Ecuador: Let's talk about not having Julian Assange on our sofa Blighty's Foreign Secretary William Hague is considering an invitation to sit down with his Ecuadorian counterpart - and discuss what to do about their little Julian Assange problem. The Ecuadorian foreign minister Ricardo Patino - due to arrive in London this month - has asked the UK Foreign Office for a chat about Assange, …
If swarms of people turned up looking like him, or he and everyone else wears the exact same mask and style of clothes, the police would have a tough time keeping track of who's who hopefully giving him the chance to escape and save millions more of taxpayers money keeping an eye on the place.
£3m for a year of 24/7 police watch, fucking ludicrus...
Why do you assume that the US does want him? To try him and send him to jail here? Why would we want the cost of trial, imprisonment, etc. We wouldn't be getting any information out of him that we don't already have on Manning, and it's not like the Government can hold him in Military prison like Manning.
He'd likely need to be tried in public court, with backing from the ACLU and other various group which would likely be costly, and with the dissent now from "big government" and "attacks on media" it would be a a hell of a shit show to push war crimes on something as mundane as those cables.
With him hold up in the Embassy, and the UK wasting there time on him, and the Swiss looking to ding him, quite frankly we have no vested interest in dealing with him anymore, imo.
> Why do you assume that the US does want him?
Maybe on the basis of the evidence?
http://www.theage.com.au/national/us-in-pursuit-of-assange-cables-reveal-20120817-24e8u.html
http://www.theage.com.au/world/charges-against-assange-drawn-up-in-us-says-email-20120228-1u14c.html
It seems strange to me that so many commenters here are talking about this as mere speculation.
"> Why do you assume that the US does want him?
Maybe on the basis of the evidence?
"It seems strange to me that so many commenters here are talking about this as mere speculation."
That's because you have not acquainted yourself with the facts; under the EAW he cannot be extradited from Sweden (whence he fled prior to the obligatory interview that in Sweden precedes being charged and arrested) to the US without prior permission from the UK; neither the UK nor Sweden will allow extradition to a country likely to inflict capital punishment on a suspect if found guilty of a capital offence in the would-be extraditing state and, besides all of the fantasy island crap that is peddled here, the UK is a far easier avenue for extradition to the US than Sweden, precisely because the Labour government agreed a treaty with the US that makes it difficult to resist their demands. Moreover, the Swedes have said that they will forego the EAW and their right to charge him if the US wants first fuck.
Thus, and putting it shortly, no the US cannot extradite him from Sweden if their EAW is successfully applied, and Jules is an easy lay from the UK.
Finally, the US do not yet have sufficient evidence to deal with Assange. Rest assured, you will know about it when they think they have; either because they'll trumpet it, or because someone will 'leak' it. Otherwise, there is a difference between informed and uninformed speculation. The latter tends to predominate where Assange is concerned.
HTH. HAVND.
Cost of keeping JA in gitmo, $900k a year.
Cost to the US of him being holed up in the embassy. 0.
Cost to the US of him being in a Swedish prison. 0.
I think they are probably quite happy with the status quo. Cut down the cost of monitoring somewhat and watch the little bugger sweat it out until his new friends as sick of him. Maybe sell a feed of the security cameras as a reality tv show bb style.
But we have started flying drone missions over Ecuador, and the U.S. State Department has asked what make and color of car will pick up Assange at the airport when he arrives. Why? "Dunno, we're just curious I guess..."
Stevelane,
Yes the Swedes could interviewed Assange in England. They could have changed their laws for his convenience. But they decided not to. Shame that...
On the other hand, he could have complied with the law of the country he said he wanted to become a citizen of. He could have avoided fleeing the country, but didn't. He could have complied with the European arrest warrant, but didn't. He could have complied with the court order, after he'd lost his appeal over the EAW. But didn't. He can come out of the embassy any time he likes and comply with the law, or he can sit in there and rot for the next umpteen years. Or as long as the Ecuadorian Ambassador wishes to put up with him anyway. It's his choice.
Ah yes, the Julian Assange we don't need meat space, do it online argument; first, Assange fled Sweden after his counsel informed him that the Swedish police wanted to interview Assange and charge him (that is to say, Assange has already fled a jurisdiction where his flesh is required), subject to the answers he gave; secondly, interviewing is always done on the territory of the body whose laws have allegedly been flouted, finally, non verbal behaviour is extremely important in interviews, which are a dynamic and flexible affair, and much of it is lost in video links, partly due to the resolution, partly due to the lag, and partly due to the size of the window; indeed, when people are interviewed the exude stress hormones that give them away.
For more on the interview process and the subtleties involved I recommend you read PACE.
Digital interviewing may be alright for geeks, but not for the legal process.
Downvoted because (as has been pointed out many times - including El Reg) Swedish law doesn't allow for extra-territorial questioning.
Dunno if anyone remembers, but a few years ago a US guy killed a girl here, and left her body in a car boot before flying off to the US. He was identified, we issued a warrant for his arrest, which translated into a request for extradition which a US court happily compiled with (he's now serving life in the UK).
Would you have been happy if instead of that, the US said "no, we won't extradite him, but feel free to pop over and ask a few questions" ?
is really a bit thin now. The US have made absolutely no legal moves to try and get Assange into the US. (Hot air doesn't count, btw).
*Even* if they should whip up an extradition request (which would require charges be laid, which they haven't), under the EAW, the *UK* would need to OK a further extradition from Sweden to the US.
That decision would be subject to the UK Supreme Court, under the HRA. Currently, the UK supreme court has bigger balls than Teresa May (passim). In fact, I suspect the last thing the UK *government* wants is for the US to request JAs extradition, and have the supreme court veto it.
JA knows all of this, and is supposedly an intelligent man. Therefore his motives for dodging the warrant are questionable, and appear to have a lot more to do with self aggrandisement, and fear of jail, than any possible "threat" from the US.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
