anti-western leader who's a fan of his, let's do absolutely nothing - it'll be fun!

Is this how it went down, in your mind? Great job, Shadowy CIA Conspiracy. Who's heading the CIA these days, Bozo the Clown?

Re:and yet

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess if you were in Snowden's shoes, you would have sought asylum somewhere other than Russia. Of course, by now you'd be back home rotting in solitary confinement awaiting your trial. A trial in which you have no ability to challenge the evidence presented against you.

But please, tell us where you would seek asylum from the US. Afghanistan? Iran? North Korea? Can't decide?

Perhaps you should worry about your own credibility.

Re:and yet

[Rei]

The funny thing being that according to Wikileaks itself, in 2006 Sweden created a major diplomatic incident with the US by diguising their special forces as airport workers and hijacking a US rendition flight to stop the US from renditioning people through their airspace. The very Swedish foreign minister that Assange rails against (Carl Bildt) is the same guy who was prime minister when Sweden refused to hand over Edward Lee Howard to the US because Swedish law bans extradition for intelligence crimes.

No country is perfect, and every country has bad marks at some point on its record, so anyone who wants to can pick attacks for any country. However, in Sweden, these sort of things are few and far between. The peer-reviewed World Justice Project Rule of Law Index ranks Sweden #1 in the world for fundamental rights of the accused. Assange on at least two occasions called Sweden his "shield" before the incident due to their having such good whistleblower protections**, and was applying for residence there. It was only after he got anklagad for rape that he suddenly changed his tune and decided that Sweden is an evil US lackey bent on his downfall. Funny how that works.

(** It's actually those very whistleblower protections that are responsible for why we know so much about the case. In Sweden, it's illegal to even look for a person who leaks documents if they consider it whisteblowing; as a result, pretty much every high-profile criminal case in Sweden leaks like a sieve)

Re:and yet

[AmiMoJo]

You do realize that it's an explicit violation of the Swedish extradition treaty with the US to extradite someone for political, military, or intelligence crimes, don't you?

LOL, okay, yeah. It's also illegal to render people from the EU to other countries, torture them, throw them in a prison camp without trial and keep them there for years. Still happened though, even with help from some European governments.

Framing him was part of their attempt to discredit Wikileaks. They did the same thing to Snowden in the early days, making all sorts of claims about his girlfriend. Considering how dodgy the case in Sweden looks it's hard to see how any rational person in Assange's position would risk going back there.

Re:and yet

[AmiMoJo]

Sweden refused to hand over Edward Lee Howard to the US because Swedish law bans extradition for intelligence crimes.

This isn't an intelligence crime. Assange is accused of terrorism and actively harming US security and interests. What you are suggesting is that he takes a huge risk, and the result of losing will be rotting in gitmo forever.

Re:and yet

[Anonymous Coward]

> Protip: If you arent a foreign combatant you arent going to gitmo.

No. If the US accuses you of being an 'unlawful combatant' then they have no compunctions about sending you to gitmo.

The key here is that just the accusation is sufficient and because it is completely arbitrary is why the jokes work -- the situation is fucked up.

Re:and yet

[Rei]

LOL, okay, yeah. It's also illegal to render people from the EU to other countries

Ahem.

There's been more action taken in the EU against the US rendition program than anywhere else in the world.

Framing him was part of their attempt to discredit Wikileaks.

Why thank you, Amazing Kreskin, for your ability to know more than everyone actually involved in the case, including the three investigating officers, two (Gehlen, Wassgren) wanted him charged for what would become 5 charges (1x unlawful sexual coersion, 2x molestation, 2x rape), while one (Krans) wanted him charged with 4 (1x, 2x, 1x); the original prosecutor (Finne), who began investigating for 5 (1x, 2x, 2x), but changed it to 3x (1x, 2x, 0x) before SW's statement made it into the system; the appeals board which found her in error for reducing it without having even reviewed the victim statement; the second prosecutor (Ny), who sought (1x, 2x, 2x); the lower court judge, who approved a warrant for (1x, 2x, 2x); the Svea Court of Appeals, who held a full court hearing on appeal from Assange, including testimony from Assange's attorneys and a review of all evidence, and reached an official finding of probable cause for (1x, 2x, 1x); the Swedish Supreme Court, who refused his appeal; the British lower court, who heard Assange's claims alleging flaws in the Swedish process and malicious prosecution, and ruled against him on all counts; the UK High Court, which did the same; and the UK Supreme Court, which again did the same.

No no, we don't need any freaking judicial system, we have Amazing Kreskin here to tell us what's what!

