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."
seems like a waste of money (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why bother guarding the embassy?
In this case I think that is a very good question. If they put up a reward for a tenth of what they've paid on guarding him, send posters round the area, then he would not get far if he got out. Its not like he's a Muslim terrorist who will exit in a burka and plant bombs when he gets out.
Re:seems like a waste of money (Score:5, Insightful)
No it's worse than that, he posted some text on the internet!
Re:seems like a waste of money (Score:5, Informative)
How can he be accused of rape, exactly, when both women have been quoted in interviews, stating that they were NOT raped?
"Oh, no officer, he didn't rape me."
"Your honor, I'm asking that you sign a warrant of arrest for rape, because the witness states that she has not been raped."
Re:seems like a waste of money (Score:5, Insightful)
No he's not. He's wanted for questioning. There's a distinct difference.
If he was officially accused of rape - i.e. if there was enough evidence to accuse him then the Swedish authorities would've decided to prosecute and ask for extradition based on that prosecution, instead they just want to get him to Sweden merely to "question" him, even though as the Ecuadorian authorities have pointed out there's no reason they couldn't do this at the embassy if it's necessary before pressing charges because they've done this before in other cases so it's perfectly possible under Swedish law.
Which is really what makes it all so odd, if there's so much certainty he committed rape, why not just press charges and issue a warrant based on that? Why pull him all the way to another country merely to just ask a few questions? He even offered to go to them and do this at the Swedish embassy in London for a while prior to seeking asylum.
Really if the rape charges are legit and he desperately needs to answer them this question could be resolved way more cheaply than funding this ongoing saga. Flying a couple of officers to the UK or using some possibly already present in the Swedish embassy would cost next to nothing just to question. Then once they've question if they want to press charges they can, and Assange's case is suddenly greatly weakened. The fact they're unwilling to spend next to nothing to backup their assertions is quite telling.
You don't spend $3.8million guarding an embassy and then millions more in politician, advisor, lawyer and additional police wages just to ask some questions. There's much more to it than that.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Right and that's fine, but what's to stop them questioning him still in the embassy to get to that point?
They have a perfectly trivial cheap and easy option to strengthen their case but for some obscure reason they want to avoid it.
The most likely reason they want to avoid it is because they know their case has no merit and what they're really actually interested in is just getting him to Sweden where they have also refused to give a guarantee that they wont send him on to the US with or without Britain's b
Re: (Score:3)
This excuse has come up before but it was debunked when Assange was granted asylum as the Ecuadorian authorities explicitly addressed it pointing out that the excuse is invalid given that Sweden has done exactly what they are requesting in other cases in the past.
In other words it's a made up excuse by his detractors that has no actual basis in reality. If they've done it in the past they can do it in this case.
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:3)
Even if it was -actual- rape, and not just a technicality of the terms, this would still be way out of line. There's got to be more going on than just questioning over rape charges.
We all see the elephant in the room, but the elephant seems to think he's invisible.
Re: (Score:3)
Full details here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange [wikipedia.org]
The rape charges are a bit tenuous.
Firstly, they started with consensual sex.
Secondly, some of the females changed their accusations.
In one of the two cases, the "rape" charge based on not using a condom was found to actually be that the condom broke during consensual sex.
To quote the meat:
An extradition hearing took place on 7â"8 and 11 February 2011 before the City of Westminster Magistrates' Court.[260][261] At the hearing, Assange's defen
Re: (Score:3)
He lost because the U.S. government has it's hand so far up Sweden's ass that the U.S. are poking their fingers in Sweden's mouth and controlling what they say.
I'm a U.S. citizen and it's shameful to me. I'm embarrassed for Sweden.
Re:seems like a waste of money (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, in this case, it is justified to berate the women.
Anna Ardin made boasts about having sex with Julian on Twitter, tweets that were later deleted.
Sofia Wilen sent SMS's to a friend stating that she was half asleep when one sex act occured.
In statements to prosecutors, Anna Ardin gave in total 5 different versions of events. Sofia Wilen gave in total 3 different versions, one of them being that she was fully asleep, and was awakened by Assange having sex with her. The original prosecutor dropped the case, because she could establish no credibility to the claims made by the women. Then Marianne Ny, a well-known ultra-feminist manhater, who has a track record of not only prosecuting men just for being men, but also for destroying evidence that proves their innocence, and, when higher courts clear their names, she insists that they have not been cleared, in media campaigns.
