Ecuador Grants Citizenship To WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange (cbsnews.com) 252
hcs_$reboot writes: Ecuador has granted citizenship to Julian Assange, who has been holed up inside the Ecuadorian embassy in London for over five years. Quito, Ecuador, has said naturalization should provide Assange with another layer of protection. However, naturalization appeared to do little to help the Australian-born WikiLeaks founder's case, with the British foreign ministry stressing that the only way to resolve the issue was for "Assange to leave the embassy to face justice." Earlier on Thursday, Britain said that it had refused a request by Ecuador to grant Assange diplomatic status, which would have granted him special legal immunity and the right to safe passage under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.
What if he actually WAS an ambassador? (Score:3)
Couldn't Ecuador officially employ him as an ambassador, now that he is a citizen? If the UK doesn't like his role as an ambassador, they can always kick him out of the country.
Re:What if he actually WAS an ambassador? (Score:5, Informative)
They already asked for him to be recognised as an ambassador, and the UK rejected their request.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Though not hardliners siding with US on matters of espionage.
The US alliance is absolutely vital to the UK - without it we'd need to build our own Trident missiles. And we'd need to build our own listening centres to replace the NSA ones which cooperate with GCHQ.
It's doable for sure - the UK did have programs like this when the US suspended nuclear cooperation after WWII. And the UK could work with Canada, Australia, Singapore and so on - and in fact UK cooperation with these countries was folded into the Five Eyes [wikipedia.org]. However it would cost significantly more than the
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a Brit. And the Guardian is notorious for being far left. It's also notorious for misprints - note the spelling of embarrassing as 'embarassing' in the article I quoted. In the UK it's know as the Grauniad to mock both the fake news and lack of proofreading.
Another funny reference to the Guardian is the doctor's slang GROLIES - Guardian Reader, Of Low Intelligence, In Ethnic Skirt. Which sums up their readership. The Swedish term Batikhäxen refers to the same type of person - like GROLIES they work
Re: (Score:2)
You haven't understood what is going on. Making them destroy a bunch of stuff from the IT room junkbox was Cameron letting them off.
https://www.theregister.co.uk/... [theregister.co.uk]
The picture certainly shows the remains of a MacBook: its casing - said separately by Rusbridger to be a MacBook Pro, but which might actually be an Air; it looks too thin to be a Pro - and its motherboard. But Guardian snapper Roger Tooth's photo also contains what is clearly a second MacBook mobo, along with an old graphics card - an AMD job, we'd say; you can see the three output connectors on the backplane - and another motherboard, possibly a small desktop computer or maybe another device, given the large areas empty of circuitry.
Destroying the graphics card shows they know nothing about computers. Or maybe they're being disingenuous.
https://www.headoflegal.com/20... [headoflegal.com]
A little over two months ago I was contacted by a very senior government official claiming to represent the views of the prime minister. There followed two meetings in which he demanded the return or destruction of all the material we were working on ...
There followed further meetings with shadowy Whitehall figures. The demand was the same: hand the Snowden material back or destroy it. ...
During one of these meetings I asked directly whether the government would move to close down the Guardian's reporting through a legal route - by going to court to force the surrender of the material on which we were working. The official confirmed that, in the absence of handover or destruction, this was indeed the government's intention. Prior restraint, near impossible in the US, was now explicitly and imminently on the table in the UK. ...
And so one of the more bizarre moments in the Guardian's long history occurred - with two GCHQ security experts overseeing the destruction of hard drives in the Guardian's basement
So they destroyed an old Macbook and old graphics card and thus met the destruction part of the Snowden material rather than handing it back.
As the site points out
By taking the less dramatic of the options open to him, Rusbridger has preserved his paper's ability to publish without immediate constraint - and it may well end up being able to publish more than if he'd taken the other route. His decision seems to me fully justified.
I.e. the Guardian still had copies of the S
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What if he actually WAS an ambassador? (Score:5, Informative)
Where does this notion come from that a nation can "force" another nation to grant a particular individual diplomatic status? Diplomatic status is requested by the sending state, and then the nation in question either approves or denies their request.