They did the same thing to Snowden in the early days, making all sorts of claims about his girlfriend.

Huh? Pretty much everything I saw about his girlfriend was supportive of Snowden, along the lines of "Look at what he sacrificed in order to release this information!" If there was anything trying to condemn him over his girlfriend, I sure didn't see it. And even ignoring that, what the media chooses to focus on in one case to do has no bearing on what every level of two countries' judicial systems rules on a completely unrelated case..

Re:and yet

[ericloewe]

What he is accused of in the US is absolutely irrelevant. It's what the Swedish court says that would matter.

Re:and yet

[Rei]

Assange is not accused of anything by the US. There are no US charges against him. There is still an investigation open, but it's questionable that they'll ever even be able to charge him with anything. Just assuming that they did, a terrorism charge would get utterly laughed out of each of the *five* different bodies (Swedish courts, Swedish governments, British courts, British government, and ECHR) that would have independent veto authority over a US request. You might as well accuse him of of beating to death an astronaut on the moon, it's about as plausible. And the US could barely get Abu-freaking-Hamza extradited, an *actual* who everyone hated, a guy who was working to set up terrorist training camps in the US (and even when they finally did, a decade later, they couldn't even put him in a supermax prison because the EU considers that too cruel). And "actively harming US security and interests" isn't even a charge in the US, let alone anything that would even remotely meet even the basic double criminality standard.

Re:and yet

[TangoMargarine]

I'm not entirely convinced that a governmental group thoroughly bungling an operation proves that they weren't attempting the operation. Assuming that conspiracies have to be totally effective seems unrealistic. It's like saying that because the Masons didn't take over the world, they weren't a secret society. No, they just didn't accomplish their goals (that we know of).

But deciding whether the rape charges were a happy coincidence or a happy "coincidence" seems to be more or less a matter of paranoia at this point.

Asking for evidence of favors is also rather iffy. It's a favor; of course they're not going to document it.

Re:and yet

[TangoMargarine]

Gitmo shouldn't exist at all. The fact that is does means I don't assume those in charge will studiously adhere to their guidelines about who they can and can't illegally detain there.

Re:and yet

[TangoMargarine]

Interesting link, but the article doesn't say they hijacked the aircraft, only that they boarded and confirmed there were prisoners onboard.

I'm also trying to figure out what they mean by "carried out without the knowledge of the Americans." If the Americans knew about it, why would the Swedes even bother going in undercover? Unless they knew about it and chose to do nothing I suppose, since it sounds like it was on Swedish soil.

Re: and yet

[bill_mcgonigle]

This is misinformed - he was transiting through Russia when the US revoked his passport, and according to the stupid nation-state rules, that grounded him. If anybody chose where to cause Snowden to seek asylum it was John Kerry. He would have been in Latin America if not for the US State Department. Which, ironically would have been worse for him because the USG has no compunction about doing covert ops there. #monroedoctrine

Re: and yet

[bill_mcgonigle]

You don't rendition a prisoner to a black site for punishment - you do it to send a message to would-be followers. The UK flight tracking club has already disclosed that the CIA rendition plane was sent to Scotland as he was fleeing west and we know they grounded President Morales's plane to grab him the next day. That's a preponderance of evidence.

Re: and yet

[bill_mcgonigle]

errr ... 'he' = 'Snowden'. Bad missing antecedent, bad!

Re:and yet

[Rei]

False. Among countless sources you can read which demonstrate the falsity of the "free to leave" claim, you can read the SMS logs between Assange's lawyer and the prosecutor, or the British Lower Court ruling. While Assange was leaving the country, his lawyer (Björn Hurtig) was pretending that Assange had no plans to leave and was setting up an interview between Assange and the prosecutors' office in Sweden. Later he tried to mislead the British lower court into thinking that he didn't know that the prosecutor's office still wanted Assange. The judge caught him in the lie, chewed him out (he's lucky he didn't get hit with sanctions), and received an official condemnation by the Swedish Bar Association.

Assange did face one round of preliminary questioning, and only concerning the girl that there are no rape charges concerning (AA). He has never been questioned about the girl that the rape charge is about (SW). That's what the interview that he was supposed to stand for when he fled Sweden was to be about.