The defense laywer for both women was a well-known politically motivated person with previous shady dealings with courts and prosecutors(Famous for the Quick case mishandling for example), namely Claes BorgstrÃm. He's also a close personal friend of Marianne Ny. Anna Ardin, BorgstrÃm and Marianne Ny are all activist members of the same politcal party, a party known for extra-legal maneuverings.
Here's the kicker: The last statement by both women, made when Marianne Ny had taken over, suddenly had the events match exactly.... From previously being totally incoherent and unsubstantiated due to evidence to the contrary, to coordinated and coherent, with important evidence to the contrary suddenly not taken into account.
One of the women, Sofia Wilen, refused to sign her statement in the end, and later on said she felt railroaded into making a particular statement.
A rather famous old guard swedish feminist, of the old and respectable "Equality means equal rights, but also equal responsibilities" philosophy, who also happens to be a journalist, has looked through the case, including all the testimonies, and she's highlighted a lot of inconsistencies. A former High Court judge, also a woman, classes it as a "case with questionable validity, driven by political demand".
Marianne Ny in march retreated from being the actual prosecutor in the case, but she will still be the leader of the group handling the case.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:Not Legitimate Rape! (Score:5, Funny)
That's because their bodies shut down, preventing pregnancy. That's how it works.
Re: (Score:3)
Sure but it is unusual in the extreme to face extradition to answer those questions or for a completely different nation to spend millions attempting to seize you for that extradition or to battle the embassy of another nation that is granting you asylum.
Even if he had been convicted of rape, in the UK, and escaped to seek asylum in the embassy it is highly unlikely the police would actively guard the place. Police only expend that kind of effor
Re: (Score:3)
Advocates for Assange understand everything except why he should be treated the same as the vast majority of people that go before the Swedish legal system.
If they are going to try him they have to charge him. To charge him they have to question him. If they go to the UK to question him, which will cost and waste money, time, and paperwork, and then charge him, he will still be in the embassy, only on charges not questioning. Nothing really changes. Assange will still be in the embassy. Assange's advoca
Re: (Score:3)
More likely the issue is that if they charged him they would be obligated to make him answer for those Swedish charges before extradition to the US.
Re: (Score:3)
"Its not like he's a Muslim terrorist"
Or, you know, any other bomb-wielding terrorist?
Re:seems like a waste of money (Score:4, Insightful)
And the left is abusing it just as much if not moreso than the right. So get off your high partisan horse and see the nation for what it really is.
Re: (Score:3)
LOL "the left". You meant that the right is abusing it just as much as the other right is.
Re:seems like a waste of money (Score:5, Interesting)
Fascism actually seems like a centrist position at this point...
Re: (Score:2)
But whoever is doing the guarding would have to have arrest powers so that he's not in the air on his way to Ecuador by the time they can notify the police and get someone out there.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They're getting paid anyways, the question is where they could be used better resource wise is the issue.
Consider the alternative. (Score:3, Insightful)
If Assange comes out, he'll be arrested and jailed. He won't be in general population, so the cost of guarding him will not be $28k per year. He'll be isolated and placed on suicide watch, increasing the cost considerably. His lung condition will have to be treated.
The current situation suits "The Government" very well: he's isolated, he's got little access to specialized medical treatment and the cost of keeping him in there is equal, if not smaller that having him go to jail and on trial.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
How much additional money is actually being spent? Is this much more expensive than the costs associated with incarcerating Assange for up to 5 years?
Seems much quicker and cheaper to let Assange impose his own 5 year sentence.
But he's a rapist, like Dominique Strauss Kahn!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Lots of people turn to raping after making speeches [guardian.co.uk] criticizing the primacy of the U.S. dollar, or revealing U.S. top secret documents. Hell, it wouldn't surprise me if Edward Snowden weren't considering raping some poor women right now, or molesting kids, or selling secrets to the Chinese, or kicking puppies.
Re:But he's a rapist, like Dominique Strauss Kahn! (Score:5, Insightful)
Lots of people turn to raping after making speeches criticizing the primacy of the U.S. dollar, or revealing U.S. top secret documents. Hell, it wouldn't surprise me if Edward Snowden weren't considering raping some poor women right now, or molesting kids, or selling secrets to the Chinese, or kicking puppies.
In politics that if you can't attack the message, you attack the messenger. The United States has several organizations dedicated to discrediting people who come forward with allegations of impropriety against the government. It is a standard tactic used by many governments; Distributing disinformation is a time-honored military and political strategy.
