Assange™ celebrates third year in Ecuadorian embassy broom closet It's now been three years since Julian Assange slipped into the Ecuadorian embassy claiming political asylum, and now the president of the Ecuador has said he's welcome to stay for the rest of his life if need be. Ecuador's president Rafael Correa said Assange hadn't overstayed his welcome, but that the situation could easily …
Jumping bail has a maximum penalty under most circumstances of a couple of months and it's usually revised vastly downwards from there. He'd be unlucky to get a week.
Breaching bail conditions most often gets a telling-off and "don't do it again"
Embarrassing the learned m'luds is not sufficient justification for imposing extra penalties.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-457471/Thousands-bail-jumpers-escape-jail-guidelines-weakened-ease-prisons.html
He will be sent to jail from anywhere between 3 months to one year. Additionally, there will be a monetary fine. Already the sureties have lost their money. That is the case for refusing to appear in court when summoned as Assange has.
For jumping bail the only result is bail conditions changed to ensure that the individual lives up to the bail condition. That is it is made more strict.
Its been so long...
Had he not fled in the first place, the max he could have faced would have been 4 years.
Most likely... he wouldn't have gotten that stiff a sentence.
Instead he fled.
Launched an appeal (2+ years) and then jumped bail hiding out for 3 years.
So when he gets ready to surrender. He'll go to trial. If found guilty, he'll probably face 4 yrs since he's such a prat. Then back to the UK for jumping bail. Not to mention he will not get any bail in Sweden or the UK in the future.
Time served only counts if in custody, and it doesn't matter: Assange believes the charges are part of a conspiracy, lead by the US, to discredit and imprison him for his role in disseminating classified information. I do not know if this is true, but it does sound plausible and the timing is certainly suspicious. He is concerned that if he went to Sweden for 'questioning' he would arrive to find a string of trumped-up charges sufficient to imprison him for decades, or else a convenient extradition request to the US where he could be disappeared into a secret prison for the rest of his life. He is avoiding trial because he does not believe it would be a fair trial.
Strangely he voluntirily was in Sweden to apply for a stay and work permitt when he was accussed of rape(minor). If Sweden is in league with the big devil - why did he go there in the first place?
And when running from the law - why of all european countries go to GB, Americas best ally? Why not back home to Australia, maybe via Frankfurt?
US involvement in what Assange did in Sweden doesn't sound plausible at all.
Did you listen to Assange's interviews with the press after he left Sweden? He basically admitted to being a 'ladies man' and to the allegations of sleeping with them. Had he faced the charges, many expected he would have gotten a sentence much less than the max, and been forced to leave the country.
But making this an US conspiracy made for good press so Assange could raise funds from the tin foil hat crowd.
And no, Assange would not have been rendered. In fact to this day... there hasn't been an arrest warrant even issued.
So lets get back to reality.
Assange was in Sweden looking for citizenship so that he could set up shop because Sweden would have offered him the most legal protection for him and Wikileaks. But he screwed that up.
The US can be patient....
but it does sound plausible
It's never at any point sounded plausible; claims are claims but the US and UK have a comprehensive extradition arrangement, and yes more comprehensive than any he would be in jeopardy over in Sweden. All the US has to do in the UK is say "we want z, because y" and he's essentially on a plane, no evidence needs to be presented.
It's been claimed many times that extraordinary renditions happen through UK bases that the US military is in possession of (the claims also state this happened with the full complicity of the British government), if Assange is concerned about anything related you don't come to the UK.
Probably been asked before, but what's stopping them making him a diplomat to give him immunity? I have no care what he does really, but I think he should just walk out of there and get it over with. I'm sure much of the fear he has of being shipped off to the US from Sweden is in his head.
No I don't because I've never been on the wrong end of them. At the end of the day he did something to piss them off and in some people's views put many lives at risk by what he helped to do. Of course they want to try him and punish him for it, whether they are right to or not is not what I was getting into with my comment. What I do know is sometimes what people fear is nowhere near the reality.
> in some people's views put many lives at risk
Do you realise that is pure propaganda?
People have *claimed* that he "put lives at risk", but that doesn't mean those are their views. It's just their job to say that in order to try and steer public opinion towards one particular stance--they don't actually mean it anymore than you do when you say "I'm fine, thanks" in response to a polite query about your state of wellbeing.
