
Ecuador grants Julian Assange asylum - anons2011
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19281492
======
toyg
I'm renouncing my Amnesty International-funding credit card on this. The
silence on their part, when this charade goes on _on their doorstep_ in
London, is deafening.

The same goes for LibDems and Labour, but I've given up on them a long time
ago (and to be fair, Labour are not even in power). Human/civil rights was
just about the last platform where LibDems had a shred of credibility, and now
it's shot. To maintain a few perks, they will let the Tories destroy centuries
of civilisation - the Vienna Convention is a cornerstone of international
relations, and hence, of world peace; threatening it over a silly man is just
irresponsible. Craig Murray, former UK Ambassador and old-time LibDem, is just
about as shocked as I am, and it's the only reasonable voice I've heard in the
last 24 hours: <http://pastebin.com/s98KhnYD>

Supporting journalists in Belarus, China, Syria, Iran without supporting
Assange is not grassroot activism: it's cynical, masqueraded foreign policy.

~~~
gadders
Human rights of rape victims? What about those?

~~~
toyg
Ecuadorean diplomats even offered the option to send him to Sweden outright,
as long as the Swedish government guarantees he will not be extradited to a
third country. Swedish authorities refused.

Tell me please: how will Swedish rape victims' human rights be offended by the
Swedish inability to ship him to another country? Are Swedish punishment terms
not enough?

~~~
hythloday
Sweden presumably has a treaty obligation to extradite him to other countries
though - they would be legally unable to agree to such a condition. (I'm
ignoring the fact that if they _were_ able to except him, that kind of
piecemeal approach to treaty obligations would be a terrible idea on the
whole.)

~~~
DanBC
Sweden has recently visited a different embassy to interview a suspected
murderer.

Sweden was invited to interview Assange in the embassy in London. They
declined.

~~~
hythloday
Swedish law demands 2 stages of interviews - the second one (the "criminal
proceedings" that are "equivalent to being charged" in the words of the High
Court) is the one that has to take place in Sweden. If the suspected murderer
was the pre-charge interview, that explains the discrepancy - if not that's
very significant. Do you happen to know which set they were?

~~~
DanBC
No. A terrible source too:
([http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/aug/16/julian-
assange-e...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/aug/16/julian-assange-
ecuador-embassy-asylum-live?CMP=NECNETTXT8187))

> A very different perspective from Vaughan Smith, a friend of Assange who put
> him up for more than a year at his Norfolk residence. Speaking on BBC Radio
> 4's World at One this afternoon, Smith said:

>> [...] >> I think there's a lot of pride involved here... They have
interviewed an alleged murderer in Serbia but they choose not to come to
London to interview Julian Assange. I think that's very disappointing.

------
jgrahamc
I strongly doubt that Britain will take sudden action to arrest Assange in the
embassy. What's likely to happen now is a stand off where he can't get out of
the embassy because he'll be arrested. The UK and Ecuador will try to
negotiate some sort of deal where Assange does go to Sweden to be questioned.
Given that European states don't have the death penalty Assange would not be
extradited to the US if there was a risk of him facing death there.

If he leaves he'll be arrested, if he manages to get in a diplomatic car the
car will be stopped with Assange in it and there'll be a stand off. If Ecuador
tries to make him into a diplomat the UK can simply refuse to accept that he
is a diplomat. And if they try to use a diplomatic bag then the UK will claim
that it's being used for improper purposes and block it. IMHO Assange is stuck
there until a deal is worked out.

The granting of asylum is just one step in what will continue to be a tedious
soap opera.

My interpretation of the letter that the FO sent to Ecuador is as a statement
of a negotiating position given that the FO got wind of the fact that he was
going to be offered asylum.

~~~
theorique
_Assange would not be extradited to the US if there was a risk of him facing
death there._

There is no legal risk of Assange facing death in the US, is there? As far as
I've read, he's just a nuisance to the US government, not wanted for any
crimes. Or is that mistaken?

~~~
tedunangst
Some Senators or whoever said he should be killed. That has been accepted as
proof that once he's in the US, he'll be killed.

~~~
slurgfest
That has 'been accepted' BY WHOM? How on earth do you get to "PROOF"?

~~~
tedunangst
Dude, I reddit on reddit.

------
brudgers
The British didn't seem quite so committed to extraditing Augusto Pinochet.
This despite the fact that he had been indicted for crimes against humanity,
not simply wanted for questioning as is the case for Mr. Assange.

In the case of Pinochet, there were four extradition requests: Spain, Belgium,
Switzerland and France.

