Feeds

back to article Julian Assange: I'm quite happy to sleep on Ecuador's sofa FOREVER

Julian Assange says he'll stay in the Ecuadorian embassy in London even if allegations of sexual assault against him in Sweden are dropped. The Wikileaks supremo said that even if the Scandinavian cops decide not to clap their hands on him, he still fears he will be extradited to the US for publishing thousands of confidential …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Bronze badge
Devil

The question is...

... is the Ecuadorian embassy happy to let him sleep on the sofa forever?

Either someone will have to pay for them or his dirt on Ecuador hat better be really good... you know the dirt he said he would release if they didn't take him in ;)

2
2

Re: The question is...

Sooner or later, he will need medical attention that cannot be managed in house. At that point it's going to get interesting.

9
0

Re: The question is...

Aren't there H&S regulations that say you must have a fire drill every x months? That'd get him outside.

2
0
Silver badge

Re: The question is...

Dunno - ask an expert on Ecuadorian H&S law...

2
2
Gold badge

Re: The question is...

Embassies are under the laws of the country they're in. They're not sovereign territory, that's a common misconception. Although they are immune from lots of local laws/fines.

Anyway, it's so small, he doesn't have to come outside if there's a fire drill, just make his way to the nearest exit and shout, "I'm here".

I wonder if this is now going to be the least desired posting in the Ecuadorian diplomatic service. Like Ulan Bator is in the British... "If you don't get that report on my desk by lunchtime, then I'll send you to London to cook Assange's dinner!"

10
0
Silver badge
Devil

Re: The question is...

If they want him out... import some bed bugs. :-)

Then all they need to do is flea bomb the place after he leaves.

1
1
Bronze badge
Stop

This would be an Assange view of the law.....

I would think if he goes to Sweden thus fulfilling the UK's international obligations to respond to an EAW, and then proves himself innocent neither country would have much problem allowing him his legal rights to have asylum as a political refugee in Ecuador.........

16
3
Silver badge
Mushroom

Re: This would be an Assange view of the law.....

Indeed yet again we have Assange muddying the waters and confusing a personal legal issue with issues affecting Wikileaks. Julian Assange <> Wikileaks although the odious little man has a vested interest in creating a view that it does.

20
7
Silver badge

Re: This would be an Assange view of the law.....

Until the US submits their own extradition request.

6
3
Bronze badge

Re: This would be an Assange view of the law.....

Any country in the world can submit an extradition request. This does not mean it will be granted.

7
1
Gold badge

Re: This would be an Assange view of the law.....

If he'd gone to Sweden last year, this could all have been finished by now. I can't see them being likely to find him guilty anyway, given there were only 2 people in the room at the time. And he's not accused of violence, so there shouldn't be any injuries to look at. There's not likely to be much evidence.

But instead he's hung around here, stringing it out. A year ago the US didn't look to have an extradition case ready. Myself I doubt they'll be able to make one that's likely to be accepted by UK or Swedish courts. They've mistreated their potential witness, Bradley Manning, and that's not likely to go down well. But such case as they can put together is more likely to be ready, the longer this goes on.

5
4
Silver badge
Thumb Down

Re: This would be an Assange view of the law..... @Titus

You and the poeple upvoting you don't seem to understand that his innocence or otherwise of the charges against him in Sweden have nothing to do with why he's in trouble in the UK.

He skipped bail. Dropping the rape charges or being found not guilty will not alter that.

28
1
Bronze badge
Mushroom

Re: This would be an Assange view of the law..... @Titus

I agree, slam him in a UK prison already!

1
1

Re: This would be an Assange view of the law.....

>>"But instead he's hung around here, stringing it out. A year ago the US didn't look to have an extradition case ready. "

But at least if his delays does give the US time to put a case together and try to extradite him, he'll be proved both Right and Important, which is all that really matters.

3
2
Bronze badge
Thumb Up

Re: This would be an Assange view of the law..... @Titus

"I agree, slam him in a UK prison already!"

