Slashdot Mirror


British Police Stop 24/7 Monitoring of Julian Assange At Ecuadorian Embassy (ibtimes.co.uk)

Ewan Palmer writes with news that police are no longer guarding the Ecuadorian Embassy where Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has been taking refuge for the past three years. According to IBTImes: "London police has announced it will remove the dedicated officers who have guarded the Ecuadorian Embassy 24 hours a day, seven days a week while WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange seeks asylum inside. The 44-year-old has been holed up inside the building since 2012 in a bid to avoid being extradited to Sweden to face sexual assault charges. He believes that once he is in Sweden, he will be extradited again to the US where he could face espionage charges following the leaking of thousands of classified documents on his WikiLeaks website. Police has now decided to withdraw the physical presence of officers from outside the embassy as it is 'no longer proportionate to commit officers to a permanent presence'. It is estimated the cost of deploying the officers outside the Embassy in London all day for the past three years has cost the British taxpayer more than $18m."

13 of 336 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Extradition from Sweden is a lie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

    Source? It is believed there is a sealed indictment in the United States against him relating to him leaking classified United States information. He has repeatedly asked, and has never been given, assurance from Sweden that he will not be extradited to the United States, where he may face the death penalty for leaking classified information.

  2. Re:maths seem off by gweihir · · Score: 5, Informative

    And to add insult to injury, apparently nobody is responsible for that massive fuckup. It is just stealing from the taxpayer, no crime in that.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  3. Re:18 million for someone that was NEVER Charged?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
  4. Re:He hasn't been charged by AK+Marc · · Score: 4, Informative

    There have been other cases of people interviewed remotely. It seems unusual that Sweden would not follow their regular procedure with him.Sweden has previously tried others in absentia. By international law, he has been "charged" with the crime (by the nature of the Interpol Warrant for Arrest Sweden has issued).

    By US standards, he was charged, then dismissed of the crime, and is now being tried a second time for the same crime. Almost nowhere else in the world has the strict double jeopardy laws the US has, but if we apply US standards, the charges and process are invalid many times over for many different reasons.

  5. Re:18 million for someone that was NEVER Charged?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    You're a liar. Assange has repeatedly offered to be interviewed at the Equadorian embassy. Swedish officials have interviewed people abroad in similar circumstances numerous times in the past. Those officials are every bit as dishonest and dishonorable as you are in this case. Read this. -PCP

  6. Re:18 million for someone that was NEVER Charged?! by careysub · · Score: 5, Informative

    That's not how things work here. The police typically interview you before charges are file. Assange has refused the interview.

    No he hasn't. The Swedes are refusing to interview him in the Embassy. Now, why would that be? Think, think...

    --
    Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
  7. Re:18 million for someone that was NEVER Charged?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    He was questioned by the police while he was in Sweden. He was in Sweden for 40 days after the allegations were first made to to the police and was not stopped from leaving the country. They could have withheld his passport and ordered him not to leave the country while he was under investigation, but they did not do so.

  8. Re:Yeah, makes perfect sense... by AK+Marc · · Score: 4, Informative

    He was done in by the prosecutor who is free to file charges even if the victim fails to press charges (same as in the US, for any crime) http://www.nytimes.com/1994/09... for an example where the "victim" objected to the prosecution of her sisters for plucking out her eyes.

    You are wrong about this being the law on university campuses. Nowhere in the US is a woman allowed to give consent before sex, then revoke consent after, and have the sex then be treated as rape. Go on, name one place where that's the case (in law, not just according to the statements of the defendant). If you can't, then you are a MRA lying and whining to slander SJW because you hate women, not because you are actually upset over the laws.

  9. Re:Extradition from Sweden is a lie by quenda · · Score: 5, Informative

    Assuming they even bother with the formality of extradition.

    Remember, Sweden (like other European countries) has a record of just handing over foreign suspects to the CIA for torture.

    The police took them to Bromma airport in Stockholm, and then stood aside as masked alleged CIA operatives cut their clothes from their bodies, inserted drugged suppositories in their anuses, and dressed them in diapers and overalls, handcuffed and chained them and put them on an executive jet with American registration N379P.

    I don't think any extradition lawyers were present.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

  10. Re:He hasn't been charged by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Double jeopardy is about being tried and found innocent by the court, and then being tried again for the same crime. It says nothing about being arrested/charged, then released, then being re-arrested/re-charged, as the outcome of the charge was never decided by a court. A judge may optionally dismiss a case with prejudice, meaning it cannot be brought back before the courts unamended.

  11. Re:18 million for someone that was NEVER Charged?! by dunkelfalke · · Score: 3, Informative

    For skipping bail actually.

    --
    "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  12. Re:It's a TRAP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Personally, I don't think the Swedish police would just hand him over to the Americans - the Scandinavian countries have demonstrated several times in the past that they don't simply roll over when the States tell them to.

    Scandinavian here (Denmark)... I think you put way too much trust in our governments. Maybe Norway is still willing to stand up for themselves (they can afford it), but Denmark and Sweden tends to roll over when the US says so. Examples: Both Denmark and Sweden are EU members, and thus fall under the EU privacy directive. Yet, both countries are actively supplying information to the US. Or take the pirate bay. The founders got convicted, even though until the case, none of the lawyers sending DMCA notices to the pirate bay could come up with a Swedish law they were breaking. Not even the one Swedish university complaining about pirated books could find such a law. Yet, they all got convicted, including they guy whose only job function was speech (as in "freedom of") - the spokesperson for TPB.

  13. Re: Gift Horse by Dereck1701 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Yeah, the US government has never done anything crazy like abducting someone off the the streets, flying them to a foreign country black site for a little torture, and them realizing "oops, we grabbed the wrong guy" so lets dump him in the countryside another foreign country, oh wait.................

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...