However, the British government took Mr. Pinochet's frail health into account
and ultimately released him.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictment_and_arrest_of_August...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictment_and_arrest_of_Augusto_Pinochet)

~~~
Tyrannosaurs
And many people detest in the UK and detest that decision and the woman who
made it.

And so what if you make a bad decision historically? Are you suggesting that
having made one that's a precedent and we should continue doing the wrong
thing?

The rights and wrongs of this case aren't determined about mistakes that may
or may not have been made in the past.

~~~
barking
Are you referring to Maggie Thatcher? She was quite vocal at the time but was
long out of office by then

~~~
Tyrannosaurs
My mistake.

As it was Blair then obviously a decent, honest humanitarian decision...
_joke_

------
santiagoIT
I am ecuadorian and currently live in Ecuador. Granting assylum to Assange is
just a PR move from our government. You might not be aware of this, but our
'president' won a lawsuit for US$ 40 Mio against the 'El Universo' newspaper
just because an editor wrote an article critizing him. In Ecuador government
CENSORSHIP rules. Hopefully Assange can make it to Ecuador and then realizes
with the type of people he got involved with and gets out of here. It so WRONG
to have our government be depicted as standing for liberty, freedom of speech,
by granting assylum to assange. Please do some research. This goverment is all
but that!!!!!!

~~~
eternauta3k
I think taking asylum from Ecuador compromises his integrity. Will Wikileaks
publish leaks about Correa in the future?

------
mootothemax
I'd love to know what Assange's endgame plan for all of this fuss is.

The States aren't going to extradite him from Sweden nor, evidently, from the
UK. It makes me feel like a kiljoy to say it, but there isn't any conspiracy
here, and nor will any play out. Let's face it - everything will play out
normally and boringly, no matter how many people shout "conspiracy!"

My gut instinct is that one way or another he'll end up in Sweden, either
walking free or serving a year or two in jail, and then - what? Sitting in
Parisian cafes gazing wistfully upon what once could have been?

~~~
luriel
> I'd love to know what Assange's endgame plan for all of this fuss is.

The same endgame he has had for a while: more attention, more publicity, more
people donating to his bank account (which is basically what wikileaks
functions as) to make up for those that got burned when he jumped bail, more
book deals, who knows, perhaps a film. Whatever feeds his ego.

~~~
runjake
> his bank account (which is basically what wikileaks functions as)

Proof? Evidence?

~~~
luriel
First of all, most of wikileak's budget goes to pay his salary (other than
that, wikileak's accounts are notoriously murky and not very transparent),
second, for a while (until he was called out for it) donations to wikileaks
went to his personal defense fund, which is still listed in the wikileaks
donations page.

Even after that, to this day, Wikileaks lists his personal P.O. BOX in
Australia as a way to donate, as far as I know no auditing of what has
happened to any money sent there so far over the years. This is a curious
detail that I have not seen anyone report, and that can be checked if you look
at his pre-wikileaks website in archive.org, which lists the same P.O. BOX.

For all practical purposes, Assange is Wikileaks and Wikileaks is Assange,
anyone that disagreed or questioned the wisdom of his actions has been kicked
out or left in frustration at his dictatorial and self-serving management
style.

Edit: Oh, and almost forgot how Wikileaks kept most of the money that they had
supposedly raised for Bradley Manning's defense, who in the end, is the real
hero of this saga, and who is languishing in jail while Assange goes on with
his egotistical show.

------
0x0
How often do you get see governments threatening to revoke the diplomatic
status of an embassy for the sake of apprehending a rape suspect? Wow.

~~~
politician
Isn't the crime Assange is charged with in Sweden is significantly different
from what is generally understood as rape in the US? Isn't he actually being
charged with having two "one night stands"?

~~~
hythloday
He's charged with rape and two counts of sexual assault.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_A...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority#Case_reopened)

~~~
daveying99
You're misinformed. He has not been _charged_ for anything by any country. Do
your reading.

~~~
hythloday
Excuse me, that's not the case except in the most narrow and pedantic sense.
Here's the English High Court denying his appeal:

"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. If the commencement of criminal proceedings were to
be viewed in this way, it would be to look at Swedish procedure through the
narrowest of eyes. On this basis, criminal proceedings have commenced against
Mr Assange"

Link in the cousin comment.

------
gary4gar
He is not going to make it to Ecuador. Only thing Assange can do now is sit
inside the embassy for indefinite period of time, until Ecuador gets bored
with assange and figures he is not worth the damage of ties with Uk. another
possible outcome is rather extreme -- UK goes on offences and arrests assange
from the embassy.

Either way, it would be interesting how the whole story will play-out.