Indeed. His offence pre dates his attempt to obtain asylum; that is to say, in order to make his way to the embassy in which he is now domiciled (pun intended) he necessarily had to breach a bail order in connection with alleged sexual assaults; he is on bail because he flew from Sweden when he found out from his lawyer that the Swedish police wished to interview and charge him. He does not have a leg to stand on, no matter how much the barrack room lawyers that flit around these parts would wish. Then there is the little matter of his criminal record, which is unenviable, and it is the case that criminals rarely commit one type of offence; they are most noteworthy in respect of one general category of behaviour, an inability to follow societal rules, and that appears apply to everything in question in his life thus far.

Quite apart from anything else, the Swedes will not allow extradition to the US if we respond positively to the EAW, and Julie has miles of travel in this alone but, no, not Julie; Julie's trying to fool all of the world for as long as he can.

As to his lie that the UK would breach international law by arresting him in a diplomatic vehicle en route to Ecuador, he would first have to stand on UK soil, the very land whose laws he has breached and, besides anything else, if a country assists a known felon in this manner trouble will surely follow (and it should be noticed that, as others have pointed out, diplomatic 'bags' have been opened in order to rescue people illegally detained by African nations)... ...not that Julie will mind, because he is doing or trying to do a splendid job of team splitting. Just like the cluster B pests to whom I think he belongs.

Go to Sweden Julie, do it now. It does not matter how loudly and for how long you scream untruths about the likelihood of rendition from Sweden, or how the UK will breach laws by arresting you if you try to flee the Ecuadorian embassy, or any other of your bizarre claims and oleaginous drivel on the Today Programme last year about the women being 'in a tizzy' because you did not use a functional condom. ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12047035 )

HAND.

11
1
Silver badge
Flame

Re: This would be an Assange view of the law.....

If he'd gone to Sweden under the original request, he be out by now even if the Swede's had found him guilty.

What he's done is used his power, influence and position to avoid prosecution for potential sexual offences (this remains for a court to prove). We've seen a few other people recently who've been found guilty of using their "public standing" and fame to get away with sexual offences.

IF (and it is an IF) he's guilty of such offences, he should face the appropriate penalty. That does not automatically make him liable for extradition on entirely unrelated offences. If he was accused of murder would we be so defensive of his rights? What if there was video evidence of his guilt, would we be so quick to defend the Saint of Wikipedia. "He's done so much for us" has been said about many people, should they get away with crimes because of this. (sarcasm alert) It is, after all, "just rape" he is accused of (/sarcasm alert)

3
1
Bronze badge

Re: This would be an Assange view of the law.....

What if there is a bit more in it? Normally I agree the basic offence is "slap on the wrist and then Lars and Olav throw him across the next border". BUT! if he has/had a nice STD then the not-use of a condom gets problematic. And given that a lot deals with "didn't use one" and he has refused a blood test...

1
0
Silver badge

Re: This would be an Assange view of the law.....

Chances are if he did a brief spell in Swedish clink he may find his cell roomier and better than his room at the embassy.

Probably better internet access too.

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: This would be an Assange view of the law.....

BUT! if he has/had a nice STD then the not-use of a condom gets problematic. And given that a lot deals with "didn't use one" and he has refused a blood test...

Actually, I have been thinking about that too, and I wonder if the girls have been tested. Their lawyer is very tightlipped, so he's not going to tell, but I think Assange's real concern behind al the BS about US extradition may be that he has indeed left a present behind (I agree with you that it appears he makes a habit of going at it without protection). It may even be the case that one of the girls had a test straightaway (although I don't know if anything presents that quickly, it is possible that she preserved "evidence" to test). If Assange's lawyer got wind of that it would be no surprise that he immediately fled the country.

It's all speculation, of course, but it could offer an alternative explanation of Assange's frankly *desperate* attempts not to be extradited. I don't know what Swedish law says about wilful infection, but I doubt it will be mild. They seem to have done at least something decent about the rights of a rape victim instead of telling them it's all their fault because of the way they dress.

There is another side effect: if Assange is indeed found to have infected someone he'll have an image problem that he won't be able to recover from (well, more than he has already). Being shipped to the US would at least give him some martyrdom, but being locked up in Sweden for distributing STDs will not just end the remnants of his "career" based on simple, hard facts, it could also possibly bring charges from other people he slept with.

Hmm. We can't but speculate. Shame the Swedes don't do anything in absentia..

3
1
Silver badge
Black Helicopters

@Titus Re: This would be an Assange view of the law.....

If Julian goes to Sweden, faces the music... it gets murky.

