Slashdot Mirror
Ecuador Grants Citizenship To WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange (cbsnews.com)
hcs_$reboot writes: Ecuador has granted citizenship to Julian Assange, who has been holed up inside the Ecuadorian embassy in London for over five years. Quito, Ecuador, has said naturalization should provide Assange with another layer of protection. However, naturalization appeared to do little to help the Australian-born WikiLeaks founder's case, with the British foreign ministry stressing that the only way to resolve the issue was for "Assange to leave the embassy to face justice." Earlier on Thursday, Britain said that it had refused a request by Ecuador to grant Assange diplomatic status, which would have granted him special legal immunity and the right to safe passage under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.
Couldn't Ecuador officially employ him as an ambassador, now that he is a citizen? If the UK doesn't like his role as an ambassador, they can always kick him out of the country.
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
Glad to see it. This would have set an uncomfortable precedent of granting a wanted criminal the freedom to roam around the country he is wanted in. Diplomatic immunity status shouldn't be able to be granted after a crime has been committed.
"It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
The UK is right to refuse ambassadorship for Assange. If people accused of crimes in a foreign countries could be granted diplomatic immunity once they've been accused, it would be a massive loophole. Anyone charged with a crime in a foreign country could be granted ambassadorship and given a get out of jail free card. If you believe the charges are unjust, then argue they ought to be dropped. Don't use loopholes to try to escape facing justice, because this can easily be abused.
Pretty sure americans did that all on their own. Assange just helped us see through the Hollywood veil of fantasy.
So what if he's anti-American? He's not American, wants to stay away from America, and wants to expose war crimes and other illegal activity. Trump is completely anti-non-American and wants to annihilate a country. Who's really the real threat here?
The description of what he did sounds a lot like stealthing to me. The woman made consent conditional on condom use, and found out later that a condom wasn't used. It's not forcing sex on someone who's trying to get away, but it's not acceptable behavior.
Releasing leaks handed to him is what Wikileaks does, that's one thing. But he then added a lot of fake stuff himself, and became party to the game.
Remember his denials that the leaks came from Russia? Yet we even know how and who the Russians did the hack and CIA identified the specific order from Putin. Yet he repeated the Seth Rich claim, he repeated the fake Pizzagate claims too, which in turn led to this: Assange's Internet link was severed by 'state party' as he put it. Except the state party in question turned out to be the Equador Embassy, who cut his connection because they agree the non-interference in elections rule, and Assange was pumping out a mass of fake news from the Russian fake news factory and clearly trying to influence the election.
IMHO, this is the best time Assange will ever have to walk out of the Embassy. The UK charge is minor, and Trump can pardon him for any US crime planned. There's a bunch of potential pardons for Trump, Jared has lied about the Trump Tower meeting with Russian intelligence, and he will be pardoned no doubt, James Alex Fields, Manasfort etc. what's one more. But first he has to push the matter to get charged first and he has to do it within a fairly short timespace.
and so maybe recoup cost of the free bed & board that they have been giving him for a few years.
I don't think much of Assange, but how can he be a traitor? he isn't American and most of the world are anti-American now (justifiably so). So now we call any foreigner that doesn't agree with the US a traitor?
Breach of bail conditions is a crime.
I think it comes under contempt of court.
Are you suggesting that contempt of court be allowed?
Just because YOU don't think that he should stand trial for the original accusation, doesn't mean that the UK court weren't obliged to make that happen (by international agreement) or that in skipping bail he hasn't committed a crime against a UK court on UK soil.
And, I don't know if you understand this bit:
arrest != charge != conviction.
You can be convicted for resisting arrest, however. Arrest is literally "let's stop him so we can investigate if a crime has occurred". A charge is "We have reasonable belief he did something illegal, which a court will now judge and we may have to detain him until such time as the court can do so". A conviction is "the court has determined beyond reasonable doubt that they have broken the law".
He was wanted for arrest, to answer potential rape charges. As part of this, he was arrested in the UK. A court ordered him to stay within bail conditions (which is a concession, so he's not under arrest for months on end). By breaching those court conditions, he is now automatically CHARGED with contempt of court which will - without some seriously extraordinary circumstance proven to a court - result in a conviction. The contempt charge is now based on the prima-facie evidence of failing to abide by the conditions of the UK court. It doesn't matter WHY. Or what the history is. Or what else is going on. He is now required to stand trial for that if nothing else.