And it is very effective. Just look at this thread: Some people have been completely taken in by it and the discussion now revolves not around the correctness of whistle blowing, or whether society benefits from an organization like wikileaks, or if what the government was exposed in having done was right or wrong... the entire discussion now centers largely on Julian.
Re: (Score:3)
And it is very effective. Just look at this thread: Some people have been completely taken in by it and the discussion now revolves not around the correctness of whistle blowing, or whether society benefits from an organization like wikileaks, or if what the government was exposed in having done was right or wrong... the entire discussion now centers largely on Julian.
Well, maybe because TFA is about Julian, and not about Wikileaks, or whistle blowing or government wrong-doing. I'd say it is you who are the one conflating the person with the deed right now. But then again, I guess that proves your point as well, in a way.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, maybe because TFA is about Julian, and not about Wikileaks, or whistle blowing or government wrong-doing. I'd say it is you who are the one conflating the person with the deed right now. But then again, I guess that proves your point as well, in a way.
An irony not lost on me, I assure you.
HI JULIAN (Score:5, Funny)
Re:HI JULIAN (Score:5, Funny)
We know you read Slashdot. You're a geek who can't go outside, so you've gotta be here. Come on and say hi to us already.
Nice try, NSA!
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: (Score:2)
except he doesn't get to be a martyr
I hear that's overrated. :p
Re:This is stupid (Score:5, Informative)
At least now he has contact with the outside world. In a US prison he'd most certainly be held in isolation and maybe, just maybe, allowed to see his lawyer.
Re:This is stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
oh good a rape joke, very classy
A joke like our "corrections" system, classy like a prison system which very much does include rape.
He won't need to wait 5 years (Score:3)
One of two bad things will happen:
1. The US's influence over the world will implode
2. The US's influence over the world will be "something something something 'DarkSide' something something something 'Complete!'"
What happens next should be obvious. Personally, I hope US influence implodes -- we need freedom and democracy again.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:at what point do we stop kidding ourselves. (Score:5, Insightful)
Do note that the executed citizens were promoting terrorist activities against the USA from countries unable to arrest them. Had these people surrendered themselves they would have been brought to trial.
Its true because someone in the government said so? So we can kill them. Based on just that.
We know he was a terrorist because he had a trial? Where the prosecution and defense made there case and a jury agreed he was guilty? No. We didn't do any of that. So we don't know he was terrorist.
Next you'll be saying why bother with a trial for murderers? The prosecution wouldn't be after them if they weren't murderers. We don't need checks and balances. If the prosecution just decides someone is guilty, that's good enough for you right?
Why would the prosecution lie? That would never happen. Could they make a mistake? Surely not!
Bradley Manning on the other hand I have nothing but contempt for and whatever sentence he gets will not be sufficient to satisfy me that he's been punished for what he did.
Nothing but contempt for a person who did what he believed was right, who took tremendous personal risks, and knew what the penalties would be, but carried on because of his conscious? That's the man you have nothing but contempt for?
He is not a bad person, nor a corrupt one. He was merely wrong. In a world full of truly evil and corrupt people seeking personal power, and to erode our freedom... here's a guy who genuinely wants to do the right thing. And you can't punish him enough?
The guy deserves a light sentence. He is not the enemy of america.
You, however, might be. With your acceptence of a transformed america where the government decides which citizens are guilty without trials, and then kills them with drones.
Re: (Score:3)
Well duh, of course the Swedish government has a legal justification why it's impossible to talk to him there. But this is a post-hoc justification, and not a very good one (this may come as a surprise to you, but quite a lot of legal theories don't hold up under closer examination).
Sweden can and has interviewed people under similar circumstances. They've even basically conceded elsewhere that it is about maintaining face.
wait, what? (Score:2)
Indoor geeks need vitamin D supplements! (Score:4, Informative)
unless they have a contraindication like sarcoidosis: http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/about-vitamin-d/ [vitamindcouncil.org]
Humans are adapted to live in the sunshine. The US RDA for vitamin D is way too low for most adults, especially ones who spend most of their time indoors these days (which is most everyone in the USA): http://www.grassrootshealth.net/recommendation [grassrootshealth.net]
It's not surprise Assange has lung issues if he has become vitamin D deficient: http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health-conditions/pneumonia/ [vitamindcouncil.org]
If you have allergies, look into adding more phytonutrients to your diet along with the vitamin D.
http://www.drfuhrman.com/disease/Other.aspx [drfuhrman.com]
"If allergies are the problem, have you ever thought why your immune system is so sensitive and reactive to normal environmental substances?