Because of his actions, the UK could refuse to let him in.

He jumped bail, and caused a lot of embarrassment for the UK. Does he get charged after the Swedes are done? I don't know.

Could he go to Ecuador? Maybe, but he may be forced to go back to Australia. He is travelling on an Australian passport.

From Australia, he may be allowed to go to Ecuador or they may take his passport.

I'm not saying that he can't get to Ecuador but that it may not be that easy.

And this is regardless of what the US Government does or doesn't do.

2
0
Bronze badge
Facepalm

Re: @Titus This would be an Assange view of the law.....

Unless he keeps dragging ass in London, there is nothing the US will be able to do to him in Sweden. Unless the Swedes have an axe to grind because he's failed to appear for quite awhile now.

The FBI may indict him here and issue a warrant, but its up to Sweden to extradite him, and at first, if he'd have just gone there and dealt with the Police, he'd have nothing to worry about. Now, he sure as hell does because I'm sure the Swedish Police and Prosecutors are on a mission to burn him because he's been evading. Whatever his paranoid reasoning, that's how it looks to a cop or Prosecutor. He may get his wish to be extradited here, they'll just convict him and throw him in Marion or Terre Haute, like all the high profile convicts. He would have been best off in a place like Sweden, but he had to be stubborn to attract more attention. Idiot.

1
0
Bronze badge

Re: This would be an Assange view of the law..... @Titus

But doesn't that just mean that those who put up the bail forfeit? I seem to remember reading a while back about some long-faced benefactors who would be losing their money over this.

1
0
Silver badge

Re: This would be an Assange view of the law..... @Titus

>But doesn't that just mean that those who put up the bail forfeit?

No it doesn't just mean that. It means that, which is why the benefactors are a tad miffed, and that Assange has commited a criminal act, which is why he will be arrested as soon as he leaves the embassy.

1
0

Re: This would be an Assange view of the law.....

Well, I don't want to take any sides here, but Sweden allowed CIA to transport people Egypt to be "interrogated" in the most mild way.

So both parties have their point, it's hard though to know what the truth in reality is. I'm neither surprised of whether he hides from the rape investigation, or actually have real reasons to be concerned of own future. There is no neutrality anywhere.

0
1

Re: This would be an Assange view of the law..... @Titus

According to Swedish news, he had been interviewed and got the green light to leave Sweden from the authorities. So I'm not so sure that he just left because he knew the police would like to interview him.

If that then is all lies or the truth I don't know. But I find it interesting as a spectator, because it's a pretty interesting political circus. One thing though, if USA really wanted him badly, they would have gotten him already.

0
1
Bronze badge

Re: This would be an Assange view of the law..... @Titus

This seems another of the misconceptions that Mr Assange has it would seem that :

'On 15th September Ms Ny (prosecutor) told [Mr Hurtig ] (Assange's brief) there were no “force measures” preventing Julian leaving the country, i.e. he was allowed to leave… [Hurtig] (Assange's lawyer) phoned his client to say he was free to leave the country'

So what seems to have happened was that Mr Assange’s lawyer asked on the 15th if the prosecution were able to detain Mr Assange which they couldn't, and he was therefore able to leave the country. Not being able to stop somebody (a situation which probably changed a couple of weeks later), and being given permission aren't really the same.

1
0
Bronze badge

Re: This would be an Assange view of the law.....@t.est Posted Thursday 20th June 2013 12:32 GMT

Regarding claims that Sweden has acted illegally in past extraditions. It would seem there is no dispute that Sweden acted illegally in deporting two Egyptian men – but that was a deportation to their home country. As it was not an extradition the process was different. Doesn't seem to have been any mention of CIA involvement as such.

Further to this the deportation caused quite a scandal in Sweden, and CIA (maybe this is how this got confused into the Egypt deportation story) rendition flights were stopped altogether in 2006 when to prevent it the Swedish military boarded just such a flight.

This caused a diplomatic row between the USA and their 'lapdog' partner Sweden. Sweden refused to back down and halted the flights. It would seem the details of all this were leaked in December 2010 by the rather unlikely source Wikileaks.

0
0
Silver badge
Boffin

Re: This would be an Assange view of the law..... @Titus

test,

I think you need to reread the court documents of the first extradition hearing.