As such, the UK police has a duty to arrest him, to face trial for the charge of contempt of court, which - whether or not he is convicted - will also make him available to stand trial and answer charges from the original arrest.
Not one bit of the that entire last paragraph is optional. Only the potential outcome of it (the courts could in theory side with him and let him go, or they could jsut convict him for the bail offence and let him go, or they could convict him for the bail offence and hand him over as per a valid international arrest warrant).
Gosh you have it all wrapped up.
It's almost like we don't need to bother to go through hearing actual evidence, sworn under oath, cross-examined, including expert testimony and witness and victim statements, including potentially highly sensitive personal statements about an incredibly intimate event which people may or may not want all the details in the press but which would be examined by a court.
Nah, let's just judge him on what got into the news and let him go / not based on our personal interpretation of such.
P.S. if you're ever in doubt about the sanity, stability, mental health, trustworthiness, or capability of later lying of someone you're about to sleep with - probably best not to sleep with them, consensually or not. Just saying.
What they need to do, I think, is sneak him out with some sort of large diplomatic package, which would grant him safe passage to Ecuador.
This signature has Super Cow Powers
My god, your life must be dull. What's the point of living if you don't live a little?
That doesn't matter, it's a political case, and US is a dangerous country with a vendetta.
The women in Sweden have repeatedly said that no rape was commited, and that they were shocked when people higher up in the police turned it into a manhunt and rape case.
He's not wanted for questioning. There's a warrant out for his arrest - the interrogation is the last stage before he is charged.
https://www.newstatesman.com/b...
What has become clear is that the Swedish approach to criminal proceedings is different from that of England or other common law jurisdictions. The interrogation requested takes place at a late stage, just before prosecution. Assange is thereby not required for mere questioning - indeed, he was questioned on 31 August 2010.
And he's accused of rape - UK courts have ruled that what he is accused of doing in Sweden would be rape if he did it in the UK. Which is a key part of extradition being granted.
4. Rape
On 17 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [SW] 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."
The High Court held that the test of "dual criminality" was met in respect of each of these offences: they were offences in both England and Sweden.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Well, that's not clear. He didn't assault any women, but he may have solicited illegal procurement of classified information. As long as that remains unproven, he remains in legal jeopardy (which is not the same as being guilty).
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
"Consensual" "tricked"
See, he lied to get the sex HE wanted, but she had not agreed to. She gave him consent - with limitations, like using a condom. He BROKE that agreement to go outside of what she had consented to.
What do you call someone that has sex with a woman outside of her consenting terms?
A rapist.
How is he a traitor? At no point did he ever have any allegiance to the US, nor any obligation to not publish the secrets Bradley Manning gave him? Funny how you leftists used to love him, until he published the proof of how corrupt your Designated Queen really is.
Just over a year ago and Assange was still a hero of the Left. The Moment Hillary conceded he became enemy #1 to the left.
But the political aspects aside, even if I agreed with you that Hillary should be President, Assange is still not a traitor/ Under no definition of the word does he qualify as such. He is not a US citizen and has no loyalty to it nor any obligation to keep anything he finds out about it secret.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
Hi lawyer has said multiple times that he'd be willing to face these charges if both countries would guarantee that Assange would not be extradited to the US (something they claim they have no intention of doing) and both countries have flat refused to make this guarantee, leading to the belief that that is exactly what they plan to do. And the moment he hits US soil, he'll be Gitmod, whether it's in Guantanamo or a US prison. Everyone involved knows it and so much money and many man hours spent on this shows that there is no other likely reasoning for this. Remember, officially this is over a non-consensual act during consensual sex that the girls went to the police to track him down, soley to get an STD test. The police, upon finding the importance of the individual accused, pressured the girls into pressing charges, which they have since withdrawn, and sent out an interpol alert reserved for the world's most dangerous and most wanted. Sound like your standard everyday secondary rape case, yes? (/sarcasm)
"Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
And suffocating an uncharged detainee is an occurrence that actually happens in real life.
Where the actions of the various governments is not proper as has been determined by the EU. Where the motives of the governments is obviously in conflict with the interests of a lawful and civil society. Where the support of the government in a matter is to support abusive and farcical behavior, then an appeal to lawfulness is completely without merit. Law is too important to allow it to be the fully morally owned tool of only government. And governments that have been determined to be acting in an abusive fashion at that. Your position is not lawful at all. It is a mockery of justice.