The exact same thing applies to asylum. You can say whatever you want about a person "having asylum". Nobody else has to listen to your declaration. Some states have treaties mutually recognizing each other's asylum cases, but the vast majority do not.
And it's a damn good thing that international law works like this.
Re: (Score:3)
Where does this notion come from that a nation can "force" another nation to grant a particular individual diplomatic status?
Perhaps you're unaware of the history of the untied states? The charges issued by sweden authorities was because of the strong arming of the US to punish economically or otherwise sweden so the swedes said yes master to washington and we got total propaganda hit piece against assange via false charges. Anyone who has any understanding of american history understood exactly what was going on, Assange stuck his neck out against the empire, that's a big no no the american upper class.
Anyone who has any under
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Just to be clear, this is 100% speculation, and is probably mostly incorrect.
That's curious, because that's how an informed person would describe the legal attacks against Assange since Wikileaks dared publish evidence that the US Government routinely, knowingly, and blatantly violates the US Constitution, their Oaths of Office, the civil rights of it's own citizens while literally stopping and robbing them at gunpoint of any substantial money or property they may happen to have legally acquired and own in their possession as they travel our roads like the "highwaymen" of old..
It's
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry to tell you your brain doesn't see nor live in reality, your brain does not literally reason the way you think it does, see the science:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYmi0DLzBdQ [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Just to be clear, this is 100% speculation, and is probably mostly incorrect. There's no advantage at all to the US in involving Sweden in this. The extradition treaty the UK has (not to mention the political relationship between the two) is far stronger,
True, but to extradite him from the UK he'd have to be accused of an actual crime.
To extradite him from Sweden he only has to be in custody for "questioning".
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Nonsense.
There are clear and well defined policies that differ between left and right wing. Yes there are multiple dimensions that can lead to lead to individuals and policies to have a "complicated" position, but that not remove the terms "left and right wing" from conveying accurate information when used in a clear and definitive way.
your statement is just nihilist hippy "labels are useless mannnnnn"
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can be an ambassador if you want. Granting diplomatic status to an ambassador is still up to the other country. They could kick out the resulting Ecuadorian ambassador, but they could also arrest him. The only thing that will prevent this is a desire not to increase diplomatic tensions between countries.
Re: (Score:2)
Arresting any other nations embassy staff after been declared Persona non grata as they are leaving is not something the UK would want to.
A legal precedent for arresting any diplomat is not acceptable within the diplomatic community.
The Persona non grata allows a person to exit the nation with diplomatic protection as they are been recalled.
If not the prisons in the UK, USA and
Re: (Score:2)
The UK could declare a diplomat Persona non grata. That person keeps all their diplomatic protection on the way out of the UK.
This presupposes that diplomatic immunity has been extended to the person in the first place.
In Assange's case, this has not been done. The request to grant him such status was denied.
You cannot keep what you never had.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
stick a letter in Julian's pocket and he's official mail.
Re: (Score:2)
Omit the air holes, and he can fill the pouch with hot air and float himself out.
Re: (Score:2)
Couldn't Ecuador officially employ him as an ambassador, now that he is a citizen? If the UK doesn't like his role as an ambassador, they can always kick him out of the country.
Diplomatic immunity requires PRIOR agreements between the two countries which includes entry permission and provisions for exiting the agreement that specify the conditions and time frames for notice by the host country wishing to end the agreement. One country cannot unalterably make someone an ambassador and demand they be afforded immunity by a host country any more than the host country can exit the diplomatic immunity agreement without giving the required notice.
So Ecuador can make this guy a diploma
Re: (Score:2)
So you're saying because of his valuable political work he may have been falsely accused, and those false accusations may be used to extradite him to the US - despite the fact the US hasn't requested this - and when in the US he may be killed?
