back to article Assange inquisition closer after Sweden, Ecuador sign pact

Ecuador and Sweden have struck an agreement on how the two nations will co-operate on criminal matters that will likely advance the investigation into sexual assault charges levelled against Wikileaker-in-chief Julian Assange. Ecuador's Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores y Movilidad Humana revealed the agreement last week. …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Also...the Equadorian Embassy's website has just posted a vacancy for a 'Food Taster'...

    They're offering the living wage...but don't say for how long?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Also...the Equadorian Embassy's website has just posted a vacancy for a 'Food Taster'...

      Swedish Chef joke needed .....

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Also...the Equadorian Embassy's website has just posted a vacancy for a 'Food Taster'...

        Once again, Assange tries to bork the system.

      2. Scorchio!!
        Joke

        Re: Also...the Equadorian Embassy's website has just posted a vacancy for a 'Food Taster'...

        AIUI the Chicken Supreme was (ahem) not so Supreme.

  2. a_yank_lurker

    One Swedish Charge left

    It appears there is one Swedish charge left, statute of limitations expires in 2020 according to Wikipedia. However, given the Manning leaks there has always been a nagging suspicion that the Swedish charges were more a means to get him custody until some feral TLA figures out what charges would stick. Assange is an Australian citizen and the US may not have any charges that would stick. Ecuador did grant him political asylum which implies some in the Ecuadorian believed the Swedish charges at best were a serious stretch and probably politically motivated. Many Latin American and South American governments have a love-hate relationship with the US and like embarrass the US when they can.

    1. graeme leggett Silver badge

      Re: One Swedish Charge left

      Plus the little matter in the UK of skipping bail for the past n years.

      Even if sat there til 2021 he'd still be due an appearance in a London dock

      1. This post has been deleted by its author

        1. Diogenes

          Re: One Swedish Charge left

          Honestly if the Septics were that serious about getting their hands on him, it would have been much easier to extradite him from the UK rather than Sweden.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: One Swedish Charge left

            Given that SÄPO has previously helped with "renditions" on the US's behalf, "extradition" is not really Assange's concern!

          2. Ian Michael Gumby

            @Diogenes Re: One Swedish Charge left

            Actually no.

            With the outstanding EAW, the UK would have had to turn him over to the Swedes first unless the Swedes agreed and the US would have had to make their case... The US doesn't need to get him now and they have a lot more time since the charges he potentially faces in the US have a long statute of limitations.

            So from the US perspective... they would love to have him back in AUSTRALIA, which is where he will go upon departing England. The UK Government has the power of how and where to toss him from their shores along with which countries will accept him on their soil. Since he's proven to be such a prat and jumped bail causing millions of pounds to be wasted on securing the embassy, he's not going to be given the benefit of the doubt and the UK government will put him on the plane to Australia since he's an Aussie traveling on an Aussie passport.

          3. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            @Diogenes - Re: One Swedish Charge left

            Honestly if the Septics were that serious about getting their hands on him, it would have been much easier to extradite him from the UK rather than Sweden.

            You're assuming they intended to extradite him. They could have intended rendition instead...

        2. graeme leggett Silver badge

          Re: One Swedish Charge left

          Corbyn (if it be the case) might not want to be seen to be interfering in the judicial system.

          "Where the defendant has failed to answer Court bail, the decision as to whether proceedings should be brought is for the Court. There is no limit for pursuing the matter (Archbold 3- 27, 3-31)."

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: One Swedish Charge left

            "Corbyn (if it be the case) might not want to be seen to be interfering in the judicial system."

            This is of course correct, but dealing with embassies come under the Foreign Office and they might decide that he should be given diplomatic immunity till out of the country, as tends to happen with e.g. Middle Eastern princes who commit crimes in the US. (For instance, after 9/11 the Bin Laden family was flown out of the US before organisations like the FBI could decide that they might want to interview some of them.)

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: One Swedish Charge left

              This is of course correct, but dealing with embassies come under the Foreign Office and they might decide that he should be given diplomatic immunity till out of the country, as tends to happen with e.g. Middle Eastern princes who commit crimes in the US

              Not going to happen. There is no chance that the FO will give a confirmed fugitive from justice a free pass. There are (as far as I know) no legal means to do so and it would be political suicide.

              1. Mayhem

                Re: One Swedish Charge left

                There is no chance that the FO will give a confirmed fugitive from justice a free pass

                Ahh, but if he is granted Diplomatic Immunity, then he is automatically ineligible for prosecution for any and all crimes. Which means he isn't a fugitive any more. The most they can then do is declare him Persona Non Grata and expel him, at which point he is stuck in the embassy again.

                The Foreign Office has covered up far far worse in the past when prosecution has been deemed not in the countries best interest, particularly if weapons sales are involved. Slavery and murder have been more frequent of late, particularly involving Indian diplomats or Middle Eastern princelings.

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: One Swedish Charge left

                  You cannot get diplomatic immunity retrospectively, it has to be agreed before the recipient enters the country

                  so many idiots who still thing the US is orchestrating all of this

                  1. Anonymous Coward
                    Anonymous Coward

                    Re: One Swedish Charge left

                    "so many idiots who still thing the US is orchestrating all of this"

                    So many idiots who haven't realised that they are yet....Watch say Citizen Four and then tell us "of course the US wouldn't do something like this" ?!

              2. apinochet

                Re: One Swedish Charge left

                "There is no chance that the FO will give a confirmed fugitive from justice a free pass"

                Bwahahaha! Don't remember how the British Foreign Office, together with the rest of the British establishment, conspired to free a favoured mass murderer, General Pinochet, who had been arrested in London under a Spanish warrant?

                To quote from the Amnesty International article on the episode:

                UK magistrates ruled in 1999 that Pinochet should be extradited to Spain, but it never happened. The then UK Home Secretary Jack Straw ordered his release on health grounds in 2000, after a controversial medical test stated Pinochet was not fit to appear before a court and he returned to Chile a free man that same year.

                Garcés and Shoppeé believe that politics came into play. However, they agree that, although the outcome of Pinochet's detention was not as they had hoped, it was an essential turning point in the fight against for human rights. Garcés says:

                “English magistrates took the process seriously and, finally, the prevalent position was the one we thought was in line with the international law. But at the end of the day the British government did not allow it to happen because of political pressure from the Chilean and Spanish governments and economic, diplomatic and other dark interests."

