Assange granted asylum by Ecuador after US refused to rule out charges
Wikileaker Julian Assange has been granted political asylum by Ecuador. The Australian geeklord, who is sheltering in the South American country’s London embassy, was granted asylum out of concern he’d face persecution in the West, Ecuador’s foreign minister Ricardo Patino said this afternoon. Assange™ faces extradition to …
This topic is closed for new posts.
Re: So? @Mr_Bungle
"Arming countries in turmoil then blowing the shit out of them a decade later doesn't speak to me of any clear forethought or wisdom."
No. But it's a sound business plan.
Colin
Re: @FrankAlpha
I thought the UK hired them to save Europe with all that gold and businesses handed over.
Still. Bacon. Mmmmmmmmm
"you do have to wonder why the UK are bothering to threaten to enter the Embassy, unless they've been strongly encouraged to do so by the Yanks. He's not going anywhere, and can be arrested and extradited as soon as he steps outside the Embassy."
Because Ecuador are defying the government and undermining the UK diplomatically, on an international scale. It's like taking my car-keys and saying "You can't have them back" in front of all my friends and co-workers. Basically: It would make me look a tit, and unless I applied some pressure on your to return them, I would look like a complete pansy in front of everyone. If you stood there for five weeks saying "ha-ha, you can't reach them" I would indeed probably threaten to kick you in the balls unless you handed them over, because my friends were starting to laugh at me.
I honestly don't understand why this isn't fairly obvious to people.
It makes NO SENSE if you think about it for the US to extradite him. Then the media and public wrath focuses on them, and they make a martyr. It makes all the sense in the world to DO NOTHING and let Assange's "You must protect me because the US are going to extradite me and it's all a fit-up" to come to nothing, and make him look a tit.
You want a conspiracy: That's it. A conspiracy to make Assange make himself look a tit and hoist with his own petard. It doesn't get any more flawless than that. The CIA are watching with popcorn.
"But thats just me, Im an American Soldier. Im sure you'd be surprised if I thought otherwise."
No, I'm not at all surprised that you're a fascist homophone.
"What are you gonna do now?"
Summon the ambassador. Point out any and all UK aid and investment in his country and how fragile it is. Hand him a phone and tell him to call the boss. His boss can either say "erm... we recognise that he needs to face charges and so are handing him over, on the promise that he will be shipped to Ecuador afterwards" and have Assange nicely handed over, or the Ambassador can be sent home on the next flight and things can get unpleasant.
It's not really a bluff if the UK holds a good hand. Money talks and Ecuador has less of it.
> It's like taking my car-keys and saying "You can't have them back" in front of all my friends and co-workers
No it isn't, it's like your car coming to me and saying "You've got to help me, they are going to paint me pink and put giant eye-lashes over my headlights". I can either help (by taking the keys) or not. You can threaten to beat the snot out of me and take your keys back, but there's the danger I'll ask my friends with baseball bats to take you to a dark alley and have a quiet word if you do.
The Ecuadorians didn't kidnap Assange, he went to them for help. He asked for political asylum - if they didn't believe him when he said the extradition was politically motivated, they could have told him to go away.
> It makes NO SENSE if you think about it for the US to extradite him.
They want to make an example of him, teach people not to annoy the US by making them look stupid.
No, I don't have to wonder why.
It's because someone charged of criminal offenses and due to attend a court of law absconds and takes refuge in an embassy.
Embassies can take the choice to harbour a criminal (hes absconding breaks his bail conditions, which is a criminal offense) or refuse them access. By granting him access, they've created a diplomatic incident (using diplomatic power to subvert the justice system of the host country). If the UK shrugged it off and said "Whatever, go for it", then its international standing in the diplomatic stakes would be seriously hampered. With precedent set, any country could run black ops inside the UK, then when they're discovered, give them immunity by have them run back to the embassy without any consequence. I guess you can see where that path leads.
Up until the time Lasange chose to run, he still had a chance. Now he's committed a crime in this country too (demonstrably).
Ecuador is pretty silly to make a stand on this, as by international dealing, this is going to reflect VERY badly on them. Deals they may have struck to their advantage will probably not be offered, as people just don't trust them so much.