Patients often state, “I struggled for years with pain and fatigue, until I finally found out fibromyalgia was my problem.” Does giving it a name establish a cause? Of course not. If you give the problem a name, patients may feel a little relieved that they now know what is wrong, but it usually does not help or solve their condition. The accuracy of the diagnosis is not as important when compared to the accuracy and effectiveness of the therapeutic recommendations for the problem.
On a practical level, the name of a disease doesn’t even matter that much. It is uncovering the cause of the disease that matters. When most of the causes are uncovered and removed, the body can manifest a recovery, all by itself. Most people are not taught, and they fail to realize that the vast majority of diseases occur because they are earned. They are earned by the causes of disease that stress their body to the point where their genetic weaknesses have a chance to be expressed."
The more important question is... (Score:3)
How much is this costing Ecuador and how long are they willing to host Assange?
Re:The more important question is... (Score:5, Funny)
How much is this costing Ecuador and how long are they willing to host Assange?
three extra meals a day $50
extra laundry bills $10 a day
limitless internet $100 a month
Annoying America - Priceless!
Re:The more important question is... (Score:5, Funny)
A. Not your concern.
B. At least as long as it gets Slashdot topics.
Re:Can't they get him out (Score:5, Informative)
No. The standard embassy deal covers only embassy ground and certain agreed-upon diplomatic staff (ie, if war breaks out, both sides agree to let the ambassadors for the other go home safely). Assange is not diplomatic staff, and thus cannot be transported. Even if he was, good luck getting clearance to fly. Right now the situation is stalemate: Assange cannot leave, and the UK government cannot enter.
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: (Score:3, Informative)
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.
Sorry, my mistake, I thought people on Slashdot would all be technically literate enough to use the internet and Google it. The UK is signatory to and has implemented all of these, in fact, it helped write most of them.
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:Can't they get him out (Score:5, Informative)
It might also harm your claim that Assange does not fall under the definition of a "refugee" under those very protocols that you mention.
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...
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: Can't they get him out (Score:4, Insightful)
Because if the Brits storm Ecuador's embassy, their own embassies hold no status not to be taken over to unlock the asylum granted people inside. Im sure there are some ugly countries that would love an excuse to knock down their local UK embassy.
Re: (Score:3)
Well that's absolutely a fair argument in practice there's very little that good be done.
The only thing I will say is such actions are what have scraped away and weakened American and British credibility on the international stage in the last decade or so though. Things like throwing torture laws out the window, arbitrarily going to war without international legal support, doing away with fair trials with guantanamo, and extraordinary rendition. All these things have chipped away at Anglo-American political
Re:Can't they get him out (Score:5, Informative)
In order to qualify for diplomatic immunity, you have to present your credentials to the host country and have them accepted.
I expect the British government would absolutely love for Assange to try that, as he'd have to come out the embassy to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure but if status of an ambassador is refused or revoked the normal etiquette is to send them back to the country from which they were supposedly an ambassador, not arrest them.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps, but as he would have to leave the embassy and make it to Buckingham Palace to present those credentials, and he'll be arrested the moment he sets foot on the pavement, it won't ever reach the point where his credentials are refused.
Re:Can't they get him out (Score:5, Funny)
What could the UK authorities do if Ecuador declared Assange to be an ambassador?
I think Assange would be the last person on earth they'd trust with state secrets.
Re: (Score:2)
The larger problem for Assange is a change in government in Ecuador. Ecuador has not had a stable presidency for some time. Correa is liked right now, but if that changes, he could find himself in the embassy of a US-friendly government. Go back 10 years and Ecuador would have handed him over in a heartbeat.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Can't they get him out (Score:5, Funny)
use a ladder between the steps and the car door so you're not touching the ground?
Couldn't they then claim he was violating their airspace and shoot him down?
Re: (Score:2)
Getting into a limo would be possible. What would he do after that? If they see him go in, and he leaves the embasy, the Brittish can pull over the limo. Even if they don't he has to leave the country somehow, and they control all the exits
Re: (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?
Re: (Score:3)
Accusing foreign nationals of rape in order to facilitate extradition to a third-party nation is also considered poor form.
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: (Score:3)
Re:Sweden is not, in fact, the US. (Score:5, Informative)
Last I checked he was willing to go to sweden for the questioning (no charges have been put forward at all to my knowledge yet) so long as he had a guarantee to not be extradited to the US while there.
Sweden refused.
If I were him I'd take that as intent to ship him off after he gets there.