~~~
rwmj
What evidence do you have for your claim that "UK has already blocked Ecuador
embassy's supplies"?

~~~
oinksoft
The source is a "tweet" saying that a truck carrying the next day's supplies
for the embassy (whatever those comprise) was turned away. This message was
from ... Wikileaks. But the BBC reported police surrounding the embassy so it
is not unbelievable that a supply truck was turned away.

<https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/235953183032217600>

~~~
peteretep
It would be highly unusual for any Ecuadoreans to be living in the embassy,
given that the UK is a stable, safe, and nominally friendly country. Perhaps
it's one of the few non-US ones where that's true, but I doubt it.

"Blocking supplies" is a weird concept for a building where and of the non-
Assange residents can simply exit the building, walk 20m to the nearest Tesco,
and return with 4 bags of vegetables and microwave dinners...

------
nsns
Everything seems so extreme about this saga: a "leaker" is accused of not
using contraception (i.e., leaking) in a (possibly) covert plot by the US to
subject him to the very same treatment his leaks so shockingly revealed. Then
he turns himself into a public target for the US and its allies, thus
rendering their actual disregard for human rights and tendency for over-the-
top aggressiveness explicit and embarrassing, in a manner which is actually
much more effective and public than his site's leaks.

A bona fide political circus, in which the main performer, Assange, turns out
to be an extremely talented clown.

------
tomku
I don't like this as precedent. If there's one thing we've learned from
Wikileaks, it's that evidence of wrongdoing should be out in the open. This is
a back-room deal between Assange and Ecuador to give him asylum as protection
from a claimed US government conspiracy, but where's the proof? If it's good
enough to convince the government of Ecuador, it's good enough to post
publicly.

~~~
foobarqux
The Wikileaks Grand Jury.

------
chrisacky
Reading down through all of the comments, I can see that people have a totally
mixed opinion of how this can happen. Some people think that the US have no
intention of wanting to extradite and charge Assange, but Assange and his
counsel have repeatedly (in the last month) requested that the US make a
statement confirming this. The matter of the fact is, many high profile
American's have said that he should be killed, and put to death.

Onto the other topic of the rape charges, I think some people don't fully
understand the facts surrounding the charge. I didn't either until I spent
thirty minutes and read this article:
[http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/07/19/3549280.ht...](http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/07/19/3549280.htm)

But from this transcript... these are the key points:

\-------------

The "sexual assault/rape/molestation" charges were filed after two women Anna
Ardin and Sofia Wilen went to the police to seek advice if they could compel
Assange to take a STD test since they did not use a condom during sex.

Both of the women went to the Klara police station in central Stockholm,
however, it is mentioned that Ardin had gone along primarily to support Wilen.

Ardin had been frequently in the company of Assange. She had previously
described him as such a "cool man" (Twitter). They also arrived and left
together at a Crayfish party (equivalent of a cocktail party). Ardin was
sharing accomodation with Assange and had refused an offer from someone else
for temporary accomodation.

The day after the accusation of rape and molesation Ardin sent a SMS saying :
"I've just spent some time with the coolest people in the world".

SMS text messages were also exchanged between Sofia and Ardin, which showed
that the two of them knew of the relationship between each other and Assange.

Ardin responded to a friend who was looking for Assange : "He's not here. He's
planned to have sex with the cashmere girl every evening, but not made it.
Maybe he finally found time yesterday?"

The Swedish police, totally railroaded the investigation. Interviews have been
leaked with Assange, and Wilen commented initially "that she became so
distraught she refused to give any more testimony and refused to sign what had
been taken down.". Assange went freely for interview to the police station and
was released without immediate charge, and was free to travel. Almost
immediately there after, another warrant was issued for his arrest.

Eventually, it was also upgraded to an Interpol "Red Notice".

It's alleged (from the transcripts), that Sweden has frankly always been the
United States' lap dog and it's not a matter we are particularly proud of. The
Swedish Government has... essentially, whenever a US official says, "Jump",
the Sweden Government asks, "How high?"

Assange's legal team are clearly trying to point out that US is coercing all
of this behind the scenes so that he can then be extradited from Sweden and
face trial for conspiracy to commit espionage.

> The burden should be on the United States Government to say, "We are not
> planning to prosecute Julian Assange". If they just gave that assurance, I
> can guarantee you that Julian Assange would go to Sweden tomorrow.

\----------------

This is hugely and unequivocally politically motivated. I'm British, and I am
largely ashamed that pressure is not being placed on Sweden by the foreign
minister to have them reinvestigate the extradition request. Also, Sweden
will, and has previously done all it can to scratch America's back.

Assange should stay put, until US says "we will not pursue extradition from
Sweden". (Which they will not do.)