The threat had to be made. Ecuador know the deal, and they chose to follow this route anyway, which could possibly lead to them losing their embassy in the UK, pretty much over trying to keep someone from attending a trial which would be their main way of proving their innocence.. They know they're on the wrong side of the justice system, they're just hoping media will portray them as heroes.. Taken in the harsh light of day, I'd say they just look silly.
If the fact your in the American military made this decision for you then I'd be amazed to find that you think at all. You might be entirely brainwashed, or too ignorant to understand, but the information shared via wikileaks has benefited the wider world community. The fact that you're happy with the idea that governments can vanish anyone who 'displeases' them says volumes about your wisdom regarding such things.
"> It makes NO SENSE if you think about it for the US to extradite him.
They want to make an example of him, teach people not to annoy the US by making them look stupid."
That makes NO SENSE. At all.
They have Manning to put through the grinder first. That verdict will then shift focus to Assange.
Right now, pulling in Assange or offing him is utterly retarded. Let him humiliate himself and be charged for sexual assault and disgrace himself. THAT makes sense.
THEN after that's run it's course they can think about rounding him up.... when there is zero sympathy left for him. and public opinion has turned. Doing it while the spotlight is on him is just plain stupid. And getting him in Ecuador is hell of a lot easier than getting him out either Sweden or the UK.
In fact the best thing that could happen is for him to eventually be found guilty, pay the penalty, slope off to Ecuador and then be found having wanked himself to death with an orange in his mouth, while looking at child porn, in some sleazy hotel. And frankly, that'salso a lot easier to arrange in Ecuador than it is in either the UK or US custody.
Good job Hague, Ecuador has now called your bluff. What are you gonna do now?
Nothing in the short term would be a good idea. Personally I'd quietly offer to do nothing for as long as they do nothing in support of the Argies w.r.t. the Falklands ... OK, assume they say no to that by word or deed.
Long-term, he could find another building that's superior to the current Ecuadorian embassy, and tell Ecuador that he requires them to move to the new embassy within (say) a year. During the transition both buildings would have the status of embassies, and all usual privileges will be maintained for diplomats and diplomatic bags. Removal costs would all be footed by the UK government.
Assange is not an Ecuadorian citizen, let alone a diplomat, so a year later we'd have him without setting a disastrous precedent for diplomats elsewhere. (There surely must be a precedent for an embassy being relocated at the request of the host nation, with reasonable notice? For example, if the building is blocking a major infrastructure development? )
You might be entirely brainwashed, or too ignorant to understand, but the information shared via wikileaks has benefited the wider world community
If I shoot every 10th person that passes me in the street, statistics say I will have reduced crime and will even have caught the occasional pedo. The problem is that I have done that at huge costs. Although I am all for transparency (especially when it comes to the use of special privileges such as anti-terror measures) I also understand the need for secrecy so the bad guys don't get a leg up.
Wikileaks is a classic example of that weird trend where people aggressively claim their (frequently imagined) rights whilst simultaneously fighting as hard as they can to avoid the obligations that are part of the same parcel. If you disclose confidential information you ARE committing a crime. Simple. That a judge may seek to commute your sentence because you did the world a favour (i.e. classic whistle blowing of a SPECIFIC issue with SPECIFIC information) does not change the fact that you started with a crime. "Because" is of no relevance to the criminality of the act itself.
You might want to learn about groupthink and what that does to your judgement. You are displaying the classic (invalid) excuses (accusing someone to be "too ignorant" or "brainwashed" is a good indicator you lack solid arguments in a discussion).
The impression you give right now is that you have accepted cult thinking - you no longer validate what you have been told with facts. Here is a hint: it is OK to state that you don't know something - don't let the group fill in the gap unless there are hard facts. Good luck.
Equadorian Minister
Re comical Ali of Iraq Saddam ministry of information
then be found having wanked himself to death with an orange in his mouth, while looking at child porn, in some sleazy hotel
This is disturbingly funny, even though I may not be able to shake that image for quite a while..
"Nothing in the short term would be a good idea. Personally I'd quietly offer to do nothing for as long as they do nothing in support of the Argies w.r.t. the Falklands ... OK, assume they say no to that by word or deed."
I wouldn't even do that. Ecuador have already showed that they are quite happy to selectively leak diplomatic communication. I'd either say it to the Ambassador's face, or not at all.