There is no "different crime unit". The initial prosecutor, Eva Finne, was put on the case because the report was made during a weekend and she was the only one available. She initially opened an investigation into two counts of rape and various lesser charges - one count of rape against each woman. News of the investigation quickly leaked (as almost always happens in Sweden due to their whistleblower protection laws), which put the prosecutor in an awkward spot, as the name of a suspect isn't supposed to be released until they're charged. She quickly got a warrant issued against Assange - despite the fact that he had never refused to cooperate. This in turn led to a major backlash. She shortly thereafter she withdrew the rape charges to cancel the warrant, but left the investigation open into the lesser sexual assault charges. This in turn led to a protest being filed by Claes Borgström, the legal representative of the accusers, as SW's victim statement hadn't even gotten into the computer at the time, so there's no way the case could have been fairly reviewed. Sweden has an appeals board process at this stage, which is fairly commonly utilized in the Swedish judicial system. The board ruled in favor of the women, and the case was re-opened, which put the next senior prosecutor, Marianne Ny, on the case. Ny reopened the case for all five counts (it was later reduced to four on appeal; these four are what ended up in the EAW which stands to this day)

A bit about the nomenclature. I use the word "charges", but of course, that's an English term, the Swedish judicial system is structured differently. First you "anklaga" someone, then you "åtala" them. The first stage means you have to have a formal list of things they're approved of, you can get a warrant, the accused can appeal and get a court hearing (all of this happened, Assange lost with a finding of probable cause of rape, and had his loss sustained on appeal). The second stage (being åtalad) starts the process of the trial. The subject has to have everything they're being åtalad over put before them in questioning before the decision to åtala is taken, and then the trial must begin within a short, fixed time period. Hence, you anklaga someone to get them into custody, then you åtala them to try them. Assange has been anklagad but not åtalad. For the purpose of the EAW, being anklagad was ruled as being equivalent of being charged by every level of the UK judicial system, but Assange and a lot of his backers make much ado about him not being "charged", only translating åtalad as charged. Either way, what matters is Assange is charged to the maximum extent possible under the Swedish judicial system at this stage, as he has not surrendered to Swedish custody and thus cannot be åtalad.

I should probably include the sworn statement of the prosecutor (Ny) concerning the questioning: "Subject to

Re:and yet

[AmiMoJo]

There's been more action taken in the EU against the US rendition program than anywhere else in the world.

By that point people had already been rendered and were already being tortured. It's well documented. There are lawsuits against EU governments for helping the US do it in progress right now.

Can you explain why the Swedish prosecutors would not come to the UK to talk to him? They didn't want to arrest him at the time, just talk. He invited them over, there is precedent for such visits, and yet they declined.

The UK court rulings were based on their decision that the danger of being grabbed by the US was minimal. You can argue that it was or it wasn't, but Assange was in an impossible situation where he believed there was a strong possibility of being rendered and yet was unable to provide evidence of it for obvious reasons. His choice was risk that or run, so he ran.

Pretty much everything I saw about his girlfriend was supportive of Snowden

You obviously didn't look very hard. The VERY FIRST link from a google of "snowden girlfriend" turns up:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...

Abandoned his girlfriend, left her to fend for herself with the authorities and media, the bastard.

Re:and yet

[LordLimecat]

Where should we stick foreign combatants? You know, the kind that in days of yore we would have termed "POWs".

Re:and yet

[TangoMargarine]

Inside the U.S. in a prison system or something that actually obeys the laws we've made for keeping prisoners. The whole point of Gitmo is that it's not inside the U.S. so we don't have to follow our own rules, right?

Re:and yet

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you explain why the Swedish prosecutors would not come to the UK to talk to him?

Because the legal system of Sweden is not an a la carte buffet, where you can pick and choose which legal requirements you uphold based on the convenience and whims of the accused.

Assange: "Sorry, I don't feel like showing up to court today."
Judge: "Oh, did you have a sleepless night? In that case, case dismissed, all charges dropped."

The law, and the real world, don't work that way. The investigators are under NO obligation to conduct their investigation in a way that's convenient for Assange. In fact, by doing anything "extraordinary" to accommodate him, they are setting a precedent that his due process wasn't followed properly. In addition, they're opening themselves up to possible diplomatic spats by violating jurisdiction of local law enforcement agencies by sending investigators abroad.

But by all means, since you'll trot out the same tired, faulty logic that Assange's supporters have been trying to pretend there's no legitimate objections to:

https://storify.com/anyapalmer...

Written by an actual British lawyer, who actually understands the law. Feel free to address the counterpoints raised there with your own legal opinions, counselor.

Re:and yet

[fnj]

Seems to me that they should be locked up in POW camps run by the military, from which there is no release so long as the combat continues, save at the discretion of both sides agreeing on an exchange. Their confinement would be strictly a military issue, not subject to appeal through the judiciary. As such I have no problem with using extraterritorial as well as territorial military holdings, as in neither case would the military aims of the national government be allowed to be betrayed by gerbils.