~~~
lizzard
Here's the testimony from Assange's own lawyers:

He described Assange as penetrating one woman while she slept without a
condom, in defiance of her previously expressed wishes, before arguing that
because she subsequently “consented to … continuation” of the act of
intercourse, the incident as a whole must be taken as consensual.

In the other incident, in which Assange is alleged to have held a woman down
against her will during a sexual encounter, Emmerson offered this summary:
“[The complainant] was lying on her back and Assange was on top of her … [she]
felt that Assange wanted to insert his penis into her vagina directly, which
she did not want since he was not wearing a condom … she therefore tried to
turn her hips and squeeze her legs together in order to avoid a penetration …
[she] tried several times to reach for a condom, which Assange had stopped her
from doing by holding her arms and bending her legs open and trying to
penetrate her with his penis without using a condom. [She] says that she felt
about to cry since she was held down and could not reach a condom and felt
this could end badly.”

That's rape.

~~~
vidarh
You are grossly misrepresenting this.

The purpose was for Assanges lawyers to explain why _even if the facts are as
stated by the prosecution_ there would be no case for Assange to answer. The
purpose was not to present a defence for Assange, nor to present Assange's
version of events.

Emmerson went on to make it clear that whether or not Assange agreed with this
version of events was immaterial for the extradition hearing, as in the
extradition hearing, the evidence will be interpreted as favorably as
reasonable for the prosecution.

In other words, this is Assange's lawyer saying "even if all you say is true
this is why we believe there is no case". And you conveniently ignored the
part where he provided that explanation for your last paragraph.

Whether or not you agree with his justification is also immaterial - this was
not Assanges defence against the accusations.

~~~
tptacek
The important point here is that this was an extraditional appeal hearing, not
a trial. You're right to point out that the burden on Assange's lawyers was
not to totally refute the charges or even to mount the best possible defense
of Assange.

But you're also mischaracterizing the testimony a little bit, since I don't
believe it's the case that everything Assange's lawyers stipulated was
directly drawn from the extradition request. "She may have been upset, but she
clearly consented" (I've slightly paraphrased) is an argument defending
Assange from a valid charge, not an argument that the charge is invalid.

The testimony in this hearing probably does presage the testimony that'll be
given in Sweden.

~~~
vidarh
I covered this when I wrote:

'In other words, this is Assange's lawyer saying "even if all you say is true
this is why we believe there is no case". And you conveniently ignored the
part where he provided that explanation for your last paragraph.'

It is not _only_ the prosecutions claims, but it is also not in any way
Assange's side of the story. It is the prosecutions claims _plus_ an attempt
by the lawyers at creating a plausible narrative within the constraints
already laid down by the prosecutions claims without altering any of the
prosecutions alleged facts.

That's a highly significant constraint.

------
gaius
I am fascinated to see how they will physically transport him from the embassy
to a plane. This has the makings of a top quality chase movie.

~~~
mtgx
They should take him with a helicopter. What are they going to do? Shoot it
down?

~~~
gsnedders
Where are they going to get him into the helicopter?

~~~
tocomment
Embassy roof? Or drop a ladder down from the helicopter? I think the bigger
question is how to get him out of the helicopter (since it can't fly to
Ecuador.)

~~~
Piskvorrr
Not how, where: international waters. London, IIRC, is not very distant from
those. (Of course, London being a helicopter no-flight zone - for _decades_
now - complicates things somewhat)

Edit: Helicopters specifically; but with the ground-to-air missile sites
installed around the Greater London area (ostensibly for protecting the
Sporting-Event-That-Shall-Not-Be-Named; a WTF in and of itself), I'd be _very_
careful in mucking around the British airspace:
[http://everything2.com/title/crashing+a+helicopter+in+Centra...](http://everything2.com/title/crashing+a+helicopter+in+Central+London+is+illegal)

~~~
tocomment
Is it just no flight for helicopters? How about blimps? There's really got to
be a solution here. It's a technical problem and we're technical people.

~~~
gsnedders
In general getting permission from ATC for flights over London is non-trivial
(primarily because it is sufficiently densely populated that any emergency,
especially at low altitude, is likely going to end badly).

------
autophil
The problem with Assange is while he is courageous, he is also morally weak.
It's his utter lack of morals that has given his enemies so much ammunition.

I support Assange, although not without reservation, and I refuse to speak out
for him in public because of his rape charges (charges which have not been
proven).

I doubt he will successfully flee the UK.

To paraphrase the old Radiohead song, Assange, "you did it to yourself".