                “We should not forget that Pinochet died as a fugitive from justice. He was clear that international society saw him as a criminal."

                https://tinyurl.com/ondmjn9

                1. Scorchio!!
                  FAIL

                  Re: One Swedish Charge left

                  "Bwahahaha![...]"

                  Your non sequitur argument aside, this does not constitute the sort of formal recommendation that the government are likely to consider, outside of your imaginings.

                2. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: One Swedish Charge left

                  Bwahahaha! Don't remember how the British Foreign Office, together with the rest of the British establishment, conspired to free a favoured mass murderer, General Pinochet, who had been arrested in London under a Spanish warrant?

                  OK, I'll play. Let's assume, for pure entertainment, that the FO would be able to give Assange diplomatic status. I then have one simple question you still need to answer: why would they?

                  What on earth could possibly possess the FO to offer diplomatic status to a person who by all accounts has been nothing but a fugitive, a law breaker and a suspected rapist (not yet proven, but that's why the legal process needs to complete), versus keeping laws intact and not harming any international relations and sticking to international agreements regarding EAWs? Assange has managed to degrade himself into nothing more than a minor irritation that sells the occasional newspaper, so why would the FO even consider that wild idea of yours?

                  Surprise me by coming up with something that makes sense, something that would fit on a petition to No 10. Just don't insult me by mentioning Human Rights - it appears to have escaped some that those girls have rights too.

                  1. apinochet

                    Re: One Swedish Charge left

                    I did not suggest that the FO should give Assange immunity. You have attributed a post by someone else writing under the moniker Voyna i Mor to me. Go back and look at the record.

                    That aside, your naivety is touching. The British establishment and FO have enthusiastically participated in numerous gross violations of international agreements and treaties over the years (the invasion of Iraq and collaboration in the CIA extraordinary renditions, to name but two). And yet you want to believe that adhering to international agreements means something to these serial violators of supposedly legally binding international agreements and treaties.

                    1. Anonymous Coward
                      Anonymous Coward

                      Re: One Swedish Charge left

                      That aside, your naivety is touching. The British establishment and FO have enthusiastically participated in numerous gross violations of international agreements and treaties over the years (the invasion of Iraq and collaboration in the CIA extraordinary renditions, to name but two). And yet you want to believe that adhering to international agreements means something to these serial violators of supposedly legally binding international agreements and treaties.

                      Oh, I agree with you that the FO could and probably has been a tad creative at times (which, by the way, happens to qualify the UK in your reasoning as more dangerous to Assange than Sweden, but let's leave that aside).

                      It still leaves the question why on earth the FO would even *think* about assisting Assange. Quite bluntly, the question is what would be in it for them, and the answer (as far as I can see) is nothing at all - I can only see drawbacks. So even if the FO were to bend the rules as they are alleged/exposed to occasionally do, the possible benefit that would motivate such activity is simply not present. QED.

                  2. apinochet

                    Re: One Swedish Charge left

                    "What on earth could possibly possess the FO to offer diplomatic status to a person who by all accounts has been nothing but a fugitive, a law breaker and a suspected rapist (not yet proven, but that's why the legal process needs to complete), versus keeping laws intact and not harming any international relations and sticking to international agreements regarding EAWs?"

                    Perhaps you could tell us then, when confirmed mass murderer General Pinochet was held in London under a perfectly valid Spanish arrest warrant, what possessed Jack Straw and the FO to allow him to escape to Chile a free man?

              3. Scorchio!!
                Thumb Up

                Re: One Swedish Charge left

                "There is no chance that the FO will give a confirmed fugitive from justice a free pass."

                Indeed, and it's already been observed that nominations have to be accepted by the Court of St. James before someone is granted diplomatic status, aside from any matter of legality. It is sad to see people trying to rake over the same old failed ideas.

                I like the traffic jam in the Hyde Park underpass idea; that is, Assange has himself smuggled out in a box/diplomatic bag, as happened with someone from an African country, and the police 'kettle' the convoy in the hottest and most fume ridden place in London. He'd come out. Nolo contendere.

      2. aberglas

        Re: One Swedish Charge left

        "Plus the little matter in the UK of skipping bail for the past n years."

        It is a very little matter. Bail bonds have been forfeited. If he ends up spending jail time over that it would be very little. And in the UK.

        The lesser charges that have expired might have been made to stick, but the full on rape charge is ridiculous. So there is a good chance that the Swedes will decide to simply drop the matter. They can save face by saying that the minor charges were the important ones and now that they have expired for technical reasons there is no further action, while maintaining that the original minor charges were valid.

        It would be interesting to know exactly what made the minor charges expire. In particular if the Swedes had actually interviewed Assange and then formally made the charges then would they have still expired? (They would not under most jurisdictions.) If not, that would be a very good reason for not interviewing Assange earlier. (Please do not answer this question unless you actually know.)

        1. SolidSquid

          Re: One Swedish Charge left

          The charges expired due to duration, but I'm sure I remember them saying that they had to have him in custody before he could actually be charged as part of his due process under Swedish law, it's why they were so insistent that he be returned to Sweden for questioning rather than them questioning him in the embassy. Even if the questioning confirmed their suspicions the most they could do is fill out another warrant unless Ecuador revoked his asylum status

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: One Swedish Charge left

          It would be interesting to know exactly what made the minor charges expire

          Quite simply Swedish law - there is a statue of limitation in place so they're doing it by the book (sensible given the exposure, which is also why I doubt the "shipping to the US" claims of Assange - there is *still* no US request for extradition). I wonder if this expiry has been the aim all along - after all, we know he met his lawyer before he fled to the UK and started gaming the UK legal system.

          As for the rape charges, they've been through that in UK court (all the way, at massive expense to the tax payer) and from what I gather the conclusion was that the events would have created the same charges if it happened in the UK, hence the collaboration with Sweden on extradition.

          Frankly I hope they'll ship him. All this claiming of bending the law to go after him is ridiculous, an ordinary citizen would haven ever been given this much latitude in the system.

          1. Scorchio!!
            Thumb Up

            Re: One Swedish Charge left

            "Quite simply Swedish law [...]"