"No, I'm not at all surprised that you're a fascist homophone."
And you are an imposer!
http://homophone.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophone
"This is disturbingly funny, even though I may not be able to shake that image for quite a while..2
I think that the OP may be half remembering the late Steven Milligan, MP, who killed himself by sexual asphyxiation, with a satsuma in his mouth, thus adding to the prevailing belief that Tory scandals are almost always sexual ones. I actually felt sorry for the poor man.
That's what went through my mind as well, and I actually felt sorry for that MP too. Personally I am of the opinion that what someone does with themselves is none of my business. As long as they don't harm others it's actually better they get that out of their system (so to speak).
However, I have the impression that few will be sorry if something like that happens to Assange. Personally I have given up caring. I think after today I'll see if I can come up with a filter that zaps any mention of Assange or Wikileaks out of my traffic - it's like a bad soap. You know it's crap and totally worthless, yet you keep watching it to see what plot turn the writers cooked up this time to keep it going. But with one actor (who is too winey to attract any audience involvement whatsoever) I'd rather watch Coronation Street. And I *hate* Coronation Street.
"I think that the OP may..."
Correct. Him, merged with David Carradine. But seedier. With greyer hair.
I could never understand Michael Hutchinson, though: Died wanking with a belt around his neck in a hotel, while there were doubtless half a dozen groupies on the other damn side of it who'd have willingly saved him the effort of doing his DIY.
"The embassy isn't foreign soil or anything like that, regardless of popular opinion."
The best solution might be to rent all of the accommodation on each side of the embassy and play some discreet but disturbing, irregular sounds at night. Not loud enough to upset the neighbourhood, focused on Julie himself - and T-Ray scanning will locate him nicely if they don't already know his activities - and enough to have the Noriega effect.
"However, I have the impression that few will be sorry if something like that happens to Assange. Personally I have given up caring. I think after today I'll see if I can come up with a filter that zaps any mention of Assange or Wikileaks out of my traffic - it's like a bad soap."
Thank you for that. The whole thing is needlessly messy and fraught with lies which, although I feel they ought to be corrected (valuing the truth above most things), seen to be the property of zitty bois who have no insight into the feeling women experience when unwanted semen is put inside of them by selfish men. That is being polite.
Oh, Coronation St. Ugh Almost as bad as East Enders. Umm, so I occasionally hear. ;->
Oh Carradine! I thought at first it was murder, poor man. Did you mean Hutchence? The world is bloody strange sometimes. I've taken too many risks to earn a crust to do sex stuff like that. :-(
.. and finally..
I predict the first thing that's going to happen when he gets to jail is that the maintenance crew will move the shower soap dispensers down.
Only a foot off the floor..
Who honestly cares about Julian Assange anymore, besides of course, Julian Assange and his Continent sized ego.
Um... certain US govement officials with their globally sized (and bruised) sense of self entitlement?
Going back a dozen or so centuries...thank goodness the British Royal Family...
...has never had a "sense of self entitlement".
Who cares about him?
Well, obviously someone. You don't cause international incidents and talk about raiding embassies for some minor crime. As far as I can see, the evidence for any major misdemeanor is really rather slight - the assertions we have heard don't seem to be a big deal - so whatever this is about it's NOT about returning a person to Sweden for some light questioning about a bust-up with his girlfriend of that evening...
Re: Who cares about him?
"Well, obviously someone. You don't cause international incidents and talk about raiding embassies for some minor crime. As far as I can see, the evidence for any major misdemeanor is really rather slight"
His major crime is contempt of court. The evidence of this is overwhleming, since he's sitting in the Ecuadorean embassy and not on a plane to Sweden. So even when he finally is arrested -- and since there is no way out of the embassy, that seems the most likely outcome -- he will likely serve a jail sentence here for contempt first.
Re: Who cares about him?
His major crime is pissing off corporate and military America.
Contempt of court, as you call it, is just another convenient excuse in a long-running campaign to gag a political dissident.
Asylum is an established diplomatic tradition, and Hague's attempts - and your attempts - to argue otherwise are 100% proof spin and sophistry.