That's a lot of 'may's. Essentially it's an argument that he should be immune to accusations of sexual misconduct. Even the scummiest US or UK politician - the people Wikileaks was set up to expose - wouldn't claim they should be allowed to rape people and not be prose
Re: (Score:2)
Assange, a foreign national not subject to US law was under no legal obligation to protect the information given him. The US has no legal
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, he's the poster boy for white privilege. Or at least celebrity privilege. If a normal person had been accused of rape their life would be fucked. As it would if they skipped bail.
Assange gets free board and lodging next to Harrods and the press on speed dial. Though it looks like the press are getting bored with him.
It means that they can tax him ... (Score:2)
and so maybe recoup cost of the free bed & board that they have been giving him for a few years.
Re: (Score:2)
He only eats nothing burgers with salty fries
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting (Score:4, Interesting)
What they need to do, I think, is sneak him out with some sort of large diplomatic package, which would grant him safe passage to Ecuador.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Uh, they grounded President Evo Morales' plane in Austria because they thought maybe he'd have Snowden in his baggage. International law means nothing to the U.S. and its lapdogs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes but there's no such thing as a diplomatic plane. As soon as he steps out of the car he is subject to UK law even if he steps directly onto the plane.
Re: (Score:2)
As pointed out a few years ago in the news a diplomatic package is not allowed to be opened without suspicion but it is not free from scanning. If they thermally image the package, sniff him out or otherwise they would have grounds for inspection.
To say nothing of putting it through an Xray machine VERY SLOWLY.
Re: (Score:2)
As pointed out a few years ago in the news a diplomatic package is not allowed to be opened without suspicion but it is not free from scanning. If they thermally image the package, sniff him out or otherwise they would have grounds for inspection.
To say nothing of putting it through an Xray machine VERY SLOWLY.
There's also the "without suspicion" part. If Ecuador sends a diplomatic package that is suspiciously Assange-sized with suspicious air holes and a suspicious "Fragile, do not break Assange" label, the UK can still stop it and open it. They'd be risking a diplomatic incident if they're wrong, but if they're right, then Ecuador has caused the incident, and could see their diplomats get kicked out of the country or other penalties.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They can't open diplomatic mail. Or they risk having all of their diplomatic mail becoming subject to inspection by host countries. But there are almost certainly restrictions on how large a package may be and continue to be recognized as mail.
It just needs to be correctly marked. There isn't a requirement for it to be an actual parcel or envelope [wikipedia.org]. This method has been used with varying levels of success to smuggle people. I suppose us plebs are not likely to hear about most of the times it has been used successfully, but there have been some high-profile failures of this method, including one in the UK where customs stopped and searched a crate containing a former Nigerian government official [wikipedia.org].
Face justice... for what? (Score:3, Interesting)
The women in Sweden have repeatedly said that no rape was commited, and that they were shocked when people higher up in the police turned it into a manhunt and rape case.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.abc.net.au/news/201... [abc.net.au]
Actually in sweden sex without a condom without direct agreement between the two is "rape" and they all agree that there was no condom was used... even better, "rape" charged are public, even if the girls do not want to file charges, the police can still file the charge anyway... so the police used that as the rape charge. The girls clearly said several times it was not a rape (in the common meaning of the word), both agreed in the sex. what parts disagree is if they request
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Notice that when the case started, Assange and the 2 girls did went to the police for questioning and the case was closed and he was clear to leave the country... some week later it was reopen and they tried to capture him instead of call him again to questioning. Even the girls where surprised about the case reopen. That was what trigger the alarm about something strange with the sudden case reopen
Sneak through sewers? (Score:2)
There has to be a legion (a la Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles) who has the London sewers mapped out like the back of their hand who could sneak him away.
simple...Human DoS! (Score:5, Interesting)
Just ask only for everyone to dress exactly the same way, cut the air the same way and look as much as possible as him... then everyone goes to the Ecuador embassy and leave all at same time. Do this several times, but only once of then Assange MAY really leave the embassy
The police could not track so many people and after several attempts, they will give up or agree in a valid solution... or he MAY leave in one of the attempts
Better yet, ask everyone to use a burka, that will be easier to hide as everyone is the same, be either men, women, white, ginger, black, asian, etc ... it may also requires women police (i do not really know how someone with burka is identified by a police)
Re: (Score:2)
All of them wearing bowler hats?