            Yes to all points. Well said. I see you've been down voted, it being that some curious creatures seem to have the opinion that the truth is less true when this is done. How quaint.

        3. Scorchio!!

          Re: One Swedish Charge left

          "The lesser charges that have expired might have been made to stick, but the full on rape charge is ridiculous."

          Not according to a senior police officer who, when interviewed, said he would have been arraigned in the UK for this matter.

          As to the 'minor charges' it was the statute of limitations, nothing else.

          1. Adam 52 Silver badge

            Re: One Swedish Charge left

            "Senior police officers" are politicians. They say whatever they think will get them promoter. Apart from that charging decisions in the UK are made by the CPS so a policeman's view is immaterial.

            As we saw in yesterday's verdict the charging decisions for sexual offences are not always sensible even so, a result of meddling in the justice system by politicians and lobby groups. You are much more likely to be arrested and charged for rape than you are for GBH with intent even if the evidence is equally compelling.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: One Swedish Charge left

      Not to mention that what he was alleged to have done was not "rape" in any normal sense of the word. And none of it was a problem until the 2 girls he slept with found out about each other....

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: One Swedish Charge left

        Not to mention that what he was alleged to have done was not "rape" in any normal sense of the word.

        Nah, that only got confirmed by ever higher UK courts as equivalent to UK definitions of rape. You know, by people that would actually know these laws and deal with them on a daily basis as part of the formal legal process. There is no possible way they would have the expertise of some forum commenters, oh no.

        /sarcasm

      2. Scorchio!!
        FAIL

        Re: One Swedish Charge left

        "Not to mention that what he was alleged to have done was not "rape" in any normal sense of the word. And none of it was a problem until the 2 girls he slept with found out about each other...."

        First of all produce proof that your second sentence/claim is veridical. Secondly, the first point you raise has been asked and answered many times; it's been concluded by senior police officers that he would have been charged over here, and this was a consideration running through the whole matter. If you ask nicely I'll give you both a URL and a quote, though they've been posted here before.

        It may be that you like many other British males do not understand the concept of sexual hygiene, however the Swedes, Germans and many other Europeans take an extremely dim view of forced unprotected sex, which is the substance of one of the allegations; Q: "are you wearing anything?" A: "Yes, you" (again, allegedly). (In his Today Programme Assange accused the women [not "girls", which sounds paternalistic and smacks of patronising] of "getting into a tizzy" over the matter, in a manner that offenders with whom I've worked will minimise their offences) Thus when it was found that Nadja Benaissa, who is infected by HIV, had unprotected sex and did not inform her sexual partner, the German legal system came down on her like a ton of bricks; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nadja_Benaissa

        A short extract from the above URL complying with fair use: "In February 2010, she was charged with causing bodily harm by German police for having unprotected sex with three men between 2004 and 2006, without informing them she was HIV-positive.". I am more than certain that no one, female or male, posting here objects to people requiring safe sex and no sex by surprise (one of the charges) that is unprotected. It is for good reason, though reading some of the more juvenile posts about "girls" on the matter here, I find myself wondering if the quality of empathy here is constrained by virtue of selfishness by proxy rather than by mercy.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: One Swedish Charge left

          "however the Swedes, Germans and many other Europeans take an extremely dim view of forced unprotected sex!"

          It wasn't forced - she consented to sex. What you are suggesting is like saying "you can put it in if you promise not to come inside me!"

          She consented to sex so it's not rape in any normal sense of the word as stated.

      3. LucreLout

        Re: One Swedish Charge left

        @AC

        Not to mention that what he was alleged to have done was not "rape" in any normal sense of the word.

        I do hope you know that you are very wrong about this, and why!

        Consent to protected sex does not imply as acceptable the wearing of ones wellies up to the vinegar stroke, before whipping it out, yanking off the nodder, and slamming in the lamb just in time to make your war face. That very much IS rape.

        Assange was allegedly instructed to boot up before bouncey-bouncey, which is an instruction he chose to ignore, thus consent cannot be viewed as having been in place.

        And none of it was a problem until the 2 girls he slept with found out about each other....

        Just possibly because having been shot through with his baby batter would be bad enough, but the premise that he was married and unlikely to have been putting it about like a puppy with two peckers would diminish the likelihood of his having a communicable disease. When that premise became known as false, the risks of his behaviour become manifestly higher.

        Or maybe it could just be that they each thought nobody would believe them, but found support from each other to make a complaint? Jumping straight to the conclusion that its just a case of "women scorned" is perhaps not in the best interests of justice?

        1. Scorchio!!
          Go

          Re: One Swedish Charge left

          "[...]baby batter[...]"

          Yes to everything including your sense of humour and use of adjectives. Baby batter will remain in my memory, up there with Bulgarian airbags and Bolivian marching powder. html blink would be handy here.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: One Swedish Charge left

          Consent to protected sex does not imply as acceptable the wearing of ones wellies up to the vinegar stroke, before whipping it out, yanking off the nodder, and slamming in the lamb just in time to make your war face. That very much IS rape.

          Assange was allegedly instructed to boot up before bouncey-bouncey, which is an instruction he chose to ignore, thus consent cannot be viewed as having been in place.

          I must thank you for this unexpected and amusing expansion of my store of English euphemisms :)

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: One Swedish Charge left

          "Consent to protected sex does not imply as acceptable the wearing of ones wellies up to the vinegar stroke, before whipping it out, yanking off the nodder, and slamming in the lamb just in time to make your war face. That very much IS rape."

          It very much isn't. Concent was given for sex. So what if the condom splits - it's rape only if you don't say anything? What if you don't notice?! Whilst it might not be agreeable to do that deliberately, to suggest it's rape when consent was given for sex is ridiculous.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: One Swedish Charge left

            As anyone who wears socks in bed will tell you,they can easily come off,the same is true for willy warmers.

            Seriously,who but the American cock-sucking politicians in Sweden,Australia,UK believes that Assange has committed any offence.

            Even they don't,but they are too keen to touch their toes when any American Pres' says,"bend over".

        4. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: One Swedish Charge left

          "but the premise that he was married and unlikely to have been putting it about like a puppy with two peckers would diminish the likelihood of his having a communicable disease"

          A woman scorned more like. They likely invented the whole thing for revenge.