When you consider that not even at the height of the Cold War did the Soviet Union or any of its satellites threaten to storm an embassy to pull out an asylum seeker, you can see how far the US has fallen from any claim to the moral high ground.
Re: Going back a dozen or so centuries...thank goodness the British Royal Family...
1200 years ago there wasn't a Britain. Closest you get is Briton or the Latin name for the island Britannia. Which is different.
Mind you, 1200 years ago we were actually here...
Re: Who cares about him?
If Sweden really wanted to question him (and that's all they want to do), then they could have saved everyone lots of time and actually came to the UK. Assange has always stated that he is happy with that. Sweden could also offer assurances that we will not be extradited to the USA. As Sweden has done neither of these things – I think anyone with a bit of common sense can see the real intention
Re: Who cares about him?
"Contempt of court, as you call it, is just another convenient excuse in a long-running campaign to gag a political dissident."
No, mate. Assange did that to himself. You can't paint a conspiracy guilty for him jumping bail and running to the embassy. That was his fault and nobody else's.
"Asylum is an established diplomatic tradition, and Hague's attempts - and your attempts - to argue otherwise are 100% proof spin and sophistry."
Next time you work abroad, have a word with the Ambassador of a nation you've never visited and ask if it would be ok for you to come running and hiding to him if you broke a law in that country. He'll cough up his brandy and tell you to get fucked. Embassies don't like this kind of shit happening and will try to talk you into giving yourself up after assuring you that they'll make sure you get a fair trial and patting you on the back.
That's how it works in the majority of cases in the real world. About a dozen times every day.
What wikipedia tells you about diplomatic asylum is about as far from the reality of the situation as it gets.
Re: Going back a dozen or so centuries...thank goodness the British Royal Family...
"1200 years ago there wasn't a Britain. Closest you get is Briton or the Latin name for the island Britannia. Which is different.
Mind you, 1200 years ago we were actually here..."
Indeed and, whilst we were colonists elsewhere, we did not colonise on the south American continent or its occupied islands; the Falklands were unoccupied, then settled and twice 'taken' by people descended from Spain whose monarch felt grandiose enough to give them away. Here we are, hundreds of years later, the sophisticated culture of south Amerinds now ground into the dust by catholic murderers who had no respect for it, just as they did not for the people of these islands. Plus ça change (plus c'est la même chose)
Re: Who cares about him?
"Contempt of court, as you call it, is just another convenient excuse in a long-running campaign to gag a political dissident."
Be bolloxed. He chose the contempt of court route, no one fitted him up, he did it of his own accord. He, the man with an £80,000 salary, a massive advance for the autobiog from which he withdrew, leaving the publisher to recoup the contracted advance by publishing, he smearing them in the way he smears anyone who does not do what he the great turkey feels they ought to; the man who wants a pay wall for 'his property', namely the information stolen from the US, the man who claimed that someone *stole* his property from him, gave it to the Grauniad and others, when all along it was not his at all. The man's hubris will topple him harder than most people think, in the long run.
Re: Who cares about him?
"If Sweden really wanted to question him (and that's all they want to do), then they could have saved everyone lots of time and actually came to the UK...
….Sweden could also offer assurances that we will not be extradited to the USA. As Sweden has done neither of these things "
I believe - and this is based on what someone from Sweden told me - that at this stage of the investigation, the questioning needs to be on Swedish soil, due to a legal requirement. Assange has been interviewed once previously and a second interview is needed in order to formally charge him (assuming that’s what the Swedish authorities wish to do after the interview.)
re: the point of extradition, I believe that once the UK extradites Assange to Sweden, if the USA then applies for him to be extradited to their clutches, then both Sweden and the UK has to agree to it.
Neither Sweden or the UK has said it would refused an extradition request, but until such a request is made, how would it be possible to comment on the strength of such application?
Sweden’s extradition treaty with the US is a lot stricter than the one between the UK and the US. When the UK courts were deciding whether to agree to the Swedish request to extradite Assange, it was widely reported that if they did, then this would complicate attempts to extradite him from Britain to the US.
I suspect Assange has more to fear from Sweden bundling him back to Australia. If there are guarantees that he wouldn’t face the death penalty, I believe it would be easier for America extraditing him from there.
Best outcome.
Well done Ecquador, you have done the right thing morally and intellectually.