Of course in my imaginary world, the US, and hopefully most of the civilized world, would have, through due process, declared total war against the islamists who made themselves our all-out, zealous enemy which is a bandit cartel rather than a proper religion.

Since that didn't happen, nothing I suggest based on that is going to be operative. In actual fact, two successive US regimes have convinced me they have no interest in addressing reality in an effective manner, so whatever comes home to roost on the US as a national power is richly deserved.

The fact that the people in the US on the whole do not directly deserve the hell that will exponentially be visited on them - life is harsh, as the lion tells the wildebeeste and the shark tells the seal. Stupidity has consequences. The US voters installed these horrific regimes just as surely as German voters confirmed Hitler in a plebiscite.

Re:and yet

[TangoMargarine]

To say that they voted in Hitler is grossly oversimplifying the issue. He was appointed--not elected--prime minister first.

In addition to political campaigning, the NSDAP engaged in paramilitary violence and the spread of anti-communist propaganda in the days preceding the election. On election day, 6 March 1933, the NSDAP's share of the vote increased to 43.9 per cent, and the party acquired the largest number of seats in parliament. Hitler's party failed to secure an absolute majority, necessitating another coalition with the DNVP.

To achieve full political control despite not having an absolute majority in parliament, Hitler's government brought the Ermächtigungsgesetz (Enabling Act) to a vote in the newly elected Reichstag. The act gave Hitler's cabinet full legislative powers for a period of four years and (with certain exceptions) allowed deviations from the constitution.[153] The bill required a two-thirds majority to pass. Leaving nothing to chance, the Nazis used the provisions of the Reichstag Fire Decree to keep several Social Democratic deputies from attending; the Communists had already been banned.

So after Hitler had twisted Hindenburg's arm into making the Reichstag Fire Decree, they physically barred the opposing voters from entering the voting chamber and voting down the last barrier. But yeah, it was all democratic.

I'm interested to hear what you think the U.S. voters should have done if none of Bush, Gore, Kerry, Obama, McCain, or Romney were worth our votes (not that I really disagree with you on that point).

Re: and yet

[sageres]

[CITATION NEEDED]. Not your empty conspiracy theories.

Re:and yet

[LordLimecat]

Inside a civilian prison? Thats an interesting theory.

that actually obeys the laws we've made for keeping prisoners.

I think part of the issue is that these prisoners have already broken the rules of war (not targeting civilians, operating under a flag, operating in line with international conventions, wearing a uniform), and in so doing have sacrificed the majority of the protections like Geneva in the process.

Re:and yet

[Rei]

the laws are laughable when it come to what they consider rape

Hey, did you hear the one about the girl who was so paranoid about unprotected sex that she not never did it with her previous boyfriend of 2 1/2 years but even made him get tested anyway? Okay, stop me if you've heard it! So she has this guy over, and he keeps trying to F*** her unprotected all night, and she spends all night telling him no, to the point that when he starts ordering her around the next morning and has her go out to buy him breakfast, she spends her time out texting friends and chatting with one in line complaining about how mad she's getting at him for it all. But - wait for it, wait for it - then she goes home, they eat, and she falls asleep... and wakes up to him F***ing her unprotected!

Har har, get it? Man, the crazy things that those loony Swedes call "illegal".

. They tried this with leaders of the Civil rights movement, and other movements of the 60's, and it continues to this day

Wow! The 60s! Damn you, JFK, how dare you try to set up Assange! Hey, I heard some really nasty stuff was done under president Garfield, perhaps you could trot that out as an excuse for why we should ignore the judicial rulings of every step of two countries' legal systems, including a full court hearing with all evidence reviewed and a finding of probable cause of rape, upheld by the supreme court.

And please, tell me more about this shadowy CIA conspiracy! I've been trying to outline it above, but I bet you can help fill in the gaps!

Re:and yet

[TangoMargarine]

If they blew off the rules of the Geneva Conventions and then still expected to be treated according to them when captured, that would be undeniably two-faced (although the U.S. in general flouts a lot of the international treaties it has--or has refused to--signed so can't say it's surprising). Isn't a lot of the controversy that many of those held at Gitmo are not demonstrably guilty?

I didn't mean in an existing civilian prison per se; they could have a separate facility. Although naturally nobody would want that in their back yard.