      4. Ian Michael Gumby
        Boffin

        @AC Re: One Swedish Charge left

        Julian is that you? ;-)

        Look, here's the simple thing... Sweden has the most progressive and feminist laws on the books concerning rape. Even if the sex was consensual while wearing a condom, the minute he tried to have sex without a condom, it would be considered non-consensual if the girl said sex only w a condom and thus rape.

        If you actually did your homework... you would learn two things...

        1) There are 32 crimes where you don't have to show a duopoly. That is to say that its a crime in both jurisdictions. One of them is rape. So if the Swedes say its rape, its rape.

        2) During the extradition hearings in the UK... and there were 3 appeals... one of the sets of judges ruled that some of the rape charges would still be considered rape in the UK. This means that regardless of the no need of duopoly, they gave him the doubt and even still he failed...

        It pays to actually take the time and read the court documents and transcripts of the case. You might learn something.

      5. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: One Swedish Charge left

        Let's not forget that this was all a setup.

        It doesn't take a lot of Googling to find out one worked with US covert ops, and that the case against him is so procedurally flawed as to be outright fraud.

        1. Ian Michael Gumby

          @AC re "Set up" Re: One Swedish Charge left

          Ah yes, the "its all a CIA plot and a set up".

          Really?

          Sorry, but no. The CIA running a Honey Pot on Assange... remember Occam's Razor.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: One Swedish Charge left

          @AC

          "and that the case against him is so procedurally flawed as to be outright fraud."

          And yet by jumping bail in the UK he's added a confirmed crime to the list of things he can be detained for, and in a second legal jurisdiction, opening up a host of new possibilities should there actually have been a "setup" to have him extradited by the Merkins. Hoist with his own petard.

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: One Swedish Charge left

          It doesn't take a lot of Googling to find out one worked with US covert ops, and that the case against him is so procedurally flawed as to be outright fraud.

          Cute, Julian. Now try again, this time with actual facts.

    3. Scorchio!!
      FAIL

      Re: One Swedish Charge left

      "However, given the Manning leaks there has always been a nagging suspicion that the Swedish charges were more a means to get him custody until some feral TLA figures out what charges would stick."

      ...BS, not least because it is a condition of the EAW that arrestees cannot be diverted to other jurisdictions. From the perspective you mention, Assange's flight to the UK - which was, when alerted by his legal counsel to impending arrest, a flight from justice - was more likely to result in a swift extradition (prior to the EAW), owing to ToniBler's have-anything-you-want-we-bend-over-for-you treaty. Thus these suspicions are purest eccentric BS; additionally, coming to the UK was more dangerous than remaining in Sweden from the perspective of conspiracy theories, because the Swedes have a strong attitude on these matters which favours Assange, unless the escapee is protected by the EAW, which could only be issued when Assange had flown from Sweden.

      Do you understand this? The EAW protects Assange, gives him a complete lockdown, ditto the Swedish legal system, whereas under Blair's treaty we give Uncle Sam everything he wants... ...unless we are the incumbents, who said 'no' on behalf of McKinnon, we would not unless the EAW had been issued. In addition. the Swedes would for constitutional and legal reasons probably not allow the US to extradite Assange, which has been mulled over by the like of Gumby et al.

      OTOH, Ecuador allowed Belarus, one of the few remaining dictatorships in Europe, to extradite a citizen to what may conceivably be his death. Here you see the difference faces of the coin, but that given Ecuador's human rights and press freedom record is completely unsurprising.

      Thus the irony is that in fleeing the Swedish jurisdiction Assange made himself safer, by virtue of the issuance of an EAW, which binds all EU members into handing over the accused. It is like a legal coffer dam, and isolates Assange from US waterboarding.

      So whilst people in the UK sit in wine bars nonchalantly making illogical deductions and thus conclusions, the people at risk have already been shipped out to Belarus by a government that is with no small irony at complete odds with the idiot Assange's madcap ideation.

      As to Uncle Sam, he was either too late or could not find a charge that would stick when the 17x convict Assange arrived in the UK.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: One Swedish Charge left

        ...BS, not least because it is a condition of the EAW that arrestees cannot be diverted to other jurisdictions. From the perspective you mention, Assange's flight to the UK - which was, when alerted by his legal counsel to impending arrest, a flight from justice - was more likely to result in a swift extradition (prior to the EAW), owing to ToniBler's have-anything-you-want-we-bend-over-for-you treaty. Thus these suspicions are purest eccentric BS; additionally, coming to the UK was more dangerous than remaining in Sweden from the perspective of conspiracy theories, because the Swedes have a strong attitude on these matters which favours Assange, unless the escapee is protected by the EAW, which could only be issued when Assange had flown from Sweden.

        What I find amusing is that this is the same Assange who, prior to these events, originally was lauding Sweden for its liberal stance and was publicly announcing plans to settle there. That means he either didn't do his research properly and was talking thus out of an orifice normally covered by trousers, or had to come up with a story for the dimwitted admirers he so needs and who still apparently believe anything he comes up with so he wouldn't appear to be the ruthless people manipulator he has been exposed to be (witness people lending him money for bail).

        There seems to be somewhat of a disconnect between St Jules' version of the world and reality.

        1. Scorchio!!
          Thumb Up

          Re: One Swedish Charge left

          "What I find amusing is that this is the same Assange who, prior to these events, originally was lauding Sweden for its liberal stance and was publicly announcing plans to settle there

          Indeed, and this seems to have been behind his motivations for housing a Wikileaks server there. ISTR it is/was housed in an old cold war bunker. How ironic.

          His allegation, subsequent to the Swedish attempts to secure his arrest, that the Swedish government has 'banana republic' standards of justice was more than amusing and more than ironic for a number of reasons. Aside from Assange as you say lauding them and choosing to live there to be out of reach of Uncle Sam, in fleeing from bail he has taken refuge in in the embassy of a banana state republic, whose standards of justice are of the banana republic order, with a dire record in respect of human rights and freedom of the press. Sweden, OTOH, is required to comply with EU wide standards of justice and human rights, and these are more liberal and fixed than that found in Ecuador.

          I am ineluctably drawn to the conclusion that Julie is a hypocrite of the first order. That he accepted a publisher's advance for his life story and then withdrew publishing rights merely reinforces this view.