I suspect this is not news to you, but I thought it would be of interest to point it out anyhow. :-)
Ecuador cannot simply give Assange diplomatic immunity. Ecuador would need to make a formal request to Britain for diplomatic immunity to be given to Assange.
This is how diplomatic immunity works. The host country must agree to extend the immunity to a person.
I know this because I have a friend who used to work for the UK government who was given diplomatic immunity for a visit to the USA.
"Probably been asked before, but what's stopping them making him a diplomat to give him immunity?"
Everything. Apart from the fact that he is on the run as a wanted criminal - he's skipped bail - the list of accredited diplomats has to be presented to the British and is assessed and passed by St James' court. Everything to stop this transparent ploy.
Probably been asked before, but what's stopping them making him a diplomat to give him immunity?
First, being a diplomat does not grant someone blanket immunity. A diplomat can get away with, say, parking tickets and idle misdemeanors. Only in the movies are diplomats immune from a felony charge, subpoena, or extradition order.
Second, a diplomat has to be accepted by the host country. Making AssangeTM a diplomat would be an obvious and blatant attempt to exploit the system to avoid prosecution. Such behavior can result in Ecuador's representatives losing diplomatic status in many of their embassies around the world.
Face it - Obama wants Assange's ass and he's going to get it.
Seriously WTF are you babbling about.
1) The US has nothing to do with this.
2) Assuming Assange were to become a diplomat for Ecuador tomorrow.
The criminal act happened before he was a diplomat so he'd still face trial.
3) The diplomat status would have to be granted by the host country. (Going from memory)
AC, I was asking a genuine question. Hardly babbling. You're such a nice guy aren't you. As for nothing to do with the US, it has everything to do with the US why he is holed up in there. So I could ask you what you're babbling about. The rest of your comment, you at least try to answer the question without malice so thanks for that.
Probably been asked before, but what's stopping them making him a diplomat to give him immunity?
There's actually quite a list of reasons:
- he does not have the right nationality
- he has no official function for Ecuador
- even if the two conditions above were met, protocol requires that a diplomat has to be accepted as such by the host nation, which is not going to happen in the UK
There is also the issue that after the abuse by the Libyans of diplomatic protocol, the UK has restrictions in place when it comes to what diplomats can get away with.
In short: the diplomatic route doesn't exist, and frankly, I am astonished that the ambassador even talks about immunity for a criminal. Clearly his judgement and knowledge of diplomatic protocol has worn off after being exposed to too much Assangisms. In addition, there is a vast difference between voluntary submitting yourself to being stuffed with Ferrero Rocher and being made someone biatch in prison, so the claim that Assange has served any sentence already is unadulterated BS.
IMHO, it's the Assange approach to making a a grave mistake: not admitting to it and BS-ing for all its worth to cover it up, even though there isn't a hope in hell anyone will even remotely believe it.
The Saudi Cables: Over half a million cables and other documents from the Saudi Foreign Ministry
Maybe it will at least cause Mr. Hope & Change to stop playing Al Qaeda's Air Force in Yemen (I suppose to buy Saudi assent to pump the oil like crazy to keep prices down to punish Putin for "eastern aggression" which contrary to US "southern aggression" is totally not okay; loss of face over Syria may be involved too. The dark-skinned listening one is very thin-skinned.)
Trying to work this out. A constable's pay is roughly £30,000 with London allowance. So you can get 366 constable-years for his £11 million, or more if you outsource to Group 4 (watching a door hardly needs a fully attested constable).
Methinks there may be some creative accounting going on.
A constable's pay is roughly £30,000 with London allowance. So you can get 366 constable-years for his £11 million
You need to tag on employers NI, and an additional 50% for the pension rights (no, really, 50% due to the spousal payouts).
Methinks there may be some creative accounting going on.
I think so too, just not as much as you think there is.
British courts take a dim view of running off when on bail as coming under the same line as contempt of court. In essence release on bail was Assange saying he wouldn't run off if let out and here was several thousand quiz as a sign of his commitment. To then fuck off because the plod was going to call for him looks much the same as outright lying in court. And look where that got a granny and her partner last week.