Re:and yet

[Rei]

Really, you're just going to ignore my above link to where Sweden itself, after public anger built up year after year, sent in their special forces disguised as airport workers to take over a CIA flight to block the US from extraditing people through their territory, creating a diplomatic incident with the US? Information disclosed by none other than Wikileaks?

Can you explain why the Swedish prosecutors would not come to the UK to talk to him?

I've done this far too often. Just search this page for the word "åtala".

The UK court rulings were based on their decision that the danger of being grabbed by the US was minimal.

That was just one of Assange's many arguments, and not one that his attorneys put much emphasis on. He mainly tried to argue malicious prosecution and an improperly issued EAW. Both were ruled against. In the lower court, the high court, *and* the supreme court.

Abandoned his girlfriend, left her to fend for herself with the authorities and media, the bastard.

First off, that has what to do with Assange raping a girl in Sweden? And secondly, from your article:

He described Mr Snowden as being "rather reserved" and having "very strong convictions of right and wrong and I'm sure that's why decided to throw caution to the wind and do all of this.

"He saw something that was gravely wrong and he wanted to do something about it. I support him and if I ever got word that I could help him I would try."

That's from the girl's own father of all people, praising Snowden. Are you sure you were reading the right article? Or did you just look at the headline and decide that this was some sort of article damning him for leaving his girlfriend?

Re:and yet

[91degrees]

Of course they could! They easily have enough evidence to justify bringing charges. The idea that they'd come up with a complex plan to have him extradited to a country that has, in the past, actively thwarted US extradition.

Re: and yet

[Sabriel]

See Hobson's Choice.

By the fact that his passport was revoked while transiting Russia, Snowden's choice went from "which country do I seek asylum in" to "do I seek asylum in Russia or not at all?"

(perhaps he could still have got himself smuggled out in a diplomatic bag or some other James Bond shenanigans, but considering the Evo Morales grounding incident, that might not have worked out so well)

Re: and yet

[Sabriel]

Fair enough. I'll amend: By the fact that the revocation of his passport caught up with him while transiting Russia, Snowden's choice went from "which country do I seek asylum in" to "do I seek asylum in Russia or not at all?"

Re: and yet

[Sabriel]

While true that any country can grant asylum regardless of the lack of a passport, the person still needs to be able to reach that country. Thus the second half of my original comment:

(perhaps he could still have got himself smuggled out in a diplomatic bag or some other James Bond shenanigans, but considering the Evo Morales grounding incident, that might not have worked out so well)

Re: and yet

[Sabriel]

Oh, it's a matter of the risks?

Look at the Wikipedia entry for Hobson's choice: "The phrase is said to originate with Thomas Hobson (1544–1631), a livery stable owner in Cambridge, England. To rotate the use of his horses, he offered customers the choice of either taking the horse in the stall nearest the door or taking none at all."

If it were solely a matter of the risks, the customer obviously also had the choice of stealing a horse. But the desirability of that happening and the likelihood of that working out for the customer is so low that we go ahead and call it a Hobson's choice. Ditto Snowden: the desirability of the remaining alternatives and the likelihood of that working out for him is so low - now that the revocation of his passport has caught up with him and that other countries are demonstrably willing to interfere with even presidential aircraft if they think he's on board - that I'm going to call it in the ballpark. YMMV, and apparently does.

Re: and yet

[Sabriel]

Yes, exactly my point.

Good move

[Errol backfiring]

What happened to him is totally unfair.

Yes. It is totally unfair, but nevertheless it seems quite fashionable.

Bizarre

[Dan East]

Can things possibly get any more bizarre with Assange? I have an idea. Let's lock Julian Assange, John McAfee and Edward Snowden in a room for a week and see who is left surviving at the end. We can call it Hunger Games - Nerd Edition (my bet's on McAfee).

Re:Bizarre

[aliquis]

Can't we just film it and call it Big Brother 2.0?

Re:Bizarre

[Barefoot Monkey]

My money's on Hans Reiser.

Re:Bizarre

[I'm New Around Here]

Put Phil Specter in too.

Re:Bizarre

[I'm New Around Here]

But this will be when he's not high on drugs.

Re:Bizarre

[ericloewe]

Are you kidding? McAfee would have them both dead by the time the door is locked.

Now, how about we take McAfee deep into whatever country he's pissed-off lately and tell him to go hunt the other two? He seems to have some experience handling local South American officials...

Fifteeen minutes of fame.

[westlake]

Julian Assange is expected to make his London Fashion Week debut this September.

What begins as tragedy ends as farce.

Re:Fifteeen minutes of fame.