A prosecutorial reassignment and reversal of position in a political matter is very suspicious. It requires explanation to even appear legitimate on its face. The Swedish shoulder shrug is VERY convincing. It convinces an objective observer that law is not the motivation of the governments involved.
I do not like Assange. It really does appear that he has a grudge against the US and has used his organization to attack the US. But supporting incompetent buffoons who possess government positions is not the answer. I choose to deny that Assange is a clean actor, but I choose to recognize that the governments involved have been overtly abusive of the form of law. Both are dangerous.
none of the ruling class liked him. Yeah, there's plenty of corporatist sellouts on both sides. And Hilary is, well, just awful. Vote in your primary. If you and everyone else had done that we'd be saying Mr President to Bernie instead of a guy that confuses Call of Duty with the real world .
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Hi lawyer has said multiple times that he'd be willing to face these charges if both countries would guarantee that Assange would not be extradited to the US (something they claim they have no intention of doing) and both countries have flat refused to make this guarantee, leading to the belief that that is exactly what they plan to do.
Actually, it's lead to the hysteria that that fabricated excuse is a reason for Assange to claim he was persecuted. There's no reason for either country to make such a guarantee, and plenty of reason for them not to do so, including simply not bending the knee to yet another demand from an illegitimate actor who will just keep coming up with reasons to protest without actually having a substantial complaint.
And the moment he hits US soil, he'll be Gitmod, whether it's in Guantanamo or a US prison. Everyone involved knows it and so much money and many man hours spent on this shows that there is no other likely reasoning for this.
The massive amounts of protests, legal process, and other actions for the prisoners held by the US do not lend credence to this idea either. There was so much money and so many man hours spent on them, that using them as your excuse is willfully demented. They weren't buried, and they're nobodies.
What magic is the US going to enable them to do to that Assange?
Remember, officially this is over a non-consensual act during consensual sex that the girls went to the police to track him down, soley to get an STD test. The police, upon finding the importance of the individual accused, pressured the girls into pressing charges, which they have since withdrawn, and sent out an interpol alert reserved for the world's most dangerous and most wanted. Sound like your standard everyday secondary rape case, yes? (/sarcasm)
No, I'm actually surprised that they continued after finding out it was somebody important. I would have expected it to be buried instead.
Beyond that, actually, it does not seem abnormal. People get raped. They feel ashamed, and exploited, victims. If they have the strength to go to help, they just want to be sure they're safe, then forget about it, and reluctantly seek medical help, let alone prosecutions, and then the police practically have to bend over backwards getting anything in the way of prosecutions to happen. It's a rather difficult process.
There has to be a legion (a la Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles) who has the London sewers mapped out like the back of their hand who could sneak him away.
"What do you call someone that has sex with a woman outside of her consenting terms?
A rapist."
So, a man who cheats on his wife is a rapist?
--- "We've always been at war with Eastasia."
Just ask only for everyone to dress exactly the same way, cut the air the same way and look as much as possible as him... then everyone goes to the Ecuador embassy and leave all at same time. Do this several times, but only once of then Assange MAY really leave the embassy
The police could not track so many people and after several attempts, they will give up or agree in a valid solution... or he MAY leave in one of the attempts
Better yet, ask everyone to use a burka, that will be easier to hide as everyone is the same, be either men, women, white, ginger, black, asian, etc ... it may also requires women police (i do not really know how someone with burka is identified by a police)
Higuita
"Breach of bail conditions is a crime."
Not necessarily. If I have good reason to believe that my right to life, my right to a fair trial etc will be violated, human rights law can potentially override criminal law.
(IANAL but I have chatted to an English lawyer about this).
--- "We've always been at war with Eastasia."
RTFNSA - read the fine New Statesman article
As the English High Court held (paragraphs 152 and 153):
Plainly this is a case which has moved from suspicion to accusation supported by proof. [...]
In England and Wales, a decision to charge is taken at a very early stage; there can be no doubt that if what Mr Assange had done had been done in England and Wales, he would have been charged and thus criminal proceedings would have been commenced.
Some commentators have made the point that the prosecutors should come to the UK to question Assange. However, this appears to misunderstand the procedural stage of the investigation. Assange is not required for mere questioning; he is required to surrender for interrogation before any charges can be made and prosecution brought.