How sad that after the masterful Olympics filled the whole nation with a sense of national pride that the government has reduced itself to US lapdogs once again and caused us to be collectively embarrassed to call ourselves British.
Trust the tories to be the iceberg in the newly launched ship of renewed national pride.
Re: Best outcome.
WTF! Really so the UK tries to apply the rule of law (UK and European) and somehow this is considered morally wrong and some how embarrassing. To you maybe the rest of us want to see Assange face the serious accusations made against him.
Re: Best outcome.
Sometimes legally right != morally right.
Re: Best outcome.
Wanting him extradited and in front of a Swedish court is right, threatening to enter the embassy wrong.
The (UK) law that enables this was brought about after the shooting of policewoman outside the Libyan Embassy - we should be reserving the use (or threat of use) of that power to similarly dangerous situations.
Re: Best outcome.
How I it morally right to let an alleged rapist escape justice based on some paranoid fairy story he concucted?
Re: Best outcome.
I agree but then my morals don't include allowing people accused of sex crimes to skip bail and swan off to South America.
Re: Best outcome.
"The (UK) law that enables this was brought about after the shooting of policewoman outside the Libyan Embassy - we should be reserving the use (or threat of use) of that power to similarly dangerous situations."
Given how most laws intended for use in such cases have gone I'd not be surprised to see the local council storm the building looking to drag him out for letting his dog shit on the pavement.
Re: Best outcome.
It is one thing to apply the law, but another to strip the embassy of its immunity so they can storm it.
Re: Best outcome. @Doug10
What exactly has he been charged with?
As far as I'm aware he hasn't been sharged with anything and is simply wanted for questioning over having consensual sex without a condom after the girl or girls decided a few days after the act that maybe that hadn't been such a good idea.
The questioning could be achieved without requiring extradition, so why all the effort to get him to Sweden?
Re: Best outcome.
>Well done Ecquador, you have done the right thing morally and intellectually.
Makes a change from the extra-judicial killings and allowing the big US oil co's to poison the water supply of hundreds of thousands of their own people.
Assange choosing Ecuador demonstrates clearly he is just trying to avoid the sexual assault charges - if he gave a fig about HR he wouldn't give them the time of day [its illegal to defame a government official in Ecuador, let alone run a site like Wikileaks.]
....and if he really feared extradition to the US, why flee to a state run by US Oil companies?
Re: Best outcome.
@Doug 10, agreed. What he is accused of (rape) seems to have been lost and if it indeed did happen that's very sad. This isn't something that should be so easily dismissed. He has manipulated the system and run off like a scared child to try and avoid facing this.
@Chad
About that fairy story...
Since when did the UK require the services of Interpol merely to nab an alleged rapist?
But most of all, you do realize that one of the reasons Ecuador has granted asylum was that neither Sweden, the UK nor the US would guarantee that Assange wouldn't be extradited? As can be read in this article (nytimes.com link) of the New York times.
It seems to me as if the involved countries do their very best to keep this "fairy tale" alive. I mean; if this was really only about a rape charge, why can't they guarantee that this will remain a (Swedish) nation matter without the US getting involved?
Re: Best outcome. @Doug10
@Chris W, Why all the effort by him to not face this in Sweden if he's so innocent as you want to claim?
Re: Best outcome.
Precisely because he is "alleged", not convicted, not charged, only wanted for questioning (AFAIU).
The guy's still a prick, but that's beside the point.
Re: Best outcome. @Doug10 @AC
>@Chris W, Why all the effort by him to not face this in Sweden if he's so innocent as you want to claim?
I don't claim him to be innocent but seeing as you mention it unless he's found guilty then he is. He can't be found guilty unless he's charged with something which he hasn't been. Why all the effort to not return to Sweden, it's obvious that the lack of assurances sort by Ecuador that this is not politically motivated and he won't be immediately shipped off to the US means he will be.
Re: Best outcome. @Doug10
> consensual sex without a condom
The consent was conditional on the condom, once there was no condom there was no consent, which is what makes it an offence under Swedish law.
If Assange wasn't such a self-aggrandising toe-rag he'd have apologised and persuaded the girl to withdraw the charges long ago, but he seems determined to see himself as a martyr.
This topic is closed for new posts.