~~~
oinksoft
Innocent until proven guilty? Conspiracy theorists would tell you that there's
no surer way to discredit somebody with no real evidence than to publicize a
salacious sex story.

~~~
Tyrannosaurs
The issue with claiming innocent until proven guilty is that that is one part
of a due process which Assange's actions are making impossible to follow.

I'm not saying he's guilty (or innocent), just that when you halt due process,
terms like this become a little less meaningful as they're one part of a
larger thing which is being blocked.

------
LiveTheDream
The UK has asserted[0] that they have a legal basis for arresting Assange even
while he is inside the Ecuadorian embassy. They cite the Diplomatic and
Consular Premises Act 1987; the counterpoint is the Vienna convention and
centuries worth of international law.

[0] [http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/aug/16/julian-
assange-e...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/aug/16/julian-assange-
ecuador-embassy-asylum)

~~~
peteretep
My understanding is that it's a little more nuanced than that: that the UK
believes it has the right to withdraw the diplomatic status of the building
used for the Ecuadorian embassy. Ecuadorian diplomats would continue to have
diplomatic protection, presumably would be given long notice of the
requirement to vacate the embassy, and move goods from it... but Mr Assange
would not have any of that protection. I'm not sure which part of the Vienna
Convention you think this would violate?

~~~
buro9
I feel hesitant to even speculate on the possibilities, but what if Ecuador
made him a diplomat?

~~~
peteretep
Also relevant, from Wikipedia:

"Although most persons with diplomatic immunity carry diplomatic passports,
having a diplomatic passport is not the equivalent of having diplomatic
immunity. A grant of diplomatic status, a privilege of which is diplomatic
immunity, has to come from the government of the country in relation to which
diplomatic status is claimed. Also, having a diplomatic passport does not mean
visa-free travel. A holder of a diplomatic passport must obtain a non-
diplomatic visa when traveling to a country where he is not currently nor is
going to be accredited as a diplomat, if visas are required to nationals of
his country."

More frequently, I hear of UK embassies not offering full diplomatic
protection to their non-political staff in foreign countries. If you're
sending someone from your Tourism Board to the British embassy in Thailand,
you simply don't want the hassle of having to specifically revoke his
diplomatic privilege when he shows up in Pattaya with a dead hooker, where
you're happy to give them diplomatic car plates so the traffic police don't
try and get 500THB from them for speeding... I assume this is an international
trend, rather than something the Brits thought up.

------
DividesByZero
An angle that seems to be forgotten here is the political bind the UK
government finds itself in. On the one hand, they cannot afford to violate
territoriality of the Ecuadoran embassy (legally or not) - on the other, they
also cannot afford to break the terms of their extradition treaty with Sweden.

Either outcome will see the UK have further problems on the world stage, and
neither is something they can easily negotiate their way out of. In such a
situation, it might be imagined that they would rather risk their reputation
with the rest of the world than alienate their allies.

~~~
vacri
It's not really a bind. They could just as easily say "Sorry, Sweden, he made
it to neutral ground" as "we're going to violate the Vienna Convention". At
this stage it's all politics; if the UK is threatening to do this, then it's
getting something out of the deal.

------
debacle
I don't understand all of these people suggesting that once Assange is in
international waters he is somehow safe.

The US will just stop the Ecuadoran vessel, board it, and take Assange. We've
got historic precedent for their lack of Give a Fuck in situations of this
nature.

~~~
philwelch
There's no evidence that the US even wants Assange.

~~~
radio4fan
Except of course the ongoing grand jury in Virginia.

~~~
philwelch
Is there a credible report of that?

------
beedogs
The Minister of the Exterior's decision was... _highly_ charged. He seemed to
be making a stand for all of South America.

~~~
politician
The UK inflamed the situation with the irresponsible talk of storming
Ecuador's embassy.