[TWX]

More like, "what begins as a farce has jumped the shark."

Re:Fifteeen minutes of fame.

[halivar]

Hopefully, avoided a ridiculous career as a male model.

Re:Fifteeen minutes of fame.

[Charliemopps]

Julian Assange is expected to make his London Fashion Week debut this September.

What begins as tragedy ends as farce.

At least you're talking about him. If the general consensus in this thread were "Assange who?" he'd already be getting waterboarded.

Re:Escape Plan

[GameboyRMH]

Seriously, have him swap places with an androgynous model. The cops would have to risk a lot to arrest a rich celebrity on suspicion that she's Julian in disguise.

May we call this ...

[Rambo Tribble]

... the "Zoolander" gambit?

Re:May we call this ...

[halivar]

Damn that Assange; he's so hot right now!

Diplomatic immunity?

[cronostitan]

I don't understand why the Ecuadorians don't make him a countryman and give him a diplomatic passport?

Re: Diplomatic immunity?

[Anonymous Coward]

You cannot get immunity for previous crimes.

Re:Diplomatic immunity?

[91degrees]

Because it's not that simple. You can't just declare your citizens diplomats. The UK would have to accept his diplomatic credentials.

Re:Diplomatic immunity?

[Rei]

Sex without a condom has some SERIOUS fuckin consequences huh?

Haha... because "On 17th August 2010, in the home of the injured party [name given] in Enkoping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state. It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party’s sexual integrity" (charge #4 on the EAW, the one with the checkbox ticked for rape) is best summed up as "sex without a condom". Such a frivolity!

Come on, girls, stop this nonsense, don't you know that Assange is the awesomeest awesome that ever awesomed? So what if he waits until you're asleep to f*** you for a bit in a way that you explicitly and repeatedly prohibited while you were awake, it's not something to ruin a great man's life over - just lie back and take it!

Re:Diplomatic immunity?

[MrL0G1C]

Not disagreeing with the other facts you stated, but the girls did not press charges, nor did the swedish gov't - the got an extradition warrant so that they could question him. The fact that the refuse to do this via webcam, phone, letter etc and that they are doing this even though the women don't want to press charges shows that the extradition is political.

Re:Diplomatic immunity?

[Theaetetus]

Not disagreeing with the other facts you stated, but the girls did not press charges, nor did the swedish gov't - the got an extradition warrant so that they could question him. The fact that the refuse to do this via webcam, phone, letter etc and that they are doing this even though the women don't want to press charges shows that the extradition is political.

See the post in the thread above - apparently, "charges" work differently in Sweden, and there are two levels, one of which only comes after the suspect is in custody. Assange has been charged as much as he can be at this stage.

Re:Diplomatic immunity?

[Rei]

1. "The government" does not press charges. That's the judicial branch's job, not the executive. Every figure involved in the investigation at each step, from the initial investigating officiers to the two prosecutors to each of the three Swedish courts involved and the three British courts involved, have all ruled against Assange in some way. The most pro-Assange action of all was from Eva Finne, who first after issuing a warrant way too early, cancelled the rape charges to revoke the warrant, but still left open the molestation and unlawful sexual coersion investigation (and that was before SW's victim statement was even in the computer). All other figures involved have either supported charges of (2x molestation, 1x unlawful sexual coersion, 2x rape) or (2x molestation, 1x unlawful sexual coersion 1x rape). The latter is what currently stands against Assange on the EAW.

2. There is no "extradition warrant". There is an EAW (European Arrest Warrant). The EAW process is about surrender, not extradition. There's actually a big difference, it's more like a prisoner being passed of from one state to another in the US; EAWs also take precidence over extradition, and there's no government involvement in an EAW like there is with extradition.

3. No, the purpose of the EAW is not to question him. From the sworn statement of the prosecutor to the lower court: "Subject to any matters said by him, which undermine my present view that he should be indicted, an indictment will be launched with the court thereafter. It can therefore be seen that Assange is sought for the purpose of conducting criminal proceedings and that he is not sought merely to assist with our enquiries." Under Swedish law, a person is "anklagad" to get them into custody and then "åtalad" after a question on all charges in order to begin the trial process (which must commence after being åtalad within a fixed period of time). Hence Assange must surrender in order to be åtalad, and pointing out that he hasn't been åtalad as defense of his run from the law is totally circular logic. The concept of remote questioning is a red herring; as per the sworn statement, the goal is to indict him.