https://youtu.be/RtA_vNrqrCI [youtu.be]
The need look a likes to visit the embasy (Score:2)
Say for six months to a couple years. Could even have the people be volunteers. They could play it up and down as to make them look like they are in disguise and then leave the country. Then at sometime randomly chosen by Julian in the two years he could sneak out as one of them. Not even the embassy staff would know. He could try for a plane, boat or a cargo container.
No matter what I truly hope he make it somewhere he will not be persecuted.
Right for a walk outdoors (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Diplomatic immunity status shouldn't be able to be granted after a crime has been committed.
Diplomatic immunity is just as you said: "granted". Whether it should or shouldn't, or whether the government simply arrests them after it has been granted is entirely up to country granting it.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
This would have set an uncomfortable precedent of granting a wanted criminal the freedom to roam around the country he is wanted in.
Assange is only wanted for avoiding prosecution for an alleged crime for which the charges have been withdrawn.
Diplomatic immunity status shouldn't be able to be granted after a crime has been committed.
Former, withdrawn charges shouldn't be grounds for arrest. The British Empire is quite upset that Assange didn't respect their authority, and would like to make an example of him even though there are currently no other charges filed against him.
The supposed victims of his alleged crimes did not believe that he should be charged. The charges filed have been dropped, and the prosecutors who filed them passed up numerous opportunities to question him before doing so. But keep calling him a criminal. That's exactly what three governments want, and you wouldn't want to let them down, would you?
Re: (Score:2)
Former, withdrawn charges shouldn't be grounds for arrest.
I think you're wrong, secondary crimes related to your arrest and incarceration should not automatically be expunged simply because the arrest or conviction was in error, invalid or dropped. Resisting arrest, causing a car chase, jail break, contempt of court, parole violation, skipping bail... attempting to evade the justice system should be a crime, even if you are innocent. If you try to escape jail and kill a prison guard it's still murder even if the rape case you originally served time for is later cl
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thing is even if convicted now he likely wouldn't face much punishment. Any custodial sentence would likely be accounted for by time stuck in the embassy. The sentence would probably be light anyway because his reason for doing it is genuine fear of rendition and torture.
The only thing really keeping him there is that fear, warranted or not.
Re: (Score:2)
The first couple of charges were dropped because of statue of limitations, in other words he evaded the law long enough.
The rape charges were dropped because under Swedish law they can only hold charges over you if it is expected that you can be charged, wit
Re: (Score:2)
Assange is only wanted for avoiding prosecution for an alleged crime for which the charges have been withdrawn.
No he's not. He's wanted for breaching bail conditions which is a crime in its own right. For a long time he was wanted for 2 charges, only one of those have been withdrawn. Having charges of the initial crime dropped doesn't make every subsequent crime just go away.
Re:Good (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Good (Score:5, Informative)
He still breached bail which in itself is a crime.
Yes, and the charges he breached bail on have been withdrawn by prosecutors who passed up multiple opportunities to question him, on the basis that they could not question him. How it is just to punish someone for skipping bail when the charges have been withdrawn? If the charges were legitimate, why did the prosecutors pass up multiple opportunities to question him?
Re: (Score:2)
Umm, he's charged with jumping bail in the UK, the UK prosecutors have not withdrawn those ch
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone with the other half of a brain knows that jumping bail is intrinsically wrong, so that bail jumping charges probably have not been dropped because the UK court system does not want the accused to self-help by jumping bail so long as they merely feel that the charges are unjust.
Re: (Score:3)
Ignoring the argument because you dislike it does not mean that the argument was not made. "The UK court system does not want the accused to self-help by jumping bail so long as they merely feel that the charges are unjust."