~~~
objclxt
No: Ecuador inflamed the situation by deliberately posting a bad translation
of the letter sent to them by the UK. Britain never said they would 'storm'
the embassy. They merely reminded Ecuador that their lawyers believed they
could legally enter the embassy given appropriate notice (7 days). That is
hardly 'storming'.

~~~
politician
Fair enough, but consider that although couched in diplomatic language the
letter is nonetheless a threat.

------
meiji
Obviously he has every right to be paranoid about the US trying to extradite
him but you have to wonder how far he's willing to go on this. I think the
Assange story long ago eclipsed the Wikileaks story (look how little attention
Bradley Manning gets) and if he was prosecuted and convicted of rape in Sweden
and had to do jail time there, I think the story would only be remembered for
Assange. No need for a very messy public trial after extradition, no need for
the miles of bad press it would generate.

------
mmaunder
What is really being discussed here, without saying it explicitly, is whether
it's OK for the United States to go after it's perceived enemies in other
countries, for crimes committed outside the USA that violate USA laws, and
bring them home to face trial, whether or not they are US citizens. And lets
just call a spade a spade. It's clearly the "United States of Sweden".

------
credo
Sometimes it looks like authoritarian governments can learn a thing or two
from "democratic" countries.

When Chen Guangcheng sought refuge in the American embassy, the Chinese govt
didn't use any trumped up criminal charges against him as an excuse to
threaten to invade the American embassy and arrest Mr Chen.

Britain is threatening to invade the embassy of Ecuador by using a local 1987
law to revoke the diplomatic status of the embassy. Next time around, the
Chinese and every authoritarian govt around the world will know how to handle
any asylum seekers in any British embassy in the world.

------
lifeguard
For perspective, Bradly Manning his under 24 hour gaurd and observation. He
must strip nude every morning before his female and male guards. He is allowed
no mail. He never sees the sky or breathes fresh air.

Some of this is for his protection they say.

Assange is wise to fear the wrath of the USA and its special friend the UK.

~~~
lifeguard
"INTERPOL cannot compel any of its 190 member countries to arrest the subject
of a Red Notice. Any individual wanted for arrest should be considered
innocent until proven guilty. "

<http://www.interpol.int/>

------
dsirijus
In failure to deliver my sentiment in proper wording (and I've scratched the
written few times), I'll just quote one of my personal heroes:

 _"The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it's profitable to
continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive
to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the
curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way and you will see
the brick wall at the back of the theater."_ ~ Frank Zappa

------
cletus
I find the points and counterpoints on the Assange issue rather confusing and
it's hard for me, as an observer, to separate fact from fiction. I'm wondering
if someone can clear up some points:

1\. Apparently there is a two-stage interview process in Sweden with criminal
investigations. A first interview, which Assange has done, and a second that
is equivalent to being charged. Is this true?

2\. It has been argued that Swedish authorities have done interviews in
embassies and other countries in other cases but have refused to do so here.
In those other cases, are they first or second interviews (assuming (1) is
correct)?

3\. Has the US formally charged, indicated they would charge, sought
extradition or otherwise indicated they would seek extradition of Assange or
is it merely assumed?

4\. Is there any substantive difference in extradition proceedings from the UK
or Sweden? The US could seek extradition from the UK. It is argued by
Assange's defenders that it is easier from Sweden and a UK judge may well
throw out the request as being politically motivated whereas extradition from
Sweden, it is argued, can be done politically rather than through the courts.
How true is this?

5\. Sweden has refused to not extradite Assange, should he return, to the US.
How normal is this? Can Sweden legally do this? I know EU countries have, in
the past, as a condition of extradition required the US to guarantee that the
death penalty won't be sought or applied. I assume in those cases that is a
real issue so it seems like there is some room for movement when it comes to
extradition;

6\. What is the status of Assange's legal proceedings against extradition to
Sweden? The High Court has ruled I believe so the only recourse now is the
European Court of Human Rights? Is that still ongoing? Can it make a binding
ruling against extradition that the UK must abide by?

7\. When it comes to criminal charges in any country I'm familiar with there
are two things: how the law is written and how it is applied. Many things are
illegal that the authorities don't actively pursue. Partially this is simply
convention, partially its policing and partially (IMHO) it's holding things in
reserve, meaning if you really want to get someone you have something. Is this
also the case for Sweden? Given the facts as (publicly) known regarding the
rape allegations, how normal is it to seek criminal charges in this case?

8\. With regards to political asylum. How normal is it for a country to offer
political asylum to someone in another country who is a citizen of a third
country resisting extradition to a fourth? Hell, you can probably add "because
of fears of being extradited to a fifth"!