Assange has already been questioned. The prosecutor has also told the English courts that the need to deal with the other witnesses and expert evidence means that the interrogation stage needs to take place in Sweden. That is a matter for a prosecutor to decide. The allegations are about incident in Sweden, and in respect of Swedish complainants on the basis of witness and expert evidence in Sweden.
And, of course, it is not for the accused in a serious crime investigation to determine how any investigation should proceed.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Say for six months to a couple years. Could even have the people be volunteers. They could play it up and down as to make them look like they are in disguise and then leave the country. Then at sometime randomly chosen by Julian in the two years he could sneak out as one of them. Not even the embassy staff would know. He could try for a plane, boat or a cargo container.
No matter what I truly hope he make it somewhere he will not be persecuted.
and both countries have flat refused to make this guarantee
And both countries are unlikely to be allowed to do so given international agreements with the USA, not without negatively impacting diplomatic relations in the process.
And if that were the case he'd have made a claim to the international court of justice when he sought refuge. But nope.
He'd probably have a good case too given the UN's opinions of his state. Given they concluded he's being held in arbitrary detention even though it was his own decision to skip the bail conditions and he isn't being detained, and if he were detained he'd quickly go through the process of prosecution and therefore not be in arbitrary detection there's just enough doogooders in the UN to probably make the human rights claim stick.
But the fact that they didn't even attempt to go this way, combined by the fact that despite his assertion that the charges against him in Sweden are arbitrary due to strange Swedish law and the UK courts concluded that what he did was a crime in the UK, I will go with that he probably thinks he has no chance in hell of making that claim stick.
Just because you're wanted in another country doesn't mean you can evade justice from not one but two other countries, both of which agreed you committed a crime. Remember no charges have been laid on him by the USA, and the opinion that they may should not mean he is automatically beyond the power of the courts.
Hi lawyer has said multiple times that he'd be willing to face these charges if both countries would guarantee that Assange would not be extradited to the US (something they claim they have no intention of doing) and both countries have flat refused to make this guarantee, leading to the belief that that is exactly what they plan to do.
... or leading to the belief that low level prosecutors lack the ability to make a guarantee regarding extradition. Which they do.
And the moment he hits US soil, he'll be Gitmod, whether it's in Guantanamo or a US prison. Everyone involved knows it and so much money and many man hours spent on this shows that there is no other likely reasoning for this. Remember, officially this is over a non-consensual act during consensual sex
A non-consensual sexual act is sexual assault, and you appear to be admitting he did that.
As for "during consensual sex", that may apply to the incident in which he slipped the condom off, but it doesn't apply to the sleeping woman he raped. Unconscious people cannot consent.
... that the girls went to the police to track him down, soley to get an STD test. The police, upon finding the importance of the individual accused, pressured the girls into pressing charges, which they have since withdrawn
Neither charges were withdrawn by the girls involved. The sexual assault charges have expired, because Assange was a fugitive for long enough that the statute of limitation tolled. The rape charges are still pending.
... and sent out an interpol alert reserved for the world's most dangerous and most wanted. Sound like your standard everyday secondary rape case, yes? (/sarcasm)
Yes, actually. You admit he committed sexual assault, he's also a rapist and bail jumper. Pursuing him via an INTERPOL alert - which are not only reserved for the most dangerous and most wanted, but any fugitive fleeing internationally - is entirely expected.
Is it the problem to add a fenced patch of land to the embassy? Even prisoners have got the right to walk at the fresh air.
What do you call someone that has sex with a woman outside of her consenting terms?
Nothing. There is no word for it.
A rapist.
That's a word for someone who forced himself on someone else. At no point did Assange force himself. The women were free to leave the encounter (according to what's alleged). Anyone who is free to leave is, by definition, provided free passage. If you want to argue statutory rape exceptions to the "forced" sex, you would be wrong as well because the women in question were legally capable of consent.
Lying to a women to get sex is not rape. Otherwise, you'd have to start judging what kind of lies are rape and what kind are not. According to your logic someone lying to a woman about being rich (to impress her) would be a rapist. So would someone lying about their name.
This is a very dangerous and, in fact, harmful types of thinking because they diminish (dilute really) the severity of an actual criminal rape envolving force.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Those who point out the foolishness of your arguments are not less bright than you. They don't misunderstand you. In this particular case, they underline why you are streching the truth.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Here's a simpler argument why your argument is dumb:
What if a woman brings her own condom and she pokes a hole in (because she wants to have a child with a man who doesn't want one)? Did she commit rape? This is dumb. Trickery is not rape.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.