Hyperbole. Try "I'm so innocent, I need not even permit a trial."
Re: (Score:3)
The end of the previous post was too abrupt, so let me clarify:
1. The charges for jumping bail have not been withdrawn, so I deny the stated premise of your question ("the charges have been withdrawn").
2. The Swedish "charges" were not withdrawn when Assange jumped bail, so I deny the intended premise ofyour question as well. Sweden's withdraw from their process cannot retroactively justify jumping bail years earlier.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, downmodding and replying with unsupportable bullshit. A perfect example of why dealing ACs is a complete waste of time.
Re: (Score:3)
How it is just to punish someone for skipping bail when the charges have been withdrawn?
Because they are two distinctly different crimes perpetrated against two distinctly different people.
If the charges were legitimate, why did the prosecutors pass up multiple opportunities to question him?
The didn't. They have been trying to interview him under the normal Swedish protocol for fear that whatever Assange was offering was a worthless facade that served only to be gobbled up by his fans.
And guess what, they were right. When they eventually conceded to interview him in 2016, Assange dicked them around with lawyers not being available, then the embassy insisted that an Equadorian prosecutor will as
Re: (Score:2)
Now _that's_ a weak troll!
Re: (Score:2)
I'm just going to copy paste this to everyone who doesn't understand the issues around Assange's continued evasion of justice:
He skipped bail. That's a crime. You don't get to ignore every law just because you think that another country's attempt to prosecute is without merit.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's not. Other people put up his bail, a total of 93,500 pounds, to secure his bail. He promised to appear in court. Every level went against him. He realized he was almost certainly going to be extradited, and fled. Those people are out the bail money, and he's actively committed an offense.
Re: (Score:2)
In addition to what Martin Blank said, Assange's bail conditions were incredibly lenient. He was put up in a comfortable house in Norfolk by one of his supporters who acted as guarantor for his bail. This isn't a case of him accidentally doing something that was a crime, he had to go out of his way to violate the bail conditions.
Re: (Score:2)
A [talking to B]: "Do you realize who you're talking to? He's a heinous criminal! [referring to C]"
C: "I beg your pardon?!"
A: "All right, a heinous suspect."
Re: (Score:2)
He's not wanted for questioning. There's a warrant out for his arrest - the interrogation is the last stage before he is charged.
https://www.newstatesman.com/b... [newstatesman.com]
What has become clear is that the Swedish approach to criminal proceedings is different from that of England or other common law jurisdictions. The interrogation requested takes place at a late stage, just before prosecution. Assange is thereby not required for mere questioning - indeed, he was questioned on 31 August 2010.
And he's accused of rape - UK courts have ruled that what he is accused of doing in Sweden would be rape if he did it in the UK. Which is a key part of extradition being granted.
4. Rape
On 17 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [SW] in Enkoping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep. was in a helpless state.
It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange. who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used. still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party's sexual integrity."
The High Court held that the test of "dual criminality" was met in respect of each of these offences: they were offences in both England and Sweden.
Re: (Score:2)
RTFNSA - read the fine New Statesman article
As the English High Court held (paragraphs 152 and 153):
Plainly this is a case which has moved from suspicion to accusation supported by proof. [...]
In England and Wales, a decision to charge is taken at a very early stage; there can be no doubt that if what Mr Assange had done had been done in England and Wales, he would have been charged and thus criminal proceedings would have been commenced.
Some commentators have made the point that the prosecutors should come to the UK to question Assange. However, this appears to misunderstand the procedural stage of the investigation. Assange is not required for mere questioning; he is required to surrender for interrogation before any charges can be made and prosecution brought.
Assange has already been questioned. The prosecutor has also told the English courts that the need to deal with the other witnesses and expert evidence means that the interrogation stage needs to take place in Sweden. That is a matter for a prosecutor to decide. The allegations are about incident in Sweden, and in respect of Swedish complainants on the basis of witness and expert evidence in Sweden.