      2. Ian Michael Gumby
        Boffin

        @Scorchoi Re: One Swedish Charge left

        "As to Uncle Sam, he was either too late or could not find a charge that would stick when the 17x convict Assange arrived in the UK"

        That is a good question... what could the US have against Assange?

        First, the publications of the leaked information could have a shield that it was to the public's benefit to know the material which would mean that he would have some potential protection under the SCOTUS' Ellsberg related decision.

        Lets be clear... the US wouldn't go after Assange just for the publications, regardless of his delusional paranoid fantasies. Not worth the bad publicity, time and expense.

        However, during Manning's Article 32 hearing, there was the allegation that Assange was in fact a party to the theft and helped Manning break in and steal the documents. Note that during the actual court martial this evidence was never used. Manning plead guilty to those counts. (Protecting Assange, or waiting for the US to give him a deal at a later time? Boise is a good lawyer, so we will have to wait to see what falls out from this...)

        That would be the only reason why the US would want Assange. At the time of Sweden... the Manning court martial was just getting started.

    4. Ian Michael Gumby
      Boffin

      @Yank Re: One Swedish Charge left

      Sorry, but you need to take off the tin foiled hat.

      Here's the thing.

      Assanage pulled a runner in the UK as well as in Sweden.

      So supposed Sweden dropped the remaining charge, what then.

      He's not facing extradition, however he is going to face a jumping bail charge.

      Regardless of what the UK does to him, the next thing he's going to be doing is being sent on a plane back to Australia. No stops, no detours. He's going to be booted from the country back to Australia.

      Got it?

      If the US wanted to, that's where they'd snatch him up via extradition.

      Sweden wants him because he's allegedly raped (By Swedish standards/law) two women and rather than face the music, he did a runner. That's it.

      Since Obama is our current POTUS, do you seriously believe he's going to go after Assange while he lets Hillary Clinton and others slide? IMHO he'd rather let things die than get to the bottom of it and expose the truth.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: @Yank One Swedish Charge left

        "If the US wanted to, that's where they'd snatch him up via extradition."

        Jeez ... which extraditable crime has Julian committed in the USA that might magically be conjured up to legally allow this?

        Oh, precisely none.

        It's RENDITION he is worried about!

        1. Ian Michael Gumby

          @AC Re: @Yank One Swedish Charge left

          "Jeez ... which extraditable crime has Julian committed in the USA that might magically be conjured up to legally allow this?"

          Ah that's the rub isn't it.

          If you believe Assange is paranoid that the US is out to get him, then either he did something, or its all in his head.

          If its all in his head, then he has nothing to worry about because the US doesn't want to waste the time, effort and money of getting him extradited from Australia to the US.

          If its not, then he did something.... which is why he hired a lawyer to shadow the Manning Article 32 hearing and the trial. Its also a reason why he didn't go to Sweden.

          So what could Assange have done that would have made him so paranoid and scared of the US?

          Could it be that he helped Manning during the theft of the documents and was more than just an innocent participant? This was raised during the Article 32 hearing but not during the trial.

          So we'll just have to wait.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: @AC @Yank One Swedish Charge left

            So what could Assange have done that would have made him so paranoid and scared of the US?

            Could it be that he helped Manning during the theft of the documents and was more than just an innocent participant? This was raised during the Article 32 hearing but not during the trial.

            Ah, but this is where it gets interesting.

            So far, we've had Assange allege that the US would just want him in a manner that is extrajudicial (rendition, orange jumpsuit, cozy suite at Guantanamo Bay and so forth). However, when there is actual hard evidence that Assange has indeed committed a crime then there is a perfectly valid and legal reason for him to answer for that, because he is at that point a suspected criminal and not the hero in hiding he imagines himself to be.

            It would change the story from "I'm exposing the US and that's why they want me" to "I broke the law and I want to escape justice", but I guess we'll never get the St Jules supporters to admit to that.

            Having said that, so far the US has been unusually intelligent in dealing with Assange by leaving him alone, thus permitting him to dig a hole all by himself. Someone very intelligent is in play there.

  3. dorsetknob
    Black Helicopters

    rumour has it

    a cretin E Snowdon has volunteered for Spetsnaz training in order to bust his buddy from the confines of the coffee embassy

    Hind Gunship incoming

    1. martinusher Silver badge

      Re: rumour has it

      I don't think the two are acquainted.....

      If you can spare the time go and see a movie like "Trumbo", then spend a few minutes thinking about what patriotism means. In the US, at least, it does not mean "Doing what the government tells you to Do and Believing what the Government tells you to Believe".

      What Assange and Snowden have in common is that they both pissed off people in high places.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: rumour has it

        spend a few minutes thinking about what patriotism means. In the US, at least, it does not mean "Doing what the government tells you to Do and Believing what the Government tells you to Believe".

        Judging by what is happening in the US, you must be smoking fairly spectacular stuff..

      2. LucreLout

        Re: rumour has it

        @martinusher

        What Assange and Snowden have in common is that they both pissed off people in high places.

        I think it'd be fair to say that I'm not Snowdens biggest fan, being close to neutral on his actions, with the benefit of the doubt going his way. However... I think conflating Snowden and Assange is a massive disservice to Snowden and most disrespectful.

        Snowdens actions were conducted with the best of intentions and not in the pursuit of fame, power, wealth, or status. Can the same REALLY be said of Assange?

        1. Desidero

          Re: rumour has it

          @LucreLout

          Yeah, it's a confirmed path to riches posting videos of US flyboys strafing civilians, because Americans always care about appearance of injustice. Assange was just in it for the money and the CIA-provided poontang. If it hadn't been for the incredible exploding condom and a well-timed tandem Norse groupie remorse, he would have been playing Mike Myers in the Spy Who Shagged Me II.

          1. LucreLout

            Re: rumour has it

            @Desidiro

            So, what, Assange isn't self aggrandizing? He doesn't court publicity? Really? I think you may need to look again.

            1. Desidero

              Re: rumour has it

              "dero", like in "truth or dare?"

              Looked again - "...pursuit of fame, power, wealth, or status..." - power or wealth? hard to see a big bank account or more than easy dibs on table at Tiffiany's. (worn out) Welcome at certain embassies I guess.