He never had the green light to leave Sweden.

He left because he knew that the interview was a formality before they charged him with the crime.

And to your point, no. He's not worth creating an international incident over. He's a prick, sure, but if the US has enough evidence to haul him in on an espionage charge... there is no statute of limitations.

1
1
Silver badge

@Frank...Re: @Titus This would be an Assange view of the law.....

Typically when someone flees jurisdiction, then fights the extradition warrant, and then bugs out to a foreign embassy, you can bet someone in Sweden is going to continue to want to pursue it.

Assange wants to hide out in hopes that this dies down? That's not going to happen.

Looking at Roman Polanski, he was found guilty and jumped bail before sentencing. To this day, he can never set foot in the US. (Even though the girl he raped doesn't want to be involved and has since put the past behind her.)

One could expect the same for Sweden because Assange made this more than just a he said / she said case of rape. (non-consensual sex) He gave them the two finger'd salute. (We yanks just use one. ;-)

So he can't expect the Swedish issue to die any time soon.

To your point. If the US were to open a sealed grand jury vote to indict, because of his leaving Sweden for the UK, even if back in Sweden, The US would still require both the Swedes and the UK's permission. So that's going to be a non-starter unless of course Manning's trial reveals some nasty tid bits which is what Assange is really afraid is going to happen.

The US can wait.

You can google this, but just to be thorough...

Section 3282 of Title 18 : non-capital offense unless expressly stated shall be instituted within 5 years.

(This covers everything that isn't expressly listed separately. Its your catch all )

Section 3281 of Title 18: Capital offenses can be filed at any time. Note that while Assange may not face the death penalty, the charge still has the option of a death penalty and therefore would fall in to this bucket.

Section 3286 of Title 18: 8 year statute of limitation for non-capital terrorism charges. (But doesn't seem to be applicable depending on how you define 2332b.

Then there is Section 783(e) of Title 50 which may be applicable under the 'Subversive Activities Control Act' (whatever that means) and is good for 10 years.

So if the US has any evidence of Assange doing something other than publishing the documents, he's either going to be faced with a 10 year stay in the Embassy, or Life.

I'd say that the US has plenty of time. (IMHO if the US has evidence and can charge him under the espionage act, that's one where there is no statute of limitations and they will wait until he leaves the UK and possibly Sweden.

What I don't know is what the UK will do because of his jumping of bail. Do they get him after Sweden or do they just send him back to Australia?

1
0
Silver badge
Boffin

Re: @Frank ... Re: @Titus This would be an Assange view of the law.....

The charge of Espionage is a potential Capitol offense. Even if they take the death penalty off the table, there is no statute of limitations. This is what probably scares Assange.

So the US can wait.

0
0
Bronze badge

Re: This would be an Assange view of the law.....

Let's face it, the worst thing the USA can do to Lasagne is: Nothing!

Let's assume he goes to Sweden, is interviewed and blood tested. Results are either

a) No charge, declared "persona non grata" and 48h later two burly stewards throw him out an SAS jumbo on Sydney international. If he was nice and calm they may even wait for the gangway

b) Charge due to having unprotected sex while suffering from an STD. Basically the same as above with maybe a short stay in a Swedish prison

In both cases he will have a last press conference on Sydney Airport (and the USA will make sure there is A LOT of press) and the world will remember him as what he is: A self-absorbed, paranoid egomaniac.

Then, a few years later they will find a drowned Hobo floating in a dirty pond in the outback and the "Wayoutathere Inquirer" will report that Assange fell in there while drunk and died. And no one will care wether he had help staying in or not.

1
0
WTF?

Bah

It amazes me the amount of bashing Julian Assange receives. We in the UK regularly allow in refugees for asylum who either hate the UK or end up committing crimes/terrorist acts. At the very least these people just bleed the welfare system dry. But the government allows this to continue.

But for somebody who wants information freely open in the public domain and let's face it, it wasn't 'dangerous' information, we're swallowing the media vilification of him. The more the media attacks Assange, the more I believe in his concerns. I don't blame him for feeling he's being screwed over by the U.S via Sweden and the UK. He highly like is. What worries me more is the evident level of corruption and manipulation of our own governments. That is frightening.

16
29
Anonymous Coward

Re: Bah

I don't give a toss about Assange.

