One Year Since Assange Took Refuge in Ecuadorian Embassy 541
Daniel_Stuckey writes with an article marking the one year anniversary of Julian Assange seeking asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy. From the article: "Uninterested in facing U.S. justice, Assange said he's prepared to spend five years living there. If he goes out for a walk, he'll be extradited to Sweden to answer rape accusations —after which he has no promise from Sweden to deny further extradition efforts to America, where a grand jury investigation into WikiLeaks awaits. This also means that London's Metropolitan Police have been devoting their resources to keeping tabs on Assange for a year. Yesterday, a spokesperson explained the updated costs of guarding the embassy over the phone: 'From July 2012 through May 2013, the full cost has been £3.8 million ($5,963,340),' he said. '£700,000 ($1,099,560) of which are additional, or overtime costs.'
Julian has a treadmill, a SAD lamp, and a connection to the Internet, through which he's been publishing small leaks and conducting interviews. The indoor lifestyle has taken its toll on Julian, and it led to his contracting a chronic lung condition last fall."
This is stupid (Score:5, Interesting)
Even in prison you are actually allowed to go outside. Presumably he prefers an internet connection to being able to see the sun? What he's got now is hardly better than it he was extradited to the USA and thrown in jail, except he doesn't get to be a martyr or fight a decent trial this way.
Re:Can't they get him out (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm pretty sure the limos are not considered part of the embassy. However, the diplomats themselves usually have diplomatic immunity. They could try to smuggle him out, but constant survelance makes that difficult.
Why can't they just appoint Assange a diplomat, travel to the host country, then strip him of diplomatic status?
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Can't they get him out (Score:5, Interesting)
According to international law he has the right as someone who has been granted asylum to be given free passage to Ecuador.
The problem is that for some reason our government seems to be placing law on bail conditions and Swedish law right up above fundamental globally established law on human rights and asylum that we've both signed up to and implemented.
God forbid someone desperate goes to the British embassy in a country where their life is genuinely in danger and is granted asylum because we've now created a precedent where they have absolutely no hope of getting out safely even if asylum granted. The same applies if say a British citizen finds themselves stuck in a nation that falls into chaos or similar for whatever reason and goes for asylum at a friendly embassy - why should that nation give safe free passage back home to a British citizen now given that we've flouted international law that we signed up to and implemented? We no longer have international credibility on issues like diplomatic protection and asylum because of this.
Re:Sweden is not, in fact, the US. (Score:5, Interesting)
many cases like this also end up as a political football, and it doesn't help that the girls who raised the allegations have previous history with the CIA.
something stinks, but nobody wants to talk about the smell.
Re:Sweden is not, in fact, the US. (Score:5, Interesting)
Sweden refused to have the workings of their legal system dictated to them by a fugitive?
I can't thing of many countries where that would wash.
"Wanted for questioning" and "fugitive" are not the same thing. Further, what he's "wanted for questioning" about isn't a crime in the United Kingdom (no, he's not been accused of "rape" in the traditional sense, he's been accused of continuing consensual intercourse after a condom broke after having agreeing to use one,) nor the US, nor most other countries on earth. And it gets better: A male is still liable for this "crime" even if neither party notices the break and neither party withdraws consent! The female can retroactively withdraw consent if she notices later the condom broke! 100% of all risk relating to consensual sex in Sweden is conferred onto the male by law, apparently.
It is too cute, by half, to suggest he's a "fugitive." An INTERPOL warrant was issued on a basis that has, historically never even once been used in the history of INTERPOL: That Assange is wanted for questioning over a misdemeanor crime. That he hasn't even been charged with.
That Sweden won't guarantee him safe passage (i.e. "We won't extradite you to the USA") you can surmise that extradition to the United States is the sole purpose of getting him to Sweden in the first place. If it wasn't, they'd have long since agreed just to end this stain on their reputation: Already most Europeans see them as a tool of the Americans. Ditto the UK. I mean, most people saw them that way before this, but this has only cemented that image in their minds.
And no, it isn't remotely uncommon for attorneys to set conditions for voluntary interviews with police. Or even involuntary ones... (i.e. "My client won't answer any questions unless he's unshackled and given some water to drink.")
Re:Can't they get him out (Score:5, Interesting)
Would you like to point to the precise, actual line which covers your assertion?