Re:Sweden is not, in fact, the US. (Score:5, Informative)
Sweden CAN guarantee that. (Score:5, Informative)
Extradition has to be OK'd by the foreign minister (in the case of foreign nationals in the country). And they have questioned putative murderers by going there and asking them questions. Yet in this case, they say they can't ask him questions unless they have him on their soverein ground.
Why the sudden inability?
THAT is why his worries are NOT paranoia: they are blatantly out to get him, by hook or by crook.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
A more relevant example would be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_and_Muhammad_al-Zery [wikipedia.org] which details Swedens participation in illegal rendition to torturing countries, an act clearly illegal both in treaties Sweden is a signatory to and in Swedish law. Unsurprisingly, nobody has been held accountable.
Sweden cannot be trusted with human rights as it takes nothing more than the right opportunity for brownnosing for its politicians to ignore the law.
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: (Score:3)
He skipped bail. He's a fugitive.
Re: (Score:3)
He skipped bail. He's a fugitive.
How, exactly, does one "skip bail" on a case that was already closed and wasn't re-opened until after he left the country?
Not true - blatant misstatement of facts (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Sorry, that's simply not true. Regardless of whether you believe Assange is innocent or guilty, he has been accused of: [guardian.co.uk] (i) forcefully holding down a woman and spreading her legs in order to penetrate her against her will; and (ii) non-consensual sex with a sleeping person who had explicitly told him no.
Now, you're free to disagree with both those allegations, free to accuse the entire justice department of Sweden of slander or whatnot, but you're not free to lie about what the accusations are or whether they're considered crimes.
Fugitive [Re:Sweden is not, in fact, the US.] (Score:5, Informative)
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.
True. He is both wanted for questioning and a fugitive.
Further, what he's "wanted for questioning" about isn't a crime in the United Kingdom
Actually, it is. More particularly, though, he agreed to present himself to British Justice system on request-- that was a condition of his bail-- and, instead, he skipped out. So now he is a fugitive from justice in both Britain and Sweden.
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.
You can assume no such thing. In general, legal systems don't do negotiations with people wanted for questioning. Assange has come up with a continuously changing list of excuses why he doesn't want to go to Sweden to answer questions about rape charges, and the excuses evolve to fit whatever he seems to think will best please the audience. Since he could end up facing rape charges, one can see why he might want to not visit the police in Sweden. Possibly he should go to Switzerland, where he could join Roman Polanski, also fugitive from rape charges.
Re: (Score:3)
well all that should be just technicalities now since he's got asylum from ecuador..
the whole point for the safe passage clause was exactly the kind of situation where the person is under legal threats on the soil he needs passage through. exactly that. nothing else. just this exact kind of situation(illegal threats, like an angry mob, could only be met with force in the first place). so for uk it matters nothing, so have fun trying to get north korean defectors out of embassies in china now if china says t
Fugitive from justice (Score:3, Informative)
Fugitive implies guilt.
No it does not. Buy a dictionary.
He posted 240,000 pounds as bail, and as conditions of his release, agreed to turn over his passport, wear a GPS tracking device, visit police once daily, and agreed to a 10 p.m curfew.
He skipped out on the bail (and in doing so, forfeitting about half a million dollars put up on his behalf by people who trusted him). He's a fugitive, by definition.
Re: (Score:3)
He skipped out when he realized that any pretense that he was going to get a fair trial, or even fair hearing, was a fucking joke. I could have saved him some money and told him that at the beginning. At least Edward Snowden has learned a valuable lesson in that regard.
Re: (Score:2)
He says that if he's sent to Sweden, Sweden will extradite him to the U.S.. There's no actual evidence for that, and no real reason to believe it.
Assange stated repeated times that we would face the justice in Sweden in case Sweden let clear that Assange wouldn't be extradited to the USA. Sweden refused to grant that.
Re:Sweden is not, in fact, the US. (Score:5, Informative)
There's no real evidence that requires him to be extradited to Sweden. This was all hashed out last year. There's no evidence and noone is pressing charges. There were no charges pending when he left Sweden, long after the alleged incident happened. A prosecuter decided to open a closed case with no new evidence and no victim and demanded Assange show up in person for questioning.
If he wasn't wanted in the US, there's no reason for Sweden or Great Britain to go to the lengths they've gone to or to spend the money they've spent.
Re: (Score:3)
Except if you have your head out of your ass in any way, shape or form.
There are no "rape" charges. They did reopen a previously closed case where he was accused of sexual impropriety involving the use of a condom.