4. The concept that "the women don't want to press charges" is totally unsupported by any of the evidence. First off, the women have been almost completely silent since the event. We've only heard from one of them (AA) twice, and the other not at all. The most recent of said statements by AA was a comment on a blog on an unrelated topic where she remarked that a year prior (the time of the Assange case) she was the victim of a sexual assault and her assailant never faced justice, and instead he is just praised and she gets attacked for reporting it.

From the leaked police report (leaked by someone on Assange's team, by the way - the un-trimmed version shows a hand-written letter from Ny to Björn Hurtig, Assange's attorney, telling him that this is what he requested but that it's not to be made public), we know the following additional information. 1) AA did not say she was raped, but that she was a victim of lesser crimes (this matches up with the current charges, where there are no rape charges concerning her, but three lesser charges). 2) SW told several people that she'd been raped, before she had decided to go to the police - at a minimum, at least one family member, her ex boyfriend, and AA all say that SW told them she had been raped by Assange, and there are several other people to which she described the event but it's not known whether she used the word rape. 3) SW wanted to report the rape charge but was very upset how it developed into a media circus; she mainly hoped it would end with Assange submitting to a STD test and then would be dropped (she had a long history attested to of being very paranoid about STDs, to the point that in 2 1/2 years with her ex she had never allowed unprotected sex, and even that was after doing STD tests). 4) AA went with to support SW with additional evidence from her case. 5) SW

Re:Diplomatic immunity?

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Diplomatic immunity is not retroactive.

Sweden and the UK would have to accept him as a diplomat.

Diplomatic immunity does not cover rape.

None of which even touches on there is a huge difference between giving refuge at an embassy, and allowing him to escape scot free. I mean, hell, they could put him in a diplomatic pouch and get him to Ecuador if they wanted, but it would be pretty poor form.

Re:Diplomatic immunity?

[sageres]

Some body mod the parent up please!

Re:Diplomatic immunity?

[Rei]

It'll take way too long to go into all of the evidence that's been leaked thusfar, and it should be pointed out that there's even more that's since been collected but which hasn't leaked. But it should be enough to point out that there was a judicial hearing by the Svea Court of Appeals, brought about by appeal from Assange, which involved a full court review of all of the evidence, including testimony from Assange's attorneys, and they ruled against him on all but one charge and found probable cause of rape. And then the Swedish Supreme Court refused Assange's appeal.

If you want I can go into what's out there, but really, that right there should be enough. It's anything but a "he said / she said" case, Assange and his defense team have really painted themselves into a corner on the SW case (the rape charge). They've admitted that she was refusing unprotected sex all night, but have tried to argue that the fact that she didn't push him out when it did happen counts as consent (see his lawyer, Ben Emmerson's testimony, where he goes on that "She may not have enjoyed the experience, but she clearly consented to it" because she froze and didn't push him out). Of course, that's nonsense; a person can't get "retroactive consent"; he had no consent at the time of insertion because the only answer he had previously gotten then was "no"; also, it's flatly illegal to F* a sleeping person in Sweden anyway (they tried to counter this by arguing that she was only "half asleep" at the time of insertion, due to one statement from one of SW's friends, ignoring SW's own testimony and even that the same friend contined on that "she woke up" to him having sex with her). Nor can one treat a person going into shock and thinking (accurately) that it's already too late to present disease as "consent".

Of course, I understand why his legal team got to that point, she had a very well documented paranoia of unprotected sex (lots of testimony to it, including from her previous boyfriend) and they have testimony from friends and SMS records sent that morning when Assange sent her out to buy him food (they later ate before she went to sleep) where she's talking about how mad she is at him for keeping on trying despite her saying no all night and for bossing her around. So it would have been a real stretch for them to argue, "Nah, what are you talking about, she loves unprotected sex!"

That's just for the SW case, there's also the AA case, but that's lesser.

Re:Diplomatic immunity?

[gnasher719]

I don't understand why the Ecuadorians don't make him a countryman and give him a diplomatic passport?

I wonder what percentage of the Ecuadorian embassy's budget goes on feeding Assange. And if they plan to send him a bill eventually. They must be kicking themselves.

Re:Diplomatic immunity?

[MrL0G1C]

Do you have sources to back up what you say and are they biased? It all sounds legit but it conflicts with this (which I realise is going to be heavily biased) http://justice4assange.com/Sex...

Have Sweden issued a European Arrest Warrants for other people for crimes at this level and type or are they just targeting Julian Assange? I'm not saying he doesn't deserve to be tried in court, just that the Swedish justice system going the extra mile is politically motivated.

I have looked for statistics on EAWs but can not find any with crime type detail.