Assange is an Australian citizen. As an Australian citizen myself I'm
disappointed but not at all surprised in the silence of the Australian
government on this issue and the apparent acquiescence to US demands. It's
often pointed out that citizenship is not only a privilege but a
responsibility. The government likewise has a responsibility to defend the
interests of its citizens and I see that sadly lacking here.

~~~
jmillikin

      > Is there any substantive difference in extradition
      > proceedings from the UK or Sweden?
    

The UK will not extradite to the US if the accused faces the death penalty.
Sweden will. Assange's lawyers argue that the US's apparent desire for a
Swedish extradition indicates that US prosecutors want a conviction that will
lead to his execution.

~~~
johansch
Where did you get this disinformation? Why did you trust it enough to post it
under your name, John Millikin?

It is equally illegal in Sweden to extradite people to countries where they
could face the death penalty.

[http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/16/julian-a...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/16/julian-
assange-few-friends-left-sweden?newsfeed=true)

~~~
jmillikin

      > Where did you get this disinformation?
    

<http://justice4assange.com/US-Extradition.html#TR>

<http://wlcentral.org/node/2671>

    
    
      > Why did you trust it enough to post it
    

It seems to be supported by evidence, and has been posted by sources that are
trustworthy.

    
    
      > under your name, John Millikin?
    

It would be cowardly to post something like this under a pseudonym.

~~~
Tyrannosaurs
<http://www.sweden.gov.se/content/1/c6/01/54/35/77809ec6.pdf>

This is the text if the actual Swedish extradition law from the government web
site. It clearly states on Page 3, section 12, point 3 that someone can not be
extradited if they are to face the death penalty. The Swedes would have to get
assurances from the US that this wasn't the case to extradite him.

~~~
johansch
Kudos for finding the actual law text (where I as a native Swedish speaker
gave up after 15 minutes of reading legalese).

------
rms
I'd like to see a prediction market now for whether or not Assange makes it to
Ecuador...

~~~
jtudisco
You never know.. He might already be there.

------
fduran
A movie script couldn't do better: Assange's lawyer is Baltazar Garzon, the
Spanish ex-judge who asked London for the extradition of Pinochet.

------
gadders
Assange's credibility: shot.

<http://www.indexoncensorship.org/tag/Ecuador/>

I suppose he's going to live his life like Roman Polanski, on the run from
rape charges.

~~~
UnoriginalGuy
How has this hurt his credibility?

Also the type of rape in this case and the Roman Polanski case aren't even
remotely similar. In the UK, USA, or most other Western countries what he did
isn't even illegal.

It is essentially the sex version of fraud: lying to get ahead.

~~~
gadders
The UK Judge in his first extradition trial said he would be guilty of rape or
sexual assault in the UK.

Also, the crusader for freedom has fled to a regime that is demonstrably un-
free.

~~~
doe88
source?

~~~
gadders
Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority [20111 EWHC 2849 (Admin) (02 November
2011)

Paragraph 86:

"..The allegation is clear and covers the alternatives; it not an allegation
that the condom came off accidentally or was damaged accidentally. It would
plainly be open to a jury to hold that, if AA had made clear that she would
only consent to sexual intercourse if Mr Assange used a condom, then there
would be no consent if, without her consent, he did not use a condom, or
removed or tore the condom without her consent. His conduct in having sexual
intercourse without a condom in circumstances where she had made clear she
would only have sexual intercourse if he used a condom would therefore amount
to an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, whatever the position may
have been prior to that Act."

<http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html>

~~~
doe88
I'm not competent at all on the subject but it doesn't seem to me the quote
you present imply the comment you previously made

    
    
      The UK Judge in his first extradition trial said he would be guilty of rape or sexual assault in the UK.
    

It seems to me that what he is saying here is that the allegation could be a
sexual offense, thus it's one of his arguments to allow extradition to swede
in order to permit further investigation on this plausible and relevant
allegation.

~~~
gadders
If he did the same act(s) in the UK that he did in the Sweden, he would be
guilty of a UK offence. It seems pretty clear to me.