Re:Sweden is not, in fact, the US. (Score:4, Insightful)
"Uninterested in facing U.S. justice..."
I do want to point out that Assange is not facing U.S. justice. What he is "uninterested in facing" is a return to Sweden to be questioned on rape charges.
He says that if he's sent to Sweden, Sweden will extradite him to the U.S.. There's no actual evidence for that, and no real reason to believe it.
Considering the rape charges magically appeared after he was identified as a US VIP (Very Interrogate-able Person), the writing on the wall certainly indicates his stay in Sweden would be rather short indeed.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Ah yes, the old "extradite from the UK to Sweden so we can extradite you from Sweden to the US, even though we have an extradition treaty with the UK" maneuver-- creating red tape for no other reason than that we can.
A little tried, but much feared legal gambit.
Re:Sweden is not, in fact, the US. (Score:5, Informative)
He says that if he's sent to Sweden, Sweden will extradite him to the U.S.. There's no actual evidence for that, and no real reason to believe it.
Sweden has handed over suspects to the CIA for torture before.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Agiza_and_Muhammad_al-Zery [wikipedia.org]
When is a duck not a duck? (Score:3)
We identify things by both their characteristics and their context.
For example, if something looks like a duck we are tempted to say that it's a duck, and without regard to context that's the most likely explanation.
But then consider the context: If the context doesn't match, we change our assessment accordingly. If it's on top of a mountain, we think it's a rock that resembles a duck. In a store window, we think it's a stuffed-doll resembling a duck. If it's in the MIT swimming pool, we think it's a robot
Re: (Score:2)
I think that's the biggest issue I have with it all. He was reasonably bailed and took the piss out of us by not answering bail.
It's not like the list of opressive regimes is Iran, Syria, North Korea........Sweden is it?
Perhaps it should be added: They're clearly functioning as an instrument of a government interested in punishing somebody over free speech that they don't like.
Re:rat scurry (Score:5, Insightful)
Fugitive, yes. But remember that every oppressive dictatorship in history has carried out their purges and atrocities in the name of 'justice.' It is a very flexible concept. What one country considered justice, another may well consider crimes against humanity - and often the same is true with the roles reversed. He isn't hiding from the rape accusation* - he he hiding from the US (He believes Sweden to be acting as their proxy), and given their treatment of other people involved in high-profile leaks** it could certainly be argued that any paranoia he feels is justified.
If I believed the US were trying to extradite me in connection with a major leak, I'd be packing my bags and buying a train ticket as far as I could go by cash.
*It isn't rape exactly, but there is no precise equivilent in UK or US law, so 'rape' is close enough. A better translation might be 'sex by deception.'
**Manning, kept in solitary confinement for years without trial, then being tried at a secret court in which he isn't permitted to see the evidence presented against him.
Re:rat scurry (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, it is rape. Under Swedish law and UK law.
From the ruling on the 2nd November 2011:
Note the fourth offence Assange is sought for under the EAW.
Now, how does the court handle that?
Again, in the 2nd November 2011 court ruling:
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it was rape, unless you believe that consenting once to having protected sex means that you've automatically consented to having unprotected sex in the future.
Protected or unprotected is completely orthogonal to rape. If he forced himself on her, it's rape. If he didn't, it's not.
Re:rat scurry (Score:5, Insightful)
That allegation, as I understand it, is that after having had protected sex with the lady the evening before, she woke up in the morning to discover him having unprotected sex with her.
Unless you believe that the consent to protected sex from the night before includes consent to unprotected sex the next morning, he was having sex with her without her consent. Therefore it would be rape.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why do you assume I had any particular example in mind? The world isn't as simple as the 'free world' vs 'oppressive dictatorships.' There's a bit of oppression in every government - they just vary in how much, and who it is pointed at.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The indoor lifestyle has taken its toll on Julian, and it led to his contracting a chronic lung condition last fall
Is he really the geek we all assumed? A year in an embassy should be a cakewalk after 18 years in your mom's basement..
Well, he's actually gotten laid before so it's easy to see why he'd miss it.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, maybe that's not a bad idea. The Improv Everywhere folks could organize a "Julian Assange" subway day, instead of their "pantsless" subway day. Everyone dresses up like Julian Assange, and claims to have escaped via a tunnel.
Then see how the police react . . .
Maybe the real one could slip out in all the confusion, like Thomas Crown . . . ?
Re: (Score:3)
Jumping Bail? Don't think so.