His victims, on the other hand, deserve to see justice done.

17
9
Anonymous Coward

Re: His victims, on the other hand, deserve to see justice done

Don't be silly, he just published the video, he didn't pilot the helicopter.

9
5
Silver badge

Re: Bah

What worries me more is the evident level of corruption and manipulation of our own governments. That is frightening.

Evidence for your "evident corruption and manipulation"? Thought so.

6
4
Anonymous Coward

Re: Bah

"His victims, on the other hand, deserve to see justice done."

Which is precisely why he can't get justice, as people like you have already presumed his guilt.

That should be alleged victims.

13
4

Re: Bah

>>"We in the UK regularly allow in refugees for asylum who either hate the UK or end up committing crimes/terrorist acts. At the very least these people just bleed the welfare system dry. But the government allows this to continue."

And what's worse, some of these Johnny Foreigners have the damn check not to be white.

>>"...we're swallowing the media vilification of him. The more the media attacks Assange, the more I believe in his concerns. "

And the more the Daily Mail attacks asylum seekers, the more you hate them.

But how is the media 'attacking' him?

By failing to give him the unthinking praise some people think he deserves?

By reporting that he's still hiding from the British legal system.

A system he explicitly chose to place himself in when he came from Sweden some time after the allegations were made there.

Has the UK radically changed in political establishment makeup in the last few years?

Seems to me it's pretty similar to the way it was when he freely chose to come here rather than go anywhere else.

It's just that he didn't get his way in court here, so the country has gone from 'ace' to 'crap' simply as a result of not treating him the way he thinks he deserves to be treated.

15
10
Gold badge
Facepalm

Re: Bah

There is a monumental bloody difference between someone attempting to escape persecution / torture in some rogue shithole and someone trying to dodge criminal charges brought in a democratic country with a balanced, independant and open legal system.

Assisting the first makes you a good global citizen, assisting the second gets you the "rogue shithole" tag.

17
4
WTF?

Re: Bah

Seriously? Ok.

Operation Northwoods (U.S)- Military/political plan to motivate public support of an attack on Cuba- http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/Northwoods.html

Operation: Libya - Chasing the oil http://www.globalresearch.ca/operation-libya-and-the-battle-for-oil-redrawing-the-map-of-africa/23605

Who owns big media- http://bbs.chinadaily.com.cn/thread-680460-1-1.html

Who owns the world?- http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=B1j06Qt3rgY

Join the dots. That's just 5 mins of digging. If you believe everything you're told by the media and don't realise how in the pocket of these mega rich few the world is, then you're deluding yourself as to the sad truths of this world.

Thought so.

4
8
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: Bah

"Evidence for your "evident corruption and manipulation"? Thought so."

Really? Are you seriously asking this question? Right at this very moment, various people in the Commons and Lords are being investigated over taking money (or other considerations) for tabling questions/seeing things through the system. Is that not corruption and manipulation. If there was one statement ever made that required less evidence to be presented by the writer, I'd like to see it.

The evidence of govermental/political corruption and manipulation is absolutely everywhere and you'd have to walk around blind not to see huge amounts of it.

8
2
Silver badge

Re: Bah

@David Wilson.

I think you're reading your own bias into this. His first statement is absolutely true, albeit you can argue about how many of them there are. He has never mentioned colour or race or anything at all, other than it's a refugee. You can argue about numbers, but we have refugees who come here, make no attempt to integrate, get a job or anything and simply sit on benefits for decades with no contribution to this country. I absolutely agree this is by no means all of them and some of them (including some friends) are the hardest working and nice people in the country. In fact, I've talked to loads who raise the very same question he's asked. Refugees who have become British and both taken and given back to the country who them complain about the refugees coming in now who have no intention of doing so.

I welcome refugees who are genuine and (without suitable help) integrate and bring diversity to this country and give back to this country in some manner. I do not welcome those this poster is referring to, the like of Abu Hamza and others who come here, don't integrate, actively call for our destruction and do all this whilst taking fistfuls of money from the state.

13
1
Silver badge

Re: Bah

"There is a monumental bloody difference between someone attempting to escape persecution / torture in some rogue shithole and someone trying to dodge criminal charges brought in a democratic country with a balanced, independant and open legal system.