"His conduct in having sexual intercourse without a condom in circumstances
where she had made clear she would only have sexual intercourse if he used a
condom would therefore amount to an offence under the Sexual Offences Act
2003, whatever the position may have been prior to that Act"

~~~
vidarh
If he did the same acts in the UK that _the prosecutor alleges that he did in
Sweden_. In no way is that conduct proven. In fact, it is not even
demonstrated that the women in question have alleged he acted that way - at
least one of them have stated she is refusing to sign the statements.

------
dagrz
Whenever I see a new post about this saga I feel compelled to post this mini
documentary about it before everyone gets into the same old arguments.

Sex, Lies and Julian Assange
[http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/07/19/3549280.ht...](http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/07/19/3549280.htm)

------
gadders
To be honest, I think what we have here is a case of cognitive dissonance -
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance>

People admire Assange for what he has done as part of wikileaks, whilst also
simultaneously loathing rapists.

I felt the same when Mike Tyson was convicted of rape. As a follower of
boxing, I was a huge fan of his power and skill. And then he got convicted of
rape.

I tried to tell myself that it was a fix, the "victim" was after his money etc
etc. But now I realise that both things are true. He was one of the best
boxers ever, and he did rape that woman.

Steve Jobs could be a fantastic businessman and innovator, _and_ a bit of an
arsehole to work with.

Benjamin Britten could be a great composer _and_ sexually attracted to youg
boys.

Assange could be a brave "dissident" _and_ sexually taken advantage of those
two women.

------
anuraj
Best wishes to assange in his quest to make the most secretive regimes of the
world transparent. Less governments the better! Humanity do not need extra
ordinary hijackers, tramplers of human rights and surveillance junkies.

~~~
slurgfest
Look to Somalia to see how the removal of government opens a power vacuum
which creates chaos and ultimately new governments.

Unless you have got a sustainable plan for maintaining a vacuum, you can
reasonably assume that nature will fill it.

~~~
anuraj
The existence of a government do not mean it is desirable. It is an act of
authority on people. When people are enlightened and can choose for themselves
and govern themselves, the power of governments to arrogate themselves the
power shall wither away - but the secretive regimes are fearing just that -
they do not want their citizens to be informed or enlightened and are a
regressive influence to the progress of humanity.

------
vacri
A bit more information has come to light. A respected broadsheet newspaper
here in Australia has requested some diplomatic cables under the Freedom of
Information Act and reports that the Australian diplomatic service believes
that the US will attempt to extradite Assange.

[http://www.theage.com.au/national/us-in-pursuit-of-
assange-c...](http://www.theage.com.au/national/us-in-pursuit-of-assange-
cables-reveal-20120817-24e8u.html)

------
bwilson
_Mr. Patiño said his government had made its decision after the authorities in
Britain, Sweden and the United States refused to give guarantees that, if Mr.
Assange were extradited to Sweden, he would not then be sent on to the United
States to face other charges._

This is key, and pretty much proves what's going on. They didn't want to take
extradition to the US off the table, yet supposedly this is only about
answering to rape charges.

------
jpincheira
Ecuador: "We are not a colony from the UK".

EPIC.

~~~
Crake
Yes, I quite enjoyed that bit of snark as well.

------
tokenadult
I agree with this Toronto Globe and Mail editorial on the issue:

[http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/editorials/ecuador...](http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/editorials/ecuador-
should-not-give-assange-asylum-and-he-should-step-out-and-defend-
himself/article4484914/)

"As for Mr. Assange, he should step out of doors and defend himself."

------
dgdg
Why are now British authorities are under a binding obligation to extradite
him to Sweden, but British Court released V. Antonov on bail when Lithuania
asked UK to extradite him to Lithuania?

------
Flow
What if Ecuador make him an Ecuadorian diplomat?

Somehow I feel that when this is over, he'll return to Australia and make a
quick political career and become very influential.

~~~
ceejayoz
> What if Ecuador make him an Ecuadorian diplomat?

England would refuse to grant credentials.

> Somehow I feel that when this is over, he'll return to Australia and make a
> quick political career and become very influential.

Given Australia's close ties to the US, that's pretty unlikely.

------
antoinevg
I'm just going to leave this here:

    
    
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine

------
melvinmt
Is there a particular reason why Assange chose to ask political asylum in
Ecuador?

------
nacker
A 1994 study by Dr. Eugene Kanin of Purdue University revealed that 41% of
rape allegations are fabrications.

The Innocence Project reports that the number one crime for which they release
wrongfully convicted individuals from prison is rape.

Why are these women not in prison? <http://www.register-
her.com/index.php?title=Main_Page>

~~~
duaneb
...because there has been nothing but accusations and guilt for any party has
not been resolved?

~~~
nacker
Read the submission guidelines:

"Only those submissions that can be corroborated by either a link(s) to a
recognized news affiliate and/or digital copies of court records, with correct
contact information for that court, or other compelling, substantiated
documentation, will be accepted as proof.

All submissions based on court records must be verified by our staff before
they will be posted. "

You want the actual court documents on the site? That is not going to happen.

------
gitarr
And all just to keep a website on/off the internet.