British courts may take a dim view of bail jumping, but would they spend millions of pounds to guard the embassy if you or I was dodging rape charges in Sweden? I doubt it - they'd tell Sweden "we have facial recognition all over London and at all border crossings, if he leaves don't worry we'll find him".
Surely a similar thing has happened before with a foreigner hiding out in their own country's embassy to avoid facing charges in a British court? Did they watch that embassy around the clock as well?
The UK would not spend millions of pounds waiting for you to exit because you would have been kicked out of the embassy as soon as the police requested you surrender.This is the same for other people. If the police want a suspect they would be waiting for the individual to surrender just like Assange.
Hmmm... All those cameras there. What would a few more of those clay? If there not already present? But he might get away then? Me thinks efforts being expended speak poorly to the quality of justice he would recieve. Politics.
Taking a position based on him jumping bail implies a moral high ground found on this thread but absent among highest levels.
"British courts may take a dim view of bail jumping, but would they spend millions of pounds to guard the embassy if you or I was dodging rape charges in Sweden?"
If you or I were popping up on local news with press conferences every month or so to show off how we were jumping bail, I think they would show an interest, yes. Most bail jumpers don't do that.
I've not forgotten a certain YouTube video called "collateral murder". I've not forgotten that killers often go unpunished but the tellers go to jail. I've not forgotten that fabricated sex charges are a favourite tool of some bureaucrats. There is still much bad theatre here. Who and what delayed the Swedes?
If Julian Assange like Pinochet was able to demonstrate his rights would be violated his extradition to Sweden would have been denied. There are high profile cases where people extradition to the US has been denied for that exact reason, including an individual that has admitted the allegations are true.
> If Julian Assange like Pinochet was able to demonstrate his rights would be violated
Erm... Pinochet was allowed to fly home by a personal decision of then home secretary, Mr Jack Straw, and against both previous decisions by the courts and the wishes of Parliament. His claim, that he enjoyed immunity as a former head of state, was thoroughly rejected by the House of Lords.
I should like to remind you, by the way, that he had been charged with crimes against humanity, including numerous counts of torture and murder.
It has been reported that it was about 20 people. That is not a lot of people. The thing for certain now is Assange will remain in the embassy until Correa leaves office or Correa finds no use of keeping Assange.
It is hard to understand Assange's reasoning. He has yet to produce anything that would secure his freedom. He also fails to accept that if the woman really believe that they were harmed that they will wait him out while living their lives.
That will be a long time and only continue to hurt his image.
"He also fails to accept that if the woman really believe that they were harmed"
I'm not so sure they they do. They were openly happy to be associated with him and only went to the police for advice after they got talking to each other and found he was shagging both at the same time.
It's not entirely clear that they actually filed complaints, given that the case was passed in as lacking evidence and then reactivated by order of a swedish govt minister who clearly has an axe to grind with him.
Just a thought... Ecuador isn't likely to be doing this purely from a sense of international justice or human interest, so what are they getting, or likely to be getting from this? It's not going to be especially expensive for Ecuador to home them in their embassy, because realistically he's less than a drain than a convicted criminal in a jail and he just has food, clothing and likely a few pieces of tech. However this compares very spectacularly with the reported millions "wasted" on posting police and security around the Ecuadorian embassy 24x7 just in case he decides to try and leave or an attempt is made to smuggle him out.
"The Embassy is getting a platinum level of security"
Not just the embassy. The entire area is.
It's worth bearing in mind that even without the visible coppers around embassies there are a lot of armed police in these areas ar all times. The Diplomatic Protection Squad is expensive to run and I suspect that having a couple of cheap bobbies standing outside one embassy is simply a way of being able to push wider operational costs onto one high profile task.
Maybe it is a sense of international justice. Or it might be publicity - standing up for a popular individual on the run from the oppressive US makes them look good to a lot of people. Or perhaps he is a bargaining chip for future use - if they ever need a low-level concession during some negotiations with the UK, the US or Sweden, they can offer him up in return.
This is a high profile case. The fact that Assange seems to love his publicity doesn't help. My sense is that the police are there for two reasons:
1) to pick him up if and when he comes out.
2) to protect the embassy and him.