And, of course, it is not for the accused in a serious crime investigation to determine how any investigation should proceed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He skipped bail. That's a crime. You don't get to ignore every law just because you think that another country's attempt to prosecute is without merit.
Re: (Score:2)
He skipped bail. That's a crime, whether you think the bail conditions are warranted or not.
Re: Good (Score:4, Insightful)
Because it was fine when he was doing it to the Republicans. Once he showed the Democrats to be no better and as a result prevented the coronation of Queen Hillary he became public enemy number one.
Don't kid yourself (Score:3)
Re: Good (Score:2)
Selective targeting? Did he release a whole trove of Democrat documents when he was making Bush look bad? Was the release of the NSA tools a partisan action? What agenda was Assange pursuing? To get Trump elected?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Does anybody remember when he was a hero?
A hero? Nope, sorry. There are heroes in this world, but Assange was never one of them.
For exposing the corrupt US government to the whole world? Did that go down the memory hole? Benedict Cumberbatch played him in the movie, for fucks sake.
Here's a hint about movies: You can use them to tell stories.
Stories aren't always true. You'd think you'd know about propaganda. Maybe you should learn to recognize a work of fiction concocted to spin a message.
And he does what he always does, expose the corrupt US government to the whole world, and he suddenly became the worst criminal in the world? How does this even work?
Well, it turns out, DUMB-and-DUMBER, he isn't the worst criminal in the world. If he was, then he'd have been caught selling oil to North Korea or something. He's just a self-serving hack who gets in the n
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Gosh you have it all wrapped up.
It's almost like we don't need to bother to go through hearing actual evidence, sworn under oath, cross-examined, including expert testimony and witness and victim statements, including potentially highly sensitive personal statements about an incredibly intimate event which people may or may not want all the details in the press but which would be examined by a court.
Nah, let's just judge him on what got into the news and let him go / not based on our personal interpretation
Re: Unfair (Score:2)
My god, your life must be dull. What's the point of living if you don't live a little?
Re:Unfair (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Unfair (Score:5, Insightful)
Breach of bail conditions is a crime.
I think it comes under contempt of court.
Are you suggesting that contempt of court be allowed?
Just because YOU don't think that he should stand trial for the original accusation, doesn't mean that the UK court weren't obliged to make that happen (by international agreement) or that in skipping bail he hasn't committed a crime against a UK court on UK soil.
And, I don't know if you understand this bit:
arrest != charge != conviction.
You can be convicted for resisting arrest, however. Arrest is literally "let's stop him so we can investigate if a crime has occurred". A charge is "We have reasonable belief he did something illegal, which a court will now judge and we may have to detain him until such time as the court can do so". A conviction is "the court has determined beyond reasonable doubt that they have broken the law".
He was wanted for arrest, to answer potential rape charges. As part of this, he was arrested in the UK. A court ordered him to stay within bail conditions (which is a concession, so he's not under arrest for months on end). By breaching those court conditions, he is now automatically CHARGED with contempt of court which will - without some seriously extraordinary circumstance proven to a court - result in a conviction. The contempt charge is now based on the prima-facie evidence of failing to abide by the conditions of the UK court. It doesn't matter WHY. Or what the history is. Or what else is going on. He is now required to stand trial for that if nothing else.
As such, the UK police has a duty to arrest him, to face trial for the charge of contempt of court, which - whether or not he is convicted - will also make him available to stand trial and answer charges from the original arrest.
Not one bit of the that entire last paragraph is optional. Only the potential outcome of it (the courts could in theory side with him and let him go, or they could jsut convict him for the bail offence and let him go, or they could convict him for the bail offence and hand him over as per a valid international arrest warrant).