Re:Diplomatic immunity?

[TheMathemagician]

Because the Ecuadorian President decided to offer him sanctuary just to yank the US's chain. They couldn't care less about him. I see the situation developing in one three ways: (1) Assange gives himself up to the British authorities who will ship him to Sweden (2) Britain gets tired of the abuse of diplomatic privileges and tells the Ecuadorians to give him up or GTFO. At this point they could probably give Assange a diplomatic passport and take him back to Ecuador without him being arrested. (3) The Ecuadorians tire of their embassy guest and give him notice to find a new home. He could try his luck with Russia or, if he has any sense, go to Sweden. Of course Britain could just forcibly extract him any time they wanted. The SAS has a team permanently based in London and would enjoy a nice day out. However I'm sure this option has been categorically ruled out due to all the diplomatic fallout that would ensue.

Maybe he'll give new meaning to the phrase...

[Shoten]

"Orange is the New Black"

Re:Maybe he'll give new meaning to the phrase...

[rvw]

"Orange is the New Black"

I guess you're not mexican!

Why do we care about this?

[robstout]

Assange is modeling? Yay, I guess.

Naive

[Virtucon]

“I want to highlight Julian Assange’s plight. What happened to him is totally unfair.”

He's in self-imposed exile and he made it worse on himself by running into the Ecuadorian embassy in the first place. Somebody needs to tell this twit that life is unfair, get used to it.

Re:I love the...

[Virtucon]

then let him face the charges a good lawyer can do wonders

Re:if only!

[Rei]

Oh come on now... the guy may be a tea party-aligned rape fugitive who overrode his political party to caucus with the Neo-Nazis, gave the dictator of Belarus an advance on leaks to be used in purges against his enemies, attempted to blackmail aid agencies by threatening to release information that could get their sources killed (including Amnesty International, to the tune of $700k), makes his volunteers sign 7-figure ultra-repressive NDAs, caused the defection of most of Wikileaks's staff due to complaints from authoritarianism to diverting the organization's money to himself, writes on his blog about how he's a god to women and women's brains can't do math, made a fake op-ed in the name of one of his opponents supposedly supporting him and promoted it with a fake twitter account in his name, wanted his book to be called "Ban This Book: From Swedish Whores to Pentagon Bores", wanted it to be full of his sex stories and at one point interrupted his ghostwriter to leer at a couple of 14-year-olds before remarking that one was "fine until I saw the teeth", cyberstalked a 17 year old before he got famous, and so on down the line ad nauseum... ....that's still no reason to wish him ill.

Re:Fuck beta

[Anonymous Coward]

Could be worse. It could look and taste like the shite that Soylent News began as and continues to be...

Re:I love the...

[TangoMargarine]

Just because he broke local laws doesn't mean the U.S. isn't also out to get him.

If I accidentally see pics...

[sribe]

I will gouge my eyes out with a rusty fork!

But why male models?

[jqh1]

... ... ...
But why male models?

WikiLeaks has not been sleeping!

[sgt_doom]

https://wikileaks.org/tisa-fin...

Read it and weep!

Hey...

[Ecuador]

What's wrong with the Ecuadorian embassy?

Re:Hey...

[jeremyp]

Well, for a start, its address is

Flat 3b, 3 Hans Crescent, London SW1X 0LS

In Wikipedia, it is described as "a suite of rooms occupying part of the ground floor of the building, which has been described as an "apartment block".

It's likely not very big. It would probably be quite comfortable for Assange if he didn't have to share it with the Ecuador diplomatic staff.

Re:Hey...

[Virtucon]

The guest that came to dinner.. And stayed..

Re:Hey...

[Virtucon]

No qualms about the Ecuadorian embassy. I think the Ecuadorian government was duped into providing him haven though because all they've got to show for it is less space in the embassy and all his upkeep.

Re:Hey...

[Ecuador]

You would think that, but I can't confirm it personally.

not rape

[bussdriver]

Rape was not involved. Don't people read or remember anymore??

He wasn't charged; it is questioning but under their system questioning is higher level than it is here it's still below being charged with the crime. The crime in this case is involuntary rape using US terms; we don't have something like that here which is way it sounds so stupid. Even over there they have a top court ruling that essentially throws it out, making it one of those laws on the books but is functionally dead. They are stretching in the extreme to persecute him and anybody who can't see that with even half the facts is gullible as hell.

Yet more proof ...

[Martin S.]

This is further proof of his insidious and insatiable Narcissism

When will his loyal fanbois catch on that everthing he does is about his own ego?