              Fame or status, I suppose, but less complicated & dangerous paths than pissing off America's spooks and war machine.

    2. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
      Facepalm

      Re: rumour has it

      > writes Snowdon

      > calls someone "cretin"

      Man, the FEMA trailers with full gas bottles can't come fast enough.

  4. John Tserkezis

    Oh come on, this is no longer about criminal goings on.

    The criminal charges are merely a means to an end.

    What they're really worried about is that he made the US look like dicks.

    Without realising they were fully capable of doing that themselves...

    1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

      Re: Oh come on, this is no longer about criminal goings on.

      > make the US look like dicks

      That train has left the station a decade or so ago.

    2. Mark 85

      Re: Oh come on, this is no longer about criminal goings on.

      Name one country's government that doesn't look like dicks?

      They've all been looking like that for a very long time....

      1. Pascal Monett Silver badge

        Yeah, but no other country has declared itself the bastion of Freedom and Justice only to piss all over that with indiscriminate surveillance of everyone all the time.

        And when caught out, only to move the surveillance facilities to another country to be able to say that no more surveillance was taking place in the country.

        Sorry, but as far as being dicks is concerned, the US is indeed #1.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          "Yeah, but no other country has declared itself the bastion of Freedom and Justice"

          Well, we did when we had an empire, and we too were lying through our teeth.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Oh come on, this is no longer about criminal goings on.

        "Name one country's government that doesn't look like dicks?"

        Actually, Ecuador and Uruguay are looking quite good these days. Trudeau just got in in Canada, jury is waiting to see how things develop.

  5. Vincent Ballard
    Headmaster

    Non-automated translation

    The agreement in question is undoubtedly an instrument which strengthens bilateral relations and which will facilitate, for example, the carrying out of judicial procedures, such as the interrogation of Mr Assange, [who is] enjoying asylum in the Ecuadorean Embassy in London.

  6. Fruit and Nutcase Silver badge

    Does the UK have a problem with old sofas?

    that was the title for this post on the BBC website on Friday

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35055485

    We me yet see a couch or a (in)famous couch surfer being dumped somewhere in the vicinity of the Ecuadorian Embassy in London

  7. Boris the Cockroach Silver badge
    Facepalm

    Once

    it gets to 2020 and the last swedish charge expires, then all he'll have to do is get the charge of skipping bail overturned and hes a free man.

    I cant see Prime Minsister Corbyn (if elected) ordering that, since the judges will release no one on bail as a result

    Of course , if he'd been sent to Sweden and found guilty of the charges , he'd have served his time in jail and be more than likely a free man right now.. .. hey ho

    1. Robert Helpmann??
      Childcatcher

      Re: Once

      If someone with the ability to use extraordinary rendition and a sense of humor exists (so very unlikely, I know), they ought to grab Assange as soon as the legal process in Sweden was completed and deliver him to the authorities in the UK. It would deliver a debilitating blow to his ego when he realized the US didn't want him after all.

      1. Mark 85

        Re: Once

        And that is a seriously good idea that's been around for awhile. It will also go some to destroy Wikileaks also as they have played to the paranoia.

      2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        Re: Once

        "deliver him to the authorities in the UK"

        Who might well deport him back to Australia after he's served his sentence.

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Once

        If someone with the ability to use extraordinary rendition and a sense of humor exists (so very unlikely, I know), they ought to grab Assange as soon as the legal process in Sweden was completed and deliver him to the authorities in the UK.

        Ah, a man with a admirably evil sense of humour. We must meet :)

      4. Desidero

        Re: Once

        @Helpmann And it would deliver a debilitating blow to your ego if you ever realized that the excesses Assange was reporting was what led to the cockup in Libya where we unleashed militias everywhere, and the one smuggling weapons into Syria where instead of rebel-love regime change we got ISIS.

        All Assange got was a free AirBnB. The rest of us - especially the Levant and Tripoli and the ones who get to sort out a million refugees - got shafted. But sure, laugh at Assange, because he has blond hair or something.

      5. Ian Michael Gumby

        Re: Once

        So... Assange meets with the Swedes in the Embassy thanks to this new MoU / treaty.

        Assange gets charged and the Swedes take him back to Sweden to face the music....

        Many think that he's going to be free to walk around... he's not. He won't get bail and will be incarcerated for the duration of the trial and depending on the results, he will either be jailed or escorted on a plane, in custody back to the UK to face the music for his jumping bail. Note that while the bail is forfeit, he's still guilty of the charges and can face jail time.

        Even then he will be kept in jail (custody) with no chance of bail.

        So then when the UK is done with him... because of his actions... you can bet that the UK will then take him in custody to the airport and place him on a flight back to Australia. (Where he can see his dear ol' mum...) Whether or not he is in custody during his flight ... who knows. My guess is that he will be.

        Post that... its a crap shoot. Does the US really want him? Probably not. Unless Hillary gets elected. But you never know. However, even then... Assange could now be denied entry in to many countries based on his current bad behavior.

        1. Desidero

          Re: Once

          The US managed to put Assange on ice for 3 years, effectively ending his exposure of things like our strafing civilians, our Arab buddies' misadventures, and probably a banking scandal (Bank of America?) that got hushed up.

          Assange on the other hand was spared the Bradley Manning 23-hours naked, wake every hour "suicide" watch, and the typical American gang-rape cell, and the possibility like prisoners in Guantanamo he would simply be held forever without charge.

          Roman Polanski's still welcome in France, and that's after drugging and anally raping a 13-year-old, so I wish people would stop talking about Assange's imputed "bad behavior".

    2. Scorchio!!

      Re: Once

      For Corbyn to be prime minister something will have to be very wrong indeed. The Conservative party would have to reverse their repairs to the economy for one thing, but you are right; he would probably be free, and hell he does already have 17 convictions to his name, so what's the problem with one or two more.

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Boxed in and boxed up

    How long is the lease on the Ecuadorian Embassy in London?

    Moving buildings would be interesting.