Re: Unfair (Score:5, Insightful)
Hi lawyer has said multiple times that he'd be willing to face these charges if both countries would guarantee that Assange would not be extradited to the US (something they claim they have no intention of doing) and both countries have flat refused to make this guarantee, leading to the belief that that is exactly what they plan to do. And the moment he hits US soil, he'll be Gitmod, whether it's in Guantanamo or a US prison. Everyone involved knows it and so much money and many man hours spent on this shows that there is no other likely reasoning for this. Remember, officially this is over a non-consensual act during consensual sex that the girls went to the police to track him down, soley to get an STD test. The police, upon finding the importance of the individual accused, pressured the girls into pressing charges, which they have since withdrawn, and sent out an interpol alert reserved for the world's most dangerous and most wanted. Sound like your standard everyday secondary rape case, yes? (/sarcasm)
Re: (Score:2)
and both countries have flat refused to make this guarantee
And both countries are unlikely to be allowed to do so given international agreements with the USA, not without negatively impacting diplomatic relations in the process.
Re: (Score:3)
Hi lawyer has said multiple times that he'd be willing to face these charges if both countries would guarantee that Assange would not be extradited to the US (something they claim they have no intention of doing) and both countries have flat refused to make this guarantee, leading to the belief that that is exactly what they plan to do.
... or leading to the belief that low level prosecutors lack the ability to make a guarantee regarding extradition. Which they do.
And the moment he hits US soil, he'll be Gitmod, whether it's in Guantanamo or a US prison. Everyone involved knows it and so much money and many man hours spent on this shows that there is no other likely reasoning for this. Remember, officially this is over a non-consensual act during consensual sex
A non-consensual sexual act is sexual assault, and you appear to be admitting he did that.
As for "during consensual sex", that may apply to the incident in which he slipped the condom off, but it doesn't apply to the sleeping woman he raped. Unconscious people cannot consent.
... that the girls went to the police to track him down, soley to get an STD test. The police, upon finding the importance of the individual accused, pressured the girls into pressing charges, which they have since withdrawn
Neither charges were withdrawn by the girls involved. The sexual assault charges have expired, because A
Re: (Score:3)
"Breach of bail conditions is a crime."
Not necessarily. If I have good reason to believe that my right to life, my right to a fair trial etc will be violated, human rights law can potentially override criminal law.
(IANAL but I have chatted to an English lawyer about this).
Re: (Score:2)
And if that were the case he'd have made a claim to the international court of justice when he sought refuge. But nope.
He'd probably have a good case too given the UN's opinions of his state. Given they concluded he's being held in arbitrary detention even though it was his own decision to skip the bail conditions and he isn't being detained, and if he were detained he'd quickly go through the process of prosecution and therefore not be in arbitrary detection there's just enough doogooders in the UN to prob
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"What do you call someone that has sex with a woman outside of her consenting terms?
A rapist."
So, a man who cheats on his wife is a rapist?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What do you call someone that has sex with a woman outside of her consenting terms?
Nothing. There is no word for it.
A rapist.
That's a word for someone who forced himself on someone else. At no point did Assange force himself. The women were free to leave the encounter (according to what's alleged). Anyone who is free to leave is, by definition, provided free passage. If you want to argue statutory rape exceptions to the "forced" sex, you would be wrong as well because the women in question were legally capable of consent.
Lying to a women to get sex is not rape. Otherwise, you'd have to start
Re: (Score:2)
Here's a simpler argument why your argument is dumb:
What if a woman brings her own condom and she pokes a hole in (because she wants to have a child with a man who doesn't want one)? Did she commit rape? This is dumb. Trickery is not rape.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Just over a year ago and Assange was still a hero of the Left. The Moment Hillary conceded he became enemy #1 to the left.
But the political aspects aside, even if I agreed with you that Hillary should be President, Assange is still not a traitor
Re: (Score:2)
So thats why Persona non grata https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] exists.
That person with diplomatic immunity is then recalled but do not lose their diplomatic immunity while been recalled from another nation.
They get to leave the nation with full diplomatic immunity and do back to their own nation.
AC diplomatic immunity is not a get out of jail free card. It protects mem
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're an idiot. The UK does not control who Ecuador appoints as an ambassador or diplomat.
Go the fuck back to school and learn about these things called 'jurisdictions.'