Assisting the first makes you a good global citizen, assisting the second gets you the "rogue shithole" tag."

Hang on, let's correct this statement. If you help someone trying to escape persecution/torture in another country (it happens even in non-shitholes!!), you're good. If you accept refugees under any pretext and let them live off you for the rest of their (and their dependents) lives, then you're a soft touch.

If you hadn't noticed, Assange was claiming persecution in another country when he came here. I know it was Sweden and people tend to think of Sweden as some sort of land of milk and honey, all liberal and do-goody etc. However, look through the history books and into their past and you'll find some pretty dodgy examples there, just as much as any other country. Clue: Looks up forced sterilisation of segments of the population. Went on till quite recently really.

4
4

Re: Bah

"Evidence for your "evident corruption and manipulation"? Thought so."

Really? Are you seriously asking this question? Right at this very moment, various people in the Commons and Lords are being investigated over taking money (or other considerations) for tabling questions/seeing things through the system. Is that not corruption and manipulation.

ABSOLUTELY. Thank you Madmike. These are even not the huge problems. We could go on all day uncovering lies and corruption. The very fact somebody cited the Daily Mail, perhaps to allude that I might be daft enough to swallow the utter bull, that I blame immigrants for all the UK's problems. This is patently untrue, my view is the opposite, without immigrants, the UK would be in deep trouble, to cut a long story short, having immigrants willing to work at a low wage not only keeps low skilled job positions fulfilled, but also keeps wages low. But anyway my comparison was simply to show 1 person vs another, i.e immigrants that are clearly dangerous have many rights, but somebody like Assange seem to have some serious muscle moving in against him.

Just finally, and briefly, it's quite funny that the Daily Mail gets mentioned, since that's yet another outlet of biased, lies and manipulation. My point(s) well proven I think so the Sir Smart Arse who questioned my use of the word 'evident'.

2
1

Re: Bah

If you were able to take a a slightly more nuanced view of the world you might discover two things:

1. Just because Wikileaks does good, doesn't mean that Julian doesn't do bad.

2. Just because others do bad doesn't mean that Julian doesn't do bad too.

It's not that black and white, sorry if that troubles you. Oh and the Daily Mail citing was ironic (as, I suspect, are all Daily Mail citings).

9
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: His victims, on the other hand, deserve to see justice done

No, he edited the video, editorialised about it and published it.

There is no point to wikileaks if they do anything other than publish the original documents/data with no comment and only redacting names of people who could see endangerment to life.

As I understand it, the bit of the video which was chopped off is where someone with an RPG takes aim at the helicopter, but doesn't fire. This totally changes the perspective of what happened afterwards.

6
1
Gold badge

Re: Bah

Katz,

We allow in refugees for asylum who we think have genuine requests to make for asylum. Assange doesn't.

Anyway, Assange didn't ask us for asylum. He asked our courts to not allow a perfectly legal warrant for his removal to Sweden. His grounds were basically that we shouldn't have passed that law - and that the evidence/accusations didn't meet the requirements for extradition (which is a different legal process entirely). After a case and 3 appeals, he lost. The legislation was ruled to be compliant with our other laws, and the evidence/accusations were also deemed to be acceptable for both the EAW, and the traditional extradition process. Even though the second bit was irrelevant, as that's not a requirement of the EAW system, which is supposed to act like an arrest warrant with extra protections, not like an extradition.

He is accused of rape by the way. He's accused of using his superior size and weight to force himself on an unwilling partner. Who was only willing if he put on a condom. I believe hat's the most serious of the allegations. If that's a false allegation, the only chance we'll find out if the legal process is completed. Assange had enough trust in the Swedish system that he applied for citizenship - so it's a bit late to claim their courts are rigged now.

But for somebody who wants information freely open in the public domain and let's face it, it wasn't 'dangerous' information

He published the names and addresses of people who'd given information to NATO troops about the Taleban. Do you not regard that as dangerous information? Because I fucking do! I believe he said something like it was their own fault if they got killed because of it.