  9. Archie1954

    I hope the Swedes choke on what Assange tells them. This is such an unjust judicial procedure that it stinks to high Heaven. The so called victims don't want to press charges and don't believe they were raped but the Swedish prosecutors want to make that decision regardless of what the reluctant witnesses have to say. It is beyond strange that the original prosecutor on the case decided that there was no case and advised Assange that he could leave the country and within a few days, Secretary Clinton decided that she had a few spare days to suddenly visit Sweden, with no prior invitation. It wasn't a day after that that a new Swedish prosecutor sent an arrest warrant to Britain to detain him and deport him back to Sweden. That smells too much to ignore. This whole enterprise is a disgusting and corrupt denial of justice arranged by the US to get the man who we should all admire into their evil hands. What a depraved nation the US is!

    1. This post has been deleted by its author

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      I would go back to your GP to have your prescription checked.

      The so called victims don't want to press charges and don't believe they were raped

      First of all, the victims have remained quiet all this time. You should start asking yourself questions there, because that only happens when there is a concern public statements may influence procedure. There is also the issue that the definition of rape includes quite a few factors such as coercion and sex without permission - jumping someone when they're asleep with a questionable attitude to condoms can get you, in your own exalted country, in front of a judge too (which is what was confirmed by a very lengthy trawl through the courts).

      Secondly, Assange was briefed by his lawyer that they were going to interrogate him again, which is why he fled. The lawyer had to admit to briefing his client in court after initially denying it. If Mr Assange had a clear conscience he could have remained, but instead he had to dream up this US extradition nonsense to explain why he ran - I don't but it, but I leave it up to the courts to work it out, something that Assange seems to be at great pains to avoid.

      Thirdly, the rape charge re-emerged when the girls asked the police for help to ask Assange to get himself tested for STDs, given his aversion to condoms and soap. They have that right, and all Assange had to do was walk into practically any clinic in the UK and get a test and that would have been that. Now, apart from the legal angle, any person with the smallest shred of decency would have done that because it is not an unreasonable request. The fact that Assange absolutely refused to do this suggests to me that there is a more than casual probability that (a) Assange knew he has one or more STDs (not unlikely given his apparent attitude towards protection) and (b) one or both girls had to have treatment or worse, which may explain the rather deafening silence from that corner. As a matter of fact, it may even explain the initial rape charge re-emerging because that's not something you discover immediately, it takes time. From all the possibilities that are out there, I reckon this one to be the most viable - it would explain the re-emergence of the charges, it would explain why they were not dropped, it explains why Assange ran like a frightened rabbit and dreamt up this US threat and it explains why Assange has been fighting like a Scotsman in a barrel of Scotch to stay where he is. It strikes me as a more viable theory than some weird US conspiracy for which there is still not the slightest shred of evidence.

      Assange could have stopped it there and then by having himself tested - that is what the girls asked, and I think they have the right to do that under Swedish law (very sensibly IMHO). Anyone with functional ethics would have said yes to that - unless there was something to know that wasn't said.

      Anyone see any large deliveries of penicillin arrive at the embassy?

      1. Scorchio!!
        Thumb Down

        "Thirdly, the rape charge re-emerged when the girls asked the police for help to ask Assange to get himself tested for STDs, given his aversion to condoms and soap. They have that right, and all Assange had to do was walk into practically any clinic in the UK and get a test and that would have been that. Now, apart from the legal angle, any person with the smallest shred of decency would have done that because it is not an unreasonable request."

        Indeed, and to which suggestion St Julie made the following public response:

        "He said he believed the most probable explanation for the allegations was that two women "found out that they were mutual lovers of mine and they had unprotected sex and they got into a tizzy about whether there was a possibility of sexually transmitted diseases".

        It was a "ridiculous thing to go to the police about," he added."

        Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9308000/9308216.stm

        There is a full transcript of the interview, which can be replayed.

        I still think that he is a tad rapey, and his behaviour only reinforces my opinion.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      the man who we should all admire

      Really? Speak for yourself. He strikes me as a coward that puts others in the line of fire with fine promises, but then doesn't deliver (Chelsea Manning's defence fund) or runs away (Sweden).

      I got the original Wikileaks idea, but even that pretty much shot itself in the foot re. credibility when they tried to blackmail governments with the threat of releasing everything at once if any of them came to harm, and their release of information seems more to satisfy the disenchanted than to stimulate improvement.

      As said before elsewhere, it's easy to find fault, it requires no real intelligent thought. To offer solutions for what is wrong is where the challenge lies, a challenge Wikileaks have been successfully avoiding for years. A bit like Assange avoids justice, really.

      So thanks, but no thanks. What I think of Assange is not spoken of in polite company.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        What I think of Assange is not spoken of in polite company.

        People who create a noise in the world often have deeply flawed personalities; people who don't tend to lack the motivation to seek influence and power.

        I don't think Assange and Snowden are any worse than the average politician. We should be very, very careful about putting any public figure on a pedestal because then we are going to be disappointed.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: What I think of Assange is not spoken of in polite company.

          People who create a noise in the world often have deeply flawed personalities; people who don't tend to lack the motivation to seek influence and power.

          By that standard I should have been world famous by now :)

          1. Mark 85
            Devil

            Re: What I think of Assange is not spoken of in polite company.

            Maybe you would be if you weren't posting as AC?

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: What I think of Assange is not spoken of in polite company.

              Re: What I think of Assange is not spoken of in polite company.

              Maybe you would be if you weren't posting as AC?

              So your surname is "85"? Really?

              :)

      2. YetAnotherLocksmith Silver badge

        When they tried to blackmail governments with the threat of releasing everything at once if any of them came to harm

        Glad you aren't a lawyer! That's not blackmail, that's sensible. "If you start killing us, we've got insurance."

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          When they tried to blackmail governments with the threat of releasing everything at once if any of them came to harm

          Glad you aren't a lawyer! That's not blackmail, that's sensible. "If you start killing us, we've got insurance."

          LOL, if I had been in charge of media management of a government when they tried that one I would have had them arrested on the spot and drawn their threat. To me, that wasn't a threat, that was an excellent opportunity that could serve to deflate the whole threat in one go. Arrest them, see the data dump, ride out the storm and in a few months you'd only find Wikileaks as a footnote in Wikipedia instead of months long drip releases of data that keep media attention awake.

          I'd also use the storm to quickly release some other unpopular government news as well, as long as you do that far enough from an election it's easy to mop it all up and then spin it into a plus. People have been trained by the media to quickly forget, and that's something you can play on.