Yes, I am technically literate enough to google it, but *you* are the one who made the assertion without backing it up - so therefor, provide evidence to back your position up please.
Please show where a country is obligated to allow a person who has a valid arrest warrant outstanding to be allowed safe passage out of their jurisdiction. Go on, please do.
Re:seems like a waste of money (Score:5, Interesting)
Fascism actually seems like a centrist position at this point...
Re:Can't they get him out (Score:4, Interesting)
The State Department says otherwise (in certain situations). According to their own document:
Diplomatic Agents. Diplomatic agents enjoy the highest degree of privileges and immunities. They enjoy complete personal inviolability, which means that they may not be handcuffed (except in extraordinary circumstances), arrested, or detained; and neither their property (including vehicles) nor residences may be entered or searched. (emphasis mine)
This comes straight from their paper, Diplomatic and Consular Immunity: Guidance for Law Enforcement and Judicial Authorities found at this link [state.gov].
Re: seems like a waste of money (Score:5, Interesting)
But they cannot seem to GUARANTEE he will make it to said Swedish courtroom.
THAT is the telling thing. Sweden would not send an officer to claim him (and therefore put him into Swedish custody directly) they expect UK to put him on a plane and that plane to make it to Sweden.
Swedes claim there is "no paperwork" but seem awfully intent on him being on a UK plane. Where such paperwork will suddenly appear, but he will be unable to reach his Swedish lawyer to argue his case in SWEDISH court while he's bound and gagged to the USA.
Re:Can't they get him out (Score:4, Interesting)
"It might also harm your claim that Assange does not fall under the definition of a "refugee" under those very protocols that you mention."
Yes he does. Go learn what a political refugee is. Refugees aren't just poor black African people at risk of massacre by some butcher in their home country or whatever the hell you think the definition actually is. Risk of political persecution is very much one of the grounds under which someone can be granted asylum and that's the grounds he has been granted asylum on by the Ecuadorian government.
"Oh, and also, neither of those conventions or protocols require a country to ignore its own law with regard to actionable arrest warrants unrelated to refugee status - so even if he did fall under the definition, there is still nothing there which requires Britain to grant him passage out of the Ecuadorian embassy..."
Yes they do. International law trumps national law once you've signed up to it. If it didn't then dictators could make genocide legal whilst retaining their seats at the UN by not pulling out of the relevant treaties they'd signed up to because they'd be doing nothing wrong. Granting asylum is not something done on a whim, it's something granted by a country when it has a genuine belief that someone is at risk of persecution which is why it's used so sparingly worldwide. The whole reason for example that the European Court of Human Rights was created was because Hitler was persecuting the Jews and they had no one higher than their own government to turn to so post war the British authorities above all else realised it was essential to have such supra-national authorities. The relevant UN authorities were created with the same recognition.
Why don't you learn a bit more about the topic before making anymore of a fool of yourself by making shit up on the fly that just isn't true?
If you don't like Assange that's fine, just say that and stick to highlighting your opinion. No need to start making up stuff that is simply false as if that somehow bolsters your opinion and gives it credence. It doesn't to anyone other than those who already share your opinion that Assange is the anti-christ or whatever.
Re:seems like a waste of money (Score:5, Interesting)
The case should never have been reopened after the first prosecutor closed it, so yes, Assange should be let go. At least Anna Ardin should be tried for perjury, Marianne Ny should be tried for gross misconduct. Ardin, Ny, BorgstrÃm and Wilen should all be tried for conspiracy.
As for your insinuations, when a former High Court justice(High court being the highest instance of regular court in Sweden) STRONGLY talks, non-anonymously, about the case being without merit, and it is a woman too, it cannot be waved away, no matter if someone tries to claim sexism or "attempting to escape justice". The fact that one of the accusers, the defense lawyer and the prosecutor that re-opened the case are all activists(not just members, but active in policy making etc) in the same political party should have been an immediate cause for investigation of judicial integrity. The fact that the lawyer and prosecutor are personal friends should have raised a formal inquiry too. The fact that both the lawyer and prosecutor have a history of judicial scandals should have triggered a formal inquiry.
As it is, so many of the principles of the Swedish Judicial system have been violated that its integrity can not be restored without a total restructuring.
To reiterate the first comment:
The case should never have been re-opened, based on all the evidence that have come out.