If they weren't there and he walked out, where's he going to go? Anywhere he lands, he'll pop up in the news again if nothing else to make some pronouncement about another leak being published. If he doesn't want to be tracked and found, he has to be very quiet.
Also, if the police weren't there, there are those who would probably try to do him harm. He's angered a lot of people over the years and I'm sure someone would try with possible death or injury to embassy personnel.
So yes, this is a win-win for Julian. He's safe and secure from those against him and he has ready made soapbox for whenever he wishes to say something.
This post has been deleted by its author
Versus the very real possibility of being sent off on a CIA rendition flight straight to the USA where armed agents will be waiting with open arms to march him off somewhere secret, never to be seen again for waterboarding enhanced interrogation tactics and permanent confinement?
Enhanced Interrogation techniques were used to extract information out of suspects of crimes or people associated with a specific criminal organizations. Such techniques are a violation of an individuals rights. All those individuals were not sent to the US for the obvious reason. All where under the direct jurisdiction of the countries that they were arrested in. There is no possibility that Assange will be sent to the US an extradition request approved by courts in both Sweden and the UK.
There is no possibility that Assange will be sent to the US an extradition request approved by courts in both Sweden and the UK.
Have you got any evidence to collaborate that? Thought not.
Why would they need an extradition request when they just use extraordinary rendition.. /facepalm
Why would they need an extradition request when they just use extraordinary rendition.. /facepalm
Why would they go that route? Even if that had been the plan at the outset, every day that Assange has been in that embassy has been a little more rope toward his noose.
Say Assange gives up, goes to Sweden, get's a slap on the wrist, followed by a stern talking to here for being a bailjumper, then nothing. What does the rest of the world then assume about the guy who's been swearing blind it's a US plot against him?
He's been very vocal from the outset, and even if he was right initially, he's given the US all the tools they need to destroy his credibility (who'd trust a crank leaker?).
And that's assuming you even believed his claims in the first place.
Say Assange gives up, goes to Sweden, get's a slap on the wrist, followed by a stern talking to here for being a bailjumper, then nothing.
How do you even know that given the underhanded nature of the US? I wouldn't trust them either given their recent history toward similar people..
But following on from what you posted
What does the rest of the world then assume about the guy who's been swearing blind it's a US plot against him?
The world would assume he's just another raving idiot who doesn't like justice, which isn't far from the truth already, but that wasn't how I and others see it because of the USA angle, even if he is an attention whore.
Why would they need an extradition request when they just use extraordinary rendition.. /facepalm
Don't be paranoid about this... It's logical they won't use "extraordinary rendition" to make him disappear. He's very high profile. If he disappeared, there would be too much probring from supporters/press/etc.
You have no proof that it will not go through the courts. We have already seen Julian Assange being granted the opportunity to challenge an extradition request through the courts.
Sweden has entered into an international agreement with the UK that requires approval from the UK for any further extradition. That what the EAW is. Every individual who was a victim of "extraordinary rendition" was under the jurisdiction of the state that where "rendered" from.
Sorry, but any extradition of Assange has to go through the courts. Next time wait for an answer.
"Enhanced Interrogation techniques were used to extract information out of suspects of crimes or people associated with a specific criminal organizations. "
In every single case, EIT gained no extra useful intelligence than had already been offered freely. People will confess to anything they think the interrogator wants when under torture, simply to make it stop, up to and including confessing to being the central planner behind the JFK conspiracy even if they weren't even born then.
> I'm surprised the CIA didn't rig the Feb 2013 Ecuador elections to put in their candidate
Outside of Hollywood, the CIA are spectacularly inefficient and incompetent, even by usual civil service standards.
The best they could do in their inglorious history was the clumsy, heavy-handed, and ultimately unsuccessful toppling of democratically elected governments in Latin America. Political opinions aside, that's not exactly the sort of thing I would be proud to have on my CV.
"The best they could do in their inglorious history was the clumsy, heavy-handed, and ultimately unsuccessful toppling of democratically elected governments in Latin America."
and Australia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis
If the Swedes actually do believe in Justice, after 4 years - one year more, they should simply declare him guilty, declare 'time served in full' and cancel the extradition order. Petty, vindictive and wasteful of resources is how it looks. The reasonable man test says there is something else going on, and that British justice is looking crook and bent.
This post has been deleted by its author
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