          These kids don't know what threats are. It's a good thing most government spokespeople are not too clever or they would have been out of play a long time ago.

      3. apinochet

        "A bit like Assange avoids justice, really."

        Speaking of avoiding justice, how is it that (unlike Bradley Manning or Julian Assange), figures such Tony Blair and George Bush and their co-conspirators in the invasion of Iraq continue to roam free? By any reasonable measure the actions of Bush and Blair in Iraq were and are crimes against peace which according to the Principles of the Nuremberg Tribunal are punishable under international law. To wit:

        Crimes against peace:

        (i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;

        (ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

        http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-nurem.htm

    4. Yugguy

      He's about as admirable as my hairy left bollock.

      He may have set up something good in wikileaks but as a human being he sounds like a total cunt.

      Bit like George Best. Smacked his wife around, wasted two livers but everyone thinks he's great because he kicked a bloody football around.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        He's about as admirable as my hairy left bollock.

        I'm sorry, but I cannot accept such a statement without evidence.

        :)

    5. Scorchio!!
      FAIL

      "This whole enterprise is a disgusting and corrupt denial of justice arranged by the US to get the man who we should all admire into their evil hands. What a depraved nation the US is!"

      1) Check your tobacco

      2) The US would certainly not have prompted the Swedes to apply for and get an EAW, since it makes extradition to another jurisdiction impossible.

      3) By fleeing arrest and prosecution in Sweden to the UK Assange put himself right into play; all the US had to do was tell the Swedes not to prosecute and not apply for an EAW and Vlad's your impaler, Julie's on a plane to Washington.

      You see how easy that is? The conspiracy theory militates against the facts and, given that the US is such a wily operator (or so we are told) they only had to make the Swedes back off and use the treaty made by Bliar to extradite Assange to the US quicker than you can say Lamson tube.

    6. Asterix the Gaul

      I fully agree with your comments.

      For years I have argued online of the travesty that has befallen Julian Assange.

      ALL politicians are rotten to the core in their efforts to bend over to America.

      That country is hell bent on extending it's hegemony over europe,to that end, the political leaders of europe,with no exeption betray their own countries to American capitalism & the TTIP is the last rivet in the last hole of that endeavour.

      What people fail to realise is, America is not 'democratic' anymore than this country is, elections are for 'rubber-stamping' the 'elite' corrupt,not for representing the 'majority'.

      What the government's of America or europe contrive to deceive their electorates of knows no bounds,all they need to do is protect their mis-deeds through the use of 'anti-terrorism' legislation,to use that legislation to deny the oxygen of truth prevailing & curbing that vile corruption.

      This in essence, is what America is trying to do with Assange through it's proxy,the Swedish state.

      They know that these charges are trumped up, to justify rendering him to the unjust American legal system that has locked up peope in Cuba without trial.

      The American President is a 'judge', 'jury' & 'excecutioner' in his own court.

      That is the Constitution of America, a dictaorship, rubber-stamped by the American electors,where else would a President be the head of the armed services, with the power to declare war without resort to the 'democratic' vote?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        For years I have argued online of the travesty that has befallen Julian Assange.

        I presume you mean "the travesty that IS Julian Assange", no? He made a travesty of the whole asylum model. That is not to say that the Ecuadorians were not culpable too, but it was Assange who came up with that daft idea.

    7. Ian Michael Gumby
      WTF?

      @Archie take off the tin foil hat.

      Did you actually pay attention to the extradition hearings?

      Did you even bother to read the transcript?

      Under Oath, the lawyer for Assange in Sweden actually admitted to assisting in Assange's exit from the country.

      That's right. The prosecutor has to go through Assange's lawyer once Assange lawyers up. So as Assange was doing his first runner, the lawyer played dumb and stalled the Police until it was too late.

      Don't take my word, go Google the transcripts and read them.

      It was a calculated risk. Assange was betting that the charges were so petty that Sweden wouldn't issue an EAW for him.

      So that first blows your narrative away.

      Second is that the women came forward and filed complaints against Assange. That's all it took and started the investigation. Whatever the women wanted after that point is irrelevant.

      I don't know where to begin with your rant against the US. Clearly the NHS has failed you and you definitely need medical help.

  10. casaloco

    Charges?

    Charges? Last time I checked he hadn't been CHARGED with anything, he is wanted to face QUESTIONING into POSSIBLE rape allegations. Allegations which, unless he outright signs a confession, will go precisely NOWHERE. The problem is he believed once his was back in Sweden he would suffer extraordinary rendition over to the states. Yes it would probably be illegal under Swedish law, but that wont matter, he'll just disappear and they'll make up some excuse. Once he's in US custody he'll be i no position to sue the Swedish government for breaking the law will he?

    To sum it up, he offered to hand himself over to the Swedish authorities if they agreed to absolutely would not hand him over to the Americans. They agreed. He asked to it in writing. They said no, we can't do that, that would make it official... basically they little short of admitted that they planned to hand him straight over to the Americans.

    1. Ian Michael Gumby
      FAIL

      Re: Charges?

      Wow...

      It seems that every time a story comes up, commentards who are pro Julian seem to forget that the procedure in Sweden is to bring someone in for questioning so that they could formally charge them. There isn't a concept of charging someone in abstensia ?sp?.

      But you already knew that.

      You also know that the Americans never made a request to Sweden so that the Swedes can't comment or agree to something that hasn't happened.

      But again, you already knew that.

      The thing that this article points out is that there's a new understanding between the Swedes and Ecuador which opens the path to allowing the Swedes to come in, question, then charge Assange per their legal requirements and then Ecuador will allow him to leave the Embassy.

      Assange's days in the Embassy are numbered. One can expect the Swedes to pay him a visit early next year.

  11. Stevie

    Bah!

    In the TV Miniseries Sir Kenneth Branagh will pontificate gloomily on various existential themes for an hour and a half while Benedict Cumberbatch counter-pontificates on various half-formed and ironic ideas on freedom and accountability, all in glorious desaturated monochrome.

    Last one up their own fundament wins.

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Probability of deportation to US

    Am I the only one that finds ludicrous his claim that he is in danger of being extradited to the US by Sweden but not by the British Government? The UK has allowed the extradition of its own nationals to the US so it's not clear why he thinks he is safe here.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like