He also published diplomatic information that didn't advance our knowledge of any alleged government wrongdoing, but possibly did make the process of international diplomacy harder. It's a matter of opinion as to whether this was a good or bad thing. Woodrow Wilson called at the Versailles conference for "Open agreements, openly arrived at." Every comment I've read on this from other diplomats and historians has called it hopelessly naive - and said that the whole point of diplomacy is to allow nations to talk with some secrecy in order to allow them to negotiate and change positions with some freedom. This may be an arguable case, but the peace process in Northern Ireland could not have proceeded without the secret talks begun in the 80s (under Thatcher), and the closest we ever got to peace between Israel and the Palestinians also relied on a long process of secret negotiations. The process that allowed a mostly peaceful handover of power to the ANC in South Africa was also secret diplomacy.

I suspect that although the diplomatic cable leaks have been interesting to read, and revealed a some (unsurprising) shenanigans, they've probably done slightly more harm than good.

However, even if you think that Wikileaks has only done good things, that still doesn't give Assange a free pass to break any laws he likes. If he's guilty of rape, he deserves to spend a nice long time in prison. If he's guilty of espionage, rather than just receiving stolen information, then he has to face the consequences of his actions.

12
0
Gold badge

Re: His victims, on the other hand, deserve to see justice done

To be fair to Wikileaks they did publish the un-edited version of the 'collateral murder' video.

To be realistic about Wikileaks they also did their own credibility massive damage by releasing an edited version (which I suspect is the one most people saw) that gave a false picture of the event.

Funny how they then refused to edit out the names of the Afghan informers, because it was their job to just release stuff, but seemingly that didn't apply to playing silly-buggers with the evidence in a different case.

5
0

Re: Bah

>>"If you believe everything you're told by the media and don't realise how in the pocket of these mega rich few the world is, then you're deluding yourself as to the sad truths of this world."

Who's saying they believe everything they read in the media, or that they think governments are perfectly moral?

If you want to delude yourself into believing anyone who dares to disagree with you must hold extreme and quite opposite views, you have a very retarded black-and white idea of the world, which I can only hope you will grow out of someday.

And if you're going to try and claim the Establishment is shit-scared of Assange revealing their deepest secrets in case the sky comes crashing down, I'm really not sure that quoting a declassified memo is the best way to start.

Unless you don't understand what 'declassified' means.

4
0

Re: Bah

>>"I think you're reading your own bias into this. His first statement is absolutely true, albeit you can argue about how many of them there are."

Given that people applying for asylum aren't likely to stand up and say 'I hate the UK' or 'I intend to commit terrorist acts', the fraction which may be in those categories can't easily be distinguished from the rest, and even when the odd person might have expressed various views about how societies should work which differ from your view or mine or society's or the government's, legally speaking, that isn't a valid ground for refusing asylum if they are in fear of persecution, even if it may justify keeping an eye on them and jumping on them at the first sign of illegal activity.

If the 'fear of persecution' threshold is wrongly set, that's an issue whether the people coming here agree with UK society or not.

>>"You can argue about numbers, but we have refugees who come here, make no attempt to integrate, get a job or anything and simply sit on benefits for decades with no contribution to this country."

Well, that seems to be an argument for benefit reform (for natives as well as imports), not an argument against asylum.

0
0
Bronze badge
FAIL

Re: Bah

" "His victims, on the other hand, deserve to see justice done."

Which is precisely why he can't get justice, as people like you have already presumed his guilt.

That should be alleged victims."

This is not the court in which he would be tried and, as you know, he fled the Swedish jurisdiction not long after their police rang his lawyer to tell him that they wanted to interview him prior to making an arrest if not satisfied with his responses - this is the usual pattern in the Swedish CJS, which gives people facing allegations the chance to make a satisfactory explanation and provide evidence to support their claims - and, what is more, his lawyer claimed the Swedish police had not subsequently been in touch with him; he was force to retract this claim in a UK court, on reading his mobile phone log. It seems to me that a lot of Assange's entourage and supporters are of a like mind where it comes to the truth and to justice; Julie comes first.

As to the matter of whether people in this country, not the original jurisdiction note, have opinions that are of any import in respect of the presumption of guilt, irrelevant; Assange is wanted in a Sweden, not in the UK. YMLT to ask the Afghan informants whose locations he made publicly available, resulting in threats from the Taliban. They only wanted a few mines cleared apparently, but Julie said words to effect that it was tough, they are informants and knew what to expect. He did this in front of season journalists who were stunned.

HTH. HAND.

7
0

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.